updated manuscript to PETALURA vol. 2,
1996
FOSSIL ODONATES IN TERTIARY AMBER
Günter Bechly
Dragonflies and damselflies are one of the most spectacular,
but also one of the rarest, insect inclusions in Tertiary
amber. Up to now there are no odonates known from any Mesozoic
amber. Because of this rarity dragonflies are not even
mentioned in a recent book on insects in amber (KRZEMINSKA
& KRZEMINSKI, 1992). This paper is a short review and
preliminary revision of all currently known specimens, based on
a revised and amended version of BECHLY (1993). LARSSON (1978)
explained the presence of odonate larvae or exuviae in Baltic
amber. The fact that nearly all amber preserved odonates are
damselflies, can be explained by the conditions of
fossilisation: Damselflies (Zygoptera) get easier trapped and
enclosed in resin than dragonflies (Anisoptera). Thus it is
evident that Anisoptera preserved in amber will always be
extremely rare and consequently of course also very expensive
fossils (see ORR, 1993).
The following damselfly-fossils from the Dominican amber are
located in the paleontological "Museum am Löwentor
des Staatlichen Museums für Naturkunde" in Stuttgart
/ Germany (SCHLEE, 1990 and pers. comm.1993):
- 1.) A complete damselfly, which is not
very well visible, because the insect is surrounded by
dirt.
- 2.-4.) A relatively large piece of
amber, containing three (!) damselflies.
- 5.) A fragmentary damselfly-wing.
- 6.) A fine preserved distal half of a
damselfly-wing in very clear amber.
- 7.) A damselfly (head, thorax, legs,
proximal abdomen and wing bases) in excellent condition,
preserved in clear, polished amber!
Colour-photos of the last two mentioned specimens, probably
Coenagrionidae, have been published in SCHLEE (1990: 83) (see
fig. 1 and fig. 2). Unfortunately the magnificent
amber collection of the Stuttgart museum is presently (fall
1996, probably till end of 1997) not open for scientific
studies, because of the unexpected retirement of Dr. Schlee.
There are only three other records of odonate specimens from
Dominican amber:
- 8.) ORR (1993) reported about a
libelluloid-like dragonfly completely preserved in Miocene
amber, certainly from the Dominican Republic. Its present
location unfortunately is unknown and it has apparently never
been illustrated or described (ORR, pers. comm. 11/96). It
would be very important to find out its present location (if
any of the readers should known something about it, I would
be most grateful for a short information by email to: bechly@mac.com),
and to check if this remarkable specimen indeed represents a
genuine Tertiary amber fossil or maybe just a more recent
copal inclusion.
- 9.) DONNELLY (1993; and pers. comm.
11/96) has a damselfly wing (similar to Telebasis)
in amber from the Dominican Republic too. It is still in his
private collection, but has never been illustrated or
described yet.
-
10.) POINAR (1996) described a new species
of the recent coenagrionid genus Diceratobasis
(see fig. 16) from a piece of Dominican
amber that is located in the private collection of Jim Work
(Ashland, Oregon, USA). The larvae of this species probably
lived in phytotelmata of tank bromeliads.
- POINAR (1996: 382-383): "Diceratobasis
worki sp. nov."
The Dominican amber originated in the Middle Eocene to Upper
Oligocene (45-25 Mio. years b.p.), maybe even to the Lower and
Middle Miocene (15-20 Mio. years b.p.). The Dominican
"amber-tree" most probably has been a member of the
Recent genus Hymenaea (H. protera Poinar), a
neotropical leguminous that is known for its high production of
resin (SCHLEE, 1986). Amber from the Dominican Republic is
extraordinary for the following reasons:
- numerous places of discovery, with a large output of
high-quality amber.
- regular findings of large pieces of amber, up to 13
kg!
- frequent and diverse fossils in excellent condition:
Plants (blossoms, leaves and bark), arachnids (incl.
scorpions, amblypigids and pseudoscorpions), insects (incl.
odonates, mantids, membracids, strepsipteres and fleas) and
even vertebrates (mammal bones and bird feathers, as well as
complete small frogs, gekkos and anolis-iguanas)! There are
also single pieces of amber with mass-catches of insects,
e.g. containing 2000 ants, or 1000 dolichopodid flies, or 15
moths etc.
Therefore it is certainly not over-optimistic to expect
further odonates from Dominican amber in the future, but there
are also some fossil odonates known from the Baltic amber of
eastern Europe, which originated in the Upper Eocene (about
40-50 Mio. years b.p.) of Scandinavia, but is found in
secondary deposits of glauconitic sands ("blue
earth") of the Upper Eocene to Lower Oligocene (about
30-40 Mio. year b.p.) at the Baltic coast. Based on the
monograph of CONWENTZ (1890) the Baltic "amber-tree"
has long been assumed to be an extinct conifer, which has been
named Pinus (or Pinites) succinifera
Goepp., although this taxon is still undefined and could
include five different species (SCHLEE, 1986), however since
the studies of KATINAS (1971) it is regarded as more likely
that the Baltic amber was produced by a ceder (close to the
Recent species Cedrus atlanticus) and maybe also an
araucaria of the genus Agathis (= kauri-pine).
HAGEN (1854) mentioned five odonates and HANDLIRSCH (1906-1980)
mentioned six odonates from Baltic amber. Handlirsch's list
was incomplete and contained several errors, which
unfortunately have been frequently perpetuated, even recently
by the author himself (BECHLY, 1993), although they had been
corrected already by ANDER (1942). Unfortunately the Odonata
chapter in the well known catalogue of amber fossils by
KEILBACH (1982: 208-209) is likewise incomplete and incorrect,
and furthermore even contains some additional errors too. The
following new list will hopefully be rather complete and
error-free:
-
11.-12.) Two fossil damselflies of the
famous "Koenigsberg amber collection" are now
located in the "Geologisch-Paläontologisches
Institut der Universität" Göttingen /
Germany (species A: no. 3 B 696; and species B: no. K
8088). These specimens were described and figured by PFAU
(1975) (see fig. 3, fig. 4 and fig. 5). They are remarkably well
preserved and seem to represent female specimens of two
different Coenagrionoidea species of the Upper Eocene,
which are still unnamed. Pfau's suggestion that these
fossils might belong to the Recent family Platycnemididae
is not really supported by the available evidence, so that
these fossils should rather be regarded as Coenagrionoidea
incertae sedis. According to Pfau one of the species might
be conspecific with "Agrion antiquum"
Hagen.
- PFAU (1975: 1): "..., Zygoptera -
möglicherweise Platycnemididae"
- KEILBACH (1982: 209): "Platycnemididae spec. A.
u. spec. B."
- NEL & PAPAZIAN (1990: 254):
"Platycnemididae, genre incertae sedis (Pfau,
1975)"
- BECHLY (1993: 14): "... seem to represent two
different platycnemidid species, which are still
unnamed."
-
13.-17.) Four pieces of amber (with
remains of five specimens of damselflies), of which three
have been located in the "Collection Berendt" of
the "Paläontologisches Museum des Museums
für Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universität" in
Berlin / Germany. PFAU (1975) could only locate the two of
these pieces in the Berlin museum (see fig. 6 and fig. 7). The location of the
fourth specimen is unknown. One of the two remaining
specimens is one piece (no. 16) with a basal wing fragment
and a male and a female abdomen (fig. 8). It probably represents
the remains of a trapped pair, and the appendices of the
male abdomen indicate that they belong to the same species
as the second specimen (PFAU, 1975). The second piece
contains a wing fragment without base and apex (fig. 9), head (fig. 10), all 6 legs but without
coxae and tarsi (fig. 11), and the apex of a male
abdomen. The labels for both pieces are marked with a red
spot, which is indicating a status as original and/or type,
and by the description there is no doubt that both pieces
represent originals of HAGEN & PICTET (1856), so that
these two pieces seem to represent syntypes of
"Agrion antiquum". The female specimen
described by PICTET (1856: 79) is apparently lost, as
already supposed by PFAU (1975). Therefore I decided to
designate the second specimen (original of HAGEN, 1856: 79)
as lectotype of "Agrion antiquum", since
even PICTET (1856: 79) already mentioned that the specific
identity of piece no. 16 can not be decided.
-
HAGEN (1848: 7): "Agrion antiquum
Pictet" (nomen nudum; knows 2 specimens)
- HAGEN in SELYS (1850: 357-358): "Agrion
? antiquum Pictet"
- SELYS (1850: 366): "Platycnemis ?
antiquum"
- HAGEN (1854: 227): "Agrion antiquum P.
3."
- GIEBEL (1856: 273): "Agrion
antiquum"
- PICTET in BERENDT (1856: 78-79, fig. 4a-d & 5 on
tab. vi): "Agrion antiquum" (first
description; knows 3 specimens)
- HAGEN in BERENDT (1856: 79-80, fig. 11a-c on tab.
viii): "Agrion antiquum"
(supplementary description; knows 4 specimens)
- KIRBY (1890: 175): "Coenagrion antiquum
Hag."
- SCUDDER (1890: 127): "Platycnemis
antiquum"
- HANDLIRSCH (1908: 899): "Platycnemis
antiqua Hagen"
- ANDER (1942: 76): "Agrion antiquum
Pictet et Hagen 1856 ... Die systematische Stellung
dieser Art ist noch nicht entschieden"
- WEIDNER (1958: 52-53): "Platycnemis ?
antiqua ?" (see no. 23.))
- PFAU (1975: 4): "Agrion antiquum Pictet
(= Platycnemis antiqua Hagen)"
- LARSSON (1978: 83): "Platycnemis
antiqua"
- KEILBACH (1982: 209): "Platycnemis
antiqua (Pictet & Hagen, 1856)"
- NEL & PAPAZIAN (1990: 254): "Platycnemis
antiqua (Pictet & Hagen, 1856)"
- BRIDGES (1993: VII.15): "Platycnemis
antiquum (Pictet & Hagen), 1856"
- BECHLY (1993: 14): "Three
Platycnemis-like damselflies, described by Hagen
(1848, 1856) as Platycnemis antiqua."
- BRIDGES (1994: VII.16): "Platycnemis
antiquum (Pictet & Hagen), 1856"
-
18.) A piece of amber with one basal and
two apical fragments of the wings of a relatively large
dragonfly (wing span about 3 inches according to Hagen) in
the "Collection Menge". The present location is
unknown.
- HAGEN (1854: 227): "Aeschna.
Flügelspitzen. - ... wahrscheinlich zu
Gomphoides"
- HAGEN in BERENDT (1856: 81): "Gomphoides
occulta Hagen" (nomen nudum; no valid
description)
- KIRBY (1890: 168): "Gomphoides occulta
Hag."
- HANDLIRSCH (1908: 900): "Gomphoides
occulta Hagen"
- HANDLIRSCH (1921: 217): "Gomphoides
Selys"
- ANDER (1942: 77): "Aeschnidae s.ll."
- FRASER (1957: 94): "... Gomphoides ...
have also been reported from Bavarian amber and the
Miocene."
- LARSSON (1978: 83): "Gomphoides
occultus"
- KEILBACH (1982: 209): "Gomphoides
occultus Hagen, 1856"
- CARPENTER (1992: 81): "Gomphoides
SELYS-LONGCHAMPS in SELYS-LONGCHAMPS & HAGEN, 1850,
p. 360 [Generic assignment of fossil doubtful.] PICTET
& HAGEN, 1856."
- BRIDGES (1993: VII.167): "Gomphoides
occulta Hagen, 1856"
- BECHLY (1993: 14): "An adult dragonfly,
described by Hagen (1854, 1856) as Gomphus
resinatus."
- NEL & PAICHELER (1994: 60): "Gomphoides
occultus Hagen, 1856 (in Berendt :
81)"
- BRIDGES (1994: VII.170): "Gomphoides
occulta Hagen, 1856"
-
19.) A damselfly exuvia (Zygoptera) in the
"Collection Berendt". My recent (November 1996)
examination of the fossil, which is still preserved in the
Coll. Berendt at the Natural History Museum
(Paleontological Museum) in Berlin / Germany, basically
confirmed the redescription and conclusion of HAGEN (1856)
(see fig. 12 and fig. 13). It is most probably an
exuvia of a Coenagrionoidea incertae sedis. If this fossil
is conspecific with Agrion antiquum can neither be
confirmed by positive evidence nor discarded by conflicting
evidence. It seems to be very unlikely that this exuvia was
embedded at the original site of emergence, because of the
following reasons: The first evidence is the reasonable
assumption that the conifer trees that produced the resin
for the Baltic amber most probably were adapted for dry
soils just like Recent conifers too, while damselfly larvae
almost exclusively emerge on small plants that are very
close to their breeding waters. The second evidence is the
circumstance that all tarsi as well as the end of the
abdomen with the caudal gills are missing. The most likely
explanation seems to be, that an old exuvia was blown
during a storm on a blotch of resin and became embedded. On
the other hand it should be noted that two specimens of
Gammaridae (Crustacea) are known from Baltic amber
(BACHOFEN-ECHT, 1949 (reprinted 1996): 42-44), of which at
least one was embedded when it was still alive. Some
aquatic habitats thus must have been close enough to the
amber trees that such purely aquatic animals could become
embedded.
- HAGEN (1848: 8): "Gomphus
resinatus" (nomen nudum; no description)
- HAGEN in SELYS (1850: 358): "Gomphus
resinatus Hagen, Nymphe"
- GIEBEL (1852: 639): "Gomphus resinatus
Hagen"
- HAGEN (1854: 227): "Calopteryx ?,
Nymphenhaut."
- GIEBEL (1856: 284): "Libellula
resinata"
- PICTET in BERENDT (1856: 78 and 80, fig. 6 on tab.
vi): "Gomphus - (larva)" (first
description)
- HAGEN in BERENDT (1856: 80, fig. 12 on tab. viii):
"Agrionide" (supplementary description; the
term "Larva" in the explanation of fig. 12
refers to Agrion antiquum)
- KIRBY (1890: 168): "Aeschna resinata
Hag."
- HANDLIRSCH (1908: 896): "Calopteryx ?
(larva) Hagen"
- HANDLIRSCH (1908: 900): "Gomphus
resinatus Hagen"
- HANDLIRSCH (1908: 900): "Gomphus -
(larva) Hagen"
- HANDLIRSCH (1921: 217): "Calopterygidae,
zweifelhafte Larve"
- HANDLIRSCH (1921: 217): "2 als Gomphus
bezeichnete Formen"
- ANDER (1942: 76): "Agrioniden-Larve 1"
- FRASER (1957: 94): "... Gomphus ...
have also been reported from Bavarian amber and the
Miocene."
- KEILBACH (1982: 209): "Agrion spec.
Hagen in Berendt 1856, p. 80"
- KEILBACH (1982: 209): "Gomphus Larva
Hagen in Berendt 1856, p. 80"
- KEILBACH (1982: 209): "Gomphus
resinatus Pictet, 1856 in Berendt, p. 81"
- CARPENTER (1992: 81): "Gomphus LEACH,
1815, p. 37. [Generic assignment of fossil (nymph)
doubtful.] HAGEN, 1848."
- CARPENTER (1992: 87): "Calopteryx
LEACH, 1815, p. 137. ..... HAGEN, 1848, ... . Oligo.,
Europe (Baltic), ..."
- BRIDGES (1993: VII.196): "Gomphus
resinatus Hagen, 1848"
- BECHLY (1993: 14): "A damselfly-larva (!)
described by Hagen (1854) as
Calopteryx."
- BECHLY (1993: 14): "Another adult dragonfly,
described by Hagen (1848, 1856) as Gomphus
resinatus."
- BECHLY (1993: 14): "A dragonfly larva (!),
described by Hagen (1856) as Gomphus."
- NEL & PAICHELER (1994: 57): "Gomphus
resinatus Pictet, 1856 (in Berendt, 1856:
81) (d'après Keilbach, 1982) ... Elle doit
être considérée comme un Odonata
Gomphidae (?) de position incertaine."
- NEL & PAICHELER (1994: 57):
"Gomphus "larva" Hagen, 1856
(in Berendt) ... Son attribution est très
doubteuse."
- BRIDGES (1994: VII.200): "Gomphus
resinatus Hagen, 1848"
-
20.) Another Zygoptera-larva in the
"Collection Hagen". The author could not find
this specimen in the amber collections of the Museum of
Comparative Zoology in Cambridge (laboratory of late F.M.
Carpenter), although the complete Coll. Hagen is presently
located in this institution.
- HAGEN in SELYS (1850: 357): "Agrion ..... Une
petite nymphe, ou plutôt l'étui
vide."
- GIEBEL (1856: 273): "Eine unvollständige
kleine Larve"
- ANDER (1942: 76): "Agrioniden-Larve 2"
-
21.) An odonate "larva"
(certainly an exuvia) of uncertain affinities (location:
unknown; lost according to ANDER, 1942):
- 22.) An undescribed abdomen of a female
damselfly (completely preserved, incl. ovipositor) in the
collection Bachofen-Echt (Fach 2 L1A) at the "Bayerische
Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und historische
Geologie" in Munich / Germany (fig. 14).
- 23.) A completely preserved damselfly in
clear amber which is mentioned and figured by BACHOFEN-ECHT
(1949 (reprinted 1996): p. 78 and fig. 63) (see fig. 15). The specimen is cited as
Agrionidae (also see WICHARD & WEITSCHAT, 1996: 26), but
without doubt represents the only known Lestidae in amber,
since the specimen has wings with an oblique vein and two
cells beneath the distinctly braced pterostigma (clearly
visible in the illustration of the original edition, but not
well visible in the reprint). I could not find the specimen
in the collection Bachofen-Echt in Munich (BSGPM), thus its
present deposition unfortunately has to be regarded as
unknown.
- 24.) WEIDNER (1953) reports about a
Zygoptera "larva" (Platycnemis ?
antiqua ?) in a piece of Tertiary Baltic amber in
the Coll. Scheele (Nr. 1082. Typ. Kat. Nr. 45.) of the
"Geologisches Staatsinstitut Hamburg" /
Germany.
- 25.-29.) Mr. Walter Ludwig (Berlin,
Germany) reported (pers. comm. 1996) about a damselfly wing
in a piece of Saxonian amber from Bitterfeld in the private
collection of Mr. Hans Werner Hoffeins (Hamburg), and a
complete damselfly in Baltic amber in the collection of a
fossil trader in Berlin (Mr. Kühn). Furthermore he has 3
specimens in his private collection (Coll. Ludwig, Berlin).
One specimen is a fragment of a damselfly thorax (open so
that one can see inside!) with two wing bases and a nearly
complete wing of a stem-group representative of Euphaeidae
(see fig. 17). It is very similar to the
genera Parazacallites and Litheuphaea, and
is sharing with the latter the complete suppression of any
secondary antenodals between ScP and RA (contrary to the
original description of Litheuphaea). Another
specimen is absolutely unique, since it shows a damselfly
that is just emerging from its exuvia, both completely
preserved in a "Schlaube" (see fig. 18). The wings of the imago are
not yet unfolded and the apex of the abdomen is still inside
the exuvia. The exuvia has saccoid gills with a long
filamentous apex, very similar to some Recent tropical
damselflies (e.g. the two megapodagrionid genera
Heteragrion and Oxystigma, the platystictid
genus Palaemnema, the amphipterygid genus
Diphlebia, and the Euphaeidae). Both mentioned
specimens are from Baltic amber and will be formally
described by the author. The third specimen is a piece of
amber with head (with deeply fissured labium) and one fore
leg (with cleaning "brush") of a damselfly from the
Saxonian amber of Bitterfeld (Eastern Germany). According to
WEITSCHAT (1996) the amber of Bitterfeld is of the same age
and origin as the Baltic amber, not of Lower Miocene age
(about 22 mybp) as previously believed.
- 30.) Mr. Hans Lüdicke (Kronberg,
Germany) has a well preserved and nearly complete damselfly
(about 4 cm long) from the Baltic amber in his private
collection. This specimen is currently studied by Prof.
Rainer Rudolph (Münster, Germany).
- 31.-32.) Two damselflies from the Baltic
amber are present in the collection of the amber-museum at
Ribnitz-Damgarten (East Germany). According to Mr. Ulf
Erichson (pers. comm. 1997) one specimen is a wing and a body
fragment in a piece of amber that was later manufactured as
piece of jewellery. The second specimen is a rather complete
damselfly, however the piece of amber contains some dirt and
unfortunately had to be glued after it was accidently
broken.
All these fossils together make a total of at least 32
different specimens. The present location of 25 specimens is
known to me, and except two, all others are preserved in
Germany, which therefore can be considered as "El
Dorado" for researches on amber dragonflies. Anyway my
enumeration will probably still be somewhat incomplete, since
it is quite likely that at least a few specimens have
disappeared in private collections without having been noticed
by scientists. A few small damselflies are rumoured to be
present in local collections in the Dominican Republic. HAGEN
(1856: 78) mentions the existence of a further imaginal
damselfly (Coll. Saturgus / Königsberg) and an odonate
larva (Kabinett physik.-oekonom. Gesellschaft zu
Königsberg), both from Baltic amber of course.
Nevertheless it can not be excluded that these two specimens
might be identical with specimens already mentioned in this
enumeration. The same refers to the specimen illustrated in
WICHARD & WEITSCHAT (1996: 79, Taf. 3) and the specimen
illustrated in GRIMALDI (1996; also available on a website of
the American
Museum of Natural History). The former specimen (see fig. 19) is a pair of damselfly wings
(apparently Lestidae!) in Baltic amber, while the latter
specimen is a nearly complete damselfly in Dominican amber (see
fig. 20), which is in a private collection
(POINAR, pers. comm. 1997). All the known specimens are in need
of a thorough revision, because their taxonomic and
phylogenetic status seems to be more or less unsettled. Such a
revision is projected by the author.
REFERENCES
ANDER, K. (1942): Katalog der Odonaten des
baltischen Bernsteins. p. 76-77 in: ANDER, K.
(1942): Die Insektenfauna des baltischen Bernsteins nebst damit
verknüpften zoogeographischen Problemen. - Acta
Universitatis Lundensis (= Lunds Universitets
Årsskrift), N.F. Avd. 2., 38(4): 83
pp., maps 1-10, tables 1-8 (also published in Kungl.
Fysiografiska Sällskapets Handlingar, N.F.,
53.(4): 83 pp.)
BACHOFEN-ECHT, A. (1949): Der Bernstein
und seine Einschlüsse. Springer Verlag: Wien. 204
pp.
BECHLY, G. (1993): Fossil odonates in
dominican and Baltic amber. - Argia,
5(1): 13-15
BERENDT, G.C. (1830). - Ins.
Bernst. 35 (cited in Handlirsch,
1906-1908: 904; apparently the earliest scientific publication
concerning odonates preserved in amber)
BRIDGES, C.A. (1993): Catalogue of the
family-group, genus.group and species-group names of the
Odonata of the world (second edition). The Author: Urbana,
IL, USA. 806 pp.
CARPENTER, F.M. (1992): Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology. Part R. Arthropoda. Vol. 3 and 4.
Superclass Hexapoda. Geol. Soc. of Amer. & Univ. of
Kansas: Boulder, CO & Lawrence, KS
CONWENTZ, H. (1890): Monographie der
baltischen Bernsteinbäume. Danzig. 151 pp.
DONNELLY, T.W. (1993): [untitled note]. -
Argia 4(4): 13
FRASER, F.C. (1957): A reclassification
of the order Odonata. Publ. R. Zool. Soc. N.S.W.: Sydney.
134 pp., 1 pl.
GIEBEL, C.G.A. (1852): Deutschlands
Petrefakten.
GIEBEL, C.G.A. (1856): Fauna der
Vorwelt mit steter Berücksichtigung der lebenden Thiere,
Bd. 2, Abth. I. Die Insecten und Spinnen der Vorwelt, mit
steter Berücksichtigung der lebenden Insecten und Spinnen,
monographisch dargestellt. xviii + 512 pp.. Brockhaus:
Leipzig
GRIMALDI, D.A. (1996): Amber - Window
to the Past. American Museum of Natural History: New
York
HAGEN, H. (1848): Die fossilen Libellen
Europas. - Stett. ent. Z., 9:
6-13
HAGEN, H. (1854). Ueber die Neuropteren der
Bernsteinfauna. - Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien,
4: 221-232
HANDLIRSCH, A. (1908): Tertiäre
Insekten. Ordnung: Odonata. p. 896-905
in: HANDLIRSCH, A. (1906-1908): Die
fossilen Insekten und die Phylogenie der rezenten
Formen. Ein Handbuch fuer Palaeontologen und Zoologen.
Engelmann: Leipzig. 2 vols., ix + 1433 pp., 54 pl.
HANDLIRSCH, A. (1921): Paläontologie.
in: Schröders Handbuch der
Entomologie. Jena
KATINAS, V. (1971): Baltijos gintaras
(baltic amber). Mosklas: Vilnius. 111 pp.
KEILBACH, R. (1982): Bibliographie und
Liste der Arten tierischer Einschlüsse in fossilen Harzen
sowie ihrer Aufbewahrungsorte. - Deut. ent. Zeit.,
N.F., 29 (1-3 / 4-5): 129-286, 301-391
KIRBY, W.F. (1890): A Synonymic
catalogue of Neuroptera Odonata, or dragonflies, with an
appendix of fossil species. Gurney & Jackson: London.
x + 202 S.
KRZEMINSKA, E. & KRZEMINSKI, W. (1992):
Les fantomes de l'ambre - insectes fossiles dans
l'ambre de la Baltique. Musée d'histoire
naturelle de Neuchâtel. 142pp.
LARSSON, S.G. (1978): Baltic amber - a
palaeobiological study. - Entomonograph,
1: 192 pp., 62 figs., 12 pls.
NEL, A. & PAICHELER, J.-C. (1994): Les
Gomphidae fossiles. Un inventaire critique (Odonata:
Gomphidae). - Ann. Soc. Entomol. Fr., (N.S.),
30(1): 55-77
NEL, A. & PAPAZIAN, M. (1990): Les
Coenagrionoidea fossiles de l'Oligocène du sud-est
de la France (Zygoptera: Platycnemididae, Coenagrionidae). -
Odonatologica, 19(3): 251-262, 12
f.
ORR, R. (1993): The $ 10,000 Dragonfly. -
Argia 4(4): 12-13
PFAU, H.K. (1975): Zwei neue Kleinlibellen
(Odonata, Zygoptera - möglicherweise Platycnemididae) aus
dem baltischen Bernstein. - Stuttg. Beitr. Naturk.
(A), 270: 1-7, figs. 1-3
PICTET-BARABAN, F.J. & HAGEN, H.A.
(1856): Die im Bernstein befindlichen Neuropteren der Vorwelt
(mit Zusätzen von A. Menze). p. 41-125 and pl. 5-8
in: BERENDT, G.C. (ed.): Die im Bernstein
befindlichen organischen Reste der Vorwelt gesamelt in
Verbindung mit Meheren bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Dr.
Georg Carl Berendt. Bd. 2 (II. Abt.). 2 + 125 pp..
Nicolai: Berlin
POINAR, G.O. (1992): Life in
amber. Stanford Univ. Pr.: Stanford, CA, USA. xvi + 350
pp. (pp. 98-99 on amber odonates)
POINAR, G.O. (1996): A fossil stalk-winged
damselfly, Diceratobasis worki spec. nov., from
Dominican amber, with possible ovipositional behavior in tank
bromeliads (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). -
Odonatologica, 25(4): 381-385
ROHDENDORF, B.B. (ed.) (1962): Osnovy
paleontologii. 9. Arthropoda, Tracheata, Insecta. Akad.
Nauk SSSR: Moskau (in russian; english translation 1992 as:
Fundamentals of Paleontology. Vol. 9 (Arthropoda,
Tracheata).:)
SCHLEE, D. & GLÖCKNER, W. (1978):
Bernstein - Bernsteine und Bernsteinfossilien. - Stuttg.
Beitr. Naturk. (C), 8: 72 pp.
SCHLEE, D. (1984): Besonderheiten des
Dominikanischen Bernsteins. p. 63-71, pls. 12-24 in:
Bernstein-Neuigkeiten. - Stuttg. Beitr. Naturk. (C),
18: 100 pp.
SCHLEE, D. (1986): Der Bernsteinwald. -
Katalog 'Mineralientage München', 1986:
65-80 (reprints available from the Natural History Museum in
Stuttgart)
SCHLEE, D. (1990): Das Bernsteinkabinett.
Begleitheft zur Bernsteinausstellung im Museum am
Löwentor, Stuttgart. - Stuttg. Beitr. Naturk.
(C), 28: 1-100
SCUDDER, S.H. (1890): The Tertiary insects
of North America. - Rep. U.S. geol. Surv. Territ.,
13: 1-734, pls. 1-28, 1 map
SELYS-LONGCHAMPS, E. DE (1850): Revue
des Odonates ou Libellules d'Europe. - Mém.
Soc. Sc. Liége, 6: xxii + 408 pp., 11 pls., 6
tbls.
SPAHR, U. (1992): Ergänzungen und
Berichtigungen zu R. KEILBACHs Bibliographie und Liste der
Bernsteinfossilien - Klasse Insecta. - Stuttg. Beitr.
Naturk. (B), 182: 1-102
WEIDNER, H. (1958): Einige interessante
Insektenlarven aus der Bernsteininklusen-Sammlung des
Geologischen Staatsinstituts Hamburg (Odonata, Coleoptera,
Megaloptera, Planipennia). - Mitt. Geol. Staatsinst.
Hamburg, 27: 50-68
WEITSCHAT, W. (1996): Bitterfelder
Bernstein - Eozäner Bernstein auf miozäner
Lagerstätte. - Mitt. Dt. Bergbau-Museum Bochum,
(in press)
WICHARD, W. & WEITSCHAT, W. (1996):
Wasserinsekten im Bernstein - Eine paläobiologische
Studie. - Ent. Mitt. Löbbecke Museum &
Aquazoo, Beiheft 4: 121 pp
Last Update: 25th July, 2005
© Günter Bechly,
Böblingen, 2005