Revision of the fossil species of Thaumatodryinus Perkins from Dominican amber, with a new combination and description of a new species (Hymenoptera, Dryinidae)

André L Martins,Gabriel A R Melo

doi:10.3897/jhr.79.57686

Abstract

The fossil species of Thaumatodryinus from Dominican amber are studied, and the first revision is presented with a key to the known taxa. We recognize three species, T. miocenicus Olmi, 1995, T. priscus (Olmi, 1998), comb. nov. and T. fuscescenssp. nov. The current classification of the genus and relationships between fossil and living species are discussed. Comments on the host records for Thaumatodryinus are presented.

Highlights

IntroductionA significant number of species of Dryinidae have been described from different fossiliferous deposits (Olmi et al 2014; Guglielmino et al 2018; Perkovsky et al 2019)
The resurrection of Thaumatodryininae was proposed by Tribull (2015), after her molecular phylogenetic studies having showed that Thaumatodryinus does not belong in Dryininae
The inclusions have been obtained from amber fossiliferous Miocene deposits in the Dominican Republic

Summary

Introduction

A significant number of species of Dryinidae have been described from different fossiliferous deposits (Olmi et al 2014; Guglielmino et al 2018; Perkovsky et al 2019). Sions and rock impressions (Olmi et al 2014; Guglielmino et al 2018; Perkovsky et al 2019, 2020a,b; Martins and Melo 2019; Martynova et al 2020; Olmi et al 2020). Thaumatodryininae is a small subfamily of Dryinidae, known to attack nymphs of the auchenorrhynchous Flatidae (Guglielmino et al 2013) This subfamily has an almost worldwide distribution, being absent only from the Palearctic region. The resurrection of Thaumatodryininae was proposed by Tribull (2015), after her molecular phylogenetic studies having showed that Thaumatodryinus does not belong in Dryininae. Morphological support for this hypothesis was obtained more recently by Martins (2018). The status of Dryinus priscus Olmi, 1998 is reinterpreted based on our comparative morphological study

Materials and methods

Discussion