<p><strong>A new beetle family, Mysteriomorphidae fam. nov. (Coleoptera: Elateriformia <em>incertae sedis</em>), from mid-Cretaceous amber of northern Myanmar</strong></p>

Abstract

A new Cretaceous fossil beetle Mysteriomorphus pelevini gen. et sp. nov. is described from Burmese amber and a new family Mysteriomorphidae fam. nov. is proposed to accommodate this new taxon. The new monogeneric family is characterised by a combination of characters present in different lineages of Elateroidea and Byrrhoidea (Ptilodactylidae) and is therefore placed as incertae sedis in the series Elateriformia.

The Fossil Record of Elateridae (Coleoptera: Elateroidea): Described Species, Current Problems and Future Prospects

“…However, Cretopoena clearly differs from Agrypnini by its closed pronotosternal sutures and, therefore, its systematic position should be further investigated. Additionally, the suggested close relationship between Elateridae and recently discovered Mysteriomorphidae from the Cretaceous Burmese amber needs to be investigated using an analytical approach [ 241 , 242 ].…”

“…Last but not least, Elateridae students should pay special attention to the study of fossils included in amber deposits. Although the research of beetles (and other taxa) from various ambers is nowadays very popular [ 92 , 188 , 189 , 250 , 251 , 252 ] and scientists were even able to describe within a short time span several new beetle families based on amber material [ 241 , 253 , 254 , 255 , 256 , 257 ], the diversity of click-beetles in fossilized plant resins has been highly understudied. A study of the Elateridae diversity in amber is of great importance due to the three-dimensional preservation of specimens which allows us to compare the fossil fauna with extant specimens in much greater detail than in the case of compression fossils [ 188 , 229 ].…”

Unlocking the mystery of the mid-Cretaceous Mysteriomorphidae (Coleoptera: Elateroidea) and modalities in transiting from gymnosperms to angiosperms

“…2). Based on our results, we supplemented and improved the original diagnosis of Mysteriomorphidae, and corrected several morphological characters which were misinterpreted by, or not available to, Alekseev and Ellenberger 21 . These include the absence of a frontoclypeal suture (vs. presence in the original description), antennal insertions located adjacent to the inner margin of the eyes, separated by more than half the width of an eye (vs. almost contiguous and located frontally), posterior angles of the pronotum produced posterolaterally (vs. posteriorly), the prosternal process elongate, about as long as the prosternum in front of the procoxae (vs. indistinct, not visible between procoxae), the procoxae narrowly separated by a prosternal process (vs. contiguous), the metacoxae contiguous (vs. narrowly separated), the tibial apical spurs paired (vs. one), and the abdomen with six ventrites, the first four of which are connate (vs. five, without any indication how many are connate).…”

“…Systematic position of mysteriomorphidae. In the original description, Mysteriomorphidae were placed as Elateriformia incertae sedis, and the authors discussed their affinities either to Byrrhoidea or to Elateroidea 21 . Regarding Byrrhoidea, only Ptilodactylidae were taken into consideration as potentially related to Mysteriomorphidae by the authors.…”

“…GPIH 4947 (Holotype) and GPIH 4948 (Paratype), both specimens deposited in the amber collection of the Center for Natural History (CenNak), University of Hamburg, Germany. 21 reported differences between the holotype and paratype in the body length and shape, and the shapes of the antennae and pronotum. They attributed those differences to potential sexual dimorphism (although the sex of the type specimens was unknown) and to the paratype deformation caused by preservation processes, and they considered both specimens a single species.…”