Cimbrophlebia sp. A.

(Fig. 7 A–C)

Description. Wing as in Fig. 7 A–C, and the following. Length of portion preserved ~ 28 mm (estimated complete> 40 mm, see remarks, below), width ~7.5 mm (preserved portion, not maximum). Colouration as in Fig. 7 A, similar (preserved portion) to C. flabelliformis, C. leahyi; possibly, but less likely C. westae . Sc, R, Rs, M, small basal portions preserved. Cu1, Cu2, 1A: preserved portions generalized as for genus. 2A: six pectinate branches. Crossveins: none detected as preserved.

Material. UCCIPR L-18 F-998 (part), F-1137 (counterpart). Fore- or hind wing, missing apical third and about two thirds of the anterior portion, and a small portion of basal hind margin; in the collection of TRU. Labelled: hypotype, Cimbrophlebia sp. A, Archibald, 2009. Collected by unknown person at McAbee in 2002, donated to TRU by David Langevin, 2002.

Locality and age. McAbee, British Columbia, Canada; Early Eocene.

Remarks. The preserved portions of the wing of C. sp. A indicate that its shape is consistent with that of C. flabelliformis (Fig. 7 C). If so, its complete length would be likely over 40 mm. The width of the preserved portion (not maximum) is ~7.5 mm. By its large size, this is confidently separated from C. flabelliformis [length ~ 28 mm; width 7 mm] and C. westae [length ~ 25 mm, width ~ 6 mm]. The 2A with six pectinate branches preserved separates it from C. bittaciformis [seven branches: three basal branches pectinate, four distal branches dichotomous], from C. leahyi [six branches: two basal branches pectinate, minimum of four dichotomous distal branches], and from C. flabelliformis [four pectinate branches], although not from C. brooksi and C. westae, where 2A is little known by preservation. Cimbrophlebia sp. A apparently has a similar shape as known to C. flabelliformis, C. leahyi and C. westae, which are relatively wide, differing from the narrower wings of C. brooksi and C. bittaciformis (see above). Colouration, when known from a complete wing will surely be informative (see C. flabelliformis remarks above). Better-preserved specimens are needed to clarify supposition that this represents a distinct, separate species.