Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 | DO! 10.3897/dez.71.112433 eg COU De TA ________as_. D> PENSOFT. Nites a NATURKUNDE BERLIN Et latet et lucet: Discoveries from the Phyletisches Museum amber and copal collection in Jena, Germany Brendon E. Boudinot!*°, Bernhard L. Bock!, Michael Weingardt', Daniel Tréger', Jan Batelka’*, Di Lit’, Adrian Richter!:©, Hans Pohl!, Olivia T. D. Moosdorf!:*, Kenny Jandausch’’, Jorg U. Hammel®, Rolf G. Beutel! Friedrich-Schiller-Universitdt Jena, Institut fiir Zoologie und Evolutionsforschung, ErbertstraBe 1, 07743 Jena, Germany National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, 10th & Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC, USA Senckenberg Naturmuseum Frankfurt, Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Vinicna 7, 128 43 Praha 2, Czech Republic Department of Entomology, China Agricultural University, 100193 Beijing, China Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University, 1919-1 Tancha, Onna son, 904-0495, Japan Institute for Anatomie I, Jena University Hospital, Teichgraben 7, 07743 Jena, Germany Institute of Materials Physics, Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Max-Planck-Strape 1, 21502 Geesthacht, Germany CON DO BP WY https://zoobank. org/050A 157B-D712-4094-B4FA-E605 15 1001EA Corresponding authors: Brendon E. Boudinot (boudinotb@gmail.com, brendon.boudinot@senckenberg.de); Bernhard L. Bock (bernhard-leopold.bock@uni-jena.de); Michael Weingardt (michael.weingardt@uni-jena.de) Academic editor: Sonja Wedmann @ Received 8 September 2023 @ Accepted 8 January 2024 Published 19 April 2024 Abstract As the only direct records of the history of evolution, it is critical to determine the geological source of biota-bearing fossils. Through the application of synchrotron-radiation micro-computed tomography (SR-u-CT), Fourier-transformed infrared-spectroscopy (FT-IR), visual evaluation of ultraviolet fluorescence (UV-VS), radiocarbon dating ('*C quantification), and historical sleuthing, we were able to identify and sort 161 (83 Baltic amber, 71 Copal and 7 Kauri gum pieces) individually numbered and largely mislabeled pieces of East African Defaunation resin (~145 years old) and copal (~390 years old), as well as Baltic amber (~35 million years old) from the Phyletisches Museum collection. Based on this collection, we define two new species: {Amphientomum knorrei Weingardt, Bock & Boudinot, sp. nov. (Psocodea: Amphientomidae, copal) and + Baltistena nigrispinata Batelka, Troger & Bock, sp. nov. (Coleoptera: Mordellidae, Baltic amber). For selected taxa, we provide systematic reviews of the fossil record, including: Amphientomidae, for which we provide a key to all species of Amphientomum, extant and extinct, and recognize the junior synonymy of Am. ectostriolatum Li, 2002 (an unjustified emendation) under Am. ectostriolate Li, 1999 (syn. nov.); the fossil ant genus + Yantaromyrmex and the clades Dorylinae, Plagiolepidini, Camponotus, Crematogaster, and Pheidole (Formicidae); the Nevrorthidae (Neuroptera); and Doliopygus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Platypodinae). We synonymize Palaeoseopsis Enderlein, 1925 with Amphientomum Pictet, 1854, syn. nov. and transfer one species from Amphientomum, forming Lithoseopsis indentatum (Turner, 1975), comb. nov. To prevent the uncrit- ical usage of unidentifiable fossils attributed to Camponotus for macroevolutionary analysis, we transfer 29 species to the form genus +Camponotites Steinbach, 1967, which we consider to be most useful as incertae sedis in the Formicinae. We treat *Ctt. ullrichi (Bach- mayer, 1960), comb. nov. as unidentifiable hence invalid stat. nov. We also transfer tCa. mengei Mayr, 1868 and its junior synonym +Ca. igneus Mayr, 1868 to a new genus, tEocamponotus Boudinot, gen. nov., which 1s incertae sedis in the Camponotini. Concluding our revision of Camponotus fossils, we transfer *Ca. palaeopterus (Zhang, 1989) to Liometopum (Dolichoderinae), resulting in +L. pa- laeopterum comb. nov. and the junior synonymy of tShanwangella Zhang, 1989, syn. nov. under Liometopum Mayr, 1861. Because the type specimens of the genera *Palaeosminthurus Pierce & Gibron, 1962, stat. rev. and tPseudocamponotus Carpenter, 1930 are unidentifiable due to poor preservation, we consider these taxa unidentifiable hence invalid stat. nov. To avoid unsupported use of the available fossils names attributed to Crematogaster for divergence dating calibration points, we transfer three species to a new collective taxon that is incertae sedis in Myrmicinae, +/ncertogaster Boudinot, gen. nov., forming t/n. aurora (LaPolla & Greenwalt, 2015), t/n. praecursor (Emery, 1891), comb. nov., and t/n. primitiva (Radchenko & Dlussky, 2019), comb. nov. Finally, we transfer +Ph. cordata (Holl, 1829) back to Pheidole, and designate a neotype from our copal collection based on all available evidence. All new species plus the neotype of tPh. cordata are depicted with 3D cybertypes from our u-CT scan data. We introduce the convention of a Copyright Brendon E. Boudinot et al. 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. 112 Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum double dagger symbol (1) to indicate fossils in copal or Defaunation resin, as these may yet be extant. To further contextualize our re- sults, we provide a discussion of amber history and classification, as well as the Kleinkuhren locality, to which multiple specimens were attributed. We conclude with conspecti on key biological problems and increasing potential of u-CT for phylogenetic paleontology. Key Words ants, barklice, best practices, digitization, lacewings, micro-computed tomography (u-CT), morphology, museomics, phenomics, taxonomy 1. Introduction “Et latet et lucet Phaethontide condita gutta, ut videatur apis nectare clusa suo.” “Caught in a[n]| [amber tear] drop of Phaethontide a bee is hidden and shines, so that it may be seen that she is buried in her own nectar.” — (Mart. 4.32), Marcus Valerius Martialis (between 38 and 41 AD — 102 and 104 AD) The Phyletisches Museum in Jena, Germany, was founded by the famous and notorious zoologist Ernst Haeckel, who laid the foundation stone in 1907 and donated the museum to the University of Jena in 1908. Today, the collection of the Jugendstil or Art Nouveau building contains about 750,000 specimens, of which insects represent approximately two thirds, while the remainder is divided among the other an- imal classes and phyla, with vertebrates forming a large and valuable proportion. Since its founding, the museum has accumulated material from notable scientific figures, including Haeckel’s successor Ludwig Plate (1862-1937), Richard Semon (1859-1918), Wilhelm Kukenthal (1861- 1922), Jurgen Harms (1885-1956), Otto Wohlberedt (1870-1945), and Dietrich Starck (1908-2001), among others (see Uschmann 1959; von Knorre 1983). The paleontological collection of the Phyletisches Museum contains more than 30,000 objects, split into historical and contemporary sets. The historical part is marked with the acronym PMJ P and was acquired af- ter the closure of the geoscientific institutes of Jena Uni- versity in 1968 and represents a “closed collection’. All other fossils bear the acronym PMJ Pa, and specimens are still added to this contingent. In addition to type ma- terial, these collections also contain other historically valuable objects, such as the so called “Goethe-Stier” (the holotype of Bos primigenius taurus Bojanus, 1827; von Knorre and Beutel 2018) and an elephant skull that was used by von Goethe for his “Zwischenkieferstudien” (“studies on the os intermaxillare’’) (Valentini 1714; Ma- tuschek 2020). The museum also possesses a small am- ber collection, containing for instance important fossils of Strepsiptera, including members of the stem group and the most ancestral species of the order (Pohl et al. 2005, 2021; Pohl and Beutel 2016). dez.pensoft.net While reorganizing material and cleaning storage spaces following the closure of the museum in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we made a surprising dis- covery: Another amber collection, which had been lost for several decades. In total, this collection consisted of 161 pieces, of which 76 were unlabeled. The remaining material was labeled as East African copal (“Ost-Afrika”; 3 pieces), amber from Samland (51 pieces from “Bern- steinwerke Konigsberg”, 14 from Samland, and 1 piece from “Kleinkuhren’), or stated as possibly coming from Samland (“Samland?”, 15 pieces), as well as one piece from “Ostseestrand” (Baltic Sea beach). As we processed the material and started making identifications, we found a number of potential new records from specimens direct- ly labeled as Baltic amber, with profound evolutionary implications, particularly for the Formicidae. As the new records accumulated, we became skeptical of the labeling and pursued multiple approaches to resolve the sources of the “amber” pieces in this rediscovered fossil collection of the Phyletisches Museum. The objectives of our present study, therefore, were to: (1) Identify the source or sources of the fossils; (2) iden- tify the insect inclusions as finely as possible; (3) provide taxonomic treatments within the realms of our exper- tise; and (4) to contextualize this historically overlooked collection more broadly. Toward these ends, we imple- mented a battery of qualitative and quantitative tests of the fossil matrices, we investigated the historical records from and associated with the Phyletisches Museum, and we applied synchrotron-radiation micro-computed to- mography (SR-u-CT) and traditional light microscopy methods to interrogate the fine-scale structure of the fos- sil insects in a comparative framework. Consequently, we report the results of our taphonomic investigation and key historical findings, and we provide revisionary systematic treatments for select taxa of Psocodea, Formicidae, Neu- roptera, and Coleoptera. 2. Materials and methods Note on convention: We introduce the double dagger sym- bol (£) to indicate taxa that are known only from copal or Defaunation resin, to distinguish it from the single dagger (+), which 1s used to indicate taxa known only from amber. Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 2.1. Fossil specimens All fossil pieces from the rediscovered Bernsteinsammlung (amber collection) of the Phyletisches Museum were pro- vided with unique specimen identifiers. The identifiers are in the “Inv.-Nr. Pa.” series, which corresponds to the older accessions of the museum (von Knorre and Beutel 2018). The amber pieces were stored in three drawers in the attic of the museum and have been untouched for around 50 years. Presumably, due to the strong temperature and humidity fluctuations, the overall condition was quite poor with the fossils having brittle, deteriorated surfaces (Bisulca et al. 2012). Some of the pieces were found to be coated with an unknown type of varnish, which emitted a distinct smell during grinding. Other specimens were unconventionally glued to cardstock. We infer that the glue was some sort of epoxy, as this was commercially available in the late 1940s (Chen et al. 2019), and that the pieces were likely glued by E. Uhlmann sometime after acquisition (see section 3.1.1 below). We observed that the epoxy had “eaten” its way into the amber over time, resulting in dissolved surfaces. We re- moved the epoxy completely through careful grinding. 2.2. Specimen preparation To facilitate the identification of inclusions, all amber spec- imens were manually ground and polished. Grinding was done with waterproof single silicon carbide abrasive paper (Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert-Bosch-Platz 1, 70839 Ger- lingen, Germany) soaked in water (Sadowski et al. 2021). Initial sandpaper grainsize was chosen for each specimen individually, depending on condition and on the distance of the inclusions to the surface. In general, we used the following grainsize steps: 180, 400, 500, 1000, 1200, and 2000. Whenever possible, we made an effort to generate flat surface windows for viewing. Grinding was performed with sandpaper over a glass plate in one hand and the am- ber piece in the other hand. Amber pieces and glass plate were cleaned with water between every grain size step. We experimented with different polishes such as chalk and Peek Polish (Peek Polish International, 51 Waterloo Road London NW2 7TX, United Kingdom). As the latter contains residual petroleum (Peek Premium Polish Paste Safety Data Sheet), it was used very cautiously but pro- duced good results. Finally, we found that excellent results could be achieved by using the toothpaste Colgate® Sen- sation White Aktivkohle Zahnpasta (Colgate-Palmolive, 300 Park Avenue New York, NY, United States). A dab of toothpaste placed on microfibre cloth with a small amount of water was used to polish the amber pieces on all sides, until most of the remaining small scratches were no lon- ger visible. To finish a single piece took up to three hours, as constant control under a desktop-mounted magnifying glass was mandatory to prevent grinding off inclusions. To isolate specific inclusions, some amber specimens were cut into smaller pieces using a Dremel® 3000 (Robert Bosch GmbH, Dremel, 1800 W. Central Rd., Mt. Prospect, diglles Illinois, U.S.) with a thin saw blade (0.1 mm) attachment. As the Dremel’s minimum speed is 10000/min, which was too fast for freehand amber cutting, we used a defective Proxxon FBS 240/E (Proxxon Inc., 130 US Hwy 321 SW, Hickory, NC 28602 USA) to create guiding cuts. The low- est revolution rate of the Proxxon is given as 5000/min, but the one that we used had a markedly lower speed. With the guiding cuts done, the faster Dremel® could be used safe- ly. This process required very straight cuts to prevent the blade from bending and getting caught in the amber, which would occasionally cause breaking or splintering. Alterna- tively, we also used a hardwood saw (Heckenrose 3 fein, Augusta-Heckenrose, Werkzeugfabriken GmbH & Co KG, Rudolf-Diesel-Strabe 36, 71154 Nufringen, Germany) of 0.3 mm, in this case with the tool fixed in place and the am- ber pulled over the blade. After polishing and cutting, the specimens were carefully dried using a microfiber cloth. The final curatorial step was to store the fossils in individ- ually shaped moulds of PE-Foam (S V-Schaumstoffe GmbH, Junkerstrabe 10, 82178 Puchheim, Germany) in insect draw- ers. A slit was cut into the foam above each object, into which the matching label was inserted. A small note was placed under each amber piece (Museumspapier altweif} mit Alka- lipuffer, Klug Conservation, ZollstraBe 2, 087509 Immen- stadt, Germany) with the corresponding inventory number. 2.3. Establishing the material origin of the fossils As most of the specimens in the three PMJ Pa drawers lacked reliable collection information, we undertook a series of tests to determine whether the fossils had the properties of amber or copal. Specifically, we evaluated melting behavior, auto- fluorescence, hardness, solubility, and density. All tests were compared between the PMJ Pa material and known samples, which were either from Ethiopian, Baltic, or Burmese am- bers. As the Ethiopian pieces were a loan from MAIG (Mu- seum of Amber Inclusions, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland), we did not sample these destructively. To confirm that our specimens were products of plant resin rather than artefacts in plastic material, we heated a needle and attempted to insert it into the test samples to test melting behavior. We checked fluorescence using a handheld LED UV flashlight and a 6 pi LED special UV lamp with a 120° angle of radiation. To test hardness, we scratched the test pieces either against our fingernails or vice versa. For the solubility test, we used a Dremel disc saw with a diamond blade to cut small pieces from the test samples, which we then placed in 99.5% Acetone; after a few minutes, we removed the samples and pressed them between our fingers. For the density test, we filled two dish- es with fresh water, and added salt to saturation to one of them, after which we placed known and unknown samples in both liquids. Finally, we sent a representative sample of 10 specimens that were either labeled as “copal” or “am- ber” to the International Amber Association (IAA; Gdansk, Poland) for UV fluorescence and Fourier-transformed in- frared spectroscopy (FT-IR) (Table 1). dez.pensoft.net 114 Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Table 1. Specimens tested at the IAA, their expected sources, results of the FT-IR analysis, and the color of each resin piece. Four specimens (bold) conformed to expectations based on the provided label data. PMJ Pa Expected source Result 5806 Baltic (succinite) Copal sensu lato 5807 Baltic (succinite) Copal s. /. 5808 Baltic (succinite) Copal s. /. 5809 Baltic (succinite) Copal s. /. 5824 Baltic (succinite) Copal s. /. 5825 Copal Copal / (Kauri gum?)! 5827 Baltic (succinite) Copal s. /. 5830 Copal Succinite 5855 Baltic (succinite) Succinite 5871 Baltic (succinite) Succinite 5858 Baltic (succinite) Succinite 5884 Baltic (succinite) Copal s. /. 5889 Baltic (succinite) Copal s. 7. Color Notable inclusion Yellow Mantodea Yellow Formicidae: Lepisiota Yellow Formicidae: Dorylus Yellow Psocodea: Amphientomum Yellow Formicidae: Crematogaster Yellow Psocodea: Archipsocidae Yellow Formicidae: Pheidole, Dorylus Orange Brachycera, Auchenorrhyncha Orange Diptera: Tipulomorpha Orange Archaeognatha Orange Diptera: Tipulomorpha Yellow Formicidae: Dorylus Yellow Formicidae: Pheidole ' The IAA results suggest that this specimen may be from Kauri gum. Without additional evidence, we provisionally recognize that this specimen is not amber and is of uncertain source. 2.4. Microscopy Specimens were examined at the Phyletisches Museum primarily with a Zeiss Stemi SV 11 stereomicroscope and a Zeiss Axioskop compound microscope. For the stereo- microscope a maximum magnification of 40x was used. For the light microscope we used the magnifications 50x, 100x and 200~. 2.5. Photography To remove minute scratches, the amber pieces select- ed for photography were polished in three succes- sive steps with ST5000, ST7000 wet abrasive paper (Starcke, Melle, Germany), and Peek polish (Tri-Peek International, Saffron Walden, United Kingdom) or Colgate® Sensation White Aktivkohle Zahnpasta (Col- gate-Palmolive, 300 Park Avenue New York, NY, Unit- ed States). For overview photographs, stacks of partially fo- cused images were taken of the amber pieces with a Canon EOS R5 equipped with a Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens (Canon, Krefeld, Ger- many), which was mounted on a Kaiser copy stand. For focus bracketing, the internal camera software was used. The scene was illuminated with a Euromex LE.5211-230 cold light source for stereomicroscopy (Euromex, Papenkamp, Netherlands) equipped with three gooseneck lamps to adjust light conditions and prevent reflections. Underneath the camera a blurred glass plate was positioned over a black sprayed Kapa® box. The amber pieces were placed on the glass plate in a petri dish filled with distilled water as suggested by Sadowski et al. (2021). The amber was held in place with UHU Patafix (UHU, Buhl, Germany). Some piec- es were photographed without water to obtain a better spatial impression. For shots of details from single embedded specimens, a Canon Eos 7D Mark II (Canon, Krefeld, Germany) equipped with a Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 10 microscopic dez.pensoft.net lens (Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan) was used. To perform stack shots, the camera was mounted on a StackShot macro rail (Cognisys, Traverse City, USA). Two flash- lights (Yongnuo Photographic Equipment, Shenzhen, China) illuminated the scene. The amber pieces were placed on a cover slip. Plasticine was used to level the surface. A drop of glycerine was placed on the surface of the amber piece, and the glycerine was then cov- ered by an additional cover slip. Additional detail 1m- ages were taken at the Museum fir Naturkunde Berlin (MfN), where manual stacks were taken using a Zeiss Axioscope 5 with a Zeiss Achromat S 1,0 FWD 63 (Carl Zeiss AG, Oberkochen, Germany), mounted with a Can- on EOS 80D (Canon, Krefeld, Germany) via a T2-T2 1,6x SLR tube. All photographs were developed with Adobe Light- room classic (v.11.5) (Adobe, San Jose, USA). The im- ages (option: standard) were denoised with Topaz De- Noize AI (Topaz Labs, Dallas, USA). Zerene stacker 1.04 (Zerene Systems LLC, Richland, USA) was used to fuse the images (option: align & stack all (PMax). 2.6. Micro-computed tomography Nine specimens (Table 2) were scanned using synchro- tron radiation (SR-u-CT) at the Imaging Beamline P05 (IBL) (Haibel et al. 2010; Greving et al. 2014; Wilde et al. 2016) operated by the Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon at the storage ring PETRA III (Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron—DESY, Hamburg, Germany). A photon energy of 18 keV and a sample to detector distances of 30-50 mm were used. Projections were recorded us- ing a 50 MP CMOS camera system with an effective pixel size of 0.46 um. 4001 projections were recorded for each tomographic scan at equal intervals between 0 and 2, with an exposure time of 350 ms. When speci- mens were too large to fit into the field of view in the Z-axis, we scanned overlapping sections and subse- quently stitched them together. Tomographic recon- struction was done by applying a transport of intensity Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 115 Table 2. Specimens scanned at DESY; data available as Suppl. material 1. Specimen ID Taxon name Stage/sex PMJ Pa 5827 _a Coleoptera: Platypodinae: Doliopygus cf. serratus Adult male PMJ Pa 5870 Coleoptera: Mordellidae: *Baltistena nigrispinata Batelka, Troger & Bock, sp. nov. Adult, sex indet. PMJ Pa 5821! Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Cixiidae Adult female PMJ Pa 5884 Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Dorylus nigricans molestus (Gerstacker, 1859) Adult worker PMJ Pa 5809 Psocodea: tAmphientomum knorrei Weingardt, Bock & Boudinot, sp. nov. Adult female PMJ Pa 5825 Psocodea: Archipsocidae Adult female PMJ Pa 5889 Hymenoptera: Formicidae: {Pheidole cordata (Holl, 1829) Adult soldier PMJ Pa 5874? Neuroptera: tPalaeoneurorthus sp. Adult male PMJ Pa 58963 Arachnida: Salticidae Adult, sex indet. ' Not analyzed further; no taxonomic expertise. ? Not analyzed further; poor preservation. > Not analyzed further; specimen not visible in scan files. phase retrieval and using the filtered back projection algorithm (FBP) implemented in a custom reconstruc- tion pipeline (Moosmann et al. 2014) using MATLAB (Math-Works) and the Astra Toolbox (Palenstijn et al. 2011; van Aarle et al. 2015, 2016). For further process- ing, raw projections were binned two times resulting in an effective pixel size of the reconstructed volume of 0.913 um. For segmentation and visualization, the 32-bit .tif image sequences were converted to 8-bit files and downsampled twofold with Fiji (Schindelin et al. 2012), resulting in an effective pixel (voxel) size of 1.826 um. 2.7. *C dating of samples Two samples, PMJ Pa 5809 ({Amphientomum knorrei Weingardt, Bock & Boudinot, sp. nov.) and PMJ Pa 5884 (Dorylus nigricans molestus) were dated using '4C anal- ysis, as recommended by Delclos Martinez et al. (2020). Amber pieces with a mass of 5 mg (PMJ Pa 5809), 6 mg (PMJ Pa 5884) and 5 mg (PMJ Pa 5889) were cut off and sent to Beta Analytic (4985 S.W. 74" Court, Miami, FL, USA 33155). Dating analyses resulted in estimated age ranges with certain likelihoods. The age range with the highest likelihood was chosen (Table 3). Based on our identifications of the copal inclusions and the his- tory of the collections, East Africa was selected as the geographic reference for dating. We chose the psocode- an as taxonomic work on the group is challenged, with presently only a handful of specialists working on them (e.g., Mockford 2018). We also chose the putative Baltic Dorylus due to its potential evolutionary and biogeo- graphic implications. Table 3. '*C-dating results based on the testing by Beta Analyt- ic. The maximum age of the estimated range is listed. 4C-dated Results Maximum age in years PMJ Pa 5809 tAmphientomum knorrei 390 +/-30 BP 565 Specimen contained PMJ Pa 5884 Dorylus nigricans 50 +/-30 BP 145 molestus PMJ Pa 5889 tPheidole cordata, 720 +/- 30 BP 746 Lepidoptera indet 2.8. Data segmentation and rendering u-CT-image stacks were segmented and 3D-reconstructed using Amira 6.0.1 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and Drag- onfly 2022.1 (Object Research Systems,). Image (tif) stacks and isosurfaces were exported with the Amira mac- ro “Multi-Export” (Engelkes et al. 2018). The isosurfaces were reduced and smoothed with following parameters: It- Total: 5; smooth: iteration: 4, lambda: 0.6; reduction: 0.7. Tiffs were volume rendered in VGStudio Max 2.0 (Volume Graphics) using the option Phong reflection model. The isosurfaces were further smoothed (modifier: smooth and option shade smooth) with Blender 3.2.0 (Blender Foun- dation). The 3D-Models were uploaded to the 3D reposito- ry Sketchfab (URL: https://sketchfab.com) using the free blender plugin: Sketchfab for Blender 1.5.0 (URL: https:// github.com/sketchfab/blender-plugin/releases/tag/1.5.0). 2.9. Image plates Image plates were compiled using Adobe Photoshop (v. 24.1.0) (Adobe, San Jose, USA). Lettering was added with Adobe Illustrator (v. 27.2). 2.10. Repositories Specimens evaluated in the present study, and also for the use of comparison to each other, were from the following collections: BEBC Brendon E. Boudinot research collection, Frankfurt am Main, Germany MAIG Museum of Amber Inclusions, University of Gdansk, Poland. PMJ Phyletisches Museum Jena, Germany. MNHB Museum fir Naturkunde Berlin, Germany. MWC Michael Weingardt research collection, Jena, Germany. SMNS _ Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde Stuttgart, Germany. USNM US. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D. C., U.S.A. dez.pensoft.net 116 2.11. Data availability The raw scan data will be made available at Morpho- Source upon acceptance. 3. Results 3.1. Fossil sources 3.1.1. Fossil provenance Collector. Unknown. Date. Unknown. It is likely that the 161 fossil pieces in the collection were acquired by the Phyletisches Museum in several batches between 1920 and 1930 (see below). Circumstantial evidence. By the handwriting of the label for specimen PMJ Pa 5827, the date of collection is estimated between 1920 and 1930 (personal com- munication with Uwe Dathe, Historische Sammlungen ThULB, 15.07.2022 and Alexander Gehler, Geowis- senschaftliches Zentrum der Georg-August-Universi- tat, 14.07.2022). The label for specimen PMJ Pa 5827 has two different scripts on each side, which cannot be clearly assigned to any handwriting samples in the museum’s archives. Furthermore, the former curator of the museum, Dietrich von Knorre, stated that Edu- ard Uhlmann (1888-1974) was in charge of the small “Bernsteinsammlung” (amber collection); Uhlmann was a scientific assistant, later conservator at the Phy- letisches Museum Jena while it was under the director- ship of Ludwig Plate (director from 1909-1935), and later became associate professor (ao. [auferodentli- cher] Professor 1950) and director of the Phyletisches Museum from 1952 till 1954. In accordance with the statements above, there are handwritten labels on nine specimens (Pa 5828, 5829, 5836, 5871, 5873, 5874, 5875, 5882, and 5885) which can be assigned to E. Uhlmann and his wife Frida Uhlmann (born Preiss, 1894-1981). This assessment is unambiguous as the Uhlmanns re-sorted numerous drawers in the entomology collection, which were la- belled by her (Krogmann et al. 2007). Moreover, von Knorre stated (25.07.2022) that Uhlmann (Fig. 1) be- queathed the small amber collection to him after retire- ment, which von Knorre later added to the museum’s collection. We screened the archives of the Friedrich Schiller University (21.07.2022) and the Phyletisches Museum (21—22.07.2022) but did not discover invoices or personal communication of Uhlmann and Plate. In sum, how exactly the small amber collection found its way into the museum cannot be confidently resolved at present. Listed localities. Of the 161 numbered pieces, 76 lacked locality information and one additional number was associated with human-made beads without further information (Pa 5911; not included in the total count). dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Of the remaining 85 pieces, 21 have labels indicating a Baltic origin and three are marked as copal from East Africa, such as Pa 5829, which has a handwritten label stating “Kopalinsect Ost-Afrika Diluvium”. One of the putative Baltic pieces, Pa 5827, has a handwritten label “Fundsttick von Kleinkuhren Samland” (Filino), while 15 are marked with “Samland?” and the derivation of 51 of the other presumptive amber specimens is indicated as Samland Bernsteinwerke Konigsberg on the labels, with an authentic invoice from the “PreuB. Bergwerks- und Hutten-Akt.-Ges. Zweigniederlassung Bern- steinwerke Konigsberg Pr. for 1 M” for Pa 5863. For a discussion of the Samland and Kleinkuhren localities, see also section 4.2. Figure 1. Eduard Uhlmann around 1955. Archive of the Phy- letisches Museum XX VII. Qualitative tests. Despite the labels, the locality or localities of origin are not as clear as the first impres- sion suggested. As it is not possible to discriminate co- pal and amber reliably based on the visual appearance alone (e.g., Federman 1990), we conducted a series of qualitative tests (see section 2.3), most of them at the Phyletisches Museum. Overall, the qualitative tests were contradictory and inconclusive. All pieces la- belled as amber floated in saltwater and all labelled as copal sunk, apparently confirming the original labels. However, not a single piece in the collection emitted Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 blue light under UV, while amber specimens of known provenance from the BEBC (burmite, succinite) and MAIG (Ethiopian amber) did. By burning the different samples from the PMJ Pa collection, every piece siz- zled and produced black smoke, as expected for amber. Only one sample (Pa 5809) showed clear white smoke, but burning a larger piece yielded black smoke. Thus, the expected difference—that amber burns and copal melts—was not observed. When only small pieces were left, both copal and amber melted. Most conspicuous was a sweet odor produced by burning a larger piece of copal (from Pa 5809), which clearly distinguished it from true amber. This scent was not detected with smaller pieces, however. Quantitative tests. For quantitative testing, addition- al small pieces were cut off and sent to the International Amber Association (IAA, 1 Warzywnicza Street, 80-838 Gdansk, Poland) and checked with the UV/VIS and the FT-IR method (Table 1). The results from these analyses contradicted those from the qualitative tests and showed that all light-yellow pieces were copal, including those with Dorylus. In contrast, the darker, orange-colored pieces were true succinite (Baltic amber), including the one with + Yantaromyrmex. Finally, the '*C dating yielded an age of only ~145 years old for the piece containing the Dorylus. Therefore, this and other pieces with simi- lar biotic inclusions are identifiable as Defaunation resin (sensu Solorzano-Kraemer et al. 2020), while the esti- mated age for the Amphientomum-bearing specimen is ~390 years old. Biotic evidence. Ultimately, our final interpretations of the geological source of the putative amber pieces were based on the combined weight of evidence from the IAA results and the insect inclusions themselves. While it was exciting to consider the possibility that the Dorylus, Lepisiota, Pheidole, and Crematogaster ants were first records from Baltic amber, our u-CT scan of the Dorylus revealed that it is identifiable as an extant subspecies. Moreover, this subspecies, Dor nigricans molestus (Figs 2A—C, 3, Appendix 1: Fig. Al), was pre- Table 4. All identified taxa from the PMJ Pa amber collection. 117 viously recorded from reliably identified Tanzanian co- pal by DuBois (1998) (see section 4.2.2 below). Another critical element of biotic evidence was the large piece PMJ Pa 5827, which contained another Do. n. molestus as well as a distinctive platypodine beetle (Curculion- idae; “ambrosia beetles”, “pinhole borers”). Based on our u-CT rendering of the beetle, Bjarte Jordal (01 Nov 2022) identified it as either Doliopygus serratus or Dol. cf. serratus (Figs 4A—C, Appendix 1: Fig. A2), which in either case represents bark beetle populations that are extreme generalists, and presently distributed through- out Southern, Central, and West Africa (Beaver and Loyttyniemi 1985). Several other amber pieces from the PMJ Pa contained sweat bees (Meliponini) that closely resembled specimens from known African copal piec- es at the SMNS. All these aforementioned fossil pieces were light yellow, while other specimens—without these distinctive taxa—were dark and of a pinkish red color. Among these darker specimens was an ant definitively identifiable as + Yantaromyrmex geinitzi, the type species of a Baltic-amber-endemic genus. In section 3.2, we out- line the complete list of taxa that we identified in the PMJ Pa collection, as well as the results of investigations on the origin of material compared to the point of start- ing our investigations. 3.2. Fossils of the PMJ Pa amber collection and the origin of material In Table 4 we provide a list of all specimens sorted tax- onomically, including reference to the museum acces- sion numbers. The initial situation of the material, with a rather cha- otic sorting, shows that almost half of the material was without evidence of origin. Around 40% were labelled as Baltic amber, while 3 pieces were labeled as copal (Sup- pl. material 1). Overall, almost 10% were labelled, but with a question mark, which is not reliable information in any case. Taxon Matrix PMJ Pa PLANTAE (Trichomes) Succinite 5872 (Leaf fragments) first 4 Copal s. /, 5886 Copal s. /, 5811, 5820, 5826, 5886, 5839, 5840, 5843, 5848, 5849, 5851, all others Succinite 5855, 5856, 5861, 5862, 5867, 5870, 5883, 5885, 5910 CHELICERATA Acari (Indet.) Succinite 5798, 5840, 5854, 5876 Araneae Linyphiidae Copal s. / 5809 Philodromidae Succinite 5838 Thomisidae Succinite 5877 Zodariidae: cf. Trygetus Copal s. / 5807 Zodariidae Succinite 5876 Uncertain: Araneidae, Palpimanidae, Philodromidae, Salticidae, Thomisidae Succinite First two Copal s. /, others 5827, 5890, 5843, 5879, 5878, 5881 dez.pensoft.net 118 Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Taxon Matrix PMJ Pa Opiliones (Indet.) Succinite 5859 HEXAPODA (Indet.) Succinite 5903, 5908 Collembola Symphypleona Succinite 5908 Archaeognatha Machilidae Succinite 5828 (Indet.) Succinite 5871, 5872 Dictyoptera Blattodea Succinite 5841 Isoptera first 11 Copal s. 7, other Succinite 5794, 5798, 5802, 5803, 5811, 5815, 5818 5819, 5822, 5826, 5827, 5848, 5871 Mantodea Copal s. / 5806 Hemiptera Aphididae Succinite 5860, 5885 Anthocoridae Copal s. / 5827 Cicadellidae Copal, Succinite, Succinite 5827, 5847, 5852 Cixtidae Copal s. / 5821 Issidae Copal s. / 5821 Psyllidae Copal s. / 5798 Coccoidea Succinite 5856 Fulgoroidea Copal s. / 5793 Aleyroidea Copal s. / 5822 (Auchenorrhyncha) Copal s. / 5809 Psocodea Amphientomidae: Copal s. / 5908 tAmphientomum knorrei sp. nov. Archipsocidae Kauri gum? 5825 Liposcelididae Copal s. / 5827 Thysanoptera (Indet.) Copal s. / 5820, 5822 Hymenoptera Anthophila: Apinae Copal s. / 5795, 5807, 5814, 5816, 5817, 5826, 5892 Anthophila: Apinae: Meliponini Copal s. / 5796, 5798, 5800, 5806, 5815, 5822, 5824, 5888, 5893 Anthophila: (indet.) Copal s. / 5793, 5810, 5894 Bethylidae Copal s. / 5823 Braconidae: Cheloninae Copal s. / 5896 Braconidae: (indet.) Copal s. / 5823 Chalcidoidea Copal s. / 5816, 5819, 5820, 5821 Formicidae: Camponotus Copal s. / 5829 Formicidae: tCtenobethylus Succinite 5851, 5874, 5893, 5903 Formicidae: Crematogaster Copal s. / 5824 Formicidae: Dorylus n. molestus Copal s. / 5808, 5827, 5884 Formicidae: Ponerini: cf. Hypoponera Copal s. / 5819 Formicidae: Lepisiota Copal s. / 5807 Formicidae: tPheidole cordata Copal s. / 5827, 5889 Formicidae: + Yantaromyrmex geinitzi Succinite 5856 Formicidae: Dolichoderinae Copal s. / 5817, 5821 Ichneumonidae Succinite 5869 Platygastroidea: Platygastridae Copal s. / 5889 Platygastroidea: Scelionidae sensu lato Copal s. /, Succinite 5809, 5836 Platygastroidea: (indet.) Copal s. /, Succinite, Succinite 5821, 5846, 5877 (Aculeata) Copal s. / 5822, 5890 (Parasitica) Copal s. / 5808, 5891 (Indet.) Succinite 5843 Neuroptera Nevrorthidae: ¢Palaeoneurorthus Succinite 5874 Coleoptera Cantharidae Succinite 5863 Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae? Copal s. / 5827 Chrysomelidae: Alticini? Copal s. / 5810 Chrysomelidae? Copal s. / 5892 Curculionidae: Doliopygus cf. serratus Copal s. / 5827 Curculionidae: Platypodinae Copal s. / 5798, 5805, 5807, 5812, 5814, 5816, 5819 Elateridae Succinite 5851, 5866 dez.pensoft.net Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 119 Taxon Matrix PMJ Pa Mordellidae: +Baltistena nigrispinata Succinite 5870 sp. nov. Staphylinidae Copal s. /, Succinite 5828, 5861 Bostrichoidea? Succinite 5836, 5883 Staphylinoidea? Succinite 5851 (Polyphaga) Copal s. /, Succinite, Copal s. / 5819, 5885, 5891 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Succinite, last one Copal s. / 5848, 5863, 5864, 5889 Chloropidae Succinite 5836 Dolichopodidae Succinite 5837 Mycetophilidae Succinite, last Copal s. / 5848, 5885, 5901, 5890 Sciaridae Succinite, 5851, 5864 Phoridae Copal s. / 5808, 5823, 5827 Psychodidae Copal s. / 5896 Sciaroidea Copal s. /, Succinite 5809, 5840 (Tipulomorpha) Succinite 5855, 5858 (Brachycera) First 7 Copal s. 7, all other 5795, 5807, 5811, 5815, 5822, 5827, 5830, 5836, 5839, 5844, Succinite 5846, 5849, 5853, 5854, 5857, 5862, 5865, 5867, 5868, 5871 (Muscomorpha) Copal s. / 5797, 5799, 5809, 5891 (Calyptrata) Copal s. / 5586 (Nematocera) first 5 Copal s. /, all following 5808, 5827, 5830, 5891, 5895, 5836, 5837, 5839, 5844, 5846, Succinite 5854, 5857, 5858, 5861, 5862, 5870, 5871, 5872, 5874, 5877, , , 5897, 5902, 5903, 5909 (Indet.) first three Copal s. /, other 5821, 5892, 5896, 5843, 5882, 5898, 5905 Succinite Lepidoptera (Indet.) first 3 Copal s. /, last Succinite 5797, 5804, 5889, 5842, Trichoptera Annulipalpia Succinite 5850, 5875 Integripalpia Succinite 5863 (Indet.) Succinite, Copal s. / 5845, 5891 Amphiesmenoptera (Indet.) Succinite 5903 Figure 2. Overview photo of a select piece of Defaunation resin (A) and a piece without dating analysis performed (B). A. Piece PMJ Pa 5884, '*C dated as about ~145 years old, with inclusions of several Dorylus nigricans molestus workers; B. piece PMJ Pa 5827 with the inclusion of the scanned Doliopygus cf. serratus as well as another Do. n. molestus worker. Arrows mark scanned specimens. dez.pensoft.net 120 After identification, provenance research and chem- ical analysis the origin of most of the material could be solved confidently. One of the biggest surprises was that 7 pieces are of Kauri origin. Now, more than half of the material is of clear Baltic origin. The biggest switch was from pieces without evidence and the 3 pieces labelled as copal, as with 44% a sizable number in the collection is indeed East-African copal (Suppl. material 2). 3.3. Systematic entomology 3.3.1. Order Psocodea: Synopsis of higher taxa in the PMJ Pa Mostly families represented by material in the PMJ Pa are reviewed below. The identification of PMJ Pa ma- terial was based on the keys of Smithers (1990), with Taylor (2013) for the amphientomid. Specific details about the fossil deposits and their ages in this and oth- er synopsis header sections are drawn from Paleobio (2022); we have included these for the geological in- formation and to ease future divergence-dating phylo- genetic analysis. Taxonomic information was drawn in part from the Psocodea Species File Version 5.0 (John- son et al. 2023) database. 3.3.1.1. Family Amphientomidae Enderlein, 1903. [Note 1] Amphientominae Enderlein, 1903 amber species: I. Genus Amphientomum Pictet, 1854. [Note 2]. A. Oise amber [France, Le Quesnoy; Eocene, Ypre- sian, 56.0-47.8 Mya]. 1. tAm. parisiense Nel, Prokop, De Ploeg & Millet, 2005. B. Baltic ambers [Eocene, 37.8—33.9 Mya]. 2. tAm. (Amphientomum) leptolepis Enderlein, 1905. [Note 3]. 3. tAm. (Amphientomum) paradoxum Pictet, 1854. [Type species! | 4. +Am. (Palaeoseopsis) colpolepis Enderlein, 1905. C. African resin [ca. 390 + 30 years]. 5. tdm. knorrei Weingardt, Bock & Boudinot, sp. nov. [Note 4]. II. Genus Lithoseopsis Mockford, 1993. D. Mexican amber [Miocene, 23.0—16.0]. 1. tLi. elongata (Mockford, 1969). II. Genus +Proamphientomum Vishnyakova, 1975. E. Taimyr amber [Russia; Cretaceous, 85.8—83.5 Mya]. 1. tPr. cretaceum Vishnyakova, 1975. Amphientomidae amber species incertae sedis: IV. Genus +Arcantipsocus Azar, Nel & Néraudeau, 2009. F. Charentese amber [France; Cretaceous, 105.3-99.6 Mya|. 1. tAra. courvillei Azar, Nel & Néraudeau, 2009. [Note 5]. Note 1. As part of our ongoing psocodean revisionary investigations, we provide an extended discussion of Amphientomum (see below). dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Note 2. A list of all extinct and extant Amphientomum species is provided in Table 5. With the addition of the new species described herein, there are 20 species at- tributed to this genus (Johnson et al. 2023), of which four are extinct; it is unknown if the species described herein is still extant. Note 3. The species + Am. /eptolepis might be a variant of +Am. paradoxum, as these two taxa are distinguished by only a few characters (Enderlein 1911). Specifically, +Am. leptolepis is differentiated from +Am. paradox- um by the following: (1) fore wing with very long and slender scales; (2) sides of the scales parallel; and (3) the count of ctenidiobothria on the hind basitarsus is 36 (vs. 29-34 in tAm. paradoxum) (Enderlein 1911). It should be noted that the description of +Am. leptolepis was based on two specimens (Enderlein 1911, p. 295) and no additional information on this species was pub- lished since then, to the best of our knowledge. Overall, we consider the scale shape as not fully reliable, yet we retain the species status of these two taxa pending more detailed study. Note 4. We describe this new species from African res- in in the PMJ Pa collection. See section 3.1.1.1.4 below for our treatment of this taxon. Note 5. Mockford et al. (2013) synonymized +Ar- cantipsocidae Azar, Nel & Néraudeau, 2009 with Am- phientomidae, arguing that a dark, thickened pterostig- ma is a homoplastic feature across the order Psocodea, thus cannot be relied upon singly for placement in Pso- comorpha. They left +Arcantipsocus unplaced within the family but further recognized features that the ge- nus shares with modern Amphientomidae, i.e., the hind- wing venation and the shape of maxillary palps, head, and forewings. 3.3.1.2. Family Liposcelididae Broadhead, 1950 Liposcelidinae Broadhead, 1950 amber and copal species: I. Genus Liposcelis Motschulsky, 1852. A. Baltic ambers [Eocene, 37.8—33.9 Mya]. 1. tLi. atavus Enderlein, 1911. B. Mexican amber [Miocene, 23.0—16.0]. 2. tLi. sp. [Note 1]. [f]. C. Zanzibar copal [Pleistocene? ]. 3. tLi. resinata (Hagen, 1865). Embidopsocinae Broadhead, 1950 amber species: II. Genus Belaphopsocus Badonnel, 1955. D. Dominican amber [Miocene, 20.4—13.8 Mya]. 1. tBs. dominicus Grimaldi & Engel, 2006. Il. Genus Belaphotroctes Roesler, 1943. B. Mexican amber [Miocene, 23.0—16.0]. 1. tBt. ghesquierei Badonnel, 1949. E. Zhangpu amber [Miocene, 16.0—13.8]. 1. tBt. grimaldii Engel & Wang, 2022. IV. Genus Embidopsocus Hagen, 1866. F. Oise amber [France, Le Quesnoy; Eocene, Ypresian, 56.0-47.8 Mya]. 1. tEm. eocenicus Nel, de Ploég & Azar, 2004. A. Baltic ambers [Eocene, 37.8—33.9 Mya]. 2. tEm. pankowskiorum Engel, 2016. Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 G. Bitterfeld amber [Eocene, 38.0—33.9 Mya]. 3. tEm. saxonicus Gunther, 1989. Liposcelididae amber species incertae sedis: II. Genus *Cretoscelis Grimaldi & Engel, 2006. H. Kachin amber [Myanmar; Cretaceous, 99.6—93.5 Mya]. 1. tCse. burmitica Grimaldi & Engel, 2006. Note 1. Mockford (1969) recognized a species of Lipos- celis from Mexican amber that he left undescribed as 1n- sufficient structural detail, 7.e., cuticular microsculpture and chaetotaxy, was observable. 3.3.1.3. Family Archipsocidae Pearman, 1936 Archipsocinae Pearman, 1936 amber species: I. Genus Archipsocopsis Badonnel, 1948. A. Mexican amber [Miocene, 23.0—16.0]. 1. tAri. antigua (Mockford, 1969). II. Genus Archipsocus Hagen, 1882. B. Baltic ambers [Eocene, 37.8—33.9 Mya]. 1. tAru. puber Hagen, 1882. 3.3.2. Taxon description (Psocodea) Family Amphientomidae Enderlein, 1903 Subfamily Amphientominae Enderlein, 1903 Genus Amphientomum Pictet, 1854 = Amphicetomum Hagen, 1859. = Palaeoseopis Enderlein, 1925 syn. nov. (Type species: +Am. colpole- pis Enderlein, 1905 by original designation. ). Type species. tAm. (Amphientomum) paradoxum Pictet, 1854. Remarks. Pictet (1854) first described the genus from Baltic amber. Enderlein (1905, 1911) defined several character states that define the genus Amphien- tomum. These include a large body size, a relative- ly small ocellar area where the distance between the ocelli is short, a lack of spur sensilla on the maxillary palpomeres, an elongated and narrow fourth maxil- lary palpomere, labial palps with two articles, anten- nal flagellum with secondary annulation, presence of a complete R1 vein in the hindwing, and perhaps more surprisingly the occurrence of only 13 flagellomeres (Enderlein 1911, p. 333). The number of antennomeres might be an oversight by Enderlein (1911), as Hagen (1882) had already described the number of articles (15) correctly. In his revision of Pearman’s (1936) phy- logenetic system of Psocoptera, Roesler (1944) provid- ed morphological characters to define previously estab- lished groupings including the Amphientomidae. In so doing, Roesler designated the previously established genus Palaeoseopsis Enderlein, 1925 as a subgenus of Amphientomum. As such, Am. (Palaeoseopsis) is supposed to differ from Am. (Amphientomum) by the open basiradial cell, the lack of the basal section of Rs in the hindwing, and the emarginate scale tips (Ender- eal lein 1925; Roesler 1944). Badonnel (1955) went a step further and proposed that the subgenus Palaeoseopsis can be removed entirely but did not follow through on this action. It should be noted that an open basiradial cell in the hindwing occurs in all species of the genus that are outside the subgenus Am. (Amphientomum), as in most species only a short spur vein of the bas- al section of Rs is present or the basal section of Rs is entirely missing. Phylogenetic studies on this genus are lacking and the monophyly of the subgenera Am. (Palaeoseopsis) and Am. (Amphientomum) 1s therefore questionable, as they are neither supported by mor- phological apomorphies, nor by molecular data. We therefore formalize the synonymy of Amphientomum and Palaeoseopsis j. syn., syn. nov. The diagnostic characters of the genus Amphientomum are as follows after the identification key by Taylor (2013): presence of wings, the vein M in the hindwing simple, presence of three ocelli, the lateral ocelli closer to each other than to compound eyes, the vein R1 reaching the wing margin in the hindwing, and the distal section of the vein Sc in the forewing present. See also the Remarks section for tAm. knorrei sp. nov. Note. The term sulcus is used here when an external line or furrow corresponds with an internal ridge, L.e., a strengthening ridge (Giron et al. 2023). If no internal ridge is present but a narrow zone of weakness, we use the term suture (e.g., frontal suture). The typical coronal suture (part of the ecdysial suture) of other insects cor- responds with an internal ridge in adult psocids and is therefore here classified as a coronal sulcus. The frontal sutures (part of ecdysial suture) are similarly developed as in other insects, without an internal strengthening ridge. The term epistomal sulcus is used as synonym of the frontoclypeal line. tAmphientomum knorrei Weingardt, Bock & Boudinot, sp. nov. https://zoobank.org/600FA627-5659-486A-AF36-3F 808852EB09 Etymology. We dedicate this species to Dietrich von Knorre, whose lifework was to establish and curate the collection of the Phyletisches Museum. Besides being a natural conservationist and a dedicated teacher of students, von Knorre was the curator of the Museum from 1969 till 2003, during which time he dealt with nearly every item in the entire collection. In addition to his more than 270 publications (Kohler 2019), he has done meticulous research on the history of an immense number of objects and has become the museum’s “liv- ing archive”. With the newly discovered specimen bearing his name, we want to express our gratitude for his continuous support and contributions to the Phy- letisches Museum. Type materials. Holotype. PMJ Pa 5809, Copal (East African?). Female. Interactive cybertype: Appen- dix 1: Fig. A3. Paratypes. None. dez.pensoft.net 122 Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Figure 3. A—C. 3D reconstruction of Dorylus nigricans molestus (Formicidae: Dorylinae) preserved in piece PMJ Pa 5884. A. Hab- itus lateral; B. Habitus frontal; C. Habitus dorsal. See section 4.2.1 below for diagnostic remarks. Diagnosis. Macropterous. Wings and body covered with scales. Scales apically straight or medially incised. Epistomal sulcus complete and corresponding epistomal ridge wide. Genae long. Vertex narrow and rounded. Three ocelli of similar size present, forming an isosceles triangle. Lateral ocelli closer to each other than to com- pound eyes. Compound eyes large and their upper mar- dez.pensoft.net gin reaching uppermost margin of vertex. Antenna with 15 articles. Flagellomeres with secondary annulation. Maxillary palps with four articles, a minute basal article and a long and cylindrical last palpomere that is rounded distally. No conical sensillum visible on second maxil- lary article. Tip of lacinia with long lateral region bearing several rounded denticles, and a shorter truncated median Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 — 123 ee oe < c c ee eee r a OT BOO HOE Oe St i tame pe ‘ =, Figure 4. 3D reconstruction of Doliopygus cf. serratus (Curculionidae: Platypodinae) preserved in piece PMJ Pa 5827. A. Habitus lateral; B. Habitus dorsal; C. Habitus ventral. tine. Water-vapor absorption-apparatus on hypopharynx present. Labial palps with 2 articles, the basal one short and small, the distal one large, round and flattened. Pro- notum strongly reduced, barely visible dorsally as me- sonotum exceeds its height. All tarsi with 3 articles. First tarsomere of hind leg very long, with 24 ventral ctenid- iobothria. Claws with 1 minute preapical tooth and small ventral subapical microtrichia. Pulvilli absent. Metacoxal interlocking mechanism present. Profemur with at least 27 small spines. Tibiae with horizontal rings of brown scales. Protibia equipped with only 1 distinct apical spur. Mesotibia with 3 long apical spurs. Metatibia with 6 (3 long and 3 short) apical spurs. Unique scale patterning on forewing present, differentiating it from related species. Anteroproximal region of forewing densely covered with dark brown scales. Distal part of Sc in forewing present, closing pterostigma proximally. Rs and M connected by cross vein in forewing. Areola postica of triangular shape dez.pensoft.net 124 and distinctly longer than high. CuP and Al do not fuse at forewing margin. Tip of R1 vein of hindwing reaching anterior wing margin. Proximal section of Rs in hind- wing absent, basiradial cell open. Hindwing with simple M vein. Conspicuous color patterning on abdomen with pale spots on darker brown patches. Clunium unmodified. Epiproct and paraproct simple, the latter with inconspicu- ous sensorium. Subgenital plate simple and rounded api- cally with long setae. T-shaped sclerite not visible. Valvu- lae largely hidden by subgenital plate, but all three pairs present and external valve bilobed. Description. Measurements (in mm): Body length: 3.7. Head length: 1.4 (labrum—vertex). Head width: 1.2 (between compound eyes). Length of antennae: 2.21. Length of scape: 0.10. Length of pedicel: 0.10. Length of flagellomeres: f1 = 0.29, f2 = 0.27, f3 = 0.23, f4 = 0.26, f5 = 0.18, f6 = 0.15, f7 = 0.11, f8 = 0.12, f = 0.09, f10 = 0.10, fll = 0.06, f12 = 0.09, f13 = 0.07. Length of maxillary palpomeres: I = 0.06, II = 0.24, III = 0.14, IV = 0.22. Length of thorax: 0.90. Length of forewings: 3.9. Width of forewings: 1.4 (largest width). Length of hindwings: 2.8. Width of hindwings: 1.0. Length of hind- legs: F = 0.93, T = 1.54, tl = 1.03, t2 = 0.15, t3 = 0.15. Length of abdomen: 2.2. Length of subgenital plate: 0.78. Length of epiproct: 0.24. Length of paraproct: 0.3. Note. Different measurements based on photos or ren- ders result from the strong curvature of different body parts. Therefore, we used the 3D reconstructions for most measurements and the photos for measuring the length of metatarsomeres and the forewing. Indices (measured from dorsal, after Lienhard 1998): IO/D: 1.21. PO/D: 0.73. Coloration. Head capsule dark brown. Postclypeus with few small darker spots. Labrum brown, slightly darker than rest of head. Antennal flagellum light brown to middle brown, becoming brighter distally. Maxillary palpomeres dark brown with apical regions of articles 2 and 3 lighter in coloration. Labial palpomeres light brown with dark spot on central area of flattened surface of palpomere 2. Compound eyes light brown, with dark- er circular areas of pigmentation. Ocelli dark brown, but median ocellus slightly brighter. Thorax slightly darker in color than head. Legs brown, less strongly pigmented apically. Forewing membrane of light brown tone, bright- er towards apex. Hindwing almost hyaline, slightly more yellowish to brownish towards base. Wing veins in light brown to brownish tone or almost hyaline. Abdomen with conspicuous pattern of pale ocher patches surrounded by dark brown areas. Subgenital plate nearly uniform- ly dark brown, but lateral base paler. Ovipositor valves light brow with slight yellowish tint. Scales light brown to dark brown, with tips generally darker than base. Color patterns of head, compound eyes and abdomen possibly faded and with artifacts, due to non-ideal preservation in resin and subsequent suboptimal storage. Head capsule. The head is distinctly higher than wide and anteroposteriorly flattened, thus appearing almost scale shaped. In dorsal view it appears wider than long. dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum The vertex (Figs 5A, 6B, 7A, ve) is narrow and rounded, while the frontal area is relatively large (Figs 5A, 6A, 7A, B, fr). In frontal view, the dorsal margin of the vertex is almost straight with only a very slight concave impres- sion laterad the median line. Three ocelli (Fig. 6A, oc) are placed flat on the frons and vertex without a cuticular elevation, closer to each other than the lateral ocelli to the compound eyes. The median ocellus is slightly small- er than the lateral ones. The ovoid and relatively large compound eyes are not extending over the upper margin of the head, with a wide distance between them. The cir- cumocular ridge (Figs 8A, B, 9, cor) 1s well-developed and wide, forming an oval that is slightly curved inwards on its posterior side. Externally, a conspicuous coronal sulcus (Fig. 6B, cs) is discernable, corresponding with the well-developed internal median coronal ridge (Figs 8B, 9, cr). The frontal sutures are present but indistinct. The external epistomal sulcus (Figs 5A, 6A, 7A, B, 10A, eps) is complete and semi-oval, with the postclypeus (Figs 5A, 6A, 7A, B, 10A, pcl) extending ventrally over the ventral genal margin. The large postclypeus is not strongly con- vex or bulging but rather scale-like. It is approximately twice as long as the frons. Two slit-like impressions begin on the ventral end of the postclypeus slightly laterad the midline and run in an acute angle approximately towards the postclypeal midlength where they obliterate. The in- ternal epistomal ridge (Figs 8A, B, 9, epr) is wide (episto- mal ridge in sagittal section longer than half of the length of the entire postclypeus, Fig. 8A, B). The anteclypeus (Figs 6A, 7A, B, 10A, acl) 1s relatively small and more than 4 times as wide as long, wider proximally than the ventral margin of the postclypeus and enveloping parts of it. The anterior tentorial pits (Fig. 7A, B, atp) are visible directly at the ventral margin of the epistomal ridge, al- most adjacent to the anterior mandibular articulation. The posterior tentorial pits dorsad the insertion of the max- illary stipes to the head capsule are slit-like (visible in uCT scan). The well-developed tentorium is composed of large anterior (Figs 9, 111, ata) and posterior arms (Figs 9, 111, pta), a narrow corpotentorium (Figs 9, 111, ct) and thin dorsal arms (Figs 9, 111, dta). The anterior arms are anteriorly twisted and do not fuse with each other pos- teriorly. The very thin dorsal arms are not entirely pre- served. The right dorsal arm is ending before it reaches the antennal insertion, while the left arm is almost com- pletely missing in the specimen. The corpotentorium 1s compact and short and the posterior arms straight and thick. A well-developed postoccipital ridge (Fig. 9, por) and external postocciput form the posteriormost cephalic region. The head is posteriorly open, 1.e., no genal-, hy- postomal- or postgenal bridge or gula is developed but the posteroventral closure of the head is formed by the weakly sclerotized postmentum (Fig. 9, pom). Head appendages. The lobe-shaped labrum (Figs 6A, 7A, B, 10B, 11A, B, Ib) is approximately 2-times as wide as long and covered with long setae (likely sensil- la) (Fig. 10B). It is narrower at its base and apex and widest at about midlength. A median notch is missing, Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 and the distal margin evenly rounded. The labral nodes are absent and epipharyngeal sensilla are not visible. A median transverse epipharyngeal fold (Fig. 11B, eptf) is present on the middle region of the epipharynx. The antennal insertions are located in a fovea (Fig. 7A, B, gef), which partly separates the genal region from the frontal region. The genal area is almost twice as long as the frontal area. The internal genal ridge below the fovea is straight (Figs 8A, 9, ger) and increases in thickness posteriorly. It starts shortly behind the posterior end of the ridge enclosing the antennal foramen and ends at the posterior genal region. It corresponds externally with the straight genal sulcus (Fig. 7A, B, ges). The antennae have 15 articles. The barrel-shaped scape and pedicel are approximately as long as wide. All flagellomeres display a secondary annulation (Fig. 5F). The last flagellomere is relatively short and pointed apically. The entire flagel- lum is very thin and thread-like, with the flagellomeres approximately 1/3 as wide as the pedicellus. The setae on the flagellum are long and thin, slightly thicker and longer on the lateral surface compared to the medial side. The basal portion of the flagellomeres is only faintly dif- ferentiated (Fig. 5F), and a proper collar is not developed (see Seeger 1975). The mandibles (Figs 7A, B, 9, 11C, D, md) are subtriangular with similar lengths of the mesal and lateral edges. They are not elongated and of the “out- er margin rounded, and posterior margin not hollowed” type (Yoshizawa 2002). The lateral edge is convex over its entire length. The molar region (Fig. 11C, D, mo) is asymmetric, with a distal molar tooth (Fig. 11C, D, mot) on the left mandible. The right mandible has a proximal tooth-like extension (Fig. 11C, D, pmdt). The inner man- dibular rim has no distinct features differentiating it from mandibles of other psocids. It is thickest on its median side and becomes narrower laterad. The lateral side of the mandibular rim between the posterior condyle (Fig. 11C, D, pcmd) and anterior socket (Fig. 11C, D, asmd) (prima- ry and secondary mandibular joints) widens. Two apical teeth (incisivi) are present, the apical one (Fig. 11C, D, incl) longer and wider than the subapical one (Fig. 11D, inc2). Slightly proximad of the incisivi a blade-like pro- jection is present, a convex cutting edge (Fig. 11C, D, mdce). A postmola is not discernible. The apodeme of the mandibular adductor (Fig. 9, amdad), at least partially preserved, inserts on the medial base of mandible. The maxilla lacks a cardo. The stipes (Fig. 7B, st) is oval and represents the main body of the maxilla, together with the apical palpifer (Fig. 7B, ppf). The galeae (Fig. 7A, B, ga) are relatively flat and located between the mandibu- lar concavity anteriorly and the hypopharynx posteriorly (visible in uCT-scan). The tip of the lacinia (Figs 11F, 121, Ic) is long and bears several rounded denticles. It 1s bent laterad apically. The inner tine is short and bent slightly inwards distally. The outer tine is distinctly longer and higher. The lacinial gland is not preserved or not present. The maxillary palps (Figs 6A, 11E, mxp) consist of four articles. The second article is the longest, ca. 1.3 times as long as the fourth and ca. 2 times as long as the third. 125 The first article 1s extremely short and only '4 as long as the third. Several long setae (likely sensilla) are located on each palpomere except for the glabrous first one. The second maxillary palpomere lacks a conical sensillum. The fourth palpomere is conical and has a rounded apex. The hypopharynx (Fig. 9, hy) is equipped with the ante- rior sitophore (Figs 9, 11G, sit) and the paired posterior salivary sclerites (Figs 9, 11H, sas). A triangular median extension of the sitophore (Fig. 11G, mesit) 1s present proximad the mortar, which 1s (Fig. 11G, mor) is oval and embedded in the sitophore like in a sclerotized block. The oral arms of the sitophore are present but indistinct in the uCT-scan. The paired salivary sclerites are lateral elements of the posterior hypopharynx, ovoid and bowIl- shaped. They bear a long apodeme (Fig. 11H, asas) which is long and curved inwards at its internalmost apex. A furrow runs longitudinally (Fig. 11H, Ifsas) across each salivary sclerite. The tubular filaments between the sito- phore and salivary sclerites are not visible (a resolution of 2 um is not sufficient for visualizing the very thin tu- bular filaments, which have a diameter of ca. 3 um ina large psocid (von Kéler 1966) and connect the longitu- dinal furrow of the posterior salivary sclerites with the anterior hypopharyngeal mortar), but are likely devel- oped, as the water-vapor absorption apparatus function- ally depends on their presence. The labium is composed of a thin-walled and weakly sclerotized postmentum (Fig. 9, pom) and a thicker-walled prementum (Fig. 9, prm). A median furrow separates symmetrical premen- tal halves (see Fig. 11J). The labial palps (Fig. 11J, lap) have two articles. Palpomere 1 (Fig. 11, lap1l) is short and narrow, and palpomere 2 (Fig. 11, lap2) plate-like, large and rounded, and displays a darkly pigmented field. The second palpomere bears many long setae (likely sensilla), that are concentrated on the margin. The short and rounded paraglossae (Figs 6A, 11J, pgl) are insert- ed between the palps. The glossae (Figs 6A, 11J, gl) are probably represented by lobe-shaped structures, almost fused medially, with only a faint medial dividing line. Remnants of soft tissue are visible in the head, which are likely vestiges of the central nervous system, retinulae and possibly the mandibular adductor muscle, as well as other cephalic muscles. Thorax. The cervical region is not exposed. The laterocervical sclerite is indistinctly visible as a thin bar- shaped sclerite, but scarcely discernible from the cervical membrane in the renders. The prothorax 1s strongly reduced. The pronotum (Fig. 8A, B, prn) is very short and bar-shaped, and the propleurae (Appendix 1: Fig. A3) are continuous with it laterally. The relatively large episternum is located dorsad the small preepisternum (Appendix 1: Fig. A3) and separated from it by an external furrow (Appendix 1: Fig. A3). The mesothorax exceeds the height of the pronotum (Figs 6B, 7A, B, 8A, B). The mesonotum (Figs 6B, 7A, B, 9A, B) is strongly enlarged and dorsally densely covered with scales (Figs 5A, 6B). A prophragma is not developed or extremely reduced. The mesonotum consists of an anterior semicircular part of the scutum, dez.pensoft.net 126 Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Figure 5. A-H. Photography of {Amphientomum knorrei sp. nov. preserved in piece PMJ Pa 5809. A. Habitus in dorsofrontal view; B. Habitus in ventrocaudal view; C. Right metafemur and -tibia in posterior view, rings of brown scales on metatibia; D. Distal por- tion of left hindleg with claw, arrow indicates preapical tooth; E. Basitarsomere of hindleg, arrows indicate ctenidiobothria; F. Right antennal flagellum, flagellomere 5, arrows indicate secondary annulation; G. Scales, arrow indicates scale type III; H. Tip of right hindwing with scales, arrows indicate scale type I and II. larger paired lateral scutal lobes, and a posterior triangular (Fig. 8A, B, parr). The postnotum 1s located posteroventrad scutellum (Fig. 6B). The anterior scutal portion is separated the scutellum as a bar-shaped short sclerite (Fig. 6B). The from the lateral lobes by the lateral parapsidial sulci (Fig. | mesophragma (Fig. 8A, B, msp) is wide and strongly 6B), which correspond with internal parapsidial ridges developed. The scutoscutellar suture (Fig. 6B) is present, dez.pensoft.net Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 Uy) Figure 6. A—C. 3D-reconstruction of tAmphientomum knorrei sp. nov. A. Habitus in frontal view; B. Habitus in dorsal view; C. Habitus in ventral view. Abbreviations: acl = anteclypeus, cs = coronal sulcus, gl = glossa, lap = labial palp, Ib = labrum, mxp = maxillary palp, oc = ocellus, pcl = postclypeus, pgl = paraglossa. albeit somewhat weakly developed. The metathorax is distinctly shorter than the mesothorax. The anterior and lateral lobes of the scutum are not separated by an external furrow, whereas a distinct scutoscutellar line delimits the small, rounded scutellum. The metaphragma (Fig. 8A, B, mtp) is wide but smaller than the mesophragma. As the pleural elements of the specimen appear asymmetric on both sides and as there are many artifacts in the 3D-model, we will not describe this thoracic region in detail. The external sternal elements of each thoracic segment are not discernible from surrounding membranous regions. The profurcae (Fig. 8A, B, prf) are only indistinctly recognizable, whereas the meso- and metafurcae (Fig. 8A, B, msf, mtf) are distinctly visible as distally widened and dez.pensoft.net 128 flattened arms. Spinae of the meso- and metathorax are absent. The three pairs of coxae are adjacent medially. The profemur bears at least 27 ventral spines (Fig. 10C). The protibia bears one, and the mesotibia three apical spurs. The metatibia displays three short and three long apical spurs. All tarsi are 3-segmented. Metatarsomere 1 bears 24 ctenidiobothria (Fig. 5E). Tarsomere 1 of the foreleg and hindleg are almost 3 times as long as the respective tarsomeres 2 and 3 combined. The very long metarsomere | reaches ca. % of the length of the metatibia. Mesotarsomere 1 is approximately twice as long as mesotarsomeres 2 and 3 combined. Two apical ventral spurs are inserted on tarsomeres | and 2 of each pair of legs. The symmetrical claws are equipped with a single small preapical tooth (Fig. 5D) and several ventral microtrichia proximad this structure. Pulvilli are absent. The mirror and rasp substructures of the Pearman’s organ are absent. A distinct ball-shaped cuticular projection (Fig. 12A, B, hcp) on the inner side of the left metacoxa 1s visible, fitting with a cup-shaped emargination (Fig. 12A, B, hce) on the inner side of the right metacoxa. The legs, especially the femora and tibiae, are densely covered with scales. Several closely placed somewhat irregular rings of these surface structures are inserted on the metafemur (Fig. 5C). Forewing. Wing with three types of scales. First type long, parallel-sided, straight and with a straight apex (Fig. 5H). Second type long (slightly to distinctly shorter than type one), parallel-sided to subparallel and straight, emarginate with a median notch (Fig. 5H). Third type short, broad, parallel-sided from 2/5 to apex of scale, and converging in the basal 1/5, with a straight and finely frayed apex (Fig. 5G). The wing scales display a longitu- dinal striation except for type I where this is not visible. The scale patterning is very distinct, with an increased density at the wing base, differentiating it from related species (Figs 5A, B). The proximal Sc vein is very short and ends freely in the wing membrane. A line of dark scales follows approximately this vein. R1 merges at 2/3 of the wing length with the anterior margin. A short and anteriorly bent distal Sc vein closes the pterostigma. This triangular cell displays a strongly acute angle between Sc and R1 and is wide (600 um) but very low (110 um). The base of Rs forms an obtuse angle with the distal portion of this vein. The basal vein of Rs is almost transparent, and dorsally bears a patch of dark scales. The veins R2+3 and R4+5 are convex almost over their whole length, and M1 is curved distally. M2 is almost straight. M3 is concave distally. The origins of all three M veins are placed close to each other, almost forming a fork. The specimen dis- plays a slight asymmetry in the base of the three M veins. On the right forewing, they originate from a common stem, while MI+M2 are connected in left one but both separated from the base of M3. A conspicuous acuminate lobe is present between M1 and M2, and a short cross vein between Rs and M (90 um). The areola postica is relatively wide and low and forms a triangle with an acute angle between CuA1 and CuA2. CuP and A] join the posterior wing margin at a distance from each other dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum (Fig. 10D). The course of the very faint vein Al is almost invisible due to the coupling of the fore- and hindwing on both sides. The vein A2 is indistinct. Hindwing. Type | and II scales are present (Fig. 5H). No closed cell is present in the hindwing (Figs 5A, B). R1 and CuA are ending at approximately 2/3 of the total wing length, the former on the anterior margin and the latter on the posterior margin. Only one M vein is present. The common veins R2+3 and R4+5 are slightly shorter than half the length of M. R2+3 end anteriorly on the margin in the last 1/5 of the wing length. R4+5 ends almost di- rectly on the wing apex, and M almost at the same length as R2+3 but on the posterior margin. Rs is bent anteriorly where it forms a cross vein with R1 in other Amphiento- mum species, but any trace of this cross vein 1s lacking. CuA is curved at its distal end. The distance between CuA and CuP is approximately equivalent with the length of Rs. Al is curved and ends on the basal posterior wing margin. The margin of the apical half is covered with long scales and setae, the latter more densely anteriorly. Abdomen. The abdomen is strongly bent towards the thorax (Figs 5A, B, 7A, B). The external segmentation of the abdomen is only partially visible, as some segmental borders are very faint or deformed as an artefact. How- ever, it seems to follow the general pattern in Psocodea (Badonnel 1934) without any conspicuous modifications. The clunium (Fig. 10E, clu), the epiproct (Figs 8B, 10E, epp) and the paraproct (Figs 8B, 10E, pap) are unmod- ified, the latter covered with long setae and bearing an indistinct sensorium. The apex of the subgenital plate is simple and covered by long setae. The subgenital plate largely covers the ovipositor valves, thus only the tips are exposed (Figs 5B, 6C, 7C). The external valve (Fig. 10F, exv) is bilobed, the dorsal portion wider but not as long as the ventral portion, which is pointed apically. The dorsal valve (Figs 7C, 10F, dov) is almost tubular and apically rounded. The ventral valve (Fig. 10F, vev) is barely dis- cernible but present as an elongated tube. Remarks. “Die Art und Weise der Lagerung und Erhaltung der Stiicke im Bernstein erlaubt den Schluf, dap diese Art wesentlich wilder und beweglicher gewesen sei als die tibrigen Psocen, dabei aber zugleich weniger derb gebaut. Daf bei den sichtlich starken Anstrengungen der Thiere, dem Harz zu entgehen, das Schuppenkleid oft stark abgerieben wurde, ist leicht begreiflich und durch mitunter massenhaft danebenliegende Schuppen bewiesen. Aber auch die Endglieder der Fiihler sind mitunter beim Vordrdngen des Thieres abgetrennt, und die obere Membran der Fliigel ist zuweilen von der offenbar fester dem Harz anhdngenden unteren Membran getrennt, und beim Vordrdngen des Thieres in regelmapige kleine Querfalten gebracht.” — Hermann Hagen’s (1882) commentary about the preservation of Amphientomum specimens in Baltic amber. tAmphientomum knorrei Weingardt, Bock & Boudi- not, sp. nov. (Troctomorpha: Amphientometae: Amphien- tomidae) represents the first record of this family and genus in East African copal ('*C date: ~390 + 13 years Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 V29 Figure 7. A-C. 3D-reconstruction of {Amphientomum knorrei sp. nov. A. Habitus in left lateral view; B. Habitus in right lateral view; C. Subgenital plate in ventral view. Abbreviations: acl = anteclypeus, atp = anterior tentorial pit, dov = dorsal valve, epp = epiproct, eps = epistomal sulcus, fr = frons, ga = galea, ge = gena, gef = genal fovea, ges = genal sulcus, lap = labial palp, lb = labrum, Ic = lac- inia, md = mandible, occ = occiput, pap = paraproct, pcl = postclypeus, ppf = palpifer, sgp = subgenital plate, st = stipes, ve = vertex. old) and may still be extant in East Africa. The genus Amphientomum is known from the lowermost Eocene amber of Oise in France and is at least 56.0-47.8 Mya (Nel et al. 2005) old. In total, 20 species are described including the new one presented here (Table 5). Today they occur in countries of Western (Ivory Coast, Nigeria), Central (Angola, Republic of the Congo) and Eastern Af- rica (Madagascar, Tanzania) (Lienhard 2016; Johnson et al. 2023), and one additional species is described from China (Li 1999, 2002). Four species are known from the dez.pensoft.net 130 fossil record, two, as previously listed, were described by Enderlein (1905), and one by Pictet (1854) from Bal- tic amber. Additionally, one species was described from French Eocene Oise amber by Nel et al. (2005). The sub- fossil described here is a female, as the subgenital plate and the apical tips of the valvulae are visible. It differs from all other described species of Amphientomum by its characteristic forewing scale pattern. Only one species has been assigned to Amphientomum outside of Africa and Eurasia, Am. indentatum Turner, 1975, from an extant population in Jamaica. However, this species is definitely misplaced, as several features of it are not compatible with the currently accepted diagnostic character repertoire of Amphientomum (see Taylor 2013 for an identification key of the genera of Amphientomidae), ie., the lateral ocelli are widely spaced and close to the compound eyes, and the hind wing vein R1 does not reach the wing margin. Given these characters, the species in fact matches with Lithoseopsis Mockford, 1993 (Mockford 1993; Taylor 2013). Taylor (2013) proposed a smoothly rounded distal forewing margin as a diagnostic character of this genus. In contrast, Am. indentatum displays a characteristic indentation at the tip of the forewing, as reflected by the species name. However, the tips are not acuminate as in {Am. knorrei sp. nov., similar to other species in Lithoseopsis (see Taylor 2013). Based on these observations, we propose a new taxonomic combination: Lithoseopsis indentatum (Turner, 1975) comb. nov. By excluding L. indentatum from the genus Amphientomum, this is now restricted to the Afrotropics and Palearctic (see Table 5). The number of described species of Lithoseopsis is hereby increased to 12 (Johnson et al. 2023). Broadhead and Wolda (1985) mentioned the occurrence of three different species of the subgenus Amphientomum (Palaeoseopsis) in Panama. However, they remain undescribed and no details besides the collecting information are known. It is conceivable that these specimens do not belong to Amphientomum, similar to the previously stated case. As the basal section of Rs is absent in the hindwing of tAm. knorrei sp. nov. (Fig. 13A), the species can be as- signed to the subgenus Amphientomum (Palaeoseopsis) in the system of Roesler (1944). The shape of scales is arguably not a good diagnostic feature, as several types of scale shapes can occur in a single specimen. Emar- ginate scales are present in {Am. knorrei sp. nov. (type II scales, Fig. 5H), a diagnostic character of the subge- nus Am. (Amphientomum) after Roesler (1944), but there are also scales with an evenly truncated (type I scales, Fig. 5H) or a frayed (type III scales, Fig. 5G) apical edge, a diagnostic criterium for Am. (Palaeoseopsis). On the other hand, Enderlein (1911) introduced evenly truncated scales as diagnostic character for Am. (Amphientomum), while scales with a median notch are characteristic for Am. (Palaeoseopsis). It is likely that Roesler (1944, p. 138) was mistaken in the characterization of both subgen- era. As the polarity of the presence or absence of the basal section of Rs in the hindwing is unknown, the subgenus dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Am. (Palaeoseopsis) 1s possibly not monophyletic. All species except for +Am. leptolepis and +Am. paradoxum, both described from Baltic amber, have a reduced basal section of Rs in the hindwing (Table 5). Several species, such as Am. loebli and Am. pauliani (Table 5), also have a vestigial basal section of Rs, but it is never fused with R1. Given these problematic definitions, we synonymize Palaeoseopsis under Amphientomum syn. nov. and con- sequently remove the subgeneric rank from Amphiento- mum pending future study. Table 5. All currently described species of the genus Amphien- tomum. It is uncertain whether Am. knorrei sp. nov. is extant. The type species of Palaeoseopsis is bolded and that of Am- phientomum is bolded and in cells with grey shading. Authors Distribution (Enderlein, 1905) Baltic amber Weingardt, Bock & Boudinot, East African 2024 sp. nov. copal Enderlein, 1905 Baltic amber Pictet, 1854 Baltic amber Nel, Prokop, De Ploeg & — French Oise # Taxon I +Am. colpolepis Il tAm. knorrei Ill +Am. leptolepis IV +Am. paradoxum V_ +Am. parisiense Millet, 2005 amber 1 Am. acuminatum Smithers, 1964 Madagascar 2 Am. Aelleni Badonnel, 1959 Republic of the Congo 3. Am. annulicorne Badonnel, 1967 Madagascar 4 Am. annulitibia Smithers, 1999 Tanzania 5 Am. dimorphum Badonnel, 1967 Madagascar 6 Am. ectostriolate Li, 1999 China 7 Am. flexuosum Badonnel, 1955 Angola, Nigeria 8 Am. hieroglyphicum Badonnel, 1967 Madagascar 9 Am. loebli (Badonnel, 1979) Ivory Coast 10 Am. mimulum Badonnel, 1967 Madagascar 11 Am. montanum Badonnel, 1967 Madagascar 12 Am. pauliani Smithers, 1964 Madagascar 13, Am. punctatum Badonnel, 1967 Madagascar 14 Am. simile Badonnel, 1967 Madagascar 15 Am. striaticeps Badonnel, 1967 Madagascar Several characters of {Am. knorrei sp. nov. resemble features of Am. acuminatum, \ike the shape of the apex of the lacinia (see Fig. 12 for comparison of all available Amphientomum species), the apical lobe of the forewing (see Figs 13, 14 for comparison of all available Amphien- tomum species), as well as the claw with a single preapi- cal tooth. Consequently, this species from Madagascar (Smithers 1964; Badonnel 1967) might be closely related with tAm. knorrei sp. nov. It differs from it by smaller size (body length = 2.1 mm, forewing length = 2.75 mm), the lower number of ctenidiobothria on the first tarsomere of the hindleg (21—22), the scale pattern on the forewings, and also the facial markings. As the origin of our piece of resin with the psocid inclusion is not fully clarified, the geographical distribution of tAm. knorrei sp. nov. re- mains uncertain. That the specimen is enclosed in East African copal imported to Germany during colonial times is suggested by several syninclusions, for instance the Dorylus in our present collection. The countries of origin of such pieces of resin are Tanzania, Mozambique, and Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 131 Figure 8. A—B. 3D-reconstruction of {Amphientomum knorrei sp. nov. A. Internal view from left side, sagittal cut; B. internal view from right side, sagittal cut. Abbreviations: car = circumantennal ridge, cor = circumocular ridge, cr = coronal ridge, epp = epiproct, epr = epistomal ridge, fl = foreleg, ger = genal ridge, hl = hindleg, lap = labial palp, Ic = lacinia, ml = midleg, msf = mesofurca, msp = mesophragma, mtf = metafurca, mtp = metaphragma, pap = paraproct, parr = parapsidial ridge, prf = profurca, prn = prono- tum, sgp = subgenital plate. dez.pensoft.net 132 Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Figure 9. 3D-reconstruction of {Amphientomum knorrei sp. nov. Internal view of head from left side, sagittal cut. Abbreviations: acl = anteclypeus, amdad = apodeme of mandibular adductor, asas = apodeme of salivary sclerite, ata = anterior tentorial arm, car = cir- cumantennal ridge, cor = circumocular ridge. cr = coronal ridge, ct = corpotentorium, dta = dorsal tentorial arm, epr = epistomal ridge, ga = galea, ger = genal ridge, hy = hypopharynx, lap = labial palp, lb = labrum, Ic = lacinia, md = mandible, pcl = postclypeus, pom = postmentum, por = postoccipital ridge, prm = prementum, pta = posterior tentorial arm, sas = salivary sclerite, sit = sitophore. dez.pensoft.net Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 133 100 um Figure 10. A-F. Photography of tAmphientomum knorrei sp. nov. A. Right maxillary palp and right portion of head in frontal view, numbers indicate maxillary palp article; B. Labrum and labial palps in dorsally inclined frontal view; C. Right foretibia in frontal view; D. Left fore- and hindwing in dorsal view, arrows indicate where the vein CuP and Al meet the posterior forewing margin; E. Details of paraproct and clunium from lateral view; F. Details of ovipositor from ventrolateral view. Abbreviations: clu = clu- nium, dov = dorsal valve, epp = epiproct,. exv = external valve, lap = labial palp, lb = labrum, md = mandible, pap = paraproct, pcl = postclypeus, vev = ventral valve. dez.pensoft.net 134 Madagascar (Delclos Martinez et al. 2020). It 1s therefore likely that Am. acuminatum and {Am. knorrei sp. nov. have a common distribution in East Africa, while the ex- act distribution of both species is still unclear. Finally, an unsolved nomenclatorial issue concerning Amphientomum ectostriolate Li, 1999 requires clarifica- tion. In the Psocodea Species File (Johnson et al. 2023, date: 2023 August 17) the year of publication for this spe- cies is incorrectly listed as Am. ectostriolate Li, 2002 and the species Am. ectostriolatis Li, 1999 mistakenly listed as a valid taxon. We contend that the name should be Am. ectostriolate Li, 1999 based on the following reasoning: (1) The protonym, Am. ectostriolatis, was established and illustrated in the monograph on the Chinese Psocoptera (p. 199) by Li (2002); (2) the spelling was later emended by Lienhard (2003) to Am. ectostriolate Li, 1999, justifi- Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum ably so by Articles 19 and 34 of the ICZN (1999), with this emendation considered to be the original spelling by section 32.2; and (3) the name Amphientomum ectostrio- latum 1, 2002 should be considered an unjustified emen- dation by Article 33, as the author spelled the name this way in the figure legend and twice in the text, indicating an intended name change, hence this name is available but should be a junior synonym of Am. ectostriolate syn. nov. Amphientomum ectostriolate Li, 1999 Am. ectostriolatis Li, 1999; original spelling; justifiably emended to ec- tostriolate by Lienhard, 2003: p. 699. = Am. ectostriolatum Li, 2002 [available unjustified emendation by Li, 2002], syn. nov. Identification key for all species of Amphientomum Pictet, 1854 The present key is modified after Badonnel (1967) using information from Enderlein (1911), Badonnel (1955, 1979), Smithers (1964, 1999), Li (1999, 2002), and Nel et al. (2005). Note that the species Amphientomum aelleni Badonnel, 1959 is excluded from the key as only the nymphal stage is described. This species, however, can be identified using an illustration of the unique coloration pattern of the head (Badonnel 1959, p. 763, fig. 1). 1 (A) Species only known from the fossil record. (B) Rs in forewing at a right angle to R1 ........ eee c cece eee eeceeeee sees tees ees 2 - (A) Extant species or subfossil. (B) Rs in forewing at an obtuse angle (proximal angle) or almost a right angle to R1...... 5 2 (A) In Eocene French Oise amber. (B) Basal section of Sc in forewing long, more than half the length of R1................. EEG force Ek EEE A ee PO tAm. parisiense Nel, Prokop, De Ploeg & Millet, 2005 - (A) In Eocene Baltic amber. (B) Basal section of Sc in forewing short, less than half the length of R1........... eee 3 3. (A) Scales with an apicomedial notch. (B) Basal section of Rs missing in hindwing ...... tAm. colpolepis Enderlein, 1905 - (Ay-Scales apically stralsht..(6).Basal Séchion-on RS; Present it: PIG WI Se acces ne Bere cae npns ove sane tells occupy pases eas ebioeenan es 4 4 (A) Scales short and broad, tapering proximally. (B) Tarsomere 1 of hindleg with 29-34 ctenidiobothria ...............:.06 Brite 00s) Ota nt Vettes TA oe oe, LOPES: ERPS EL WM ARE TIT ine 0, tVOMh MNES: SR PETE. Se ates eee ce tAm. paradoxum Pictet, 1854 - (A) Scales long and narrow, parallel-sided over entire length. (B) Tarsomere 1 of hindleg with 36 ctenidiobothria ......... wi Ae syncs cee aan Lie mere el Meno gk len ai ace ears Renee eae ete serene aR Ee Me LD tAm. leptolepis Enderlein, 1905 5(1) (A) Rs in forewing almost at right angle to R1. (B) Distributed in China .......... cece seca eeee es Am. ectostriolate Li, 1999 = (A) Angle between Rs and R1 in forewing distinctly obtuse (proximal angle). (B) Recorded from Africa............cceceeeeeeee 6 6 (A) Proximal half of antennal flagellum with 4 white rings separated by three black-brown rings. (B) Additionally: prox- imal 2/3 of femora dark brown; tibiae with three dark brown rings; forewings very wide in relation to their length, their posterior margin strongly arched in the apical half ......... NO | re Fe ee | ee eee, et Am. annulicorne Badonnel, 1967 (A) Antennal flagellum almost uniformly brown, without alternating white and dark rings. (B) Other characters variable .....7 (A) Compound eyes elevated or apparently raised above dorsal margin of vertex (frontal ViCW) ...........c.:eceeeeeeeeeeeeeee ees 8 - (A) Compound eyes on same level as dorsal margin of vertex (frontal ViOW) ...............csccccccecececseecsecesecesececseesescaseceeees 10 8 (A) Dorsal margin of vertex straight (frontal view). (B) In frontal view, lateral sides of dorsal margin curved downwards, so that compound eyes appear elevated above the rest of the dorsal margin..............::.06 Am. loebli (Badonnel, 1979) - (A) Dorsal edge of vertex distinctly concave (frontal view). (B) In frontal view, compound eyes thus strongly prominent PAUSE a eo aca Be eon x ie See Me gc Pan a RO aso ee 9 (A) Legs pale. (B) Proximal halves of fore- and midfemora brown but apices pale; outer margin of proximal halves pale like distal half. (C) Hindfemora with single brown median spot. (D) Tibiae pale, with faint rings. (E) Maxillary palps pale brown, darkening distally. (F) Larger laterodorsal spots on vertex not composed of small Cots ............cccceecc eee eeeeeeee teens Be ch i tn 0S ce BD an Serta Ws hes Am. montanum Badonnel, 1967 - (A) Legs dark. (B) Proximal halves of all femora with brown apices; remaining areas yellow. (D) Tibiae with three distinct brown rings. (E) Maxillary palps dark brown. (F) Larger laterodorsal spots on vertex formed by small dots .................. Nein: Peat 4 Fe! ears nate 0 sea ig a Am. dimorphum Badonnel, 1967 10 (A) Vertex and frons divided transversely by three or four parallel brown stripes, which extend across compound eyes. (B) Legs pale with few smaller brown patches................. ers RE ns - ere ten ome An tc eres resent Aig - (A) No transverse brown stripes on head. (B) Legs brown or pale with extensive Drown Dands............cccceceeeeeeeeeeeneeees 12 dez.pensoft.net Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 11 17 18 135 (A) Forewing strongly convex at level of areola postica. (B) Areola postica smaller, shorter than the next distal section of vein M. (C) Claws with one row of small spines proximad the distalmost preapical tooth.............. Am. striaticeps Badonnel, 1967 (A) Forewing weakly convex at level of areola postica. (B) Areola postica larger, longer than the next distal section of vein M. (C) Claws with one row of distinct teeth proximad distalmost preapical tooth.................. Am. simile Badonnel, 1967 (A) Forewing almost uniformly brown, apical third paler. (B) Body color chocolate Drown ...............::ccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees Ls (A) Distinct patterns of contrasting light and dark patches on forewing. (B) Body color variable ...............cccecceeeeeeeees 14 (A) Forewing rounded apically. (B) Forewing posterior margin only slightly flexed distally. (C) Head brown with some dif- fuse spotting between compound eyes and close to ocelli. (D) Femora uniformly dark brown; scales with double striation. CEM COMiInMOns ASS OT HPARAIMIGLS SAW CS t-te cons 13 LF Benne OS rae Be Rahn are eae ae oe ee Am. pauliani Smithers, 1964 (A) Forewing apex pointed. (B) Forewing posterior margin distinctly flexuous. (C) Head uniquely patterned with series of darker dots with various size and horizontal stripes. (D) Femora dark brown on proximal 2/3 or 3/4, with yellow brown apex: XE) Common base on ipatameres. Very MarbOWs c.f retorts foe! eye erage eee Geren ds Am. punctatum Badonnel, 1967 M2-ancbM sjinorewing Strangely curved posteriadzat their apical nite... 22.2...2...5 sesenawb conde. sancaavs ssununnd Aieesarsochansusssende 15 M2 ancelAS:ih forewing parallel or onkyeslionthpourvedh...ise- 2.1. %feccissczsched uscd ilesaada,cavesdledasede bed ecdssunectediaessdoebagetge cates 16 (A) Frontal area of head crossed by three distinctive transverse chocolate brown bands. (B) Anterior end of phallosome ifarie-close*toubasal: plates more. POUNCE Ch: 2 a3 eerter 2oetee = 2 Peete too a RN 22 Am. flexuosum Badonnel, 1955 (A) Head without distinctive transverse brown bands. (B) Anterior phallosomal curvature variable ..............cccceeceeeeeeeeees ek 29... ce Sn, A A A AA A Ae, ee Am. annulitibia Smithers, 1999 (A) Hindwing R1 interrupted shortly before costa. (B) Forewing without apical lobe. (C) Forewings with unique pattern: anterior and apical margin with several vertical stripes and patches of scales, and basal half almost completely covered WithesCales< (eyo raese AlbOC ial ys DROWN acceptance thes « Pea 3 ence eee azn ea cage caanenng alae Am. mimulum Badonnel, 1967 (A) Hindwing R1 reaches costa. (B) Forewing with apical lobe. (C) Forewings without this unique pattern. (D) Tibiae with PI SSLOL DROW IFSC ales... 8a rn .2e. 0) sy Seorets en 15 0, Sa pee oeey 8a em ty, 08 FUN Yn cRTIOSPER PLS. e,. SUP, nNVS Ne! to ee Oe nn Orde AMOS ee AMA ANTEC 17 (A) Forewing without large brown patch covering most of anal area. (B) Forewing in its apical 1/3 anteriorly with crescent shaped white patch bordered by brown area. (C) Femora not completely brown. (D) Common base of parameres wide alate hel alo) Re ce Rn Ai ae eee Beene Aer EER net ioe ier Ln aOea ROPL Merion eer ee Am. hieroglyphicum Badonnel, 1967 (A) Forewing with broad zone of dark scales from distal 1/3 of M + Cu to edge of anal area. (B) Forewing without cres- cent shaped white patch and brown border. (C) Femora completely brown. (D) Common base of parameres wide and Taltly lomesCunikhown ter Am. Khon asso: Iiale" CeSCribeel)., ....225 0 vamssmns 1950 valid species attribut- ed to eight extant genera (Bolton 2023), which have re- ceived revisionary attention subsequent to the major phy- logenomic study of Blaimer et al. (2015) (see Ward et al. 2016; Ward and Boudinot 2021). Because this clade represents a major radiation of ants (e.g., Rafiqi et al. 2020), fossils are particularly important for understand- ing and modeling the tempo and mode of formicine evo- lution. The diversity of fossils attributed to this tribe, moreover, necessitates this overview. Prior to the present study, Camponotini contained two monotypic and valid fossil genera (t Chimaeromyrma brachycephala Dlussky, 1988, +Pseudocamponotus elkoanus Carpenter, 1930), one monotypic fossil genus that is a synonym of Cam- ponotus Mayr, 1861 (}Palaeosminthurus juliae Pierce & Gibron, 1962), one fossil species attributed to Polyrha- chis (+Po. annosus Wappler et al., 2009), and 29 valid and 5 invalid fossil species placed in Camponotus itself (Bolton 2023). Based on our assessment of all 38 of these fossil species plus the three species attributed to the Camponotus-like form taxon +Camponotites Steinbach, 1967, we propose the following revision to the fossil record of Camponotini below. In brief, we transfer one species out of the subfam- ily Formicinae to Liometopum (1), we recognize one as- yet unidentified copal specimen of Camponotus (II) and one fossil species of Polyrhachis (Ill), we leave ¢Chimae- romyrma and +Pseudocamponotus incertae sedis in Cam- ponotini (IV, VII), we transfer one Baltic fossil species from Camponotus to tEocamponotus gen. nov. (V), we revive tPalaeosminthurus and consider it unidentifiable while transferring it out of Camponotini as incertae sedis in Formicinae (VI), and finally, we transfer 29 fossil spe- cies from Camponotus to the form genus *Camponotites, which we treat as a catch-all that is incertae sedis in Cam- ponotini (VII). We also provide detailed annotations for our synopsis of fossil Camponotini (see the “Notes”’). Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 143 Figure 18. A, B. 3D-reconstruction of Archipsocidae gen. et sp. indet. A. Habitus in dorsal view; B. Habitus in ventral view. dez.pensoft.net 144 Finally, we point out that all future studies on fossils that may possibly be associated with Camponotus or Camponotini should critically evaluate the morphologi- cal evidence for placement in any of the extant genera particularly in reference to Ward et al. (2016) for work- ers and Ward and Boudinot (2021) for workers and alates (the wing venation characters apply equally to males and queens). A recent work which ignored these studies is Takahashi and Aiba (2023), which misidentified multi- ple specimens as Camponotus. If a species name must be given to a fossil that cannot be placed in any of the extant genera of Camponotini based on synapomorphies, we strongly encourage authors to place these fossils in the form genus Camponotites so that uncertainty is explicit- ly recognized and to prevent the propagation of errors in macroevolutionary analysis. I. Transferred to Liometopum (Dolichoderinae): Compression fossil: A. Shanwang formation [China, Linqu County; Mio- cene (Burdigalian), 20.4—-16.0 Mya]. a. Liometopum Mayr, 1861. = +Shanwangella Zhang, 1989. Syn. nov. (1.) tL. palaeopterum (Zhang, 1989). Comb. nov. [q]. [Note 1]. = +S. palaeoptera Zhang, 1989. ¢ Combination in Camponotus: Hong and Wu 2000: 19. II. Genus Camponotus Mayr, 1861, subgenus indet. [Note 2]. Copal fossil: Identifiable to species: B. East African copal [Holocene, < 36 Kya (Solorza- no-Kraemer et al. 2020)]. 1. Ca. sp. THIS STUDY. [w]. [Note 3]. IN. Genus Polyrhachis Smith, F., 1857. Compression fossil: C. Varvara formation [Miocene, 7.2—5.3 Mya]. 1. tPo. annosus Wappler et al., 2009. [Note 4]. IV. Genus +Chimaeromyrma Dlussky, 1988, incertae se- dis in tribe. Amber fossil: D. Sakhalin amber [Eocene, 47.8—41.3 Mya]. 1. tCh. brachycephala Dlussky, 1988. [Note 5]. V. Genus tEocamponotus Boudinot, gen. nov. [Note 6]. Type species: tEo. mengei (Mayr, 1868) by original des- ignation. Amber fossils: Identifiable to species: E. Baltic ambers [Eocene, 37.8—33.9 Mya]. 1. tEo. mengei (Mayr, 1868). [w]. Comb. nov. [Note 7]. = tEo. igneus (Mayr, 1868). Comb nov. ¢ Synonymized by Wheeler (1915): 138. VI. Genus +Palaeosminthurus Pierce & Gibron, 1962 stat. rev., incertae sedis in Formicinae, unidentifiable hence invalid stat. nov.: Phosphatized fossil: F. Barstow formation, Calico member [USA, Califor- nia; Miocene (Hemingfordian), 20.4—16.0 Mya]. dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum (—.) tPa. juliae Pierce & Gibron, 1962. [m]. Comb. rev.; unidentifiable, hence invalid, stat. nov. [Note 8]. = Formerly unresolved junior homonym of Cam- ponotus juliae Emery, 1903. ¢ Transferred to Formicidae: Najt, 1987: 152. ¢ Status as species: Bolton, 1995b: 311. ¢ Transferred to Camponotus: Snelling, R.R. pers. comm. to Bolton, B. 2004, in Bolton (2023). VII. Genus +Pseudocamponotus Carpenter, 1930, incertae sedis in tribe, unidentifiable hence invalid stat. nov. Compression fossil: G. Elko formation [Eocene, 37.2—28.4 Mya]. (—.) tPs. elkoanus Carpenter, 1930. [q]. Unidentifi- able, hence invalid, stat. nov. [Note 5]. VIII. Genus *Camponotites Steinbach, 1967, incertae se- dis in Formicinae. [Note 9]. ___ Amber fossil: Unidentifiable at neontological genus level: ~_H. Fushun amber [China, Liaoning, Jijuntun forma- tion; Eocene (Lutetian), 47.8-41.3 Mya]. (1.) tCtt. tokunagai (Naora, 1933). [q?]. Comb. nov. [Note 10]. Compression fossils: Unidentifiable at neontological genus level: [Note 11]. I. Green River formation [USA, Colorado; Eocene, 50.3-46.2 Mya]. (2.) TCtt. vetus (Scudder, 1877). [q?]. Comb. nov. [Note 12]. J. Bouldnor formation, Bembridge Marls member [Great Britain; Eocene (Priabonian), 38.0—33.9 Mya]. (3.) tCtt. cockerelli (Donisthorpe, 1920). [m]. Comb. nov. = tLeucotaphus cockerelli Donisthorpe, 1920. ¢ Combination in Camponotus: Dlussky and Perfilieva 2014: 417. K. Florissant formation [USA, Colorado; Eocene, 37.9-33.9 Mya]. (4.) Cit. fuscipennis (Carpenter, 1930). [q]. Comb. nov. (5.) *Ctt. microcephalus (Carpenter, 1930). [q]. [Note 13]. Comb. nov. (6.) Cit. petrifactus (Carpenter, 1930). [w]. Comb. nov. L. Brunstatt, horizon d2 [France; Early Oligocene, 33.9-28.4 Mya]. (7.) fCtt. compactus (Forster, 1891). [q]. Comb. nov. (8.) fCtt. vehemens (Forster, 1891). [m]. Comb. nov. ¢ Théobald, 1937: 218 (w, q, m). = Senior synonym of Ca. miserabilis Forster, 1891: Théobald, 1937: 218. M. Creek near Bechlejovice [Czechia; Oligocene (Rupelian), 33.9—28.1]. (9.) tCtt. novotnyi (Samsinak, 1967). [q]. Comb. nov. N. Rott formation [Germany, Orsberg; Oligocene: 28.4—23.0 Mya]. (10.) +Czt. lignitus (Germar, 1837). [q]. Comb. nov. = tFormica lignitum Germar, 1837. ¢ Combination in Camponotus: Mayr, 1867: 51. Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 O. Niveau du gypse d’Aix Formation [France; Oligo- cene (Chattian), 28.1—23.0 Mya]. (11.) Cit. longiventris (Théobald, 1937. [q, m]. Comb. nov. (12.) +Ctt. theobaldi (Ozdikmen, 2010). [m]. Comb. nov. * Replacement name for Ca. Théobald, 1937. (13.) tCtt. penninervis (Théobald, 1937). [m]. Comb. nov. A. Shanwang formation (see above). (14.) tCtt. ambon (Zhang, 1989). [q?]. Comb. nov. (15.) ¢Ctt. ampullosus (Zhang, 1989). [q?]. Comb. nov. (16.) ¢Ctt. curviansatus (Zhang, 1989). [q]. Comb. nov. (17.) Cit. gracilis (Zhang, 1989). [m?]. Comb. nov. (18.) +Czt. longus (Zhang, 1989). [q]. Comb. nov. (19.) *Ctt. microthoracus (Zhang, 1989). [q]. Comb. nov. (20.) +Cit. plenus (Zhang, 1989). [q]. Comb. nov. (21.) tCtt. shanwangensis (Hong, 1984). [q]. Comb. nov. (22.) +Ctt. pictus (Zhang et al., 1994) [q]. [Note 14]. Comb. nov. * Previously junior primary hom- onym of Ca. ligniperda pictus Forel, 1886. (23.) *Ctt. xiejiaheensis (Hong, 1984). [m]. Comb. nov. ¢ TYPE SPECIES of *Rabidia Hong, 1984. ¢ Combination in Oecophylla: Zhang, 1989: 297. ¢ Combination in tCamponotites Dlussky et al., 2008: 616. P. Radoboj [Croatia; Miocene (Sarmatian), 12.7—11.6 Mya]. (24.) tCtt. heracleus (Heer, 1849). [m]. Comb. nov. = tFormica heraclea Heer, 1849. ¢ Combination in Camponotus: Mayr, 1867: 52. ¢ Also described as new by Heer, 1850: 116. (25.) tCtt. induratus (Heer, 1849). [m]. Comb. nov. = tFormica indurate Heer, 1849. ¢ Dlussky and Putyatina 2014: 249 (m, q). ¢ Combination in Camponotus: Mayr, 1867: 52. ¢ Also described as new by Heer, 1850: 116. (26.) tCtt. oeningensis (Heer, 1849). [q]. Comb. nov. = tFormica obesa oeningensis Heer, 1849. ¢ Combination in Camponotus and raised to spe- cies: Cockerell, 1915: 486. Q. Joursac [France; Miocene, 11.6—7.2]. (27.) *Ctt. obesus (Piton, 1935). [q?]. [Note 15]. Comb. nov. R. Montagne d’ Andance Saint-Bauzile, Privas [France, Ardeche; Miocene (Turolian), 8.7—5.3 Mya]. (28.) +Cit. crozei (Riou, 1999). [q]. Comb. nov. S. Brunn-Vosendorf [Austria; Miocene (Messinian), 7.2-5.3 Mya] (—.) +Ctt. ullrichi (Bachmayer, 1960). [wing]. Comb. nov.; unidentifiable, hence invalid, stat. nov. [Note 16]. SQussurel 145 T. Willerhausen clay pit [Germany; Pliocene (Piacen- zian), 3.6—2.6 Mya]. (29.) +Ctt. silvestris Steinbach, 1967. [q]. ¢ tCamponotites Steinbach, 1967 TYPE SPE- CIES. ¢ Redescribed: Dlussky et al. 2011: 452. (30.) ¢Cit. steinbachi Dlussky et al., 2011. [q]. Note 1. The species +Ca. palaeopterus (Zhang, 1989) was originally attributed to its own genus, tShanwangella Zhang, 1989 before being placed in Camponotus by Hong and Wu (2000). The fossil cannot be attributed to Formici- nae at all, however, due to the presence of cross vein 2rs-m, which never occurs in Formicinae; this crossvein encloses the second submarginal cell of the wing. Because the speci- men has 2rs-m, lacks postpetiolation of abdominal segment III, and does not have cinctation of abdominal segment IV (= presence of transverse sulci), we transfer the species to Dolichoderinae. Therein, the specimen is recognizable as an alate of Liometopum given its large size (discal and sub- marginal cells ~ 1 mm long), its massive gaster, and details of the venation. +Liometopum palaeopterum comb. nov. was discovered in Shanwang in the Shandong Province, reasonably within the current distribution of the extant spe- cies L. sinense Wheeler, 1921 (Del Toro et al. 2009). More- over, it is plausible that the fossil represents an ancestral population given that L. sinense is the only species current- ly known from China, at least to present knowledge. Unfor- tunately, gynes and males are unknown for the extant spe- cies. The unusual head and antennae of +l. palaeopterum comb. nov. are here interpreted as preservational artefacts. Note 2. Camponotus and the tribe Camponotini more broadly is one of the most challenging taxonomic puzzles in the Formicidae, and not merely due to the massive size of these taxa (1084 valid species and 411 valid subspe- cies are currently attributed to Camponotus at the date of writing, Bolton 2023). Although some genera in the tribe are reasonably identifiable based on external morphology (e.g., Ward et al. 2016), others, such as the fundamental dis- tinction between Co/lobopsis—which is sister to all other Camponotini—and the hyperdiverse Camponotus is chal- lenging even with extant material in hand and under the microscope (Ward and Boudinot 2021). For these reasons, we substantially revise the fossil system of Camponotus in order to meet the twin aims of: (1) cleaning up the useless species names attributed to Camponotus, and (2) discour- aging uncritical use of these fossils for macroevolutionary analysis (e.g., Klimes et al. 2022). Toward these aims, we have: (a) provided a new genus name for tCamponotus mengei, + Eocamponotus gen. nov., as this fossil cannot be confidently placed in Camponotus yet; (b) transfer red 29 fossil taxa from Camponotus to the form genus *Campono- tites, which we treat as incertae sedis in Formicinae; and (c) transfer red one species out of the Formicinae altogether. Note 3. The minor worker specimen (PMJ Pa 5829) is difficult to identify, given the limited resources available. We attempted to identify the specimen using Emery’s (1925) key to Old World Camponotus subgenera, Brian Taylor’s dez.pensoft.net 146 Ants of Africa website (Taylor 2022), and AntWeb (2022). Ultimately, we were unable to obtain a satisfying identifica- tion. In mesosomal form and postcephalic setation, the spec- imen resembles Camponotus (Myrmacraphe) furvus Sants- chi, 1911 but it differs in head shape and by having shorter palps. In Taylor’s key, the specimen runs to C. acvapimensis Mayr, 1862, yet it differs in mesosomal form. We therefore conservatively consider the specimen unidentified. Note 4. +Polyrhachis annosa neatly meets the expecta- tions for Polyrhachis as it clearly has lateral petiolar spines, which is synapomorphic condition of the genus. Based on the limited preservation, we do not have confidence that this species will be placeable either in the stem or crown of the genus based on morphology. However, given that the Varvara formation is young, being dated at between 7—5 Myo, we do not think that it is defensible to place this fos- sil in a Separate genus. We therefore leave this species in Polyrhachis with the hope that future phylogenetic work will resolve the polarity of petiolar spines within the genus. Note 5. The monotypic genera +Chimaeromyrma and +Pseudocamponotus have been treated as incertae sedis in Camponotini, for which we see no specific morpholog- ical evidence to question these otherwise harmless place- ments. We choose to retain tChimaeromyrma brachy- cephala Dlussky, 1988 as a valid genus and species as it is possible that the identification of this amber fossil may be refined through the application of u-CT at some point in the future. As for +Pseudocamponotus elkoanus Car- penter, 1930, we doubt that this fossil will ever be iden- tifiable given the lack of wing venation and very limited preservation of the single known specimen. Given that there is insufficient preservation to confidently place the species to tribe, we consider TPs. e/koanus to be uniden- tifiable, hence invalid stat. nov. We do not synonymize +Pseudocamponotus with *Camponotites, however, as the former would take priority and we prefer the latter name as the form genus, given that it has the proper suffix (-tites) to indicate paleontological uncertainty. Note 6. We erect the genus +Eocamponotus gen. nov. for Camponotus mengei and its junior synonym Ca. ig- neus as, although these fossils are sufficiently preserved for species diagnosis, formal combined-evidence analysis failed to support a relationship with any particular genus of the Camponotini (Boudinot et al. 2022a). In so doing, we aim to preclude the usage of this fossil in macroevolu- tionary analysis as a calibration point for the genus Cam- ponotus. At most, this fossil species can be used as a cal- ibration for the Camponotini; whether as a stem or crown calibration point, however, is much less certain, and a conservative approach would be for the stem of the tribe. Note 7. We briefly note that }Ca. mengei was described alongside +Ca. igneus by Mayr (1868), and that the latter was accepted in a number of articles until Wheeler (1915) concluded that the latter is a subjective synonym of the former based on an examination of 103 Camponotus spec- imens and Mayr’s types of tCa mengei. Wheeler reported that the type specimens of *Ca igneus were in the collection of Franz Anton Menge, which is presumably in Gdansk, Po- dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum land. The valid species was originally considered to be a Ca. (Tanaemyrmex) but was recently suggested by Radchenko and Perkovsky (2021) to be Ca. (Camponotus) due partic- ularly to the form of its clypeus, and the shapes of the head and mesosoma, without further specification. Reevaluation of the morphological affinities of this species is necessary. Note 8. }Cit. juliae (Pierce & Gibron, 1962) comb. nov. is represented by a single male that was phosphatized in a calcareous nodule in the Calico member of the Mio- cene-aged Barstow formation in the Mojave Desert of California. The taxonomic history of this fossil 1s unusu- al. In its original description in Pierce and Gibron (1962), the fossil was classified as a new species of a new genus representing a new family of symphypleonan Collem- bola: +Palaeosminthurus juliae (+Palaeosminthuridae). These names went unnoticed for more than two decades, until the collembolist Dr Judith Najt (see Deharveng et al. 2017) observed that the preserved head, scape, thorax, and leg remnants of the fossil belong to a hymenopter- an, which she identified as Camponotus (see Najt 1987). Subsequently, Roy R. Snelling examined the fossil, pre- sumably at the Los Angeles County Museum, and con- cluded that the taxon is a junior synonym of Camponotus festinatus (Buckley, 1866) (Snelling 2006), an identifica- tion that was communicated to Barry Bolton 1n 2004 but went unpublished by the time of Roy Snelling’s death in 2008. Bolton provisionally accepted this hypothesis in his taxonomic catalog (Bolton 2023). Here, after critical consideration of the available morphological evidence, we exclude the species from Camponotus, and revive the genus *Palaeosminthurus stat. rev., which we consid- er to be incertae sedis in Formicinae and unidentifiable hence invalid stat. nov. Specifically, we attempted to run the specimen through the male-based key to all Nearctic genera of Smith (1943) and that of Boudinot for all New World formicine genera (see section 3.7.H of Boudinot 2020); there is simply too little structural detail preserved to render a meaningful identification of this fossil. Unless a method like laminar u-CT may be applied successfully, we anticipate that this fossil will remain unidentifiable at the genus and tribal levels among the Formicinae. Note 9. Here, we recognize the form taxon +Cam- ponotites to which we transfer 29 species. fCamponotites should be categorically precluded from usage as calibra- tion points for macroevolutionary analysis of the Formi- cinae or Formicidae. A balance for retaining and actively using this form genus is that the fossils in this taxon may be useful for paleogeographic study, so invalidation of this name may result in loss of paleostratigraphic infor- mation. Future work involving direct re-examination of these fossils is necessary to determine some of the taxa now placed in tCamponotites may perhaps be placed with more confidence among the genera of Camponoti- ni—such as fCtt. novotnyi (Sam8inak, 1967) comb. nov. as this fossil is quite well preserved and clearly displays the major synapomorphy of the Camponotini, namely that the antennal sockets are separated posteriorly from the posterior clypeal margin. For this example, however, Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 the remainder of the specimen 1s too poorly preserved to allow the fossil to be meaningfully associated with any extant genus of the Camponotin1. Note 10. From the illustration provided in the origi- nal description, it is not possible to confidently identify the specimen as a member of Camponotus. We retain this species as incertae sedis in the genus to encourage future work on the fossil, if possible. Note 11. All of these fossils could be considered un- identifiable to species, hence invalid, but are here treated as incertae sedis in Camponotus to highlight their exis- tence. Critically, because of the lack of morphological information, it is possible that a number of these taxa belong to other genera of Camponotini (see Ward et al. 2016 and Ward and Boudinot 2021). Reexamination of the original material is necessary in all cases. Note 12. While it may be tempting to use *C. vetus as a calibration for Camponotus or the Camponotini, it cannot be confidently attributed to any living genus, subgenus, or spe- cies group due to insufficient morphological information. Note 13. The generic placement of tCa. microceph- alus is dubious and should be confirmed through direct examination of type and additional material. Note 14. Although *Camponotus pictus Zhang et al., 1994 is a junior primary homonym of Ca. ligniperda pic- tus Forel, 1886, we transfer this species to the form taxon +Camponotites, rendering a nomen novum unnecessary. Note 15. The compression-fossil taxon tCa. obesus is represented by fragments of the mesosoma, legs, and metasoma, all of which are preserved in a dorso-anterolat- eral oblique view. These remains are suggestive of Cam- ponotus but otherwise cannot be identified meaningfully. Identification, in this case, is primarily driven by the rough similarity and absence of other ~14 mm long ants with an apparently rounded mesosoma in modern Western Europe. Note 16. Bachmayer (1960) described +Ctt. ullrichi based on a single forewing from a Miocene-aged deposit in Austria. This ~10.3 mm long wing cannot be attributed to Camponotus or the Camponotini because free M di- verges from Rs+M proxic«mad 2r-rs by more than twice the length of that cross vein. In Camponotini, free M diverges at or distad 2r-rs (see Char. 499 on p. 293 of Boudinot et al. 2022b; also, Ward and Boudinot 2021). Because only Myrmelachistini in Formicinae have the split of Rs+M well proximad 2r-rs, and as these ants are miniscule, we would prefer to consider the taxon incer- tae sedis in Formicidae. However, as this would necessi- tate the recognition of another “trashbin” form taxon, we elect to place the fossil in f}Camponotites and to consider it unidentifiable, hence subjectively invalid stat. nov. Genus +Eocamponotus Boudinot, gen. nov. https://zoobank.org/031 A69F6-443 1-4C53-9898-73728761C2C6 Type species. +o. mengei (Mayr, 1868) by original des- ignation. Note. /ncertae sedis in Camponotini. 147 3.3.2.4. Subfamily Myrmicinae Lepeletier de Saint- Fargeau, 1835 3.3.2.4.1. Genus Crematogaster Lund, 1831 I. Species retained in Crematogaster. Copal fossil: Identifiable to species: A. African copal [Holocene, < 36 Kya (Solorza- no-Kraemer et al. 2020)]. 1. Cre. sp. THIS STUDY. [w]. II. Fossils excluded from Crematogaster: Genus t/ncertogaster Boudinot, gen. nov., incertae sedis in Myrmicinae. [Note 1]. Type species: tlnc. primitiva (Radchenko & Dlussky, 2019), by original designation. B. Kishenehn formation [USA, Montana; 47.8-41.3 Mya|. (1.) t/n. aurora (LaPolla & Greenwalt, 2015). [q]. [Note 2]. Comb. nov. C. Rovno amber [Ukraine; Eocene, 38.0—33.9 Mya]. (2.) tin. praecursor (Emery, 1891). [m]. [Note 3]. Comb. nov. D. Sicilian amber [Italy; Oligocene, 11.6—5.3 Mya]. (3.) tin. primitiva (Radchenko & Dlussky, 2019). [m]. [Note 3]. Comb. nov. Note 1. We erect the explicit catchall taxon +/ncertogaster gen. nov., into which we place t/n. aurora comb. nov., Jn. praecursor comb. nov., and t/n. primitiva comb. nov. We do so in order to recognize that these latter two species are not meaningfully placeable in Crematogaster based on their preserved morphologies, and that t/n. aurora requires renewed attention. We choose t/n. primitiva as the type species as the specimen of +/n. praecursor examined by Emery is likely lost (see, e.g., Boudinot et al. 2016), and as the compression fossils require revised scrutiny and may be placeable in other genera, whether extant or extinct. Note 2. +Crematogaster aurora is the oldest fossil at- tributed to the genus and is the most difficult to critique due to its highly suggestive but incomplete preservation. While we are uncertain about the placement of the fossil in Cre- matogaster due to the apparently axial postpetiolar helctum (7.e., located at about mid-height of AIV rather than atop AIV) and the unknown antennomere count, the specimen does indeed lack a vertically oriented petiolar node, at least as preserved. To prevent the use of this fossil for divergence dating analysis while the preserved anatomy is reevaluated, we transfer the species forming t/n. aurora comb. nov. We hope that additional specimens may be found, or the known Specimens are subjected to documentation using advanced techniques. One of the authors (BEB) examined both the type and the paratype of t/n. aurora at the USNM and ob- served that the paratype differed substantially, having (possi- bly) antennal scrobes but more importantly a lateromedially narrow postpetiole that was anteriorly attached to abdomi- nal segment I'V (metasomal III). Additionally, this specimen possibly had a 2—3-merous antennal club. Altogether, this raises doubt about the attribution of the paratype to t/n. au- rora, which remains of uncertain identification at present. dez.pensoft.net 148 Note 3. The amber-preserved males described by Emery as t/n. praecursor comb. nov. and Radchenko & Dlussky as t/n. primitiva comb. nov. are unlikely to be representatives of either the stem or crown of the genus Crematogaster and are incertae sedis in the Myrmicinae within +/ncertogaster. Both specimens have 13-merous antennae, while all Crematogaster males examined by the lead author have antennae that are 10—12-merous (Bolton 2003, p. 286; BEB, unpubl. data). Other diag- nostic features include the short scape, which is < 2 x the length of the pedicel, the pedicel shape, which is glob- ular rather than cylindrical, and the mandibles, which are reduced or otherwise vestigial; the anterodorsal po- sition of the postpetiolar helcitum on abdominal segment IV can be difficult to discern. Unfortunately, Emery did not illustrate the wings or the face of tCr praecursor, so the fossil may need to be considered unidentifiable, hence subjectively invalid, if the specimen does not re- surface. Crematogaster primitiva, on the other hand, is well illustrated; its scapes are about 4 x the length of the pedicels, and the pedicels are not swollen or globular in shape. The mesosoma of this fossil (PMJ Pa 5824) is large and the mesoscutum is impressed, as in many Cre- matogaster, but the long and strongly nodiform petiole also contradict placement in that genus. At present, we cannot confidently attribute Cr primitiva to any valid generic taxon. Genus *+/ncertogaster Boudinot, gen. nov. https://zoobank.org/C309774E-AD72-4A D1-81D5-A13DDA867614 Type species. }/nc. primitiva (Radchenko & Dlussky, 2019), by original designation. Note. /ncertae sedis in Myrmicinae. 3.3.2.4.2. Genus Pheidole Westwood, 1839 Amber/copal species: Identifiable to species: A. Mexican amber [Miocene, 23.0-16.0 Mya]. 1. tPh. pauchil Varela-Hernandez & Riquelme, 2021. [w]. B. Dominican amber [Miocene, 20.4—13.8 Mya]. 2. tPh. anticua Casadei-Ferreira et al., 2019. [w]. 3. tPh. primigenia Baroni Urbani, 1995. [w]. 4. +Ph. tethepa Wilson, 1985. [w]. [see Wilson 1985a]. C. East African copal sensu lato [Holocene, < 36 Kya (Solorzano-Kraemer et al. 2020)]. 5. £Ph. rasnitsyni Dubovikoff, 2011. [w]. [Note 1]. D. East African copal or Defaunation resin [Holocene, < 36 Kya (Solorzano-Kraemer et al. 2020)]. 6. £Ph. cordata (Holl, 1829). [w, s]. [Note 2]. = tFormica cordata Holl, 1829. ¢ Neotype here designated (specimen Pa 5889). Compression fossil species: Species inquirenda. E. Florissant formation [USA, Colorado; Eocene, 37.9-33.9 Mya]. (1.) TPh. tertiaria Carpenter, 1930. [q]. [Note 3]. dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Note 1. Similar to the recent description of a Dorylus from putative Baltic amber (see section 4.2.1), the species tPh. rasnitsyni was initially interpreted as an Eocene fos- sil (Dubovikoff 2011) but later reidentified as copal based on reevaluation of the material (Dubovikoff pers. comm. in Perkovsky 2016). Note 2. We designate one soldier (= major) from the PMJ Pa collection (PMJ Pa 5889, copal, '*C-dated: ~700 years old) as the neotype of the {Ph. cordata, and tenta- tively associate a minor worker (PMJ Pa 5827) with this name although we do not recognize this as a secondary type. See section 3.3.2.6.1 for elaboration and Casa- dei-Ferreira et al. (2019) for a recent review of this taxon. Note 3. Given the single photograph available for this species, which is otherwise reported from two specimens (Carpenter 1930), we consider *Ph. tertiaria in need of revised study, and strongly recommend against its use in divergence dating analysis until definitive synapomor- phies of Pheidole may be documented. Most notably would be the occurrence of cross vein 2rs-m, which en- closes the second submarginal cell and is otherwise ab- sent from other Myrmicinae with the exception of various Myrmicini and Pogonomyrmecini. 3.3.2.4.2.1. Pheidole taxon treatment tPheidole cordata (Holl, 1829) Figs 19-21, Appendix 1: Fig. A5 Neotype. PMJ Pa 5889, designated here. Figs 19A—D, 20A-D, 21B, D, F. Locality and horizon. East African copal (IAA results for PMJ Pa 5889: copal (Table 1); '*C-dating for PMJ Pa 5889: ~700 years old). Syninclusions. Platygastridae, Ceratopogonidae, and Lepidoptera. Preservation. The cuticle is preserved as a distinct lay- er as seen in the SR-u-CT scan data. Most of the soft tis- sues are absent, except for parts of the digestive tract and some musculature, such as parts of the mandibular adduc- tor (0 md1) and some muscles of the legs. The endoskele- ton of the head and mesosoma is distinctly preserved and can be meaningfully used for future comparative anatomy. Paraneotypes. None. Diagnosis. The species, represented by the major work- er, 1S identifiable as a member of the Ph. megacephala spe- cies group by (1) the presence of the conspicuous ventral convexity of the postpetiolar sternum (Fig. 19A; e.g., Sala- ta and Fisher 2020). It differs from Ph. megacephala (Fa- bricius, 1793), Ph. megatron Fischer & Fischer, 2013, and Ph. spinosa Forel, 1891 by (2) the well-developed inner hypostomal teeth (Fig. 20B; e.g., Salata and Fisher 2022). Among the megacephala group species more broadly (e.g., Fischer et al. 2012), it differs in having (3) facial ru- gosity that extends to the posterior margin of the occipital lobes (Fig. 20A, note: among type specimens of the group imaged on AntWeb, this condition also occurring in Ph. megacephala impressifrons Wasmann, 1905, which has a Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 149 Figure 19. A—D. 3D-reconstruction of the neotype of {Pheidole cordata A. Habitus in lateral view; B. Habitus in frontal view; C. Habitus in dorsal view; D. Habitus in ventral view. Abbreviation: ppd = propodeum. more angular bulge of the postpetiolar sternum). See the description below for further conditions. Description. Measurements (in mm; abbreviations follow Salata and Fisher 2022): EL = 0.152; HL = 1.290; HW = 1.230; MTL =0.673; PNW = 0.618; PPW = 0.324; PSL = 0.202; PTW = 0.172; SL=0.714; WL= 1.110. Indices (also following Salata and Fisher 2022): CI = 95.3; MTI = 54.7; SI = 58.0; PNI = 50.2; PPI = 26.3; PSLI = 16.4. Note: Measurements taken from cross-sectional pro- jections in DragonFly using the reregistration and ruler tools. Head. In full-face view (Figs 19B, 20A), the head 1s subcordate, with the lateral margins widest somewhat be- yond head midlength and with the posterior portions of the lateral margins converging posterad to the occipital lobes. In lateral view (Fig. 19A), the head is subovate. The antennal scrobes are indistinct. The occipital lobes are rugose, with shagreened interspaces. The inner hy- postomal teeth are well-developed; they are distant from the outer teeth, which are also well-developed (Fig. 20B). The median hypostomal tooth is indistinct. dez.pensoft.net 150 Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Figure 20. A—D. 3D-reconstruction of the neotype of {Pheidole cordata preserved in piece PMJ Pa 5889. A. Details of head in frontal view, arrow indicates occipital lobe; B. Detail of mouthparts in ventral view; C. Details of foreleg in lateral view; D. Details of metasoma in dorsolateral view. Abbreviations: IHT = inner hypostomal tooth, OHT = outer hypostomal tooth. dez.pensoft.net Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 151 Hig, fo. Figure 21. A, C, E. Copper lithographs by Schweigger (1819), which Holl (1829) named tFormica cordata. B, D, F. Photographs of the neotype of {Pheidole cordata A. Overview of the amber piece; B. Overview of the amber piece, arrow indicates the inclusion; C. Habitus in lateral view; D. Habitus in ventrolateral view; E. Habitus in dorsal view; F. Habitus in dorsolateral view. dez.pensoft.net 152 Mesosoma. The humeral tubercle of the pronotum is weakly developed. The mesonotal bulge is distinct but not pronounced. The metanotum is only weakly indicated by a slight angularity of the promesonotal profile in later- al view. The propodeal spines are moderately long, with a wide base and acute tip (Fig. 19A). Metasoma. The bulge of the postpetiolar sternum 1s rounded anteriorly. The first gastral tergum (ATIV) ap- pears to be shagreened at its base (Fig. 20D). Setation. Length and stature of setation uncertain, al- though density measurable in the scans based on the dis- tinct occurrence of the setiferous punctation. Coloration. Not clearly visible; appears brownish/red- dish. Remarks on the neotype. Designation of the soldier in piece PMJ Pa 5889 as the neotype of tPh. cordata meets the requirements of article 75 of the ICZN (1999), as follows. 75.3.1. The identity of this taxon is in severe need of clarification, as it has vexed systematists for near- ly two centuries (e.g., Mayr 1868; Casadei-Ferreira et al. 2019) and may mistakenly be used for evolutionary inference, such as an Eocene-aged calibration for diver- gence dating based on the assumption that it 1s from Bal- tic amber, as recorded by, e.g., Bolton (1995, p. 319) and Bolton (2003). 75.3.2, —3. Diagnostic remarks and de- scription are provided above. 75.3.4. The original materi- al is known to be lost (Casadei-Ferreira et al. 2019). It is unclear if the material sent by Schweigger ever made it to the MfN Berlin in the first half of the 19" century; see p. 111 of Schweigger (1819) and elsewhere for his stated in- tent to have the specimens identified there. Further, Holl (1829, p. 140) indicates that he defined his species +For- mica cordata based on the observations of Schweigger and Mayr (1868, p. 18) explicitly states that he had not seen the material referred to by Holl. 75.3.5. The neotype matches the best available evidence. More specifically, the first author of the present work directly examined a physical print of the original illustrations by Schweigger (1819, figs 70, 70a, 70b on plate 8 therein; Fig. 21A, C, E), which were used by Holl (1829) to designate the spe- cies. Based on this, that author observed clearly illustrat- ed 3-merous antennal clubs, which would rule out other Afrotropical Myrmicinae (Fisher and Bolton 2016). The illustrations further show attributes of Pheidole, includ- ing a massive head, high and domed promesonotum, low and spined propodeum, and long petiolar peduncle with a short node. Mayr (1868) was uncertain about the size of the original material, which is unknowable at this point and irrelevant for the present designation. Therefore, we interpret the fossil as Pheidole based on the available evi- dence (Fig. 21B, D, F), which is restricted to the examined copper plate due to loss of the original material. 75.3.6. The designated neotype does come from the original type locality and horizon as much as Is practicable, given that Schweigger (1819): (a) knew about copal (pp. 103, 104 therein) and East African copal was available around that time (e.g., Smith 1868, see section 4.3.2 below); (b) he was uncertain about the provenance of the two specimens dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum eventually named {Ph. cordata by Holl (1829), as stated in the text; and (c) he pointed out that the species he ex- amined resembled a taxon possibly from Africa (“Diese Bildung findet sich an Ameisen stidlicher Lander.”, pp. 119 therein). Regarding the type locality further, although we cannot be absolutely certain that the specific fossil is from East African or Malagasy copal sensu lato, the syninclusion of a Pheidole minor from the PMJ Pa col- lection with Dorylus (PMJ Pa 5827), which has never been recorded from Madagascar, strongly implies that the material was from the mainland of the African con- tinent. 75.3.7. The neotype is permanently preserved in and available for study at the Phyletisches Museum, Jena. We have taken this action to resolve a suite of problems associated with the name {Ph. cordata, as recently re- viewed by Casadei-Ferreira et al. (2019), who, after much consideration, concluded by placing this fossil incertae se- dis in Myrmicinae. We fully agree with Casadei-Ferreira et al. (2019) that this fossil needs to be disposed of in order to avoid its uncritical use in systematic or evolutionary study and inference. By placing the name {Ph. cordata back in Pheidole, we alleviate the need for treating this taxon in the next revision of the fossil record of Myrmicinae, particu- larly as the specific epithet will be paired with the genus Pheidole, unless it were returned to Formica, to which it certainly cannot belong. Further, by designating a neotype we permanently fix this name to a known specimen that is both preserved in perpetuity in the PMJ Pa collection and is available for global evaluation via the cybertype data. Finally, there is no possibility beyond egregious error for this taxon to be used as an Eocene calibration for Pheidole as the neotype is from '*C-dated copal. (copal sensu lato). Remarks on Afrotropical Pheidole. It is widely ap- preciated among myrmecologists working on Pheidole that the genus is in severe need of revision both globally and in the Afrotropical region (Wilson 2003; Fischer et al. 2012; Sarnat et al. 2015), which is also the particular case for the megacephala species group (Fischer et al. 2012; Salata and Fisher 2022). While we would strongly prefer to not provide a one-off description of a Pheidole due to this complicated problem, we accept this as necessary and acceptable only in order to resolve the problem of $Ph. cordata, which is otherwise an irksome thorn-in-the-side bestowed upon generations of us by the well-meaning cataloging work of Holl (1829). Although Ph. cordata as typified here cannot be includ- ed in barcoding or phylogenomic datasets given its poor soft tissue preservation, it is our hope that the SR-u-CT data may allow the confident and quantitative placement of this species among the species allied to Ph. megacephala via a dedicated revision of this species group. As noted in our di- agnosis above, the neotype of {Ph. cordata (PMJ Pa 5889) is most similar to Ph. megacephala impressifrons, being most starkly distinguished from this form by the form of the postpetiolar sternum in lateral view. Notably, the form of the medial hypostomal teeth has not been recorded for the various forms of Ph. megacephala and similar spe- cies (e.g., Fischer et al. 2012). Whether the newly typified Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 species Ph. cordata is extant is an open question; it is plau- sible that the historical habitat has been destroyed, hence this species may be considered a candidate Lazarus taxon. Further exploration of known Afrotropical copal sensu lato and extant myrmecofauna will be of considerable value. 3.3.3. Order Neuroptera: Synopsis of Nevrorthidae 3.3.3.1. Family Nevrorthidae Nakahara, 1915. [Note 1] I. Genus + Balticoneurorthus Wichard, 2016. A. Baltic ambers [Eocene, 37.8—33.9 Mya]. 1. tBa. elegans Wichard, 2016. [m]. II. Genus tCretarhopalis Wichard, 2017. B. Kachin amber [Myanmar; Cretaceous, 99.6—93.5 Mya]. 1. Crh. patrickmuelleri Wichard, 2017. [f]. II. Genus + E/ectroneurorthrus Wichard, Buder & Caruso, 2010. A. Baltic ambers [see above]. 1. TEL. malickyi Wichard, Buder & Caruso, 2010. [f]. IV. Genus *Girafficervix Du, Niu & Bao, 2023. C. Daohugou shale [China; Jurassic, 166.1—157.3 Mya]. 1. +G. baii (Du, Niu & Bao, 2023). [I]. V. Genus tPalaeoneurorthus Wichard, 2009. A. Baltic ambers [see above]. 1. tPa. bifurcatus Wichard, 2009. [m]. 2. tPa. eocaenus Wichard, 2016. [m]. 3. tPa. groehni Wichard, Buder & Caruso, 2010. [m]. 4. +Pa. hoffeinsorum Wichard, 2009. [m]. [Type spe- cies! ]. VI. Genus + Proberotha Kriger, 1923. A. Baltic ambers [see above]. 1. tPr. dichotoma Wichard, 2016. [f]. 2. tPr. eocaenus Kriger, 1923. [m, f]. [Type species! ]. VII. Genus *Rhopalis Pictet, 1854. A. Baltic ambers [see above]. 1. tRh. relicta Pictet, 1854. [f, m]. (See also: Wichard et al. 2010.) VIII. Genus tSisyroneurorthus Nakamine, Yamamoto, Takahashi & Liu, 2023. B. Kachin amber [see above]. 1. +S. aspoeckorum Nakamine et al., 2023. [f]. Note 1. Six of the eight fossil genera of Nevrorthidae are monotypic. For those two genera that have more than one Species attributed to them, the type species 1s indicated. 3.3.3.2. Genus Palaeoneurorthus Wichard, 2009 Genus Palaeoneurorthus Wichard, 2009 Type species. + Palaeoneurorthus hoffeinsorum Wichard, 2009. Diagnosis. This genus can be characterized by the forewing with costal cross veins almost all simple, the cross veins 3rp3+4-rp2 present in forewings and absent in hindwings, the flattened male sternum 9 with tongue-like tip and the needle-like male gonapophyses 9. ies, Note. One male specimen in the amber collection (PMJ Pa 5874) is a member of Nevrorthidae. It was assigned to the genus Palaeoneurorthus based on our examination (Fig. 22A). We briefly characterize this specimen below: +Palaeoneurorthus sp. Description. Body length ca. 3.0 to 4.0 mm; forewing length 7.5—7.8 mm, hindwing length 6.4-6.8 mm. Head. Ocelli absent. Antenna slenderly filiform, with slightly enlarged scapus, smaller pedicellus, and 30 flag- ellomeres. Maxillary palps and labial palps not visible. Wings (Fig. 22B, C). Elliptical, translucent. Forewing venation with trichosors present among marginal forks of RA, RP, MA, MP, CuA and CuP; all costal cross veins simple. Sc and RA almost parallel to margin, connected basally and subdistally by two and one cross veins, respec- tively. RP with three main branches. MA fused with RP at proximal 1/3 of wing, distally branched. MP proximally separated into two main branches, with each branch bifur- cated distad. Cu branching near wing base; CuA with sev- en pectinate branches; CuP sinuate, simple, forked distad. A simple. Most cross veins present at base, middle and dis- tal 1/3. Hindwing venation: Basal part of the hindwing not visible. Trichosors present among marginal forks of RA, RP, MA, MP, CuA and CuP; costal cross veins on proximal 2/3 not visible, distal 1/3 simple. Sc and RA almost paral- lel to margin, subcostal cross veins absent. RP with two main branches. MA fused with RP at wing proximal 1/3, distally forked. MP with two main branches, one branch bifurcated distally and the other proximally, respective- ly. Cu branching near wing base; CuA with ten pectinate branches, CuP straight, simple. A not visible. Only two rows of cross veins visible, present at middle and distal 1/3, respectively. In forewings the cross vein 3rp3+4-rp2 present; in hindwings cross vein rp3+4-rp2 absent. Abdomen (Fig. 22D, E). Visible part of abdominal segment 9 annular. Sternum 9 not visible. Robust gono- coxites 9 (= “gonocoxa” in Boudinot 2018) strongly in- curved, with broad base, apically tapering, with strongly sclerotized, claw-like gonostyli 9 (= “stylus” in Boudinot, 2018), which are directed ventromedially. Ventrolateral lobes (= gonapophyses 9, “penital sclerites” in Boudinot 2018) consist of two needle-shaped projections, which are distinctly spaced: dorsal projection slightly longer than ventral one, both pointed apically. Ectoproct (= “procti- ger” in Boudinot 2018) broad, slightly convex at middle and distinctly protruding on both sides in dorsal view. Remarks. There are four described species belonging to Palaeoneurorthus, which are all known from Baltic am- bers (Wichard 2009, 2016, Wichard et al. 2010). Among the four species of Palaeoneurorthus with males described our collection shares similarities with P. eocaenus in having the set of two needle-like projections of gonapophyses 9, and the ventral projection of gonapophyses 9 being shorter than the dorsal one longer. However, based on our exam- ination, the ventral projection of gonapophyses 9 is slightly dez.pensoft.net 154 Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Figure 22. +Palaeoneurorthus sp. (Nevrorthidae) preserved in piece PMJ Pa 5874. A. Overview; B. Wing venation; C. Wing venation drawing; D. Genitalia; E. Genitalia drawing. Abbreviations: e = ectoproct, gp9 = gonapophyses 9, gst9 = gonostyli 9, gx9 = gonocoxites 9, T9 = tergum 9. dez.pensoft.net Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 shorter than the dorsal one (Fig. 22C), whereas the dorsal projection is almost five times longer in P. eocaenus (Wich- ard 2016: fig. 6f). That the sternum 8 and the base of go- napophyses 9 are not visible impedes a further comparison. Thus, we currently treat this amber as Palaeoneurorthus sp. 3.3.4. Order Coleoptera 3.3.4.1. Synopsis of fossil Doliopygus (Platypodinae) 3.3.4.1.1. Genus Doliopygus Schedl, 1939 Copal taxa: A. East African “copal” [Holocene, 0.0-0.0 Mya]. 1. D. crinitus Chapuis, 1865. [Note 1]. 2. D. tenuis Strohmeyer, 1912. [Note 1]. B. Defaunation resin or copal (possible East African) [Holocene, 0.0—0.0 Mya]. 3. D. cf. serratus HERE. [Note 2]. Note 1. Doliopygus crinitus and D. tenuis were identi- fied by Schedl (1939) from East African copal as species of Crossotarsus, with this original material presumably associated with the material misidentified as Baltic am- ber by F. Smith (e.g., Smith 1868; Grimaldi et al. 1994; O’ Hara et al. 2013; see Note 2 of Dorylus above). Note 2. We do not have the expertise to confidently identify the u-CT scanned specimen to species level, thus we appreciate the identification suggested by Byarte Jord- al. Doliopygus is known to be paraphyletic (Jordal 2015), with D. serratus being close to D. chapuisi (B. Jordal, pers. comm. 9 Nov 2022). Given the objective of the present manuscript, the tentative species identification 1s sufficient to resolve our uncertainty about the age of the resin matrix. 3.3.4.2. Family Mordellidae Latreille, 1802 Family Mordellidae Latreille, 1802 Note. We do not provide a taxonomic synopsis of Mor- dellidae here as the fossil record of the family has been recently treated by Batelka et al. (2023). 3.3.4.2.1. tBaltistena (a collective group name estab- lished by Batelka et al. 2023) + Baltistena nigrispinata Batelka, Tréger & Bock, sp. nov. https://zoobank.org/CF6A27EB-FACD-482C-81B1-ECDD3130B529 Etymology. The species name nigrispinata refers to dis- tinctly black combs on metatibia and tarsomeres contrast- ing with orange surface of the cuticle. Type materials. Holotype. PMJ Pa 5870, Baltic amber. Sex indeterminable. Cybertype: Appendix 1: Fig. A6. Paratypes. None. Differential diagnosis. The species belong to the sub- group of Mordellistenini with emarginated or dilated pen- 155 ultimate pro- and mesotarsomere sensu (Ermisch 1950). To this possible clade belong twelve of fourteen of Baltic Mordellistenini so far described (Batelka et al. 2023). In 1B. nigrispinata sp. nov. the eyes are glabrous without interfacetal (= interommatidial) setae as in tPalaeostena eocenica Kubisz from which it differs by lower number of combs on metatibia and metatarsomeres I and II, and by the shape of palpomere IV which is type C1 sensu Francis- colo (1957) in +Palaeostena. The ultimate maxillary pal- pomere is securiform as in }Baltistena korschefskyi (Er- misch) from which +B. nigrispinata sp. nov. differs by the absence of combs on metatarsomere III and by the comb formula. The ring of short black scale-like setae on the tip of pygidium is similar to that in }Baltistena brevispina Batelka, Rosova & Prokop and in +Palaeostena eocenica. The metakatepisternum is fused early with the metaven- trite in the middle of its posterior edge, which has so far only been observed in +Palaeostena eocenica among the Eocene Mordellistenini, while the other four species de- scribed by Batelka et al. (2023) have a separate and dis- cernible metakatepisternum that is elongate and extends to the metanepisternum. Based on the shape of the body, the glabrous eyes, the shape of the metakatepisternum, and the setae on the cauda, 7B. nigrispinata sp. nov. most closely resembles +Palaeostena eocenica. Also, while adding the Species into the key provided by Batelka et al. (2023) it is coupled with +Palaeostena eocenica and *Baltistena amplicollis (Ermisch). From the last species, +B. nigrispi- nata sp. nov. differs by the comb formula, the shape of the ultimate maxillary palpomere, and the length of antenno- meres III and IV, combined compared to antennomere V. This set of characters observed for +B. nigrispinata Sp. nov. supports the hypothesis that the species of Bal- tic Eocene Mordellidae formed a characteristic fauna that was much different from extant European representatives (Batelka et al. 2023). Description. Head subglobular, frons continuously con- vex, hind margin of eye at posterior margin of head, elytra convex, pygidium long, metacoxa broad, comb formula 3//2/1/0/0. Habitus in lateral view (Fig. 23A, Fig. 24A). Main diagnostic characters as defined by Francisco- lo (1967) and Batelka et al. (2023): Right antenna well visible, left antenna (Fig. 23B) visible from basal part of antennomere II, antennomeres subcylindrical, slightly compressed, without any lateral projections, antennomeres I-IV slightly widening towards apex (Fig. 24B), length ratios of antennomeres as follows: ?-1.4-1.0-1.25-1.6- 1.4-9-?-?-1.6-2.0; antennomere XI regularly rounded at apex; antennae densely covered by erect or semierect sen- silla from antennomere III. Maxillary palpomere I small, palpomere II prolonged, widest at apex, palpomere III short, triangular, palpomere IV long, securiform of Mor- della-type (Franciscolo 1957: fig. 6 Al) (Fig. 24C). Eyes finely faceted; Eyes glabrous without interfacetal setae. Scutellar shield continuously rounded (Franciscolo 1957: fig. 9_type10) (Fig. 24D). Basal side of pronotal disc wide- ly convex in central part (Fig. 24E). Elytra 3.2 = as long as pronotal disc. Form of protarsi indiscernible. Structure of dez.pensoft.net 156 Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum an3 See an5 ano ~ Figure 23. A—-C. Holotype of +Baltistena nigrispinata Batelka, Troger & Bock, sp. nov. (Mordellidae) preserved in piece PMJ Pa 5870. A. Habitus; B. Left antenna; C. Right metathoracic leg. Abbreviations: an3—an11 = antennomeres 3—11, tal—4 = tarsomeres 1-4. Figure 24. A-F. 3D reconstruction of the holotype of +Baltistena nigrispinata Batelka, Troger & Bock, sp. nov. (Mordellidae). A. Habitus in lateral view; B. Antennomeres I-VI; C. Maxillary palpomeres; D. Habitus dorsally (scutellar shield pointed by arrow); E. Pronotal disc; F. Metatibial spurs; G. Thorax laterally. Abbreviations: an3—an6 = antennomeres 3-6, mtbs = metatibial spurs, mtcx = metacoxa, mtfe = metafemur, mte = metanepisternum, mtep = metepimeron, mttr = metatrochanter, mtke = metakatepisternum, mtve = metaventrite, mxp2—4 = maxillary palpomeres 2-4, ped = pedicel, prn = pronotum, sca = scape, tal—4 = tarsomeres 1-4. dez.pensoft.net Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 protibia indiscernible. Mesotarsomeres I — III cylindrical, tarsomere I 6.1 x as long as wide; tarsomeres II and III 5.0 x as long as wide; tarsomere IV excised almost to middle region; tarsomere V about 3.0 x as long as wide. Meso- tibia very slightly shorter than metatarsomeres combined. Metatibia (Fig. 23C) with three distinct lateral combs of scale-like setae including preapical comb, combs do not reach middle of metatibia; preapical comb runs parallel with apical fringe of setae, remaining two combs slightly oblique; few isolated patches of scale-like setae inserted posterior to last dorso-lateral comb. Metatibia with two Spurs, outer spur shorter than inner one (Fig. 24F). Meta- tarsomeres (Fig. 23C) I-IV with row of spiniform setae consisting ventrally of 12 to 17 short, strong setae, formu- la: 17/14/12/15; metatarsomere I with two black and short lateral combs of scale-like setae and three isolated patch- es of black setae; metatarsomere II with one short lateral comb of scale-like setae and one black isolated seta, meta- tarsomeres HI —IV without combs; length ratio of metatar- sal segments 2.2-1.2-1-1. Pygidium long and straight, 2.4 x as long as hypopygium. Metanepisternum long and nar- row, lower corner of posterior edge rounded, anterior edge 3 x as long as posterior edge, ventral edge 7.5 x as long as posterior edge (Fig. 24G). Metakatepisternum restrict- ed to ventral part of thorax, fused with median portion of posterior edge of metaventrite (Fig. 24G). Pretarsal claws long and straight, with 2 indistinct teeth on ventral edge. Tip of pygidium with ring of short black scale-like setae. Lengths in mm: pronotal disc = 0.46, elytra = 1.29, me- sotibia = 0.46, metatarsomere I = 0.38, pygidium = 0.73, body without head = ca. 2. 4. Discussion 4.1. Geological provenance of the rediscovered PMJ Pa amber collection Between the taxonomic and color qualities of the resin pieces, coupled with the IAA results (Table 1), we were able to sort the fossils into Baltic amber and African copal categories to our satisfaction. Initially, the conflict among the qualitative tests and the results from the IAA confound- ed us. After considering these results, the true significance of the biotic inclusions, however, became clear, resolving the conundrum of fossil source. From our perspective, it was deeply surprising to find specimens interpreted as co- pal from the IAA tests that were directly labelled as from “Samland Kleinkuhren” in the PMJ Pa collection, espe- cially as there are no reports, to our knowledge, that copal has been found in the Samland Peninsula (See also 4.2.2.). While we were initially skeptical that labels and objects might have been mixed in the small PMJ Pa collection, this seems to be the most likely scenario. We note that von Knorre kept the collection as it was given to him, thus the collection has not been seen and processed until now. The evidence from the PMJ Pa amber collection clearly shows a shift in source, especially from “without” to a confi- dently assigned one and simply false labeling could be 157 resolved, and thus presents in a small scale what it might look like in another, larger collection. At the bottom line, the scenario we encountered with this collection illustrates two critical points: (1) the im- portance of the correct labeling of any specimen, further underscoring the value of accurate corresponding infor- mation for contemporary and future research (King 1975; Corado 2005; Donovan and Riley 2013); and (2) the ne- cessity of skepticism for fossils, even when having label data, as it was only the combination of biotic and chem- ical data that allowed us to draw confident conclusions about “amber” provenance in the present study. While the chemical or biotic evidence alone may have been suffi- cient, our uncertainty was not resolved until we had both lines of evidence, which clearly showed the inadequacy of the qualitative tests that have been supposed to differ- entiate between amber and copal. 4.2. Historical conspectus To arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of the Phyletisches Museum amber collection and the materials contained therein, 1t was necessary to review the histor- ical literature on amber in general (section 4.2.1) and on the Kleinkuhren locality in particular (section 4.2.2). 4.2.1. From the amber road to the 19" century In antiquity, Tacitus (circa 56-120 AD) correctly conclud- ed that amber was a tree resin: “sucum tamen arborum esse intellegas, quia terrena quaedam atque etiam volucria an- imalia plerumque interlucent, quae implicata humore mox durescente materia” (that it is a tree sap, however, can be seen from the fact that some crawling, but also flying animals are often visible between, which get into the ligq- uid and are then trapped when the material hardens) Tac. Ger. 45.6 The Baltic Sea has been a source of amber well before the time of Tacitus, as amber from this region has been found in neolithic burial sites (Singer 2016). There exists much older evidence for the use of amber, such as in the cave of Isturitz, dating back to 34,000 years ago (King 2022), but only a brief outline with a focus on Baltic am- ber shall be given here as full-length books have been published on the subject from various perspectives (e.g., Brost and Dahlstrom 1996; Grimaldi 1996; King 20272). Through the so called “Amber Road”, an ancient trade route, amber was exported from Europe to Asia, the Med- iterranean Sea and Egypt (Singer 2008, 2016). Amber might have reached Egypt directly by sea or via Syria, of which the famous Quatna lion would be proof (Mukherjee et al. 2008). In the neolithic era the first use of amber was certainly due to superstition and so the transparent, flam- mable and, when rubbed, fragrant material was attributed with protective properties. It was worn by the living as jewels or donated as precious grave goods (Andrée 1951; Frondel 1968; Larsson 2010; Vijande Vila et al. 2015). The scientific use of inclusions played a subordinate role during antiquity, despite a few correct inferences that amber is a dez.pensoft.net 158 tree resin and is originally liquid, for example, Tacitus (see above), Aristotle (Meteorology 4.10), or Pliny the Elder (Plin. Nat. 37.11). Nevertheless, the “amber effect” was already known by Plato, which is the oldest mention of the fact that rubbed amber attracts lightweight objects placed near it (Assis 2010). With this only applying to amber, our present terms “electric” and “electricity” are derived from the Ancient Greek nAextpov (élektron) (Andrée 1951). Considerable time passed until inclusions became de- monstrably more important for science, from the Bronze Age via ancient scholars up to the 16" century. As early as in the beginning of 14" century, the paternoster makers used amber for their necklaces (Buchholz 1961; Hinrichs 2007). Amber as jewellery and art is still widely appre- ciated today (Pileckaité 2001; Goldenberg 2004; Sado 2022) and one of the most famous goldsmiths in the last century was Toni Koy (1896-1990). Written evidence for the beginning of a scientific use was provided by schol- ars, such as medical doctors and pharmacists, or affluent persons interested in natural history. One of the first scientific records, found in Gessner (1565)[-1566], is about the mineral collection of Johannes Kentmann (p. 22—24), who listed in his order “Succina gravida” few insects in amber, for example “5. Eiufdem coloris, in quo formica. Darin ein omeif..”, i.e., an ant 1s within. In his work he used the system of minerals pub- lished by Agricola (1546) and was in fact one of the first scholars to put it into practice. A comparable scientific collection of that time was owned by Michele Mercatt, an Italian polymath (cf. Hinrichs 2007), whose work was published posthumously in 1717 (Mercati 1717; King 2022). Amber was an attractive object in the so-called Wunderkammern (cabinets of curiosities), where it was valued more for its beauty than for scientific reasons. Probably one of the best-known wonder chambers is the famous “Griines Gew6élbe” in Dresden (Germany), while the most famous and mysterious is the Bernsteinzimmer of Konigsberg, which was established by the Prussian king Frederick I in 1701 and the following years, and vanished in 1944, in the turmoil of war. The possible survival and whereabouts of this assembly of amber remain a mystery. In 1742 Nathanael Sendel published his “Historia Suc- cinorum” on the Dresdner amber collection of Augustus the Strong (Augustus II, “August der Starke”) and his son Friedrich August II. In this remarkable work, which largely deals with animals enclosed in amber as shown in part one “Historia insectorum succino conditorum” (Sendel 1742), he laid the foundation of modern amber research (Wichard and Wichard 2008). Even if Send- el erroneously assumed that amber was formed by soil in so-called “Gagat-Veins”, as well as some inaccurate species determinations (Greven and Wichard 2010), the merit of this work is undisputed, due in part to the 13 rich lithographs by Christian Friedrich Boetius (1706-1782). Another breakthrough in amber research was achieved by Georg Carl Berendt with his “Die Insekten im Bernstein’. Berendt was clearly ahead of his time, as he concluded “[...] die Art ist verschwunden. Dass sie ausgestorben dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum sei, ldsst sich nicht behaupten |...| wahrscheinlich ist sie durch das verdnderte Klima nur verdrdnegt |...|” ([...] the species disappeared. It cannot be said it is extinct [... | it has probably only been displaced by the changing cli- mate [...]) (Berendt 1830, pp. 37). The issue of climate change is today more relevant than ever (Flannery 2009, Tollefson 2022), and amber inclusions can provide valu- able evidence (Stodkowska 2013; Penney 2010; Penney et al. 2013; Solorzano-Kraemer et al. 2020). Moreover, Berendt was aware of the importance of inclusions for the study of earth’s history, and he saw evidence against the constancy of species (Berendt 1830, pp. 5 and 6; Hinrichs 2007). With Berendt a modern state of amber research was reached, with a broad knowledge of insects, and co- operation between researchers with different taxonomic expertise. Furthermore, Berendt already distinguished between copal and true amber and was aware of the true origin of amber as a fossilized resin of a pine tree. Re- gardless of the theoretical basis of the time, new species were constantly described and the total number of de- scribed species from amber surely exceeds 4860 (Briggs 2018; Ross 2021), most of them being insects. Far fewer specimens have been reported from copal, with a total of only about 120 species from these resins reported or described from East Africa and Madagascar (Solorzano-Kraemer et al. 2020), for example. Copal has been and still is largely undervalued as a scientific resource (Penney 2010; Penney and Preziosi 2013), although it has great potential for the study of recent biodiversity (Delclos Martinez et al. 2020; Solorzano-Kraemer et al. 2020, 2022). Indeed, the young age of copal inclusions renders them ideal for documenting the loss of biodiversity, par- ticularly since the colonial and industrial eras. Solorza- no-Kraemer et al. (2020) recognized amber as > 2.58 Mya, Pleistocene and Holocene copals as between 2.58—0.0117 Mya and 0.0117 Mya—1760 AD, and Defaunation resin as younger than 1760 AD. Faced with the dual threats of global climate change and global deforestation, the inten- sive study of copal and Defaunation resin along with ex- tant taxa may be our best and last chance to understand our contemporary biotic communities before it is too late. Symington Grieve wrote in his book about the great auk in 1885: “The following pages have been written in the hope of interesting some in the story of an extinct bird. The whole history of the Great Auk is a sad one — the contin- ued slaughters of the helpless victims culminating in the final destruction of the race on the skerry, named Eldey, off the coast of Iceland, excites to pity. The last of the Great Auks has lived and died. The race was blotted out before naturalists, when too late, discovered it was gone. Regrets are now useless — the living Garefowl is extinct.” This happened, because of human influence, as it did for at least another 14 vertebrate species in the last 200 years (Piper 2009). One of the most well-known examples of anthropogenic extinction is the marsupial Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 Thylacine (7hylacinus cynocephalus), which was hunted relentlessly to the margins of extinction, till the last one died in 1936 at Hobart Zoo (Brook et al. 2023). Another famous and quite recent event of extinction, not only through hunting, but also due to habitat loss it that of the passenger pigeons (Ectopistes migratorius). Who would have thought that a bird, so common that flock size easi- ly exceeded millions of individuals (Wright 1911), could go extinct? Of course, one key factor was that they were hunted as a food resource, the other on the deforestation, as due to their high specialization in tree nuts, they were not able to find enough food anymore (Guiry et al. 2020). These extinct species, victims of human activities, are to- day highly valued objects in museums, be it for display, teaching or scientific research. Humans’ fatal impact on environment extinction is progressing at an alarming rate, with a lot of species go- ing extinct without ever being noticed (McKinney 1999; Régnier et al. 2015). Therefore, copal and Defaunation resin are not only a short window to the past, but they should also be a warning, of what is to come. Defaunation resin in particular 1s not only amenable to u-CT analysis, as conducted here (Figs 3, 4, 6-11, 17), but also to genom- ic study, at least in some cases (Modi et al. 2021). With SO many recent and near recent taxa to describe, let alone true amber fossils, it is imperative that we recognize the value of all biological specimens preserved in collections. 4.2.2. The Samland and Kleinkuhren localities Samland, or the Kaliningrad Peninsula of today, is locat- ed on the south-eastern shore of the Baltic Sea, which has been part of the Soviet Union and Russia since 1945. One direct locality (PMJ Pa 5827) from the collection is given as Kleinkuhren (in German), today known as Fil- ino, which is located on the north-western tip of Samland. Most specimens contained in the piece were to be very untypical (see sect. 3.1.1. Biotic evidence) for the region of origin on the label, which drove us to further investi- gate on these localities. Since the earliest written records of the region, the practice of “Bernsteingrdberey” (amber mining or fish- ing) has been exercised by the inhabitants of the coast of Samland, which they also used to earn their living (We- ber 1740; Hildt 1803). In 1861, Karl Mayer described the “faunula of Kleinkuhren”, with 35 specimens to be found in the marine sandstone (Mayer 1861). According to these findings, he assigned the layer to the Rupelian (33.9 and 27.82 Ma). Noetling and A. von Koenen, came to the same conclusion some years later (Meyer 1914). The age of these sediments was questioned, however, and more recent investigations suggest that it 1s distinct- ly older, about 48 Ma (Ritzkowski 1997). Nevertheless, Perkovsky et al. (2007) pointed out that the results of Ka- plan et al. (1977) are more reliable and suggested 37.7 Ma (Perkovsky et al. 2007), which in retrospect is closer to Mayer. The age estimations of all these researchers clear- ly indicate that no copal occurs in the sediments of the E59 Samland region. Additionally, we were not able to find any report that copal has ever been found in the region of Kaliningrad-Oblast or its shores. With the localities “Samland?” or “Samland, Bern- steinwerke Konigsberg” and one with an original invoice (see section 3.1.1 above) the question when the collection was acquired could be further clarified. The PreuBischen Bergwerks-Htitten-Aktiengesellschaft (Preussag) was founded on December the 13" in 1923; only a few years later they joined forces to form a manufacturing company known as “Staatliche Bernstein-Manufaktur GmbH’ GmbH” (SBM) in 1926 (Erichson and Tomezyk 1998). In 1929, the VEBA (Vereinigte Elektrizitats- und Bergwerks- AG, Berlin) was established for the uniform financing of the state economic enterprises (Winkler 2019). This indicates that Pa 5863 was purchased between 1923 and 1929. It was not uncommon that amber was sold to entomologists, which was advertised in a timely manner (Konigsberg-Pr. 1937). Today, the amount of amber harvested from the Samland peninsula per year was 500 tons in the first decades of the 20" century (Causey 2011). 4.3. Biological conspectus The primary data that can be captured from fossil or- ganisms ranges from preserved anatomy—whether from sclerites or soft tissue (e.g., Pohl et al. 2010; Boudinot et al. 2022c; Richter et al. 2022)—to chemical composition (e.g., Trueman 2013; Barden et al. 2017; McCoy et al. 2017), with the two sources of information being near- ly indistinguishable depending on the tools used and the scale of comparison (e.g., Modi et al. 2021; Jiang et al. 2022). In order to maximize the biological value of fossils, it is essential to identify the geological source unambigu- ously and to critically evaluate the plausible phylogenetic affinities of the inclusions. While the former requires the tracking or retracing of stone provenance often coupled with chemical tests (e.g., section 3.1.1 above and 4.3.2 below), the latter depends on: (1) the phylogenetic stabil- ity of the taxonomic system in question; (2) the quality of anatomical information obtained from the specimen; and (3) the availability of comparable information from extant taxa. In best case scenarios, both the phylogeny and phenotypic affinities of the fossils may be evaluated jointly (e.g., Klopfstein and Spasojevic 2019; Mongiar- dino Koch and Thompson 2021; Boudinot et al. 2022a) or in sequence, which nearly always requires substantial revision of fossil interpretations (e.g., Fikacek et al. 2020; Boudinot et al. 2022d; Schadel et al. 2022). A special is- sue of contemporary paleontological phylogenetics is to produce a classification that is both robust and systemat- ically organizes diagnostic information, allowing future works to place fossils with certainty, or at least explicit uncertainty. Below, we highlight both issues via discus- sion of the Psocodea (section 4.3.1), which are grossly understudied anatomically, and Dorylus (section 4.3.2), which have been plagued by taphonomic uncertainty for dez.pensoft.net 160 over a century. We conclude this section with a consider- ation of broader issues and methods for paleoentomology (section 4.3.3). 4.3.1. The case of barklice (“Psocoptera”), an underesti- mated and undeservedly spurned group The barklice, or the psocopteran grade of the order Psoco- dea, are ina twilight zone of phylogenetic paleontology, as fossil material is very abundant from the present through the Mesozoic, yet the extant taxa are grossly understudied anatomically (Yoshizawa 2002; Mockford 2018; Kawa- ta et al. 2022). Moreover, only the sub- and infraordinal relationships have been resolved via molecular systemat- ics (de Moya et al. 2021), with the exception of a few families (Mockford 1999; Yoshizawa and Johnson 2008). As a consequence, a well-founded system to place fossils is lacking. The morphological assumptions of prior gen- erations of taxonomists are largely untested, hence still dominant in the process of taxonomic determination and evolutionary inference. This is in addition to being prob- lematic for understanding Psocodea for their own sake. This reduces the phylogenetic key role of the group as either sister to the Holometabola or the Condylognatha (Misof et al. 2014), which are issues of crucial importance to broader insect phylogenetics and evolutionary history. Two extinct taxa directly highlighting the present diffi- culties of psocodean systematics are +Arcantipsocus and +Paramesopsocus, both originally placed in new, nomino- typical families (Azar et al. 2008, 2009), and now consid- ered to belong to Amphientomidae and Electrentomidae, respectively (Mockford et al. 2013). In both cases, the au- thors relied on the cladistic analysis of Yoshizawa (2002) for morphological characters. Azar et al. (2008, 2009) recognized that the taxonomic sampling of Yoshizawa (2002) was focused on Psocomorpha. Nevertheless, they placed their fossils using the characters of that study as the matrix was the most comprehensive that was available. As a consequence, both paleontological studies attributed the fossils to Psocomorpha, with overreliance on the thick pterostigma and presence of the nodus, which were consid- ered as autapomorphies of the suborder (Yoshizawa 2002). By studying an expanded sample of fossil and extant taxa, Mockford et al. (2013) recognized that these characters are homoplastic among the suborders, and that other, less prominent features reasonably place +Paramesopsocus near Amphientomidae and 7fArcantipsocus within this family. Even though this is certainly an improvement, these placements have yet to be incisively scrutinized us- ing adequate data sets and analytical methods. Both examples underline the problems with placing fossils into insufficiently founded systems, where rela- tionships are often not supported by well-defined apo- morphies, or where assumptions have yet to be tested. A specific problem in psocodean systematics is the almost exclusive use of characters of wing venation and genitalia, while most other body parts or organs are understudied and neglected during investigations. In a comparative sense, dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum it is Surprising that the shape and presence or absence of sclerites (except for genital structures) are very rarely used in systematic research on Psocodea, in contrast to other groups or insects (see, e.g., Pohl and Beutel 2005; Beutel et al. 2011). They are often the best-preserved characters in amber fossils besides the wings and might provide many phylogenetically informative features. It is conceivable that the missing access to new technologies may impede scientific progress in this field. Moreover, many fossils are simply not sufficiently preserved for detailed observation. With our present work, we hope to ignite interest in a more thorough morphological analysis of extant and fossil Pso- codea, particularly using modern morphological methods such as u-CT and computer rendering, which can reveal rich morphological data from limited material (Figs 7-11). 4.3.2. The case of Dorylus, a long historical arc Ants of the genus Dorylus dominate Old World tropical ecosystems above and below ground, where they occur, and have long fascinated and challenged systematists working on ants (Gotwald 1995; Borowiec 2016; Boudinot et al. 2021). As such, the geological age and paleogeographic distribution of their crown clade is of considerable interest. Any fossils potentially attributable to Dorylus are thus of substantial evolutionary importance. In the present study, we identified one such species represented by dozens of individual specimens preserved in resins labeled as “Baltic amber” from the PMJ Pa collection (Figs 2, 3). The temptation to accept this assumption as a conclusion was powerful, yet we struggled to make sense of the initial qualitative tests. We therefore sent samples of the resin matrix for FT-IR, which contradicted the hypothesis that these specimens were from Eocene- aged succinite. Still not satisfied, we subjected one quality exemplar of this Dorylus species to SR-u-CT scanning and 3D reconstruction (Appendix 1: Fig. Al). With our u-CT data, we were able to identify the PMJ Pa Dorylus as belonging to the extant subspecies Dorylus nigricans molestus, based on the key to subgenera from Gotwald (1982) and the key to the D. nigricans species group (former Anomma) of Santschi (1912). Specifical- ly, the fossil has 11-merous antennae with flagellomeres that are longer than wide, the terminal abdominal tergum has well-defined ridges around its central depression, the spines of the frontal carinae and posterolateral corners of the head are lacking, the petiole widens posteriorly as seen in dorsal view, and the ventral posterolateral corners of the node angular and produced, rather than rounded. Coupled with the identification of the synincluded platy- podine as a member of an extant metapopulation, we were forced to reject the succinite hypothesis. Subsequent 4C analysis resulted in an estimated age of ~145 years for the D. n. molestus-bearing piece, squarely falling in the category of Defaunation resin. Although these specimens are not as ancient as we were led to believe by the original labels, they may yet be of systematic value: To resolve the species boundaries of this complex, a comprehensive Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 revision of Dorylus nigricans integrating sequence and morphological data is necessary (see Wilson and Brown 1953 on subspecies in myrmecology and Borowiec 2019 for further consideration in the context of Dorylinae). The PMJ Pa D. n. molestus are far from the first posi- tive subfossil members of Dorylus and the first false pos- itive Dorylus from Baltic amber. Alongside the doryline Neivamyrmex iridescens from Colombian copal, DuBois (1998) previously reported D. n. molestus from confirmed East African copal sensu lato. Over a century before, F. Smith (1868) had identified a Dorylus (“being either Anomma rubella or a closely related species”, p. 184) from what he assumed to be Baltic amber, but which was later determined to be East African copal (Grimaldi et al. 1994; O’Hara et al. 2013). Notably, “Anomma rubella” is currently considered to be Dor. nigricans rubellus (Sav- age, 1849), which suggests that the imperfect F. Smith may have handled material quite similar to, if not from the same source, as that of the PMJ Pa and those cited by DuBois (1998). Even more recently, Solorzano-Kraemer et al. (2022) figured multiple unidentified Dory/us specimens from Holocene copal (= Defaunation resin) from Tanzania (their fig. lle, f), while the unavailable name ftDissumu- lodorylus perseus was provided for specimens of putative Baltic origin (Sosiak et al. 2022), which were later revealed via FT-IR to be sub-fossil resin by those authors (Sosiak et al. 2023a, b). Although moot due to unavailability, which we maintain, key structural details for species-level iden- tification were not visible in their scans even after refined segmentation (Dubovikoff and Zharkov 2023). The work of Sosiak et al. (2022, 2023a, b) is an exemplary demon- stration of biological hypothesis testing, and further under- scores the necessity for a critical approach to the use of “amber” fossils for systematics and evolutionary influence. 4.3.3. Fossil evaluation: Further pitfalls The two direct examples arising from the main part of this study illustrate the dual difficulties and importance of correctly identifying fossil provenance (section 4.3.2) and placing fossils in systems, when robust phylogenetic and anatomical documentation is lacking (section 4.3.1). With the deep and expanding backlog of amber fossils from Eocene Baltic and other sources (e.g., Peris et al. 2016; Delclos et al. 2023), a true flood has become avail- able with the intensive exploration of Burmese Kachin amber (e.g., Ross 2019, 2021; Boudinot 2020; Boudinot et al. 2020; Peris and Rust 2020; Pohl et al. 2021; Beutel et al. acc. pend. minor revision), all of which necessitates critical care in the treatment of anatomical information from these and other fossils, including adpression fossils, which may be older but are usually less well-preserved (e.g., Boudinot et al. 2022b). In addition to inadequacy of the phylogenetic system (point 1, section 4.3.1), in- sufficient morphological documentation (point 2, section 4.3.1), and failure to compare fossils to extant taxa (or ab- sence of comparable information; point 3, section 4.3.1), we recognize three more shortcomings that, in variable 161 combination, may lead to problematic inferences: (4) lack of taxonomic and evolutionary context, e.g., no keys, character lists or data matrices are provided; (5) inexpert knowledge of potentially related extant groups; and (6) inadequate phylogenetic evaluation. Because the litera- ture 1s rapidly being filled with incautious conclusions, which are hard to correct, we find it unfortunately neces- sary to outline these issues and some examples so as to encourage finer comparative attention to detail. The erroneous conclusions of two examples may have been emolliated via taxonomic specialist contribution (e.g., Li et al. 2022; see also Vitali 2019). Critical reeval- uation of a putative mordellid larva from Cretaceous am- ber (Zippel et al. 2022) found that the insect in question is a sawfly (Batelka and Engel 2022), possibly belonging to the family Blasticomidae (Rasnitsyn and Miller 2023), while putative “triungulins” of Strepsiptera (Schawaroch et al. 2005) were eventually correctly placed based on piecemeal reconstruction of fine structures (Beutel et al. 2016, Batelka et al. 2019) with the final clarification pro- vided by Pohl et al. (2018), wherein the first true strep- sipteran primary larva enclosed in amber was identified. A third example, that of the putative new beetle family +Ptismidae (Kirejtshuk et al. 2016), was recognized as a synonym of the scirtiform family Clambidae after it was shown that this taxon was defined based on symplesiom- orphies and gross rather than specific, structural simuilari- ties (Cai et al. 2019). As in many “high throughput” stud- ies on amber fossils, the documentation and interpretation of morphological features were insufficient. Beyond problems of nomenclature and systematics, lack of precise observation and identification may also lead to evolutionary misinterpretations that may have ramifying consequences for paleoecology. For exam- ple, there are presently only few events of pollination documented in the fossil record of the Cretaceous and Cenozoic and these should be taken with caution (e.g., Pefia-Kairath et al. 2023). A new species of the cucujoid family Kateretidae was described by Tihelka et al. (2021), who suggested that the beetle was feeding on angiosperm pollen and was acting as a pollinator, thus seemingly re- vealing a very early event on beetle-angiosperm interac- tion. However, it was shown by Bao et al. (2022) that the pollen in question was in fact of gymnosperm origin and not ingested by the beetle via careful documentation and experimental replication of pollinivory. An apparent and frequent problem in insect paleoento- mology are fossil placements based more-or-less on intu- ition (e.g., Kirejtshuk et al. 2016; Kirejtshuk 2020), rather than arguments in the sense of synapomorphies or formal phylogenetic analyses based on maximum parsimony (MP) or Bayesian inference (BI). The placement of ad- pression fossils was formally evaluated by Fikaéek et al. (2020) and Boudinot et al. (2022d), using morphological data sets and phylogenetic topologies based on compre- hensive molecular data sets. A similar approach was re- cently applied to minute myxophagan beetles in Burmese amber (Fikaéek et al. 2023). The characters were analyzed dez.pensoft.net 162 in a Bayesian framework under different schemes of con- straints, also using phylogenetic patterns based on molec- ular phylogenies. It is still a common practice in paleoen- tomology to erect and shift extant or extinct taxa without adequate analyses or at least phylogenetic arguments in the sense of apomorphies (e.g., Kirejtshuk 2020). How- ever, this approach leads to random taxonomic and phylo- genetic changes, lacks a solid basis, and does not help to understand the evolution of beetles and other groups (e.g., Fikaéek et al. 2020; Boudinot et al. 2023). 4.4. Technological Conspectus: Phenomics A key technology transforming the study of insect anato- my and evolution is micro-computed tomography (u-CT), which allows for the non-destructive, replicable, quantita- tive sampling of structures at the submicron scale either preserved or in motion, in the case of x-ray kinematics (or cineradiography, e.g., van de Kamp et al. 2015; Wulff et al. 2017). The non-invasive generation of phenomic data further allows for the evaluation of complex functional in- teractions, such as for the metasoma of Scorpiones (Gun- ther et al. 2021) and copulation in Strepsiptera (Peinert et al. 2016; Jandausch et al. 2023), Hymenoptera (Semple et al. 2021), and Lepidoptera (Zlatkov et al. 2023). For the purposes of paleoentomology, u-CT has profound ad- vantage as beam penetrance allows for the discovery of biological inclusions in opaque amber (Lak et al. 2008), phosphatized nodules (van de Kamp et al. 2018), and even Triassic coprolites (Qvarnstrom et al. 2021). In a pair of studies on Cretaceous stem ants (Boudinot et al. 2022c; Richter et al. 2022), it was discovered that soft tissue may be preserved in spectacular detail, including a near- ly complete cephalic muscle set, glands, and elements of the central nervous system, and the utility of u-CT was demonstrated for revisionary systematics and phylogenet- ic character discovery. That u-CT is especially valuable for character discovery and phylogenetic hypothesis test- ing was also demonstrated in a study on the prosternum of extant Hymenoptera (Boudinot et al. in prep.), which expanded the available anatomical variables of this struc- ture from 11 to 124. This study further showed potential for u-CT as a tool for museomics, as a century-old speci- men produced high-quality scan data, complementing ge- nome capture from preserved material (e.g., Blaimer et al. 2016). Although relatively time-consuming, even simple surface renders may be highly informative (e.g., Garcia et al. 2019; Jatoszynski et al. 2020), especially for rare taxa or irreplaceable specimens (e.g., Simonsen and Kitching 2014) and when used as one prong of a multi-modal ap- proach for phenotype documentation, alongside green-flu- orescent light for fossils (e.g., Clarke et al. 2018; Boudinot et al. 2020, 2022c), and SEM, CLSM, and manual histolo- gy for extant taxa (e.g., Richter et al. 2019, 2023; see also Friedrich and Beutel 2008, Friedrich et al. 2014). Even though the loss of information and amount of ar- tefacts are usually very low, some aspects must be taken dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum into account: (a) depending on fixation considerable defor- mation can occur, as for instance tissue preserved in eth- anol can shrink through dehydration, depending on time and tissue properties up to a loss of 60% of the original volume (Hedrick et al. 2018; Leonard et al. 2022); (b) im- aging contrast can be distinctly improved by iodine-stain- ing (Metscher 2009) but this can demineralize specimens immersed for a longer time span (Early et al. 2020); (c) stained specimens can be de-stained very efficiently using thiosulfate solution, but this can increase calcium solubil- ity and cause decalcification (Mataic and Bastani 2006; see Callahan et al. 2021 for a de-staining protocol); (d) desktop micro-CT scanners are still expensive and energy consuming, and not accessible for all scientists; (e) the post-processing of the data can be very time consuming; and (f) in the case of most synchrotron-scanned resin pieces a dark band occurs where the beam passed (e.g., Pohl et al. 2019; Sadowski et al. 2021), consequently thus it is also preferable that the piece should be carefully doc- umented with photographs before scanning. Care should always be taken not to use an excessive level of energy of synchrotron radiation, as this can be destructive or leave behind an irreversible brownish band to the amber. The documentation of structural details can be enhanced by isolating individual structures of a certain specimen through physical preparation, or using an intact specimen; the target focal areas can be cleaned with chloroform (Ammar et al. 2015). Moreover, appropriate cleaning can distinctly reduce artifacts and thus accelerate the further processing. This can be further optimized with AI, for in- stance by using Biomedisa (Losel et al. 2020). Another major advantage of u-CT data is that they can be made available to the community in suitable databases. A specimen gone through the three steps mentioned above can be distributed to scientists or the public in various forms. The data accessibility 1s crucial in different ways, but especially so for museum material and type specimens (Faulwetter et al. 2013), with cybertypes having use even beyond classificatory purposes (e.g., Naumann et al. 2020). For many active researchers, access to type material is of- ten very difficult (Orr et al. 2020). Shipping is expensive and bears an enormous risk of damage or even losing spec- imens. In most cases, the scientific benefit and the entitle- ment of scientists to study the fauna of their country out- weighs this risk (Dupérré 2020). However, u-CT data can be made available electronically and thus open a new di- mension of making specimens accessible, in the ideal case even including surface textures and color (Ijiri et al. 2018). Even though digital information can never fully replace the physical type specimens (Rogers et al. 2017), it is a highly efficient way to facilitate revisions and also to stimulate scientific inquiry and discussion in different contexts. Even if technical resources are limited, this can be extended us- ing models from platforms like Sketchfab (Epic Games, Cary, North Carolina, USA) or MorphoSource (Morpho- Source.org). In our study as well as in previous contribu- tions (Aibekova et al. 2022; Troger et al. 2023; Weingardt et al. 2023), these options were used to visualize complex Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 3-dimensional structures in an easily accessible way to contribute to a better understanding of insect morphology. A final aspect of u-CT data that confers unique advan- tage is for museums- and classroom-based pedagogy (e.g., Shelmerdine et al. 2018). School children and students can examine, disassemble, and assemble a wide variety of objects which enhances the understanding of complex 3D objects. The risk of damage is negligible compared to real specimens or wax models. This has been successful- ly demonstrated with the neurocranium of the mud-shark Squalus acanthias at the Institute of Zoology and Evo- lutionary Research of the Friedrich Schiller University (Jena, Germany) (Moritz pers. comm., 2022). 3D recon- structions are further advantageous as they can be scaled, which facilitates the visualization of structures or even entire animals which are otherwise hardly accessible. In the current project EntomonVR (Saqalaksari et al. 2023) demonstrated new opportunities to study and enhance the understanding of insect morphology in an engaging and appealing way. A less expensive way to present u-CT re- sults as 3D printed models was used in the exhibition of the Phyletisches Museum, where a copulating pair of leaf beetles (Neocrepidodera ferruginea) is on display, which was magnified forty times and airbrushed. With the above mentioned combination, a multisensory approach in mu- seums can be boosted, as it is possible to conserve valuable objects, while allowing visitors to simultaneously handle an authentic copy (Wilson et al. 2017; Ziegler et al. 2020). This includes the option to make objects tangible for visu- ally impaired visitors (Neumiller et al. 2014). The use of CT-scans to create highly realistic enlarged models of dif- ferent organisms is now gaining great momentum, as for instance demonstrated by 1OTONS (https://www. 10tons. dk/) or Julia Stoess (https://www.insektenmodelle.de/de/). 5. Conclusion The only direct documentation of the history of evolution in the dimension of time is the fossil record, for which the highest fidelity of preservation is afforded by exuded resins that may fossilize over the course of millions of years, thus forming amber. To be useful for biodiversity studies, it is critical that the source of inclusion-bearing resins be identified, as the difference in age between true amber and copal or Defaunation resin may profoundly influence ecological, biogeographical, and evolutionary inferences. The rediscovered amber collection of the Phyletisches Museum allowed us to starkly demonstrate this crux, as several pieces labeled as Baltic amber would have represented new generic records for the ant fauna of the Eocene, including the widespread and dominant genera Crematogaster, Dorylus, Lepisiota, and Pheidole. Through chemical (FT-IR, UV-VIS, '*C), systematic (anatomical SR-u-CT reconstruction), and historical investigation, we were able to not only correct the historical mislabeling of these and all other specimens in the amber collection, but to also review and revise the fossil record of Amphientomum 163 and the Amphientomidae (Psocodea), several clades of Formicidae (Camponotini, Crematogaster, Dorylinae, Pheidole, — Plagiolepidini, = +Yantaromyrmex), the Nevrorthidae (Neuroptera), and two beetle genera (Doliopygus, Platypodinae; +Baltistena, Mordellidae). With respect to fossil resin provenance, we found that the study of historical records is highly useful where these exist, and that the generally recommended qualitative tests for amber identity fail spectacularly when benchmarked against quantitative tests, particularly FT-IR. In brief, when new records of taxa that are millions to tens of millions years older than the oldest known representative, great care should be taken to ensure that label data accurately reflect the source of the fossil material. With the rediscovered Bernsteinsammlung, the Phyletisches Museum is now known to comprise Defaunation resin, copal, and succinite (true Baltic amber) as well as Kachin amber. The biological value of subfossil material should not be overlooked. Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; nor in the decision to publish the results. Author contributions Conceptualization: BEB, BLB. Methodology: BEB, BLB, MW, DT, KJ, JUH, HP. Software: JUH. Validation: BEB, BLB. Investigation: BEB, BLB, MW, DT, KJ, JUH, DL, OTDM, JB, AR. Resources: JUH. Data Curation: BEB, BLB, MW, JUH, JB. Writing, original draft: BEB, BLB, DT, MW, JB, DL. Writing, review & editing: RGB, AR, HP. Visualization: MW, DT, BLB. Supervision: RGB, HP. Project administration: BEB, BLB. Funding acquisi- tion: BEB, DT, MW, AR. Funding This research was funded by the following. ¢ Boudinot: the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung via a research fellowship (2020-2022) and a Peter S. Buck research fellowship at the Smithsonian Insti- tute (2023). ¢ Richter: the Evangelisches Studienwerk Villigst eV via a scholarship (2020-2022). ¢ Forderverein Phyletisches Museum Jena e. V. * Research of Jan Batelka was financed from opera- tional program ,,Grant Schemes at CU “(reg. no. CZ .02.2.69/0.0/0.0/19_073/0016935). ¢ Troger: scholarship of the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU) (2022-) ¢ Weingardt: Landesgraduiertenstipendium (2023-), Honours Programme University of Jena 2021—2022 dez.pensoft.net 164 Data availability statement The original u-CT datasets of tAmphientomum knorrei Weingardt, Bock & Boudinot, sp. nov. (PMJ Pa 5809), Ar- chipsocidae gen. et sp. indet (PMJ Pa 5825), +Baltistena nigrispinata Batelka, Troger & Bock, sp. nov. (PMJ Pa 5870), Doliopygus cf. serratus (PMJ Pa 5827), Dorylus ni- gricans molestus (PMJ Pa 5884), and the neotype of {Phe- idole cordata (PMJ Pa 5889) are databased and assigned a unique identifier at the Phyletisches Museum (Jena, Germany) and additionally available at the data reposito- ry MorphoSource (URL: https://www.morphosoutrce.org/ projects/000547325?locale=en) with the reference num- bers: 000549407 (+Amphientomum knorrei Weingardt, Bock & Boudinot, sp. nov.), 000549379 (Archipsocidae gen. et sp. indet.), 000549353 (Dorylus nigricans moles- tus), 000549006 (+Baltistena nigrispinata Batelka, Troger & Bock, sp. nov.), 000548650 (Doliopygus cf. serratus), 000552612 (+Pheidole cordata Holl 1829, neotype). Acknowledgments We thank: Dietrich von Knorre and Matthias Kriger for sharing their profound knowledge of the whole PMJ collection; the International Amber Association (IAA) Gdansk, Poland for chemical analysis; Brian Fisher, Michele Esposito, and Barry Bolton for AntWeb and AntCat; Charles Lienhard, Lulan Jie, Gurusamy Ramesh, Alexander Rasnitsyn, Christian Schmidt, and Dmitry Vassilenko for sharing Psocodea literature; Vincent Perrichot for loaning Ethiopian amber material; Feryang Liang for confirming the genus identification of Amphientomum and providing additional information on amphientomid genitalia; Phil Ward and Rodolfo da Silva Probst for discussing the ideal treatment of the camponotine fossils; Aléxandre Ferreira for discussing the Defaunation resin Pheidole; Bjarte Jordal for identification of the platypodine, provision of literature, and discussion of Doliopygus systematics; Eva-Maria Sadowski, David Ware, and Andreas Abele-Rassuly for the possibility to take photographs at the MfN Berlin; and Jill Oberski for providing comment on a pre-submission version of the MS and for consistent discussion during the construction and revision of the work. We also thank Kazunori Yoshizawa and Phil Ward for their incisive and useful feedback on the manuscript, as well as the editor, Sonja Wedmann; we thank Phil once more for catching an embarrassing blunder, for which we are grateful. We acknowledge the provision of beamtime related to the proposal BAG-20190010 at PETRA III beamline P05 of DESY, a member of the Helmholtz Association (HGF). We acknowledge the support during the beam times by Hereon team members Fabian Wilde, Julian Moosmann, and Felix Beckmann. This research was supported in part through the Maxwell computational resources operated at Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg, Ger- many. Gunnar Brehm for the loan of his lepiLED. Addi- tional support was provided by the Alexander von Hum- boldt Stiftung (BEB: 2020-2022; the Japan Society for the dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Promotion of Science (AR: 2023-), the Smithsonian In- stitute (BEB: 2023), Landesgraduiertenstipendium (MW: 2023-—), the Honours Programme from University of Jena (MW: 2021-2022), the Evangelisches Studienwerk Villigst eV (AR: 2020-2022), the Deutsche Stiftung fur Umwelt (DT 2022-), the Grant Schemes at Charles University (JB: reg. no. CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/19_073/0016935), Susanne & Jens Wurdinger and the Forderverein Phyletisches Muse- um e.V.. We are very grateful to the Smithsonian’s Biodi- versity Heritage Library and the librarians who kindly per- mitted us to examine an original book (Schweigger 1819) and scanned the pages: Leslie Overstreet and Erin Rushing. Last but not least, we thank the Museum fiir Naturkunde (Berlin) for waiving the publication costs of our article. References Aarle WV, Palenstijn WJ, de Beenhouwer J, Altantzis T, Bals S, Baten- burg KJ, Sijbers J (2015) The ASTRA Toolbox: A platform for ad- vanced algorithm development in electron tomography. Ultramicros- copy 157: 35-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2015.05.002 Aarle WV, Palenstijn WJ, Cant J, Janssens E, Bleichrodt F, Dabravolski A, de Beenhouwer J, Batenburg KJ, Sijbers J (2016) Fast and flex- ible X-ray tomography using the ASTRA toolbox. Optics Express 24: 25129-25147. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.24.025129 Agricola G (1546) De Natura Fossilium. Libri X, Basel. Aibekova L, Boudinot BE, Beutel RG, Richter A, Keller RA, Hita-Garcia F, Economo EP (2022) The skeletomuscular system of the mesosoma of Formica rufa workers (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Insect Sys- tematics and Diversity 6: 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/isd/txac002 Ammar E-D, Hentz M, Hall DG, Shatters Jr RG (2015) Ultrastructure of wax-producing structures on the integument of the melaleuca psyllid Boreioglycaspis melaleucae (Hemiptera: Psyllidae), with honeydew excretion behavior in males and females. PLoS ONE 10: e0121354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121354 André E (1895) Notice sur les fourmis fossiles de l’ambre de la Baltique et description de deux espéces nouvelles. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France 20: 80-84. Andrée K (1951) Der Bernstein — Das Bernsteinland und sein Leben. Kosmos, Stuttgart 95 pp. AntWeb (2022) Version 8.77.4. California Academy of Science. https:// www.antweb.org [last accessed 18 July 2022] Assis AKT (2010) The experimental and historical foundations of elec- tricity. Apeiron, Montreal, 268 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191- 010-9318-z Azar D, Hajar L, Indary C, Nel A (2008) Paramesopsocidae, a new Me- sozoic psocid family (Insecta: Psocodea “Psocoptera”: Psocomor- pha). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 44: 459-470. https://doi.org/10.1080/00379271.2008.10697581 Azar D, Nel A, Néraudeau D (2009) A new Cretaceous psocodean fam- ily from the Charente-Maritime amber (France) (Insecta, Psocodea, Psocomorpha). Geodiversitas 31: 117-127. https://doi.org/10.5252/ g2009n1al0 Bachmayer F (1960) Insektenreste aus den Congerienschichten (Pan- non) von Brunn-Vosendorf (stidl. von Wien) Niederdésterreich. Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissen- schaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse. Abteilung I 169: 11-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-25541-4 1 Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 Badonnel A (1934) Recherches sur I‘anatomie des Psoques. 241 pp. [80 figs] Badonnel A (1948) Psocopteres du Congo Belge (2e note). Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines 40: 266-322. Badonnel A (1949) Psocopteres du Congo Belge (3e note). Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique 25: 1-64. Badonnel A (1955) Psocopteres de l’Angola. Publicac6es Culturais da Companhia de Diamantes de Angola 26: 1-267. Badonnel A (1959) Un psoque cavernicole du Moyen-Congo. Revue Su- isse de Zoologie 66: 761—764. https://doi.org/10.5962/bh1.part. 117922 Badonnel A (1967) Insectes Psocopteres. Faune de Madagascar 23: 1—235. Badonnel A (1979) Psocopteres de la Céte dIvoire (2e note). Revue Su- isse de Zoologie 86: 11-22. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl1.part.82275 Bao T, Wedmann S, Grimsson F, Beutel RG, Seyfullah L, Bao L, Jarzembowski EA (2022) Was the kateretid beetle Pelretes really a Cretaceous angiosperm pollinator? Nature Plants 8: 38—40. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-01044-3 Barden P, Herhold HW, Grimaldi DA (2017) A new genus of hell ants from the Cretaceous (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Haidomyrmecini) with a novel head structure. Systematic Entomology 42: 837-846. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-01044-3 Baroni Urbani C (1995) Invasion and extinction in the West Indian ant fauna revisited: the example of Pheidole (Amber Collection Stuttgart: Hymenoptera, Formicidae. VIII: Myrmicinae, partim). Stuttgarter Beitrage zur Naturkunde. Serie B, Geologie und Palaontologie 222: 1-12. Batelka J, Engel MS (2022) The ‘first fossil tumbling flower beetle’ larva is a symphytan (Hymenoptera). Acta Entomologica Musei Na- tionalis Pragae 62: 57—59. https://doi.org/10.37520/aemnp.2022.005 Batelka J, Prokop J, Pohl H, Bai M, Zhang W, Beutel RG (2019) Highly specialized Cretaceous beetle parasitoids (Ripiphoridae) identified with optimized visualization of microstructures. Systematic Ento- mology 44: 396-407. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12331 Batelka J, Rosova K, Prokop J (2023) Diversity and morphology of Eocene and Oligocene Mordellidae (Coleoptera). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 63: 451-478. https://doi.org/10.37520/ aemnp.2023.027 Beaver RA, Loyttyniemi K (1985) The platypodid ambrosia beetles of Zambia (Coleoptera: Platypodidae). Revue Zoologique Africaine 99: 113-134. Berendt GC (1830) Die Insekten im Bernstein: Ein Beitrag zur Thier- geschichte der Vorwelt. Nicolai, Danzig, 38 pp. Beutel RG, Friedrich F, Hornschemeyer T, Pohl H, Htinefeld F, Beck- mann F, Meier R, Misof B, Whiting MF, Vilhelmsen L (2011) Mor- phological and molecular evidence converge upon a robust phy- logeny of the megadiverse Holometabola. Cladistics 27: 341-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2010.00338.x Beutel RG, Zhang WW, Pohl H, Wappler T, Bai M (2016) A miniatur- ized beetle larva in Cretaceous Burmese amber: Reinterpretation of a fossil “strepsipteran triungulin”. Insect Systematics & Evolution 47: 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1163/1876312x-46052134 Beutel RG, Xu Ch-P, Jarzembowski E, Kundrata R, Boudinot BE, McKenna D, Goczat J (acc. pend. minor revision) The evolutionary history of Coleoptera (Insecta) in the late Paleozoic and the Mesozo- ic. Systematic Entomology [acc. pend. minor rev. ]. Bisulca C, Nascimbene PC, Elkin L, Grimaldi DA (2012) Variation in the deterioration of fossil resins and implications for the conserva- tion of fossils in amber. American Museum Novitates 2012: 1-19. https://do1.org/10.1206/3734.2 165 Blaimer BB, Brady SG, Schultz TR, Lloyd MW, Fisher BL, Ward PS (2015) Phylogenomic methods outperform traditional multi-locus approaches in resolving deep evolutionary history: A case study of formicine ants. BMC Evolutionary Biology 15(271): 1-14. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12862-015-0552-5 Blaimer BB, Lloyd MW, Guillory WX, Brady SG (2016) Sequence capture and phylogenetic utility of genomic ultraconserved elements obtained from pinned insect specimens. PLoS ONE 11: e0161531. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161531 Bolton B (1995) A new general catalogue of the ants of the world. Cam- bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 504 pp. Bolton B (2003) Synopsis and classification of Formicidae. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 71: 1-370. Bolton B (2023) AntCat, an Online Catalog of the Ants of the World by Barry Bolton. https://antcat.org [accessed 31 October 2023] Borgmeier T (1940) Duas notas myrmecologicas. Revista de Entomolo- gia (Rio de Janeiro) 11: 606. Borgmeier T (1950) Uma nova espécie do género Neivamyrmex Borg- meier (Hym. Formicidae). Revista de Entomologia (Rio de Janeiro) 21: 623-624. Borowiec ML (2016) Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280. https://doi. org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427 Borowiec ML (2019) Convergent evolution of the army ant syndrome and congruence in big-data phylogenetics. Systematic Biology 68: 642-656. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy088 Boudinot BE, Probst RS, Brandéo CRF, Feitosa RM, Ward PS (2016) Out of the Neotropics: Newly discovered relictual species sheds light on the biogeographical history of spider ants (Leptomyrmex, Dolichoderinae, Formicidae). Systematic Entomology 41: 658-671. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12181 Boudinot BE (2018) A general theory of genital homologies for the Hexa- poda (Pancrustacea) derived from skeletomuscular correspondences, with emphasis on the Endopterygota. Arthropod Structure & Devel- opment 47: 563-613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asd.2018.11.001 Boudinot BE (2020) Systematic and Evolutionary Morphology: Case Studies on Formicidae, Mesozoic Aculeata, and Hexapodan Genita- lia. University of California, Davis. Boudinot BE, Perrichot V, Chaul JCM (2020) tCamelosphecia gen. nov., lost ant-wasp intermediates from the mid-Cretaceous (Hy- menoptera, Formicoidea). ZooKeys 1005: 21-55. https://doi. org/10.3897/zookeys.1005.57629. figure 13 Boudinot BE, Moosdorf OTD, Beutel RG, Richter A (2021) Anatomy and evolution of the head of Dorylus helvolus (Formicidae: Do- rylinae): Patterns of sex- and caste-limited traits in the sausagefly and the driver ant. Journal of Morphology 282: 1616-1658. https:// doi.org/10.1002/jmor.21410/v2/response1 Boudinot BE, Borowiec ML, Prebus MM (2022a) Phylogeny, evolu- tion, and classification of the ant genus Lasius, the tribe Lasiini and the subfamily Formicinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Systematic Entomology 47: 113-151. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen. 12522 Boudinot BE, Khouri Z, Richter A, Griebenow ZH, van de Kamp T, Perrichot V, Barden P (2022b) Evolution and systematics of the Aculeata and kin (Hymenoptera), with emphasis on the ants (For- micoidea: ,@@@idae fam. nov., Formicidae). bioRxiv, 450 pp. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.20.480183 Boudinot BE, Richter A, Katzke J, Chaul JCM, Keller RA, Economo EP, Beutel RG, Yamamoto S (2022c) Evidence for the evolution of eu- sociality in stem ants and a systematic revision of *Gerontoformica dez.pensoft.net 166 (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean So- ciety 195: 1355-1389. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlab097 Boudinot BE, Yan EV, Prokop J, Luo X-Z, Beutel RG (2022d) Perm- ian parallelisms: Reanalysis of *Tshekardocoleidae sheds light on the earliest evolution of the Coleoptera. Systematic Entomology 48: 69-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12562 Boudinot BE, Fikaéek M, Liebermann ZE, Kusy D, Bocak L, Mckenna DD, Beutel RG (2023) Systematic bias and the phylogeny of Cole- optera—A response to Cai et al. (2022) following the responses to Cai et al. (2020). Systematic Entomology 48: 223-232. https://do1. org/10.1111/syen.12570 Briggs DE (2018) Sampling the insects of the amber forest. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115: 6525-6527. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1807017115 Broadhead E (1950) A revision of the genus Liposcelis Motschulsky with notes on the position of this genus in the order Corrodentia and on the variability of ten Liposcelis species. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 101: 335-388. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1950.tb00449.x Broadhead E, Richards AM (1982) The Psocoptera of East Africa — A taxonomic and ecological survey. Biological Journal of the Lin- nean Society, Linnean Society of London 17: 137-216. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1982.tb01545.x Broadhead E, Wolda H (1985) The diversity of Psocoptera in two trop- ical forests in Panama. Journal of Animal Ecology 54: 739-754. https://do1.org/10.2307/4375 Brook BW, Sleightholme SR, Campbell CR, Jari¢ I, Buettel JC (2023) Resolving when (and where) the Thylacine went extinct. The Science of the Total Environment 877: 162878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sci- totenv.2023.162878 Brost L, Dahlstrom A (1996) The Amber Book. Mountain Press Pub. Co., Missoula Mt, 134 pp. Buchholz H (1961) Ein kurzer Fuhrer durch die Sonderausstellung des Wandernden Museums Schleswig-Holstein. Bernstein - das Gold des Nordens. Schmidt & Klaunig, Kiel. Buckley SB (1866) Descriptions of new species of North American For- micidae. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia 6: 152-172. Cai C, Lawrence JF, Yamamoto S, Leschen RA, Newton AF, Slipinski A, Yin Z, Huang D, Engel MS (2019) Basal polyphagan beetles in mid-Cretaceous amber from Myanmar: Biogeographic implications and long-term morphological stasis. Proceedings of the Royal Soci- ety B, Biological Sciences 286: 20182175. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rspb.2018.2175 Callahan S, Crowe-Riddell JM, Nagesan RS, Gray JA, Davis Rabosky AR (2021) A guide for optimal iodine staining and high-through- put diceCT scanning in snakes. Ecology and Evolution 11: 11587— 11603. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7467 Carpenter FM (1930) The fossil ants of North America. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 70: 1-66. Casadei-Ferreira A, Chaul JCM, Feitosa RM (2019) A new species of Pheidole (Formicidae, Myrmicinae) from Dominican amber with a review of the fossil records for the genus. ZooKeys 866: 117-125. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.866.35756 Causey F (2011) Amber and the ancient world. Getty Publications, 144 pp. https://doi.org/10.1515/etst-2013-0005 Clarke DJ, Limaye A, McKenna DD, Oberprieler RG (2018) The weevil fauna preserved in Burmese amber—snapshot of a unique, extinct dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum lineage (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Diversity 11: 1. https://doi. org/10.3390/d11010001 Chapuis F (1865) Monographie des Platypides. H. Dessain, Li¢ge, 344 pp. https://doi.org/10.5962/bh1 title.9204 Chen C, Li B, Kanari M, Lu D (2019) 3. Epoxy adhesives. In: Rudawska A (Ed.) Adhesives and adhesive joints in industry applications. Inte- chOpen, 148 pp. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86387 Cockerell TDA (1915) British fossil insects. Proceedings of the Unit- ed States National Museum 49: 469-499. https://doi.org/10.5479/ $1.00963801.49-2119.469 Corado R (2005) The importance of information on specimen labels. Ornitologia Neotropical 16: 277-278. De Andrade ML (1998a) Fossil and extant species of Cylindromyrmex (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Revue Suisse de Zoologie 105: 581— 664. https://do1.org/10.5962/bhl.part.80052 De Andrade ML (1998b) First description of fossil Acanthostichus from Dominican amber (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Mitteilungen der Schweizerische Entomologische Gesellschaft 71: 269-274. Deharveng L, D’Haese CA, Grandcolas P, Thibaud J-M, Weiner WM (2017) Judith Najt. A life dedicated to Collembola and research sup- port for systematics. Zoosystema 39: 5—14. https://doi.org/10.5252/ 72017nlal Delclos Martinez X, Pefialver Molla E, Ranaivosoa V, Solorzano-Krae- mer MM (2020) Unravelling the mystery of ‘Madagascar copal’: Age, origin and preservation of a Recent resin. PLoS ONE 15: e0232623. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232623 Delclos Martinez X, Pefialver E, Barron E, Peris D, Grimaldi DA, Holz M, Labandeira CC, Saupe EE, Scotese CR, Solorzano-Kraemer MM, Alvarez-Parra S, Arillo A, Azar D, Cadena EA, Dal Corso J, Kravéec J, Monleon-Getino A, Nel A, Peyrto D, Bueno-Cebollada CA, Gallar- do A, Gonzalez-Fernandez B, Goula M, Jaramillo C, Kania-Klosok I, Lopez-Del Valle R, Lozano RP, Meléndez N, Menor-Salvan C, Pefia- Kairath C, Perrichot V, Rodrigo A, Sanchez-Garcia A, Santer M, Sarto i Monteys V, Uhl D, Luis Viejo J, Pérez-de la Fuente R (2023) Amber and the Cretaceous Resinous Interval. Earth-Science Reviews 243: 104486. https://doi.org/10.1016/).earscirev.2023.104486 Del Toro I, Pacheco JA, MacKay WP (2009) Revision of the ant genus Liometopum (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 53: 299-369. de Moya RS, Yoshizawa K, Walden KK, Sweet AD, Dietrich CH, Kevin PJ (2021) Phylogenomics of parasitic and nonparasitic lice (Insecta: Psocodea): combining sequence data and exploring compositional bias solutions in next generation data sets. Systematic Biology 70: 719-738. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syaa075 Dlussky GM (1988) Ants of Sakhalin amber (Paleocene?). Paleontologich- eskii jurnal [[aneoutonoruyeckuii xypHan] 1988: 50-61. [In Russian] Dlussky GM (2009) The ant subfamilies Ponerinae, Cerapachyinae and Pseudomyrmecinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in the Late Eocene ambers of Europe. Paleontological Journal 43: 1043-1086. https:// doi.org/10.1134/s003 1030109090068 Dlussky GM (2010a) Ants of the genus Plagiolepis Mayr (Hymenop- tera, Formicidae) from Late Eocene ambers of Europe. Paleonto- logicheskii jurnal [[Maneontronoruyeckuli »ypHam] 2010: 64-73. https://doi.org/10.1134/s003 1030110050096 [In Russian] Dlussky GM (2010b) Ants of the genus Plagiolepis Mayr (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from Late Eocene ambers of Europe. Paleontological Journal 44: 546-555. https://do1.org/10.1134/s003 1030110050096 Dlussky GM, Dubovikoff DA (2013) Yantaromyrmex gen. n. — a new ant genus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Late Eocene ambers of Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 Europe. Caucasian Entomological Bulletin 9: 305-314. https://doi. org/10.23885/1814-3326-2013-9-2-305-314 Dlussky GM, Perkovsky EE (2002) Ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from the Rovno Amber. Vestnik Zoologii 36: 3—20. [In Russian] Dlussky GM, Perfilieva KS (2014) Superfamily Formicoidea Latreille, 1802. In: Antropov AV, Belokobylskij) SA, Compton SG, Dlussky GM, Khalaim AI, Kolyada VA, Kozlov MA, Perfilieva KS, Rasnitsyn AP (Eds) The Wasps, Bees and Ants (Insecta: Vespida=Hymenoptera) from the Insect Limestone (Late Eocene) of the Isle of Wight, UK. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Ed- inburgh 104: 410-438. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755691014000103 Dlussky GM, Putyatina TS (2014) Early Miocene ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from Radoboj, Croatia. Neues Jahrbuch ftir Geolo- gie und Paldontologie. Abhandlungen 272: 237-285. https://doi. org/10.1127/0077-7749/20 14/0409 Dlussky GM, Wappler T, Wedmann S (2008) New middle Eocene formicid species from Germany and the evolution of weaver ants. Acta Palaeon- tologica Polonica 53: 615-626. https://doi.org/10.4202/app.2008.0406 Dlussky GM, Karl HV, Brauckmann C (2011) Camponotites steinbachi Dlussky, Karl and Brauckmann n. sp., 453-454. In: Dlussky GM, Karl HV, Brauckmann C, Groning E, Reich M (2011) Two ants (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Formicinae) from the Late Pliocene of Willershausen, Germany, with a nomenclatural note on the genus Camponotites. Palaontologische Zeitschrift 85: 449-455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12542-011-0104-2 Donisthorpe H (1920) British Oligocene ants. Annals & Magazine of Nat- ural History 6: 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/002229320086324 12 Donovan SK, Riley M (2013) The importance of labels to specimens: An example from the Sedgwick Museum. Geological Curators’. Group 509. https://do1.org/10.55468/GC51 DuBois MB (1998) The first fossil Dorylinae with notes on fossil Eciton- inae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Entomological News 109: 136-142. Dubovikoff DA (2011) The first record of the genus Pheidole West- wood, 1839 (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from the Baltic amber. Rus- sian Entomological Journal 20: 255-257. https://doi.org/10.15298/ rusentj.20.3.06 Dubovikoff DA, Zharkov DM (2023) A comment on: An Eocene army ant (2022) by Sosiak CE et al. Biology Letters 19: 20220603. https:// doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2022.0603 Dupérré N (2020) Old and new challenges in taxonomy: What are tax- onomists up against? Megataxa 1: 59-62. https://do1.org/10.11646/ megataxa.1.1.12 Early CM, Morhardt AC, Cleland TP, Milensky CM, Kavich GM, James HF (2020) Chemical effects of diceCT staining protocols on fluid-preserved avian specimens. PLoS ONE 15: e0238783. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238783 Emery C (1891) Le formiche dell’ambra Siciliana nel Museo Miner- alogico dell’Universita di Bologna. Memorie della Reale Acca- demia delle Scienze dell’ Istituto di Bologna 1: 141—165. https://doi. org/10.5962/bh1 title. 13914 Emery C (1903) Intorno ad alcune specie di Camponotus dell’ America Meridionale. Rendiconti delle Sessioni della Reale Accademia delle Scienze dell Istituto di Bologna (n.s.) 7: 62-81. Emery C (1925) Hymenoptera. Fam. Formicidae. Subfam. Formicinae. Genera Insectorum 183: 1-302. Enderlein G (1903) Die Copeognathen des Faunengebietes. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 1: 179-344. indo-australischen 167 Enderlein G (1905) Zwei neue beschuppte Copeognathen aus dem Bernstein. Zoologischer Anzeiger 29: 39-43. Enderlein G (1911) Die fossilen Copeognathen und ihre Phylogenie. Palaeontographica 58: 279-360. Enderlein G (1917) 5. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Copeognathen. IV. Zur Kenntnis der Copeognathen des Kongogebietes. Zoologischer An- zeiger 49: 254-256. Enderlein G (1925) Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Copeognathen IX. Kono- wia (Vienna) 4: 97-108. Engel MS (2016) A new species of the booklouse genus Embidopsocus in Baltic amber (Psocoptera: Liposcelididae). Novitates Paleoento- mologicae 16: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.17161/np.v0116.5706 Engel MS, Wang B (2022) A new species of embidopsocine barklouse in Langhian amber from Zhangpu, China (Psocoptera: Liposcelididae). Palaeoentomology 5: 487-492. https://do1.org/10.11646/palaeoen- tomology.5.5.10 Engelkes K, Friedrich F, Hammel JU, Haas A (2018) A simple setup for episcopic microtomy and a digital image processing workflow to acquire high-quality volume data and 3D surface models of small vertebrates. Zoomorphology 137: 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00435-017-0386-3 Erichson U, Tomcezyk L (1998) Die Staatliche Bernstein-Manufaktur Konigsberg: 1926-1945. Eigenverlag des deutschen Bernsteinmu- seums, Ribnitz-Damgarten, 154 pp. Ermisch K (1950) Die Gattungen der Mordelliden der Welt. Entomolo- gische Blatter 45(46): 1. Fabricius JC (1793) Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, adjectis synonimis, locis observationibus, descriptionibus. Tome 2. C. G. Proft, Hafniae [= Copenhagen], 519 pp. https://doi.org/10.5962/bh1 title. 125869 Faulwetter S, Vasileiadou A, Kouratoras M, Dailianis T, Arvanitidis C (2013) Micro-computed tomography: Introducing new dimen- sions to taxonomy. ZooKeys 263: 1. https://doi.org/10.3897/zook- eys.263.4261 Federman D (1990) Amber. In: Modern jeweler’s consumer guide to colored gemstones. Springer, 22—25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4684-6488-7_ 4 Fikaéek M, Beutel RG, Cai C, Lawrence JF, Newton AF, Solodovnikov A, Slipinski A, Thayer MK, Yamamoto S (2020) Reliable placement of beetle fossils via phylogenetic analyses — Triassic Leehermania as a case study (Staphylinidae or Myxophaga?). Systematic Entomolo- gy 45: 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12386 Fikaéek M, Yamamoto S, Matsumoto K, Beutel RG, Maddison DR (2023) Phylogeny and systematics of Sphaeriusidae (Coleoptera: Myxophaga): minute living fossils with underestimated past and present-day diversity. Systematic Entomology 48: 233-249. https:// doi.org/10.1111/syen.12571 Fischer G, Hita Jatoszynski F, Peters MK (2012) Taxonomy of the ant genus Pheidole Westwood (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the Afro- tropical zoogeographic region: definition of species groups and systematic revision of the Pheidole pulchella group. Zootaxa 3232: 1-43. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3232.1.1 Fisher BL, Bolton B (2016) Ants of the world. Ants of Africa and Mad- agascar. A guide to the genera. Berkeley: University of California Press [ix +] 503 pp. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520962996 Flannery T (2009) Now or ever: Why we must act now to end climate change and create a sustainable future. Open Road+ Grove/Atlantic. https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.47-4429 dez.pensoft.net 168 Forel A (1878) Etudes myrmécologiques en 1878 (premiére partie) avec Vanatomie du gésier des fourmis. Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 15: 337-392. Forel A (1886) Etudes myrmécologiques en 1886. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique 30: 131-215. Forster B (1891) Die Insekten des “Plattigen Steinmergels” von Brun- statt. Abhandlungen zur Geologischen Spezialkarte von Elsass-Lo- thringen 3: 333-594. Franciscolo MF (1957) Coleoptera Mordellidae I. IN: South African Animal Life. Results of the Lund University Expedition in 1950- 1951. Almqvist & Wiksells, Uppsala 4: 207-291. Franciscolo ME (1967) Coleoptera, Mordellidae: A monograph of the South African genera and species. 3. Tribe Mordellistenini. South African Animal Life: 67—203. Friedrich F, Beutel RG (2008) Micro-computer tomography and a re- naissance of insect morphology. Developments in X-ray tomogra- phy VI, SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.794057 Friedrich F, Matsumura Y, Pohl H, Bai M, Hornschemeyer T, Beutel RG (2014) Insect morphology in the age of phylogenomics: Innovative techniques and its future role in systematics. Entomological Science 17: 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ens. 12053 Frondel JW (1968) Amber Facts and Fancies. Economic Botany 22: 371-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02908 134 Garcia FH, Lieberman Z, Audisio TL, Liu C, Economo EP (2019) Revi- sion of the highly specialized ant genus Discothyrea (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the Afrotropics with X-Ray Microtomography and 3D Cybertaxonomy. Insect Systematics and Diversity 3: 5. https:// doi.org/10.1093/isd/1xz015 Georgiev D (2022a) New species of Psocoptera (Insecta) from East A fri- ca. Historia Naturalis Bulgarica 44: 51-62. https://doi.org/10.48027/ hnb.44.072 Georgiev D (2022b) New records of Psocoptera from East Sub-Sa- haran Africa. ZooNotes 12: 1-36. https://doi.org/10.48027/ hnb.44.011 Germar EF (1837) Fauna insectorum Europae. Fasciculus 19. Insecto- rum protogaeae specimen sistens insecta carbonum fossilium. Kim- mel, Halle, 25 pp. Gerstacker A (1859) Monatsberichte der Koniglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1858: 261—264. [Untitled. Introduced by: ,,Hr. Peters berichtete tber sein Reisewerk, von dem die Insecten bis zum 64., die Botanik bis zum 34. Bogen gedruckt sind und teilte den Schluss der Diagnosen der von Hrn. Dr. Ger- stacker bearbeiteten Hymenopteren mit.“] Gessner C (1565)[-1566] De omni rerum fossilium genere, gemmis, la- pidibus, metallis, et huiusmodi, libri aliquot, plerique nunc primum editi. Excudebat Iacobus Gesnerus, Tiguri. Giron JC, Tarasov S, Gonzalez Montafia LA, Matentzoglu N, Smith AD, Koch M, Boudinot BE, Bouchard P, Burks R, Vogt L, Yoder M, Osumi-Sutherland D, Friedrich F, Beutel RG, Miko I (2023) Formalizing invertebrate morphological data: A descriptive model for cuticle-based skeleto-muscular systems, an ontology for insect anatomy, and their potential applications in biodiversity research and informatics. Systematic Biology 72: 1084-1100. https://doi. org/10.1093/sysbio/syad025 Goldenberg A (2004) Polish amber art. Thesis, Indiana University. Gotwald Jr WH (1982) Army ants. In: Hermann HR (Ed.) Social In- sects. Vol. 4. Academic Press, New York, 157—254. https://doi. org/10.1016/b978-0-12-342204-0.50010-3 dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Gotwald Jr WH (1995) Army ants: the biology of social predation. Cor- nell University Press, Ithaca, New York, [xviii +] 302 pp. https://do1. org/10.1086/419419 Greven H, Wichard W (2010) Schmetterlinge oder Kocherfliegen? Be- merkungen zum Kapitel ,,De papilionibus “aus der ,,Historia succino- rum ” (1742) des Nathanael Sendel. Entomologie Heute 22: 107—150. Greving I, Wilde F, Ogurreck M, Herzen J, Hammel JU, Hipp A, Friedrich F, Lottermoser L, Dose T, Burmester H, Miller M, Beckmann F (2014) POS imaging beamline at PETRA III: first re- sults. In: Stuart RS (Ed.) Proceedings of SPIE - Developments in X-Ray Tomography IX, 9212, San Diego, 921200-8. https://doi. org/10.1117/12.2061768 Grimaldi DA (1996) Amber: Window to the Past. Harry N. Abrams, 216 pp. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.33-5724 Grimaldi D, Engel MS (2006) Fossil Liposcelididae and the lice ages (Insecta: Psocodea). Proceedings. Biological Sciences 273: 625— 633. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3337 Grimaldi DA, Shedrinsky A, Ross A, Baer NS (1994) Forgeries in fos- sils in “amber”: History, identification and case studies. Curator 37: 251-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/).2151-6952.1994.tb01023.x Guiry EJ, Orchard TJ, Royle TC, Cheung C, Yang DY (2020) Dietary plasticity and the extinction of the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes mi- gratorius). Quaternary Science Reviews 233: 106225. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2020. 106225 Gunther KK (1989) Empidopsocus saxonicus sp. n., eine neue fossile Pso- coptera-Art aus Sachsischem Bernstein des Bitterfelder Raumes (Insec- ta: Pscoptera: Liposcelidae). Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Muse- um in Berlin 65: 321-325. https://doi.org/10.1002/mmnz. 19890650214 Gunther A, Drack M, Monod L, Wirkner CS (2021) A unique yet techni- cally simple type of joint allows for the high mobility of scorpion tails. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 18(182): 20210388.Hagen H (1865) Synopsis of the Psocina without ocelli. Entomologist’s Month- ly Magazine 2: 121-124. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2021.0388 Hagen HA (1866) On some aberrant genera of Psocina. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine 2: 170-172. Hagen HA (1882) Ueber Psociden in Bernstein. Entomologische Zei- tung 43: 217-237. Haibel A, Ogurreck M, Beckmann F, Dose T, Wilde F, Herzen J, Muller M, Schreyer A, Nazmov V, Simon M, Last A, Mohr J (2010) Micro- and nano-tomography at the GKSS Imaging Beamline at PETRA III. Developments in X-Ray Tomography VII, Vol. 7804 SPIE. https:// doi.org/10.1117/12.860852 Hedrick BP, Yohe L, Linden AV, Davalos LM, Sears K, Sadier A, Rossiter SJ, Davies KTJ, Dumont E (2018) Assessing soft-tissue shrinkage estimates in museum specimens imaged with diffus- ible iodine-based contrast-enhanced computed tomography (di- ceCT). Microscopy and Microanalysis 24: 284-291. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1431927618000399 Heer O (1849) Die Insektenfauna der Tertiargebilde von Oeningen und von Radoboj in Croatien. Zweiter Theil: Heuschrecken, Florfliegen, Aderfliiger, Schmetterlinge und Fliegen. W. Engelmann, Leipzig [vi +] 264 pp. Heer O (1850) Die Insektenfauna der Tertiargebilde von Oeningen und von Radobo] in Croatien. Zweite Abtheilung: Heuschrecken, Flor- fliegen, Aderfliiger, Schmetterlinge und Fliegen. Neue Denkschriften der Allgemeinen Schweizerischen Gesellschaft ftir die Gesammten Naturwissenschaften 11: 1-264. Hildt JA (1803) Magazin der Handels- und Gewerbskunde. Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 Hinrichs K (2007) Bernstein, das ,,PreuBische Gold“ in Kunst-und Nat- uralienkammern und Museen des 16.-20. Jahrhunderts. Diss. Hum- boldt.-Universitat. Holl F (1829) Handbuch der Petrefactenkunde. Bd. 2 [part]. P. O. Hilschersche Buchhandlung, Dresden, 117—232. Hong Y, Wu J (2000) The emendation of Shanwangella palaeoptera Zhang and its concerned problems. Geoscience (Beijing) 14: 15—20. [in Chinese] Ijiri T, Todo H, Hirabayashi A, Kohiyama K, Dobashi Y (2018) Dig- itization of natural objects with micro CT and photographs. PLoS ONE 13: e0195852. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195852 ICZN (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4" edn. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, UK. 306 pp. https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-code-online/ [accessed: January 2024] Jandausch K, van de Kamp T, Beutel RG, Niehuis O, Pohl H (2023) ‘Stab, chase me, mate with me, seduce me’: How widespread is trau- matic insemination in Strepsiptera? Biological Journal of the Linne- an Society. Linnean Society of London 140: 206-223. https://doi. org/10.1093/biolinnean/blad046 Jaloszynski P, Luo XZ, Hammel JU, Yamamoto S, Beutel RG (2020) The mid-Cretaceous tLepiceratus gen. nov. and the evolution of the relict beetle family Lepiceridae (Insecta: Coleoptera: Myxophaga). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 18: 1127-1140. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14772019.2020.1747561 Jiang H, Tomaschek F, Muscente AD, Niu C, Nyunt TT, Fang Y, Schmidt U, Chen J, Lonartz M, Mahler B, Wappler T, Jarzembowski EA, Szwedo J, Zhang H, Rust J, Wang B (2022) Widespread miner- alization of soft-bodied insects in Cretaceous amber. Geobiology 20: 363-376. https://doi.org/10.1111/gbi. 12488 Johnson KP, Smith VS, Hopkins HH (2023) Psocodea Species File Online. Version 5.0/5.0. http://Psocodea.SpeciesFile.org [accessed: July 2023] Jordal BH (2015) Molecular phylogeny and biogeography of the weevil subfamily Platypodinae reveals evolutionarily conserved range pat- terns. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 92: 294-307. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2015.05.028 van de Kamp T, dos Santos Rolo T, Baumbach T, Greven H (2015) X-ray radiography of a spraying stick insect (Phasmatodea). Ento- mologie Heute 27: 37-44. van de Kamp T, Schwermann AH, dos Santos Rolo T, Lésel PD, En- gler T, Etter W, Farago T, Gottlicher J, Heuveline V, Kopmann A, Mahler B, Mors T, Odar J, Rust J, Tan Jerome N, Vogelgesang M, Baumbach T, Krogmann L (2018) Parasitoid biology preserved in mineralized fossils. Nature Communications 9: 3325. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41467-018-05654-y Kawata A, Ogawa N, Yoshizawa K (2022) Morphology and phylo- genetic significance of the thoracic muscles in Psocodea (Insecta: Paraneoptera). Journal of Morphology 283: 1106-1119. https://do1. org/10.1002/jmor.21492 Kaplan AA, Grigelis AA, Strelnikova NI, Glikman LS (1977) Stratigraphy and correlation of Palaeogene deposits of South- Western cis-Baltic region. Sovetskaa Geologia 4: 30-43. King VT (1975) Labels are Important. Rocks and Minerals 50: 523— 526. https://doi.org/10.1080/00357529.1975.11762911 King R (2022) Amber: From Antiquity to Eternity: Reaktion Books, 272 pp. Kirejtshuk AG (2020) Taxonomic review of fossil coleopterous fam- ilies (Insecta, Coleoptera). Suborder Archostemata: Superfamilies 169 Coleopseoidea and Cupedoidea. Xiandai Dizhi 10: 73. https://doi. org/10.3390/geosciences 10020073 Kirejtshuk AG, Chetverikov PE, Azar D, Kirejtshuk PA (2016) Ptismidae fam. nov. (Coleoptera, Staphyliniformia) from the low- er Cretaceous Lebanese amber. Cretaceous Research 59: 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2015.10.027 Klime8 P, Drescher J, Buchori D, Hidayat P, Nazarreta R, Potocky P, Rimandai M, Scheu S, Matos-Maravi P (2022) Uncovering cryp- tic diversity in the enigmatic ant genus Overbeckia and insights into the phylogeny of Camponotini (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Formicinae). Invertebrate Systematics 36: 557-579. https://doi. org/10.1071/1S21067 Klopfstein S, Spasojevic T (2019) Illustrating phylogenetic place- ment of fossils using RoguePlots: An example from ichneumonid parasitoid wasps (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae) and an exten- sive morphological matrix. PLoS ONE 14: e01212942. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212942 Knorre Dv (1983) Die zoologisch-palaontologischen Sammlungen des Phyletischen Museums. Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat Jena, Bernd Wilhelmi, Jena. Knorre Dv, Beutel RG (2018) Jena: The Palaeontological Collections at the Phyletisches Museum in Jena. Paleontological Collections of Germany, Austria and Switzerland, Springer: 339-346. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-77401-5_ 33 Kohler UBG (2019) Dr. Dietrich von Knorre - der Malakologe, Museologe und Naturschtitzer sowie einer der letzten klassischen Zoologen Deutschlands wurde 80 Jahre. Mitteilung der Deutschen Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft 100: 49-62. Konigsberg-Pr. Pd B (1937) Bernstein-Einschltisse. Entomologisches Nachrichtenblatt (Troppau) 1: 3. Krogmann L, Knorre Dv, Beutel RG (2007) Die Chalcidoidea-Sammlung von Ferdinand Rudow (1840-1920) im Phyletischen Museum (Jena). Mitteilungen aus dem Hamburgischen Zoologischen Muse- um und Institut 104: 129-140. Kriiger L(1923) Neuroptera succinica baltica. Die im baltischen Bernstein eingeschlossenen Neuropteren des WestpreuBischen Provinzial- Museums (heute Museum fiir Naturkunde und Vorgeschichte) in Danzig. Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung 84: 68-92. Lak M, Néraudeau D, Nel A, Cloetens P, Perrichot V, Tafforeau P (2008) Phase contrast X-ray synchrotron imaging: Opening access to fos- sil inclusions in opaque amber. Microscopy and Microanalysis 14: 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1017/s143 1927608080264 LaPolla JS (2005) Ancient trophophoresy: a fossil Acropyga (Hyme- noptera: Formicidae) from Dominican amber. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 131: 21-28. LaPolla JS, Greenwalt DE (2015) Fossil ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the Middle Eocene Kishenehn Formation. Sociobiology 62: 163— 174. https://doi.org/10.13102/sociobiology.v6212. 163-174 Larsson L (2010) A double grave with amber and bone adornments at Zvejnieki in northern Latvia. Archaeologia Baltica 13: 80-90. Leach WE (1815) Entomology. In: Brewster D (Ed.) The Edinburgh en- cyclopedia. William Blackwood, Edinburgh 9: 57—172. https://doi. org/10.5962/bh1 .title.66019 Leonard KC, Worden N, Boettcher ML, Dickinson E, Hartstone-Rose A (2022) Effects of long-term ethanol storage on muscle architecture. The Anatomical Record 305: 184-198. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24638 Li F (1999) Psocids (Psocoptera) of Fujian Province, China. Fauna of insects, Fujian Province of China 3. dez.pensoft.net 170 Li F (2002) Psocoptera of China. National Natural Science Foundation of China: [xlvi +] 1976 pp. (2 Vols) [1547 figs, 10 pl. at the end of the 2" Vol. ]. Li YD, Ruta R, Tihelka E, Liu ZH, Huang DY, Cai Ch-Y (2022) A new marsh beetle from mid-Cretaceous amber of northern Myanmar (Coleoptera: Scirtidae). Scientific Reports 12: 13403. https://do1. org/10.1038/s41598-022-16822-y Lienhard C (1991) New records and species of Belaphopsocus (Psocoptera: Liposcelididae). The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 39: 75-85. Lienhard C (1998) Psocopteres euro-méditerranéens. Faune de France 83, [XX+] 517 pp. [148 figs, 11 plates] Lienhard C (2003) Nomenclatural amendments concerning Chinese Psocoptera (Insecta), with remarks on species richness. Revue Suisse de Zoologie 110: 695-721. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.80207 Lienhard C (2016) Country checklists of the Psocoptera species of the world. Extracted from Lienhard C, Smithers CN (2002) Psocoptera (Insecta) world catalogue and bibliography. Psocid News I(Special Issue): 1-123. Lésel PD, van de Kamp T, Jayme A, Ershov A, Farago T, Pichler O, Tan Jerome N, Aadepu N, Bremer S, Chilingaryan SA, Heethoff M, Kopmann A, Odar J, Schmelzle S, Zuber M, Wittbrodt J, Baumbach T, Heuveline V (2020) Introducing Biomedisa as an open-source online platform for biomedical image segmentation. Nature Com- munications 11: 5577. https://do1.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19303-w Lund PW (1831) Lettre sur les habitudes de quelques fourmis du Brésil, adressée a M. Audouin. Annales des Sciences Naturelles 23: 113-— 138. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl part.7282 Matuschek O (2020) Goethes Elefanten. Insel Verlag, Berlin. Mayer C (1861) Die Faunula des marinen Sandsteines von Kleinkuhren bei Konigsberg. [Publisher not ascertainable] Mayr G (1861) Die europaischen Formiciden. Nach der analytischen Methode bearbeitet. C. Gerolds Sohn, Wien, 80 pp. https://doi. org/10.5962/bhL title. 14089 Mayr G (1862) Myrmecologische Studien. Verhandlungen der Kaiser- lich-K6niglichen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 12: 649-776. Mayr G (1867) Vorlaufige Studien tiber die Radoboj-Formiciden, in der Sammlung der k. k. geologischen Reichsanstalt. Jahrbuch der Kai- serlich-K6niglichen Geologischen Reichsanstalt Wien 17: 47-62. Mayr G (1868) Die Ameisen des baltischen Bernsteins. Beitrage zur Naturkunde Preussens 1: 1—102. Mayr G (1870) Neue Formiciden. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Konigli- chen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 20: 939-996. Mayr G (1887) Stidamerikanische Formiciden. Verhandlungen der Kai- serlich-KO6niglichen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 37: 511-632. McCoy VE, Boom A, Kraemer MMS, Gabbott SE (2017) The chem- istry of American and African amber, copal, and resin from the genus Hymenaea. Organic Geochemistry 113: 43-54. https://do1. org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2017.08.005 McKinney ML (1999) High rates of extinction and threat in poorly studied taxa. Conservation Biology 13: 1273-1281. https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.97393.x Mercati M (1717) Michaelis Mercati Samminiatensis Metallotheca: Hauptw (Vol. 1). Salvioni. Mataic D, Bastani B (2006) Intraperitoneal sodium thiosulfate for the treatment of calciphylaxis. Renal Failure 28: 361-363. https://do1. org/10.1080/08860220600583781 dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Menon MGR (1938) Coxal interlocking in the Lepidopsocidae and its probable taxonomic value. Current Science 7: 66-67. Metscher BD (2009) MicroCT for comparative morphology: Sim- ple staining methods allow high-contrast 3D imaging of diverse non-mineralized animal tissues. BMC Physiology 9: 1-14. https:// doi.org/10.1186/1472-6793-9-11 Meyer E (1914) [Neue Nr. 1186] Germau [Russkoje, Pycckoe]/Geolo- gische Karte. Misof B, Liu S, Meusemann K, Peters RS, Donath A, Mayer C, et al. (2014) Phylogenomics resolves the timing and pattern of insect evolu- tion. Science 346: 763-767. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1257570 Mockford EL (1969) Fossil insects of the Order Psocoptera from Tertiary amber of Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Paleontology 43: 1267-1273. Mockford EL (1993) North American Psocoptera (Insecta). CRC Press, New York, 1-455. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203745403-1 Mockford EL (1999) A Classification of the Psocopteran Family Caeci- liusidae (Caeciliidae Auct.). Transactions of the American Entomo- logical Society 125: 325-417. Mockford EL (2018) Biodiversity of Psocoptera. In: Foottit RG, Adler PH (Eds) Insect Biodiversity: Science and Society, Vol. H. 417-456. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118945582 Mockford EL, Lienhard C, Yoshizawa K (2013) Revised classification of ‘Psocoptera’ from Cretaceous amber, a reassessment of published information. Insecta Matsumurana (N.S.) 69: 1-26. Modi A, Vergata C, Zilli C, Vischioni C, Vai S, Tagliazucchi GM, Lari M, Caramelli D, Taccioli C (2021) Successful extraction of insect DNA from recent copal inclusions: Limits and perspectives. Scien- tific Reports 11: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86058-9 Mongiardino Koch N, Thompson JR (2021) A total-evidence dated phy- logeny of Echinoidea combining phylogenomic and paleontological data. Systematic Biology 70: 421-439. https://doi.org/10.1093/sys- bio/syaa069 Moosmann J, Ershov A, Weinhardt V, Baumbach T, Prasad MS, LaBonne C, Xiao X, Kashef J, Hoffmann R (2014) Time-lapse X-ray phase-contrast microtomography for in vivo imaging and analysis of morphogenesis. Nature Protocols 9: 294-304. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2014.033 Mukherjee AJ, RoBberger E, James MA, Pfalzner P, Higgitt CL, White R, Peggie DA, Azar D, Evershed RP (2008) The Qatna lion: Scien- tific confirmation of Baltic amber in late Bronze Age Syria. Antiqui- ty 82: 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003598x00096435 Najt J (1987) Le Collembole fossile Paleosminthurus juliae est un Hyménopteére. Revue Frangaise d’Entomologie 9: 152-154. [Nou- velle Série] Nakahara W (1915) On the Hemerobiinae of Japan. Annotationes Zoo- logicae Japonenses 9: 11-48. Nakamine H, Yamamoto S, Takahashi Y, Liu XY (2023) A remarkable new genus of Nevrorthidae (Neuroptera, Osmyloidea) from mid-Cre- taceous Kachin amber of northern Myanmar. Deutsche Entomolo- gische Zeitschrift 70: 113-120. https://doi.org/10.3897/dez.70.98873 Naumann B, Reip HS, Akkari N, Neubert D, Hammel JU (2020) Inside the head of a cybertype—three-dimensional reconstruction of the head muscles of Ommatoiulus avatar (Diplopoda: Juliformia: Julidae) reveals insights into the feeding movements of Juliformia. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 26: 954-75. https://doi. org/10.1093/zoolinnean/z1z109 Nel A, de Ploég G, Azar D (2004) The oldest Liposcelididae in the lowermost Eocene amber of the Paris Basin (Insecta: Psocoptera). Geologica Acta 2: 31-36. Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 Nel A, Prokop J, de Ploeg G, Millet J (2005) New Psocoptera (Insec- ta) from the lowermost Eocene Amber of Oise, France. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 3: 371-391. https://doi.org/10.1017/ $1477201905001598 Neumiller M., Reichinger A, Rist F, Kern C (2014) 3D printing for cul- tural heritage: Preservation, accessibility, research and education. 3D research challenges in cultural heritage: a roadmap in digital heritage preservation: 119-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44630-0_9. O’ Hara JE, Raper CM, Pont AC, Whitmore D (2013) Reassessment of Paleotachina Townsend and Electrotachina Townsend and their re- moval from the Tachinidae (Diptera). ZooKeys 361: 27-37. https:// doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.361.6448 Orr MC, Ascher JS, Bai M, Chesters D, Zhu CD (2020) Three ques- tions: How can taxonomists survive and thrive worldwide? Mega- taxa 1: 19-27. https://doi.org/10.11646/megataxa.1.1.4 Ozdikmen H (2010) New names for the preoccupied specific and sub- specific epithets in the genus Camponotus Mayr, 1861 (Hymenop- tera: Formicidae). Munis Entomology & Zoology 5: 519-537. Palenstijn WJ, Batenburg KJ, Sijbers J (2011) Performance improve- ments for iterative electron tomography reconstruction using graph- ics processing units (GPUs). Journal of Structural Biology 176: 250-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/).jsb.2011.07.017 Paleobio DB (2022) The Paleobiology Database: Revealing the History of Life. https://paleobiodb.org/#/ [accessed: 18 July 2022] Pearman JV (1935) Two remarkable amphientomids (Psocoptera). Sty- lops 4: 134-137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.1935 .tb00576.x Pearman JV (1936) The taxonomy of the Psocoptera: Preliminary sketch. Proceedings Royal Entomological Society of London (B) 5: 58-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.1936.tb00596.x Peinert M, Wipfler B, Jetschke G, Kleinteich T, Gorb SN, Beutel RG, Pohl H (2016) Traumatic insemination and female counter-adapta- tion in Strepsiptera (Insecta). Scientific Reports 6: 25052. https:// doi.org/10.1038/srep25052 Pefia-Kairath C, Delclos X, Alvarez-Parra S, Pefialver E, Engel MS, Oller- ton J, Peris D (2023) Insect pollination in deep time. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 38: 749-759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.03.008 Penney D (2010) Biodiversity of fossils in amber from the major world deposits. Siri Scientific Press. Penney D, Preziosi RF (2013) Sub-fossils in copal: An undervalued sci- entific resource. Paper presented at the Abstracts and Proceedings of the International Amber Researcher Symposium (Deposits—Collec- tions—The Market). Gdansk International Fair Co. Amberif. Penney D, Wadsworth C, Green DI, Kennedy SL, Preziosi RF, Brown TA (2013) Extraction of inclusions from (sub) fossil resins, with de- scription of a new species of stingless bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini) in Quaternary Colombian copal. Paleontological Con- tributions 2013: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.17161/PC.1808.11103 Peris D, Rust J (2020) Cretaceous beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera) in am- ber: the palaeoecology of this most diverse group of insects. Zoo- logical Journal of the Linnean Society 189: 1085-1104. https://doi. org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlz118 Peris D, Ruzzier E, Perrichot V, Delclos X (2016) Evolutionary and pa- leobiological implications of Coleoptera (Insecta) from Tethyan-in- fluenced Cretaceous ambers. Geoscience Frontiers 7: 695-706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2015.12.007 Perkovsky EE (2016) Tropical and Holarctic ants in Late Eocene am- bers. Vestnik Zoologii 50: 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1515/vzoo- 2016-0014 LFA Perkovsky E, Rasnitsyn A, Vlaskin A, Taraschuk M (2007) A comparative analysis of the Baltic and Rovno amber arthropod faunas: Representative samples. African Invertebrates 48: 229-245, Pictet FJ (1854) Classe insectes. Traité de Paléontologie: ou, Histoire Naturelle des Animaux Fossiles Considérés dans Leurs Rapports Zoologiques et Géologiques 2: 301-405. https://doi.org/10.5962/ bhl. title. 13903. Pierce WD, Gibron SJ (1962) Fossil arthropods of California. 24. Some unusual fossil arthropods from the Calico Mountains nodules. Bul- letin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 61: 143-151. Pileckaité R (2001) Amber jewelry of Sigitas Virpilaitis: Postmodern approach. Acta Academiae artium Vilnensis. Dailé 22: 213-218. Piper R (2009). Extinct animals: an encyclopedia of species that have disappeared during human history, Bloomsbury Publishing USA. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798400649219 Piton L (1935) [New species Camponotus obesus attributed to Piton]. In: Piton L, Théobald N (Eds) La faune entomologique des gise- ments Mio-Pliocenes du Massif Central. Revue des Sciences Na- turelles d’ Auvergne (n.s.) 1: 65—104 [pp. 68]. Pohl H, Beutel RG (2016) }Kinzelbachilla ellenbergeri—a new ancestral species, genus and family of Strepsiptera (Insecta). Systematic Ento- mology 41: 287—297. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12158 Pohl H, Beutel RG (2005) The phylogeny of Strepsiptera. Cladistics 21: 328-374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00074.x Pohl H, Beutel RG, Kinzelbach R (2005) Protoxenidae fam. nov. (Insec- ta, Strepsiptera) from Baltic amber—A ‘missing link’ in strepsipter- an phylogeny. Zoologica Scripta 34: 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1463-6409.2005.00173.x Pohl H, Wipfler B, Grimaldi D, Beckmann F, Beutel RG (2010) Re- constructing the anatomy of the 42-million-year-old fossil Mengea tertiaria (Insecta, Strepsiptera). Naturwissenschaften 97: 855-859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-010-0703-x Pohl H, Batelka J, Prokop J, Muller P, Yavorskaya MI, Beutel RG (2018) A needle in a haystack: Mesozoic origin of parasitism in Strepsiptera revealed by first definite Cretaceous primary larva (Insecta). PeerJ 6: e5943. https://do1.org/10.7717/peerj.5943 Pohl H, Hammel JU, Richter A, Beutel RG (2019) The first fossil free-liv- ing late instar larva of Strepsiptera (Insecta). Arthropod Systematics & Phylogeny 77: 125-140. https://doi.org/10.26049/ASP77-1-2019-06 Pohl H, Wipfler B, Boudinot BE, Beutel RG (2021) On the value of Burmese amber for understanding insect evolution: Insights from + Heterobathmilla—an exceptional stem group genus of Strepsiptera (Insecta). Cladistics 37: 211-229. https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12433 Qvarnstrom M, Fikaéek M, Wernstrém JV, Huld S, Beutel RG, Arriaga- Va- rela E, Ahlberg PE, Niedzwiedzki G (2021) Exceptionally preserved beetles in a Triassic coprolite of putative dinosauriform origin. Current Biology 31: 3374-3381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.05.015 Radchenko AG, Dlussky GM (2019) First record of the ant genus Cre- matogaster (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from the Late Eocene Euro- pean ambers. Annales Zoologici (Warsaw) 69: 417-421. https://doi. org/10.3161/00034541anz2019.69.2.008 Radchenko AG, Perkovsky EE (2021) Wheeler’s dilemma revisited: First Oecophylla-Lasius syninclusion and other ants syninclusions in the Bitterfeld amber (late Eocene). Invertebrate Zoology 18: 47— 65. https://doi.org/10.15298/invertzool.18.1.05 Rafiqi AM, Rajakumar A, Abouheif E (2020) Origin and elaboration of a major evolutionary transition in individuality. Nature 585: 239- 244. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2653-6 dez.pensoft.net 172 Ramesh G, Babu R, Subramanian KA (2020) New species of Soa Enderlein, 1904 (Psocodea: ‘Psocoptera’: Lepidopsocidae) from the Western Ghats of India. Zootaxa 4881: 383-392. https://doi. org/10.11646/zootaxa.4881.2.11 Rasnitsyn AP, Miller P (2023) Identity of the insect larva described by Zippel et al. (2022) in the mid—Cretaceous Burmese (Kachin) amber (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinoidea, Blasticotomidae = Xyelotomidae, syn. nov.). Palaeoentomology 6: 13-16. https://doi.org/10.11646/ palaeoentomology.6.1.4 Régnier C, Achaz G, Lambert A, Cowie RH, Bouchet P, Fontaine B (2015) Mass extinction in poorly known taxa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112: 7761-7766. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1502350112 Richter A, Keller RA, Rosumek FB, Economo EP, Garcia FH, Beu- tel RG (2019) The cephalic anatomy of workers of the ant species Wasmannia affinis (Formicidae, Hymenoptera, Insecta) and its evo- lutionary implications. Arthropod Structure & Development 49: 26—49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asd.2019.02.002 Richter A, Boudinot BE, Yamamoto S, Katzke J, Beutel RG (2022) The first reconstruction of the head anatomy of a Cretaceous insect, +Gerontoformica gracilis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), and the early evolution of ants. Insect Systematics and Diversity 6: 4. https://do1. org/10.1093/isd/ixac013 Richter A, Boudinot BE, Garcia FH, Billen J, Economo EP, Beutel RG (2023) Wonderfully weird: The head anatomy of the armadillo ant, Tatuidris tatusia (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Agroecomyrmecinae), with evolutionary implications. Myrmecological News 33. https:// doi.org/10.25849/myrmecol.news_033:035 Riou B (1999) Descriptions de quelques insectes fossiles du Miocene supérieur de la Montagne d’ Andance (Ardeéche, France). EPHE Bi- ologie et Evolution des Insectes 11/12: 123-133. Ritzkowski S (1997) K-Ar-Altersbestimmungen der bernsteinfiihrenden Sedimente des Samlandes (Palaéogen, Bezirk Kaliningrad). Metalla (Sonderheft) 66: 19-23. Roesler R (1943) Uber einige Copeognathengenera. Stettiner Entomol- ogische Zeitung 104: 1-14. Roesler R (1944) Die Gattungen der Copeognathen. Stettiner Entomol- ogische Zeitung 105: 117-166. Roger J (1862) Einige neue exotische Ameisen-Gattungen und Ar- ten. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift 6: 233-254. https://do1. org/10.1002/mmnd.47918620118 Rogers DC, et al. (2017) Images are not and should not ever be type specimens: A rebuttal to Garraffoni & Freitas. Zootaxa 4269: 455— 459. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4269.4.3 Ross AJ (2019) Burmese (Myanmar) amber checklist and bibliography 2018. Palaeoentomology 2: 22-84. https://doi.org/10.11646/palaeo- entomology.2.1.5 Ross AJ (2021) Supplement to the Burmese (Myanmar) amber check- list and bibliography, 2020. Palaeoentomology 4: 57—76. https://doi. org/10.11646/palaeoentomology.4.1.11 Sado A (2022) Amber on Fashion Week. Bursztynisko. The Amber Magazine 46: 6. Sadowski E-M, Schmidt AR, Seyfullah LJ, Solorzano-Kraemer MM, Neumann C, Perrichot V, Hamann C, Milke R, Nascimbene PC (2021) Conservation, preparation and imaging of diverse ambers and their inclusions. Earth-Science Reviews 220: 103653. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103653 Salata S, Fisher BL (2020) Pheidole Westwood, 1839 (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) of Madagascar — an introduction and a taxonomic re- dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum vision of eleven species groups. ZooKeys 905: 1—235. https://doi. org/10.3897/zookeys.905.39592 Salata S, Fisher BL (2022) Taxonomic revision of the Pheidole megaceph- ala species-group (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from the Malagasy Region. PeerJ 10: e13263. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13263 Sam$inak K (1967) Camponotus novotnyi sp. n., eine neue tertiare Ameise aus Bohmen. Vestnik Ustredniho Ustavu Geologického 42: 365-366. Santschi F (1911) Nouvelles fourmis du Congo et du Benguela. Revue Zoologique Africaine (Brussels) 1: 204—217. Santschi F (1912) Fourmis d’Afrique et de Madagascar. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique 56: 150-167. https://doi. org/10.5962/bhI.part.5816 Santschi F (1926) Trois notes myrmécologiques. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 95: 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/21686 351.1926.12280094 Sarnat EM, Fischer G, Guénard B, Economo EP (2015) Introduced Pheidole of the world: Taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooK- eys 543: 1-109. https://do1.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050 Savage TS (1849) The driver ants of western Africa. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 4: 195-200. Schadel M, Yavorskaya M, Beutel RG (2022) The earliest beetle +Co- leopsis archaica (Insecta: Coleoptera)—morphological re-evaluation using Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) and phylogenet- ic assessment. Arthropod Systematics & Phylogeny 80: 495-510. https://do1.org/10.3897/asp.80.e86582 Sched] KE (1939) Die Einteilung und geographische Verbreitung der Platypodidae. 56. Beitrag zur Morphologie und Systematik der Scolyt- idae und Platypodidae. In: Jordan K, Hering EM (Eds) Verhandlungen, VIL. Internationaler Kongress fiir Entomologie. Vol. 1. Selbstverlage der Internationalen Kongresse ftir Entomologie, Weimar, 377-410. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pi- etzsch T, Preibisch S, Rueden C, Saalfeld S, Schmid B, Tinevez J-T, White DJ, Hartenstein V, Eliceiri K, Tomancak P, Cardona A (2012) Fiji: An open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nature Methods 9: 676-682. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2019 Schawaroch V, Kathirithamby J, Grimaldi D (2005) Strepsiptera and triungula in Cretaceous amber. Insect Systematics & Evolution 36: 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1163/187631205788912787 Schweigger AF (1819) Beobachtungen auf naturhistorischen Reisen. Anatomisch-physiologische Untersuchungen tber Corallen; nebst einem Anhange, Bemerkungen tber den Bernstein enthaltend. Reimer, Berlin, 127 pp. https://do1.org/10.5962/bh1 title. 14416 Scudder SH (1877) The first discovered traces of fossil insects in the American Tertiaries. Bulletin of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories 3: 741-762. Seeger W (1975) Funktionsmorphologie an Spezialbildungen der FuhlergeiBel von Psocoptera und anderen Paraneoptera (Insecta); Psocodea als monophyletische Gruppe. Zeitschrift fir Morphologie der Tiere 81: 137-159. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00301153 Semple TL, Vidal-Garcia M, Tatarnic NJ, Peakall R (2021) Evolution of reproductive structures for in-flight mating in thynnine wasps (Hymenoptera: Thynnidae: Thynninae). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 34: 1406-1422. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13902 Sendel N (1742) Historia succinorum corpora aliena involventium et na- turae opere pictorum et caelatorum ex regis augustorum cimeliis Dres- dae conditis aeri insculptorum conscripta a Nathanaeli Sendelio: apud Io. Fridericum Gleditschium. https://doi.org/10.5962/bh1.title. 150129 Shelmerdine SC, Simcock IC, Hutchinson JC, Aughwane R, Melbourne A, Nikitichev DI, Ong J-l, Borghi A, Cole G, Kingham E, Calder Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 AD, Capelli C, Akhtar A, Cook AC, Schievano S, David A, Ourselin S, Sebire NJ, Arthurs OJ (2018) 3D printing from microfocus com- puted tomography (micro-CT) in human specimens: Education and future implications. The British Journal of Radiology 91: 20180306. https://do1.org/10.1259/bjr.201 80306 Simonsen TJ, Kitching IJ (2014) Virtual dissections through micro-CT scanning: A method for non-destructive genitalia ‘dissections’ of valuable Lepidoptera material. Systematic Entomology 39: 606— 618. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen. 12067 Singer GG (2008) Amber in the ancient Near East. Centro de Estudios de Historia del Antiguo Egipto-Universidad Catolica Argentina. Disponivel em. https://www.academia.edu/241848/Amber_in_the_ Ancient_Near_East [Acesso em, 1] Singer GNG (2016) Amber exchange in the Late Bronze Age Levant in cross-cultural Perspective. Paper presented at the International Con- ference about the Ancient Roads in San Marino. Stodkowska B, Kramarska R, Kasinski JR (2013) The Eocene Climatic Optimum and the formation of the Baltic amber deposits. Paper pre- sented at the The international amber researcher symposium.“Am- ber. Deposits-Collections-The Market”. Gdansk, Poland: Gdansk International fair Co. Amberif. Smith F (1857) Catalogue of the hymenopterous insects collect- ed at Sarawak, Borneo; Mount Ophir, Malacca; and at Sin- gapore, by A. R. Wallace. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. Zoology 2: 42-88. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1857.tb01759.x [part] Smith F (1868) Explanation of the plate of organic remains found in amber, in Amber; its origin and history, as illustrated by the geology of Samland. Quarterly Journal of Science 5: 183-184. Smith MR (1943) A generic and subgeneric synopsis of the male ants of the United States. American Midland Naturalist 30: 273-321. https://do1.org/10.2307/2421283 Smithers CN (1964) On the Psocoptera of Madagascar. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines 70: 209-294. Smithers CN (1990) Key to the families and genera of Psocoptera (Arthropoda: Insecta). Technical Reports of the Australian Museum 2: 1-82. https://doi.org/10.3853/j.1031-8062.2.1990.77 Smithers CN (1999) New species and new records of Psocoptera from Tanzania. African Entomology 7: 91-106. Snelling RR (2006) Taxonomy of the Camponotus festinatus com- plex in the United States of America (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecologische Nachrichten 8: 83-97. Solorzano-Kraemer MM, Delclos X, Engel MS, Pefialver E (2020) A revised definition for copal and its significance for palaeontological and Anthropocene biodiversity-loss studies. Scientific Reports 10: 19904. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76808-6 Solorzano-Kraemer MM, Kunz R, Hammel JU, Pefialver E, Delclos X, Engel MS (2022) Stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Holo- cene copal and Defaunation resin from Eastern Africa indicate Re- cent biodiversity change. The Holocene 32: 414—432. https://doi. org/10.1177/09596836221074035 Sosiak CE, Borowiec ML, Barden P (2022) An Eocene army ant. Biology Letters 18: 20220398. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2022.0398 Sosiak CE, Borowiec ML, Barden P (2023a) Retraction: An Eocene army ant. Biology Letters 19: 20230059. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rsbl.2023.0059 Sosiak CE, Borowiec ML, Barden P (2023b) An invited reply to: A com- ment on: An Eocene army ant (2022) by Sosiak CE et al. Biology Letters 19: 20230140. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2023.0140 73 Steward GA, Beveridge AE (2010) A review of New Zealand kauri (Agathis australis (D. Don) Lindl.): Its ecology, history, growth and potential for management for timber. New Zealand Journal of For- estry Science 40: 33-59. Strohmeyer H (1912) Neue Platypodiden aus Deutsch-Ostafrika, Kamerun und Franzosisch-Kongo. Entomologische Blatter 8: 78-86. Saqalaksari MP, Talebi AA, van de Kamp T, Haghighi SR, Zimmer- mann D, Richter A (2023) EntomonVR: a New Virtual Reality Game for Learning Insect Morphology. bioRxiv, 25 pp. https://do1. org/10.1101/2023.02.01.526587 Takahashi Y, Aiba H (2023) Winged formicine ant fossils (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from the Chibanian (Middle Pleistocene) Shiobara Group, Tochigi Prefecture, Japan. Chishitsugaku Zasshi 129: 573— 578. https://doi.org/10.5575/geosoc.2023.0023 Taylor B (2022) The Ants of (sub-Saharan) Africa (Hymenoptera: Formi- cidae). Profusely illustrated with original drawings and photographs and Catalogue notes on all ant species described from sub-Saharan Africa. 12 edn. https://antsofafrica.org/ [accessed: 18 July 2022] Taylor CK (2013) The genus Lithoseopsis (Psocodea: Amphientomidae) in the Western Australian fauna, with description of the male of Li- thoseopsis humphreysi from Barrow Island. Records of the West- er Australian Museum 83: 245-252. https://doi.org/10.18195/ issn.0313-122x.83.2013.245-252 Tihelka E, Li L, Fu Y, Su Y, Huang D, Cai C (2021) Angiosperm pollini- vory in a Cretaceous beetle. Nature Plants 7: 445-451. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41477-021-00893-2 Tollefson J (2022) Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scien- tists originally thought. Nature 28. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586- 022-00585-7 Troger D, Stark H, Beutel RG, Pohl H (2023) The morphology of the free-living females of Strepsiptera (Insecta). Journal of Morphology 284: e21576. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.21576 Trueman CN (2013) Chemical taphonomy of biomineralized tissues. Palaeontology 56: 475-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12041 Turner BD (1975) The Psocoptera of Jamaica. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 126: 533-609. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1975.tb00860.x Uschmann G (1959) Geschichte der Zoologie und der zoologischen An- stalten in Jena 1779-1919, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. Varela-Hernandez F, Riquelme F (2021) A new ant species of the genus Pheidole Westwood, 1839 from Miocene Mexican amber. Southwest- ern Entomologist 46: 75—82. https://doi.org/10.3958/059.046.0107 Valentini MB (1714) Musei museorum, oder, der vollstandigen Schaubthne fremder Naturalien: die raresten Naturschatze aus al- len bis daher gedruckten Kunstkammern, ReiBbeschreibungen und anderen curiosen Btichern enthalten, und benebenst einer neu aus- gerichteten Zeug- und Rtstkammer der Natur auch vielen curiosen Kupferstiicken vorgestellen sind. Von D. Michael Bernhard Valenti- ni. https://doi.org/10.5962/bh1 title. 150208 Vijande Vila E, Dominguez-Bella S, Cantillo Duarte JJ, Martinez Lopez J, Barrena Tocino A (2015) Social inequalities in the Neolithic of southern Europe: The grave goods of the Campo de Hockey necropolis (San Fernando, Cadiz, Spain). Comptes Rendus. Palévol 14: 147-161. https://do1.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2014.11.004 Vishnyakova VN (1975) Psocoptera in Late Cretaceous insect-bearing resins from the Taimyr. Entomological Review 54: 63-75. Vitali F (2019) Systematic notes on the Cerambycidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) described from Burmese amber. Palaeoentomology 2: 215-218. https://doi.org/10.11646/palaeoentomology.2.3.3 dez.pensoft.net 174 von Kéler S (1966) Zur Mechanik der Nahrungsaufnahme bei Corro- dentien. Zeitschrift fiir Parasitenkunde (Berlin, Germany) 27: 64— 79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00261218 Wappler T, Dlussky GM, Reuter M (2009) The first fossil record of Polyrhachis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Formicinae) from the Up- per Miocene of Crete (Greece). Palaontologische Zeitschrift 83: 431-438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12542-009-0035-3 Ward PS, Boudinot BE (2021) Grappling with homoplasy: taxonomic refinements and reassignments in the ant genera Camponotus and Colobopsis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Arthropod Systematics & Phylogeny 79: 37—S6. https://doi.org/10.3897/asp.79.e66978 Ward PS, Brady SG, Fisher BL, Schultz TR (2010) Phylogeny and biogeography of dolichoderine ants: Effect of data partitioning and relict taxa on historical inference. Systematic Biology 59: 342-362. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syq012 Ward PS, Blaimer BB, Fisher BL (2016) A revised phylogenetic classifi- cation of the ant subfamily Formicinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), with resurrection of the genera Colobopsis and Dinomyrmex. Zoot- axa 4072: 343-357. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4072.3.4 Weber FC (1740) Das veranderte Rufland: In welchem Die jetzige Verfassung des Geist- und Weltlichen Regiments, Der Kriegs-Staat zu Lande und zu Wasser, Der wahre Zustand der RuBischen Finantzen, die gedffneten Berg-Wercke, die eingeftihrte Academien, Kunste, Manufacturen, ergangene Verordnungen, Geschafte mit denen Asiatischen Nachbahren und Vasallen, nebst der allerneuesten Nachricht von diesen Volckern, Ingleichen Die Begebenheiten des Czarewitzen Und was sich sonst merckwirdiges in RuBland zugetragen; Nebst verschiedenen bisher unbekannten Nachrichten vorgestellt werden. 3: Die Regierung der Kayserin Catharina und des Kaysers Petri Secundi und sonst alle vorgefallene Merkwirdigkeiten in sich haltend. 243. Weidner H (1972) Copeognatha (Staublause). Handbuch der Zoologie 4: 2. [Halfte, Berlin. ] Weingardt M, Beutel RG, Pohl H (2023) Xenos vesparum (Strepsiptera: Xenidae)—A new insect model and its endoparasitic secondary lar- va. Insect Systematics and Diversity 7: 4. https://doi.org/10.1093/ isd/ixad003 Westwood JO (1839) An introduction to the modern classification of insects; founded on the natural habits and corresponding organi- sation of the different families. Volume 2. Part XI. London: Long- man, Orme, Brown, Green and Longmans, 193-224. https://do1. org/10.5962/bh1 title.34449 Wheeler WM (1915) [“1914”] The ants of the Baltic Amber. Schriften der Physikalisch-Okonomischen Gesellschaft zu Konigsberg 55: 1-142. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhI title. 14207 Wheeler WM (1921) Chinese ants. Bulletin of the Museum of Compar- ative Zoology 64: 529-547. Wichard W (2009) Taxonomic names. Aquatic Insects in Baltic Amber: 1-335. Wichard W, Buder T, Caruso C (2010) Aquatic lacewings of family Nevrorthidae (Neuroptera) in Baltic amber. Denisia 29: 445-457. Wichard W (2016) Overview and descriptions of Nevrorthidae in Baltic amber (Insecta, Neuroptera). Palaeodiversity 9: 95-111. https://do1. org/10.18476/pale.v9.a7 Wichard W (2017) Family Nevrorthidae (Insecta, Neuroptera) in mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber. Palaeodiversity 10: 1-5. https:// doi.org/10.18476/pale.v10.al Wichard N, Wichard W (2008) Nathanael Sendel (1686-1757) Ein Wegbereiter der palaobiologischen Bernsteinforschung. Palaeodi- versity 1: 93-102. dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Wilde F, Ogurreck M, Greving I, Hammel JU, Beckmann F, Hipp A, Lottermoser L, Khokhriakov I, Lytaev P, Dose T, Burmester H, Muller M, Schreyer A (2016) Micro-CT at the imaging beamline POS at PETRA II. AIP Conference Proceedings 1741: 030035. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4952858 Wilson EO (1985a) Ants of the Dominican amber (Hymenoptera: For- micidae). 1. Two new myrmicine genera and an aberrant Pheidole. Psyche (Cambridge) 92: 1—9. https://doi.org/10.1155/1985/17307 Wilson EO (1985b) Ants of the Dominican amber (Hymenoptera: For- micidae). 2. The first fossil army ants. Psyche (Cambridge) 92: 11— 16. https://doi.org/10.1155/1985/63693 Wilson EO (2003) Pheidole in the New World. A dominant, hyperdiverse ant genus. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, [ix + ]794 pp. Wilson EO, Brown Jr WL (1953) The subspecies concept and its tax- onomic application. Systematic Zoology 2: 97-111. https://doi. org/10.2307/2411818 Wilson PF, Stott J, Warnett JM, Attridge A, Smith MP, Williams MA (2017) Evaluation of touchable 3D-printed replicas in museums. Curator 60: 445-465. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12244 Winkler HJ (2019) Preufen als Unternehmer 1923-1932. In PreuBen als Unternehmer 1923-1932: de Gruyter. https://doi. org/10.1515/9783110830682 Wright AH (1911) Other early records of the passenger pigeon (con- cluded). The Auk 28: 427-449. https://doi.org/10.2307/4070951 Wulff NC, van de Kamp T, dos Santos Rolo T, Baumbach T, Lehmann GU (2017) Copulatory courtship by internal genitalia in bushcrick- ets. Scientific Reports 7: 42345. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42345 Yoshizawa K (2002) Phylogeny and higher classification of suborder Psocomorpha (Insecta: Psocodea:‘Psocoptera’). Zoological Jour- nal of the Linnean Society 136: 371-400. https://doi.org/10.1046/ j.1096-3642.2002.00036.x Yoshizawa K, Johnson KP (2008) Molecular systematics of the bark- louse family Psocidae (Insecta: Psocodea:*Psocoptera’) and impli- cations for morphological and behavioral evolution. Molecular Phy- logenetics and Evolution 46(2): 547-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ympev.2007.07.011 Yoshizawa K, Lienhard C (2010) In search of the sister group of the true lice: A systematic review of booklice and their relatives, with an updated checklist of Liposcelididae (Insecta: Psocodea). Arthro- pod Systematics & Phylogeny 68: 181-195. https://doi.org/10.3897/ asp.68.e31725 Zhang J (1989) Fossil insects from Shanwang, Shandong, China. [In Chinese. ]. Jinan, China: Shandong Science and Technology Publish- ing House, 459 pp. Zhang J, Sun B, Zhang X (1994) Miocene insects and spiders from Shan- wang, Shandong. [In Chinese. ]. Beijing: Science Press, [v +] 298 pp. Ziegler MJ, Perez VJ, Pirlo J, Narducci RE, Moran SM, Selba MC, Hastings AK, Vargas-Vergara C, Antonenko PD, MacFadden BJ (2020) Applications of 3D paleontological data at the Florida Mu- seum of Natural History. Frontiers of Earth Science 8: 1—20. https:// doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.600696 Zippel A, Haug C, Miller P, Haug JT (2022) First fossil tumbling flower beetle-type larva from 99 million year old amber. Palaon- tologische Zeitschrift 96: 219-229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12542- 022-00608-8 Zlatkov B, Vergilov V, Pérez Santa-Rita JV, Baixeras J (2023) First 3-D reconstruction of copulation in Lepidoptera: Interaction of genitalia in Tortrix viridana (Tortricidae). Frontiers in Zoology 20: 22. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12983-023-00500-4 Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 71 (1) 2024, 111-176 Appendix 1 Figure Al. Model 1 of Dorylus nigricans molestus (Formicidae: Dorylinae) preserved in piece PMJ Pa 5884. An interactive ver- sion of this model is available in the HTML version of this article online and on Sketchfab: URL: https://sketchfab.com/3d-mod- els/dorylus-sp-94769aba5 1364c5ab5 1 ec8b92485609a. Figure A2. Model 2 of Doliopygus cf. serratus (Curculionidae: Platypodinae) in piece PMJ Pa 5827. An interactive version of this model is available in the HTML version of this article on- line and on Sketchfab: URL: https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/ platypodidae-e6d79e1 Obaf6456ea137888f8 14e0925. 175 Figure A4. Model 4 of Archipsocidae gen. et sp. indet. pre- served in kaori gum piece PMJ Pa 5825. An interactive version of this model is available in the HTML version of this article on- line and on Sketchfab: URL: https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/ archipsocidae-21ac330840f1 4ab5ac6d50898aba3a4d. Figure A5. Model 5 of the neotype of {Pheidole cordata Holl, 1829 preserved in copal piece PMJ Pa 5889. An interactive cy- bertype is available in the HTML version of this article online and on Sketchfab: URL: https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/phei- dole-cordata-695385c99247469ebb28bc4049b9e301. Figure A3. Model 3 of the holotype specimen of tA. knorrei Weingardt, Bock & Boudinot, sp. nov. (Amphientomidae: Am- phientominae) preserved in piece PMJ Pa 5809. An interactive cybertype is available in the HTML version of this article online and on Sketchfab: URL: https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/am- phientomum-knorrei-a7e0f1c0c6234093a384a5 1c2be48730. Figure A6. Model 6 of the holotype of +Baltistena nigrispina- ta Batelka, Troger & Bock, sp. nov. (Mordellidae) preserved in piece PMJ Pa 5870. An interactive cybertype is available in the HTML version of this article online and on Sketchfab: URL: _ https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/baltistena-nigrispina- ta-0b88 19500b854c42b782b42b79c781c4. dez.pensoft.net 176 Supplementary material | Amber and copal specimens of the Phyletisches Museum collection Authors: Brendon E. Boudinot, Bernhard L. Bock, Mi- chael Weingardt, Daniel Troger, Jan Batelka, Di LI, Adrian Richter, Hans Pohl, Olivia T. D. Moosdorf, Kenny Jandausch, Jorg U. Hammel, Rolf G. Beutel Data type: docx Explanation note: Amber and copal specimens of the Phyletisches Museum collection sorted by inventory number with the number of pieces given for each, what source they had according to the label and what source they are after identifying. Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons. org/licenses/odbl/1.0). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow us- ers to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://do1.org/10.3897/dez.71.112433.suppl1 dez.pensoft.net Brendon E. Boudinot et al.: Fossil insects from the Phyletisches Museum Supplementary material 2 Protocol of the IAA Authors: Brendon E. Boudinot, Bernhard L. Bock, Mi- chael Weingardt, Daniel Troger, Jan Batelka, Di LI, Adrian Richter, Hans Pohl, Olivia T. D. Moosdorf, Kenny Jandausch, Jorg U. Hammel, Rolf G. Beutel Data type: pdf Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons. org/licenses/odbl/1.0). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow us- ers to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/dez.71.112433.suppl2