Karataumantispa, Jepson, James E., 2015

Jepson, James E., 2015, A review of the current state of knowledge of fossil Mantispidae (Insecta: Neuroptera), Zootaxa 3964 (4), pp. 419-432 : 426-429

Genus: Karataumantispa gen.nov.

Etymology. Karatau after the fossil locality of the species and Mantispa a genus of Mantispidae .

Type species. Karataumantispa carnaria ( Khramov, 2013) Mesithone carnaria Khramov, 2013 p . 222, figs. 1–4.

Other species. Karataumantispa monstruosa ( Khramov, 2013) Mesithone monstruosa Khramov, 2013 p . 224, figs. 5–11.

Diagnosis. The genus differs from other fossil mantispids based on the combination of the following characters: elongate forewings; subcostal space proximally very narrow, distally dilated; Rs with at least seven branches; MP deeply forked after the split of MA and MP; wing colour pattern minimal to absent, with small patches of colour on some crossveins; forelegs with two rows of spines on inner edge of the fore femur, one row with relatively smaller spines than the other; fore tibia with hook-like prostrate setae of similar size to the larger femora spines; combined length of the fore tibia and fore tarsus greater than fore femur.

Comparison. Elongate forewings are observed in all other fossil mantispids, except Promantispa and Symphrasites , which have a slightly broader shaped wing. The narrow subcostal space, which dilates distally, is similar to Mesomantispa, however, in most other fossil genera the subcostal space is a uniform thickness for most of its length and slightly narrowed proximally (near wing base). Feroseta differs in that its subcostal space is narrow proximally, dilated at midpoint, and narrow distally. The number of branches of Rs (with at least 7) differs from some of the other genera of mantispids: Mesomantispa and Symphrasites 11, Climaciella ? henrotayi 10, Gerstaeckerella asiatica and Sinomesomantispa 9, Clavifemora>7, all other fossil genera 7 branches or less. The deeply forked MP (close to split of MA and MP) is similar to Symphrasites , but in all other fossil genera MP is not forked until the distal gradate series of crossveins near the posterior wing margin. A minimal colour pattern on the wings differs from Mesomantispa and Clavifemora, which have spots, Archaeodrepanicus which has 2–3 dark bands, Sinomesomantispa, which has a distinct thick dark band in distal part of wing, and Doratomantispa, which has small spots and colouration around some crossveins. The colour pattern is absent or not preserved in the rest of the mantispid fossil genera. The arrangement of the spines on the fore femur, in two rows, with one row of spines smaller than the other differs from the other genera. Two rows of spines are observed in the mesomantispine genera; however the spines are of a uniform size. Micromantispa has two rows with six large spines and many smaller spines. Doratomanatispa has six large cuticular spines. Dicromantispa has a large basal spine, many short teeth-like spines and at least three intermediate sized spines. Feroseta also has one large basal spine, but with three minor and 7–8 smaller spines. The large hook-like prostrate setae are not observed in the other mantispid genera, the prostrate setae are less hook-like and smaller than the femora spines in Archaeodrepanicus, Sinomesomantispa and Clavifemora. They are smaller and peg-like in Doratomantispa, and absent in Micromantispa (which has three long spines on tibia) and Dicromantispa . The combined length of the fore tibia and fore tarsus being longer than the fore femur; is similar in Micromantispa, but shorter in Archaeodrepanicus, Sinomesomantispa, Clavifemora, Doratomantispa, Dicromantispa , and Feroseta .

Remarks. These species of mantispid were originally placed within the genus Mesithone Panfilov, 1980 and the subfamily Mesithoninae Panfilov, 1980 ( Khramov, 2013). The subfamily Mesomantispinae was also synonymized with Mesithoninae ( Khramov, 2013). The specimens and other genera of Mesomantispinae do show some similarities with Mesithone: long recurrent humeral vein, Sc veinlets closely spaced with majority forked in forewing, general structure of Rs and M. However, they differ by having a combination of: Elongate forewing [broad and ovate in Mesithone]; the distal widening of the subcostal space [narrows in Mesithone]; Sc curving towards R1 [subcostal space narrows distally and Sc and R1 are fused in Mesithone]; R is fused with M basally for a long distance in the forewing [R and M not fused basally or fused for short distance in Mesithone —the drawing of the holotype, M. maculata in Panfilov (1980: fig. 86), shows the fusing of M and R, this however is not the case from examining the photograph ( Fig. 2 ) and from V. N. Makarkin (who has viewed the fossil (pers. comm))], M is always fused with R for some distance in the forewing of Mantispidae (Makarkin et al., 2013) ; CuA pectinately branched in forewing [non-pectinate in Mesithone]. These differences are highlighted in figures 2 and 3.

The new placement of these species within Mesomantispinae is based upon the possession of the characters given in the diagnosis of the subfamily ( Jepson et al., 2013), for example: short broad prothorax, femur without major spines, slightly arched tibia with prostrate setae, subcostal space dilated distally, humeral vein recurrent, Sc veinlets closely spaced with the majority forked, inconspicuous pterostigma, M forked distal to origin of Rs, MA and MP parallel, and CuA pectinately branched.

They differ from the other genera of Mesomantispinae in the structure of the forelegs. Archaeodrepanicus and Sinomesomantispa have smaller more flattened non hook-like prostrate setae, and Sinomesomantispa has smaller spines. The combined length of the foretibia and foretarsus is greater than that of the femur in Karataumantispa gen. nov.; this is shorter in the Chinese fossil mantispids. Clavifemora has a very different foreleg structure to Karataumantispa gen. nov., with its swollen club-like forelegs. Karataumantispa gen. nov. also differs in wing venation to the other mesomantispines. The subcostal space is less strongly dilated distally in the other genera (except Mesomantispa). The radial sector is less densely branched in Archaeodrepanicus (6 branches) and more branched in Sinomesomantispa (9) and Mesomantispa (11) (this is a tentative character because the exact number of Rs branches is not known); R1 and Rs curve distally towards apex of wing in Karataumantispa gen. nov. and the Chinese genera, these are straight and horizontal in Mesomantispa. Mesomantispa has a wider cubital area (approximately half the width of the wing); Karataumantispa gen. nov. has a similar cubital width to the Chinese genera (approximately one third of wing width). MP forks just after the split of M into MA and MP in Karataumantispa gen. nov. and much closer to the posterior wing margin in all other genera. The colour pattern is not as well developed (this is a tentative character because it may be taphonomic) in Karataumantispa gen.nov. Archaeodrepanicus has two-three dark bands across the wing; Sinomesomantispa has a distinct dark band in distal part of the wing; Clavifemora has three dark spots similar to Mesomantispa, which has large dark spots on the wing.

Karataumantispa monstruosa is less well-preserved than K. carnaria and therefore possesses fewer of the aforementioned wing characters that place it within Mesomantispinae. Karataumantispa monstruosa however shares some similarities with other mesomantispines, Mesomantispa and Archaeodrepanicus, with the presence of 3r1-rs and the position of 2r1-rs. On the venation drawings in the original description of K. monstruosa ( Khramov, 2013: Figs. 9–11) the fusion of Sc and R is shown in the forewing, this however has not been confirmed from the study of high resolution images of the specimen, however the subcostal space is distally dilated, and the hind wing shows that Sc curves towards R1 ( Fig.3 C). The cubital area is also poorly preserved. It was originally described as the CuA being dichotomously branched and CuP deeply forked, however from the photograph and drawings ( Khramov, 2013: Figs. 9–11) the structure of the cubital area cannot be interpreted with confidence. K. monstruosa is therefore tentatively placed within Karataumantispa gen. nov. (pending the discovery of better preserved specimens) due to it differing slightly in foreleg structure, it has a much broader tibia and femur, covered with numerous small hairs and smaller spines (with respect to femur), and the pronotum is also stouter than K. carnaria .

Figures

FIGURE 2. Photograph of Mesithone maculata Panfilov 1980 (holotype) highlighting the differences in venation to Karataumantispa gen. nov. (Photograph: V. N. Makarkin).

FIGURE 3. A) Karataumantispa carnaria (Khramov, 2013) (holotype) with CuA highlighted. B. Karataumantispa carnaria (Khramov, 2013) close up of forewing venation (holotype). C. Karataumantispa monstruosa (Khramov, 2013) close up of hind wing venation (holotype). All wings with annotated wing venation, highlighting the major differences that exclude them from Mesithone: the fusion of R and M, the distal widening of the subcostal space, Sc bending towards R 1 space, and CuA pectinate. (Photographs: A. Khramov).