Elliprhagio Han & Cai & Ren & Wang 2019, gen. nov.

Genus Elliprhagio gen. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 18DC6062-EF6F-40E8-901B-733F227C0CEE

Type species. Elliprhagio macrosiphonius sp. nov.

Diagnosis. Flagellum with 10 flagellemeres; proboscis long, labium fleshy, labella small. Wings elliptic and wide; R 2+3 sinuate at the middle, and sharply up-curved distally; crossvein r-m intersecting the upper margin of d cell at basal one third (1/3); four medial veins present, bM 3 and dM 3 straight; anal cell closed before wing margin. Midtibiae with 1 spur.

Etymology. From “ ellip- ”, which means elliptic and genus Ragio, referring to the elliptic wings. Gender: masculine.

Remarks. Among the snipe flies from the Daohugou locality, the new genus is most similar to Trichorhagio Zhang, 2013 in appearance, especially in venation and body configuration. But they can be distinguished by elliptic wing (vs. triangular wing in Trichorhagio), and the equal length of bM 3 and dM 3 (vs. the bM 3 longer than dM 3). The similar long mouthparts and elliptic wing also present in two other genera Protorhagio Rohdendorf, 1938 and Palaeoarthroteles Kovalev & Mostovski, 1997, which have also been found from the Daohugou. In Protorhagio, costal section between Sc-R 1 is obviously longer than that between R 1 -R 2+3, while not distinct in Elliprhagio. Elliprhagio is distinguished from Palaeoarthroteles (Kovalev & Mostovski 1997; Zhang J. 2011) by the configuration of anal cell being closed (vs. open in Palaeoarthroteles); up-curved R 2+3 at the middle (vs. almost straight R 2+3); straight bM 3 and dM 3 (vs. curved bM 3 and S-shaped dM 3 in Palaeoarthroteles); costal section of R 1 -R 2+3 slightly shorter than Sc-R 1 (vs. costal section of R 1 -R 2+3 no shorter than Sc-R 1 in Palaeoarthroteles) and mesotibiae with 1 apical spur (vs. 2 spurs in Palaeoarthroteles). Moreover, the genus Sinorhagio Zhang, Yang & Ren, 2006, and some species of Palaeobolbomyia (Kovalev 1982; Zhang 2010) in the same locality also possess elliptical wings resembling Elliprhagio. But Sinorhagio can be separated by their straight R 2+3, long R 4 and R 5 branches, and long and narrow d cell. Although Palaeobolbomyia resembles the new genus with similar R 2+3, they can be separated by the absence of M 3 in the former.

Comparing with genera from other localities, the genus Orsobrachyceron Ren, 1998 from Liaoning (China) also has similar long proboscis and venation as those of the Elliprhagio gen. nov., but differs from Elliprhagio in the M 3 and M 4 strongly converged to a point at the margin of wing and cell cu closed without a short petiole apically. The other two genera Palaeobrachyceron Kovalev, 1981 and Jurabrachyceron Kovalev, 1981 from the Transbaikalia (Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous) show some similarities in the elliptic wings and configurations of venation with Elliprhagio. However, they can be separated by their configuration of M 3 and M 4: bM 3 much shorter than dM 3, and M 3 parallel to M 4. In addition, Palaeobrachyceron has an extremely long and straight R 5 that is distinctly different from the new genus.