Grammapsychops lebedevi Martynova, 1954

Makarkin, Vladimir N., 2018, Re-description of Grammapsychops lebedevi Martynova, 1954 (Neuroptera: Psychopsidae) with notes on the Late Cretaceous psychopsoids, Zootaxa 4524 (5), pp. 581-594 : 583-585

Grammapsychops lebedevi Martynova, 1954

Figs 1–3

Grammapsychops lebedevi Martynova 1954: 1167 –1169, Fig. 1 ; Rohdendorf 1957: 40, 88, Fig. 18 [ Psychopidae (sic)]; Carpenter 1992: 351, Fig. 195,1; Engel & Grimaldi 2008: 13 (Tab. 6) [ Psychopsidae s. str.]; Peng et al. 2011: 120 (Tabl. 1).

Grammopsychops [sic] lebedevi: Martynova 1962 : Fig. 864; Kolosnitsyna 1964: 149 [Psychopsydidae (sic)]; Zherikhin 1978: 80 [ Psychopsidae ].

Re-description of the holotype . Hind wing ca. 41 mm long; maximum width (measured perpendicular to RA) 18.5 mm as preserved. Distal nygma absent; basal nygma not detected. Costal space strongly dilated along entire preserved length, slightly narrowed towards apex. Subcostal veinlets closely spaces, nearly all once to twice forked, becoming more oblique towards apex. Costal crossveins numerous, mainly arranged in gradate series orientated obliquely to anterior wing margin. Subcostal space narrow along entire length (its width in Fig. 3 is seen slightly narrower than in the reality as RA is convex and the space is at the angle); crossveins not preserved. ScP apically not fused with RA, entering margin well before wing apex. R broad; RA strongly convex, entering margin just before wing apex, with three long veinlets. RA (between RA and RP) space very narrow, slightly broadened distad; few distal crossveins detected. RP originates close to wing base, with 13 pectinate branches; broad proximally (up to origin of RP6 ). RP1 – RP6 broad proximally; RP1 – RP4 probably shallowly branched (their distal parts not preserved); RP5 – RP11 deeply dichotomously branched; RP12 , RP13 dichotomously branched, but more distally. Proximal branches of RP basally with setal sockets arranged mainly in two rows ( Fig. 2B ); distal parts of RP branches appear thin as located in deep depressions, and setal sockets not detected. M forked slightly distad origin of RP1 . MA, MP parallel, not branched for preserved proximal half (not preserved distally). Cu divided into CuA and CuP close to base of wing. CuA strongly concave, pectinately branched with nine preserved, very oblique branches (two of these deeply forked), their terminal parts not preserved. CuP with two anteriorly directed, parallel branches; their terminal parts not preserved. Anterior trace of AA1 fragmentarily preserved, close and parallel to posterior trace of CuP. Crossveins in radial to cubital spaces numerous, arranged mainly in many gradate series; distinct outer gradate series not detected; basal crossveins between R/RP and M/MA irregularly spaced. Distinct long convex fold between each vein and veinlet in their distal parts. Trichosors along costal and apical margins indistinct. Wing pattern not preserved, there are only small patches of dark pigmentation.

Holotype. Specimen PIN 846 /1-2 (part only), collected by Ivan V. Lebedev in 1951. An incomplete hind wing.

Type locality and horizon. Russia: Krasnoyarsk Region: District of Pirovskoe: right bank of the Kem’ River (left tributary of Yenisey River ), ca. 5 km upstream from the mouth of the Belaya River [57.971372°N 92.230036°E]; exposure 0 92, horizon 3. Late Cretaceous: Cenomanian (Simonovo Formation) .

Remarks. Martynova (1954) interpreted this wing as the left forewing, and she believed that its posterior margin is preserved (actually, it is not preserved, possibly inwardly folded). Based on this assumption, she designated veins accordingly and incorrectly, i.e., her M is actually five proximal branches of RP; Cu (CuA and CuP) is M (MA and MP); A1 is Cu (CuA and CuP); and A2 is AA1. The venation of the holotype shows that this is a hind wing because its CuA is clearly concave. Also, M is forked very proximally and the anterior trace of AA1 is proximally parallel to the posterior trace of CuP, which are more characteristic of the hind wing than of the forewing.

Martynova believed that the margins of the broad basal part of the vein R, then RP, are two parallel thin veins, i.e., R, then RP, and M in her interpretation (see Martynova 1954: Fig. 1 ). So, she considered ‘M’ running to the wing base as a separate vein and deeply forked into five branches (my RP1 to RP5). However, it is clearly visible that the basal parts of R and RP are broad and no break of RP between the origins of RP1 and RP6 exists ( Fig. 2B ).

The costal space of this wing is very broad assuming that it might be a forewing. However, the costal space of the hind wing of Cretapsychops decipiens Peng et al., 2010 is similarly configured to that of Grammapsychops lebedevi : it is very broad, wider than that of the forewing, and proximally more dilated than distally (see Peng et al. 2010: Fig. 3 ). Also, the costal spaces of the hind wing of Pulchroptilonia espatifata are configured rather similarly (see Martins-Neto 1997: Figs 8A, B).

Figures

FIGURES 1. Grammapsychops lebedevi Martynova, 1954, holotype PIN 846/1-2. A, specimen as preserved; B, original field label; C, PIN label. Scale bar is 2 mm.

FIGURES 2. Grammapsychops lebedevi Martynova, 1954, holotype PIN 846/1-2. A, proximal part of the forewing; B, a portion of RP and its branches (some setal sockets on veins are shown by red arrows). Scale bars are 2 mm (A), 0.4 mm (B).

FIGURES 3. Forewing venation of Grammapsychops lebedevi Martynova, 1954, holotype PIN 846/1-2. Scale bar is 2 mm.