A review of fossil taxa of Microphorinae (Diptera, Dolichopodidae sensu lato), with redescription of the Eocene genus Meghyperiella Meunier Author Shamshev, Igor V. Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. 1, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia. Author Perkovsky, Evgeny E. Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology NAS of Ukraine, vul. B. Khmelnytskogo, 15, Kiev, 01030 Ukraine. & Borissiak Paleontological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 117997, Russia text Zootaxa 2022 2022-06-08 5150 3 411 427 journal article 72886 10.11646/zootaxa.5150.3.6 c8c16c97-1eae-42d2-9ab3-750dc14ea775 1175-5326 6623125 D59052B5-85CD-466F-B4EB-812226DC913E Key to fossil taxa of Microphorinae 1 Wing cell cua truncate apically; cell dm absent (dm-m crossvein absent) ( Grimaldi & Cumming 1999: 62 , fig. 40). [Additional characters: male head dichoptic; frons with 3 pairs of fronto-orbital setae]. ( Avenaphora Grimaldi & Cumming ).......... 2 - Wing cell cua rounded apically; cell dm present............................................................. 3 2 Veins M 1 and M 2 not quite reaching wing margin; anal lobe of moderate size. Larger, wing length 0.96 mm . (Lower Cretaceous, Barremian, Lebanon )......................................................... A . hispida Grimaldi & Cumming - Veins M 1 and M 2 distinctly reaching wing margin; anal lobe weakly developed ( Nel et al . 2017: 3 , fig. 2). Smaller, wing length 0.7 mm . (Upper Cretaceous, early Santonian, France )............................ A . gallica Nel, Garrouste & Daugeron 3 Wing with two M veins beyond cell dm.................................................................... 4 - Wing with three M veins beyond cell dm................................................................... 5 4 Wing with cell dm almost parallel-sided, narrow; closing vein (i.e., base of M 2 + dm-m crossvein) straight ( Tang et al . 2019: 3 , fig. 2). Male head dichoptic, with eye margins converging toward antennae. (Upper Cretaceous, lowermost Cenomanian, Myanmar ).............................................. Pristinmicrophor hukawngensis Tang, Shi, Wang & Yang - Wing with cell dm broadened toward apex; closing vein (i.e., base of M 2 + dm-m crossvein) smoothly undulating. Male head holoptic. (Eocene; Baltic region, Ukraine ).................................. Meghyperiella porphyropsoides Meunier 5 Eyes covered with ommatrichia. Male: eyes separated by narrow frons, with margins converging toward antennae and meeting just above them (Lower Cretaceous, Barremian, Jordan )................................... Curvus khuludi Kaddumi - Eyes bare. Male: eyes contiguous on frons (holoptic), with frons usually represented only by small subtriangular space just above antennae (unknown in Microphorites erikai , M . extinctus , M . moravicus , M . similis , M . utrillensis )............... 6 6 Scutellum with 1 pair of setae (unknown in Microphorites oculeus ); postpedicel abruptly tapered, broadened at base and constricted distally (lateral view) (e.g., Grimaldi & Cumming 1999: 59 , fig. 38). [Some doubts may be in Microphor rusticus that, however, possesses two pairs of scutellar setae]............................................................. 7 - Scutellum with 2–3 pairs of setae; postpedicel more or less evenly tapered, usually subtriangular (lateral view), sometimes drop-shaped ( Microphorites similis ) or very short, almost onion-shaped ( M . pouilloni )............................. 10 7 Wing with brownish pterostigma ( Tkoč et al . 2016: 187 , fig. 7); postpedicel elongate, nearly 4X longer than basal width, stylus shorter than postpedicel ( Tkoč et al . 2016: 187 , fig. 9). (Cretaceous (Cenomanian) / lower Paleogene, Moravia ).......................................................................... Microphorites moravicus Tkoč, Nel & Prokop - Wing without pterostigma; postpedicel shorter, at most 2X longer than basal width, stylus longer than postpedicel........ 8 8 Costa ending as strong vein at R 4+5. [Additional characters: postpedicel 2X longer than basal width, stylus nearly 2X longer than postpedicel ( Grimaldi & Cumming 1999: 59 , fig. 38)] (Lower Cretaceous, Barremian, Lebanon )....................................................................................... Microphorites oculeus Grimaldi & Cumming - Costa ending as strong vein just beyond R 4+5 ( M . magaliae ) or between R 4+5 and M 1 ( M . deploegi )..................... 9 9 Wing with anal lobe weakly developed, anal angle obtuse; crossvein dm-m concave ( Nel et al . 2004: 25 , fig. 3). [Additional characters: postpedicel nearly 2X longer than basal width ( Nel et al . 2004: 24 , fig. 2)]. (Lower Cretaceous, uppermost Albian, France )............................................ Microphorites deploegi Nel, Perrichot, Daugeron & Néraudeau - Wing with anal lobe strongly developed, anal angle 90°; crossvein dm-m straight ( Perrichot & Engel 2014: 32 , fig. G2). [Additional characters: postpedicel nearly 1.5X longer than basal width ( Perrichot & Engel 2014: 31 , fig. G1, 2)]. (Upper Cretaceous, Turonian, France ).................................................... Microphorites magaliae Perrichot & Engel 10 Wing with anal lobe strongly developed, anal angle 90°...................................................... 11 - Wing with anal lobe weakly developed, anal angle obtuse.................................................... 14 Note. Since the anal lobe margin is unknown in Microphorites similis , this species is included in both sections. 11 Wing with brownish pterostigma. [Additional characters: vein CuA+CuP (anal vein) more or less distinct but fine, extending slightly beyond midway to wing posterior margin ( Hennig 1971 : figs 17, 19); acrostichal setae arranged in 3–4 irregular rows on about middle part of mesoscutum; postpedicel short, at most 1.5X longer than basal width, with slightly deeper concave dorsal margin distally ( Hennig 1971: 5 , fig. 4)] (Upper Eocene; Baltic region).............. Microphor rusticus (Meunier) - Wing without pterostigma............................................................................. 12 12 Postpedicel drop-shaped, 1.7X longer than basal width ( Grimaldi & Cumming 1999: 58 , fig. 37); notopleural setae not differentiated from acrostichals/dorsocentrals. Male unknown (Lower Cretaceous, Barremian, Lebanon ) [See also couplet 17]..................................................................... Microphorites similis Grimaldi & Cumming - Postpedicel elongate subtriangular, 2.5–3X longer than basal width ( Brooks et al . 2019: 127 , fig. 5); notopleural setae stronger than acrostichal and presutural dorsocentral setae. [Additional character: Male: hypopygium with medial hypandrial prolongation ( Brooks et al . 2019: 127 , fig. 7)]. ( Schistostoma )........................................................ 13 13 Male : fore tibia truncate apically, bearing laminate, spine-like setae along ventral margin ( Brooks et al . 2019: 127 , fig. 6). Female unknown. ( Upper Cretaceous , lowermost Cenomanian , Myanmar )...... S . burmanicum Brooks, Cumming & Grimaldi - Male: fore tibia acute apically, bearing fringe-like marginal setae ( Brooks et al . 2019: 127 , fig. 8). Female unknown. (Upper Cretaceous, lowermost Cenomanian, Myanmar )............................ S . foliatum Brooks, Cumming & Grimaldi 14 Wing with brownish pterostigma; scutellum with 3 pairs of setae. (Lowermost Eocene, France )............................................................................................. Microphorites erikai Bramuzzo & Nel - Wing without pterostigma; scutellum with 2 pairs of setae.................................................... 15 15 Postpedicel very short, 1.2X longer than basal width; stylus 3.8X longer than postpedicel ( Ngô-Muller et al . 2020: 2 , fig. 1A, D); wing with base of M 2 nearly as long as crossvein dm-m ( Ngô-Muller et al . 2020: 2 , fig. 1B) (Upper Cretaceous, lowermost Cenomanian, Myanmar ).............................................. Microphorites pouilloni Ngô-Muller & Neal - Postpedicel longer, at least 1.7X as long as basal width; stylus at most 2X longer than postpedicel; wing with base of M 2 much shorter than crossvein dm-m........................................................................... 16 16 Wing with crossvein dm-m arched ( Hennig 1971 : fig. 21). [Additional character: female eye with upper ommatidia distinctly enlarged.] (Lower Cretaceous, Barremian, Lebanon )................................. Microphorites extinctus Hennig - Wing with crossvein dm-m straight ( Grimaldi & Cumming 1999: 58 , fig. 37; Arillo et al . 2008: 34 , fig. 3).............. 17 17 Postpedicel drop-shaped, 1.7X longer than basal width; stylus about 2X longer than postpedicel; scutellum with strong apical and fine lateral setae; costa extending as strong vein to R 4+5 . (Lower Cretaceous, Barremian, Lebanon ). [See also couplet 12]................................................................ Microphorites similis Grimaldi and Cumming - Postpedicel subtriangular, bilaterally symmetrical, nearly 3X longer than basal width; stylus nearly as long as postpedicel ( Arillo et al . 2008: 33 , fig. 2); scutellum with equally strong setae; costa extending as strong vein to M 1 . (Lower Cretaceous, Albian, Spain ).............................................................. Microphorites utrillensis Peñalver