taxonID	type	description	language	source
454F879CFFC7C334FF3858614CF685EA.taxon	description	Redescription of Electrocrania Kusnezov, 1941 stat. rev. Type species: Electrocrania immensipalpa Kusnezov, 1941. Head with erect, hair-like scales; ocelli present; maxillary palpus prominent, 5 - segmented; labial palpus small, probably 2 - segmented; pedicellus swollen, flagellum very thick, with conspicuously long branched ascoid sensillae (ciliated in the sense of Kusnezov); forewing with Sc and R 1 unforked, R 5 preapical or apical; spur formula 0 - 0 - 4; midtibia without spurs, but with fine bristles at distal end (= mesotibial spur as described by Kusnezov). Phylogeny. The following apomorphies support placement of Electrocrania in the Micropterigidae (Kristensen 1998): 1) Presence of ascoid sensillae on the antennae (present in both species, if the ciliation mentioned by Kusnezov is interpreted in that way); 2) the swollen pedicel (present in both species); 3) the greatly shortened labial palpus (present in both species); 4) the absence of spurs on the midtibia (spur formula 0 - 0 - 4: present in both species, if the single spur mentioned by Kusnezov is interpreted as bristle, like in E. michalskii). costal margin Sc of R 5 of Sc and R of R 1 of abdominal of male forewing forewing to hindwing forewing sternum V genitalia with unforked costa more or less simple glands process coalescent developed From all other Micropterigidae, except for an undescribed species from New Caledonia (Kristensen 1998), Electrocrania is distinguished by the unforked vein Sc of the forewing (a proposed apomorphy of Electrocrania, see table 1). Despite various interpretations of the venation in the type species of Electrocrania, E. immensipalpa, which indicate 6 or 7 veins reaching the costa and 4 – 7 postapical veins, this character is explicitely stated by Kusnezov in the description and also shown in his figure 2. In fig. 1, Kusnezov draws seven veins reaching the costa. The forking of Sc, suggested in this drawing, is very unlikely, since Sc 2 is drawn in the position of the Rstem, with the fork to Sc 1 (not shown) close to the wing basis and the arms reaching the costa at about 2 / 5 and 1 / 2, whereas normally these arms reach the costa at approximately 1 / 4 and 1 / 2 of the forewing length. The proposed forking of R 1 is very short and, like the proposed fusion of R 4 with R 5, is not observed in any other micropterigid moth in that form. Following Gibbs et al. (2004), Micropterigidae can be divided in five different lineages on the basis of DNAinvestigations of the 16 S rRNA gene. From the Micropterix lineage, Electrocrania is readily separated by the structure of the male genitalia, which do not bear appendages on the costal margin. From the Australian group and Sabatinca s. str. Electrocrania is distinguished by the unforked R 1 of the forewing and by the hindwing venation, where Sc and R are not coalescent. A pair of abdominal glands is usually present on sternum V in both sexes of Micropterigidae. The gland orifice however differs markedly between the Northern and the Southern Hemisphere genera, being a narrow slit in the former only and being absent in Micropterix and Hypomartyria (Kristensen 1984, Hashimoto 2006). In the Southern Hemisphere genera, however, it is well developed. Gland ducts in the sternum V of the abdomen are not discernible in Electrocrania, although the presence of a narrow slit cannot be excluded with certainty. Therefore, the genus cannot be placed among the Southern Hemisphere genera. The very thick antennae and the long branches of the ascoid sensillae are reminiscent however of genera like Epimartyria (North America) or Paramartyria (Japan). Despite the apical position of R 5 in the forewing (a synapomorphy or a parallelism with Micropterix) and the unforked Sc (an assumed autapomorphy of Electrocrania), Electrocrania is placed in the Northern Hemisphere genera, the latter maybe being the sister group of Micropterix (see table 1).	en	Kurz, Michael (2015): On the systematic position of Electrocrania Kusnezov, 1941 with the description of a new species from Baltic amber (Lepidoptera: Micropterigidae). Zootaxa 4044 (3): 446-450, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4044.3.7
454F879CFFC4C332FF385AB44D2F87E3.taxon	materials_examined	Material. Holotype male, Baltic amber, Lutetian Period of Eocene (Ritzkowski 1997), ID-no. www. nkis. info, MK- Z 29276, currently in coll. Michael Kurz, to be deposited in Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria. Preservation. The adult moth is completely preserved and mostly visible from a ventro-lateral view. Parts of the wings are hidden by schlieren in the amber, and the genitalia are partly covered by the wings.	en	Kurz, Michael (2015): On the systematic position of Electrocrania Kusnezov, 1941 with the description of a new species from Baltic amber (Lepidoptera: Micropterigidae). Zootaxa 4044 (3): 446-450, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4044.3.7
454F879CFFC4C332FF385AB44D2F87E3.taxon	etymology	Etymology. Named in honour of Artur Michalski, the vendor of the amber piece, who also allowed me to use his microphotos.	en	Kurz, Michael (2015): On the systematic position of Electrocrania Kusnezov, 1941 with the description of a new species from Baltic amber (Lepidoptera: Micropterigidae). Zootaxa 4044 (3): 446-450, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4044.3.7
454F879CFFC4C332FF385AB44D2F87E3.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Due to the the unforked Sc (a proposed apomorhy of the genus) and R 1 in the forewing, the thickened antennae with large ascoid sensillae and the enormously enlarged maxillary palpi, the new species is placed in Electrocrania besides the type species. E. michalskii can be separated from E. immensipalpa by the position of R 5 in the forewing, which is apical in E. michalskii, but preapical in E. immensipalpa. Furthermore, Sc and R 1 meet the costa at about 2 / 5, respectively, 1 / 2 of the forewing length in E. immensipalpa, whereas in E. michalskii the veins meet the costa at 1 / 2 and 3 / 5. Despite the difficulties in the interpretation of the venation of E. immensipalpa, these differences are considered to be of specific value. Furthermore, E. michalskii is slightly smaller than E. immensipalpa (forewing length 2.7 mm in E. michalskii compared to 3.2 mm in E. immensipalpa).	en	Kurz, Michael (2015): On the systematic position of Electrocrania Kusnezov, 1941 with the description of a new species from Baltic amber (Lepidoptera: Micropterigidae). Zootaxa 4044 (3): 446-450, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4044.3.7
454F879CFFC4C332FF385AB44D2F87E3.taxon	description	Description. Examined: 1 ♂. Forewing length: 2.7 mm. Head with erect, hair-like scales; eye semi-globular, app. 0.3 mm in diameter; ocelli present; maxillary palpus very long, in total nearly 1.3 mm, with 5 segments (app. 85, 185, 480, 400 and 130 µm in length); labial palpus very small, probably with 2 segments; antenna nearly 9 / 10 of forewing length, conspicuously thick; pedicellus swollen; antennal segments somewhat broader than long near basis, somewhat longer than broad apically, with conspicuously long branched ascoid sensillae (antennae therefore appear ciliated); mouth parts (maxillae) not recognizable; thorax and tegula shining golden; forewings pale reddish, golden shining; inner margin golden to 1 / 2 of forewing length and very indistinct additional spots also golden shining; spur formula of legs 0 - 0 - 4; epiphysis not recognizable; midtibia short, without spur, but with fine bristles at distal end; hindtibia with a pair of spurs each at about 0.7 of tibial length and apically; abdomen without recognizable duct of the S 5 gland (reduced or absent); genitalic and associated structures on segment 8 not recognizable. Venation. Forewing: Humeral vein present; Sc and R 1 unforked, Sc reaching costa at app. 1 / 2 of forewing length, R 1 at about 3 / 5; R 5 nearly apical (only a trace preapical); R 2 + R 3 on common stem; crossvein Sc-R not traceable; M 1 from crossvein R-M; M 2 and M 3 forking just beyond midlength from common M-stem; CuA forked at 3 / 4; CuP distinctly developed only in distal part; A 1 + A 2 fused just distad of 1 / 2 of their length, forming a basal loop. Hindwing: Sc and R 1 separate, but close together; R 1 emerging at app. 1 / 4 of wing length; R 2 + R 3 on common stem; R 5 running to apex; crossvein Sc-R probably present (not clearly visible); CuA probably forked; A 1 + A 2 present. Male genitalia. Not clearly visible in preparation; uncus very short; valves short and very broad.	en	Kurz, Michael (2015): On the systematic position of Electrocrania Kusnezov, 1941 with the description of a new species from Baltic amber (Lepidoptera: Micropterigidae). Zootaxa 4044 (3): 446-450, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4044.3.7
