New Evanioid Wasps from the Cenomanian of Myanmar (Hymenoptera: Othniodellithidae, Aulacidae), with a Summary of Family-Group Names Among Evanioidea

Abstract

Three new evanioid wasps (Euhymenoptera: Evanioidea) are described and figured from individuals preserved in mid-Cretaceous (earliest Cenomanian) amber from northern Myanmar. The new species represent the families Othniodellithidae and Aulacidae, both previously recorded from Burmese amber. Xenodellitha preta, new genus and species, is the second othniodellithid wasp and the diagnosis of the family is slightly emended in order to accommodate this species. The subfamily Hyptiogastritinae (Aulacidae) is expanded to include Protofoenus Cockerell and a third genus from Burmese amber. Archeofoenus tartaricus, new genus and species, is the third known species of the extinct aulacid subfamily Hyptiogastritinae, differing from Hyptiogastrites electrinus Cockerell in the low position of the discal cell and the open subdiscal cell in the forewing, and from Protofoenus swinhoei Cockerell in the form of the head and mandible, coloration, and forewing venational details. Together, Archeofoenus and Protofoenus are placed in Archeofoenini, new tribe. The last species is similar to the genus Electrofoenus Cockerell, and together they are classified in Electrofoenini among the Aulacidae. Electrofoenops diminuta, new genus and species, is distinguished from Electrofoenus on the basis of wing venation. The significance of these taxa is briefly discussed and a summary of available family-group names among Evanioidea is appended.

A new genus and species of Aulacidae (Hymenoptera: Evanioidea) from mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber

“…Also its propleuron is extending forward to form a pronounced 'neck' (not present in †Bassidae). However, the current family rank of Baissidae might be challenged since lacking clear apomorphies (Rasnitsyn, 2013) and retaining several plesiomorphies (listed in Engel, 2017). With 11 preserved antennomeres, and a reduced hind wing venation (viz.…”

“…Following the key to suprageneric groups of Aulaciformes of Engel (2017), Paleoaulacus gen. nov. keys out near the tribes Aulcini and Electrofoenini. Engel (2017) proposed to use the relative positions of the eyes and antennae to separate Gasteruptiidae (see. Engel, 2017: Appendix: 'toruli never at or bordering ventral tangent of compound eyes') and Aulacidae (see.…”

“…These wasps were clearly more diverse during the Mesozoic than in the extant fauna, with records of fossils of all these families. Notice that , Engel (2017), and Turrisi & Ellenberger (2019) considered the praeaulacid subfamily †Nevaniinae as a different family but did not provide a clear phylogenetic argument or synapomorphy justifying such a placement. Thus we prefer to follow Zhang & Rasnitsyn (2007) and Li et al (2018), keeping the †Nevaniinae as a subfamily of †Praeaulacidae.…”

“…Furthermore, the monophyly of the family is well-supported (Jennings & Austin, 2000;Smith, 2001;Turrisi, 2006Turrisi, , 2007Turrisi, , 2014Turrisi et al, 2009;Turrisi & Madl, 2013). Mesozoic Aulacidae are not uncommon but only known from Burmese amber (burmite, Kachin, northern Myanmar) inclusions (Turrisi & Ellenberger, 2019) with 11 described species (Cockerell, 1917a(Cockerell, , 1917bEngel, 2017;Li et al, 2018;Turrisi & Ellenberger, 2019;Jouault et al, 2020). Cockerell (1916aCockerell ( , 1916bCockerell ( , 1917aCockerell ( , 1917bCockerell ( , 1920aCockerell ( , 1920b provided the first scientific studies on this amber.…”

“…Among the Evanioidea, the aulacid wasps are easily recognizable by an anterior margin of metasomal segment 1 distinctly separated from metanotum, and metatibia at most slightly widened toward apex (vs. metasomal segment 1 with anterior margin almost touching metanotum, and metatibia gradually enlarged or markedly swollen toward apex, appearing club-shaped) according to Goulet & Huber (1993). The Aulacidae comprise extant and fossil species, distributed in two subfamilies †Hyptiogastritinae (Engel, 2006(Engel, , 2017 and Aulacinae (Shuckard, 1841). Furthermore, the monophyly of the family is well-supported (Jennings & Austin, 2000;Smith, 2001;Turrisi, 2006Turrisi, , 2007Turrisi, , 2014Turrisi et al, 2009;Turrisi & Madl, 2013).…”