Eosyntexis parva, Ortega-Blanco & Rasnitsyn & Delclòs, 2008

Ortega-Blanco, J., Rasnitsyn, A. P. & Delclòs, X., 2008, First record of anaxyelid woodwasps (Hymenoptera: Anaxyelidae) in Lower Cretaceous Spanish amber, Zootaxa 1937, pp. 39-50 : 43-48

Eosyntexis parva sp. nov.

Figure 1C and Figures 2-4.

Etymology. The species name is derived from the Latin “little”, due to its small size.

Material. Holotype: MCNA 8756, from Peñacerrada I amber fossil site, Escucha Formation, Moraza village ( Spain) ( Alonso et al. 2000; Delclòs et al. 2007). Specimen housed in the Museo de Ciencias Naturales de Álava (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain).

Description. Head roughly as wide as thorax, widest at temples, in side view only slightly longer than high ( Figs. 2 A-C). Eyes moderately large, subovoid, distant from mandibular base for ca. 0.3 of its length. Ocelli not visible. Vertex somewhat elevated above eyes. Temples inflated, as wide as eye in side view. Genae excavated to form a channel to accommodate scape at rest. Clypeus narrow, somewhat protruding. Mandibles short and apparently wide, teeth and precise form not discernible. Antennal base near clypeal sides below eye ( Figs. 2B, G, and 4B). Antenna apparently 16 segmented with scape and pedicel sub-equal in length, about twice as long as first flagellomere, both flattened dorso-ventrally (scape particularly so), pedicel quite broadened at apex. Flagellomeres slightly longer than wide, all similar in size and shape except for the first slightly narrowing toward base, middle ones slightly wider than the rest, and apical flagellomere dis- tinctly longer and rounded apically. Trichoid sensilla present at apex of flagellomeres, possibly except several basal and apical ones ( Figs. 2A, G, 4A, B, C, E). Maxillary palps six-segmented, third and sixth segments longest, sixth segment thickened in apical half ( Figs. 2F, 4A, E).

Pronotum with high vertical (forward) and long horizontal (upper) faces meeting at about right angle and carinated there, with carina low medially. Dorsal pronotal face 2/3 as long as lateral face, with medial impressed line, rather punctate except laterally, smooth band at junction of dorsal and lateral face with six low teeth placed longitudinally (better seen in upper view) ( Figs. 2B, C, 3E). Lateral pronotal face forming wide rounded lobes lateroventrally. Fine imbricate sculpturation over most of pronotum. Propleura not elongated to form distinct neck ( Figs. 2B, 3A, E). Mesonotum not preserved. Mesopostnotum short, not well preserved but apparently laterally slightly constricted. Legs moderately short, looking flattened as preserved. Coxae small, trochanter rather thin, sub-cylindrical. No trochantellus seen with any certainty. Fore and mid femora narrow, slightly curved and almost parallel-sided; hind femur elongate fusiform, roughly four times as long as wide. Tibiae thin, somewhat widened apically, hind tibia wider ( Figs. 2A, B, C, 3A). Fore tibia with one apical spur, and mid and hind tibia with two. No sub-apical spurs found. Fore tibia with distinct dorso-apical spine. Fore tibial spur (calcar) thick basally, otherwise thin, slightly S-shaped, inner surface with deeply incised velum with several (possibly 8) indentations, with free, possibly bifid apex ( Fig. 4D) (cf. Basibuyuk & Quicke 1995). Proportion of tarsomeres in fore leg (first tarsomere is 1) 1: 0.5: 0.3: 0.2: 0.27, mid leg 1: 0.55: 0.50: 0.4:?, hind leg 1: 0.35: 0.3: 0.22: ca. 0.22. Fore basitarsus with inner surface slightly concave in basal 0.45 bearing protocomb here composed of not very regular row of slightly curved setae of varying length. Tarsal claws simple ( Fig. 3G).

Fore wing with pterostigma large (sub equal in area to 1+2r cell), R lost beyond pterostigma, 1RS straight, as long as 1RS+M, 1r-rs lost, 2r-rs very short, 2RS+M slightly longer than 2r-rs, 3RS straight in basal half and gently arching beyond, reaching very near wing fore margin. Crossvein 2r-m not preserved (might be lost). Crossvein 2cu-a levelled with pterostigmal apex. Anal loop with distal vein stub ( Figs. 2D, 3D).

Abdomen long, much damaged (especially the dorsal part), with ten segments, without laterotergites, the last segment very small and rounded apically. Abdominal spiracles slit-like, small except larger one on tergum 1 (seen on terga 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6) ( Figs. 2A, B, C, 3B, C). No genitalia preserved, but ninth tergum strongly convex in rear half (decreasing toward 10 th tergum) and with lower basal corners somewhat elongate cephalad indicating female sex. Fore and mid terga with fine transverse striation at least laterally, eighth and ninth terga looking darker than the previous, with imbricate sculpture ( Figs. 3D, F).

Body length ca. 4.4 mm, fore wing length 2.7 mm.

Comparison. Unlike other Eosyntexis species , E. parva has cells cells 2+3rm and 1mcu are separated by distinct 2RS+M, R is lost shortly beyond pterostigma and, unlike all except E. tuffinae , 2r-rs is very short. Additionally, unlike E. senilis and E. tuffinae , 1RS is straight. Unlike E. senilis , cell 1mcu is pentagonal. Unlike E. catalonica , cell 2mcu is longer than high. Unlike E. tuffinae , 2RS is straight and RS practically reaches wing margin. In non-venational characters, it differs from all other species in smaller body and wing size and also from E. catalonica in more narrow body and legs, large eyes, fewer antennomeres (15 or 16 against 17 or more) and longer dorsal face of pronotum.