Dyspetochrysa Adams, 1967

Makarkin, Vladimir N., Antell, Gwen S. & Archibald, S. Bruce, 2022, A revision of Chrysopidae (Neuroptera) from the late Eocene Florissant Formation Colorado, with description of new species, Zootaxa 5133 (3), pp. 301-345 : 310-311

Genus Dyspetochrysa Adams, 1967

Dyspetochrysa Adams, 1967: 219 , 220, 229; Schlüter 1984: 7; Willmann & Brooks 1991: 130, 131; Adams & Penny 1992b: 216; Carpenter 1992: 347; Willmann 1993: 242, 244; Peñalver et al. 1995: 481, 485, 486; Makarkin 1998: 78; Nel et al. 2005: 67; Archibald et al. 2014: 191; Makarkin 2014: 4; Archibald & Makarkin 2015: 364.

Dyspectochrysa [sic]: Yang & Hong 1990: 20.

Type and only species. Tribochrysa vetuscula Scudder, 1890 , by original designation.

Emended diagnosis. May be distinguished from other genera of Nothochrysinae by a combination of: Forewing: (1) M forked far distad origin of RP (shared with Archaeochrysa ) [other genera: proximad to slightly distad]; (2) one crossvein between RA, RP proximad 1r-m absent [ Archaeochrysa : present]; (3) im relatively narrow, elongate [ Cimbrochrysa , Danochrysa , Asiachrysa , Okanaganochrysa , Leptochrysa : broadly pentagonal; Hypochrysa , Asthenochrysa : broadly triangular]; (4) 2m-cu located in proximal part of im [ Cimbrochrysa , Asiachrysa : approximately in middle of im; Pimachrysa , Pamochrysa, Kimachrysa , Hypochrysa , Asthenochrysa : proximad im].

Remarks. The genus was defined by Adams (1967) based on the fusion of the forewing RP1 and MA for some distance in its only known specimen, a condition otherwise unknown in Nothochrysinae . However, this fusion occurs only in the right forewing ( Fig. 5B ) and these veins are separate in the left forewing ( Fig. 5C ). Therefore, we take this fusion to be an aberration, not diagnostic.

In general, the preserved forewing venation of Dyspetochrysa is most similar to that of Archaeochrysa , especially by the far distal location of the M fork relative to the origin of RP. It is possible that these genera are synonyms, however, the crossvein in the RA space proximad 1r-m considered diagnostic of Archaeochrysa is absent in Dyspetochrysa , but this might also be an aberration. Further, the holotype and only known specimen of the only species of the genus, D. vetuscula is quite fragmentary. The validity of the genus is, therefore, tenuous. We prefer, however, to continue to recognize it here based on the diagnosis above, pending better preserved specimens to clarify its position.

Figures

FIGURE 5. Archaeochrysa sp., specimen NHM.I.26921 (counterpart). NHMUK PI I.26921 image © The Trustees of the Natural History Museum. Scale bar = 3 mm.