Cephennomicrus

Jałoszyński, Paweł & Perkovsky, Evgeny, 2016, Diversity of Scydmaeninae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) in Upper Eocene Rovno amber, Zootaxa 4157 (1), pp. 1-85 : 28-29

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4157.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6BF4514A-892F-499F-BC1E-B7920C7A00B0
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5681749
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A187A9-2922-FFED-FF03-C1AA9DB7FE91
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Cephennomicrus
status

Treatment

Cephennomicrus View in CoL sp. 3

( Figs 8 View FIGURES 1 – 20 , 85–92 View FIGURES 85 – 88 View FIGURES 89 – 92 )

Material studied. Late Eocene of Europe , Rovno amber: sex unknown; inclusion in elongate irregular piece of amber 15 mm long ( Fig. 8 View FIGURES 1 – 20 ), collection number K-27565 ( SIZK).

Description. Body ( Figs 85–92 View FIGURES 85 – 88 View FIGURES 89 – 92 ) elongate and moderately strongly convex, brown; BL 0.75 mm.

Head ( Figs 85–92 View FIGURES 85 – 88 View FIGURES 89 – 92 ) broadest at eyes, HL 0.10 mm, HW about 0.18 mm; vertex ( Fig. 89 View FIGURES 89 – 92 ; vt) weakly convex and strongly transverse; frons ( Fig. 89 View FIGURES 89 – 92 ; fr) subtrapezoidal, flattened, posteriorly confluent with vertex; supraantennal tubercles weakly marked; eyes large, oval, strongly convex and relatively coarsely faceted. Antennae ( Figs 85–92 View FIGURES 85 – 88 View FIGURES 89 – 92 ) distinctly shorter than half BL, AnL about 0.31 mm, all antennomeres elongate, XI slightly shorter than IX–X combined, distinctly broader than X, about twice as long as broad and nearly symmetrical.

Pronotum ( Figs 85–92 View FIGURES 85 – 88 View FIGURES 89 – 92 ) subrectangular, but its shape is difficult to assess in the studied specimen; PL 0.20 mm, PW about 0.20 mm; pronotal disc seems to be broadest near anterior third, sides sinuate; posterior pronotal corners distinct; posterior margin shallowly bisinuate with indistinct flattening in front of scutellum; base with two pairs of small and shallow antebasal pits ( Fig. 89 View FIGURES 89 – 92 ; abp) connected by narrow transverse antebasal groove ( Fig. 89 View FIGURES 89 – 92 ; abg). Punctures on pronotal disc very small but distinct, separated by spaces 2–3 × as wide as diameters of punctures; setae very short, moderately dense, suberect ( Figs 85–89 View FIGURES 85 – 88 View FIGURES 89 – 92 ).

Elytra ( Figs 85–92 View FIGURES 85 – 88 View FIGURES 89 – 92 ) elongate oval, moderately convex, EL 0.45 mm, EW about 0.25 mm, EI about 1.80; punctures slightly larger than those on pronotal disc; setae similar to those on pronotum ( Figs 85–86 View FIGURES 85 – 88 , 89 View FIGURES 89 – 92 ).

Legs ( Figs 85–92 View FIGURES 85 – 88 View FIGURES 89 – 92 ) moderately long, slender, unmodified; tibiae straight or weakly curved.

Remarks. This is another well-preserved specimen of Cephennomicrus with perfectly exposed key generic characters, but the species is so unremarkable that presenting a reliable diagnosis is not possible. It is most similar to the specimen DU-32, described below as Cephennomicrus sp. 5. Both specimens share a similarly small body about 0.75 mm in length, similar body form and fine punctures, and similar setae on the pronotum and elytra.

However, they clearly differ in proportions of body parts, especially in the elytral index (as far as it was possible to measure EL and EW in both specimens), and Cephennomicrus sp. 3 has all pronotal antebasal pits connected by a transverse groove, whereas Cephennomicrus sp. 5 has only the inner pair of pits connected. It seems justified to treat these specimens as belonging to two separate species, different from all other congeners found in Rovno amber.