Next Article in Journal
Phenotype Switching in Metal-Tolerant Bacteria Isolated from a Hyperaccumulator Plant
Previous Article in Journal
Unveiling Comparative Genomic Trajectories of Selection and Key Candidate Genes in Egg-Type Russian White and Meat-Type White Cornish Chickens
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/biology10090877
biology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The First Ptilodactyla Illiger, 1807 (Coleoptera: Dryopoidea: Ptilodactylidae) Described from Eocene Baltic Amber

by
Robin Kundrata
1,*,
Gabriela Packova
1,
Kristaps Kairišs
2,
Andris Bukejs
2,
Johana Hoffmannova
1 and
Stephan M. Blank
3
1
Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Palacky University, 17. Listopadu 50, 77146 Olomouc, Czech Republic
2
Department of Biosystematics, Institute of Life Sciences and Technology, Daugavpils University, Vienības 13, 5401 Daugavpils, Latvia
3
Senckenberg Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Eberswalder Strasse 90, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2021, 10(9), 877; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10090877
Submission received: 20 August 2021 / Revised: 1 September 2021 / Accepted: 3 September 2021 / Published: 6 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Zoology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Recent advances in computational and tomographic methods have enabled detailed descriptions of fossil specimens embedded in amber. In this study, we used X-ray microcomputed tomography to reconstruct the morphology of a specimen of the beetle family Ptilodactylidae from Eocene Baltic amber. The studied specimen represents a new species of the large and wide-spread genus Ptilodactyla Illiger, 1807. It is the first described fossil species of the genus and also of the subfamily Ptilodactylinae. Our discovery sheds further light on the paleodiversity and evolution of the family as well as on the faunal composition of the European Eocene amber forests.

Abstract

The beetle family Ptilodactylidae contains more than 500 extant species; however, its fossil record is scarce and remains understudied. In this study, we describe a new species of Ptilodactylidae, Ptilodactyla eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov., based on a relatively well-preserved specimen from Baltic amber. We use X-ray microcomputed tomography to reconstruct its morphology since some of the principal diagnostic characters have been obscured by opaque bubbles. It is the third ptilodactylid species described from Baltic amber, and the first one belonging to the subfamily Ptilodactylinae. Additionally, we summarize the classification, diversity, and distribution of both extinct and extant Ptilodactylidae.

1. Introduction

Fossils play an important role in our understanding the origins, past diversity, and evolution of various organisms as well as the composition of paleoecosystems that prospered on our planet many million years ago [1,2,3,4]. Bioinclusions in amber, which is a fossilized sticky tree resin, usually represent well-preserved and complete three-dimensional fossil remains that are relatively easily comparable with extant representatives. Recent advances in nondestructive imaging techniques such as the X-ray microcomputed tomography [5,6,7] enable the visualization of morphological features, even in specimens that are in a bad state of preservation [8,9,10]. These techniques were recently successfully applied in a number of paleontological studies dealing with various animal taxa, including both vertebrates [11,12] and invertebrates [13,14,15]. Regarding Coleoptera (beetles), the micro-CT was used in some studies focused on the Burmese amber [10,16], but it is especially successful in reconstructing the morphology of specimens from Baltic amber (including genitalia and fine morphology of specimens with body length under 1 mm) [17,18,19,20].
Ptilodactylidae (toe-winged beetles) are dryopoid beetles that usually live in riparian, semiaquatic, and aquatic habitats [21,22], with larvae often having various adaptations for survival underwater [22,23,24,25]. The monophyly of the family was questioned in many studies [26,27,28,29], and its composition and subfamilial classification is far from fully understood [21,22,30,31,32,33,34]. As currently defined, Ptilodactylidae contain many genera previously assigned to Dascillidae and Scirtidae [32,35] and also a single described species of former Podabrocephalidae [34]. The Ptilodactylidae are in urgent need of a complete revision. Stribling [32] revised the group and proposed many changes and several new genera, but his Ph.D. work has remained unpublished in the sense of the ICZN [36]. Currently, more than 500 described and numerous undescribed species assigned to 29 genera and five subfamilies are included in Ptilodactylidae, with the vast majority of them known from the tropical and subtropical regions (Table A1). Some studies showed that some of the species originally described in Ptilodactylidae might in fact belong to other beetle families [32,37,38].
The fossil record of this family is rather scarce and was critically reviewed by Chatzimanolis et al. [39] and Alekseev and Jäch [40]. Motschulsky [41] described Ptilodactyloides stipulicornis Motschulsky, 1856 from Eocene Baltic amber; however, the short description is not informative enough to assign it with confidence to any subfamily nor even to Ptilodactylidae [40]. Chatzimanolis et al. [39] described Aphebodactyla rhetine Chatzimanolis et al., 2012 from the mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber. The subfamily placement of that species is uncertain because it shows a mosaic of characters of several ptilodactylid subfamilies. Additionally, Alekseev and Jäch [40] described Electrolichas circumbalticus Alekseev and Jäch, 2016 from Eocene Baltic amber, and classified it in the subfamily Anchytarsinae. Most recently, Kirejtshuk [42] described Paralichas striatopunctatus Kirejtshuk, 2019 (Cladotominae) from the Eocene Insect Limestone of the United Kingdom.
In this study, we describe a new species of Ptilodactylidae based on a well-preserved specimen from Baltic amber. We used X-ray microcomputed tomography to reconstruct its morphology since some of the principal diagnostic characters have been obscured by opaque bubbles (Figure 1). Our results suggest that the studied specimen represents a new species of the otherwise extant, widespread genus Ptilodactyla Illiger, 1807. It is the first described fossil species of the genus and also of the subfamily Ptilodactylinae.

2. Materials and Methods

The amber piece was polished by hand, allowing improved views of the included specimen, and was not subjected to any additional treatment. For the purpose of light microscopic image capture, the amber specimen was fixed at a suitable angle of view to a Petri dish with gray plasticine modelling clay (Pelikan, Germany, No. 601492). It was photographed submersed in glycerol to prevent reflections and to reduce visibility of small scratches on the surface of the amber piece. Images were taken with a Leica MC 190 HD camera attached to a motorized Leica M205 C stereo microscope equipped with the flexible dome Leica LED5000 HDI or the conventional ring light Leica LED5000 RL-80/40 as an illuminator, applying the software Leica Application Suite X (version 3.7.2.22383, Leica Microsystems, Switzerland). Stacks of photographs were combined with the software Helicon Focus Pro (version 7.6.4, Kharkiv, Ukraine), applying the depth map or weighted average rendering methods.
The X-ray micro-CT (μCT) observations were conducted at Daugavpils University, Daugavpils, Latvia using a Zeiss Xradia 510 Versa system. Scans were performed with a polychromatic X-ray beam using energy set to 30 kV and power of 2 W. Sample detector distance was set to 32 mm and source to sample distance 44.39 mm. Tomographic slices were generated from 1601 rotation steps through 360-degree rotation, using 4X objective. Exposure time during each projection was set to 23 s. Variable exposure was set to four times at the thickest part of the amber to achieve similar amounts of photon throughput over whole sample. Acquired images were binned (2 × 2 × 2) giving a voxel size of 3.9 μm. Since the examined specimen was longer than the field of view for selected parameters, we carried out image acquisition using automated vertical stitch function for three consecutive scans with identical scanning parameters. The field of view between those scans was set to overlap 53% of data between adjacent fields of view. Images were imported into Dragonfly PRO (version 2020.2) software platform for interactive segmentation and 3D visualization. Prior to the full scan, 1-h warmup scan was conducted with identical stitch parameters but with reduced rotational steps (201) and exposure time set to 5 s. Volume rendering of X-ray microtomography of habitus is available as Supplement Video S1 following the recommendations of the best practice in the field [43].
The classification of Ptilodactylidae follows Bouchard et al. [44] and Chatzimanolis et al. [39], with subsequent changes by Kundrata et al. [34]. Numbers of species in ptilodactylid genera in Table A1 were compiled from Stribling [32] and various subsequent sources [21,24,34,37,38,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55]. Morphological terminology follows Lawrence [22]. The holotype is deposited in the collection of the Department of Paleontology of the National Museum, Prague, Czech Republic (NMPC). The ZooBank LSID number for this publication is urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B03EDD30-D551-41F1-A2DD-0D356A85873A (20 August 2021).

3. Results

Systematic Paleontology

  • Order Coleoptera Linnaeus, 1758
  • Suborder Polyphaga Emery, 1886
  • Series Elateriformia Crowson, 1960
  • Superfamily Dryopoidea Billberg, 1820
  • Family Ptilodactylidae Laporte, 1838
  • Subfamily Ptilodactylinae Laporte, 1838
  • Genus Ptilodactyla Illiger, 1807
Type species. Ptilodactyla elaterina Illiger, 1807 (syn. of Pyrochroa nitida DeGeer, 1775). For more information, including synonyms, see Stribling [32] and Chatzimanolis et al. [39].
Diagnosis. Male antennae pectinate, with articulated rami; lateral pronotal carina anteriorly incomplete; trochantins concealed; pseudotetramerous tarsi with tarsomere IV reduced and tarsomere III lobed ventrally; claws with basal tooth; scutellar shield usually heart-shaped; apical palpomeres mostly sclerotized and securiform [32].
Composition. Approximately 370 described and many undescribed species [32].
Distribution. Worldwide; not native to present-day Europe [32] (Table A1). Exotic species found in the western Palearctic [56,57,58,59].
Ptilodactyla eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov.
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:DE2C5EE2-4CB6-40B3-86E6-A1848415589A; Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5, Supplementary Video S1.
Type material. Holotype, female, NM-T 3472 (NMPC, ex coll. R. Kundrata, Olomouc, No. BAL0001, ex coll. J. Damzen, Lithuania, No. 8114). A complete beetle is included in a transparent, yellow amber piece with dimensions of 44 × 30 × 6 mm.
Type stratum and age. Mid-late Eocene, 48–34 Ma [60,61,62,63,64].
Type locality. Baltic Sea coast, Yantarny mine, Sambian (Samland) Peninsula, Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia.
Etymology. The specific epithet refers to the Eocene Epoch.
Diagnosis. This species is so far the only one described from the Baltic amber and can be recognized based on the following combination of characters: body about 6 mm long; antenna slightly serrate, reaching about third of elytra, antennomere 3 about 3.5 times as long as pedicel; terminal maxillary palpomere fusiform, about 4 times as long as wide, apically obliquely cut; pronotum about 1.6 times as wide as long; scutellar shield wider than long, heart-shaped, notched anteriorly; metacoxal plate well developed mesally and distinctly weaker laterally; abdominal ventrite 5 emarginate apically.
Description. Adult female. Body (Figure 1,Figure 3,Figure 4 and Figure 5a) about 6.1 mm long and 2.8 mm wide, strongly convex, about 2.2 times as long as wide; dorsally moderately densely setose.
Head (Figure 1b, Figure 2a, Figure 3b, and Figure 5a,d) declined, subquadrate, not visible in dorsal view, distinctly narrower than pronotum width. Eyes large, entire, strongly protuberant. Antennal insertions moderately widely separated. Frontoclypeal suture indistinct. Labrum strongly transverse, slightly convex, anteriorly slightly concave. Antenna (Figure 1, Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5b) slightly serrate, reaching about third of elytra; scape robust, distinctly longer than pedicel; pedicel minute, slightly longer than wide; antennomere 3 about 3.5 times as long as pedicel, antennomeres 3–10 elongate, more than twice as long as wide, gradually widened toward apical part, with short serrations; terminal antennomere simple, elongate, apically narrowed, obliquely cut. Mandible basally broad, mesal, and apical parts not visible. Maxillary palpus moderately long; last three palpomeres elongate; terminal palpomere rather fusiform, about 4 times as long as wide, apically flattened and obliquely cut. Labial palpus distinctly shorter than maxillary palpus, with terminal palpomere fusiform.
Biology 10 00877 g002 550
Figure 2. Ptilodactyla eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov., details of morphology. (a) Head and thorax; (b) metacoxal plate; (c) pronotum, dorsal view; (d) mesotarsus; (e) metatarsus. Scale bars = (a,b) 1.0 mm; (c) 0.5 mm; (d,e) 0.3 mm.
Figure 2. Ptilodactyla eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov., details of morphology. (a) Head and thorax; (b) metacoxal plate; (c) pronotum, dorsal view; (d) mesotarsus; (e) metatarsus. Scale bars = (a,b) 1.0 mm; (c) 0.5 mm; (d,e) 0.3 mm.
Biology 10 00877 g002
Pronotum (Figure 1a, Figure 2c, Figure 3a, Figure 4, and Figure 5c) strongly convex, about 1.6 times as wide as than long (2.30 mm wide, 1.45 mm long), widest posteriorly; sides strongly curved; lateral carinae simple, anteriorly incomplete; anterior angles obtuse, not projecting, posterior angles short, weakly acute; posterior edge distinctly bisinuate and strongly crenulate, median part with more distinct median crenulation to fit anteriorly emarginate margin of scutellar shield; disc strongly convex, with rather rough surface covered with moderately dense rough punctures. Hypomeron (Figure 4) with distinct large punctures, punctures sparser and larger mesally. Prosternum (Figure 1b, Figure 2a, Figure 3b, and Figure 5a,d) strongly transverse, anteriorly widely concave, in front of coxa distinctly shorter than procoxal diameter; prosternal process short, reaching just behind procoxal cavities, parallel-sided but expanded apically, apex broadly rounded. Pronotosternal suture complete, simple, strongly curved. Scutellar shield (Figure 3a and Figure 5c) relatively small, wider than long, heart-shaped, notched anteriorly, rounded posteriorly. Elytra (Figure 1a, Figure 3a and 4) together about 1.6 times as long as wide (4.6 mm long, 2.8 mm wide) and 3.2 times as long as pronotum; convex, elongate-oval, widest just behind middle, conjointly rounded apically, with punctures fine and moderately dense, irregular, not forming distinct rows; elytral epipleuron complete, relatively wide, slightly narrowed behind metacoxae. Mesoventrite (Figure 1b, Figure 2a, Figure 3b, and Figure 5a,d) with anterior edge on same plane as metaventrite, procoxal rests shallow, mesoventral cavity shallow, mesoventral process well separated from metaventrite by suture. Mesocoxal cavities narrowly separated. Metaventrite wider than long, moderately convex; metanepisternum elongate, relatively wide, less than 3 times as long as wide, subparallel-sided. Metacoxae contiguous, extending laterally; metacoxal plate (Figure 1b, Figure 2b, Figure 3b, and Figure 5a) well-developed mesally and distinctly weaker laterally. Hind wing fully developed. Leg (Figure 1b, Figure 2a,d,e, Figure 3b, Figure 4, and Figure 5e,f) moderately long, femur robust, elongate; tibia slightly longer than femur, clothed with stiff, spinelike setae, particularly on outer edge, each tibia with pair of distinct spurs (less distinct on mesotibia). Tarsi pseudotetramerous. Tarsomere I almost 3 times as long as tarsomere II, tarsomeres II apically widened, tarsomere III with wide ventral lobe, tarsomere IV reduced, apical tarsomere simple, slender, elongate; claws basally toothed, moderately curved.
Abdomen (Figure 1b, Figure 3b, Figure 4 and Figure 5a) with five ventrites, with surface rather smooth, moderately densely covered by fine punctures; ventrites 1–4 with short lateral projections; ventrite 5 about twice as long as ventrite 4, widely subtriangular, slightly emarginate apically. Pygidium visible, subtriangular, gradually narrowed toward apex, narrowly rounded apically.
Biology 10 00877 g003 550
Figure 3. Ptilodactyla eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov., habitus. (a) Dorsal view; (b) ventral view. Scale bar = 4.0 mm.
Figure 3. Ptilodactyla eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov., habitus. (a) Dorsal view; (b) ventral view. Scale bar = 4.0 mm.
Biology 10 00877 g003
Biology 10 00877 g004 550
Figure 4. Ptilodactyla eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov., habitus. (a,b) Lateral views. Scale bar = 4.0 mm.
Figure 4. Ptilodactyla eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov., habitus. (a,b) Lateral views. Scale bar = 4.0 mm.
Biology 10 00877 g004
Biology 10 00877 g005 550
Figure 5. Ptilodactyla eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov., details of morphology. (a) Habitus, ventral view; (b) antenna, lateral view; (c) habitus, pronotum, and scutellar shield; (d) habitus, prosternum; (e,f) mesolegs. Scale bars = (a) 3.0 mm; (b,d–f) 1.0 mm; (c) 2.0 mm.
Figure 5. Ptilodactyla eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov., details of morphology. (a) Habitus, ventral view; (b) antenna, lateral view; (c) habitus, pronotum, and scutellar shield; (d) habitus, prosternum; (e,f) mesolegs. Scale bars = (a) 3.0 mm; (b,d–f) 1.0 mm; (c) 2.0 mm.
Biology 10 00877 g005

4. Discussion

The fossil record of Ptilodactylidae dates back to the Mesozoic; undescribed material is known from the Jurassic of China [65], the Lower Cretaceous outcrops in Spain [66], and the Lower Cretaceous Lebanese amber [67,68], and one described species and many undescribed are included in the mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber [39] (R. Kundrata, pers. observ.). Additionally, Kirejtshuk et al. [42] suggested that some Mesozoic specimens described in Artematopodites Ponomarenko, 1990 could represent Ptilodactylidae. The Eocene fossil record of the family includes the description of a single species from the Insect Limestone of the United Kingdom [42] and two ptilodactylid species from Baltic amber.
Baltic amber contains the most diverse assemblage of fossil insects to date [2,69,70]. Despite its popularity among paleontologists and taxonomists, and hence also a growing number of publications on the Baltic amber bioinclusions, there have been uncertainties regarding the origin and age of this amber [70,71,72,73]. More than 3000 animal species have been reported from Baltic amber to date [1,74], of which almost 500 belong to beetles [73]. Regarding Ptilodactylidae, only a single species described by Motschulsky [41] and representing a monotypic genus, i.e., Ptilodactyloides stipulicornis, was previously known from Baltic amber [69,75,76] until 2016, when Alekseev and Jäch [40] described additional ptilodactylid species in another monotypic genus, i.e., Electrolichas circumbalticus. Here described ptilodactylid species from Baltic amber shares the diagnostic characters with extant species of Ptilodactyla. The discovery of a Baltic amber fossil ptilodactylid that can be attributed to the extant genus is not surprising since approximately half of the fossil animals known from the relatively young Eocene European ambers represent extant genera [69].
The genus Ptilodactyloides was originally compared to Ptilodactyla and was considered similar to it but differing in the length and structure of antennae (surpassing apex of abdomen, and with a vertical appendage on each of antennomeres III–X) [41]. On the other hand, Electrolichas was placed by its authors in subfamily Anchytarsinae [40]. Alekseev and Jäch [40] considered the subfamilial and even familial placement of Ptilodactyloides uncertain. We failed to locate the type material, which might have been lost or even destroyed [40], and therefore we could not directly compare it with the here described species of Ptilodactyla. In Ptilodactylidae, males often have distinctly pectinate antennae while females have serrate antennae, which would suggest that the holotype of Ptilodactyloides stipulicornis is a male, and that of Ptilodactyla eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov. is a female (Figure 1, Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5b). Even if we accept that Ptilodactyloides might be in fact a male of some Ptilodactyla (although it is not clear at all from the Motschulsky’s drawing), it differs considerably from P. eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov. in the body size (“Long. 1 lign.” in the original description [41], while 1 lign. (line) was usually around 2.5 mm in the year of description although it varied between countries [40]). Anyway, the true identity of Ptilodactyloides stipulicornis remains unclear. Although there might be a difference in body size between males and female in extant species of Ptilodactyla, it is usually only minimal (R. Kundrata, pers. observ., M. Ivie, pers. comm.). The discovery of a male of the here described Ptilodactyla species would help us to understand the extent of sexual dimorphism in that species as well as to better evaluate the differences between Ptilodactyla eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov. and Ptilodactyloides stipulicornis.

Supplementary Materials

The following is available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/biology10090877/s1, Video S1: Ptilodactyla eocenica, holotype, X-ray micro-CT volume rendering of the habitus.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.K.; methodology, R.K., G.P., K.K., A.B., J.H. and S.M.B.; validation, R.K. and A.B.; investigation, R.K., G.P., A.B. and S.M.B.; resources, R.K., K.K., A.B. and S.M.B.; data curation, R.K., K.K., A.B. and S.M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, R.K.; writing—review and editing, R.K., G.P., A.B., J.H. and S.M.B.; visualization, R.K., G.P., A.B. and S.M.B.; supervision, R.K.; project administration, R.K.; funding acquisition, R.K., G.P., J.H. and S.M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the internal grant of the Faculty of Science, UP Olomouc (IGA_PrF_2021_019; to RK, GP and JH) and by the Senckenberg Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Müncheberg, Germany.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The holotype of Ptilodactyla eocenica sp. nov. is deposited in the collection of the Department of Paleontology of the NMPC. Volume rendering of X-ray microtomography of habitus is available as Supplement Video S1.

Acknowledgments

We thank M. A. Ivie (Monatana, USA) for his invaluable comments on the fossil specimen and interesting discussions on the Ptilodactylidae in general, and to Jonas Damzen (Vilnius, Lithuania), J. Kvaček, and J. Dašková (NMPC) for their help during our research. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Classification, diversity, and distribution of Ptilodactylidae. Most genera are in urgent need of revision so the generic classification and numbers of described species may change dramatically in future, also considering the undescribed genera reported by Stribling [32]. * = extinct taxon.
Table A1. Classification, diversity, and distribution of Ptilodactylidae. Most genera are in urgent need of revision so the generic classification and numbers of described species may change dramatically in future, also considering the undescribed genera reported by Stribling [32]. * = extinct taxon.
SubfamilyGenusDistributionNumber of Species
Anchytarsinae Champion, 1897Anchycteis Horn, 1880Japan, USA4 spp.
Anchytarsus Guérin-Méneville, 1843
= Tetraglossa Champion, 1897		Americas5 spp.
Byrrocryptus Broun, 1893Australia, New Zealand5 spp.
Daemon Laporte, 1836
= Colobodera Klug, 1838		Afrotropical realm32 spp.
Electrolichas Alekseev and Jäch, 2016Europe: Baltic amber1 sp.*
Epilichas White, 1859East and Southeast Asia10 spp.
Lycomimodes Lawrence and Ślipiński, 2013Australia1 sp.
Pseudoepilichas Armstrong and Nakane, 1956Japan2 spp.
Aploglossinae Champion, 1897Aploglossa Guérin-Méneville, 1849South and Central America11 spp.
Bradytoma Guérin-Méneville, 1843
= Brithycera Erichson, 1847		South America3 spp.
Araeopidiinae Lawrence, 1991Araeopidius Cockerell, 1906North America1 sp.
Cladotominae Pic, 1914Austrolichas Lawrence and Stribling, 1982Australia1 sp.
Cladotoma Westwood, 1837
= Telon Champion, 1897		South America7 spp.
Drupeus Lewis, 1895East Asia6 spp.
Hovactyla Fairmaire, 1901Madagascar1 sp.
Paralichas White, 1859
= Eucteis Guérin-Méneville, 1861
= Odontonyx Guérin-Méneville, 1843		East Asia, North America, Madagascar; Eocene of the UK11 spp. (1 *)
Pseudocladotoma Pic, 1918East and Southeast Asia4 spp.
Ptilodactylinae Laporte, 1838Chelonariomorphus Pic, 1916Bolivia1 sp.
Lachnodactyla Champion, 1897Central and North America4 spp.
Lomechon Wasmann, 1897Costa Rica1 sp.
Microdrupeus Nakane, 1993Japan1 sp.
Pherocladus Fairmaire, 1881Southeast Asia, Fiji9 spp.
Podabrocephalus Pic, 1913India1 sp.
Ptilodactyla Illiger, 1807
= Daemonimus Pic, 1953
= Falsodaemon Pic, 1913
= Hypselothorax Kirsch, 1866
= Stenactyla Fairmaire, 1896
= Theriomorphus Pic, 1913		worldwide, not native to West Palearctic; Baltic amberca. 370 spp. (1 *)
Stirophora Champion, 1897
= Chaetodactyla Champion, 1897		Central and South America2 spp.
Incertae sedisAphebodactyla Chatzimanolis, Cashion, Engel and Falin, 2012Myanmar: Burmese amber1 sp.*
Falsoptilodactyla Pic, 1958Afrotropical realm1 sp.
Falsotherius Pic, 1913Southeast Asia3 spp.
Octoglossa Guérin-Méneville, 1843
= Astyloglossa Pic, 1919		Central and South America4 spp.
Ptilodactyloides Motschulsky, 1856Europe: Baltic amber1 sp.*
Therius Guérin-Méneville, 1849Afrotropical realm7 spp.
Valoka Deléve, 1872Papua New Guinea: Bismarck Archipelago1 sp.

References

  1. Rasnitsyn, A.P.; Quicke, D.L.J. History of Insects; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 1–517. [Google Scholar]
  2. Grimaldi, D.; Engel, M. Evolution of the Insects; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA; Cambridge, UK, 2005; pp. 1–755. [Google Scholar]
  3. De Baets, K.; Littlewood, D.T.J. The importance of fossils in understanding the evolution of parasites and their vectors. Adv. Parasitol. 2015, 90, 1–51. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jablonski, D.; Shubin, N.H. The future of the fossil record: Paleontology in the 21st century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 4852–4858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Dierick, M.; Cnudde, V.; Masschaele, B.; Vlassenbroeck, J.; van Hoorebeke, L.; Jacobs, P. Micro-CT of fossils preserved in amber. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 2007, 580, 641–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cunningham, J.A.; Rahman, I.A.; Lautenschlager, S.; Rayfield, E.J.; Donoghue, P.C.J. A virtual world of paleontology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2014, 29, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Keklikoglou, K.; Faulwetter, S.; Chatzinikolaou, E.; Wils, P.; Brecko, J.; Kvaček, J.; Metscher, B.; Arvanitidis, C. Micro-computed tomography for natural history specimens: A handbook of best practice protocols. Eur. J. Taxon. 2019, 522, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Arriaga-Varela, E.; Brunke, A.; Girón, J.C.; Szawaryn, K.; Bruthansová, J.; Fikáček, M. Micro-CT reveals hidden morphology and clarifies the phylogenetic position of Baltic amber water scavenger beetles (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Hist. Biol. 2021, 33, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kundrata, R.; Bukejs, A.; Prosvirov, A.S.; Hoffmannova, J. X-ray micro-computed tomography reveals a unique morphology in a new click-beetle (Coleoptera, Elateridae) from the Eocene Baltic amber. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 20158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Peris, D.; Kundrata, R.; Delclòs, X.; Mähler, B.; Ivie, M.A.; Rust, J.; Labandeira, C.C. Unlocking the mystery of the mid-Cretaceous Mysteriomorphidae (Coleoptera: Elateroidea) and modalities in transiting from gymnosperms to angiosperms. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 16854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Xing, L.; McKellar, R.C.; Xu, X.; Li, G.; Bai, M.; Persons, W.S., IV; Miyashita, T.; Benton, M.J.; Zhang, J.; Wolfe, A.P.; et al. A feathered dinosaur tail with primitive plumage trapped in Mid-Cretaceous amber. Curr. Biol. 2016, 26, 3352–3360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Xing, L.; Caldwell, M.W.; Chen, R.; Nydam, R.L.; Palci, A.; Simões, T.R.; McKellar, R.C.; Lee, M.S.Y.; Liu, Y.; Shi, H.; et al. A mid-Cretaceous embryonic-to-neonate snake in amber from Myanmar. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaat5042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Peñalver, E.; Arillo, A.; Delclòs, X.; Peris, D.; Grimaldi, D.A.; Anderson, S.R.; Nascimbene, P.C.; Pérez-de la Fuente, R. Ticks parasitised feathered dinosaurs as revealed by Cretaceous amber assemblages. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Reid, M.; Bordy, E.M.; Taylor, W.L.; le Roux, S.G.; du Plessis, A. A micro X-ray computed tomography dataset of fossil echinoderms in an ancient obrution bed: A robust method for taphonomic and palaeoecologic analyses. GigaScience 2019, 8, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, H.; Schädel, M.; Sames, B.; Horne, D.J. New record of podocopid ostracods from Cretaceous amber. PeerJ 2020, 8, e10134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Tihelka, E.; Li, Y.-D.; Huang, D.-Y.; Cai, C.-Y. Are wounded-tree beetles living fossils? A new nosodendrid genus from Burmese amber with bilobed tarsi (Coleoptera: Nosodendridae). Palaeoentomology 2021, 4, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Schmidt, J.; Michalik, P. The ground beetle genus Bembidion Latreille in Baltic amber: Review of preserved specimens and first 3D reconstruction of endophallic structures using X-ray microscopy (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Bembidiini). ZooKeys 2017, 662, 101–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Bukejs, A.; Bezděk, J.; Alekseev, V.I.; Kairišs, K.; McKellar, R.C. Description of the male of fossil Calomicrus eocenicus Bukejs et Bezděk (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae) from Eocene Baltic amber using X-ray microtomography. Foss. Rec. 2020, 23, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kundrata, R.; Gimmel, M.L.; Packova, G.; Bukejs, A.; Blank, S.M. A new enigmatic lineage of Dascillidae (Coleoptera: Elateriformia) from Eocene Baltic amber described using X-ray microtomography, with notes on Karumiinae morphology and classification. Foss. Rec. 2021, 24, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alekseev, V.I.; Bukejs, A. The first extinct species of Acritus LeConte, 1853 (Histeridae: Abraeinae) from Eocene Baltic amber: A microscopic beetle inclusion studied with X-ray micro-computed tomography. Foss. Rec. 2021, 24, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ivie, M.A. Ptilodactylidae Laporte 1836. In American Beetles. Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea through Curculionoidea; Arnett, R.H., Jr., Thomas, M.C., Skelley, P.E., Frank, J.H., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002; Volume 2, pp. 1–861. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lawrence, J.F. Dascillidae Guérin-Méneville, 1843. In Handbook of Zoology, Coleoptera, Beetles, Morphology and Systematics (Archostemata, Adephaga, Myxophaga, Polyphaga partim), 2nd ed.; Beutel, R.G., Leschen, R.A.B., Eds.; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany; Boston, MA, USA, 2016; pp. 531–537. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lawrence, J.F. Ptilodactylidae (Dryopoidea). In Immature Insects; Stehr, F.W., Ed.; Kendall/Hunt Publishing: Dubuque, IA, USA, 1991; Volume 2, pp. 391–394. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lawrence, J.F.; Stribling, J.B. A new genus of Ptilodactylidae (Coleoptera: Elateriformia) from North Queensland, with description of the presumed larva. J. Austral. Entomol. Soc. 1992, 31, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shepard, W.D.; Sites, R.W. Aquatic larvae of Eulichadidae and Ptilodactylidae (Coleoptera: Byrrhoidea) from Thailand, with description of the larva of Pseudocladotoma Pic. Coleopt. Bull. 2019, 73, 142–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Beutel, R.G. Phylogenetic analysis of Elateriformia (Coleoptera: Polyphaga) based on larval characters. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 1995, 33, 145–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lawrence, J.F.; Nikitsky, N.B.; Kirejtshuk, A.G. Phylogenetic position of Decliniidae (Coleoptera: Scirtoidea) and comments on the classification of Elateriformia (sensu lato). In Biology, Phylogeny, and Classification of Coleoptera. Papers Celebrating the 80th Birthday of Roy A. Crowson; Pakaluk, J., Ślipiński, S.A., Eds.; Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN: Warszawa, Poland, 1995; Volumes 1–2, pp. 375–410. [Google Scholar]
  28. Costa, C.; Vanin, S.A.; Ide, S. Systematics and bionomics of Cneoglossidae with a cladistic analysis of Byrrhoidea sensu Lawrence & Newton (1995) (Coleoptera, Elateriformia). Arq. Zool. 1999, 35, 231–300. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kundrata, R.; Jäch, M.A.; Bocak, L. Molecular phylogeny of the Byrrhoidea–Buprestoidea complex (Coleoptera, Elateriformia). Zool. Scr. 2017, 46, 150–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Crowson, R.A. The Natural Classification of the Families of Coleoptera; Nathaniel Lloyd & Co.: London, UK, 1955; pp. 1–187. [Google Scholar]
  31. Stribling, J.B. Revision of Anchytarsus (Coleoptera: Dryopoidea) and a key to the New World genera of Ptilodactylidae. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1986, 79, 219–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Stribling, J.B. World Generic Revision of Ptilodactylidae (Coleoptera: Dryopoidea). Ph.D. Thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lawrence, J.F.; Newton, A.F. Families and subfamilies of Coleoptera (with selected genera, notes, references and data on family group names). In Biology, Phylogeny, and Classification of Coleoptera; Lawrence, J.F., Pakaluk, J.F., Ślipiński, S.A., Eds.; Museum i Instytut Zoologii PAN: Warzawa, Poland, 1995; pp. 779–1092. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kundrata, R.; Ivie, M.A.; Bocak, L. Podabrocephalus Pic is the morphologically modified lineage of Ptilodactylinae (Coleoptera: Elateriformia: Ptilodactylidae). Insect Syst. Evol. 2019, 50, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pic, M. Pars 58. Dascillidae, Helodidae, Eucinetidae. In Coleopterorum Catalogus; Schenkling, S., Ed.; W. Junk: Berlin, Germany, 1914; pp. 1–65. [Google Scholar]
  36. ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th ed.; The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature: London, UK, 1999; pp. 1–305. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ivie, M.A. The familial placement of the genus Singularodaemon Pic (Coleoptera: Ptilodactylidae, Dascilloidea, Melyridae: Dasytinae). Coleopt. Bull. 2002, 56, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kundrata, R.; Jäch, M. Ptilodactyla crenatostriata Redtenbacher, 1868 (Coleoptera: Ptilodactylidae) transferred to Phytocerum Costa, Vanin, Lawrence & Ide, 2003 (Coleoptera: Cerophytidae). Zootaxa 2017, 4324, 371–377. [Google Scholar]
  39. Chatzimanolis, S.; Cashion, M.E.; Engel, M.S.; Falin, Z.H. A new genus of Ptilodactylidae (Coleoptera: Byrrhoidea) in mid-Cretaceous amber from Myanmar (Burma). Geodiversitas 2012, 34, 569–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Alekseev, V.I.; Jäch, M.A. Electrolichas circumbalticus gen. et sp. nov. (Coleoptera: Byrrhoidea: Ptilodactylidae) from Baltic amber, the first anchytarsine toed-winged beetle described from Europe. Zootaxa 2016, 4136, 593–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Motschulsky, M. Voyages: Lettres de M. de Motschulsky à M. Ménétriés. No. 4. Etudes Entomol. 1856, 5, 21–38. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kirejtshuk, A.G.; Ponomarenko, A.G.; Kurochkin, A.S.; Alekseev, A.V.; Gratshev, V.G.; Solodovnikov, A.V.; Krell, F.-T.; Soriano, C. The beetle (Coleoptera) fauna of the Insect Limestone (late Eocene), Isle of Wight, southern England. Earth Environ. Sci. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 2019, 110, 405–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lewis, D. The fight for control over virtual fossils. Nature 2019, 567, 20–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Bouchard, P.; Bousquet, Y.; Davies, A.E.; Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A.; Lawrence, J.F.; Lyal, C.H.C.; Newton, A.F.; Reid, C.A.M.; Schmitt, M.; Ślipiński, A.; et al. Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta). ZooKeys 2011, 88, 1–972. [Google Scholar]
  45. Nakane, T. Notes on some little-known beetles (Coleoptera) in Japan, 10. Kita-Kyûshû no Konchû Kokura 1993, 40, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  46. Nakane, T. The beetles collected by Drs. Keizo Kojima and Shingo Nakamura in Taiwan (Insecta, Coleoptera) 2. Misc. Rep. Hiwa Mus. Nat. Hist. 1996, 34, 129–140. [Google Scholar]
  47. Satô, M.; Lawrence, J.; Lee, C.-F. Description of a new species of Drupeus Lewis (Coleoptera: Ptilodactylidae), with a discussion of the systematic position of the genus based on larval, pupal, and adult characters. Insect Syst. Evol. 2005, 36, 371–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Satô, M. Family Ptilodactylidae Laporte, 1836. In Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Scarabaeoidea—Scirtoidea—Dascilloidea—Buprestoidea—Byrrhoidea; Löbl, I., Smetana, A., Eds.; Apollo Books: Stenstrup, Denmark, 2006; Volume 3, pp. 453–454. [Google Scholar]
  49. Lawrence, J.F.; Ślipiński, A. Lycomimus, a new genus of Australian Ptilodactylidae (Coleoptera: Byrrhoidea). Zootaxa 2013, 3702, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lawrence, J.F.; Ślipiński, A. Lycomimodes, a new generic replacement name for preoccupied Lycomimus Lawrence and Slipinski, 2013 (Insecta: Coleoptera: Ptilodactylidae) non Melzer, 1931 (Insecta: Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Zootaxa 2013, 3709, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yoshitomi, H.; Hayashi, M. Revision of the genus Drupeus (Coleoptera, Ptilodactylidae, Cladotominae). Jpn. J. Syst. Ent. 2013, 19, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hwang, S.; Yoshitomi, H. Revision of the genus Anchycteis (Coleoptera, Ptilodactylidae) from Japan. Elytra 2014, 4, 249–260. [Google Scholar]
  53. Yoshitomi, H.; Hájek, J. A new species of the genus Drupeus (Coleoptera: Ptilodactylidae: Cladotominae) from China. Jpn. J. Syst. Ent. 2016, 22, 43–45. [Google Scholar]
  54. López-Pérez, S.; Zurita-García, M.L.; Domínguez-León, D.E.; González-Ramírez, M.; Vega-Badillo, V.; Cifuentes-Ruiz, P.; Rodríguez-Mirón, G.M. First report of the genus Cladotoma Westwood, 1837 (Coleoptera, Ptilodactylidae, Cladotominae) in Mexico. Check List 2020, 16, 1469–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hájek, J. A new species of Drupeus Lewis from eastern China (Coleoptera: Ptilodactylidae: Cladotominae). Zootaxa 2021, 4996, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mann, D.J. Ptilodactyla exotica Chapin, 1927 (Coleoptera: Ptilodactylidae: Ptilodactylinae) established breeding under glass in Britain, with a brief discussion on the family Ptilodactylidae. Entomol. Mon. Mag. 2006, 142, 67–79. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hájek, J. Ptilodactyla exotica (Coleoptera: Ptilodactylidae) nalezena v České republice. (Ptilodactyla exotica (Coleoptera: Ptilodactylidae) found in the Czech Republic). Klapalekiana 2009, 45, 229–232. [Google Scholar]
  58. Nardi, G.; Bocci, M.; Poggi, R. Ptilodactyla exotica Chapin, 1927 in Italy (Coleoptera: Ptilodactylidae). Zootaxa 2020, 4861, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Viñolas, A.; Miralles-Nuñez, A.; Necoechea, A. Primeros datos sobre la presencia de Ptilodactyla exotica Chapin, 1927 en la Península Ibérica (Coleoptera, Ptilodactylidae). Rev. Gadit. Entomol. 2020, 11, 93–98. [Google Scholar]
  60. Seyfullah, L.J.; Beimforde, C.; Dal Corso, J.; Perrichot, V.; Rikkinen, J.; Schmidt, A.R. Production and preservation of resins—Past and present. Biol. Rev. 2018, 93, 1684–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Bukejs, A.; Alekseev, V.I.; Pollock, D.A. Waidelotinae, a new subfamily of Pyrochroidae (Coleoptera: Tenebrionoidea) from Baltic amber of the Sambian peninsula and the interpretation of Sambian amber stratigraphy, age and location. Zootaxa 2019, 4664, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kasiński, J.R.; Kramarska, R.; Słodkowska, B.; Sivkov, V.; Piwocki, M. Paleocene and Eocene deposits on the eastern margin of the Gulf of Gdańsk (Yantarny P-1 borehole, Kaliningrad region, Russia). Geol. Q. 2020, 64, 29–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Sadowski, E.-M.; Seyfullah, L.J.; Schmidt, A.R.; Kunzmann, L. Conifers of the ‘Baltic amber forest’ and their palaeoecological significance. Stapfia 2017, 106, 1–73. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sadowski, E.-M.; Schmidt, A.R.; Denk, T. Staminate inflorescences with in situ pollen from Eocene Baltic amber reveal high diversity in Fagaceae (oak family). Willdenowia 2020, 50, 405–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kirejtshuk, A.G.; Ponomarenko, A.G.; Prokin, A.A.; Huali, C.; Nikolajev, G.V.; Dong, R. Current knowledge on Mesozoic Coleoptera from Daohugou and Liaoning (Northeast China). Acta Geol. Sin. 2010, 84, 783–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Soriano, C.; Delclòs, X.; Ponomarenko, A.G. Beetle associations (Insecta: Coleoptera) from the Barremian (Lower Cretaceous) of Spain. Alavesia 2007, 1, 81–88. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kirejtshuk, A.G.; Azar, D. New taxa of beetles (Insecta, Coleoptera) from Lebanese amber with evolutionary and systematic comments. Alavesia 2008, 2, 15–46. [Google Scholar]
  68. Kirejtshuk, A.G.; Azar, D. Current knowledge of Coleoptera (Insecta) from the Lower Cretaceous Lebanese amber and taxonomical notes for some Mesozoic groups. Terr. Arthropod Rev. 2013, 6, 103–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Larsson, S.G. Baltic amber—A palaeobiological study. Entomonograph 1978, 1, 1–192. [Google Scholar]
  70. Weitschat, W.; Wichard, W. Baltic Amber. In Biodiversity of Fossils in Amber from the Major World Deposits; Penney, D., Ed.; Siri Scientific Press: Manchester, UK, 2010; pp. 80–115. [Google Scholar]
  71. Langenheim, J.H. Plant Resins: Chemistry, Evolution, Ecology, and Ethnobotany; Timber Press: Portland, OR, USA, 2003; pp. 1–612. [Google Scholar]
  72. Wolfe, A.P.; Tappert, R.; Muehlenbachs, K.; Boudreau, M.; McKellar, R.C.; Basinger, J.F.; Garrett, A. A new proposal concerning the botanical origin of Baltic amber. Proc. R. Soc. B 2009, 276, 3403–3412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Alekseev, V.I. The beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera) of Baltic amber: The checklist of described species and preliminary analysis of biodiversity. Zool. Ecol. 2013, 23, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Perkovsky, E.E.; Rasnitsyn, A.P.; Vlaskin, A.P.; Taraschuk, M.V. A comparative analysis of the Baltic and Rovno amber arthropod faunas: Representative samples. Afr. Invertebr. 2007, 48, 229–245. [Google Scholar]
  75. Spahr, U. Systematischer Katalog der Bernstein-und Kopal-Käfer (Coleoptera). Systematic catalogue of Coleoptera in amber and copal. Stuttg. Beitr. Naturkd. Ser. B 1981, 80, 1–107. [Google Scholar]
  76. Carpenter, F.M. Superclass Hexapoda. In Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology; Part R, Arthropoda 4; Kaesler, R.D., Ed.; Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, USA; University of Kansas: Lawrence, KS, USA, 1992; Volume 3/4, pp. 279–655. [Google Scholar]
Biology 10 00877 g001 550
Figure 1. Ptilodactyla eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov., habitus. (a) Dorsal view; (b) ventral view. Scale bar = 3.0 mm.
Figure 1. Ptilodactyla eocenica Kundrata, Bukejs and Blank, sp. nov., habitus. (a) Dorsal view; (b) ventral view. Scale bar = 3.0 mm.
Biology 10 00877 g001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kundrata, R.; Packova, G.; Kairišs, K.; Bukejs, A.; Hoffmannova, J.; Blank, S.M. The First Ptilodactyla Illiger, 1807 (Coleoptera: Dryopoidea: Ptilodactylidae) Described from Eocene Baltic Amber. Biology 2021, 10, 877. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10090877

AMA Style

Kundrata R, Packova G, Kairišs K, Bukejs A, Hoffmannova J, Blank SM. The First Ptilodactyla Illiger, 1807 (Coleoptera: Dryopoidea: Ptilodactylidae) Described from Eocene Baltic Amber. Biology. 2021; 10(9):877. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10090877

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kundrata, Robin, Gabriela Packova, Kristaps Kairišs, Andris Bukejs, Johana Hoffmannova, and Stephan M. Blank. 2021. "The First Ptilodactyla Illiger, 1807 (Coleoptera: Dryopoidea: Ptilodactylidae) Described from Eocene Baltic Amber" Biology 10, no. 9: 877. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10090877

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop