Cretomantis Gratshev and Zherikhin

GRIMALDI, DAVID, 2003, A Revision of Cretaceous Mantises and Their Relationships, Including New Taxa (Insecta: Dictyoptera: Mantodea), American Museum Novitates 3412, pp. 1-48 : 20-22

Genus Cretomantis Gratshev and Zherikhin

Cretomantis Gratshev and Zherikhin, 1993: 161 . Type Species: C. larvalis Gratshev and Zherikhin, 1993: 161 (Early Cretaceous, Russia). By original designation.

DIAGNOSIS (revised from Gratshev and Zherikhin): The genus is based on the compression of a single but complete nymph, which apparently is an exuvium ( PIN 3064 / 8511, holotype, figs. 12, 13). A stout­bodied nymph with forefemora stout and apparently having a ventral furrow, with furrow bordered mesally with row of 8–12 spines and 3–4 short spines or spicules. Mesal row of femoral spines preserved as small, rounded mounds, probably small tubercles that were the bases of spines. Foretibia short (0.7X length of femur) and stout, with large apical spine or spur (basal articulation obscure); with mesal row of 8–10 stout spines, lateral row of 5 smaller spines. Forebasitarsus extremely short, ca. 0.20X length of foretibia. Midfemur with 2 ventral rows of spicules or minute spines; hindfemur short and stout, only 1.2X length of foretibia. Hindtibia only ca. 1.1X length of hindfemur. Cerci short, approximately same size as styli .

INCLUDED SPECIES: Monotypic.

COMMENTS: Several aspects of the original diagnosis were found to require some revision ( Gratshev and Zherikhin, 1993: 161): only one apical tibial spine/spur is preserved, so ‘‘apical pair [of spines] strongly differentiated’’ cannot be corroborated; the large, apical spine of the tibia is not ‘‘placed beyond tarsal articulation’’; and the foretarsi are not longer than the tibia.

Head structures are difficult to determine, which may be due to the specimen being an exuvium with a crumpled cuticle. Three terminal abdominal appendages are preserved in the specimen, a pair of finer ones with at least 5 segments, and a slightly thicker one (presumably one of a pair). Distinguishing styli from cerci is ambiguous.

Genus Cretophotina Gratshev and Zherikhin

Cretophotina Gratshev and Zherikhin, 1993: 150 . Type Species: C. tristriata Gratshev and Zherikhin, 1993: 150 (Early Cretaceous, Siberia) . By original designation.

DIAGNOSIS: Known only on the basis of wings from the Cretaceous of Eurasia, defined originally by Gratshev and Zherikhin on the following significant features: costal field distinctly wider than field between Sc and R; R apically with 5–8 terminal branches; M with 2–3 branches; CuA with 6–10 terminal branches, posterior branch separated from main stem; Cu 1 distinctly curved. Reexamination by myself indicates the pseudovein is present.

INCLUDED SPECIES: C. tristriata (figs. 5c, 6); C. mongolica Gratshev and Zherikhin, 1993 ; and C. serotina Gratshev and Zherikhin, 1993 .

COMMENTS: Gratshev and Zherikhin (1993) omitted mention of a very important feature in Cretophotina : the presence of a short pseudovein near the basal forks of M and Cu 1 (figs. 5b, c; 6), found in all mantis wings save Baissomantis . The paratype of Cretophotina tristriata (PIN 1989/2487) and the holotype (PIN 3064/8585) (fig. 6) have venational differences that strongly suggest different species. The paratype has M 3­ branched (vs. 2), the 2 nd vein of Cu 1 with a short, apical branch (vs. none), the basal branching of Cu 1 dichotomous (vs. apparent­ ly pectinate in the holotype), and CuP is complete (vs. incomplete).

Genus Electromantis Gratshev and Zherikhin

Electromantis Gratshev and Zherikhin, 1993: 162 . Type Species: E. sukatshevae Gratshev and Zherikhin, 1993: 163 (Late Cretaceous, Siberia) . By original designation.

DIAGNOSIS: Known only as partial remains of a nymph in amber (fore­ and midlegs, ventral portions of head and thorax)(PIN 3631/ 7), with the following distinctive features: forefemur incrassate (greatest width 0.3X the length), with pubescent ventral furrow, bordered by 2 rows of fine spines; foretibia short, length (excluding apical spine) 0.5X length of femur, with one large and one smaller apical spines. Larger apical tibial spine 0.6X length of tibia; smaller apical spine 0.6X length of larger one; apical spines at apex of tibia (no projection beyond articulating bases). Foretibia with 2 rows of approximately 7 small spines, increased in size distad. Forebasitarsomere slender, slightly shorter than tibia.

INCLUDED SPECIES: Monotypic.

COMMENTS: Proportions of the forefemur and foretibia, and spination of each, distinguish this genus from Amorphoscelites , Burmantis , Cretomantis , and Jersimantis .