Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 68 (1) 2021, 81-99 | DOI 10.3897/dez.68.60611 > PENSUFT. yee BERLIN A new fossil species of the genus Bibio, with an update on bibionid flies from Baltic and Rovno amber (Diptera, Bibionidae) John Skartveit! 1 NLA University College Bergen, P.O. Box 74 Sandviken, N-5812 Bergen, Norway http://zoobank.org/2AD03B67-2D3B-4B03-A 373-59854A506F3E Corresponding author: John Skartveit (John.Skartveit@NLA.no) Academic editor: S. Wedmann @ Received 10 November 2020 # Accepted 14 January 2021 @ Published 27 January 2021 Abstract Species of Bibionidae from Baltic amber are reevaluated based on newly discovered material, and a key to the species 1s given. Bibio succineus sp. nov. 1s described based on one male specimen, this 1s the first Bibio named from Baltic amber. The males of Hesperinus electrus Skartveit, 2009 and Penthetria montanaregis Skartveit, 2009 are redescribed. A single, autoclave treated specimen of Pen- thetria sp. 1s described but not formally named. Plecia tenuicornis Skartveit, 2009 is found to be a synonym of Plecia hoffeinsorum Skartveit, 2009, this species is recorded for the first time from Rovno amber, and both sexes of the species redescribed. Additional specimens of Plecia clavifemur Skartveit, 2009 and Dilophus crassicornis Skartveit, 2009 are described. Two female specimens probably belonging to the species discussed as Dilophus sp. by Skartveit (2009) are described, but not formally named. Key Words Dilophus, Hesperinus, Penthetria, Plecia, Eocene Introduction Bibionid flies are a very abundant group in European Ter- tiary insect fossil deposits (e.g., Skartveit and Nel 2017), where they frequently make up a large percentage of the total insect specimens. On the other hand, bibionid spec- imens are relatively scarce among amber fossils, though a number of species have been described from European amber fossils (Gee et al. 2001; Skartveit 2009). Outside Europe, bibionid flies are known from Cretaceous Cana- dian (Peterson 1975), Miocene Dominican (Waller et al. 2000; Skartveit and Bechly 2013) and Chiapas (Hardy 1971) amber. Rovno amber comes from mines in Rivne Oblast, Ukraine (Perkovsky et al. 2010). The deposits have been dated to the Lower Oligocene, suggesting a younger age than Baltic amber (Perkovsky et al. 2010), though more recently it has been redated to the late Eo- cene (Perkovsky and Makarkin 2019). While the fauna in Rovno amber is rather similar to the one in Baltic amber, suggesting they are of the same age and origin (e.g., Dlussky and Rasnitsyn 2009; Szwedo and Sontag 2013), some differences have been noted between the two palaeofaunas (Perkovsky et al. 2007), with about 100 taxa found in Rovno amber not recorded from Bal- tic amber (Perkovsky et al. 2010). Rovno and Baltic amber are very similar in chemical composition; how- ever, analyses of stable carbon and hydrogen isotopes in Rovno, Bitterfeld and Baltic amber suggest that Rov- no amber is of similar age to Baltic amber, but origi- nated in a more southerly location (Mand et al. 2018). Bibionid flies have not previously been recorded from Rovno amber. I (Skartveit 2009) reviewed a reasonably large mate- rial of bibionids from Baltic amber. Subsequently, some additional specimens have surfaced which can shed some light on the Baltic amber bibionid fauna; they are de- scribed here. Copyright John Skartveit. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 82 Methods The present paper is based on 16 specimens of Bibionidae in Baltic amber. The specimens were in cut and polished pieces of amber acquired through commercial dealers, un- fortunately without any information on where they were collected except that they were from Baltic (or Rovno) am- ber. The dealers provided digital images of the specimens, I carried out further studies of the specimens under stereo mi- croscopes (Olympus SZ61, WildM3Z), photographs were taken with digital cameras (Nikon 4500, Olympus E3), I collected measurements using measuring oculars. I made line drawings based on digital images of the specimens. Wing vein nomenclature mainly follows Merz and Haenni (2000), with the modification that the section of R between crossvein R-M and R,,, is referred to as R,, .. Results John Skartveit: Baltic and Rovno amber Bibionidae The segment of M basal to R-M is referred to as “basal M”, the segment between R-M and furcation as “distal M”. The naming of the veins is shown in Fig. 12. Repositories, Institutional acronyms or Institutional abbreviations CCHH_ Collection of Christel and Hans-Werner Hof- feins, Hamburg, Germany, to be deposited in SDEI. JS Author’s collection, to be deposited in SDEI. MHNN Museum d’histoire naturelle, Neuchatel, Swit- zerland. SDEI = Senckenberg Deutsches Entomologisches In- stitut, Muncheberg, Germany. Key to the species of Bibionidae known from Baltic amber Plecia borussica Meunier, 1907 is not included since I have not been able to locate any material of it, and Plecia sp. 3 of Skartveit (2009) is not included since the antennae were impossible to see in the specimen at hand. The former species should be recognisable by the gonostyli being obviously expanded apically, the latter by the epandrium having a sharp spine in the middle. 1 kegs sloncetetemGrac-and TIDlae h@it Le MOLISE: 55 a 25 Fs.da restos) ecey Gee Pee oes ots sseicd SOE Sake es Pee PesSae toe habeas 2) oben eee a 2a 2 — Legs thickened, at least fore femorae clearly expanded (BIDIONINAC)...............c.cccceececsececeececeeeeceeeeceseeseeeeseeseseseeaenaes alge 2 Antenna longer than head (Pigs). COenuUSdies Penns a adie «cuss toda eacalen Maw ena Nd Patan saree eeite Paes Ma eange aeeh oe 3 — Antenharshertetethaiimeacl Riss M Gk Zaller ces Fa oe dace be sewlie es 2 lp aPt fice gen ATER Sehe atrpiiee Seles SHAME LS 28 ipl woary last bsiter eT yee 5 3 Antennal flagellum 10-segmented. Wing hyaline with unpigmented veins and invisible pterostigma (female only co seen: Ae seman eee Hesperinus hyalopterus Skartveit, 2009 — Antennal flagellum 7—8-segmented. Wing with veins brownish, pterostigma more or less visible (males only known).... 4 4 Head strongly dichoptic, complex eyes widely separated dorsomedially. Gonostylus curved and sharply pointed patch ehedta bs oi eames Hesperinus electrus Skartveit, 2009 — Head weakly dichoptic, complex eyes nearly meeting dorsomedially. Gonostylus nearly straight and blunt.................... b eee a eirosiets OF Meas ote Hesperinus macroculatus Skartveit, 2009 5 Vein R,, unforked, no vein R,,, (possibly a teratology, but known from twO SPECIMENS)..........cceeeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenn en eeeees — Vein R,, forked, with a clear vein R,,,(Figs 15, 18-20) 6 Wing with R,,. straight, forming a sharp angle with R 24+3 — Wing with R 24+3 as (Figs 15, 18). Male terminalia with strong, blunt gonostyli and bilebateepamdrigin CF tgs lei) oc chiides :P pola lea yecdeiblec og fen oneee more or less curved, forming a less sharp angle with R,,. (Figs 19, 20). Male terminalia not so, epandrium not clearly bilobate. (@enUS PIECIA) ...........ccccceeceeceeeee seca PAWS aero: SAE. nek eee Penthetria integroneura Skartveit, 2009 7 Vein R,,, originates near base of Rs, so that the segment R,, is not much more than half as long as R,,.(Figs 2, 15)... Piece orc ee ete Bs ek Penthetria montanaregis Skartveit, 2009 — Vein R,,, originates near middle of Rs, so that the segment R,. is nearly as long as R,,. (Figs 3, 18)........ Penthetria sp. 8 Wing with R,,, kinked at junction with R,,,, which is short and almost vertical (Fig. 4)....Plecia clavifemur Skartveit, 2009 — Wing with R,,,. not kinked at junction with R,,,, which is longer and less steep (Figs 19, 20) .........cccecceeceseeneeeeeeeeeee eens 9 9 Antentia withisiagelluimi-S-seemented hiss 21 22). sso ccc ties coomman ge ee doracy andes Soumace ip Pe eetbinnryedgulidea ppredgtuheytysecuiised yee dgnn 10 — Antenna Wri Hagelin SeCnitentee # Fa. z). asks akeachy ee sane 0 ease yc poets eens ada Geo ee pe acden aeh eoeedead ca eee emo Steed Jnl 10 Wing with strong microtrichia, pterostigma dorsally densely pilose. Male: gonostylus straight, long and slender (Fig. 23). Female eye small, not strongly protruding (Fig. 22) (FigS 5-7)..........cccccceeeeaeeeeeeaeeeees Plecia hoffeinsorum Skartveit, 2009 — Wing with fine microtrichia, pterostigma not conspicuously pilose. Male unknown. Female eye large and protruding..... Fe Fen eth Sp eh ee Plecia prisca Meunier, 1899 11 Larger, mesonotum length about 1.6 mm. Female only KNOwnN................ccccceeeeenee eee enes Plecia brunniptera Skartveit, 2009 — Smaller, mesonotum length about 0.8 mm. Male only KNOwN ..............ccccc ccc nee eee eee eee eeeeeneenees Plecia sp. 1 Skartveit, 2009 dez.pensoft.net Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 68 (1) 2021, 81-99 12 83 Thorax without spines on pronotum and mesonotum (Fig. 25). Anterior tibia without mesal spines and apical spine circlet (Fig. 26) Thorax with transverse rows of spines on pronotum and mesonotum (Fig. 29). Anterior tibia with mesal spines and apicalss Pine-circletetriosSO eco e MUSH OMS) hi i-Mate Nth 5, eee PUN UE SPP 2 a EE cel ER NS PII Se ee Rs does not extend to M, with a short but distinctive crossvein R-M. (Figs 8, 24) ..........cccccceee eee Bibio Succineéus sp. nov. Rs extends to M and merges with it for a short distance (GENUS BIDIOCES) .............ccccceceececeeceeeececeeeceeeceeeseseeseseeaeeees Larger species, body length 4-4.5 mm. Male hind first tarsomere swollen. Male gonostylus bilobate ..................cccceeeees Ae sterner nage ahh ree teed etna dome eh Peta h ee sate mete ee eR RAR adem ae PLAN ae EReetce et RE Bibiodes balticus Skartveit, 2009 Very small species, body length 2.5-3 mm. Male hind first tarsomere not swollen. Male gonostylus simple digitiform.... Bibiodes nanus Skartveit, 2009 Antenna short and stout, flagellum 6—7-segmented (Fig. 29). Protibial mesal spines long and erect (Fig. 30) (Fig. 9).... beck: AE ee AR Rd oo KAR EP, hs CA Re ne ea AN aks KM As ee RET cD Dilophus crassicornis Skartveit, 2009 Antenna longer, more slender, flagellum with at least 9 segments (Fig. 33). Protibial mesal spines not long and erect (ia 4 ei was? Reece ahoks stan cthalaa rents ee Samet net Ack ie DAA MME ct AeED ss MRR anal: Oct, SANs center e« u e n ed Ae ale 16 16 Antennal flagellum 9-10-segmented, not very slender (Fig. 33). Fore tibia with 2+2 mesal spines (Fig. 34) (ptireds gis BG RIAIAES ten a Ucar dre en Aa A Aa A ee ee ee RA eh Ea SS CP OR A oe Dilophus sp. — Antennal flagellum 12-segmented, slender. Fore tibial spines OtherwiSe.................ccccscceceeeeceececeseecsseesseeeseseeeseeeseeees 17 Fore tibia with 2+3 strong, mesal spines. Antenna longer, nearly as long as head..... Dilophus succineus Skartveit, 2009 Fore tibia with 1+2 rather small, mesal spines. Antenna shorter, considerably shorter than head...............cccccceceeeeeeeeees Dilophus palaeofebrilis Skartveit, 2009 Taxonomy Hesperinus electrus Skartveit, 2009: 5—7 Figs 1, 12-14 Holotype (male) SDEI Dip-00832 — CCHH #1093-1. Additional material (male) CCHH # 1789-1 Updated description of the species including type Note. The species was described based on a single, male specimen (Skartveit 2009). One additional male speci- men has turned up which shows details in wing venation and terminalia better than the type. a < ae vat eee Figure 1. Hesperinus electrus, male. CCHH # 1789.1. Photo: Christel and Hans-Werner Hoffeins. specimen (some measurements from the holotype cor- rected): Total length 4.35-4.40 mm (N = 2). Colour dark brownish, body semi-matt, covered with short, coarse, dark hairs. sce, dez.pensoft.net 84 Figure 2. Penthetria montanaregis, male. JS-Baltic-001. Photo: Marius Veta. SC ee RES. | PEO ee, emai ee as ¥ ~— = “A fina ™ i Sn is Wheeler ae * Figure 3. Penthetria sp., female. SDEI Dip-00823 — CCHH#1789-4. Photo: Christel and Hans-Werner Hoffeins. dez.pensoft.net John Skartveit: Baltic and Rovno amber Bibionidae Head (Fig. 13): Length 0.47—0.52 mm (N = 2). Clearly dichoptic, complex eyes separated in frons by about the width of ocellar tubercle. Ocellar tubercle medium-sized, fairly prominent. Complex eye somewhat reniform, con- cave posteriorly, without apparent intraocular setae. Oc- ciput with rather dense, short, dark pile. Antenna slen- der, about one and a half times as long as head, flagellum 0.78 mm long, 0.06 mm wide (N = 2), eight-segmented, all flagellomeres clearly longer than wide, with dark setae about as long as the width of the flagellomeres. Pedicel conical, pedicel and first flagellomere wider than the rest of flagellum. Palp brown, relatively long, last segment cylindrical. Mouthparts, apart from palp, not conspicu- ously developed. Thorax: Length 0.90-0.92 mm (N = 2), width 0.55 mm (N = 1). Reddish brown with darker vittae around no- taulix and anterolaterally at humerus, semi-matt, grayish pruinose, with sparse, short setae. Mesonotum with deep sulci. Pleura bare, densely grayish pruinose except for glabrous patches posteriorly on katepisternum and epi- meron. Haltere brown. Wing (Fig. 12) Length 4.18—4.35 mm (N = 2), width 1.32-1.52 mm (N = 2), length/width = 2.75—3.30 (wing of holotype may be slightly folded). Very slightly brown- ish fumose, membrane with very fine microtrichia, veins fine and brown throughout. Pterostigma not apparent. Costa with fine setulae about as long as width of vein, extends to nearly half-way between apices of R,,, and M.. Humeral vein short and oblique. R,,, rather long, oblique, basally bent. R,,. strongly curved. R-M nearly vertical. M-veins apically very fine, hardly visible at wing edge, a 4 - ed y we. Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 68 (1) 2021, 81-99 85 Figure 4. Plecia clavifemur, female. JS-Baltic-003. Photo: Jonas Damzen. i Figure 5. Plecia hoffeinsorum, male. JS-Baltic-004. Photo: Figure 6. Plecia hoffeinsorum, female. JS-Baltic-006. Photo: Marius Veta. Marius Veta. dez.pensoft.net 86 John Skartveit: Baltic and Rovno amber Bibionidae , 2 TS — \ i " Figure 7. Plecia hoffeinsorum, male, Rovno amber. JS-Baltic-008. Photo: Jonas Damzen. = a ae ees a = Figure 8. Bibio succineus sp. nov., holotype, male. JS-Baltic-009. Photo: Marius Veta. dez.pensoft.net Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 68 (1) 2021, 81-99 87 Figure 10. Dilophus sp., female. JS-Baltic-010. Photo: John Skartveit. dez.pensoft.net 88 John Skartveit: Baltic and Rovno amber Bibionidae Figure 12. Hesperinus electrus, male, wing. Scale bar: 1 mm. little curved basad. CuA, straight, CuA, apically strong- ly curved basad. CuP fine, gently curved, reaches wing edge. Length of wing veins in mm (N = 2) subcosta 2.2— 2.3, basal R 1.0—1.3, distal R, 1.5—-1.6, Rs 0.45—0.55, R, , 0.62—-0.65, R,,, 0.75-0.91, R,,, 1.6-1.8, R-M 0.14, bas- al M 1.4, distal M 0.30—-0.38, M, 1.8, M, 1.5-1.6, M-Cu 0.10-0.15, CuA 1.0-1.4, CuA, 1.7-2.0, CuA, 1.3-1.6. Legs: Dark brown, long and slender, clad with strong, short, dark pile. Fore tibia with one, mid- and hind-tibiae with two short, straight, dark spurs. Tarsi very slender. Leg measurements (N = 2 unless otherwise stated) fore femur 1.4—-1.5 mm long, fore tibia 1.4 mm long (N = 1), fore first tarsomere 0.77 mm long (N = 1), mid femur 1.5 mm long (N = 1), mid tibia 1.3 mm long (N = 1), dez.pensoft.net hind femur 1.6—1.9 mm long, 0.12 mm wide (N = 1), hind tibia 1.8—2.1 mm long, 0.09 mm wide (N = 1), hind first tarsomere 0.86 mm long (N = 1). Abdomen: Dark brown, cylindrical, slender, rather densely clad with dark brown pile. Length 3.1 mm, width 0.5 mm (N = 1). Terminalia (Fig. 14): Width of hypopygium 0.47 mm (N = 1). Hypopygium slightly expanding apicad, clad with short, dark pile. Gonostylus curved and _ sharp- ly pointed, 0.24 mm long (N = 1). Posterior edge of gonocoxosternite almost straight. Epandrium apparently quite small, not possible to see clearly, probably round- ed-rectangular. Ejaculatory apodeme large and promi- nent, apically dome-shaped. Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 68 (1) 2021, 81-99 a i.) °o - i=) ° ° ’ ° ? ° ° ° 4° ° Ms 2° s ~ Pak: ° ° @ Pa, o® %% yz “Lf pf r if Figure 14. Hesperinus electrus, male, terminalia. Scale bar: 0.1 mm. Discussion. The original description was found to con- tain some errors, e.g., the flagellum has eight, not seven segments, and is shorter than stated in the description. The poorly developed mouthparts suggest that this species did not feed in the adult stage, this may be a general trait for Hesperinus species as all seem to have very small mouth- parts. The genus Hesperinus has frequently been referred to a separate family, the Hesperinidae (e.g., Krivosheina 1997). However, molecular evidence suggests that the ge- nus belongs in the Bibionidae (Sevéik et al. 2016) and this is also supported by fossil material, where Hesperinus and Penthetria species look far more similar than in the modern species. Hence, I prefer to place Hesperinus and Penthetria together in the subfamily Hesperininae in Bibionidae (Skartveit and Ansorge 2020). 89 Penthetria montanaregis Skartveit, 2009: 13 Figs 2, 15-17 Note. The species was described based on a single, male specimen (Skartveit 2009), however this specimen was to a large extent covered by white emulsion (Verlumung). The present specimen clarifies some aspects of the spe- cies’ morphology. Holotype, male, MHNN 972. Additional material, male, JS-Baltic-001, in piece of amber 39323 mm. Redescription of the species. Male: Total length 6.3— 7.9 mm (N = 2). Colour uniormly dark, probably brown- ish-black in life. Head (Fig. 16): Length 0.75 mm, width 1.05 mm (N = 1). Only just holoptic, complex eyes in contact only 2—3 ommatidia, meeting at distance similar to diameter of ocellar tubercle anterior to tubercle. Complex eye nearly bare, with very short, fine and sparse intraocular hairs. Ocellar tubercle small but fairly prominent, with few strong, short, dark brown setae on posterior face. Ros- trum not protruding. Palp not possible to see in this spec- imen. Antenna: flagellum slightly conical, 8-segmented, 0.58 mm long, 0.09 mm wide, segments subquadrate when seen laterally. Thorax: Length 1.35—1.84 mm (N = 2), width 1.16 mm (N = 1, smaller specimen). Dorsal side covered by Verlu- mung, surface structure not possible to see. With irreg- ularly biseriate, short and fine, dark dorsocentral setae, notum otherwise practically bare. Haltere brown. Wing (Fig. 15): Length approximately 5.6 mm, width 2.0 mm, length/width = 2.8 (N = 1). The wing is some- what crumbled, exact vein measurements difficult to find. Brown fumose, costal cell mostly darkened, but unpig- mented basally of humeral crossvein. Pterostigma and veins dark brown, distinctive but not particularly strong. Costa with fine setulae, veins otherwise bare. Costa ex- tends a little beyond apex of R,,,. Humeral crossvein rather strong, vertical. Subcosta distinctive, relatively strong, but merges with R at humeral crossvein, not visi- ble basally. R,,, fine, straight, oblique, about 0.4 length of R,,,. R,,, moderately curved. R-M vertical. M basally not connected to R nor to CuA. Fork of M rather narrow. M-CuA pigmented only in posterior half (nearest CuA, ). CuA, rather straight, CuA, bent caudad in apical fourth. CuP not prominent. Vein lengths, all in mm: Basal R 2.25, Rs 0.86, R, , 0.36, R,,, 0.68, R,,, 1.58, R-M 0.17, basal M 2.25, distal M 0.45, M, 2.06, M, 1.61, M-CuA 0.15, CuA 1.54, CuA, 2.44, CuA, 1.73. Legs: Dark brown, densely clad with strong, short, dark setae. Femorae moderately clavate, all tibiae and tarsi slender. Tibial spurs dark, straight and sharp. Abdomen: Length 4.1 mm, width 0.9 mm (N = 1), slightly conical. Tergites shiny, brownish-black, with fine and rather short, dark brownish pile. Terminalia (Fig. 17): Width of hypopygium 0.71 mm (N = 1). Epandrium bilobate, lobes rounded with dense, rather long, dark brown setae. Gonocoxite with robust, dez.pensoft.net 90 John Skartveit: Baltic and Rovno amber Bibionidae Figure 15. Penthetria montanaregis, male, wing. Scale bar: | mm. Figure 16. Penthetria montanaregis, male, head and thorax. Scale bar: 1 mm. Figure 17. Penthetria montanaregis, male, terminalia. Scale bar: 0.1 mm. dez.pensoft.net dark brown setae, Gonostylus length 0.39 mm, rather long, straight, apically a little expanded, on posterior mar- gin with about 8 strong, dark brown setae. (note: the ap- parent shape of the gonostylus is rather different from the holotype of Penthetria montanaregis, but this is probably due to preservation in different angles. The apparent shape of the gonostylus in male Bibionidae is extremely depen- dent on perspective). Ejaculatory apodeme rather wide. Penthetria sp. Figs 3, 18 Material. Female, SDEI Dip-00823 — CCHH#1789-4, embedded in a clear amber block which has undergone autoclave treatment (C. Hoffeins, in /itt.). The species differs from Penthetria montanaregis in the following aspects: smaller, wing length about 4.5 mm, wing narrower, more than 3 times as long as wide (in bibi- onids, females generally have wider wings than conspe- cific males) with reduced anal lobe, R,,, placed more dis- tally so that the segment R, is almost as long as R, , (less than half as long in P. montanaregis), fork of M strongly asymmetrical (nearly symmetrical in Pmontanaregis), CuA, apically strongly curved basad (moderately curved basad in P. montanaregis). It differs from female Pen- thetria integroneura Skartveit, 2009 most conspicuously by the presence of R,,, and by the more strongly curved CuA-veins, also by the presence of strong setae dorsally on the thorax and apparently by the head shape, though the latter is likely affected by autoclave treatment. Description. Male unknown. Female (N = 1): Total length 5.0 mm. The specimen is of a uniform, dark colour, likely affected by the autoclaving. Head: length 0.58 mm. Apparent shape probably af- fected by autoclaving, outline of complex eye not pos- sible to see. Flagellum 0.42 mm long, 0.07 mm wide, 7-segmented, shape of flagellomeres obviously affect- ed by autoclaving. Palp relatively long, outer segments appear to be very slender, but this is likely an artefact caused by autoclaving. Thorax: Length 1.18 mm. Dorsally with some relative- ly long and strong, erect setae, details otherwise not pos- sible to make out. Haltere light brown. Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 68 (1) 2021, 81-99 Figure 18. Penthetria sp., female, wing. Scale bar: | mm. Legs: relatively long, femorae slightly clavate, tibiae apparently very slender (possibly affected by autoclav- ing). The legs are clad with relatively long, brown pile, on tibiae about as long as the tibia’s width. Tibial spurs fine and sharp. Segment measurements, all inn mm: fore fe- mur length 1.37, width 0.16, fore tibia length 1.32, width 0.12, mid femur length 1.23, hind femur length 1.69, width 0.18, hind tibia length 1.71, width 0.13, hind first tarsomere length 0.63, width 0.07. Wing (Fig. 18): Length 4.6 mm, width 1.5 mm, length/width = 3.1. Brown fumose, relatively slender, veins brown throughout, R-veins considerably more robust than M- and CuA-veins. Costa relatively strong with rather long setules which at least basally are longer than the width of the vein, extending a little past half- way between apices of R,,, and M,. Humeral vein pres- ent, oblique. Pterostigma relatively small, oval, brown. Subcosta fine but distinctive, straight. R,, oblique, al- most straight, a little less than half as long as R,,., which is gently curved. Rs straight, nearly three times as long as R-M, which is vertical. R, , (basally of R,,,) almost as long as R,,. (distally of R,_,). M basally connected to CuA. M-veins fine, M and M, form an approximately straight line with M, diverging forward from this. CuA, apically slightly, CuA, strongly bent basad. CuP paral- lel to CuA/CuA,,, fine but does reach wing margin. Anal lobe strongly reduced, basal-posterior edge of the wing nearly straight-lined. Vein lengths, all in mm: Subcos- ta 2.48, Basal R 1.46, R, 1.44, Rs 0.53, R, , 1.09, R,,, 0.58, R,,, 1.27, R-M 0.19, basal M 1.41, distal M 0.44, M, 1.85, M, 1.41, M-CuA 0.14, CuA 1.02, CuA, 1.99, CuA, 1.18. The wings have numerous, transverse cracks probably caused by autoclaving, this has not altered the overall shape, though. Abdomen: Length 3.6 mm, dark, cylindrical, with fine, dark, short pile. Shape of terminalia difficult to make out, probably affected by autoclaving. Discussion. The specimen of this species is obvious- ly affected by autoclave treatment, particularly so in the head where the overall shape appears changed, the out- lines of the complex eyes are not possible to make out, and the shapes of the antennal and palp segments are strongly disrupted. The autoclaving appears also to have altered the appearance of the terminalia, and possibly tho- 91 TTT PITT TTT TM! rax and legs to some extent. However, the wing charac- ters appear to be uncompromised and should be sufficient to recognise the species, at the very least to differentiate it from the other species of Penthetria known from Bal- tic amber. Identifying Penthetria species based on female specimens is very difficult in recent species and this is probably so in fossil species, too, hence this specimen is not given a formal name at this stage. Plecia clavifemur Skartveit, 2009: 15-16 Fig. 4 Type material, females. Holotype, SDEI Dip-00830 — CCHH#1474.2. Paratypes SDEI Dip-00845 — CCHH#1505.1; SDEI Dip-00846 — CCHH#1501.5. Additional material, females. JS-Baltic-002, in piece of amber 20x15x4 mm, JS-Baltic-003, in piece of amber 18x13x6 mm. These specimens do not reveal any charac- ters not seen in the type material, but their morphometric data is given below. Total length 3.47-4.62 mm. Head: Length 0.42 mm (N = 1), width 0.57—0.60 mm. Flagellum length 0.40-0.47 mm, width 0.08 mm (N = 2). Thorax: Length 0.83—0.92 mm. Legs: Fore femur 0.66—0.79 mm long, 0.12—0.15 mm wide, fore tibia 0.75—1.11 mm long, 0.08—0.09 mm wide, fore first tarsomere 0.24—0.38 mm long, 0.05—0.07 mm wide, fore second to fifth tarsomeres 0.19, 0.13, 0.11 and 0.15 mm long (N = 1). Mid femur 0.88 mm long, 0.15 mm wide (N = 1), mid tibia 0.69 mm long, 0.08 mm wide (N = 1). Hind femur 0.90—1.24 mm long, 0.11—0.15 mm wide, hind tibia 0.97—1.20 mm long, 0.08—0.12 mm wide, hind first tarsomere 0.23—0.41 mm long, 0.07—0.09 mm wide. Wing: length 3.05-3.11 mm, width 1.00—1.39 mm, length/width = 2.24—3.05. Vein lengths, all in mm: Sub- costa 1.50—1.58, basal R 1.00—1.13, distal R, 0.75—0.85, Rs 0.27-0.38, R, , 0.58-0.83, R,,, 0.16-0.23, R,,, 0.64— 0.68, R-M 0.07-0.17, basal M 0.92-1.05, distal M 0.33- 0.34, M, 1.20-1.37, M, 0.88-1.00, M-CuA 0.11 (N = 1), CuA 0.67-0.79, CuA, 1.12-1.54, CuA, 0.58-1.16. Abdomen: Length 2.5 mm (N = 1). Discussion. The two specimens examined are similar in the shape of the head and antenna, general aspects of dez.pensoft.net 92 wing venation (short R,,,, kinked R,,., CuA, bent sharply basad) and terminalia, however they are rather different with respect to some morphometric traits, particularly length of leg segments and the general shape of the wing. At the present state of knowledge I interpret this differ- ence as within intraspecific variation, though additional material, particularly if male specimens are found, may reveal that there are more than one species involved. Plecia hoffeinsorum Skartveit, 2009: 17-19 Figs 5—7, 19-23 Plecia tenuicornis Skartveit, 2009: 20-22. Syn.n. Type material. Holotype (male) of Plecia hoffeinsorum SDEI Dip-00827 — CCHH#1448-2, preserved together with six conspecific males. Paratype (male) SDEI Dip- 00843 — CCHH#1629-2. Holotype (male) of Plecia te- nuicornis SDEI Dip-00828 — CCHH#1501-2. Paratypes (males): SDEI Dip-00837 — CCHH#335-2. SDEI Dip- 00838 — CCHH#935-2. SDEI Dip-00839 — CCHH#1025- 1. SDEI Dip-00840 — CCHH#1025-2. SDEI Dip-00841 — CCHH#1567-3. SDEI Dip-00843 — CCHH#1629-2 (Preserved together with holotype). Previously studied non-type, female, CCHH#1501-3. New material, Baltic amber: males: JS-Baltic-004, in piece of amber 27x20x6 mm, syninclusions: cecido- mylid midge, 2 phorid flies; JS-Baltic-005, in piece of amber 16x12x4 mm. JS-Baltic-007, in piece of amber John Skartveit: Baltic and Rovno amber Bibionidae 22x13x6 mm. Females: SDEI In 001701 (syninclusion with Sciarid midge); JS-Baltic-006, in piece of amber 13x7x3 mm. Rovno amber, male: JS-Baltic-008, in rather large piece of amber 362015 mm, syninclusions: copi- ous plant debris, possibly flower fragments. The species was described based on seven male speci- mens preserved together in one piece of amber. The pres- ent specimens do show the male terminalia better than the type material, hence this is redecribed here, otherwise the external morphology is adequately described in the orig- inal descriptions of Plecia hoffeinsorum and Plecia te- nuicornis (Skartveit 2009: 17—22). The female of Plecia hoffeinsorum was described from a compression fossil from Grube Messel (Skartveit and Wedmann 2016). The two species Plecia hoffeinsorum and Plecia tenuicornis were originally thought to have rather different male termi- nalia (Skartveit 2009, figs 34, 35, 46, 47), however study- ing additional specimens suggests that the two “forms” are actually the same structure with the gonostylus fixed in different positions. As usual with Bibionidae the angle of view is quite critical when studying these structures. Measurements, including new material. Males: body length 4.5-5.2 mm (N = 4), thorax length 0.92- 1.30 mm (N = 8), wing length 4.0-5.2 mm (N = 6). Fe- males: body length 4.5-4.6 mm (N = 2), thorax length 0.97-1.17 mm (N = 2), wing length 4.6 mm (N = 1). Wings as in Figs 19, 20, head as in Figs 21, 22. Redescription of male terminalia (Fig. 23). Hy- popygium width 0.43 mm (N = 1), outline almost rect- angular, slightly expanded apicad. Gonostylus 0.22 mm Figure 20. Plecia hoffeinsorum, female, wing. Scale bar: 1 mm. dez.pensoft.net Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 68 (1) 2021, 81-99 Figure 21. Plecia hoffeinsorum, male, head and thorax. Scale bar: | mm. Figure 22. Plecia hoffeinsorum, female, head and thorax. Scale bar: | mm. \\ Figure 23. Plecia hoffeinsorum, male, terminalia. Scale bar: 0.1 mm. 93 long, attached apically on gonocoxite, long and slender, straight, apically somewhat pointed, with numerous long, curvy setae. Epandrium rather small, rounded-rectan- gular, posterior edge sligthly convex. Gonocoxosternite apically with a short, blunt tooth on each side just mesal to gonostylus attachment, posterior edge slightly convex. Bibio succineus sp. nov. http://zoobank.org/2482E3D0-F 1D5-443E-B236-BB 1 AEA235979 Figs 8, 24-28 Type material. Holotype (male), SDEI Dip-00900—JS-Bal- tic-O09. The specimen is preserved in a piece of yellowish amber, 30176 mm. Syn-inclusion: one sciarid gnat. Additional material (female) Coll. Kernegger 59/2006. The specimen was briefly described by Skart- veit (2009: 26-27). Comparison to other species. Four species of Bibio have been described from the Eocene/Oligocene of Isle of Wight (Krzeminski et al. 2019). Of these, Bibio gur- netensis Cockerell, 1917 and Bibio oblitus Cockerell, 1921 both have crossvein R-M much longer than the basal Rs, this character suggests the species belong in the genus Dilophus, though, not having seen the original material, I will not make a formal transfer here. Bibio ex- tremus Cockerell, 1921 differs from the present species in that the basal part of Rs is quite steep and that crossvein M-Cu meets M, considerably distally of furcation. Bibio oligocenus Cockerell, 1917, which despite the name was described from the late Eocene, differs from the present species by being larger (wing length 8 mm) with a con- spicuously darkened costal cell in the wing. Etymology. The epithet is derived from Latin succi- num, amber, referring to the preservation of the type spec- imen. It is the first species of the genus Bibio described from amber fossils. Diagnosis. A medium-sized Bibio, body length about 7.5 mm. Body and legs entirely black, densely pilose, pile on thorax and abdomen pale, black on legs. Anten- nal flagellum 8—9-segmented. Haltere pale brown. Wing light brownish fumose in male, brown fumose in female, pterostigma pale and indistinctive, radial sector about four times as long as R-M. Fore tibia with spur a little less than half as long as spine. Hind tarsus not enlarged. Description. Male (N = 1): Total length 7.5 mm, en- tirely black. Head (Fig. 25): Length 1.37 mm, width not possible to measure. Complex eye with rather dense, pale, fine, me- dium-length intraocular pile. Ocellar tubercle not promi- nent, with short, dark setae. Rostrum not prominent. An- tenna: flagellum 8-segmented, 0.53 mm long, 0.13 mm wide. Two distal palp segments slender (more basal seg- ments not possible to see). Thorax: Length 2.2 mm, black, very shiny. Pile pale, anteriorly rather short, getting longer in posterior part, sides of mesonotum and pleurae with long but rather sparse, pale pile. Sides of mesonotum with rather coarse, dez.pensoft.net 94 John Skartveit: Baltic and Rovno amber Bibionidae Figure 25. Bibio succineus sp. nov., male, head and thorax. Scale bar: 1 mm. Figure 26. Bibio succineus sp. nov., male, fore tibia. Scale bar: 1 mm. dez.pensoft.net mesh-like microsculpture. Scutellum rounded with long, pale, proclinate setae along edge. Meron very shiny, in upper corner with about 20 long, pale hairs. Haltere pale brown, not possible to see well. Wing (Fig. 24): Length 5.6 mm, width 1.9 mm, length/ width = 2.92. Slightly brownish fumose, Costa and R, light brown, posterior veins colourless. Pterostigma pale brown, inconspicuous, 0.45 mm long, 0.15 mm wide. Membrane without conspicuous microtrichia. Costa extends to apex of R,,,. Humeral vein present, fine and oblique. Subcosta weak, visible only in distal part. Basal radial sector about four times as long as crossvein R-M, M curves towards R, at R-M. M basally clearly connected to CuA. M-Cu oblique, meets M at furcation. CuA, apically moderately, CuA, strongly curved basad. Vein lengths, all in mm: Basal R 2.51, distal R, 1.20, Rs 0.39, R,,, 2.63, R-M 0.09, basal M 1.80, distal M 0.94, M, 1.95, M, 1.73, M-CuA 0.38, CuA 1.13, CuA, 2.51, CuA, 1.91. Legs: Black, clothed with short, strong, dark setae. Fore tibia (Fig. 26) with spur about half as long as spine. Hind femur (Fig. 28) basally thin, expanding at about Ys Of length, outer part stocky. Hind tibia rather slender, densely pilose, apparently without bare field of sensil- lae. Tarsus slender. Fore femur length 1.24 mm, width 0.32 mm, hind femur length 2.29 mm, width 0.41 mm, hind tibia length 2.25 mm, width 0.26 mm, hind first tar- somere 0.63 mm long, 0.18 mm wide, hind second to fifth tarsomeres length 0.38, 0.28, 0.23, 0.37 mm. Abdomen: Black, clothed with rather short, fine, pale pile. Terminalia: Gonostylus apically slender, rather straight. Hypopygium otherwise not possible to see. Female (tentatively associated, N = 1): Total length 7.5 mm, entirely black. Head: Antennal flagellum 9-segmented. Occiput with short, dark setae. Complex eye rather small, rounded, with short, scattered, brownish intraocular pile. Thorax: Mesonotum length 1.9 mm. Covered by Ver- lumung in the specimen available. Haltere yellowish. Wing: Brown fumose, membrane without microtrichia. Costa and R-veins brown, more posterior veins colourless. Basal radial sector about five times as long as crossvein R-M Legs: black, rather stout. Length of fore femur 1.5 mm, width 0.5 mm, length of fore tibia 1.4 mm, of hind tibia 2.2 mm. Fore tibia (Fig. 27) with spine about three times Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 68 (1) 2021, 81-99 95 Figure 27. Bibio succineus sp. nov., male, hind leg. Scale bar: 1 mm. as long as spur, this is stout, straight and pointed. The tibia is clothed with quite long, fine setae and has a field of rounded coeloconical sensillae in the middle of the an- terior face. The tarsi are quite slender. Abdomen: cylindrical, no details possible to see. Terminalia: no details possible to see. Dilophus crassicornis Skartveit, 2009: 31-34 Figs 9, 29-31 Type material. Holotype, male, MHNN 907. Paratypes: males, SDEI Dip-00835 — CCHH#932-4; SDEI Dip- 00836 — CCHH#1629.1. Non-type specimens previously examined. Male, MHNN 1412, females: CCHH#932.2, CCHH#1121. Additional material. Female, CCHH # 1789-2; fe- male, JS-Baltic-012, in piece of amber 15x84 mm. Redescription, female. Total length 3.8-5.1 mm (N = 3). Head (Fig. 29): Length 0.62—0.77 mm (N = 3), width 0.59—0.60 mm (N = 2), eye length 0.36—0.40 mm (N = 2), width 0.27 mm (N = 1). Flagellum 6—7-segmented, 0.32 mm long, 0.09 mm wide. Thorax: Length 1.22—1.55 mm (N = 3), width 0.65 mm (N = 1, smallest specimen). Haltere light brown. Wing: Length 3.44—3.75 mm (N = 2). Hyaline, slight- ly brownish, veins fine and brown. Pterostigma brown. Costa extends to half-way between apices of R,,. and M.. Figure 28. Bibio succineus sp. nov., female, fore leg. Scale bar: 1 mm. Figure 29. Dilophus crassicornis, female, head and thorax. Scale bar: 1 mm. Legs: Brown, sparingly clad with fine, short, brown pile. Fore tibia (Fig. 30) slightly sinuate, mesally with three long, erect, sharp spines, apically with spine circlet dez.pensoft.net 96 Figure 30. Dilophus crassicornis, female, fore tibia. Scale bar: 0.1 mm. of six long, diverging spines. Mid- and hind tibia apically with circlet of six spinose, brown setae. All tarsi slender. Measurements (all in mm, N = 3 unless otherwise stated) fore femur length 0.55—0.89, width 0.25 (N = 1), fore tibia length 0.64—0.95, width 0.09 (N = 1), fore first tarsomere length 0.40-0.44 (N = 2), mid femur length 0.70-0.92, mid tibia length 0.72—0.90, hind femur length 1.07—1.22, width 0.14 (N = 1), hind tibia length 1.14—1.22, width 0.13 (N = 1), hind first tarsomere length 0.50—0.62. Abdomen: Length 2.7 mm (N = 1). Brown, conical. Terminalia in lateral view as in Fig. 31. Dilophus sp. Figs 10, 11, 32-34 Previously examined material. female, MHNN 711. Material, females. JS-Baltic-010, in piece of am- ber 20x12x5 mm; JS-Baltic-0O11, in piece of amber 29x17x3 mm. Two female specimens, belonging to the Dilophus febrilis-group, with 9 flagellomeres, so not fitting any of the previously described species which have 6—7 (Dilophus crassicornis) or 12 (Dilophus pseudofebrilis and Dilophus succineus) flagellomeres. They are likely to John Skartveit: Baltic and Rovno amber Bibionidae Figure 31. Dilophus crassicornis, female, terminalia, lateral view. be conspecific with the poorly preserved specimen treat- ed as Dilophus sp. by Skartveit (2009: 38). As the other species of Dilophus from Baltic amber are based on male specimens I find it not advisable to formally name this species at the present stage of knowledge. Males of this species, should they appear, should be recognizable by characters of the antenna and fore tibia. Total length 4.55—5.68 mm. Body and legs entirely dark brown. Head (Fig. 33): Length 0.68—0.80 mm. Occiput, frons and gena all with strong, erect, relatively dense setae. Complex eye about half as long as head, somewhat pro- truding, with short and fine, rather dense intraocular pile. Ocellar triangle rather tall. Flagellum 9-segmented, 0.35- 0.40 mm long, 0.06—0.08 mm wide. Palp shorter than an- tenna, with last segment conical, about 2.5 times as long as wide, bearing relatively long setae. Thorax: Length 1.42—1.52 mm (N = 2), width 0.93 mm (N = 1). Pronotal spine comb with 12 evenly spaced, medium-length, erect, sharp spines. Mesonotal spine comb with about 16 small, sharp spines. Mesonotum moderately shiny with uniserial, short and fine dorsocen- tral setae (about 15 on each side), otherwise mostly bare. Scutellum evenly clothed with fine, short setae. Haltere dark brown with pale stem. Figure 32. Dilophus sp., female, wing. Scale bar: | mm. dez.pensoft.net Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 68 (1) 2021, 81-99 OF Figure 33. Dilophus sp., female, head. Scale bar: 0.1 mm. , \ a \ Y Al \W 4, \ JA 4 \ \ \\ \ p \ r AYN Figure 34. Dilophus sp., female, fore tibia. Scale bar: 0.1 mm. Legs: Black with medium-length, dark setae. Protib- ia (Fig. 34) with four sharp, semi-erect mesal spines, the two most basal ones close-set, the two more distal sepa- rated by about one spine length. Apical circlet with eight sharp spines. Mid and hind legs slender throughout. Fore femur 0.63—0.72 mm long, 0.23 mm wide (N = 2), fore tibia 0.75 mm long, 0.10 mm wide (N = 1). Mid femur 1.03 mm long (N = 1). Hind femur 1.13—1.57 mm long (N = 2), 0.17—0.18 mm wide (N = 2), hind tibia 1.12- 1.60 mm long, 0.08—0.12 mm wide, hind first tarsomere 0.41—0.53 mm long, 0.05 mm wide. Wing (Fig. 32): Rather crumbled in the newly ac- quired specimens. The specimen studied by Skartveit (2009) with wing as in Fig. 32, wing length 4.4 mm. Almost hyaline, costa and R-veins dark brown, more posterior veins lighter brown but still distinctive. All veins are fine, no conspicuous thickenings. Costa with biseriate, rather dense, pale setulae, basally about as long as the width of the costal cell, decreasing in length apicad. Costa extends to about half-way between apices of R,,, and M.. Pterostigma oval, brown, distinctive. Humeral vein present, subcosta fine, straight, running well separated from R, in entire length. Basal R and R, dorsally with uniserial, fine, dark setulae which are about as long as the width of the vein and separated by about as much as their length, veins otherwise bare. Ra- dial sector about one-third the length of crossvein R-M. R,,, gently curved. Area between R,,, and M, about 1.5 times as wide as fork of M. M-veins apically straight. Crossvein M-CuA meets M well basad of furcation. CuA with rather long stem and short fork, CuA, api- cally a little curved basad. CuP running approximate- ly parallel to CuA, rather indistinctive. A, apparent on stem of wing only. Abdomen: Strongly swollen in specimen at hand, membraneous areas stretched. This is presumably be- cause it is egg-filled. Tergites and sternites clad with short, dark setae. Discussion Bibio succineus 1s the first Bibio species formally named from amber fossils. This is a bit peculiar since the genus is common to abundant in Tertiary compression fossils from Europe (e.g., Skartveit and Pika 2014; Skartveit and Nel 2017) and other bibionid genera are known from nu- merous amber specimens. It may have to do with habitat preferences. In the recent, European fauna, 32 species are known in the genus Bibio (Skartveit 2013), of these only four (Bibio clavipes, B. handlirschi, B. nigriventris and B. varipes) are normally found in closed forest habi- tats (Skartveit, personal observation). On the other hand, species of the genus Dilophus, which are not that rare in dez.pensoft.net 98 amber fossils, are also not commonly found in forests in the recent fauna. Most Bibio species are fairly large-sized (most are > 6 mm), and amber fossil samples are strongly biased towards small-sized specimens, this may also be part of the explanation. While there are many similarities between the faunas of Baltic and Rovno amber (e.g., Szwedo and Sontag 2013), there may also be some differences (Perkovsky et al. 2010). Bibionid flies are often widespread, and they also appear to be quite persistent in time (e.g., Wedmann and Skartveit 2020; Skartveit and Wedmann 2021), thus it is not surpris- ing that a species described from Baltic amber also turns up in Rovno amber, even if this may have been deposited further south than Baltic amber (Mand et al. 2018). Although amber fossils may be excellently preserved with anatomical structures visible in great detail, in most specimens some traits are not visible because of opaque emulsions (Verlumung), because they are covered by other body parts or because they have been deformed (e.g., crumbled wings). For abundant taxa there may be a large number of specimens available to pick from, but for less abundant taxa such as Bibionidae the taxono- my may have to rely upon less-than-perfect specimens. When this is the case, finding new specimens of already described species offers an opportunity to gradually im- prove the knowledge of the taxon. This is so with all fossil materials, with the possible exception of limited outcrops which are no longer available for sampling, any fresh set of specimens found offers an opportunity to improve upon the taxonomy of any group, and any fossil classification should be viewed as preliminary, pending the discovery of new material. Presently, a large fraction of the Baltic amber mate- rial available has been treated with an autoclave to im- prove the transparency and general appearance of the amber (Hoffeins 2012). Unfortunately, this may alter the appearance of the specimens in fairly unpredictable ways, and may destroy much taxonomically relevant in- formation (Hoffeins 2012). Acknowledgements Christel and Hans-Werner Hoffeins, Hamburg kindly made material from their collection available for study, including the new specimens of Hesperinus electrus and Dilophus clavicornus. The female specimen of Bibio succineus was made available to me by Friedrich Ker- negger, Hamburg. The other specimens here described were acquired through the internet stores http://www. ambertreasure4u.com and https://www.amberinclusions. eu/. Digital images were kindly provided by Christel and Hans-Werner Hoffeins (Figs 1, 3, 9), Marius Veta (Figs 2, 4,5, 8) and Jonas Damzen (Figs 6, 7, 11). Thanks are also due to Frank Menzel, SDEI, Muncheberg for fa- cilitating the museum deposit of the type material. Two referees provided useful and constructive criticism on the first submission of this paper. dez.pensoft.net John Skartveit: Baltic and Rovno amber Bibionidae References Cockerell TDA (1917) New Tertiary insects. Proceedings of the Unit- ed States National Museum 52: 373-384. https://doi.org/10.5479/ si.00963801.52-2181.373 Cockerell TDA (1921) Fossil arthropods in the British Museum -VI. Oligocene insects from Gurnet Bay, Isle of Wight. An- nals and Magazine of Natural History 9: 453-480. https://dot. org/10.1080/00222932 108632550 Collomb F-M, Nel A, Fleck G,Waller A (2008) March flies and Euro- pean Cenozoic palaeoclimates (Diptera: Bibionidae). Annales de so- ciéte entomologique de France (nouvelle serie) 44: 161-179. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00379271.2008.10697553 Dlussky GM, Rasnitsyn AP (2009) Ants (Insecta: Vespida: Formici- dae) in the Upper Eocene Amber of Central and Eastern Europe. Paleontological Journal 43: 1024-1042. https://doi.org/10.1134/ S003 1030109090056 Gee J, Nel A, Menier J-J, de Ploég G (2001) A new lovebug fly (Insecta, Diptera) from the lowermost Eocene amber of the Paris Basin. Geo- diversitas 23: 341-348. http://sciencepress.mnhn.ft/en/periodiques/ geodiversitas/23/3/une-nouvelle-espece-de-bibionidae-insecta-dip- tera-de-l-ambre-eocene-inferieur-du-bassin-parisien Hardy DE (1971) Anew Plecia (Diptera, Bibionidae) from Mexican am- ber. University of California, Publications in Entomology 63: 65-67. https://www. phylonimbus.com/references/article/26659/a-new-ple- cia-diptera-bibionidae-from-mexican-amber/ Hoffeins C (2012) On Baltic amber inclusions treated in an auto- clave. Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne 81: 165-181. https://doi. org/10.2478/v 10200-012-0005-z Krivosheina NP (1997) Family Hesperinidae. In: Papp L, Darvas B (Eds) Contributions to a Manual of Palaearctic Diptera (Vol. 2), Ne- matocera and Lower Brachycera. Science Herald, Budapest, 35-39. Krzeminski W, Blagoderov V, Azar D, Lukashevich E, Szadziewski R, Wedmann S, Nel A, Collomb F-M, Waller A, Nicholson DB (2019) True flies (Insecta: Diptera) from the late Eocene insect limestone (Bembridge Marls) of Isle of Wight, England. Earth and Environ- mental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh. 1-60. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/earth-and-environ- mental-science-transactions-of-royal-society-of-edinburgh/article/ true-flies-insecta-diptera-from-the-late-eocene-insect-limestone- bembridge-marls-of-the-isle-of-wight-england-uk/CBO7CDFOAD- 64CEE43 AA145211EB1I5EE4 Mand K, Muehlenbachs K, McKellar RC, Wolfe AP, Konhauser KO (2018) Distinct origins for Rovno and Baltic ambers: Evidence from carbon and hydrogen stable isotopes. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palae- oecology 505: 265-273. https://dot.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2018.06.004 Merz B, Haenni J-P (2000) Morphology and terminology of adult Dip- tera (other than terminalia). In: Papp L, Darvas B (Eds) Contribu- tions to a Manual of Palaearctic Diptera (Vol. 1), General and Ap- plied Dipterology. Science Herald, Budapest, 21-51. Perkovsky EE, Makarkin VN (2019) A new species of Succinoraphidia Aspock & Aspock, 2004 (Raphidioptera: Raphidiidae) from the late Eocene Rovno amber, with venation characteristics of the genus. Zootaxa 4576: 570-580. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4576.3.9 Perkovsky EE, Rasnitsyn AP, Vlaskin AP, Taraschuk MV (2007) A com- parative analysis of the Baltic and Rovno amber arthropod faunas: representative samples. African Invertebrates 48: 229-245. https:// journals.co.za/content/nmsa_ai/48/1/EJC84578 Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 68 (1) 2021, 81-99 Perkovsky EE, Zosimovich VYu, Vlaskin AP (2010) Rovno amber. In: Penney D (Ed.) Biodiversity of Fossils in Amber from the Ma- jor World Deposits. Siri Scientific Press, Manchester, 116-136. https://www.worldcat.org/title/biodiversity-of-fossils-in-am- ber-from-the-major-world-deposits/oclc/671260626 Peterson BV (1975) A new Cretaceous bibionid from Canadian amber (Diptera, Bibionidae). The Canadian Entomologist 107: 711-715. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent107711-7 Sevéik J, Kasprak D, Manti¢ M, Fitzgerald S, Sevéikova T, Tothova A, Jaschhof M (2016) Molecular phylogeny of the megadiverse in- sect infraorder Bibionomorpha sensu lato (Diptera). PeerJ4: e2563. https://dot.org/10.7717/peerj.2563 Skartveit J (2009) Fossil Hesperinidae and Bibionidae (Diptera: Bibi- onoidea) from Baltic amber. Studia Dipterologica 15: 3-42. https:// www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Fossil-Hesperinidae-and-Bibi- onidae-from-Baltic-und-Skartveit/8a66c7b3395 105af96038cffb- 34b8927486a7c60 Skartveit J (2013) Fauna Europaea: Bibionidae. In: de Jong H (Ed.) Fauna Europaea: Diptera. Fauna Europaea version 2017.06. https:// fauna-eu.org Skartveit J, Ansorge J (2020) A new genus and subfamily of fossil Bibi- onidae (Diptera) from the Lower Cretaceous, with new classifica- tion of the Bibionidae. Palaeoentomology 3/2: 163-172. https://doi. org/10.11646/palaeoentomology.3.2.5 Skartveit J, Bechly G (2013) Occurrence of Plecia pristina Hardy, 1971 (Diptera, Bibionidae) in Dominican amber. Neues Jahr- buch fiir Geologie und Palaontologie 269/1: 97-100. https://doi. org/10.1127/0077-7749/20 13/0338 99 Skartveit J, Nel A (2017) Revision of Bibionidae (Diptera) from French Oligocene deposits. Zootaxa 4225: 1-83. https://doi.org/10.11646/ zootaxa.4225.1.1 Skartveit J, Pika M (2014) Revision of Bibionidae described by Oswald Heer from the Miocene of Ohningen, Southern Germany. Mitteilungen der schweizerischen entomologischen Gesellschaft 87: 103—134. https:// www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Revision-of-Bibionide-(Diptera)- named-by-Oswald-the-Skartveit-Pika/c7803c54a0408417074499adb- 289800f494e6cc9 Skartveit J, Wedmann S (2016) Fossil Bibionidae (Insecta: Diptera) from the Eocene of Grube Messel, Germany. Studia Dipterologica 22: 77-83. http://www.studia-dipt.de/data/22077 pdf Skartveit J, Wedmann S (2021) Revision of fossil Bibionidae (Insec- ta: Diptera) from the Oligocene of Germany. Zootaxa 4909: 1-77. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4909.1.1 Szwedo J, Sontag E (2013) The flies (Diptera) say that amber from the Gulf of Gdansk, Bitterfeld and Rovno is the same Baltic amber. Pol- skie Pismo Entomologiczne 82: 379-388. https://doi.org/10.2478/ pjen-2013-0001 Waller A, Nel A, Menier J-J (2000) Le premier Di/ophus fossile de Pambre dominicain (Diptera, Bibionidae). Revue francaise d’En- tomologie (N.S.) 22: 149-153. https://www.semanticscholar.org/ paper/Le-premier-Dilophus-fossile-de-1%27ambre-dominicain- Waller-Nel/7e4aa0 1c5e1452d6e4750febda94d9e6e1f7478b Wedmann S, Skartveit J (2020) First march flies (Insecta: Bibionidae) from the Miocene Gracanica mine. Palaeobiodiversity and Palae- oenvironments 100: 585-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12549-018- 00369-w dez.pensoft.net