4.7 Article

The First Representative of the Roachoid Family Spiloblattinidae (Insecta, Dictyoptera) from the Late Pennsylvanian of the Iberian Peninsula

期刊

INSECTS
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/insects13090828

关键词

Polyneoptera; Holopandictyoptera; Sysciophlebia; taxonomy; roachoid families and genera; stratigraphic markers; Carboniferous; Pennsylvanian; Gzhelian

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study describes a new 'form' of the Palaeozoic-Early Mesozoic roachoid family Spiloblattinidae and discusses its stratigraphic significance. By analyzing the color patterns of the forewings, the study confirms the stratigraphic age of the type locality. The study also discusses the diagnosis and limits of related families and genera.
Simple Summary The Palaeozoic-Early Mesozoic roachoid family Spiloblattinidae are valuable for understanding the stratigraphy of continental strata, thanks to their diversity of the forewing venation patterns of colouration. Here, the first Iberian representative of these roachoids is described as a new 'form' closely related to the Gzhelian-early-middle Asselian 'zone species' and 'forms'. It supports the latest Gzhelian age of the concerned outcrop, obtained through stratigraphy and floral composition. It confirms the value of these insects for stratigraphic purposes. Sysciophlebia 'sp. form Villablino', the first Iberian representative of the Palaeozoic-Early Mesozoic family Spiloblattinidae, is described and illustrated. Its forewing colour pattern is strongly similar to those of the Gzhelian-early-middle Asselian species Sysciophlebia euglyptica, Sysciophlebia ilfeldensis, Sysciophlebia rubida, and 'Sysciophlebia sp. form KBQ', supporting the currently proposed Gzhelian age for its type locality. It supports the use of the representatives of the Spiloblattinidae for stratigraphic purposes. The diagnoses and limits of the families Subioblattidae, Phyloblattidae, Compsoblattidae, Spiloblattinidae, and of the spiloblattinid genera are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据