The Weevil Fauna Preserved in Burmese Amber—Snapshot of a Unique, Extinct Lineage (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea)

On the nomenclatural status of type genera in Coleoptera (Insecta)

More than 4700 nominal family-group names (including names for fossils and ichnotaxa) are nomenclaturally available in the order Coleoptera. Since each family-group name is based on the concept of its type genus, we argue that the stability of names used for the classification of beetles depends on accurate nomenclatural data for each type genus. Following a review of taxonomic literature, with a focus on works that potentially contain type species designations, we provide a synthesis of nomenclatural data associated with the type genus of each nomenclaturally available family-group name in Coleoptera. For each type genus the author(s), year of publication, and page number are given as well as its current status (i.e., whether treated as valid or not) and current classification. Information about the type species of each type genus and the type species fixation (i.e., fixed originally or subsequently, and if subsequently, by whom) is also given. The original spelling of the family-group name that is based on each type genus is included, with its author(s), year, and stem. We append a list of nomenclaturally available family-group names presented in a classification scheme. Because of the importance of the Principle of Priority in zoological nomenclature, we provide information on the date of publication of the references cited in this work, when known. Several nomenclatural issues emerged during the course of this work. We therefore appeal to the community of coleopterists to submit applications to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (henceforth "Commission") in order to permanently resolve some of the problems outlined here. The following changes of authorship for type genera are implemented here (these changes do not affect the concept of each type genus): CHRYSOMELIDAE: Fulcidax Crotch, 1870 (previously credited to "Clavareau, 1913"); CICINDELIDAE: Euprosopus W.S. MacLeay, 1825 (previously credited to "Dejean, 1825"); COCCINELLIDAE: Alesia Reiche, 1848 (previously credited to "Mulsant, 1850"); CURCULIONIDAE: Arachnopus Boisduval, 1835 (previously credited to "Guérin-Méneville, 1838"); ELATERIDAE: Thylacosternus Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to "Bonvouloir, 1871"); EUCNEMIDAE: Arrhipis Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to "Bonvouloir, 1871"), Mesogenus Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to "Bonvouloir, 1871"); LUCANIDAE: Sinodendron Hellwig, 1791 (previously credited to "Hellwig, 1792"); PASSALIDAE: Neleides Harold, 1868 (previously credited to "Kaup, 1869"), Neleus Harold, 1868 (previously credited to "Kaup, 1869"), Pertinax Harold, 1868 (previously credited to "Kaup, 1869"), Petrejus Harold, 1868 (previously credited to "Kaup, 1869"), Undulifer Harold, 1868 (previously credited to "Kaup, 1869"), Vatinius Harold, 1868 (previously credited to "Kaup, 1869"); PTINIDAE: Mezium Leach, 1819 (previously credited to "Curtis, 1828"); PYROCHROIDAE: Agnathus Germar, 1818 (previously credited to "Germar, 1825"); SCARABAEIDAE: Eucranium Dejean, 1833 (previously "Brullé, 1838"). The following changes of type species were implemented following the discovery of older type species fixations (these changes do not pose a threat to nomenclatural stability): BOLBOCERATIDAE: Bolbocerusbocchus Erichson, 1841 for Bolbelasmus Boucomont, 1911 (previously Bolbocerasgallicum Mulsant, 1842); BUPRESTIDAE: Stigmoderaguerinii Hope, 1843 for Neocuris Saunders, 1868 (previously Anthaxiafortnumi Hope, 1846), Stigmoderaperoni Laporte & Gory, 1837 for Curis Laporte & Gory, 1837 (previously Buprestiscaloptera Boisduval, 1835); CARABIDAE: Carabuselatus Fabricius, 1801 for Molops Bonelli, 1810 (previously Carabusterricola Herbst, 1784 sensu Fabricius, 1792); CERAMBYCIDAE: Prionuspalmatus Fabricius, 1792 for Macrotoma Audinet-Serville, 1832 (previously Prionusserripes Fabricius, 1781); CHRYSOMELIDAE: Donaciaequiseti Fabricius, 1798 for Haemonia Dejean, 1821 (previously Donaciazosterae Fabricius, 1801), Eumolpusruber Latreille, 1807 for Euryope Dalman, 1824 (previously Cryptocephalusrubrifrons Fabricius, 1787), Galerucaaffinis Paykull, 1799 for Psylliodes Latreille, 1829 (previously Chrysomelachrysocephala Linnaeus, 1758); COCCINELLIDAE: Dermestesrufus Herbst, 1783 for Coccidula Kugelann, 1798 (previously Chrysomelascutellata Herbst, 1783); CRYPTOPHAGIDAE: Ipscaricis G.-A. Olivier, 1790 for Telmatophilus Heer, 1841 (previously Cryptophagustyphae Fallén, 1802), Silphaevanescens Marsham, 1802 for Atomaria Stephens, 1829 (previously Dermestesnigripennis Paykull, 1798); CURCULIONIDAE: Bostrichuscinereus Herbst, 1794 for Crypturgus Erichson, 1836 (previously Bostrichuspusillus Gyllenhal, 1813); DERMESTIDAE: Dermestestrifasciatus Fabricius, 1787 for Attagenus Latreille, 1802 (previously Dermestespellio Linnaeus, 1758); ELATERIDAE: Elatersulcatus Fabricius, 1777 for Chalcolepidius Eschscholtz, 1829 (previously Chalcolepidiuszonatus Eschscholtz, 1829); ENDOMYCHIDAE: Endomychusrufitarsis Chevrolat, 1835 for Epipocus Chevrolat, 1836 (previously Endomychustibialis Guérin-Méneville, 1834); EROTYLIDAE: Ipshumeralis Fabricius, 1787 for Dacne Latreille, 1797 (previously Dermestesbipustulatus Thunberg, 1781); EUCNEMIDAE: Fornaxaustrocaledonicus Perroud & Montrouzier, 1865 for Mesogenus Gemminger, 1869 (previously Mesogenusmellyi Bonvouloir, 1871); GLAPHYRIDAE: Melolonthaserratulae Fabricius, 1792 for Glaphyrus Latreille, 1802 (previously Scarabaeusmaurus Linnaeus, 1758); HISTERIDAE: Histerstriatus Forster, 1771 for Onthophilus Leach, 1817 (previously Histersulcatus Moll, 1784); LAMPYRIDAE: Ototretafornicata E. Olivier, 1900 for Ototreta E. Olivier, 1900 (previously Ototretaweyersi E. Olivier, 1900); LUCANIDAE: Lucanuscancroides Fabricius, 1787 for Lissotes Westwood, 1855 (previously Lissotesmenalcas Westwood, 1855); MELANDRYIDAE: Nothusclavipes G.-A. Olivier, 1812 for Nothus G.-A. Olivier, 1812 (previously Nothuspraeustus G.-A. Olivier, 1812); MELYRIDAE: Lagriaater Fabricius, 1787 for Enicopus Stephens, 1830 (previously Dermesteshirtus Linnaeus, 1767); NITIDULIDAE: Sphaeridiumluteum Fabricius, 1787 for Cychramus Kugelann, 1794 (previously Strongylusquadripunctatus Herbst, 1792); OEDEMERIDAE: Helopslaevis Fabricius, 1787 for Ditylus Fischer, 1817 (previously Ditylushelopioides Fischer, 1817 [sic]); PHALACRIDAE: Sphaeridiumaeneum Fabricius, 1792 for Olibrus Erichson, 1845 (previously Sphaeridiumbicolor Fabricius, 1792); RHIPICERIDAE: Sandalusniger Knoch, 1801 for Sandalus Knoch, 1801 (previously Sandaluspetrophya Knoch, 1801); SCARABAEIDAE: Cetoniaclathrata G.-A. Olivier, 1792 for Inca Lepeletier & Audinet-Serville, 1828 (previously Cetoniaynca Weber, 1801); Gnathoceravitticollis W. Kirby, 1825 for Gnathocera W. Kirby, 1825 (previously Gnathoceraimmaculata W. Kirby, 1825); Melolonthavillosula Illiger, 1803 for Chasmatopterus Dejean, 1821 (previously Melolonthahirtula Illiger, 1803); STAPHYLINIDAE: Staphylinuspolitus Linnaeus, 1758 for Philonthus Stephens, 1829 (previously Staphylinussplendens Fabricius, 1792); ZOPHERIDAE: Hispamutica Linnaeus, 1767 for Orthocerus Latreille, 1797 (previously Tenebriohirticornis DeGeer, 1775). The discovery of type species fixations that are older than those currently accepted pose a threat to nomenclatural stability (an application to the Commission is necessary to address each problem): CANTHARIDAE: Malthinus Latreille, 1805, Malthodes Kiesenwetter, 1852; CARABIDAE: Bradycellus Erichson, 1837, Chlaenius Bonelli, 1810, Harpalus Latreille, 1802, Lebia Latreille, 1802, Pheropsophus Solier, 1834, Trechus Clairville, 1806; CERAMBYCIDAE: Callichroma Latreille, 1816, Callidium Fabricius, 1775, Cerasphorus Audinet-Serville, 1834, Dorcadion Dalman, 1817, Leptura Linnaeus, 1758, Mesosa Latreille, 1829, Plectromerus Haldeman, 1847; CHRYSOMELIDAE: Amblycerus Thunberg, 1815, Chaetocnema Stephens, 1831, Chlamys Knoch, 1801, Monomacra Chevrolat, 1836, Phratora Chevrolat, 1836, Stylosomus Suffrian, 1847; COLONIDAE: Colon Herbst, 1797; CURCULIONIDAE: Cryphalus Erichson, 1836, Lepyrus Germar, 1817; ELATERIDAE: Adelocera Latreille, 1829, Beliophorus Eschscholtz, 1829; ENDOMYCHIDAE: Amphisternus Germar, 1843, Dapsa Latreille, 1829; GLAPHYRIDAE: Anthypna Eschscholtz, 1818; HISTERIDAE: Hololepta Paykull, 1811, Trypanaeus Eschscholtz, 1829; LEIODIDAE: Anisotoma Panzer, 1796, Camiarus Sharp, 1878, Choleva Latreille, 1797; LYCIDAE: Calopteron Laporte, 1838, Dictyoptera Latreille, 1829; MELOIDAE: Epicauta Dejean, 1834; NITIDULIDAE: Strongylus Herbst, 1792; SCARABAEIDAE: Anisoplia Schönherr, 1817, Anticheira Eschscholtz, 1818, Cyclocephala Dejean, 1821, Glycyphana Burmeister, 1842, Omaloplia Schönherr, 1817, Oniticellus Dejean, 1821, Parachilia Burmeister, 1842, Xylotrupes Hope, 1837; STAPHYLINIDAE: Batrisus Aubé, 1833, Phloeonomus Heer, 1840, Silpha Linnaeus, 1758; TENEBRIONIDAE: Bolitophagus Illiger, 1798, Mycetochara Guérin-Méneville, 1827. Type species are fixed for the following nominal genera: ANTHRIBIDAE: Decataphanesgracilis Labram & Imhoff, 1840 for Decataphanes Labram & Imhoff, 1840; CARABIDAE: Feroniaerratica Dejean, 1828 for Loxandrus J.L. LeConte, 1853; CERAMBYCIDAE: Tmesisternusoblongus Boisduval, 1835 for Icthyosoma Boisduval, 1835; CHRYSOMELIDAE: Brachydactylaannulipes Pic, 1913 for Pseudocrioceris Pic, 1916, Cassidaviridis Linnaeus, 1758 for Evaspistes Gistel, 1856, Ocnosceliscyanoptera Erichson, 1847 for Ocnoscelis Erichson, 1847, Promecothecapetelii Guérin-Méneville, 1840 for Promecotheca Guérin- Méneville, 1840; CLERIDAE: Attelabusmollis Linnaeus, 1758 for Dendroplanetes Gistel, 1856; CORYLOPHIDAE: Corylophusmarginicollis J.L. LeConte, 1852 for Corylophodes A. Matthews, 1885; CURCULIONIDAE: Hoplorhinusmelanocephalus Chevrolat, 1878 for Hoplorhinus Chevrolat, 1878; Sonnetiusbinarius Casey, 1922 for Sonnetius Casey, 1922; ELATERIDAE: Pyrophorusmelanoxanthus Candèze, 1865 for Alampes Champion, 1896; PHYCOSECIDAE: Phycosecislitoralis Pascoe, 1875 for Phycosecis Pascoe, 1875; PTILODACTYLIDAE: Aploglossasallei Guérin-Méneville, 1849 for Aploglossa Guérin-Méneville, 1849, Coloboderaovata Klug, 1837 for Colobodera Klug, 1837; PTINIDAE: Dryophilusanobioides Chevrolat, 1832 for Dryobia Gistel, 1856; SCARABAEIDAE: Achloahelvola Erichson, 1840 for Achloa Erichson, 1840, Camentaobesa Burmeister, 1855 for Camenta Erichson, 1847, Pinotustalaus Erichson, 1847 for Pinotus Erichson, 1847, Psilonychusecklonii Burmeister, 1855 for Psilonychus Burmeister, 1855. New replacement name: CERAMBYCIDAE: Basorus Bouchard & Bousquet, nom. nov. for Sobarus Harold, 1879. New status: CARABIDAE: KRYZHANOVSKIANINI Deuve, 2020, stat. nov. is given the rank of tribe instead of subfamily since our classification uses the rank of subfamily for PAUSSINAE rather than family rank; CERAMBYCIDAE: Amymoma Pascoe, 1866, stat. nov. is used as valid over Neoamymoma Marinoni, 1977, Holopterus Blanchard, 1851, stat. nov. is used as valid over Proholopterus Monné, 2012; CURCULIONIDAE: Phytophilus Schönherr, 1835, stat. nov. is used as valid over the unnecessary new replacement name Synophthalmus Lacordaire, 1863; EUCNEMIDAE: Nematodinus Lea, 1919, stat. nov. is used as valid instead of Arrhipis Gemminger, 1869, which is a junior homonym. Details regarding additional nomenclatural issues that still need to be resolved are included in the entry for each of these type genera: BOSTRICHIDAE: Lyctus Fabricius, 1792; BRENTIDAE: Trachelizus Dejean, 1834; BUPRESTIDAE: Pristiptera Dejean, 1833; CANTHARIDAE: Chauliognathus Hentz, 1830, Telephorus Schäffer, 1766; CARABIDAE: Calathus Bonelli, 1810, Cosnania Dejean, 1821, Dicrochile Guérin-Méneville, 1847, Epactius D.H. Schneider, 1791, Merismoderus Westwood, 1847, Polyhirma Chaudoir, 1850, Solenogenys Westwood, 1860, Zabrus Clairville, 1806; CERAMBYCIDAE: Ancita J. Thomson, 1864, Compsocerus Audinet-Serville, 1834, Dorcadodium Gistel, 1856, Glenea Newman, 1842; Hesperophanes Dejean, 1835, Neoclytus J. Thomson, 1860, Phymasterna Laporte, 1840, Tetrops Stephens, 1829, Zygocera Erichson, 1842; CHRYSOMELIDAE: Acanthoscelides Schilsky, 1905, Corynodes Hope, 1841, Edusella Chapuis, 1874; Hemisphaerota Chevrolat, 1836; Physonota Boheman, 1854, Porphyraspis Hope, 1841; CLERIDAE: Dermestoides Schäffer, 1777; COCCINELLIDAE: Hippodamia Chevrolat, 1836, Myzia Mulsant, 1846, Platynaspis L. Redtenbacher, 1843; CURCULIONIDAE: Coeliodes Schönherr, 1837, Cryptoderma Ritsema, 1885, Deporaus Leach, 1819, Epistrophus Kirsch, 1869, Geonemus Schönherr, 1833, Hylastes Erichson, 1836; DYTISCIDAE: Deronectes Sharp, 1882, Platynectes Régimbart, 1879; EUCNEMIDAE: Dirhagus Latreille, 1834; HYBOSORIDAE: Ceratocanthus A. White, 1842; HYDROPHILIDAE: Cyclonotum Erichson, 1837; LAMPYRIDAE: Luciola Laporte, 1833; LEIODIDAE: Ptomaphagus Hellwig, 1795; LUCANIDAE: Leptinopterus Hope, 1838; LYCIDAE: Cladophorus Guérin-Méneville, 1830, Mimolibnetis Kazantsev, 2000; MELOIDAE: Mylabris Fabricius, 1775; NITIDULIDAE: Meligethes Stephens, 1829; PTILODACTYLIDAE: Daemon Laporte, 1838; SCARABAEIDAE: Allidiostoma Arrow, 1940, Heterochelus Burmeister, 1844, Liatongus Reitter, 1892, Lomaptera Gory & Percheron, 1833, Megaceras Hope, 1837, Stenotarsia Burmeister, 1842; STAPHYLINIDAE: Actocharis Fauvel, 1871, Aleochara Gravenhorst, 1802; STENOTRACHELIDAE: Stenotrachelus Berthold, 1827; TENEBRIONIDAE: Cryptochile Latreille, 1828, Heliopates Dejean, 1834, Helops Fabricius, 1775. First Reviser actions deciding the correct original spelling: CARABIDAE: Aristochroodes Marcilhac, 1993 (not Aritochroodes); CERAMBYCIDAE: Dorcadodium Gistel, 1856 (not Dorcadodion), EVODININI Zamoroka, 2022 (not EVODINIINI); CHRYSOMELIDAE: Caryopemon Jekel, 1855 (not Carpopemon), Decarthrocera Laboissière, 1937 (not Decarthrocerina); CICINDELIDAE: Odontocheila Laporte, 1834 (not Odontacheila); CLERIDAE: CORMODINA Bartlett, 2021 (not CORMODIINA), Orthopleura Spinola, 1845 (not Orthoplevra, not Orthopleuva); CURCULIONIDAE: Arachnobas Boisduval, 1835 (not Arachnopus), Palaeocryptorhynchus Poinar, 2009 (not Palaeocryptorhynus); DYTISCIDAE: Ambarticus Yang et al., 2019 and AMBARTICINI Yang et al., 2019 (not Ambraticus, not AMBRATICINI); LAMPYRIDAE: Megalophthalmus G.R. Gray, 1831 (not Megolophthalmus, not Megalopthalmus); SCARABAEIDAE: Mentophilus Laporte, 1840 (not Mintophilus, not Minthophilus), Pseudadoretusdilutellus Semenov, 1889 (not P.ditutellus). While the correct identification of the type species is assumed, in some cases evidence suggests that species were misidentified when they were fixed as the type of a particular nominal genus. Following the requirements of Article 70.3.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature we hereby fix the following type species (which in each case is the taxonomic species actually involved in the misidentification): ATTELABIDAE: Rhynchitescavifrons Gyllenhal, 1833 for Lasiorhynchites Jekel, 1860; BOSTRICHIDAE: Ligniperdaterebrans Pallas, 1772 for Apate Fabricius, 1775; BRENTIDAE: Ceocephalusappendiculatus Boheman, 1833 for Uroptera Berthold, 1827; BUPRESTIDAE: Buprestisundecimmaculata Herbst, 1784 for Ptosima Dejean, 1833; CARABIDAE: Amaralunicollis Schiødte, 1837 for Amara Bonelli, 1810, Buprestisconnexus Geoffroy, 1785 for Polistichus Bonelli, 1810, Carabusatrorufus Strøm, 1768 for Patrobus Dejean, 1821, Carabusgigas Creutzer, 1799 for Procerus Dejean, 1821, Carabusteutonus Schrank, 1781 for Stenolophus Dejean, 1821, Carenumbonellii Westwood, 1842 for Carenum Bonelli, 1813, Scaritespicipes G.-A. Olivier, 1795 for Acinopus Dejean, 1821, Trigonotomaindica Brullé, 1834 for Trigonotoma Dejean, 1828; CERAMBYCIDAE: Cerambyxlusitanus Linnaeus, 1767 for Exocentrus Dejean, 1835, Clytussupernotatus Say, 1824 for Psenocerus J.L. LeConte, 1852; CICINDELIDAE: Ctenostomajekelii Chevrolat, 1858 for Ctenostoma Klug, 1821; CURCULIONIDAE: Cnemogonuslecontei Dietz, 1896 for Cnemogonus J.L. LeConte, 1876; Phloeophagusturbatus Schönherr, 1845 for Phloeophagus Schönherr, 1838; GEOTRUPIDAE: Lucanusapterus Laxmann, 1770 for Lethrus Scopoli, 1777; HISTERIDAE: Histerrugiceps Duftschmid, 1805 for Hypocaccus C.G. Thomson, 1867; HYBOSORIDAE: Hybosorusilligeri Reiche, 1853 for Hybosorus W.S. MacLeay, 1819; HYDROPHILIDAE: Hydrophilusmelanocephalus G.-A. Olivier, 1793 for Enochrus C.G. Thomson, 1859; MYCETAEIDAE: Dermestessubterraneus Fabricius, 1801 for Mycetaea Stephens, 1829; SCARABAEIDAE: Aulaciumcarinatum Reiche, 1841 for Mentophilus Laporte, 1840, Phanaeusvindex W.S. MacLeay, 1819 for Phanaeus W.S. MacLeay, 1819, Ptinusgermanus Linnaeus, 1767 for Rhyssemus Mulsant, 1842, Scarabaeuslatipes Guérin-Méneville, 1838 for Cheiroplatys Hope, 1837; STAPHYLINIDAE: Scydmaenustarsatus P.W.J. Müller & Kunze, 1822 for Scydmaenus Latreille, 1802. New synonyms: CERAMBYCIDAE: CARILIINI Zamoroka, 2022, syn. nov. of ACMAEOPINI Della Beffa, 1915, DOLOCERINI Özdikmen, 2016, syn. nov. of BRACHYPTEROMINI Sama, 2008, PELOSSINI Tavakilian, 2013, syn. nov. of LYGRINI Sama, 2008, PROHOLOPTERINI Monné, 2012, syn. nov. of HOLOPTERINI Lacordaire, 1868.

Phylogenomics illuminates the phylogeny of flower weevils (Curculioninae) and reveals ten independent origins of brood-site pollination mutualism in true weevils

Weevils are an unusually species-rich group of phytophagous insects for which there is increasing evidence of frequent involvement in brood-site pollination. This study examines phylogenetic patterns in the emergence of brood-site pollination mutualism among one of the most speciose beetle groups, the flower weevils (subfamily Curculioninae). We analysed a novel phylogenomic dataset consisting of 214 nuclear loci for 202 weevil species, with a sampling that mainly includes flower weevils as well as representatives of all major lineages of true weevils (Curculionidae). Our phylogenomic analyses establish a uniquely comprehensive phylogenetic framework for Curculioninae and provide new insights into the relationships among lineages of true weevils. Based on this phylogeny, statistical reconstruction of ancestral character states revealed at least 10 independent origins of brood-site pollination in higher weevils through transitions from ancestral associations with reproductive structures in the larval stage. Broadly, our results illuminate the unexpected frequency with which true weevils-typically specialized phytophages and hence antagonists of plants-have evolved mutualistic interactions of ecological significance that are key to both weevil and plant evolutionary fitness and thus a component of their deeply intertwined macroevolutionary success.

Phylogenomics of weevils revisited: data curation and modelling compositional heterogeneity

Weevils represent one of the most prolific radiations of beetles and the most diverse group of herbivores on land. The phylogeny of weevils (Curculionoidea) has received extensive attention, and a largely satisfactory framework for their interfamilial relationships has been established. However, a recent phylogenomic study of Curculionoidea based on anchored hybrid enrichment (AHE) data yielded an abnormal placement for the family Belidae (strongly supported as sister to Nemonychidae + Anthribidae). Here we reanalyse the genome-scale AHE data for Curculionoidea using various models of molecular evolution and data filtering methods to mitigate anticipated systematic errors and reduce compositional heterogeneity. When analysed with the infinite mixture model CAT-GTR or using appropriately filtered datasets, Belidae are always recovered as sister to the clade (Attelabidae, (Caridae, (Brentidae, Curculionidae))), which is congruent with studies based on morphology and other sources of molecular data. Although the relationships of the 'higher Curculionidae' remain challenging to resolve, we provide a consistent and robust backbone phylogeny of weevils. Our extensive analyses emphasize the significance of data curation and modelling across-site compositional heterogeneity in phylogenomic studies.

Were Arenga Palms (Arecaceae) Present in the Eocene? A Review of the Genus Succinometrioxena Legalov, 2012

It has been suggested that palms of the genus Arenga (Arecales: Arecaceae) or forms close to it were distributed in the Eocene of North America and Europe. Records of Metrioxenini (Belidae), which are monophages on these palms, confirm this assumption. A new species, Succinometrioxena andrushchenkoi Legalov, sp. n. from Baltic amber is described. The new species differs from S. poinari Legalov, 2012 in the smaller body sizes, elytral punctation larger than the distances between them, and a rostrum weakly curved in females. It is distinguished from S. bachofeni Legalov, 2013 and S. attenuata Legalov et Poinar, 2020 by the forehead lacking horn-like tubercles on either side of the eyes. A description of male of S. poinari was herein compiled for the first time. A list and key to fossil Metrioxenini were given. The modern and fossil distribution of the tribe Metrioxenini and Arenga palms was shown.

Fossil History of Ambrosia Beetles (Coleoptera; Platypodidae) with Description of a New Genus from Dominican Amber

The fossil record of ambrosia beetles is summarized and a new genus and species in the subfamily Mecopelminae, Gongyloceria dominicana gen. et sp. nov. is described. The new genus differs from the extant genus Mecopelmus Blackman, 1944, possessing weakly elongated tarsi, finely faceted eyes, a scape not reaching the posterior margin of the eye, coarsely sculptured pronotum and elytra, and a larger body size. It is the first Miocene record of the Mecopelminae. The genus Xyleborites Wickham, 1913, placem. n. is transferred from the Scolytidae to the Platypodidae. A list of the fossil Platypodidae, including a key to the subfamilies and tribes of ambrosia beetles, is presented. Xyleborites longipennis Wickham, 1913 and Gongyloceria dominicana sp. nov. may have been related to Paullinieae recorded from the late Eocene and the early Miocene of North and Central America. Distribution maps with fossil records for ambrosia beetles are included.

A remarkable assemblage of ticks from mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber

Four fossil ticks (Arachnida: Parasitiformes: Ixodida) are described from mid-Cretaceous (ca. 100 Ma) Burmese amber of Myanmar. Ixodes antiquorum sp. nov. (Ixodidae) is the first Mesozoic record of Ixodes and the oldest representative of the most species-rich extant tick genus. Its affinities appear to lie with modern Australian forms, consistent with the hypothesis that Burmese amber hosted Gondwanan faunal elements. Even more remarkable is Khimaira fossus gen. et sp. nov. which combines a body resembling that of a soft tick (Argasidae) with a basis capitulum more like that of a hard tick (Ixodidae). We refer it to Khimairidae fam. nov. as a possible transitional form between the two main families of ticks alive today. Another member of the extinct Deinocrotonidae is described as Deinocroton copia sp. nov., while the first described adult female for Cornupalpatum burmanicum is associated with a dinosaur feather barb.

Origin and evolution of fungus farming in wood-boring Coleoptera - a palaeontological perspective

Insect-fungus mutualism is one of the better-studied symbiotic interactions in nature. Ambrosia fungi are an ecological assemblage of unrelated fungi that are cultivated by ambrosia beetles in their galleries as obligate food for larvae. Despite recently increased research interest, it remains unclear which ecological factors facilitated the origin of fungus farming, and how it transformed into a symbiotic relationship with obligate dependency. It is clear from phylogenetic analyses that this symbiosis evolved independently many times in several beetle and fungus lineages. However, there is a mismatch between palaeontological and phylogenetic data. Herein we review, for the first time, the ambrosia system from a palaeontological perspective. Although largely ignored, families such as Lymexylidae and Bostrichidae should be included in the list of ambrosia beetles because some of their species cultivate ambrosia fungi. The estimated origin for some groups of ambrosia fungi during the Cretaceous concurs with a known high diversity of Lymexylidae and Bostrichidae at that time. Although potentially older, the greatest radiation of various ambrosia beetle lineages occurred in the weevil subfamilies Scolytinae and Platypodinae during the Eocene. In this review we explore the evolutionary relationship between ambrosia beetles, fungi and their host trees, which is likely to have persisted for longer than previously supposed.

The Fossil Record of Elateridae (Coleoptera: Elateroidea): Described Species, Current Problems and Future Prospects

The Elateridae (click-beetles) are the largest family in Elateroidea; however, their relationships, systematics and classification remain unclear. Our understanding of the origin, evolution, palaeodiversity and palaeobiogeography of Elateridae, as well as reconstruction of a reliable time-calibrated phylogeny for the group, are hampered by the lack of detailed knowledge of their fossil record. In this study, we summarize the current knowledge on all described fossil species in Elateridae, including their type material, geographic origin, age, bibliography and remarks on their systematic placement. Altogether, 261 fossil species classified in 99 genera and nine subfamilies are currently listed in this family. The Mesozoic click-beetle diversity includes 143 species, with most of them described from the Jurassic Karatau, and 118 described species are known from the Cenozoic deposits, mainly from the Eocene North American Florissant Formation and European Baltic amber. Available data on the described past diversity of Elateridae suggest that almost all fossil lineages in this group are in urgent need of revision and numerous Mesozoic species might belong to different families. Our study is intended to serve as a comprehensive basis for all subsequent research focused on the click-beetle fossil record.

New Genera and Species of the Family Throscidae (Coleoptera: Elateroidea) in Mid-Cretaceous Burmese Amber

Captopus depressiceps gen. et sp. nov., Electrothroscus yanpingae gen. et sp. nov. and Pseudopactopus robustus gen. et sp. nov. are reported from the mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber. These new findings greatly extend the Mesozoic diversity of Throscidae, which implies a high degree of morphological disparity for this family in the Cretaceous.

Unlocking the mystery of the mid-Cretaceous Mysteriomorphidae (Coleoptera: Elateroidea) and modalities in transiting from gymnosperms to angiosperms

The monospecific family Mysteriomorphidae was recently described based on two fossil specimens from the Late Cretaceous Kachin amber of northern Myanmar. The family was placed in Elateriformia incertae sedis without a clear list of characters that define it either in Elateroidea or in Byrrhoidea. We report here four additional adult specimens of the same lineage, one of which was described using a successful reconstruction from a CT-scan analysis to better observe some characters. The new specimens enabled us to considerably improve the diagnosis of Mysteriomorphidae. The family is definitively placed in Elateroidea, and we hypothesize its close relationship with Elateridae. Similarly, there are other fossil families of beetles that are exclusively described from Cretaceous ambers. These lineages may have been evolutionarily replaced by the ecological revolution launched by angiosperms that introduced new co-associations with taxa. These data indicate a macroevolutionary pattern of replacement that could be extended to other insect groups.

Cretaceous beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera) in amber: the palaeoecology of this most diverse group of insects

Beetles, the most successful group of invertebrates on Earth, have a worldwide distribution and an outstanding fossil record. In addition, they are well known as inclusions in fossil resin. In historical studies of fossil material, specimens were often named and described without placing the taxa in an ecological context. However, the research philosophy for fossil beetles has changed over the past few years. In this article, we summarize the palaeoecological interpretations of fossil beetles from Cretaceous ambers, which includes species from 69 families, most of which were described during the last 3 years. By analysing current habits of those families, we argue that saproxylicity was the most common feeding strategy for these fossil beetles. More specifically, fungivorous species appear to dominate. In contrast, we find only anecdotal evidence for the presence of wood-boring groups, and it is thus necessary to identify alternative abiotic or biotic processes that are responsible for the copious resin production at this time. Finally, the recent description of some beetles as gymnosperm pollinators during the Cretaceous lends more weight to the importance of amber studies in addressing the role of beetles in the evolution of pollination strategies.