Acanonicus;Acanthobolus;Acanthocephala;Acanthocerus;Acanthocolpura;Acanthocoris;Acantholybas;Acanthotyla;Acarihygia;Acidomeria;Acidomus;Acroelytrum;Agathyrma;Agathyrna;Agonotomus;Agriopocodemus;Agriopocoris;Agriopocoscelis;Agriopocostella;Allocara;Al

Subfamily Coreinae Leach, 1815 Genus Ferriantenna Cumming & Le Tirant, 2021 http://zoobank.org/ 40E251C3-987F-4F74-A89B-6545E487EDC8 Type species. – Ferriantenna excalibur Cumming and Le Tirant, 2021. http://zoobank.org:act: 6D28929A-DF04-4038-BB44-B23DAE46BB82 Taxonomic remarks. – The herein described species fails to yield additionalcluesforthe taxonomic placementof Ferriantenna within the greater Coreidae. Just like other recovered congeneric inclusions, this species is also a nymph and is missing the tip of the abdomen (therefore, diagnostic features such as wing venation, genitalia, and knowing whether or not the adults have/do not have ocelli, are lacking). Differentiation. – Within Cumming and Le Tirant (2021) the genus Ferriantenna was erected for several Cretaceous coreids which differed notably from the only other known Cretaceous coreid with elaborate antennae morphology, Magnusantenna Du & Chen, 2021. Several features were noted to allow differentiation between these genera (length ratio of antennomeres,leg length and thickness,head width,and thorax/ abdomen general morphology; Cumming & Le Tirant (2021)). The herein described species is tentatively placed within the genus Ferriantenna due to having similar compound eye, head, and thorax morphology to the other Ferriantenna species. Interestingly though, this new species also has a few features which are found within Magnusantenna. First, long, thin legs are present in both Magnusantenna and Ferriantenna gracenuoxichenae sp. nov., likely these are required to compensate for their exceptionally long antennae (in both cases longer than their bodies; Fig. 1C and D), versus other Ferriantenna species which have shorter antennae (with legs that are not quite as long; Fig. 1A and B). An additional feature which likens our herein described species is the varying morphology between antennomeres II and III (with II relatively simple and III notably different with lobes; Fig. 1C and D). Within the other known Ferriantenna however antennomeres II and III have very similar morphology (Fig. 1A and B). As it appears the coreids of the Cretaceous often had elaborate and quite variable antennae morphology, we feel this feature is more plastic/species specific, whereas similar general body plans may indicate more closely shared ancestry more reliably. Following this line of reasoning the herein described species is placed within Ferriantenna, which can be differentiated from Magnusantenna by larger compound eyes relative to the head size, a head that is narrower than the thorax, and a thorax with undulating widths. Whereas Magnusantenna has smaller compound eyes, a head that is the same width as the thorax, and a thorax with straight lateral magins.