Electrocrania michalskii Kurz, 2015, sp. nov.
Creators: name: Kurz, Michael
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2015
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Lepidoptera
Eriocraniidae
Electrocrania
Electrocrania michalskii

description: Electrocrania michalskii sp. nov.
Figs. 1, 2
Material. Holotype male, Baltic amber, Lutetian Period of Eocene (Ritzkowski 1997), ID-no. www.nkis.info, MK- Z29276, currently in coll. Michael Kurz, to be deposited in Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria.
Preservation. The adult moth is completely preserved and mostly visible from a ventro-lateral view. Parts of the wings are hidden by schlieren in the amber, and the genitalia are partly covered by the wings.
Etymology. Named in honour of Artur Michalski, the vendor of the amber piece, who also allowed me to use his microphotos.
Diagnosis. Due to the the unforked Sc (a proposed apomorhy of the genus) and R 1 in the forewing, the thickened antennae with large ascoid sensillae and the enormously enlarged maxillary palpi, the new species is placed in Electrocrania besides the type species. E. michalskii can be separated from E. immensipalpa by the position of R 5 in the forewing, which is apical in E. michalskii, but preapical in E. immensipalpa. Furthermore, Sc and R1 meet the costa at about 2/5, respectively, 1/2 of the forewing length in E. immensipalpa, whereas in E. michalskii the veins meet the costa at 1/2 and 3/5. Despite the difficulties in the interpretation of the venation of E. immensipalpa, these differences are considered to be of specific value. Furthermore, E. michalskii is slightly smaller than E. immensipalpa (forewing length 2.7 mm in E. michalskii compared to 3.2 mm in E. immensipalpa).
Description. Examined: 1 ♂. Forewing length: 2.7 mm. Head with erect, hair-like scales; eye semi-globular, app. 0.3 mm in diameter; ocelli present; maxillary palpus very long, in total nearly 1.3 mm, with 5 segments (app. 85, 185, 480, 400 and 130 µm in length); labial palpus very small, probably with 2 segments; antenna nearly 9/10 of forewing length, conspicuously thick; pedicellus swollen; antennal segments somewhat broader than long near basis, somewhat longer than broad apically, with conspicuously long branched ascoid sensillae (antennae therefore appear ciliated); mouth parts (maxillae) not recognizable; thorax and tegula shining golden; forewings pale reddish, golden shining; inner margin golden to 1/2 of forewing length and very indistinct additional spots also golden shining; spur formula of legs 0-0-4; epiphysis not recognizable; midtibia short, without spur, but with fine bristles at distal end; hindtibia with a pair of spurs each at about 0.7 of tibial length and apically; abdomen without recognizable duct of the S5 gland (reduced or absent); genitalic and associated structures on segment 8 not recognizable.
Venation. Forewing: Humeral vein present; Sc and R1 unforked, Sc reaching costa at app. 1/2 of forewing length, R1 at about 3/5; R5 nearly apical (only a trace preapical); R2 + R3 on common stem; crossvein Sc-R not traceable; M1 from crossvein R-M; M2 and M3 forking just beyond midlength from common M-stem; CuA forked at 3/4; CuP distinctly developed only in distal part; A1 + A2 fused just distad of 1/2 of their length, forming a basal loop. Hindwing: Sc and R1 separate, but close together; R1 emerging at app. 1/4 of wing length; R2 + R3 on common stem; R5 running to apex; crossvein Sc-R probably present (not clearly visible); CuA probably forked; A1 + A2 present.
Male genitalia. Not clearly visible in preparation; uncus very short; valves short and very broad.
description: Published as part of Kurz, Michael, 2015, On the systematic position of Electrocrania Kusnezov, 1941 with the description of a new species from Baltic amber (Lepidoptera: Micropterigidae), pp. 446-450 in Zootaxa 4044 (3) on pages 448-450, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4044.3.7, http://zenodo.org/record/236585