Systematic Palaeontology
Neuroptera Linnaeus, 1758
Mantispoidea Leach, 1815 (stem group)
Electroxipheus gen. n.
Zoobank [to be added]
Etymology. The genus name is masculine, and it is a composite word from Greek, with prefix “electro”, i.e. amber, and suffix “xipheus”, i.e. swordsman, hence “amber swordsman” after the sword shaped jaws of the larva.
Diagnosis. Larva campodeiform, elongate (Fig. 1). Head sclerotized, subrectangular. Mouthparts largely straight. Antenna thin, longer than stylets. Labial palp thin, as long as mouthparts. Head, thorax, and abdomen distinct. Thorax not sclerotized. Legs well developed, bearing trumpet-shaped empodia. Abdomen composed of ten segments.
Type species. Electroxipheus veneficus sp. n.
Electoxipheus veneficus sp. n.
(Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4, Supplementary Information Movie S1)
Zoobank [to be added]
Holotype. MZURPAL00112 (Museum of Zoology, Sapienza University of Rome). One specimen preserved in an amber piece.
Etymology. The specific epithet “veneficus” is a Latin masculine name meaning “poisoner”, after the well-preserved venom channel in the jaws.
Type locality and horizon. Northern Myanmar, Kachin Province, Hukawng Valley, c. 100 km west of the town of Myitkyina; Late Cretaceous (98 ± 0.6 Ma).
State of preservation. Specimen in good state of preservation, except for a fracture line crossing the cervical region and one prothoracic leg; thorax and anterior abdominal segments slightly damaged (Fig. 1).
Description. Measurements. Head length: 0.9 mm; head width: 0.8 mm; jaws length: 1.36 mm; body length: 5.76 mm.
Head capsule. Head capsule subquadrate, as long as wide, tapering toward cervical region. Head sub rectangular in lateral view and largely flattened dorsally (Supplementary Information Movie S1). Head dorsally sclerotized and ventrally mostly occupied by maxillary parts (Figs. 2A, 3). Anterior labial margin straight, without prominences (Fig. 3A, B, D). Frontal ecdysial suture distinct, encasing half of head anterior width; arms of frontal sutures converging at head mid-length, curved toward each other (Fig. 3A). Lateral and coronal ecdysial sutures absent. Antenna inserted laterally, on short tubercle, posterior to mandibular-maxillary stylet (Fig. 3A). Ocular region posterior to antenna insertion, marked with dark pigments, with six small stemmata arranged in an upper and a lower row, each of three stemmata (Fig. 3A, C). Long hair-like sensillum rising between stemmata.
Antenna. Antenna longer than mouthparts, with three main antennomeres. Second and third antennomeres with subsegments at apex (Fig. 2A, B, C). Basal antennomere cylindrical, three times longer than wide. Second antennomere long and thin, its diameter half that of first antennomere, cylindrical and over ten times longer than wide, with three subsegments, of which the first longer than remainders (Fig. 2B). Third antennomere cylindrical, thin, much longer than wide with a short, apical fusiform subsegment. Apical subsegment with a short apical sensillum (Fig. 2C). Antenna cuticle without ornamentations.
Mandibular-maxillary complex: suction and poison channels. Mandible and maxilla tightly associated, forming a single functional unit shaped like a straight, stylet-like sucking apparatus (Fig. 3). Blade-like section of mandibular-maxillary complex longer than head capsule, much wider at base, progressively narrowing toward apex. Apical section of mandibular- maxillary complex slightly curved outward and slightly bent downward in lateral view (Fig. 3A, B, C). Mandible narrower at base and much thinner than underlying maxilla, without teeth or serrations on internal margin. External margin of apex of mandible harpoon-shaped with a small inward tooth(Fig. 2D). Ventral surface of mandible concave, with a narrow groove running for almost its entire length, forming the roof of suction channel (Fig. 4). Suction channel externally delimited by a ridge, forming the protruding internal margin of a concave guide, in which fits the corresponding folded ridge on dorsal side of maxillary stylet (Fig. 4). Suction channel shifting dorsally in apical section of mandible, until it is almost by mandible surface (Fig. 4). Maxilla inserted ventrally, partly retracted, divided in basal elements, and maxillary stylet. Apical and basal maxillary elements distinct, subdivided by a median furrow (Fig. 3B). Apical maxillary element longer than basal one, separated by ventrolateral margin of dorsal sclerotization of head by furrow (Fig. 3C). Blade-like section of maxilla robust, wider at base. Maxillary stylet similar in shape to mandible, but thicker. Dorsal side of maxillary stylet grooved, corresponding to ventral floor of suction channel (Fig. 4). Lateral side of suction channel groove closed by an apically folded guiding ridge, fitting in corresponding groove of mandible and interlocking mandible and maxilla (Fig. 4). Maxillary stylet with poison channel, which is progressively more superficial toward tip and opens just before apex of maxilla (Fig. 4).
Labium. Labium composed by a distinct mentum and submentum. Mentum scute-like, subrectangular, with a pair of trichoid sensilla. Submentum trapezoidal, with a prominent median triangular process, and subdivided in a pair of diverging cylindrical palpomere-like elements (Fig. 2A, 3B). Labial palp thin, as long as mandibulo-maxillary stylet, composed of three palpomeres. Basal palpomere widest, cylindrical; second palpomere longest element of palp; third palpomere gently swelling apically (Fig. 2A). Third palpomere with a digitiform sensillum near apex (Fig. 2E).
Thorax. Cervical area collar-like, largely membranous. Thorax largely membranous (Fig. 1). Prothorax preserving traces of paired dorsal sclerotizations. Prothorax longer and narrower than meso- and metathorax.
Legs. Legs cursorial, of similar shape (Fig. 1). Prothoracic leg more robust than following pairs. Prothoracic leg with coxa cylindrical; trochantere as long as 1/3 of femur, with a ventral trichoid sensillum; femur cylindrical, robust, three times longer than wide; tibia short, ventral side of femur with three trichoid sensilla at 2/3 of length; tarsus short, conical; pretarsus with a short unguitractor-process with a pair of curved claws and a well-developed, elongated trumpet- shaped empodium (Fig. 2F).
Abdomen. Abdomen composed of ten segments (Fig. 1). Abdominal segments decreasing in size posteriorly but otherwise of similar shape and structure. Sternites and tergites without sclerotizations. Pleurae with a median protuberance with one apical thin seta. Tergites and sternites with few short and thin setae, progressively increasing in size posteriorly. 9th abdominal segment longer than wide. 10th abdominal segment conical, with traces of pygopodium (Fig. 2G).
Morphological remarks. Electroxipheus exhibits a combination of character states shared with Mantispoidea (i.e, Berothidae, Rhachiberothidae, Mantispidae): i) lack of lateral remnants of the frontoclypeal sulcus, ii) straight mandibulo-maxillary stylets, iii) presence of an unguitractor process on tarsus27–29. Electroxipheus additionally exhibits a prominent median process on the prementum, a feature it shares with Berothidae. Coniopterygidae evolved a superficially similar labial process, although the broadly different anatomy of the labium in these clades suggests that they are not homologous. This structure is instead absent in Mantispidae30. In Electroxipheus, the process of prementum is more prominent than in extant berothids and divides the prementum in two distinct cylindrical elements, widely diverging at base and resembling palpomeres in shape. Conversely, in extant berothids, the labial palps are in close contact and contiguous at the base30. The condition observed in Electroxipheus resembles the organization of the prementum of the larvae of Myrmeleontiformia, in which the premental elements are widely separated and appears as palpomere-like30,31. Despite the fossil larva shares with Mantispoidea most diagnostic characters, it lacks their apomorphies, i.e., the scale-like texture of the antennae and mouthparts, and the sensilla inserted in deep alveoli29,30,32. Moreover, the head of Electroxipheus is wider than long, a marked difference from most mantispoids in which the head is much longer than wide at least in the first instar larva, except for Mantispidae Mantispinae. Electroxipheus also differs from Berothidae lacking the lateral sutures of head capsule. Most living mantispoid larvae are characterized by the reduction in the number of stemmata, which can be completely lost33. However, Electroxipheus is equipped with six stemmata, as observed in other fossil mantispoid larvae and in the larva of the living Mucroberotha Tjeder32,34,35. Electroxipheus also lacks a specialized terminal sensillum at the tip of the antenna, a character found in all mantispoids and several other clades of lacewings30.
Phylogenetic analysis
The MP analysis under equal weights yielded 936 most-parsimonious trees (tree length = 368 steps; consistency index = 0.535; retention index = 0.854). The strict consensus cladogram is shown in Supplementary Information Fig. S1. When enforcing implied weights, the analyses generated different topologies according to the selected k-value of the default weighting function. The topology derived from the best-fitting k-value (k = 10.239) obtained by the “setk.run” algorithm was selected for discussing the relationships within Neuroptera and for reconstructing the affinities of the fossil larva and mapping the evolution of character states (Fig. 5, Supplementary Information Fig. S2). Under these conditions, the search yielded 2 most-parsimonious trees with a tree length of 370 steps and a total fit of 12.596.
The performed phylogenetic analyses differ in the reconstruction of the phylogenetic backbone of Neuroptera and in the resolution of some clades, although they were broadly consistent in recovering the affinities of Electroxipheus (Figs. 5, 6, Supplementary Information Figs S1, S2). The MP analysis under IW resulted in the best resolved phylogeny, while the reconstructions under both MP enforcing EW and under BI were largely unresolved. The monophyly of Neuroptera was strongly supported in all analyses (MP Bremer support: 6; BI Posterior Probability: 100). Under IW, Coniopterygidae emerged as the sister group to all remaining Neuroptera based on one unique synapomorphy (84:1, cervical sclerite and lateral abdominal tendon present). Instead, under both EW and BI, the relationships among lacewings clades were not resolved. The IW search found three main subclades encompassing all the remaining lacewings: clade A (Osmyloidea), clade B and clade F (Ithonidae + Myrmeleontiformia). Monophyletic Osmyloidea were supported by one unique synapomorphy (73:1, posterior tentorial pits not in contact with subgenal ridge, ventro-lateral to it) and included Nevrorthidae as sister to Osmylidae + Sisyridae. Osmyloidea were not recovered as monophyletic by both EW and BI, though both analyses recovered a poorly supported sister relationship between Osmylidae and Sisyridae (MP Bremer support: 1; BI posterior probability: 86). MP analyses under both weighting schemes recovered clade B (MP Bremer support: 1), which encompassed two clusters: clade C, comprising Hemerobiidae as sister to Chrysopoidea and clade D, including Dilaridae as sister to Mantispoidea. Clade C Monophyly of Chrysopoidea, including living Chrysopidae and Mesozoic Mesochrysopidae relied on one homoplasious synapomorphy (61:2) and obtained low supports (MP BS: 1), although both Chrysopidae (MP Bremer support: 1; BI posterior probabilities: 93) and Mesochrysopidae (MP Bremer support: 1; BI posterior probability: 79) were recovered as monophyletic. Monophyly of the clade IV (Dilaridae + Mantispoidea) was supported by two unique synapomorphies (31:1, lateral remnants of frontoclypeal sulcus absent; 31:1, mandibulo-maxillary stylets straight; 70:1, tentorial bridge reduced or absent) (MP Bremer support: 2; BI posterior probability: 96). Monophyly of Dilaridae relied on three unique (105:2, empodium stick-shaped; 107:1, pretarsal claws of prothoracic leg of different shape and size; 140:5, abdominal segment 10 with prominent paired cup-shaped adhesive pads) and three homoplasious synapomorphies and earned high supports (MP Bremer support: 4; BI posterior probability: 100). Mantispoidea, including Electroxipheus, were recovered as monophyletic based on one unique (104:1, unguitractor process present) and two homoplasious (20:2; 25:1) synapomorphies (MP Bremer support: 1; BI posterior probability: 96). Electroxipheus was consistently recovered as the sister group to all Mantispoidea in all analyses. The monophyly of the remaining Mantispoidea relied on one unique synapomorphy (3:1, head capsule > 1.5 times longer than wide). Under IW, the fossil specimen from Spanish amber MCNA9294 (Berothid_ Peñacerrada 1) was recovered as the sister group to all the remaining mantispoids, while monophyletic Mantispidae formed a dichotomy with a cluster (clade E) including Rhachiberothidae and living and fossil species of Berothidae. Instead, both EW and BI analyses found monophyletic Mantispidae emerging from a polytomy encompassing unresolved Berothidae and Rhachiberothidae. The monophyly of Mantispidae, which included Plega Navás (Symphrasinae) as sister to Mantispa Illiger (Mantispinae) and Ditaxis McLachlan (Drepanicinae), relied on two homoplasious apomorphies (25:0; 40:4; 51:1), with high supports (MP Bremer support: 4; BI posterior probability: 100). Under IW, Clade E was supported by one unique (79:1, lateral sutures of head capsule present) and comprised extant representatives of Rhachiberothidae (Mucroberotha) and Berothidae (Podallea Navás, Lomamyia Banks) and several fossil larvae assigned to the berothids from Cenozoic ambers (Berothid_Baltic_B, Berothid_Baltic_D, Berothoid_Rovno). Under IW, Ithonidae clusterized with Myrmeleontiformia based on two unique (22:0, antennomere 3 with short sensilli; 79:1, head-thorax articulation dorsal) and one homoplasious (61:2) synapomorphies. The monophyly of Ithonidae was supported also under EW and BI with high supports supports (MP Bremer support: 10; BI posterior probability: 100), despite a sister-group relationship to Myrmeleontiformia was not supported. Monophyly of Myrmeleontiformia, including living Myrmeleontoidea and their fossil relatives, was confirmed in all analyses (MP Bremer support: 1; BI posterior probability: 97).