identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03C7737CA60EFFB9FF39FDEEFEFFFB05.text	03C7737CA60EFFB9FF39FDEEFEFFFB05.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Leptoomidae Gibson 2023	<div><p>Leptoomidae Gibson fam. nov.</p><p>http://zoobank.org/ urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 967CDA5C-9735-4C80-884E-07F89177576F</p><p>Type genus. Leptoomus Gibson 2008 .</p><p>Included genera. Leptoomus and Neanaperiallus Gibson, 2009 .</p><p>Diagnosis. Antenna 12- or 13-segmented, with basal flagellomere not distinctly anelliform and clava 3- segmented. Mesoscutum with notaular furrows extending along length. Prepectus anteriorly rounded to angulate, extending to or slightly over posterolateral margin of pronotum; dorsal margin of prepectus intersecting base of the tegula distinctly anterior to and forming an almost right-angle with posterior margin of prepectus; posterior prepectal margin truncate along anterior margin of acropleuron.Acropleuron greatly enlarged, extending posteriorly to metapleuron and ventrally at least to anterodorsal margin of mesocoxa. In lateral view mesocoxa with anterior margin distinctly posterior to midline of acropleuron. Mesopectus with posterior margin abutting bases of mesocoxae. Mesotibia with 1 or 2 rows of apical pegs and mesotarsus with spine- to peg-like setae along both ventral margins. Fore wing with oblique bare band beyond basal fold.</p><p>Description. Head with malar sulcus (Figs 2G, 3B, 5E); clypeus with apical margin straight transverse and not delimited by a subapical transverse groove (Figs 2G, 5A, E inset). Antenna 12- or 13-segmented with 7- (Figs 2G, 3B) or 8- (Figs 4B, C) segmented funicle and 3-segmented clava; basal flagellomere lacking multiporous plate sensilla and the shortest funicular, subquadrate but not distinctly anelliform. Pronotum with strongly inclined neck abruptly merging into very short, transverse collar (Figs 1A, 4E, G, 5F; Gibson 2008, figs 6‒8; Gibson 2009, figs 59, 60; Simutnik et al. 2020, figs 1C, D) and without a median line (Figs 4E, G; Gibson 2008, fig. 4). Mesonotum with transscutal articulation straight, articulated along its entire width (Figs 4E, G, H; Gibson 2008, figs 7, 8; Gibson 2009, fig. 59; Simutnik et al. 2020, fig. 1D); mesoscutum without parapsidal lines or sulcate notauli, but with notaular furrow extending from mesothoracic spiracle posterior of pronotum to transscutal articulation at anterolateral margin of axilla, the furrows delineating median and lateral mesoscutal lobes, with median lobe uniformly convex, not differentiated into anteromedian convex and posteromedian depressed region (Figs 2H, 4A, E‒G; Gibson 2008, figs 6, 7; Simutnik et al. 2020, fig. 1D); mesoscutellar-axillar complex with axillae triangular, their inner angles separated by narrowly truncate base of mesoscutellum when mesonotum not flexed; mesoscutellum without differentiated frenum or axillular carina. Mesosoma in lateral view with convex acropleuron extending posteriorly to metapleuron and ventrally at least to anterodorsal margin of mesocoxa, with variably large mesepisternal region ventral to acropleuron (Figs 1A, B, 5A). Mesopectus in ventral view with sulcate discrimen but apparently without transepisternal line (Figs 2B, 5A; Simutnik et al. 2020, fig. 2A); mesopectus with posterior margin abutting bases of mesocoxae (Figs 2B, C, 5A), without external membranous region between mesopectus and each mesocoxa so that mesocoxae unable to rotate anteriorly entirely out of their combined fossa. Prepectus bare; in lateral view anteriorly rounded to angulate and protuberant, extending to or slightly overlapping posterolateral margin of pronotum, with dorsal margin virtually straight and extending posteriorly distinctly beyond base of tegula (Figs 1A, B: arrows, 5A) and forming almost a right-angle relative to straight or only slightly curved posterior, truncate margin along anterior margin of acropleuron (Figs 1A, B, 5A); in dorsal view prepectus thin (Fig. 4F: pre) to slightly convex (Fig. 2H: pre) but not conspicuously bulbous. Fore wing with typical venation consisting of submarginal, marginal, postmarginal and stigmal veins, and stigmal vein with distinct uncus (Figs 4A, D, 5G; Gibson 2008, fig. 16); disc with broad, oblique bare band beyond basal fold either contiguous with (Gibson 2008, fig. 16; Simutnik et al. 2020, fig. 1H) or separated from parastigma by setae (Figs 5G, H; Gibson 2009, fig. 62). Legs with mesocoxa inserted near metacoxa, distant from procoxa, in lateral view mesocoxa with anterior margin distinctly posterior to midline of acropleuron (Figs 1A, B, 3A); tarsi 5- segmented; protibia with bifurcate, curved tibial spur (Gibson 2008, fig. 21; Simutnik et al. 2020, fig. 1I), without dorsal spicules but with dorsoapical spicule (Fig. 5A insert: arrow; Gibson 2008, fig. 21: pas); mesotibia with apical pegs arranged in 1 or 2 rows (Fig. 5C map; Gibson 2008, figs 18, 19); mesotarsus ventrally with spine- to peg-like setae along both margins (Figs 5B, C; Gibson 2008, figs 18, 19; Gibson 2009, figs 64, 65); metatibia with two spurs (Simutnik et al. 2020, fig. 2C). Gaster sessile; Gt 7 and Gt 8 fused into syntergum, though at least sometimes with an oblique groove posterior to cercus distinguishing presumptive Gt 7 and Gt 8 (Gibson 2008, fig. 17); syntergum with cercus not advanced and cercal setae not kinked; ovipositor sheaths exerted for short distance beyond apex of gaster (Fig. 5D; Gibson 2008, fig. 17; Gibson 2009, fig. 63).</p><p>Remarks. Gibson (2009) described the mesoscutum of N. masneri as uniformly convex, without distinct notauli except for a very short furrow anteriorly at the level of the lateral margin of the pronotum mesal to the spiracle visible in lateral view (Gibson 2009, fig. 60). He also stated that minute air bubbles reduced clarity of observation of the inclusion and that the mostly slightly lanceolate- or spatulate-appearing setae, as seen in dorsal view, likely resulted from the setae being surrounded by a thin layer of air because in lateral view the pronotal and mesoscutal setae appear more normal, hair-like. With the discovery of the new species of Neanaperiallus, which clearly shows complete, furrow-like notauli (Figs 4A, E‒G) similar to those of L. janzeni (Fig. 2H), the apparent absence of complete notauli for N. masneri (Fig. 4H; Gibson 2009, fig. 59) likely reflects an artefact of the furrows not being visible except in lateral view immediately behind the pronotum. Different views and states of preservation of different individuals of L. janzeni imaged by Gibson (2008) also show different forms and relative visibility of the notaular furrows (Gibson 2008, cf. figs 4, 6‒8), the furrows being least visible in direct dorsal view (Gibson 2008, figs 4, 8). We therefore interpret complete notaular furrows as a feature of N. masneri and describe this feature for the family.</p><p>Both available inclusions of Neanaperiallus have an unflexed mesonotum in which the axillae are separated medially (Figs 4E‒H). Because of this, it is unknown whether the basally truncate mesoscutellum separating the inner angles of the axillae results from the posterior margin of the mesoscutum overlapping the axillae medially, as for L. janzeni (Gibson 2008, cf. figs 7, 8), or whether the mesonotum articulates, hinge-like, along the transscutal articulation and the inner angles of the axillae are separated by an anteriorly truncate mesoscutellum. Consequently, our family description includes description of relative mesoscutellar-axillar structure when the mesonotum is not flexed, but it remains uncertain whether the mesonotal articulatory structure in Neanaperiallus is the same as in Leptoomus .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C7737CA60EFFB9FF39FDEEFEFFFB05	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gibson, Gary A. P.;Fusu, Lucian	Gibson, Gary A. P., Fusu, Lucian (2023): Leptoomidae, a new family of Eocene fossil Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera), and family classification of Eocene fossil genera originally described in Neanastatinae (Eupelmidae). Zootaxa 5318 (2): 195-216, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5318.2.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5318.2.2
03C7737CA60CFFBCFF39FB3FFBF9FC24.text	03C7737CA60CFFBCFF39FB3FFBF9FC24.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Leptoomus Gibson 2008	<div><p>Leptoomus Gibson</p><p>(Figs 1B, 2C‒E, G, H, 3A‒C)</p><p>Leptoomus Gibson, 2008: 2‒9; Simutnik et al., 2020: 139‒141.</p><p>Included species. Leptoomus janzeni .</p><p>Diagnosis. Head and mesosoma superficially non-metallic or with metallic green luster under some angles of light (Simutnik et al. 2020, figs 1C, D). Head with inner margin of eyes distinctly divergent ventrally (Fig. 2G); occipital carina absent (Fig. 2H). Mandible bidentate, with ventral angulation and slightly concave dorsal truncation. Antenna with dorsal margin of torulus about in line with lower margin of eyes so ventral margin of torulus distinctly ventral to eye (Fig. 2G); 12-segmented (1:1:7:3) with 7 subquadrate to transverse, apically widened funiculars and with mps on at least fu 3 ‒fu 7 (Fig. 3C; Simutnik et al. 2020, figs 1E, F) and clava; clava compact-ovoid, only about 1.3× as long as wide, and with ventral surface of apical clavomere consisting of large micropilose sensory region (Fig. 2G; Simutnik et al. 2020, fig. 1E) (the more extensive sensory region in Fig. 3B: msr apparently an artefact of preservation). Mesoscutellar-axillar complex with axilla transverse-triangular (Fig. 2H; Gibson 2008, figs 1, 2, 4, 6‒8), with anterior margin slightly overlapped by posterior margin of mesoscutum when mesonotum not flexed such that inner angles of axillae slightly separated (Gibson 2008, figs 1, 4, 7: arrows), but when mesonotum flexed inner angles of axllae abutting (Gibson 2008, fig. 8: arrow); mesoscutellum without apical rim (Gibson 2008, figs 6‒8). Prepectus slightly convex (Fig. 2H: pre; Gibson 2008, figs 4, 6). Acropleuron enlarged posteriorly to metapleuron and posteroventrally to ventrolateral level of mesocoxa; acropleural sulcus sulcate and directed horizontally toward posteroventral angle of prepectus where it abruptly recurves dorsally to intersect posterior margin of prepectus in ventral half (because of the abrupt curvature the sulcus differentiates a small, subtriangular mesepisternal region between the prepectus and acropleuron and a slender mesepisternal region ventral to the acropleural suture) (Fig. 1B; Simutnik et al. 2020, fig. 2A). Mesopectus in ventral or ventrolateral (Fig. 2C) view with posterior margin abutting base of mesocoxa, but in posterolateral (Fig. 2E) to posteroventral (Fig. 2D) view with membranous region visible on either side of inflected mesotrochantinal plate anterior to mesocoxa. Fore wing disc with bare band apical to basal fold contiguous with parastigma (Gibson 2008, fig. 16; Simutnik et al. 2020, fig. 1H); parastigma separated from base of marginal vein by hyaline break (Gibson 2008, fig. 16; Simutnik et al. 2020, fig. 1H). Protibia with, possibly articulated, dorsoapical spicule (Gibson 2008, fig. 21); mesotibia apically with strong spines or pegs in one or two irregular rows (Gibson 2008, figs 18, 19, inset).</p><p>Remarks. The extended diagnosis given above for L. janzeni is to supplement the description in Gibson (2008) because of the discovery of two more fossils belonging to the genus, and to have a more comparative description with Neanaperiallus . Gibson (2008) did not mention flagellar mps for L. janzeni . Simutnik et al. (2020) described mps on fu 3 ‒fu 7 and the apical two clavomeres, but the ventral view of the clava clearly shows mps on the basal two clavomeres and a large micropilose sensory region forming most of the ventral surface of the apical clavomere (Fig. 2G: cl 3; Simutnik et al. 2020, fig. 1E). A thin apical clavomere (cl 3) is clearly visible only in dorsal view (Fig. 3B: cl 3; Simutnik et al. 2020, fig. 1F). Simutnik et al. (2020, fig. 2A) also shows the prepectus laterally abutting the incurved posterolateral margin of the pronotum ventral to the mesothoracic spiracle and dorsally overlapping the side of the mesoscutal lateral lobe posterior to the spiracle; the same arrangement also appears evident for the newly discovered female (Fig. 3A). Unfortunately, no clear dorsal images for the inclusions confirm the prepectus to have a definite thickness, however it is definitely slightly convex rather than a thin, flat sclerite. The apparent thickness in some inclusions (Fig. 2H: prepectus) is just one more artefact of preservation.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C7737CA60CFFBCFF39FB3FFBF9FC24	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gibson, Gary A. P.;Fusu, Lucian	Gibson, Gary A. P., Fusu, Lucian (2023): Leptoomidae, a new family of Eocene fossil Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera), and family classification of Eocene fossil genera originally described in Neanastatinae (Eupelmidae). Zootaxa 5318 (2): 195-216, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5318.2.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5318.2.2
03C7737CA609FFBDFF39FC73FC31FEC0.text	03C7737CA609FFBDFF39FC73FC31FEC0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neanaperiallus Gibson 2009	<div><p>Neanaperiallus Gibson</p><p>(Figs 1A, 2B, 4, 5)</p><p>Neanaperiallus Gibson, 2009: 200‒203 .</p><p>Included species. Neanaperiallus janzeni Gibson and Neanaperiallus defunctus Fusu sp. nov.</p><p>Diagnosis. Head and mesosoma non-metallic, brown. Head with inner margins of eyes apparently not divergent ventrally or at least not conspicuously divergent (not visible in N. janzeni and direct frontal view not possible for N. defunctus, Fig. 5E); clypeal area concave and labrum perpendicular to clypeus (i. e. not visible in direct frontal view of clypeus, cf. Fig. 5E and inset in 5E); occipital carina ∩ -shaped (Fig. 5F; Gibson 2009, fig. 59). Mandible not visible in N. janzeni but apparently tridentate in N. defunctus . Antenna with lower margin of torulus in line with or slightly ventral to lower margin of eyes; 13-segmented (1:1:8:3) with 8 slightly transverse to slightly elongate funiculars and with mps on fu 3 ‒fu 8 (Figs 4B, C, F; Gibson 2009, fig. 58); clava elongate-ovoid, more than twice as long as wide, and apical clavomere with minute micropilose sensory region apically, appearing as rounded terminal button (Fig. 4C: tb). Mesoscutellar-axillar complex with axillae equilateral to somewhat elongate-triangular, with their inner angles slightly separated and mesoscutellum truncate basally when mesonotum not flexed (Figs 4G, H) (flexed condition unknown); mesoscutellum with sculpture along apical margin aligned, differentiating a thin carina (Figs 4E, 4H, 5H: smc) separating lunate, down-sloped region apically. Metanotum with dorsellum an oblique band projecting over apex of mesoscutellum (Fig. 5H) but the two sclerites separated by a narrow gap (Fig. 5H: double arrow in inset). Prepectus flat (Fig. 4F: pre). Acropleuron enlarged posteriorly to metapleuron and posteroventrally to dorsolateral level of mesocoxa, with crenulate acropleural sulcus directed obliquely toward posterodorsal angle of prepectus over most of length (Fig. 1A) or only over about anterior one-third (Fig. 5A) but differentiating acropleuron from comparatively large mesepisternal region ventral to acropleural suture (Figs 1A, 5A). Mesopectus in ventral view with posterior margin abutting base of mesocoxa (Fig. 2B) though mesocoxa with triangular basolateral cavity opposite angle formed between acropleuron and mesopectus (Fig. 2B; Gibson 2009, fig. 61). Fore wing disc with bare band beyond basal fold separated from parastigma by region of setae (Figs 5G, H; Gibson 2009, fig. 62), parastigma not separated from marginal vein by hyaline break though apparently slightly less pigmented distally (Figs 5G, H). Protibia apparently without dorsal spicules but with dorsoapical spicules (Fig. 5A, inset); mesotibia with spine-like pegs apically (Fig. 5C).</p><p>Remarks. The extended generic diagnosis given above for Neanaperiallus is to supplement the description in Gibson (2009) after the discovery of a second fossil that represents a second species in the genus, and to have a comparative description with Leptoomus . As noted above, the state of preservation and the inability to examine the two available inclusions equally from all angles prevents directly comparable, accurate description of all parts of the two species so the generic diagnosis and/or species descriptions may be inaccurate in some respects for one or both species. Additional inclusions are necessary to further clarify apparent similarities and differences between Neanaperiallus and Leptoomus and between N. defunctus and N. masneri .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C7737CA609FFBDFF39FC73FC31FEC0	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gibson, Gary A. P.;Fusu, Lucian	Gibson, Gary A. P., Fusu, Lucian (2023): Leptoomidae, a new family of Eocene fossil Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera), and family classification of Eocene fossil genera originally described in Neanastatinae (Eupelmidae). Zootaxa 5318 (2): 195-216, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5318.2.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5318.2.2
03C7737CA608FFA1FF39FE67FAB1FADC.text	03C7737CA608FFA1FF39FE67FAB1FADC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neanaperiallus defunctus Gibson & Fusu 2023	<div><p>Neanaperiallus defunctus Fusu sp. nov.</p><p>Figs 4A‒C, E‒G, 5</p><p>http://zoobank.org/ urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 526EC759-C9AC-4C08-AE83-F8FCBFCDEAC0</p><p>Type material. Holotype ♀ (deposited in AICF). Baltic amber of Polish origin, no. LF2101. The fossil is preserved in a 2 mm thick, triangular amber piece with sides of about 10 × 7 × 6 mm (Fig. 4A, inset). Fossil with dorsal side very near the surface and part of the wing venation of the right fore wing, including marginal vein and basal parts of stigmal and postmarginal veins, chipped off (Fig. 4A).</p><p>Etymology. From the Latin defunctus (deceased), in reference to the taxon being extinct.</p><p>Diagnosis. The new species differs from L. janzeni by its gracile antenna and legs and in sculpture of the mesoscutum having a larger mesh size. See also Remarks.</p><p>Description. Length 2.5 mm including ovipositor sheaths. Body (Fig. 4A) silvery due to thin layer of air surrounding it, but probably uniformly brown based on parts of antennae, prepectus, legs and some gastral tergites and sternites (these regions brown because during preparation part of the air layer was displaced by water that entered the inclusion through the chipped-off parts of the fore wing).</p><p>Head width: length: height = 44: 21: ~33. Head in dorsal view (Fig. 4F) lenticular; vertex rounded into occiput; interocular distance ~0.4× head width (19: 44); ocelli arranged in an obtuse triangle, with MPOD: OOL: POL: LOL = 79: 90: 253: 147. Eyes in anterior view with inner margins not divergent ventrally (Fig. 5E) or at least not conspicuously divergent (examination in direct frontal view not possible); scrobal depression shallow, with non-carinate lateral margin; torulus with lower margin in line with or slightly ventral to lower ocular line; malar sulcus straight; labrum exposed and at right angle to clypeus. Mandible apparently with three teeth (Fig. 5E, inset: arrows) (contact area between mandibles covered with a white substance). Eye apparently bare. Antenna (Figs 4A‒C) with scape spindle-shaped (the limit between scape and radicle not observable and scape width not measurable in exact lateral view but scape at least about 5× as long as wide); ratios of pedicel, funiculars and clava (Fig. 4B) measured in lateral view (length: width) = (25: 9), (7: 7), (12: 8.5), (13: 10), (12.5: 11), (12: 12), (12: 13), (12.5: 13.5), (14: 14), (35.5: 15); fl 1 differentiated from remaining preclaval flagellomeres by being slightly narrower and quadrate, and without mps; fl 2 longer than wide but slightly shorter and evidently narrower than fl 3, which is the longest flagellomere other than fl 8, flagellomeres following fl 1 subequal in length but gradually widening toward clava, resulting in fl 2 ‒fl 4 being longer than wide and fl 5 ‒fl 8 slightly transverse or quadrate; clava with strongly abutting clavomeres and micropilose sensory region small, restricted to apex of terminal segment so as to appear as a rounded terminal button (Fig. 4C: tb). Antenna in dorsal view (Fig. 4C) with fl 2 and fl 3 even more obviously narrower compared to apical preclaval flagellomeres. Pronotum in dorsal view (Fig. 4G) about one-third length of mesoscutum (26: 73) and about 2.8× as wide as long medially, with dorsal surface sloping from posterior margin; in lateral view not readily visible, but apparently almost vertical and barely convex (Fig. 4F); pronotum uniformly reticulate, and with dark setae. Mesoscutum only slightly shoulder-like posterior to pronotum, about 1.25× as wide as long; reticulate with large cells, the sculpture smaller on lateral lobes compared to median lobe (Fig. 4G); mesoscutal furrows not differentiated in sculpture, but well visible along entire length because lateral and median lobe meet at an angle, the furrow deepest anterolaterally medial to spiracle (Fig. 4G). Mesoscutellar-axillar complex with inner angles of axillae separated by 0.3× maximum width of axilla and 0.4× anterior width of axilla; scutoscutellar sutures crenulate (Fig. 4E); mesoscutellum and axillae low convex and in about the same plane, with reticulate sculpture changing to imbricate with transverse cells on lateral surfaces; with inconspicuous decumbent setae (Figs 4E, F); mesoscutellum not carinate laterally, with distinct frenal arm (Fig. 5H: far), without an obvious frenum but with sculpture along apical margin aligned, the sculptural difference differentiating a thin carina (Figs 4E, 5H inset: smc) that delineates a lunate, down-sloped mesoscutellar apex (Fig. 5H: arrow). Metanotum with dorsellum an oblique semicircular band, cup-like over apex of mesoscutellum (Fig. 5H insert: dor), with an evident gap (Fig. 5H: double arrow) between the two sclerites; lateral panel anteriorly crenulate (Fig. 4E: mcb) (but crenulation not clearly visible because of position of right wing and a small brown inclusion in the amber on left side); in lateral view apex of mesoscutellum, dorsellum and propodeum forming a continuous sloping surface (Figs 4E, F). [The separation between mesoscutellum and dorsellum was less visible before part of the air layer around the fossil was displaced by some water during preparation (cf. Fig. 4E with 5H).] Propodeum not differentiated into plical and callar regions, its median length about half lateral length, anteriorly with a crenulate band medial to spiracle (Fig. 4G: pcb), and with a median carina, the carina widening posteriorly from about mid length into a triangular area (Fig. 4G: arrow) (distal end of the carina mostly obscured by the wing); mostly bare except with long setae lateral to spiracle (Fig. 4E); spiracle close to anterior margin of propodeum; propodeal foramen in dorsal view semicircular (Fig. 4G). Mesosoma with acropleuron uniformly convex and smooth, finely alutaceous only anteriorly and posteriorly, with no visible setae, extending posteriorly to posterodorsal angle of mesocoxa and likely to metapleuron; upper mesepimeron not visible, lower mesepimeron a flat and narrowly elongated triangular region between acropleuron and base of mesocoxa (Fig. 5A); acropleural sulcus crenulate, almost linearly directed from above mesocoxa, only in anterior third gradually curved towards posterodorsal angle of prepectus; mesepisternum large, in lateroventral view about same size as acropleuron (Fig. 5A), with no visible setae. Metapleuron not visible. Dorsal protibial spicules absent, with two dorsoapical spicules (Fig. 5A, inset: arrow); middle and hind legs not conspicuously long, of about same length, and hind leg not unusually modified, with two tibial spurs; mesocoxa with basolateral cavity present (Fig. 5A); mesotibia with a row of 4 spine-like pegs apically (Fig. 5C: map), and with mesotibial spur 1.7‒1.9× as long as apical width of mesotibia depending on viewing angle; mesotarsus slender, with basitarsus in lateral view about 5.4× as long as wide and of similar length as combined length of four apical tarsomeres, the mesotarsal peg pattern similar along anterior and posterior margins, consisting of robust spines basally that gradually become thicker and more peg-like towards apex of respective tarsomere, with only the apical-most seta on both sides of tarsomeres 1‒4 distinctly peg-like (Fig. 5B: pg). Fore wing (Fig. 5G) appearing uniformly infuscate, slightly brownish; costal cell with ventral surface uniformly setose, but dorsally with two rows of setae along leading margin for length of parastigma plus about distal half of costal cell; basal cell and disc uniformly setose except for bare vanal and cubital areas (Fig. 4E) and an elongate, broad, bare band posterior to parastigma and basal third of marginal vein; the bare band separated from basal fold and parastigma by about three lines of setae and though it is asetose dorsally, with about four inconspicuous setae ventrally (Fig. 5H); cc: mv: pmv: stv = 685: 481: 472: 192. Gaster lanceolate (Fig. 4A) (slightly distorted because of internal gas build-up during taphonomic processes); with seven tergites, each with a straight posterior margin (whether terminal tergite is completely fused into a syntergum or Gt 7 and Gt 8 are separated dorsally by a suture is hidden by Gt 6 which extends to level of cerci but possibly present is a line or suture ventral to cercus in lateral view); syntergum with cercus closer to anterior than to posterior margin, short behind cerci, and apically truncate, hence ovipositor sheaths mostly not covered (Fig. 5D); with a bare, cylindrical and slightly wrinkled anal tube posterior to syntergum over most of rest of ovipositor sheaths (Fig. 5D); hypopygium extending half-length of gaster (Fig. 5D). Ovipositor sheaths projecting beyond syntergum but only slightly beyond anal tube.</p><p>Remarks. The holotypes of N. masneri and N. defunctus appear very different upon superficial comparison, but this is partly because of their different preservation states and likely because all features cannot be viewed from exactly the same angles in the two inclusions. The holotype of N. masneri superficially appears to have lanceolate mesonotal setae, the mesoscutum appears uniformly convex, the costal cell appears mostly bare, and the scutoscutellar sutures appear linear. However, all of these apparent features likely reflect the inclusion being covered by a thin layer of a white substance, and can be reinterpreted in the light of the newly discovered specimen of N. defunctus . As already mentioned by Gibson (2009) and above, the conspicuous lanceolate setae are certainly an artefact since they appear normal in lateral view, and the mesoscutum can be reinterpreted as having weak notaular furrows that differentiate the mesoscutum into median and lateral lobes that are noticeable as different shadings in Fig. 4H, but also in Gibson (2009, fig. 59). Further, even though the published photograph of the costal cell (Gibson 2009, fig. 62) appears bare except for a line of setae along anterior margin, an unpublished alternate image of the other wing (Fig. 4D) shows the costal cell to be uniformly setose. The scutoscutellar sutures likely are also crenulate, though some of the perceived transverse ridges in fig. 4H are setae and some are cell walls, because in N. defunctus the crenulate nature of the suture is also more or less visible depending on the angle and lighting conditions.</p><p>Aside from these apparent differences and some others, such as relative placement of the toruli that might reflect angle of view, the two specimens are quite similar. Both individuals have similar shaped heads with an occipital carina (a feature otherwise not shared by any species formerly included in Eupelmidae or Tanaostigmatidae), a mesosoma and propodeum that are very similar in shape, similar comparative size of all sclerites, including the presence of a strong frenal arm, crenulate lines of sculpture laterally on the metanotum and along the anterior margin of the propodeum, and similar position of the spiracle. The fore wing setation and the ratios between the veins of the two species is also similar.</p><p>Neanaperiallus defunctus differs from N. masneri in having more gracile antenna and legs and in mesoscutal sculpture. In N. defunctus, the flagellum is narrower basally, with fl 2 evidently narrower than fl 3 and especially in dorsal view fl 2 and fl 3 are obviously narrower than the apical flagellomeres, and fl 2 is also slightly shorter than fl 3, whereas the flagellum is more cylindrical in N. masneri and fl 2 is the longest flagellomere. Further, the mesotibial spur is 1.7‒1.9× as long as the apical width of the mesotibia and the mesotarsus is slender, with the basitarsus in lateral view about 5.4× as long as wide, whereas in N. masneri the mesotibial spur is only about 1.5× as long as the apical width of the mesotibia and the basitarsus is only about 3× as long as wide. Although these differences might in part reflect measurements from slightly different angles of view, there is also a conspicuous difference in sculpture of the mesoscutum between the two species. The reticulate mesh size is noticeably larger for N. defunctus (Fig. 4G) compared to much smaller, more reticulate-punctate mesh size for N. masneri (Fig. 4H; Gibson 2009, fig. 59). The acropleural sulcus also appears different in the two species, being curved in its anterior third in N. defunctus (Fig. 5A) but almost straight-oblique in N. masneri (Fig. 1A).</p><p>The last obvious difference between the two inclusions is the setal arrangement of the apical third of the mesoscutellum (cf. Figs 4 E, H). In N. masneri the setae are arranged in a sparse whorl, with the setae directed more or less laterally rather than posteriorly (Fig. 4H) similar to some species of Merostenus Walker (Fusu 2013, fig. 15), whereas all the setae are apparently directed posteriorly in N. defunctus (Fig. 4E). However, because the setae in N. masneri are much more conspicuous, it is possible that the setal pattern of the two species is more similar than is apparent, the setae being more difficult to see and interpret in N. defunctus .</p><p>An important aspect of Neanaperiallus not discussed in detail before (because it is not readily visible in N. masneri) is the structure of the apex of the mesoscutellum and the metanotum. In N. defunctus the dorsellum is raised and cup-like over the mesoscutellar apex, oblique relative to a down-sloped surface visible just behind the apical marginal carina. This apical portion of the mesoscutellum (Fig. 5H, inset: arrow) is likely homologous with the frenum, being located immediately posterior to the frenal arms (Fig. 5H, inset: far) and visible because of a slight separation between the dorsellum and mesoscutellum (Fig. 5H insert: double arrow). Because this gap is visible in both Neanaperiallus fossils, it likely is not an artefact of preservation. Besides this separation between the mesoscutellar apex and dorsellum (Gibson 2009, fig. 59) the fossil of N. masneri possibly also shows the presence of a marginal carina (Fig. 4H: smc), as in N. defunctus . Thus, the metanotum in Neanaperiallus is similar to Calosotinae and many female Eupelminae, and is likely correlated with the apex of the mesoscutellum being differentiated in a narrow vertical frenum. Members of these two subfamilies also often have a visible gap as described above, which may be structurally necessary for mesonotal flexing. A marginal rim is also present in Metapelma, but in this genus the mesoscutellum overlies the dorsellum, thus lacking a vertical apical surface behind the rim, though the mesoscutellum and dorsellum are also separated by a narrow gap (Gibson 2009, fig. 14).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C7737CA608FFA1FF39FE67FAB1FADC	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gibson, Gary A. P.;Fusu, Lucian	Gibson, Gary A. P., Fusu, Lucian (2023): Leptoomidae, a new family of Eocene fossil Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera), and family classification of Eocene fossil genera originally described in Neanastatinae (Eupelmidae). Zootaxa 5318 (2): 195-216, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5318.2.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5318.2.2
