Spinitingis ellenbergeri, Heiss, Ernst & Guilbert, Eric, 2013

Heiss, Ernst & Guilbert, Eric, 2013, Two new genera and species of Tingidae from Cretaceous amber from Myanmar (Burma) (Hemiptera: Heteroptera), Zootaxa 3736 (4), pp. 379-386: 380-381

publication ID


publication LSID


persistent identifier


treatment provided by


scientific name

Spinitingis ellenbergeri

n. sp.

Spinitingis ellenbergeri  n. sp.

(Figs. 1,2)

Holotype. Macropterous male in a honey-colored prismatic piece of Burmese Amber, 15 x 4 x 4 mm, most probably originating from Kachin State in northern Myanmar. Syninclusions of small Diptera and other insects as well as detritus obscure the visibility of this included insect. This specimen is designated as holotype and is deposited in the collection of the first author (CEHI) as BUB-Ting- 1.

Description. H e a d longer than wide, armed with five long, erected spines: an occipital pair (or preocular spines, sensu Lis, 1999), a frontal pair and a single dorsomedian one between occipital and clypeal spines; bucculae produced in front of clypeus, consisting of two rows of large areolae, nearly as long as head; rostrum long, extending backward to third visible abdominal segment; antennae long and slender, antennal segments I and II short and stout, III very long and slender, IV longer than I+II together.

P r o n o t u m short, punctate or with small round areolae, with three ridge-like hardly discernible carinae, apparently not extending anteriorly to collar; disk with three sets of three long, erected spines, longitudinally aligned along midline and on both lateral margins of paranota; collar wide, with three rows of areolae; paranota narrow, with one row of irregular areolae; a short round posterior pronotal process with two transverse rows of areolae; ventral labial groove with wide lateral laminae bearing one row of areolae.

S c u t e l l u m developed, large and of triangular outline.

H e m e l y t r a oval, overlapping at rest, divided into usual areas: stenocostal area absent; costal area narrow, widened at base, with three rows of areolae anteriorly, then two rows of areolae on posterior two-thirds, the areolae round and larger, the inner row smaller than the outer one, the latter angulate; subcostal area wider than costal area, with four rows of round areolae, areolae slightly smaller than on costal area; area divided into six to seven subareas by transverse darker veinlets; discoidal area longer than half the length of hemelytra, divided into three subareas by transverse veinlets, six areolae wide at widest part, the areolae of same size and shape as on subcostal area; sutural area with a row of areolae along clavus and larger areolae on posteriorly roundly widening part of membrane; hypocosta narrow with one row of areolae.

L e g s long and slender, femora not incrassate, tibiae thin and straight, tarsi two-segmented with long claws.

M e a s u r e m e n t s length, 2.68 mm; width across hemelytra 1.08 mm; antennal segments I, 0.1; II, 0.06; III, 1.42; IV, 0.4 mm.

Etymology. Dedicated to Sieghard Ellenberger (Kassel, Germany), who procured this interesting Burmese Amber inclusion for our study.

Discussion. Considering and following the classification and morphological analysis of the most recent study of Tingidae  phylogeny by Schuh et al. (2006), the family Tingidae  includes three subfamilies: Cantacaderinae, Tinginae  and Vianaidinae, the latter being the sister group of Cantacaderinae + Tinginae  . As is well known, the tribe Phatnomatini (as Tingini  ) belongs to Tinginae  and not to Cantacaderinae Stål (1873).

Thus, the long head with bucculae extending anteriorly over the clypeus and the presence of a well developed scutellum, support the placement of this genus and species either in Cantacaderinae or the Tinginae  tribe Phatnomatini, but does clearly not belong to Tingini  .

The absence of a stenocostal area argues for the placement in Phatnomatini; however, the presence of occipital spines just in front of the eyes argues for the placement in Cantacaderinae. The frontal spines look like that which Lis (1999) called jugo-frontal spines, distinguishing Cantacaderinae. In addition, the jugal and clypeal spines are absent. This combination of spines would argue for the placement of the species in Cantacaderinae. However, the presence of an additional dorsomedial spine between the two paired ones rather argues for the placement of this species in Phatnomatini.

No other described fossil taxon of Cantacaderinae and Phatnomatini exhibit such a combination of characters, i.e., a dorso-medial spine between the frontal and the occipital spines, and a of long erected spines on the pronotum.

Conclusion. Although the combination of the cephalic spines is unique and aberrant to those of Cantacaderinae and Phatnomatini, we consider the absence of a stenocostal area distinctive to Phatnomatini which supports the placement of this new genus and species in Phatnomatini.