4.2 Article

The wing venation of the Protomyrmeleontidae (Insecta: Odonatoptera) reconsidered thanks to a new specimen from Molteno (Triassic; South Africa)

Journal

HISTORICAL BIOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 306-312

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08912963.2019.1616291

Keywords

Molteno Formation; Triassic; wing venation; Protomyrmeleontidae; stem-Odonata

Funding

  1. Action Transversale Museum Emergences
  2. DFG [WA 1492/12-1]
  3. Sorbonne Universites

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The wing venation homologies of Protomyrmeleontidae are debated, with a new Triassic species providing an alternative interpretation involving a unique venation pattern. This new interpretation challenges previous understandings and has implications for the systematic classification of these taxa.
Wing venation homologies of the Protomyrmeleontidae, a widespread group of damselfly-like stem-Odonata during the Triassic, are debated. The two main interpretations essentially disagree on the identification of RP branches. Indeed, Protomyrmeleontidae display a very complex wing venation necessarily involving, in a way or another, fusions of the concave RP branches with the convex intercalary veins. As a consequence, vein elevations in the radial area are challenging to interpret. Here, we present a new Triassic specimen from the Molteno Formation (Karoo Basin, South Africa), Moltenagrion koningskroonensis gen. et sp. nov. It displays a unique venation pattern supporting a new, alternative interpretation involving a pair of supplementary intercalaries. The systematic implications of this wing venation interpretation are then discussed. The new species is assigned to the new family Moltenagrionidae fam. nov., itself considered sister-group of the family Protomyrmeleontidae, as previously delimited, both composing the super-family Protomyrmeleontoidea. Diagnoses of these taxa are revised according to our new interpretation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available