Turanophlebia anglicana, Fleck & Bechly & Martínez-Delclòs & Jarzembowski & Nel, 2004

Fleck, Günther, Bechly, Günter, Martínez-Delclòs, Xavier, Jarzembowski, Edmund A. & Nel, André, 2004, A revision of the Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous dragonfly family Tarsophlebiidae, with a discussion on the phylogenetic positions of the Tarsophlebiidae and Sieblosiidae (Insecta, Odonatoptera, Panodonata), Geodiversitas 26 (1), pp. 33-60 : 42-45

Turanophlebia anglicana n. sp. ( Fig. 5 )

HOLOTYPE. — Specimen No. 018531, part and counterpart, Booth Museum of Natural History , Brighton, UK.

ETYMOLOGY. — After the latinised name of England.

GEOLOGICAL SETTING. — Lower Cretaceous, Lower Weald Clay, Upper Hauterivian, Clockhouse (Butterley) Brickworks, UK, National Grid Reference TQ 175385.

DIAGNOSIS. — Nel & Jarzembowski (1996: 91, fig. 4) attributed erroneously this specimen to a Campterophlebiidae genus and species incertae sedis. T. anglicana n. sp. differs from T. martynovi in the following character states: pterostigma covering only three cells instead of six; arculus slightly distal of Ax2; Ax1 shifted more distally; only one row of cells between C and RA distal of pterostigma. It differs from? T. sibirica in its smaller size (wing about 40 mm long against 45 mm for? T. sibirica ). It differs from T. neckini n. comb. in the presence of two to three rows of cells in the anal area instead of one to two rows in T. neckini n. comb. T. anglicana n. sp. differs from T. mongolica n. sp. in its vein “O” oblique and of better defined secondary longitudinal veins parallel to CuA. It differs from T. vitimensis n. sp. in the presence of only six rows of cells between CuA and posterior wing margin, instead of nine or 10, and of one row of cells in the most narrow part of postdiscoidal area instead of two.

DESCRIPTION

Imprint and counterimprint of a nearly complete hind wing. The counterpart was previously described alone by Nel & Jarzembowski (1996) and erroneously attributed to the Campterophlebiidae Handlirsch, 1920 . The error was due to its poor state of preservation. Fortunately, the imprint is very well preserved. The present redescription is based on its study. Wing probably hyaline, pterostigma dark brown; wing 39.7 mm long; 8.3 mm wide; distance from base to arculus, 6.4 mm; from arculus to nodus, 11.4 mm; from nodus to pterostigma, 15.5 mm, to apex, 22.1 mm; pterostigma elongated and narrow, 3.7 mm long, 0.5 mm wide, covering three cells, not basally recessed; pterostigmal brace oblique and strong, opposite pterostigma base; median and submedian areas free of cross-veins; CuP strongly curved, nearly opposite to Ax2, basally closing subdiscoidal space; primary antenodal braces Ax1 and Ax2 stronger than secondary antenodal cross-veins, with no visible cross-veins between them, 1.5 mm apart; Ax1 is 4.4 mm from wing base; arculus slightly distal of Ax2 (0.4 mm); 13 secondary antenodal cross-veins distal of Ax2, not aligned with the cross-veins of second rank between ScP and RA; 12 cross-veins in the area between RA and RP, between arculus and nodus; a long “gap” without cross-veins between arculus and RP3/ 4 in the area between RP and MA; MP + CuA strongly curved just before its fusion with MAb; a sharp angle between MP + CuA and MAb; presence of a long fusion between MAb and MP + CuA before CuA separates from MP, 1.4 mm long, characteristic of the Tarsophlebiidae ; RP + MA, MA and MAb, MP + CuA + MAb, and basal free part of CuA well aligned in arculus, as in other Tarsophlebiidae ; discoidal space basally opened; presence of a twocelled “tarsophlebiid pseudo-discoidal space” just distal of MAb in the postdiscoidal area; subdiscoidal area divided into two cells by a cross-vein; AA without any strong posterior branches; anal area with two or three rows of cells; posterior wing margin rounded; petiole short, 1.5 mm long; AA reaching free part of CuA at sharp angle; no CuAb (sensu Fleck et al. 2003); CuA without strong posterior branches; six or seven rows of small cells between CuA and posterior wing margin; a relatively long not zigzagged secondary vein (“postero-CuA vein”) closely parallel to distal part of CuA, in cubito-anal area and another one in area between MP and CuA (“antero-CuA vein”); CuA reaching posterior wing margin just distal to nodus level; area between MP and CuA with one row of cells in its basal part but greatly widened in its distal half, with about thirteen rows of cells along posterior wing margin; postdiscoidal area with two rows of cells in its basal part, narrowed in its mid part and slightly widened distally, with five or six rows of cells between MA and MP near posterior wing margin; bases of RP3/4 and IR2 between arculus and nodus, distinctly nearer to arculus, base of RP3/4 5.0 mm from nodus; base of IR2 apparently on RP3/4; nodal Cr and subnodus strongly oblique; base of RP2 aligned with subnodus; oblique vein “O” three small cells distal of base of RP2; numerous Bq cross-veins, but apparently no cross-vein in the basal part of areas between RA and RP, and between RP3/4 and IR2; 27 postnodal cross-veins between C and RA, not aligned with the 20 postsubnodal cross-veins; base of IR1 11 cells distal of that of RP2; IR1 well defined, not zigzagged and only slightly curved; one row of small cells in the area between C and RA distal of pterostigma; one row of cells between RP1 and IR1; five rows of cells in the area between IR1 and RP2, in its widest part; area between RP2 and IR2 distinctly widened distally, “antero-IR2” and “postero-IR2” veins long; a secondary longitudinal vein closely parallel to RP2; area between IR2 and RP3/4 distally widened; area between RP3/4 and MA distally widened; “antero-MA” and “postero- MA” veins long.

DISCUSSION

Because of the structures of the anal area, the basally opened discoidal space, the strongly curved MP + Cu, the long MAb + MP + CuA, the sharp angle between MP + Cu and MAb and the presence of a “tarsophlebiid pseudo-discoidal space”, this fossil is clearly a tarsophlebiid hind wing (Nel et al. 1993). It can be attributed to the genus Turanophlebia rather than to Tarsophlebia , because of its broad cubito-anal area, long IR1, numerous postnodal and antenodal cross-veins.

NOTES

1) As this fossil is not a Campterophlebiidae but a Tarsophlebiidae , the Isophlebioidea Handlirsch, 1906 remains unknown in the British Weald Clay.

2) Nel & Jarzembowski (1996) described Proeuthemis pritykinae from the Lower Weald Clay (Upper? Hauterivian), UK. Bechly (1997) attributed it to the Sphenophlebiidae Bechly, 1997 (in Isophlebioptera, Parazygoptera). Bechly (1997) also transferred the Euthemistidae Pritykina, 1968 from the Tarsophlebioidea to the Isophlebioptera Bechly, 1996.

3) Jarzembowski (1990) described two fossil fore wings from the British Lower Weald Clay

(Durlston Bay), he attributed to “ Tarsophlebia ?”

rather than to Turanophlebia , on the basis of the presence of only one row of cells in the area between C and RA, unlike Turanophlebia martynovi . As we can see above, this character alone is not sufficient to separate the two genera. Thus, the generic placement of these two fore wings within the Tarsophlebiidae is uncertain. B

Figures

FIG. 5. — Turanophlebia anglicana n. sp., holotype (No. 018531, Booth Museum of Natural History, Brighton, UK); A, complete wing, other wing is that of a Libelluloidae; B, reconstruction of the hind wing; C, detail of hind wing nodus. Abbreviations: Ax1, Ax2, primary antenodal cross-veins; CuP, Cubitus Posterior; IR2, intercalary vein of radial area; MA, Median Anterior. Scale bars: A, 10 mm; B, 5 mm; C, 1 mm.