Unmasking a gap: A new oligoneuriid fossil (Ephemeroptera: Insecta) from the Crato Formation (upper Aptian), Araripe Basin, NE Brazil, with comments on Colocrus McCafferty.

The Crato Formation (Araripe Basin) preserves one of the most diverse entomofaunas of the Cretaceous. Among the groups of insects, mayflies stand out in abundance, but among them oligoneuriids are especially rare. A newly discovered adult oligoneuriid from this unit is here described as Incogemina nubila gen. et sp. nov. and new subfamily Incogemininae. A phylogenetic analysis recovered the new taxon as the sister group to the species-rich and cosmopolitan Oligoneuriinae. The paratype of Colocrus indivicum, described as an "oligoneuriid" from the same unit, is here reviewed and considered as belonging to the family Hexagenitidae. The biogeographical and taxonomic implications of this discovery and the phylogenetic position of Incogemina nubila are discussed. Incogemina bridge an important morphological gap between the Oligoneuriinae and the extant Chromarcys. Also, it demonstrates that the divergence between Oligoneuriinae and Incogemininae probably occurred in South America.

Introduction

The Crato Formation (Araripe Basin) in northeast Brazil is a geological unit that preserves one of the most diverse entomofaunas of the Cretaceous [1]. Mayfly larvae constituted important elements of this fauna and, as they had fully aquatic lifestyles, they are more prone to be preserved as fossils than the alates (imagoes or subimagoes). This preservational bias is reflected in the strong disparity in the number of fossilized adult individuals in scientific collections, when compared to the much higher number of larvae, e.g. in McCafferty's work [2] the larvae to alate specimens ratio is approximately 4:1. However, in a controlled excavation in the Crato Formation led by one of us (AAFS), the ratio between larvae and adults was even more outstanding, since no adults were recovered, in contrast to 151 larvae. Regarding the Crato Formation, there are five named mayfly species described based on adult type material, and eleven based on larvae [3].

Among fossil mayflies, oligoneuriids (Oligoneuriidae) are especially rare. The family is divided into three subfamilies [2, 4]: Colocrurinae McCafferty, 1990; Chromarcyinae Demoulin, 1953; and Oligoneuriinae Ulmer, 1914. Colocrurinae is a subfamily known only by fossils and comprises two species of the genus Colocrus McCafferty, 1990, both from the Crato Formation (Colocrus indivicum McCafferty, 1990 and Colocrus magnum Staniczek, 2007). Chromarcyinae is monotypic, represented by the extant species Chromarcys magnifica Navás, 1932, with an Indomalayan distribution [5]. All remaining 67 species and ten genera are extant and included in the Oligoneuriinae, and exhibit a predominantly Pantropical distribution [4, 6].

A newly discovered adult individual from the Crato Formation is here described and identified as a new genus and species. We also review the adult paratype of Colocrus indivicum, which is here considered as belonging to an undetermined genus of the family Hexagenitidae.

Institutional abbreviations

AMNH, Invertebrate Zoology Collection of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA

LPU, Paleontology Collection of the Regional University of Cariri (URCA), Crato, Brazil

SMNS, Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde, Stuttgart, Germany

Material and methods

The specimen LPU 1696 was collected in an outcrop of the Crato Formation at the Mine Antônio Finelon (S 07o 07’ 22,5” and W 39o 42’ 01”) in Nova Olinda municipality, Ceará State, Brazil (Fig 1). The material was recovered from the top level carbonate C6 [7]. More detailed geological and sedimentological information about the Crato Formation can be found in Martill et al. [8].

Fig 1

Locality map.

Locality map showing the Mine Antônio Finelon in Nova Olinda municipality, where LPU 1696 was collected. The Araripe Plateau and outcrops of the Santana Group and the Crato Formation are also indicated.

This new specimen (Fig 2) was analyzed using a Leica binocular microscope. All drawings were made with a Wacom tablet, using the software Autodesk Version 8.6.1, and the photos were taken with a Nikon D800 digital camera. Pictures using ultraviolet light were taken using a Canon EOS Rebel T6i camera. The descriptive anatomical terminology is based on Kukalova-Peck [9] and Kluge [10]. Pictures of AMNH 43499 (Fig 3), the adult paratype of Colocrus indivicum, were made available by the American Museum of Natural History. The map (Fig 1) was generated using the QGIS software, version 3.10 [11], with shapefiles provided by the Serviço Geológico do Brasil (CPRM–GeoSGB).

Fig 2

Incogemina nubila gen. et sp. nov. holotype LPU 1696, adult.

Upper Aptian, Lower Cretaceous, Crato Formation, Araripe Basin. Nova Olinda municipality, Ceará State, Brazil. Photograph in dorsal view. Scale bar 5 mm.

Fig 3

Colocrus indivicum.

Paratype AMNH 43499, adult. Upper Aptian, Lower Cretaceous, Crato Formation, Araripe Basin. Ceará State, Brazil. Photograph in dorsal view. Scale bar 5 mm.

In order to determine the phylogenetic relationships of LPU 1696, a cladistic analysis was performed using morphological data from the Oligoneuriidae matrix presented by Massariol et al. [4]. Three new characters were proposed, and characters 32 (insertion of gill I) and 53 (orientation of vein RP2 of forewing in relation to RA) were recoded in the matrix according to our interpretation (see S1 and S2 Appendices). The venational nomenclature was revised after Kukalova-Peck [9]. The combined data analysis included both larval and adult characters, with 76 binary characters in total. We also added LPU 1696 to their matrix, thus analyzing 19 ingroup taxa, representing all 12 oligoneuriid genera. We have excluded from the analysis the undetermined species Lachlania sp. and Homoeoneuria sp. because their genera were already represented by other species, and the intention of the analysis was to unravel the phylogenetic position of LPU 1696 within Oligoneuriidae. Outgroup taxa were the same used by Massariol et al. [4], from the related families Isonychiidae, Coloburiscidae, and Heptageniidae, which together with Oligoneuriidae compose the superfamily Heptagenioidea [10, 12].

Parsimony methods were conducted using TNT 1.5 [13] (data matrix in S2 Appendix). All characters were treated as non-additive and unordered. An exhaustive search was run under the implicit enumeration command, and implied weights, testing several concavity constant values (k = 1–20). The implied weights were used because they normally increase the stability and support compared to the equal weights scheme [14]. To estimate support of nodes, the Relative Bremer Support (RB) was calculated. All branches were collapsed with 15 additional steps than the shortest tree, generating 3,263 trees. The nodes in which the RB value was higher than 60 were considered strongly supported; between 30 and 60 were considered moderately supported; and those less than 30, poorly supported [15]. Also, 1,000 bootstrap (BT) pseudoreplicates were run, using the implicit enumeration search.

On average, 18% of characters were missing among OTUs represented by extant taxa, and 84% in the two extinct species. For this reason, we chose not to include data of the Colocrus larva in the analysis of the combined data matrix. Since the taxon only possesses seven characters to score in the matrix, it added a large amount of missing data that made many taxa unstable within branches, which could compromise the reliability of the results [16].

In addition to the analysis using the entire matrix, another one was performed using only larval characters (45 binary characters) to elucidate the phylogenetic position of Colocrus indivicum (once the associated adults are no longer considered conspecific, see below). The analysis followed the same protocol as detailed above, except no branch supports were estimated.

Nomenclatural acts

The electronic edition of this article conforms to the requirements of the amended International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and hence the new names contained herein are available under that Code from the electronic edition of this article. This published work and the nomenclatural acts it contains have been registered in ZooBank, the online registration system for the ICZN. The ZooBank LSIDs (Life Science Identifiers) can be resolved and the associated information viewed through any standard web browser by appending the LSID to the prefix “http://zoobank.org/”. The LSID for this publication is: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:EFE79A8D-18A8-4487-9748-2B80F4CF52B3. The electronic edition of this work was published in a journal with an ISSN, and has been archived and is available from the following digital repositories: PubMed Central, LOCKSS.

Results

Phylogenetic analysis

Parsimony analysis under implied weights for the combined data matrix of larval and adult characters resulted in two most parsimonious trees. The values of total fit and adjusted homoplasy were 57.18571 and 14.81429, respectively. The strict consensus tree is shown in Fig 4.

Fig 4

Strict consensus tree.

Strict consensus of the two most parsimonious trees, from the analysis of 76 morphological characters from larvae and adults of Oligoneuriidae. Numbers above and below circles correspond to synapomorphies supporting Oligoneuriidae and LPU 1696 + Oligoneuriinae (characters and states, respectively). Other apomorphies are omitted for clarity. Bootstrap (BT) values are indicated above branches, in red squares, and Relative Bremer (RB) support values are located below branches, in black squares.

Oligoneuriidae was recovered as monophyletic, with BT and RB values of 80 and 61 respectively, supported by six synapomorphies: apical angle of maxilla acute (7:0); second segment of maxillary palp much longer in relation to first (8:1); lateral margin of epimera and episterna projected laterally (10:1); outer margin of fore femur without fine, long, simple setae (14:0); both adult tarsal claws rounded (50:1); vein RP of forewing originating next to wing base (59:1). Chromarcys was recovered as the sister-group to all other oligoneuriids and was supported by two apomorphies: terminal filament with setae, except at the basal 1/3 (43:1); forceps with three or more apical segments (66:1). LPU 1696 + Oligoneuriinae were recovered as a monophyletic group, with BT and RB values of 82 and 44 respectively, supported by one synapomorphy: presence of longitudinal vein gemination (pairing of longitudinal veins) (55:1). LPU 1696 was recovered with one autapomorphy: presence of incomplete gemination (76:0). Oligoneuriinae was recovered as monophyletic, with BT and RB values of 96 and 31 respectively, supported by three synapomorphies already found by Massariol et al. [4], plus the absence of cubital intercalaries (74:1; new character). Relationships between its genera were not well resolved, with many taxa in polytomies. Analysis of the matrix containing only larval characters was affected by the lack of adult characters, with a large politomy at the base of Oligoneuriidae, and relationships among several genera were spurious: Isonychia was recovered within Oligoneuriidae, while Colocrus and Chromarcys were recorded as sister-groups within Oligoneuriinae.

Systematic paleontology

Subphylum Hexapoda Latreille, 1825

Class Insecta Linnaeus, 1758

Order Ephemeroptera Hyatt & Arms, 1890

Family Oligoneuriidae Ulmer, 1914

Subfamily Incogemininae nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:377214A2-FACD-48C7-9E55-31C8972AB4E4

Type genus. Incogemina gen. nov.

Branch-based definition. All species more closely related to Incogemina than to Oligoneuria and Chromarcys.

Diagnosis. That of genus Incogemina gen. nov., as Incogemininae is monogeneric.

Genus Incogemina gen. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:C598DE19-4A9C-43B1-961A-B0E3E31DA24A

Type species. Incogemina nubila sp. nov.

Derivation of name. Named after the presence of incomplete gemination, from the Latin prefix incohatus combined with geminae.

Diagnosis. Forewing with crossveins distributed in all sectors; presence of incomplete gemination in longitudinal veins; presence of intercalary vein between MP1 and MP2; MP2 and CuA running closely parallel for entire length; presence of intercalaries in cubital region.

Incogemina nubila sp. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:68095038-5398-4DF5-89A4-88E62EF89D8F

Holotype. Specimen no. LPU 1696, at the Paleontology Collection of the Regional University of Cariri (URCA), Crato, CE–Brazil (Fig 2).

Type locality. Mine Antônio Finelon, Nova Olinda municipality, Ceará state, Brazil.

Referred specimen. SMNS 66623, at the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart, Germany. Exact locality unknown.

Locality and horizon. Southern Ceará state, Brazil. Upper Aptian, Lower Cretaceous [8], Crato Formation, Santana Group, Araripe Basin.

Derivation of name. Named after its grayish wing coloration.

Diagnosis. That of genus Incogemina gen. nov., monotypic.

Description. Specimen preserved in dorsal view, with both forewings articulated and spread out. Head and thorax hard to describe due to incomplete preservation. Hind wings, legs, antennae and most of the caudal filaments missing (Fig 2).

Body length: 23mm. Forewing length: 18 mm; subtriangular; ratio of wing length to width about 2:1; crossveins present in entire wing (weak in basal sections) (Fig 5); Sc and RA running parallel to each other; Sc and RA reaching wing apex; RP forks basally at one-fifth of wing length; RP1 and IRP branch symmetrical at about one-quarter of distance from wing base; RP2 branch at about one-third distance from wing apex, parallel at apex to IRP; RP3-4 running parallel to MA1; MA fork symmetrical, distal to midlength; MP fork near base; pre-gemination of MP1 with MA2 distally; two intercalaries between MP1 and MP2; MP2 and CuA curving posteriorly forming a close parallel pair for entire length; CuA1 curving posteriorly near tornus of wing; CuA branched forming CuA1 and CuA2; CuA2 running towards posterior wing margin; CuP not branched, curved (Fig 5); anal veins difficult to trace. Abdomen with nine discernible segments; caudal filaments missing, with only the base of the two cerci preserved, representing the 10th segment.

Fig 5

Incogemina nubila gen. et sp. nov. holotype LPU 1696, adult.

Upper Aptian, Lower Cretaceous, Crato Formation, Araripe Basin. Nova Olinda municipality, Ceará State, Brazil. A) Right forewing, photograph under ultraviolet light evidencing the crossvenation. White arrows point to crossvenation. B) Left forewing, base venation, interpretative drawing. Scale bars = 2 mm.

Comments. Staniczek [3] mentioned a putative adult for Colocrus magnum. This specimen (SMNS 66623) was compared with Incogemina by photographs and is here referred to Incogemina nubila.

As Kluge [10] pointed out, “Mayfly systematics is based on a combination of larval, subimaginal and imaginal characters; however, larvae and winged stages (subimago and imago) are so different, that their association represents a special problem”. There are several known instances of associations between larvae and adults that were later proved to be mistaken [10]. Even when dealing with extant individuals, it is hard to associate larvae and imagoes based only on morphological characters, and in most situations a precise identification can be made only by rearing them [10] or using DNA tools such as barcoding [17, 18]. There are oligoneuriid larval individuals described for the Crato Formation (the holotypes of Colocrus indivicum McCafferty, 1990—AMNH 43484 and Colocrus magnum Staniczek, 2007—SMNS 66624). The holotype of Colocrus magnum has a similar size to our specimen (LPU 1696), but other than that, is not comparable, so the association of winged and larval individuals is doubtful. Therefore, we prefer to describe winged stages under separate names, as is usually accepted in paleoentomology [19, 20].

Comments on Colocrus indivicum McCafferty, 1990

McCafferty [2] described Colocrus indivicum based on two specimens, one larva (holotype) and one adult (paratype), and placed the species in the family Oligoneuriidae. The paratype, AMNH 43499, was preserved with some parts of the forewing folded, giving the impression of some pre-geminated veins. However, we here revise its venational data, which clearly indicate its placement in the family Hexagenitidae, because the CuA branches with triads between CuA1 and CuA2 (Fig 6). In fact, the only ephemeropterans that present such branching are the Hexagenitidae, among extinct and extant taxa. Furthermore, the relatively large hind wings are typical of the Hexagenitidae [3]. Hexagenitids, widespread during the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous, were often of large size, but the Lower Cretaceous taxa were moderate in size [21]. Hexagenitidae is the most common ephemeropteran family found in the Crato Formation [22, 23], but a more detailed taxonomic review of this clade is beyond the scope of the present work.

Fig 6

Colocrus indivicum.

Paratype AMNH 43499, adult. Upper Aptian, Lower Cretaceous, Crato Formation, Araripe Basin. Ceará State, Brazil. Photograph of left forewing. Black arrows point to triads between CuA1 and CuA2. Scale bar 1 mm.

The species Colocrus indivicum, therefore, does not possess any adult representative. Here, we revise the diagnosis suggested by Massariol et al. [4] for the subfamily Colocrurinae: excluding all adult characters, only one larval character is left (abdominal gill I inserted dorsally). As this character state is present in most extant Ephemeroptera including the outgroups herein analyzed (see Massariol et al. [4]), it is actually a plesiomorphy, and thus not diagnostic. More complete specimens and detailed anatomical descriptions are thus needed to better define Colocrus and Colocrurinae. Modern imaging techniques, such as CT scans, may help uncover features currently hidden within the limestone.

Discussion

Demoulin [24] emphasized similarities between Chromarcys and the Hexagenitidae, assuming a closer phylogenetic relationship between these taxa, which may explain McCafferty’s [2] dubious placement of the adult specimen (paratype) of Colocrus indivicum as a representative of Oligoneuriidae. However, the Hexagenitidae clearly lack the apomorphies of the Oligoneuriidae.

All analyses published so far recovered Oligoneuriidae as monophyletic [4, 25]. Ogden and Whiting [26] and Ogden et al. [27] took in few Oligoneuriidae taxa, and their analyses also indicated the monophyly of the family. Following the criteria proposed by Hillis and Bull [15] for RB values, Oligoneuriidae was recovered in our analysis as strongly supported, with Incogemina + Oligoneuriinae and Oligoneuriinae as moderately supported.

Incogemina exhibits numerous venational similarities with Chromarcys, and differing from the Oligoneuriinae, such as forewings with numerous crossveins, some longitudinal veins of forewing not geminated, R2-5 branching toward basal fifth of forewing, and cubital sector of forewing developed (Fig 5). Our analysis demonstrates that these characters are plesiomorphic for Oligoneuriidae, and are shared within the remaining Heptagenioidea.

The venation of Incogemina appears to be a mosaic between a plesiomorphic ephemeropteran wing venation, as evident in Chromarcys, and the highly reduced apomorphic wing with geminated longitudinal veins that is found in Oligoneuriinae. Major intercalaries except for IMP are absent in Incogemina as they are in Oligoneuriinae, but part of the radial and cubital area retain remnants of the plesiomorphic ephemeropteran venation, as in Chromarcys. A tendency towards gemination is clearly evident in Incogemina, and is the most important evidence that this species bridges a gap in morphology between the Oligoneuriinae and other Oligoneuriidae.

The discovery of a Gondwanan species with such a combination of characters is expected. It appears that several families of Ephemeroptera have had their primary evolutionary development on the Gondwana supercontinent [28]. Subsequently these southern groups have either dispersed to the temperate areas of the northern Hemisphere [29] or suffered vicariance [4]. A Gondwanan origin of the family Oligoneuriidae was suggested by Edmunds [28, 29], McCafferty [30], and more recently by Massariol et al. [4].

Massariol et al. [4] proposed that the divergence between Oligoneuriinae and Chromarcyinae was related to the breakup of Gondwana. The initial evolution of oligoneuriids in Gondwana was complex, and clades such as Colocrus and Incogemina might have been sympatric, although more refined stratigraphic data is missing. Reasons for the divergence between major clades are unclear, but our findings give support to the hypothesis that the divergence between Oligoneuriinae and Incogemininae probably occurred in South America and that the present biogeographical distribution of Chromarcys can be explained by dispersal and later by vicariance, as commented by Massariol et al. [4]. The finding of additional and well-preserved fossilized specimens may test this observation.

Conclusions

Incogemina nubila gen. et sp. nov. constitutes the second known fossilized adult of an oligoneuriid, and the first specimen to be described in detail, adding to current knowledge of the mayfly diversity in the Lower Cretaceous. The discovery of a new subfamily of Oligoneuriidae in the Mesozoic of South America fills important gaps in the evolutionary history of the family. From a morphological point of view, the specimens of this new taxon fill gaps between an oligoneuriid ancestor and the extant Chromarcys, because they present a phenotype of wing venation that combines plesiomorphic and apomorphic character states. From a biogeographical view, they demonstrate that the divergence between Oligoneuriinae and Incogemininae probably occurred in what is now South America.

Morphological characters.

Morphological characters and their states coded for this phylogenetic analysis (from Massariol et al., [4], except where noticed).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Character matrix.

Matrix of morphological characters and states used for the phylogenetic analyses of Oligoneuriidae. Ready for use in TNT format.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

8 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-24186

Unmasking a gap: new fossil oligoneuriid (Ephemeroptera: Insecta) from the Crato Formation (upper Aptian), Araripe Basin, NE Brazil, with comments on Colocrus McCafferty

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Storari,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 30th September 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Martha Richter, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

2.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript by Storari et al. is a clearly written and pleasantly concise paper that includes a description and phylogenetic contextualization of a new fossil ephemeropteran genus. The authors’ conclusions are well stated and supported by the data presented here and summarized from previous publications. The figures and text cover all the essentials. I recommend very minor edits below, but feel that this paper could almost be published as-is.

Minor suggestions:

Recommend adding dagger symbol (†) to fossil taxa on the phylogeny.

Please add bootstrap values to the phylogeny – if numbers would clutter too much, perhaps consider a color scheme red/yellow/green for certain bootstrap ranges. At the moment, only a few support values are reported in the text.

Line 20: “mayflies stand out” – why do they stand out? Morphologically conspicuous?

Line 37: if you have quantitative information on the specimen-level disparity between larvae and adults from the McCafferty paper, could be worth including (ie 10:1 ratio, or similar)

Line 47: “Indomalayan” is more commonly used in place of “Oriental Region”

Line 89: although not required, it’s often helpful in morphological matrices that include fossil taxa to report the number of missing character states. I recommend including the total % of missing cells in the matrix, the average number of cells per taxon, and the number of missing cells for fossils/new taxon. These quick stats will help readers assess how missing data may be informing relationships.

Line 94: “nonaddictive” should be “non-additive” I believe

Line 389: unclear what “hendata” is

Reviewer #2: I am very glad the authors wrote this manuscript, describing in detail the new fossil of Oligoneuriidae, proposing a new subfamily, as well as its phylogenetic positioning within the family. They also advanced in the knowledge of other known Oligoneuriidae fossils (Colocrus indivicum and Colocrus magnum), besides raising biogeographical hypotheses.

The manuscript is well-written and with a good balance among descriptions, illustrations, and discussions. Just minor revisions are necessary to clarify some details. Thus, I suggest the publication of the present work after making these small revisions:

1) Line 39. You could specify that the species refer to Ephemeroptera. As it is written it can be confused with Oligoneuriidae species;

2) Line 49. I strongly suggest you include the information "gender unknown";

3) Lines 73, 80, 223, 234. In original description of Colocrus indivicum (McCafferty 1990), the paratype code is: AMNH 43499. I believe that a kind of typo must have occurred;

4) Lines 85, 86. Just for reasons of order, I suggest that the information be inverted, mentioning character 32 first and then 54;

5) Line 89. 21 ingroup taxa (OTU) were used in Massariol et al. (2019), so you excluded from yours analyses Lachlania aldinae, Lachlania sp., and Homoeoneuria sp. Please explain the reason for this exclusion or make it clear that you have not used exactly all OTUs from Massariol et al. (2019);

6) Line 94. Why didn't you do an exhaustive search (implicit enumaration command), since the matrix is small? I think it is worth doing this analysis, as this will explore the total number of possible trees for the data matrix;

7) Line 96. Please explain the choice of k value;

8) Line 98. Why did you choose bootstrap to calculate branch support? For parsimony analyzes there are alternatives with less bias, such as Relative Bremer support (RB) or frequency difference (GC). For more details see: Goloboff PA, Farris JS, Kallersjo M, Oxelman B, Ramirez MJ, Szumik CA. 2003. Improvements to resampling measures of group support. Cladistics 19: 324–332;

9) Line 100. Please specify "combined data". Later you explain that it is the matrix with larvae and adults characters, but I think it is better to make this information clear at "Material and Methods" topic;

10) Line 101. I counted 7 characters instead of 5: 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34 and 37. Please check it again;

11) Line 124. I suggest you include the values of "total fit" and "adjusted homoplasy";

12) Line 128. For a clearer figure caption, I suggest you include the information that characters are from larvae and adults;

13) Line 129. Not all synapomorphies were depicted in Fig. 4. Explain which ones have been suppressed and why. In addition, I did the analysis again in TNT and at Oligoneuriidae clade, another synapomorphy was recovered (in addition to the ones you found): 14 (0). Review the analysis;

14) Please check if there are 5 or 6 (see comment 13);

15) Lines 133-144. If you prefer, you can simplify by “8:1”, “10:1” and so on instead of using “character 8: state 1” and “character 10: state 1”;

16) Line 146. "Inconclusive" is a vague term, so I suggest you explain the results obtained. Did Colocrus go into polytomy? Was there no high support from the branches?;

17) Line 157. In the sentence did you really mean Oligoneuria and not Oligoneurinae?

18) Lines 191, 192. I also suggest you pointing out the CuA1 and CuA2 veins in figure 5B;

19) Lines 282, 295. Did you mean the divergence between Oligoneuriinae and Incogemininae or the divergence between Oligoneuriinae + Incogemininae and other Oligoneuriidae? If it is the first option, replace "+" with "-", so the idea will be clearer.

20) Line 283. The current distribution of Chromarcys is explained both by dispersion, at ancient moment, and by vicariance later. Review this;

21) Line 284. Did you mean fossil or extant specimens? Please clarify this information.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Fabiana Criste Massariol

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

21 Sep 2020

Concerning the considerations made by the Editor, we substituted Figure 1, that was made using GIS, since the previous map was modified from Barling et al. (2015).

Reviewer 1 recommended changes in the phylogeny image (Figure 3), such as the addition of a dagger symbol to indicate taxa known only by fossils and addition of support values to all branches, besides minor modifications of the text. We complied with all changes.

Concerning Reviewer 2, most of the suggestions were related to the phylogenetic analysis, such as to perform an exhaustive search instead of a traditional search and to calculate branch support using Relative Bremer. These modifications were made. Minor modifications of the text were also made after the reviewer’s suggestion.

Detailed replies to reviewers’ comments were addressed in the document 'Response to Reviewers'.

Thank you for handling this manuscript.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

25 Sep 2020

Unmasking a gap: a new oligoneuriid fossil (Ephemeroptera: Insecta) from the Crato Formation (upper Aptian), Araripe Basin, NE Brazil, with comments on Colocrus McCafferty

PONE-D-20-24186R1

Dear Dr. Storari,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Martha Richter, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

5 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-24186R1

Unmasking a gap: a new oligoneuriid fossil (Ephemeroptera: Insecta) from the Crato Formation (upper Aptian), Araripe Basin, NE Brazil, with comments on Colocrus McCafferty

Dear Dr. Storari:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Martha Richter

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE