identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
0393156CFFEC9B50FCCEFC1922C0FBA9.text	0393156CFFEC9B50FCCEFC1922C0FBA9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dixella Dyar and Shannon 1924	<div><p>Genus DIXELLA Dyar and Shannon, 1924</p> <p>Type species. Dixella lirio Dyar and Shannon, 1924</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0393156CFFEC9B50FCCEFC1922C0FBA9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Greenwalt, D	Greenwalt, D (2016): The first fossil New World Dixidae with a critical discussion of generic definitions. Palaeontologia Electronica 19 (3): 1-32, DOI: 10.26879/656, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/656
0393156CFFEC9B55FCC0FBAF20EDFC5E.text	0393156CFFEC9B55FCC0FBAF20EDFC5E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dixella intacta Greenwalt and Moulton	<div><p>Dixella intacta Greenwalt and Moulton, new species</p> <p>Figures 1, 2, 3.1, 4.1, 5</p> <p>zoobank.org/ B50B1127-CA1E-4395-9A74-60B1AD5701CE</p> <p>Etymology. The specific epithet is Latin for “untouched”, an indication of the intact nature of this fossil.</p> <p>Holotype. Dixella intacta Greenwalt and Moulton, female; NMNH, USNM 546204.</p> <p>Type Horizon. Middle Eocene Coal Creek member, Kishenehn Formation.</p> <p>Type Locality. Deep Ford site, Middle Fork of the Flathead River (Pinnacle, Montana).</p> <p>Differential Diagnosis. Distinguished from all other fossil Dixidae based on the presence of one or more of the following character states: distinct stylized spade-shaped cercus (similar to Dixa brevis Garrett, 1924), first flagellomere very slightly fusiform, antenna length much more than combined lengths of head and thorax, wing length/body length ratio equal to one, and apex of R 1 closer to C than to R 2.</p> <p>Description. Adult female (Figure 1), body length 4.5 mm.</p> <p>Head. Black. Eyes dichoptic, large, oval with dorsal-ventral height (0.45 mm) greater than width (0.40 mm). Eyes separated by 0.12 mm. Maxillary palpus not visible. Antenna brown, 2.4 mm in length (Figure 2.1). Scape barely visible, small, approximately 40 μm in width. Pedicel subspherical, 104 μm wide, 118 μm long. Antenna with 14 flagellomeres, each setose. F1 very slightly fusiform, 40 μm wide; F2–F4 widths gradually decrease to 30 μm. F5 (22 μm) more slender than F4. F5, subsequent flagellomere widths gradually decrease to 7 μm at F14. Flagellomere lengths/ widths (in mm) as follows: F1 (0.30/0.04), F2 (0.12/ 0.04), F3 (0.16/0.03), F4 (0.17/0.03), F5 (0.23/ 0.02), F6 (0.20/0.02), F7 (0.19/0.02), F8 (0.190.01), F9 (0.18/0.01), F10 (0.15/0.01), F11 (0.13/0.01), F12 (0.12/0.01), F13 (0.12/0.01), F14 (0.13/0.01).</p> <p>Thorax. Length 1.3 mm. Dark brown medial, lateral vittae covering most of scutum except for posteromedial portion and four medial light brown spots connecting medial, lateral vittae (Figure 2.2). Scutellum yellow. Acrostichal setae at lateral margin of medial vitta. Setae present along posterior margin of scutellum, lateral surface of mediotergite.</p> <p>Wings. Length 4.28 mm, width 1.37 mm (Figure 3.1). L/W ratio = 3.12. Vein R 2+3 arched. Sc apex even with Rs origin. Crossvein r-m single veinwidth distal to Rs bifurcation, slightly sigmoidal. Crossvein m-cu even with posterior point of r-m. A1 apex slightly basal to Cu bifurcation, distal to Sc apex and Rs origin. R 2+3 bifurcation basal to M bifurcation. Length ratios R 2 /M 2, M 2 /M 1, M 2 /M 1+2, R 2+3 /R 3 = 2.6, 0.61, 0.54, 0.49, respectively. Vein CuP present. Wing surface covered with microtrichae; veins, margin of wing with spiniform setae 55 ± 15 μm in length. Haltere dark brown, length 0.59 mm with setae on anterior margin of proximal end, knob; knob spherical, diameter 155 μm; base black.</p> <p>Legs. All legs setose; hind tibia expanded distally. Foreleg femur, tibia, 5 tarsomeres lengths 1.38, 1.32, 0.9, 0.36, 0.23, 0.12, 0.14 mm, respectively. Midleg femur, tibia, 5 tarsomeres lengths 1.74, 1.58, 0.76, 0.42, 0.27, 0.14, 0.15 mm, respectively. Hind leg femur, tibia, 5 tarsal segments lengths 1.8, 1.83, 1.52, 0.53, 0.34, 0.18, 0.13 mm, respectively. Claws without teeth (Figure 4.1).</p> <p>Abdomen and genitalia. Abdomen brown, setose, length 2.84 mm (not including cercus); sternite 8, tergite 9 dark brown/black, more heavily setose than anterior portion of abdomen. With single sclerotized spermatheca, spherical, 0.17 mm in diameter. Cercus black, setose, shaped like stylized spade, length 0.12 mm (Figure 5).</p> <p>Male unknown.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0393156CFFEC9B55FCC0FBAF20EDFC5E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Greenwalt, D	Greenwalt, D (2016): The first fossil New World Dixidae with a critical discussion of generic definitions. Palaeontologia Electronica 19 (3): 1-32, DOI: 10.26879/656, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/656
0393156CFFE99B54FF7DFBBC20EDF98E.text	0393156CFFE99B54FF7DFBBC20EDF98E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dixella eomarginata Greenwalt and Moulton	<div><p>Dixella eomarginata Greenwalt and Moulton, new species</p> <p>Figures 3.2, 6, 7</p> <p>zoobank.org/ 0EC67728-2799-4615-B318-3723C944DE99</p> <p>Etymology. The specific epithet is a combination of the Greek term eos, meaning dawn, and the specific epithet marginata, indicating similarity of the shape of the posterior margin of the wing with that of the extant Dixella marginata Loew, 1863.</p> <p>Holotype. Dixella eomarginata Greenwalt and Moulton, female; NMNH, USNM 553521.</p> <p>Type Horizon. Middle Eocene Coal Creek member, Kishenehn Formation.</p> <p>Type Locality. Dakin site, Middle Fork of the Flathead River (Pinnacle, Montana).</p> <p>Differential Diagnosis. Distinguished from all other fossil Dixidae based on the presence of the following character states: wing emarginate between CuA1 and CuA2, wing length to body length ratio equal to 0.91, R 1 closer to C than R 2.</p> <p>Description. Adult female (Figure 6), body length 3.8 mm.</p> <p>Head. Black. Eyes dichoptic, spherical, diameter 0.26 mm, 0.12 mm. Maxillary palps not visible. Antennae not preserved intact, contiguous flagellomeres present, brown, filiform. Pedicel light brown, longer than wide. One maxillary palp present, poorly preserved, length 0.5 mm; length terminal segment 0.179 mm.</p> <p>Thorax. Lateral view. Length 1.03 mm, black; lateral vittae absent; scutellum brown. Thoracic setae not visible.</p> <p>Wings. Length 3.46 mm (measured from base of humeral crossvein), width 1.18 mm (Figures 3.2, 7.1). L/W ratio = 2.93. Vein R 2+3 arched. Vein Sc apex basal to origin of Rs (1.4 times distance between C, R1). Crossvein r-m basal to Rs bifurcation. Crossvein m-cu very lightly sclerotized, apex just distal to r-m terminus. A1 apex poorly preserved, basal to Cu bifurcation, distal to Sc apex. R 2+3 bifurcation significantly basal to M bifurcation. Ratios R 2 /M 2, M 2 /M 1, M 2 /M 1+2, R 2+3 /R 3 = 2.37, 0.71, 0.55, 0.44, respectively. Wing veins, margin with thin setae, length ≤ 20 μm. Wing posterior margin emarginate between CuA1, CuA2. Prominent false vein (?) between M, Cu continues between M 1+2,</p> <p>GREENWALT &amp; MOULTON: NEW WORLD FOSSIL DIXIDAE</p> <p>CuA 1 (not present in the right wing). Haltere brown, length 0.53 mm long, knob oval, width 144 μm, length wide 207 μm.</p> <p>Legs. All legs setose; metatibia expanded distally. Foreleg femur, tibia, tarsus lengths 1.28, 1.29, 1.65 mm, respectively. Midleg femur, tibia, tarsus lengths 1.71, 1.40, 1.78 mm, respectively. Hind leg femur, tibia, tarsus lengths 1.65, 1.56, 2.22 mm, respectively. Metapretarsal claws not preserved sufficiently to determine presence, absence of teeth.</p> <p>Abdomen and genitalia. Abdomen light brown, length 2.66 mm (not including cerci). Segment 7 with single sclerotized spermatheca, oval, 154 μm x 115 μm. Tergite 9, posterior edge sternite 8 dark brown/black, more heavily setose than anterior portions of abdomen. Cerci dorsally situated, brown, setose, length 0.12 mm (Figure 7.2). Posterior margin sternite 8 lined by numerous setae approximately 35 μm long, Cerci, tergite 9 with several setae 70 μm or longer. Sternite 9 bulbous, protruding just below cerci.</p> <p>Male unknown.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0393156CFFE99B54FF7DFBBC20EDF98E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Greenwalt, D	Greenwalt, D (2016): The first fossil New World Dixidae with a critical discussion of generic definitions. Palaeontologia Electronica 19 (3): 1-32, DOI: 10.26879/656, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/656
0393156CFFE89B5AFF68F98C23B3FFDF.text	0393156CFFE89B5AFF68F98C23B3FFDF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dixella curvistyla Greenwalt and Moulton	<div><p>Dixella curvistyla Greenwalt and Moulton, new species</p> <p>Figures 3.3. 4.2, 8, 9</p> <p>zoobank.org/ 716DBCD1-3920-42D3-949D-BEC02984A27F</p> <p>Etymology. The specific epithet is derived from a combination of the terms curvi (L) meaning curved and stylus (L) meaning stalk or pike, and denotes the sharply curved gonostylus of this species.</p> <p>Holotype. Dixella curvistyla Greenwalt and Moulton, male; NMNH, USNM 546860.</p> <p>Type Horizon. Middle Eocene Coal Creek member, Kishenehn Formation.</p> <p>Type Locality. Disbrow Creek site, Middle Fork of the Flathead River (Pinnacle, Montana).</p> <p>Differential Diagnosis. Distinguished from the three previously described Eocene fossil Dixella based on wing width (1.32 mm vs. 0.56 in D. distans Hennig, 1966), length of flagellomere F1 (0.234 mm vs. 0.415 mm in D. succinea Meunier, 1906) and form of the gonostylus (very long and narrow in D. filiforceps Hennig, 1966).</p> <p>Description. Adult male (Figure 8), body length 3.36 mm.</p> <p>Head. Black. Eyes dichoptic, large, oblong, width 0.186 mm, length 0.284 mm. Three prominent setae at lateral margin of eye. Maxillary palp length 0.34 mm, two basal segments wider than long (31 x 41 μm); segments three and four 42 and 54 μm long, respectively, both 35 μm wide; terminal segment length 0.169 mm, width 21 μm, terminus with several short setae (Figure 9.1). Most distal flagellomeres missing (Figure 9.1). Scape black, large, subspherical, 72 μm in diameter. Pedicel black, globular, diameter 0.1 mm. Flagellomeres setose, light brown. F1 cylindrical, diameter 32μm, length 0.23 mm. F2–F4 gradually decreasing in diameter.</p> <p>Thorax. Lateral view. Black, length 1.08 mm, no setae apparent.</p> <p>Wings. Length 2.89 mm (measured from base of the humeral crossvein), 1.17 mm wide. L/W ratio = 2.47. Vein R 2+3 arched (Figure 3.3). Vein Sc apex even with Rs origin. Crossvein r-m distal to Rs bifurcation. Crossvein m-cu even with r-m apex, less heavily pigmented than r-m. A1 apex slightly basal to Cu bifurcation, distal to Sc apex, Rs origin. R 2+3 bifurcation even with M bifurcation. Ratios R 2 / M 2, M 2 /M 1, M 2 /M 1+2, R 2+3 /R 3 = 2.03, 0.70, 0.75, 0.52, respectively. Wing surface infuscate; veins, except M, Cu, margin of wing covered with setae. Haltere dark brown, length 0.48 mm; knob oblong, diameter 119 μm.</p> <p>Legs. All legs setose, brown. At least two legs, including left hind leg, with tarsal claws with four observable teeth (Figure 4.2). All legs mostly disarticulated; mid and hind tarsi identification based on swollen apical portion of metatibia, combined fragment lengths. The foreleg femur, tibia lengths 1.08 and 1.0 mm, respectively. Midleg femur, tibia, tarsus lengths 1.50, 1.13 mm, 1.70 mm, respectively. Hind leg femur, tibia, and tarsus lengths 1.30, 1.26, 1.9 mm, respectively.</p> <p>Abdomen and genitalia. Abdomen brown, setose, length 2.35 mm (including genitalia). Anterior half of abdomen with light bands of varying widths wherein setae are absent or reduced. Sternite 9 posterior margin with numerous setae. Gonocoxite length 220 μm, apical lobe length 79 μm, width 24 μm (Figure 9.2), distal margin with several prominent setae, each about 10 μm in length. Gonostylus length 158 μm, very broad, base 79 μm, midpoint 54 μm, bent approximately 75 degrees at midpoint, tapering to very fine point.</p> <p>Female unknown.</p> <p>GREENWALT &amp; MOULTON: NEW WORLD FOSSIL DIXIDAE</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0393156CFFE89B5AFF68F98C23B3FFDF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Greenwalt, D	Greenwalt, D (2016): The first fossil New World Dixidae with a critical discussion of generic definitions. Palaeontologia Electronica 19 (3): 1-32, DOI: 10.26879/656, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/656
0393156CFFE69B43FF60FABD25F6FE7A.text	0393156CFFE69B43FF60FABD25F6FE7A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dixella spinilobata Greenwalt and Moulton	<div><p>Dixella spinilobata Greenwalt and Moulton, new species</p> <p>Figures 4.3, 10, 11</p> <p>zoobank.org/ E669A17A-4957-483C-ACC4-5E8BDF6CDF7A</p> <p>Etymology. The specific epithet is derived from a combination of the terms spinosa (L) meaning spiny and lobata (L) meaning lobed and refers to the spiniform shape of both the apical lobe and the tip of the basal lobe of the gonocoxite.</p> <p>Holotype. Dixella spinilobata Greenwalt and Moulton, male; NMNH, USNM 553522.</p> <p>Type Horizon. Middle Eocene Coal Creek member, Kishenehn Formation.</p> <p>Type Locality. Dakin site, Middle Fork of the Flathead River (Pinnacle, Montana).</p> <p>Differential Diagnosis. Distinguished from all other known fossil Dixidae based on one or more of the following characters: first flagellomere filliform, wing length to body length ratio equal to 0.95, R 1 much closer to C than R 2, antennal length (0.61 of its total body length), size of the gonocoxite and shape of the gonostylus.</p> <p>Description. Adult male (Figure 10), body length 3.5 mm.</p> <p>Head. Black; eyes dichoptic, large, spherical, diameter 0.222 mm. Maxillary palps long, length 0.34 mm, basal most segments not visible; segments four and five 88 x 40 and 230 x 27 μm (length x width), respectively. Antenna brown, relatively long (2.12 mm; Figure 10), thin. Scape and pedicel poorly resolved, pedicel spherical, 73 μm in diameter. Both F1 apparently filiform although partially covered by foreleg; dimensions unknown. Widths F2–F14 gradually decreasing. All flagellomeres setose.</p> <p>Thorax. Length 0.95 mm, black with dark brown medial, lateral vittae covering scutellum; scutellum light brown. Setae absent.</p> <p>Wings. Length 3.32 mm, width 1.08 mm. L/W ratio = 3.07. R1 very close to costal vein; vein R 2+3 arched. Vein Sc apex basal to Rs origin (by distance 1.5 x distance separating C, R1). Ratio R 2+3 / R 3 0.59. Wing surface covered with microtrichae; veins, margin covered with long setae approximately 59 μm in length. Haltere dark brown, length 0.55 mm, knob elongate 114 μm x 256 μm.</p> <p>Legs. All legs setose; hind tibia expanded distally. Foreleg femur, tibia, tarsus lengths 1.26, 1.07, 1.69 mm, respectively. Midleg femur, tibia, tarsus lengths 1.66, 1.42, 1.78 mm, respectively. Hind leg femur, tibia, tarsus lengths 1.56, 1.58, 2.0 mm, respectively; hind leg claws without apparent teeth (Figure 4.3).</p> <p>Abdomen and genitalia. Abdomen brown, setose, length 2.84 mm (including terminalia). Sternite 8, tergite 9 dark brown/black, more heavily setose. Terminalia width (at widest point of two gonocoxites) 0.419 mm, each gonocoxite approximately 0.202 mm long and 0.139 mm wide; gonostylus elongate, length 0.179 mm, width 43 μm (Figures 11.1, 11.2). Gonocoxite apex with possibly two or three spiniform structures, the largest and basalmost 63 μm long, 15 μm wide at base, not preserved/visible on right gonocoxite. Gonocoxite with large basal lobe, tip spiniform.</p> <p>Female unknown.</p> <p>Remarks</p> <p>Given the demonstrably unreliable criteria for identification of adult Dixidae at the generic level (see Discussion), the option of designating the four fossil specimens described herein as “ Dixidae incertae sedis ” was considered. However, given 1) our desire to distinguish these four species from all fossil dixids described previously and 2) the observation that designations such as “Genus incertae sedis ” or “Genus indeterminate” are often not recorded in commonly used databases, a generic designation has been provided. The four new species described herein are assigned to the genus Dixella, not necessarily based on morphological criteria, but rather on the near-shore lacustrine environment in which they lived and were deposited (Greenwalt et al., 2015; see Discussion). This of course presumes that genus-specific ecological niches (fast-flowing waters in the mid-stream of waterways or water falls [Dixa] vs. still waters of near-shore lake or pond environments [Dixella] [Nowell, 1951]) had already been established 46 Ma. Specific characteristics, in various combinations, used to distinguish the four fossil Nearctic species from all other dixid genera both extant and extinct, other than Dixa and Dixella, are as follows (with number of species given in parentheses): Syndixa (3): R 2 fused with R 1 (Lukashevich, 1996); Eucorethrina (3): R 1 equidistant from C and R 3 (R 2 in Peters and Cook [1966]) and Sc ending distad of Rs origin (Lukashevich, 1996); Asiodixa Papp et al., 2006 (2): small size (wings 2.0– 2.5 mm) and Sc ending substantially before the Rs origin, Rs sigmoidal, F1 of male with a ventromedial dilation (Papp et al., 2006); Neodixa Tonnoir, 1924 (1): R 2+3 unbranched (Belkin,1968); Nothodixa (10): first flagellomere oval, its length equal to or less than 2.5x its width (Belkin, 1968); Metadixa Peters and Savary, 1994 (1): known only from a single larval specimen (Peters and Savary, 1994); Mesodixa Belkin et al., 1970 (1): F1 longer than F2 + F3, gonostylus longer than gonocoxite, curved, spinose and small size (wing 2.5 mm) (Belkin et al., 1970); Meringodixa Nowell, 1951 (1): large spatulate ventral process of gonocoxite, F1 fusiform and 6x as long as wide, head and thorax brown and brownish yellow, respectively, stem of haltere yellow and dorsum of abdomen black (Nowell, 1951).</p> <p>The Cenozoic dixids consist of nine species including the four described herein as well as two designated as incertae sedis (Table 2). A comparison between these is impeded by deficiencies in the published descriptions of the European fossils. Both Dixa priscula and D. cimbrica Ansorge, 1992 were described from isolated wings and, given the variability in wing venation in this family, can only be identified as members of the family Dixidae (see below). Dixa tertiaria Meunier, 1915 was originally described as a member of the family Limoniidae and, although the fossil is of an intact adult, no relevant information was provided other than a very low-resolution photograph and scale bar (Meunier, 1915). Theobald (1937) described Dixa hyalipennis Theobald, 1937 as having venation identical to D. tertiaria and synonymized the two species; Evenhuis (1994) synonymized both under D. tertiaria. However, comparison of Theobald’s figure and Meunier’s photograph clearly shows numerous differences in wing venation. Theobald’s depiction of the first abscissa of CuA1 portrays a vein unlike that in any other species of dixid; the distal half of this vein segment is parallel with vein M and forms a smooth continuous curve with the distal portion of CuA1. Meunier’s photograph depicts the first abscissa of CuA 1 as straight and at a distinct angle to the second abscissa, in a fashion similar to all other dixids. Descriptions of genitalia are not provided and, in fact, neither specimen is identified as to its sex. Similarly, the genitalia of Dixa succinea were not visible in the original specimen described by Meunier (1906) although it was described as male (mistakenly identified as female in the figure legend). Because the type specimen of Dixa succinea has been lost, Hennig (1966) designated and described a neotype and figured its genitalia as well as those of Dixella filiforceps, D. distans and Dixa minuta Meunier, 1906, all males. Unfortunately, Hennig’s descriptions of Dixa succinea, Dixella filiforceps and D. distans were otherwise purposefully very brief – no measurements were made – as he believed that “A detailed description of this and the following species would have little meaning. In order to clarify their position within the Paradixinae (Dixella), the extant species must first be carefully worked through.”</p> <p>All four of the Nearctic fossil dixids are distinguished from Dixa minuta and Dixella distans in that these specimens, both Baltic amber inclusions, are much smaller in size with wing widths less than 0.6 mm (Cockerell, 1921; Hennig, 1966). Although both Dixa priscula and Dixa cimbrica are herein declared nomina dubia (See Discussion), differences in venation between them and the four Nearctic fossils are as follows: Dixa cimbrica differs from Dixella eomarginata in that Sc originates at the origin of Rs, Rs forks basal of r-m, and m-cu originates basal of r-m; from Dixella spinilobata in that Sc originates at the origin of Rs; from Dixella curvistyla in that M 1+2 is longer than M 1, and m-cu originates basal of r-m; from Dixella intacta in that m-cu originates basal of r-m. Dixa priscula differs from Dixella eomarginata in that Sc originates basal of Rs, and m-cu originates basal of r-m; from Dixella spinilobata in that Sc originates basal of the origin of Rs; from Dixella curvistyla in that M 1+2 is longer than M 1, m-cu originates basal of r-m, and Sc originates basal of the origin of Rs; from Dixella intacta in that m-cu originates basal of r-m and Sc originates basal of the origin of Rs.</p> <p>Dixella eomarginata and D. intacta differ from all other fossil dixids in being female. Dixella eomarginata differs from all other fossil dixids in having the posterior margin of the wing slightly emarginate between CuA1 and CuA2 – similar to the extant Dixella marginata. The prominent apparent false vein between M and Cu that continues between M 1+2 and CuA 1 in the left wing of D. eomarginata may be an artifact, possibly a result of partial delamination of the wing; it does not appear in the right wing. This character is not common in the ‘Nematocera’ but it is found, between M 2 and CuA 1, in both Scatopsidae (Coboldia Melander, 1916) and several genera of Simuliidae (McAlpine et al., 1981). A false vein parallel to and just posterior of Cu and CuA 2 was described in Dixa appalachiensis (Moulton, 2016). While the male of Dixella marginata lacks the emarginate (excavate) wing margin of the female (Peters and Cook, 1966), there is no evidence for or against Dixella eomarginata being conspecific with either D. curvistyla or D. spinilobata. The body and wing lengths of Dixella intacta are 34% and 48% longer than those of D. curvistyla and 29% longer than D. spinilobata, respectively. Males and females of a given species can vary in size, females commonly with larger wing and body lengths, but the relationship is not consistent (e.g., wing lengths in males of both Dixella fraxina Taber, 2010 and D. indiana Dyar, 1925 are often larger than in the female) (Takahasi, 1958; Peters and Cook, 1966; Taber, 2010). Because wing and body lengths within a single sex of a species can vary as much as 50% (Takahasi, 1958; Peters and Cook, 1966), differences in wing and body lengths alone do not preclude Dixella intacta from a conspecific relationship with D. spinilobata or D. curvistyla. However, given the absence of any analysis of female genitalia relative to the definition of the genera Dixa and Dixella, the variability in wing venation patterns between these two genera and within individual species (see below and Discussion), and the dearth of morphological detail available for the European fossils, it would be speculative to depict Dixella intacta as congeneric with any other known fossil male dixid.</p> <p>The male Nearctic fossil species, Dixella curvistyla and D. spinilobata, are distinguished from those of D. succinea, D. filiforceps, and D. distans based on the shape of the gonocoxite and gonostylus. The gonocoxite of D. succinea is short relative to the gonostylus, the latter tapered distally with the terminal quarter of the stylus bent at a right angle to the base, approximately 150 μm long and less than 20 μm wide at mid-length. The apical lobe of the gonocoxite is long and narrow (about 75 μm x 10 μm). The gonostylus of D. filiforceps is very long and narrow (approximately 225 μm long and less than 20 μm wide), slightly widened at the end, and smoothly curved such that the distal half is at a right angle to the base. The apical lobe of the gonocoxite is long and narrow (about 10 μm x &lt;10 μm). The gonocoxite of D. distans is short relative to the gonostylus and, like D. filiforceps, the gonostylus is long and narrow (approximately 125 μm long x 20 μm wide) and smoothly curved. Unlike in D. filiforceps, the gonostylus is tapered to an asymmetrical point at the end. The apical lobe of the gonocoxite is long and narrow (about 75 μm x &lt;10 μm). These characteristics contrast with D. curvistyla in which the gonostylus is relatively short and wide (approximately 158 μm x 79 μm at its base) and bent at a near right angle and the apical lobe of the gonocoxite is quite wide (approximately 24 μm). In contrast, D. spinilobata has a straight and relatively wider rectangular gonostylus (179 μm x 43 μm) with a relatively shorter apical lobe (0.35 x the length of the gonostylus vs. ratios of 0.5–0.6 for the three specimens described by Hennig (1966)).</p> <p>Dixa tertiaria is problematic in that the original description (Meunier, 1915) is essentially devoid of useful information and no redescription has so far been produced. A photograph and a scale bar is provided and enables body (3.2 mm) and wing (2.8–3.2 mm) lengths to be determined, albeit with a degree of uncertainty. These measurements contrast with those of Theobald (1937), who described Dixa hyalipennis with a body length significantly shorter than the wing length (3.7 mm and 4.2 mm respectively). All of the Nearctic fossils have body/ wing length ratios greater than one. As described above, the very peculiar morphology of vein CuA1, as figured by Theobald (1937), also differentiates these two specimens. Without examination of the actual specimens, it is impossible to accurately compare them with the Nearctic dixids.</p> <p>It is difficult to compare Dixella intacta and D. eomarginata with extant dixids of the genera Dixa and Dixella as there exists neither detailed nor extensive studies of female genitalia with respect to the taxonomy of these two genera. Some keys to females of this family exist (e.g., Disney, 1975 - which does not use genitalic characters to distinguish between genera) but they are of limited use. The structure of the genitalia of D. intacta is very similar to that of Dixa brevis as figured by Nowell (1951). The very broad and acutely curved gonostylus of Dixella curvistyla resembles that of Dixa formosana Papp, 2007 although the latter has a very short apical lobe on the gonocoxite (Papp, 2007). Dixa neohegemonica, with a sickle/fingershaped gonostylal apex, also resembles D. curvistyla (Moulton, personal obs.); note that this structure is figured as straight in Peters and Cook (1966). The genitalic morphology of Dixella spinilobata is unique amongst extant members of this</p> <p>Key to the fossil species of Dixidae family although the gonostylus of Dixa pollex Nowell, 1980 also has a small projection near its distal terminus (Nowell, 1980). A key to all fossils of the family Dixidae, with the exception of Dixa cimbrica, D. priscula and D. tertiaria, which either consist only of a wing or are too poorly described to provide the data required for inclusion in a key, is provided here so as to facilitate identification of new fossil specimens.</p> <p>See Key to the fossil species of Dixidae below.</p> <p>Wing Venation Pattern Variability</p> <p>Examination of the 35 different character states for vein position within extant Dixidae reveals that in only 10 instances are specific character states present in one genus and not the other. For example, state “3” for the position of the terminus of A 1 relative to the origin of Rs is not present in extant Dixella. However, this character state exists in extant Dixa in only one of the 50 species examined. In fact, in each of the 10 cases, the character state is rare in the other genus, occurring only once or twice. Therefore, no single character</p> <p>1a. R 2+3 not strongly arched............................................ 2 1b. R 2+3 strongly arched............................................... 6 2a. R 1 fused with R 2........................................... Syndixa 3 2b. R 1 not fused with R 2..................................... Eucorethrina 5 3a. r-m and m-cu crossveins in-line...................................... 4 3b. m-cu distal of r-m.....................................? Syndixa liasina 4a. R 2+3 short, &lt;¼ length of R 2+3 + R 2.............................. Syndixa mollis 4b. R 2+3 subequal to R 2..................................... Syndixa sibirica 5a. Length of Sc relative to wing length (h – apex) &lt;0.45.... Eucorethrina westwoodi 5b. Length of Sc relative to wing length (h – apex)&gt; 0.45≤ 0.50.. Eucorethrina flexa 5c Length of Sc relative to wing length (h – apex) ≥ 0.50.... Eucorethrina convexa 6a. Wing width &lt;0.6 mm............................................... 7 6b. Wing width&gt; 1.0 mm............................................... 8 7a. Gonostylus stout, divided apically........................... Dixella minuta 7b. Gonostylus long, slender, not divided apically.................. Dixella distans 8a. Female......................................................... 9 8b. Male.......................................................... 10 9a. Wing margin emarginated between CuA 1 and CuA 2......... Dixella eomarginata 9b. Wing margin not emarginated.............................. Dixella intacta 10a. Gonostylus bent at about right angle apically............................ 11 10b. Gonostylus not bent apically........................................ 12 11a. Gonostylus stout, with broad base....................... Dixella curvistylus 11b. Gonostylus long, slender................................ Dixella succinea 12a. Gonostylus moderately long, L/W &lt;5..................... Dixella spinilobata 12b. Gonostylus very long, slender, L/W&gt; 10.................... Dixella filiforceps state is characteristic of (i.e., both universally present in and restricted to) either genus. Similarly, while there are combinations of specific character states that occur in only one of the two genera, they occur only rarely (e.g., the Dixa aliciae Johannsen, 1924 pattern occurs only once within the 50 extant Dixa species examined). There are also instances in which a specific character state or combination of character states is much more likely to occur in one genus. For example, the character state combination m-cu/r-m as “4” and r-m/Rs as “2” is 2-fold more common in Dixa than Dixella, but occurs in less than one in four of the Dixa species examined. Similarly the position of the bifurcation of R2+3 relative to that of M is three times more likely to be “3” or “4” in Dixa than in Dixella, but that combination occurs in a minority of the Dixa species. When the statistically most common combination of character states for each character is calculated for each genus, they are essentially identical: 0, 4/2, 4, 4, 4, 0, 4/0 for Dixa, and 0, 4, 4, 4, 4, 0, 0 for Dixella. Obviously, however, in order for a character state to define a clade, in this case either Dixa or Dixella, that character state must not simply occur once or even statistically most commonly, it must be invariant within that genus. Given these data and the fact that an examination of the holotype of Dixa priscula clearly shows that, in contrast to Cockerell’s original description, the crossveins r-m and m-cu are not preserved, D. priscula is reassigned to Dixidae incertae sedis. Similarly, although the venation pattern (2, 4, 0, 4, 4, 2, 0) of Dixa cimbrica is unique relative to the 92 species examined in the current study, it too is reassigned to Dixidae incertae sedis.</p> <p>Figure 12.1-8 depict four examples of intraspecific venation pattern variability. A total of seven different species were examined: photographs of wings from different individuals of Dixa nova Walker, 1848 (Now classified as Dixella [Pape and Thompson, 2013]), Dixa terna Loew, 1863, D. rhathyme Dyar and Shannon, 1924 and Dixella obscura Loew, 1849, for which 16, 14, seven and four specimens were examined, respectively, are shown. Dixella torrentia Lane, 1939 and D. solomonis Belkin, 1962, for which six and seven specimens were examined, respectively, displayed variability but to a degree less than that found in the figured species. Dixella cornuta Johannsen, 1923, for which only six specimens were examined, exhibited no variability. For four of the seven species examined, all specimens were from the same locality. Specimens of Dixa terna were from Pennsylvania and Virginia, Dixella obscura from Arizona and Alaska and Dixella cornuta from Delaware and Idaho. In all four figured species, the relative position of the crossvein r-m varies from even (2) to apical (4) of the Rs fork. The relative position of Sc differs in two of the four figured species, ranging from even to basal relative to the origin of Rs in Dixella obscura and from apical to basal in Dixa rhathyme. The position of m-cu relative to r-m is apical in one of the two specimens of Dixella obscura and basal in the other.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0393156CFFE69B43FF60FABD25F6FE7A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Greenwalt, D	Greenwalt, D (2016): The first fossil New World Dixidae with a critical discussion of generic definitions. Palaeontologia Electronica 19 (3): 1-32, DOI: 10.26879/656, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/656
0393156CFFF69B4AFE63FED22324FDA8.text	0393156CFFF69B4AFE63FED22324FDA8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Asiodixa maculosa Papp 2006	<div><p>Asiodixa maculosa</p> <p>Dixa aliciae</p> <p>Dixa babai</p> <p>Dixa brevis</p> <p>Dixa californica</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0393156CFFF69B4AFE63FED22324FDA8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Greenwalt, D	Greenwalt, D (2016): The first fossil New World Dixidae with a critical discussion of generic definitions. Palaeontologia Electronica 19 (3): 1-32, DOI: 10.26879/656, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/656
0393156CFFF69B4AFE63FDAF2324FA58.text	0393156CFFF69B4AFE63FDAF2324FA58.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dixa camerounensis Alexander 1926	<div><p>Dixa camerounensis</p> <p>Dixa cimbrica †</p> <p>Dixa clavata</p> <p>Dixa dilatata</p> <p>Dixa dyari</p> <p>Dixa fluvica</p> <p>Dixa fusca</p> <p>Dixa hegemonica</p> <p>Dixa hikosana</p> <p>Dixa hoffmani</p> <p>Dixa inextricata</p> <p>Dixa johannseni</p> <p>Dixa kaplani</p> <p>Dixa kyushuensis</p> <p>Dixa lobata</p> <p>Dixa lobatus</p> <p>Dixa longistyla</p> <p>Dixa lunata</p> <p>Dixa maculata</p> <p>Dixa melanderi</p> <p>Dixa minuta †</p> <p>Dixa minutiformis</p> <p>Dixa modesta</p> <p>Dixa modesto</p> <p>Dixa naevia</p> <p>Dixa nebulosa</p> <p>Dixa neoaliciae</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0393156CFFF69B4AFE63FDAF2324FA58	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Greenwalt, D	Greenwalt, D (2016): The first fossil New World Dixidae with a critical discussion of generic definitions. Palaeontologia Electronica 19 (3): 1-32, DOI: 10.26879/656, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/656
0393156CFFF69B49FE63F9BF232FFBE7.text	0393156CFFF69B49FE63F9BF232FFBE7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dixa neohegemonica Peters & Cook 1966	<div><p>Dixa neohegemonica</p> <p>Dixa nipponica</p> <p>Dixa notata</p> <p>Dixa nova</p> <p>Dixa nubilipennis</p> <p>Dixa obtusa</p> <p>Dixa orientale</p> <p>Dixa priscula †</p> <p>Dixa puberula</p> <p>Dixa punctata</p> <p>Papp et al., 2006</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Takahashi, 1958</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Ansorge, 1992</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Takahashi, 1958</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Wagner et al., 1991/1992</p> <p>Takahashi, 1958</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Takahashi, 1958</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Hennig, 1966</p> <p>Takahashi, 1958</p> <p>Johannsen, 1923</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Takahashi, 1958</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Peters, 1981</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Takahashi, 1958</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Cockerell, 1921</p> <p>Disney, 1975</p> <p>Wagner et al., 1991/1992</p> <p>Taxon Reference/Depository</p> <p>Dixa rathyme WRBU</p> <p>Dixa serrata</p> <p>Dixa serrifera</p> <p>Dixa similis</p> <p>Dixa spiralis</p> <p>Dixa stuckenbergi</p> <p>Dixa submaculata</p> <p>Dixa subobscura</p> <p>Dixa terna</p> <p>Dixa tertiaria †</p> <p>Dixa trilineata</p> <p>Dixa xavia</p> <p>Dixa yamatona</p> <p>Dixella aegyptiaca</p> <p>Dixella aestivalis</p> <p>Dixella amphibia</p> <p>Dixella attica</p> <p>Dixella aurora</p> <p>Dixella autumnalis</p> <p>Dixella corensis</p> <p>Dixella cornuta</p> <p>Dixella curvistyla †</p> <p>Dixella deltoura</p> <p>Dixella distans †</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0393156CFFF69B49FE63F9BF232FFBE7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Greenwalt, D	Greenwalt, D (2016): The first fossil New World Dixidae with a critical discussion of generic definitions. Palaeontologia Electronica 19 (3): 1-32, DOI: 10.26879/656, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/656
0393156CFFF59B49FE63FBC8231EF8AD.text	0393156CFFF59B49FE63FBC8231EF8AD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dixella fernandezae Chaverri & Borkent 2007	<div><p>Dixella fernandezae</p> <p>Dixella filicornis</p> <p>Dixella filiforceps †</p> <p>Dixella fraxina</p> <p>Dixella fuscifrons</p> <p>Dixella fuscinervis</p> <p>Dixella golanensis</p> <p>Dixella hansoni</p> <p>Dixella hernandezi</p> <p>Dixella indiana</p> <p>Dixella intacta †</p> <p>Dixella israelis</p> <p>Dixella jironi</p> <p>Dixella laeta</p> <p>Dixella limai</p> <p>Dixella lobata</p> <p>Dixella maculata</p> <p>Dixella martini</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0393156CFFF59B49FE63FBC8231EF8AD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Greenwalt, D	Greenwalt, D (2016): The first fossil New World Dixidae with a critical discussion of generic definitions. Palaeontologia Electronica 19 (3): 1-32, DOI: 10.26879/656, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/656
0393156CFFF59B4EFE63F8A8242BFECA.text	0393156CFFF59B4EFE63F8A8242BFECA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dixella neozelandica Tonnoir 1924	<div><p>Dixella neozelandica</p> <p>Dixella nixiae</p> <p>Dixella obscura</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Takahashi, 1958</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Theobald, 1937</p> <p>Takahashi, 1958</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Takahashi, 1958</p> <p>Wagner et al., 1991/1992</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Disney, 1975</p> <p>Wagner et al., 1991/1992</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Peters, 1992</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>This study</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Hennig, 1966</p> <p>This study</p> <p>Chaverri and Borkent, 2007</p> <p>Disney, 1975</p> <p>Hennig, 1966</p> <p>Taber, 2010</p> <p>Wagner et al., 1991/1992</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Wagner et al., 1991/1992</p> <p>Chaverri and Borkent, 2007</p> <p>Chaverri and Borkent, 2007</p> <p>Peters and Cook, 1966</p> <p>This study</p> <p>Wagner et al., 1991/1992</p> <p>Chaverri and Borkent, 2007</p> <p>Peus, 1936</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Chaverri and Borkent, 2007</p> <p>Chaverri and Borkent, 2007</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>Belkin, 1968</p> <p>Peters, 1980</p> <p>WRBU</p> <p>APPENDIX 2. Character states used in the analysis of fossil and extant dixid wing venation.</p> <p>1. Vein Sc apex relative to the origin of Rs: basal [&gt;2X vein width] (0); subbasal [&lt;2X vein width] (1); even (2); subapical [&lt;2X vein width] (3); apical [&gt;2X vein width] (4).</p> <p>2. Crossvein r-m origin relative to the bifurcation of Rs: basal (0); subbasal [&lt;2X vein width] (1); even (2); subapical [&lt;2X vein width] (3); apical (4).</p> <p>3. Crossvein m-cu origin relative to the terminus of r-m: basal (0); subbasal [&lt;2X vein width] (1); even (2); subapical [&lt;2X vein width] (3); apical (4).</p> <p>4. Vein A 1 terminus relative to the origin of Rs: basal (0); subbasal [&lt;2X vein width] (1); even (2); subapical [&lt;2X vein width] (3); apical (4).</p> <p>5. Vein A 1 terminus relative to Sc terminus: basal (0); subasal [&lt;2X vein width] (1); even with (2); subapical [&lt;2X vein width] (3); apical (4).</p> <p>6. Vein A 1 terminus relative to the bifurcation of Cu: basal (0); subbasal [&lt;2X vein width] (1); even (2); subapical [&lt;2X vein width] (3); apical (4).</p> <p>7. Vein R 2+3: branched (0); unbranched (1).</p> <p>8. R 2+3 curvature: straight or very slightly arched (0); strongly arched (1).</p> <p>9. Vein R 2+3 branch relative to the bifurcation of M: basal (0); subbasal [&lt;2X vein width] basal (1); even (2); subapical [&lt;2X vein width] (3); apical (4).</p> <p>10. Vein R 1: fused to C far basal (near 3/4 wing length) of wing apex (0); closer to C than R 2 and fused near wing apex (1); equidistant to C and R 2 and fused near wing apex (2).</p> <p>11. Vein R 2: not fused with R 1 (0); fused with R 1 (1).</p> <p>12. Rs: straight (0); sigmoidal (1).</p> <p>13. Wing length/width: &lt;2.5(0); 2.5 – 3 (1);&gt;3 &lt;4 (2)&gt;4 (3).</p> <p>APPENDIX 3. Morphological data matrix (Dixidae wing and venation characters only).</p> <p>Taxon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13</p> <p>Dixa aliciae 2 1 2 2 2 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0393156CFFF59B4EFE63F8A8242BFECA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Greenwalt, D	Greenwalt, D (2016): The first fossil New World Dixidae with a critical discussion of generic definitions. Palaeontologia Electronica 19 (3): 1-32, DOI: 10.26879/656, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/656
0393156CFFF29B4DFF44F880242BFF4D.text	0393156CFFF29B4DFF44F880242BFF4D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dixa Meigen 1818	<div><p>Dixa similis 0 4 4</p> <p>Dixa spiralis 0 0 4 4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>2</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>2</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>0</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>2</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>2</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>2</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>3</p> <p>4</p> <p>2 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0</p> <p>4 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2</p> <p>3 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 -</p> <p>0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 2</p> <p>4 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>Taxon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13</p> <p>Dixa stuckenbergi 0 0 4 1 4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0393156CFFF29B4DFF44F880242BFF4D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Greenwalt, D	Greenwalt, D (2016): The first fossil New World Dixidae with a critical discussion of generic definitions. Palaeontologia Electronica 19 (3): 1-32, DOI: 10.26879/656, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/656
0393156CFFF19B4DFF44F88F242BF8DD.text	0393156CFFF19B4DFF44F88F242BF8DD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dixella shannoni Lane 1942	<div><p>Dixella shannoni 4 0 2</p> <p>Dixella solomonis 2 0 4 4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>-</p> <p>3</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>2</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>0</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4</p> <p>4 4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 2 0 1 4 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2</p> <p>4 2 0 1 4 1 0 0 0</p> <p>- - 0 1 4 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 2</p> <p>4 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 2</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 2 0 1 4 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1</p> <p>3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2</p> <p>4 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 2</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 - 1 0 0 1</p> <p>0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2</p> <p>4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 2</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 2 0 1 4 1 0 0 -</p> <p>4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2</p> <p>4 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1</p> <p>0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1</p> <p>4 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 -</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0393156CFFF19B4DFF44F88F242BF8DD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Greenwalt, D	Greenwalt, D (2016): The first fossil New World Dixidae with a critical discussion of generic definitions. Palaeontologia Electronica 19 (3): 1-32, DOI: 10.26879/656, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/656
