Ferriantenna, Cumming & Tirant, 2021

Genus Ferriantenna gen. nov.

Type species.

Ferriantenna excalibur gen. et sp. nov., herein designated

Taxonomic remarks.

The taxonomic placement of this genus is rather uncertain, largely owing to the lack of adult specimens to allow review of genitalia, wing venation, and presence or lack of ocelli. Morphologically this genus appears to be closely related to Magnusantenna Du & Chen, 2021 based upon the elaborate antennae, square head shape, and long abdomen with parallel margins. Based upon this assumed close relationship we tentatively place this new genus and species within the Coreinae alongside Magnusantenna but would not be surprised if a taxonomic adjustment is necessary once adult specimens are hopefully one day recovered. Additional higher taxonomic possibilities, which can be ruled out, are Yuripopovinidae due to the lack of a distinct collar in our new taxon ( Azar et al. 2011). Further, Yuripopovinidae typically have cylindrical antennomeres in cross section (although the recently described Reticulatitergum hui Du et al. 2019 does have a terminal antennomere which is flattened and rather similar in shape to our Ferriantenna gen. nov. (Fig. 2A View Figure 2 ; Du et al. 2019)). An additional clade which can have similar general habitus morphology are the Alydidae (particularly the Micrelytrinae which can have thin parallel-sided bodies and long legs very similar to Magnusantenna wuae ; Fig. 2C View Figure 2 ). The Alydidae can be differentiated from Coreidae by the length of the bucculae, with the bucculae shorter, not extending posteriorly beyond the base of the antennae in Alydidae but longer in Coreidae , extending posteriorly beyond the base of the antennae ( Swanson 2011). Within Magnusantenna wuae Du et al. (2021) clearly state that the bucculae are long extending posteriorly beyond the base of the antennae and therefore due to this feature would fit within Coreidae . Unfortunately, the amber piece that our Ferriantenna gen. nov. is within is too thick to clearly see the ventral surface of the head, but it does appear that the bucculae are longer than the base of the antennae and therefore more likely a Coreidae than an Alydidae .

The general morphological features of this genus fit well within Coreinae , namely the expanded antennal segments, the length ratios of the various antennomeres (the second and third segments of similar lengths), the smooth pronotum, and the straight femora and tibiae ( Schuh and Slater 1995). At present there are three other subfamilies recognized within the coreids: Hydarinae , Meropachyinae , and Pseudophloeinae ( CoreoideaSF Team 2021). The following features characterize each of the other subfamilies and help to add credibility to this genus being placed within Coreinae . Hydarinae have the third antennomere more than twice as long as the second (in Magnusantenna and Ferriantenna gen. nov. these segments are similar in length ( Packauskas 1994)). The subfamily Pseudophloeinae is difficult to morphologically distinguish from other coreids as different authors consider different features significant for differentiation (e.g., Packauskas 1994; Moulet 1995; Schuh and Slater 1995; Hamouly et al. 2010; Schuh and Weirauch 2020). Due to the multiple morphological features which liken our genus to Coreinae we are fairly confident that these fossils do not fall within Pseudophloeinae . Meropachyinae are a small subfamily restricted to the western hemisphere and have a distal spine on the apex of the metatibiae and the metafemora are prominently thickened, notably broader than the pro- and mesofemora ( Packauskas 1994; Brailovsky and Barrera 2009). Coreinae has repeatedly been recovered as paraphyletic with regards to Meropachyinae and based upon the typical Meropachyinae leg morphology we expect these fossil coreids do not fall within this clade but likely somewhere else within the Coreinae ( Forthman et al. 2019, 2020; Kieran et al. 2019). Review of spermatheca within Coreidae by Pluot-Sigwalt and Moulet (2020) found that Hydarinae and Pseudophloeinae are morphologically unique but that Coreinae and Meropachyinae were similar, adding credibility to phylogenetic results which don’t recover Coreinae and Meropachyinae as unique ( Kieran et al. 2019; Forthman et al. 2019, 2020).

Within the Coreinae there are several tribes which have an antennomere that is enlarged (e.g., Nematopini or Chariesterini with only the singular third antennomere flattened; Fig. 1D View Figure 1 ; CoreoideaSF Team 2021). This similarity alone does not warrant a tribal placement and the authors hope that eventually fossils of adult specimens are recovered to help determine a more accurate taxonomic placement as no extant tribe fits morphologically well.

Diagnosis.

Antennae four segmented, long, but not longer than the body (head, thorax, and abdomen). First antennal segment short and robust (slightly longer than wide or about equal in length and width; always shorter than head length); second and third segments ornamented and quite variable in form interspecifically (can be marked throughout with granulation, setation, or prominent tubercles with margins straight or with spination), each at least three times longer than wide, with the third segment slightly wider and longer than the second segment; and the fourth segment is only slightly longer than head length, flat, and paddle-like, lacking intricate features/expansions as present on the second and third segments. Head approximately as long as wide, compound eyes spherical and variable in their size (can be large, occupying most of the lateral margins, or narrower, restricted to the center third and strongly protruding), located on the center of each side of the head. Pronotum with a margin that expands to the posterior third then contracts slightly. Mesonotum gently expands to the midline and then gently contracts to the posterior. Metanotum with margins that can be parallel or slightly rounded. Abdomen slender, notably longer than wide, with parallel margins. Legs stout, not particularly long. Femora approximately two times as wide as the tibiae, but of similar lengths. Tarsi with two segments, bearing two claws.

Differentiation.

Several features differentiate the new genus from the assumed closely related genus Magnusantenna Du & Chen, 2021. First, the length ratios of the exaggerated antennal segments differ as Magnusantenna has the fourth segment approximately as long as, but notably broader than the third segment, versus Ferriantenna gen. nov. which has the fourth segment notably shorter than the third segment, appearing paddle-like. Additionally, the thickness and lengths of the legs differentiate these two genera as Magnusantenna has long thin legs (such as the hind legs which exceed the apex of the abdomen), versus Ferriantenna gen. nov. which has femora which are notably thicker than the tibiae, and specifically for the hind leg it appears that when fully outstretched they fall short or at most reaching the apex of the abdomen but do not exceed it. The thorax and abdomen of Ferriantenna gen. nov. are also notably broader than the head width versus Magnusantenna which has a very slender and long abdomen, thinner than the width of the quadrate head. Finally, the pro- and mesonotum differ slightly between these two genera as Magnusantenna has a pronotum which expands steadily from the anterior to the posterior and the mesonotum is parallel sided, versus Ferriantenna gen. nov. which has the pronotum expanding for the anterior two thirds then slightly contracting, and the mesonotum appears to expand to approximately the middle and then contract to the posterior.

Discussion.

Typically, Heteroptera have five instars, as in hemimetabolous insects which they resemble the adults in most morphological features. Our examined specimen which is the type species for this new genus appears to be a fourth instar nymph like was described within Du et al. (2021) based on the following characters they reference from Schuh and Slater (1995): posterior margins of the hind buds not reaching the anterior margin of the first abdominal tergite; ocelli absent; and tarsi two-segmented. As was noted within Du et al. (2021) amber typically does not preserve large inclusions well which is likely why all of these species are being observed as nymphs.

In addition to our herein described species, we have also seen images shared online of an additional species within Ferriantenna gen. nov. distinctly different from our Ferriantenna excalibur gen. et sp. nov. This second, undescribed Ferriantenna species has similar characteristics of the thorax, abdomen, and legs, and the fourth antennomere which is notably smaller and paddle-like (Fig. 2B View Figure 2 ). This undescribed species however differs in that it has the second and third antennal segments heavily armored with prominent tubercles and granulation, making the antennae appear like a medieval two-handed iron spiked mace ( Boeheim 1890) instead of blade-like as is seem in Ferriantenna excalibur gen. et sp. nov. This second species, known only from photos shared online of a singular specimen, was being publicly offered for sale on eBay has since been sold. Unfortunately, the specimen could not be traced/examined and therefore we are unaware whether this specimen will end up in a museum collection for research or with a private collector.

The difference in leg lengths between Magnusantenna and Ferriantenna gen. nov. is likely due to the size of the antennae in relation to the body, as the Ferriantenna gen. nov. are notably less expanded and therefore require less leverage to maintain a stable footing, versus Magnusantenna which needed the longer legs to create a larger footprint to balance the massive antennae.

Etymology.

The generic name is derived from Latin prefix ferri (meaning weapon) and Latin antenna (meaning yardarm of a ship/sail yard which was the origin of the "feeler or horn" of an insect; https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=antenna). This genus epithet is referring to the weapon-like appearance of the antennae of these insects (Fig. 2A, B View Figure 2 ). Gender is neuter.