Dermaptera, de Geer, 1773

Nel, André, Waller, Alain, Albouy, Vincent, Menier, Jean-Jacques & Plöeg, Gaël De, 2003, New fossil earwigs from the lowermost Eocene amber of Paris basin (France) (Insecta, Dermaptera, family incertae sedis), Geodiversitas 25 (1), pp. 119-129 : 126-127

Dermaptera family indet. 1 ( Fig. 6A)

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Specimen PA 2780, 1/3, in the same piece of amber with an adult Ephemeroptera and a Lepidoptera; in collection De Ploëg and Indivision Langlois-Meurine, deposited in Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris .

B

A

TYPE LOCALITY. — Le Quesnoy, Chevrière, region of Creil, Oise department, France.

GEOLOGICAL AGE. — Lowermost Eocene, Sparnacian, level MP 7 of the mammal fauna of Dormaal.

STATE OF PRESERVATION. — This specimen is incomplete, the head and main part of thorax are missing. Three tarsal segments of a leg and five apical segments of an antenna are visible.

DESCRIPTION

Length of the abdomen 4.8 mm, width 2.3 mm; seven abdominal segment visible, thus it is probably a female; two very short extensions, 0.6 mm long, on the last abdominal segment, overlapping cerci; cerci long and narrow, 2.5 mm long, about 0.5 mm wide, crossing apically, curved upwards at the apex; only distal parts of tegmina preserved, with a darker strip along inner margin and posterior margin straight; hindwings present; antenna bicoloured: the two apical segments are dark; the two following ones are clear coloured, others are dark; tarsal segments pubescent, especially the first and the second; second tarsal segment not bilobate, weakly prolonged below the third, both being clearly separated; third tarsal segment short, in a form of enlarged club; no arolium.

DISCUSSION

The preserved parts of this fossil are very similar to those of the extant Dermaptera . It is most probably a female, thus difficult to attribute to a precise family, even if it was more complete. It clearly corresponds to a genus and species different from Chelisoficula caussaneli n. gen., n. sp. (cerci very different, second tarsal segment less prolonged below the third). It is probably not a chelisochid-forficulid type. It could correspond to a labiid-type but with no accuracy.