Search for a command to run...
GenusCratomastaxgen. nov. Type species. Cratomastax mariellaae sp. nov. by monotypy and present designation. Gender: feminine. Etymology. The genus name is derived from the Crato Formation, the type deposit of the fossil, combined with “ eumastax, ” referring to its systematic position within Eumastacoidea. Diagnosis. As for the type species by monotypy. Remarks. Cratomastax gen. nov. is attributed to Eumastacoidea based on the fusion of M and CuA in the tegmina. Despite morphological similarities to Paleochina duvergeri Schubnel, Desutter-Grandcolas, Garrouste, Hervet & Nel, 2020 and P. minuta Schubnel, Desutter-Grandcolas, Garrouste, Hervet & Nel, 2020 from the Paleocene of France (compare species remarks), we refrain from assigning Cratomastax gen. nov. to Chorotypidae Stål, 1873, the family of Paleochina, or to any other family within Eumastacoidea. The classification of fossil eumastacoids remains problematic due to the limited availability of morphological characters that define modern taxa. Extant Eumastacoidea are organized either based on molecular data (Matt et al. 2008) or on detailed examination of the external and, especially, internal genitalia (Rowell and Perez-Gelabert 2006), features that are rarely preserved in fossils. While external genitalia are occasionally visible (e. g., Husemann et al. 2025), this is not the case in C. mariellaae gen. et sp. nov. Although some modern Chorotypidae (e. g., Erucius dimidiatipes Bolívar, 1898) share a similar wing venation with Paleochina or Cratomastax gen. nov., the lack of information regarding the wing venation of the ancestors of many extant apterous or brachypterous genera across Eumastacoidea provides few opportunities for comparisons on which to base phylogenetic relationships. Because the wing venation of modern Eumastacoidea is almost unstudied, it cannot be considered a reliable character for family placement in the absence of additional corroborating morphological data. Among other fossil genera of Eumastacoidea, Taphacris Scudder, 1890, from the Eocene of Colorado, USA, and the Cretaceous – Eocene of China, and Eoerianthus Gorochov, 2012 (in Gorochov and Labandeira 2012), from the Eocene of Colorado, USA, Cratomastax gen. nov. can be differentiated by the much narrower space between CuPaβ and CuPb. It further differs from Eozaenhuepfer Zessin, 2017, from the Eocene of Denmark, which has a similarly narrow CuPaβ and CuPb space, by having one fewer branch of M, two in E. erteboellei Zessin, 2017, and one additional branch of RP, four in E. erteboellei. Cratomastax gen. nov. also differs from Archaeomastax Sharov, 1968, from the Jurassic of Kazakhstan, by having a longer ScP and ScP fused to RA, instead of reaching the costal margin as in Archaeomastax. This feature also distinguishes it from Promastax Handlirsch, 1910, from the Eocene of British Columbia, and the problematic Promastacoides Kevan & Wighton, 1981, from the Eocene of Alberta. It further differs from the two Eumastacoidea preserved in amber — Paleomastacris Perez-Gelabert, Hierro, Dominici & Otte, 1997, from Dominican amber, Miocene, and Burmeumastax Husemann, Schall, Uchida & Kotthoff, 2025, from Kachin amber, mid-Cretaceous — by its much larger and fully developed wings. The single type species of Paleomastacris is apterous, whereas the single type species of Burmeumastax is brachypterous (Perez-Gelabert et al. 1997; Husemann et al. 2025).