Next Article in Journal
A Compound Fungicide Impairs Cognitive Performance in Honey Bees (Apis mellifera)
Previous Article in Journal
Bumblebee Diversity in Different Habitat Types and Along an Altitudinal Gradient at a Forest–Grassland Ecotone in the East Range of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau
Previous Article in Special Issue
A New Interesting Moth Lacewing (Neuroptera: Ithonidae) from the Mid-Cretaceous Kachin Amber
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 17
Issue 1
10.3390/insects17010050
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The First Record of Whitefly (Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha, Aleyrodidae) from Bitterfeld Amber

by
Jowita Drohojowska
1,
Anita Gorzelańczyk
1,
Natalia Tomanek
1,
Małgorzata Kalandyk-Kołodziejczyk
1 and
Jacek Szwedo
2,*
1
Institute of Biology, Biotechnology and Environmental Protection, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Silesia, 9, Bankowa St., PL 40-007 Katowice, Poland
2
Laboratory of Evolutionary Entomology and Museum of Amber Inclusions, Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Parasitology, University of Gdańsk, 59, Wita Stwosza St., PL 80-308 Gdańsk, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2026, 17(1), 50; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17010050 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 2 December 2025 / Revised: 19 December 2025 / Accepted: 29 December 2025 / Published: 30 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fossil Insects: Diversity and Evolutionary History)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Scientists have found a male whitefly fossil in Bitterfeld amber. It is a species called Pudrica christianottoi Drohojowska et Szwedo, 2024. Until now, this species has only been found as a single female from Lower Lusatia amber. The fossil species is a member of the family Aleyrodidae of the insect order Hemiptera. These small, inconspicuous insects live on and feed off plants, often being unnoticed as they dwell on the underside of leaves. There are more than 1700 species of whitefly worldwide. These insects are mainly sorted into groups based on their larval form, called the puparium. The fossil record of whiteflies includes over 30 species, found as mostly as adults, and exceptionally as puparia. The new specimen provides new data about the imago’s morphology and shows how sexual dimorphism creates differences in appearance. The fossil male was found in a different area, so it also gives us new information about where the whiteflies that are now extinct were found. It also adds to the ongoing discussion about the age, similarities and differences in how Eocene resins in Europe are formed.

Abstract

A male specimen of whitefly Pudrica christianottoi Drohojowska et Szwedo, 2024, of subfamily Aleyrodinae, previously known from the sole female specimen from Lower Lusatia succinite, is here described, based on an inclusion from Bitterfeld amber. This fossil is contributing new data to our understanding of morphological disparity, sexual dimorphism, taxonomic diversity and palaeobiogeographic distribution of the whiteflies in the Eocene fossil resins. It is also a contribution to the ongoing discussions on age, similarities, dissimilarities and taphonomic differences among Eocene resins of Europe collectively known as ‘Baltic amber’.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

It is a widely accepted view that insects represent the most diverse group of animals on Earth, in terms of both taxonomic diversity and ecological function. The Hemiptera is a notable component of the recognised taxonomic diversity and morphological heterogeneity, constituting the most substantial monophyletic order of the hemimetabolous insects and representing one of the five insect orders with the highest species diversity [1,2,3]. The order Hemiptera is further categorised into six sub-orders, namely the extinct Paleorrhyncha and extant Sternorrhyncha, Fulgoromorpha, Cicadomorpha, Coleorrhyncha and Heteroptera. It comprises over 330 families, known since the Late Carboniferous, with more than 100,000 extant species described [1,3,4,5,6,7]. The Sternorrhyncha, comprising 19,000 described extant species, are of significant ecological and economic importance [2,6,8]. The fossil record of these hemipterans extends back to the Early Permian; however, their evolutionary history has its origins in the Late Carboniferous, and the early stages of its evolution and diversification remain to be fully elucidated. The family Aleyrodidae Westwood, 1840, is commonly referred to as whiteflies, a denomination derived from the presence of a powdery secretion that covers the bodies and wings of the adult species. These insects are minute in size, with a body length and wingspan measuring less than 3 mm, and a body length measurement of 1–2 mm. They always feed on the undersides of leaves as nymphs, puparia and adults. The majority of species exhibit a high degree of relatedness with specific host plants [9,10,11]. Should numerical values of species be utilised as an accurate guide, whiteflies would be by far the least speciose of the four major extant infraorders of sternorrhynchans, with approximately 1700 currently valid extant species. The family Aleyrodidae is currently subdivided into four subfamilies: the extinct Bernaeinae Shcherbakov, 2000, the extant Aleyrodinae Westwood, 1840, the Aleurodicinae Quaintance et Baker, 1913, and the Udamoselinae Enderlein, 1909; the latter has been deemed to have questionable taxonomic status [11]. The fossil record of the family Aleyrodidae extends to the Late Jurassic [12,13]. Other fossils have been reported from the sedimentary deposits (although these records are very scarce) and are more commonly encountered as inclusions in fossil resins from the Lower Cretaceous to the Pliocene [11,14].
Here, we present the description of a male of Pudrica christianottoi Drohojowska et Szwedo, 2024, a species previously known from a single female found in succinite from the Miocene deposits of Lower Lusatia (Germany). This finding contributes to our understanding of the diversity and disparity of fossil whiteflies, and provides insights into depositional and taphonomic conditions, as well as the history of the fossil resins.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Geological Setting

The classification of fossil resins is determined by their chemical composition, geographical and botanical origins. The most common type of amber in Europe is succinite, a polymer of resins from gymnosperm trees, which contains 3–8% percentage of succinic acids [15,16,17]. Succinite is sourced from several locations, but the most prevalent kind is ‘Baltic amber’, originating from the Gulf of Gdańsk area. This fossil resin probably formed during the Eocene as a result of resinous exudations from the plant families Sciadopityaceae or Pinaceae [18], plants that probably formed “Baltic amber forests”, which are thought to have stretched along the margins of the North Sea during the Paleogene [19]. Succinite has also accumulated in the Rovno region (Ukraine), and it is believed that this material most likely originated from coniferous trees growing in the Ukrainian Crystalline Rock Massif, which was characterised by a subtropical climate [20]. A third substantial deposit of succinite has been identified in the vicinity of Bitterfeld (Saxony-Anhalt, Germany), sometimes referred to as Saxonian amber, with resins excavated from a decommissioned open-cast “Braunkohle” (brown coal) mine at Goitzsche.
A significant aspect that merits attention is the long-standing controversy surrounding the age of this amber and accessory resins (see, e.g., reviews in [21,22]). The provenance of resins has been linked to the Bitterfelder Bernsteinschluff Horizont [22,23,24], which comprises layers of Upper Oligocene age (Chattian, 23.0–28.1 Ma; [22,25,26]), but there is evidence that the resins deposited there may be older and were reworked into those horizons later [22,27]. It has been determined that these layers also contain accessory resins, with some of them being of angiosperm origin. Furthermore, the composition and amount of these resins differ from those found in deposits from the Gulf of Gdańsk area [17,22,28,29]. It has been argued that Bitterfeld and Baltic succinite are not synonymous and geochemically divergent [18,30,31]; on the other hand, their similarity or coeval age was suggested (but see discussions, e.g., in [21,32,33]. The debate on temporal conspecificity of the Baltic, Bitterfeld, Lusatian and other succinites from Central Europe is not entirely trivial, as it impacts questions regarding the potential longevity of plant and arthropod species, or their wider lineages, in essentially unchanged states throughout the Cenozoic era of northern Europe.
In this particular context, we identified the first whitefly from Bitterfeld amber, representing the same species as previously reported from amber from Lower Lusatia [14].

2.2. Morphology and Documentation

The specimen studied is a piece of Baltic amber (succinite), from the Bitterfeld deposit, and comes from the collection of Hans Werner and Christel Hoffeins (Germany). Observations were conducted at the Institute of Biology, Biotechnology and Environmental Protection, University of Silesia, employing Nikon SMZ25, Nikon SMZ1500, Nikon SMZ1270, and Leica M205C stereoscopic microscopes and a Nikon Eclipse E600 microscope; observations and documentation were made with direct and transmitted light (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan; Leica, Wetzlar, Germany). Additional observations and photographs were made with a Nikon Microphot-FX microscope and a Nikon DS-Fi2 digital camera with a DS-U3 controller, under the control of NIS Elements D 5.20.01 software, and with a Nikon Eclipse E600 microscope with a Nikon DSFi2 digital camera, operating under the control of NIS Elements D 4.20.03 software; and Nikon SMZ1500 with a Nikon DS Fi3 camera, under the control of NIS Elements D 5.01.00 software, the photographs were edited using Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0. Photographs were also captured in the Laboratory of Evolutionary Entomology and Museum of Amber Inclusions, Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Parasitology, University of Gdańsk, using an Olympus SZX10 equipped with an EP50 digital camera (both Olympus Corp. Tokyo, Japan) and EPview Version 3.7.2 (Olympus Soft Imaging Solutions GmbH freeware, Münster, Germany). The photographs were readjusted using CorelDRAW X7 (Corel Corporation, Ottawa, Canada). Drawings were made with the aid of a camera lucida attached to an Olympus SZX10 stereomicroscope. The morphological terminology is given after Drohojowska And Szwedo [34].

3. Results

Systematic Palaeontology

Order Hemiptera Linnaeus, 1758 [35].
Suborder Sternorrhyncha Amyot et Audinet-Serville, 1843 [36].
Infraorder Aleyrodomorpha Chou, 1963 [37].
Family Aleyrodidae Westwood, 1840 [38].
Subfamily Aleyrodinae Westwood, 1840 [38].
Genus Pudrica Drohojowska et Szwedo, 2024 [14].
Type species. Pudrica christianottoi Drohojowska et Szwedo, 2024; by original designation and monotypy.
Pudrica christianottoi Drohojowska et Szwedo, 2024.
(Figure 1A–F, Figure 2A–F and Figure 3A–G).
Emended diagnosis. In general, features and venation pattern similar to Snotra Drohojowska et Szwedo, 2016, with antennae 7-segmented, with antennomeres F4 and F6 the same length (different length in S. christelae; in S. herczeki antennae 6-segmented); antennomeres F3 and F5 with subapical rhinaria; compound eyes divided, connected by four ommatidia (compound eyes not dived in Snotra); thorax with mesopostnotum slightly concave in median portion, lateral sections convexly declivous laterad; forewing less than 2.3 times as long as wide (as in S. herczeki; in S. christelae 2.5); vein Sc + R almost straight, not forked (Sc + R curved in apical half, not forked in S. herczeki; vein Sc + R bent in apical half, weakly forked into Sc + Rs in S. christelae); CuP (claval fold) distinct, with apex reaching half of fore wing length (not reaching half of fore wing length in Snotra).
Description. Body length approx. 1.03 mm. Head with compound eyes is 0.9 times as wide as the pronotum (Figure 1A,C,E), trapezoidal in shape from the dorsal side (Figure 1A,C,E) with an indistinct depression in the middle (traces of coronal suture perhaps); lateral margins merely sinuately diverging posteriad, posterior margin concave, disc of vertex concave; median ocellus absent, lateral ocelli distinct above the compound eyes, at level of anterior line of compound eye; compound eyes in dorsal view flattened, not bulging, divided, connected in median portion with 4 ommatidia, ommatidia of equal size. Rostrum (Figure 1D,F) short and massive, reaching the hips of the second pair of legs. Antennae seven-segmented (Figure 2A–F), scapus short, about ⅓ as long as pedicel, pedicel club-shaped, twice as long as wide, ca. 2.3 times shorter than the longest third segment, antennomeres F4 and F6 of same length, antennomere F7 longer than antennomere F6, with apical constriction (concavity) and single apical seta; subapical rhinaria visible on antennomeres F3 and F5; F3 with subapical seta, F7 tapers bilaterally towards the end; the cumulative length of F4, F5, F6 and F7 subequal to the length of F3.
Thorax (Figure 1A,C,E) is clearly visible. Pronotum 12 times wider than long in the midline, arcuate, anterior margin arcuate, diverging posteriad, lateral margins broader than the length of the pronotum in the midline, with lateral margins rounded, posterior margin deeply arcuate; mesopraescutum 1.37 times as long as broad, anterior margin arcuate, posteriad margins converging, straight, apex slightly rounded, with angle slightly wider than rectangular angle; mesoscutum slightly wider than pronotum, narrowed in the middle and 9 times wider than longer in the midline; anterior margin arcuate, lateral angles convex, with anterior lateral angles arcuate and posterior lateral angles less protruding and more pointed; lateral parts in the form of relatively long, curved cones, whose apices run towards the rear of the body; parapteron large, ellipsoid, flattened; mesoscutellum is a horizontal band with a slightly convex anterior margin and an arched posterior margin; posterior lateral parts in the form of elongated bands directed towards the rear of the body; mesopostnotum subtriangular, with median shallow concavity, lateral portions convexly declivous laterad; lateral bands of mesoscutellum and mesopostnotum visible; metascutum narrowed, 6 times wider than its length in the median line, where the narrowing occurs; anterior margin arched concave, anterior lateral and posterior lateral angles gently rounded; lateral parts in the form of short bands with apices directed towards the front of the body; metascutellum parts visible, broad, about 4 times as wide as long in midline, anterior and posterior margins straight.
Legs well visible; metatibia the longest, proleg appears the shortest; metacoxa well visible, cylindrical in shape; metatibia 1.3 times longer than the combined length of metatrochanter and metafemur; tarsi 2-segmented, basitarsomere longer than apical tarsomere; tarsal claws visible, slightly curved; paronychium not visible except on one of the metalegs as a short, relatively wide and blunt structure; basimetatarsomere 1.5 times longer than apical metatarsomere; all legs covered with bristles; pro- and metalegs (Figure 1B,D), short hairs are scattered on the tibia, and there are also single bristles on the tarsi; metalegs (Figure 1B,D) covered with bristles on the shins, where there is also a comb with at least a dozen long, relatively evenly spaced bristles; single, short hairs are also present on both tarsal segments.
Fore wings (Figure 1A,B and Figure 3AC) visible, left one, in the distal section covered with a milky-brown structure, right one bent at the wing joint so that the anterior and posterior sections of the wing are reversed; fore wing (Figure 1A,B and Figure 3A–C) widens towards the apex, reaching its widest dimension at approximately ⅔ of its length; it is about 2.1 times longer than wide; costal margin gently arched, convex; the anteroapical angle, apical margin and posteroapical angles broadly rounded; the posterior margin rounded at the base, with a slight indentation that begins before reaching the middle of the wing length; anterior, apical and posterior edges of the wing with a distinct, granular surface; common stem Sc + R thickened, well defined, running towards the anteroapical angle and branching just before reaching the middle of the wing; branch R1 slightly curved and relatively short; branch Rs, approximately 2.8 times longer than R1, straight, approaches almost to the fore wing apex; branch CuP runs in an almost straight line to the shallow concavity in the posterior margin of the fore wing, separating claval margin and tornus, but does not reach the margin.
Hind wing (Figure 1A,B and Figure 3D) slightly upturned, with the left one having an incomplete apical part; hind wing widened in the distal part, about 2.3 times longer than wide, reaching its maximum width at approximately ⅔ of its length; anterior margin straight, with a slight indentation at ⅓ of the length; anteroapical angle and apical margin arched, posteroapical angle broadly rounded, posterior margin almost straight; edges of the hind wing granular; common stem Sc + R thickened and clearly visible, smoothly transitioning into Rs, with a slightly arched course towards the apex, but not reaching the margin.
Abdomen (Figure 1A,B) longer than the combined length of head and thorax, invisible from the dorsal side except for the shape of the claspers; four wax fields visible from the ventral side (Figure 3E,F); male copulatory apparatus (Figure 3E–H) 1.6 times longer than wide at base; aedeagus not visible; claspers, constitute 69% of the length of the copulatory apparatus, cross at about ⅓ of their length, after which their sharp tips curved mediad and extended beyond the outer edge of the adjacent claspers; outer margin of the claspers straight, while the inner edge first bulges outwards and then curves inwards; claspers equipped with bristles, also in the distal part, in addition.
For measurements, see Table 1.
Specimen. Male. Hans Werner and Christel Hoffeins collection nr 834-1, deposited in the collection of the Museum of Amber Inclusions of the University of Gdańsk, MAIG 7290 Gdańsk, Poland. A flat box-shaped piece of amber (0.7 cm side length), small and thin, embedded in transparent resin with a large margin around it (according to [39]). The amber is light in colour, without any impurities. The specimen under examination is located in the centre of the lump in a dorso-ventral position and within a ‘sun spangle’, discoidal crack with numerous cracks.
Locality and stratum. Goitzsche Lagerstätte (former Goitzsche mine), Bitterfeld-Wolfen, Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany; Bitterfeld amber (Late Eocene in age, see Discussion for details) from the Cottbus Formation of Upper Oligocene: Chattian, 23.0–28.1 Ma [40,41].

4. Discussion

The specimen described above exhibits all distinguishing morphological characters of Pudrica christianottoi Drohojowska et Szwedo, 2024, but it is a male specimen. As demonstrated in Table 1, the male specimen is observed to be marginally smaller than the female. This feature has been documented as being prevalent among whiteflies. However, an analysis of the proportions of body parts and crucial elements revealed them to be identical, thus enabling identification of the male specimen as Pudrica christianottoi. The placement of this species within the subfamily Aleyrodinae is on the basis of the configuration of the fore wing with a single, straight, non-forked central vein R, contrary to the pattern in Aleurodicinae where the branch Rs is present, and terminal R1 is typically short or absent. In Aleyrodinae, females are characteristic of presence of two pairs of ventral abdominal wax plates (on segments A2 or A3 and A4); this feature was not observable in female specimen from Wanninchen and Schlabendorfer See, Lower Lusatia, found in association with lignite chunks [14], due to its preservation state; male specimen with four pairs of ventral abdominal wax plates on A2–A5, clearly visible in specimen from Bitterfeld, confirming the taxonomic placement of Pudrica christianottoi in Aleyrodinae. Fossil resins found in Wanninchen, the area of former brown coal (lignite) mine, are the most probably redeposited, succinite was reported in association with lignite and glessite, in layers without gravel and pebbles (typical for Pleistocene strata), most probably representing Lower/Middle Miocene, Burdigalian/Langhian; Brieske Formation, Welzow Member, 2nd MFH (2. Miozänen Flözhorizontes; 2nd Miocene Seam Horizon) [42,43,44,45]. The lignite deposits that were exploited in Schlabendorf-Süd mine were formed in swamp and bog environments, under more or less marine influence, with the light micaceous sands deposited in shore face or barrier island environments; the silts representing lagoon environments and in part tidal flats as well [42,46,47]. The deposits were formed during the Middle-Miocene Climatic Optimum, and palaeobotanical data suggested various types of mixed mesophytic forests, forest- to bush moors to reed-mire vegetation, with the predominance of subtropical taxa [48,49,50].
The male specimen of Pudrica christianottoi was discovered in the Bitterfeld area, in the former lignite mine of Goitzsche (amber mining ceased in 1990, and subsequently the mine was flooded). This region has been recognised as a site of amber deposits for a considerable period, with records dating back to the 17th century [22,51,52]. The geological setting of the deposits of resins in the Bitterfeld area was initiated in the mid-1970s, with scientific studies of amber (succinite) inclusions commencing in the early 1980s [28,53]. To date, there have been no reports of whiteflies being present in succinite from the Bitterfeld area. In a manner analogous to the occurrence of succinite found in Lower-Middle Miocene deposits of Lower Lusatia [14], the succinite from Goitzsche mine underwent reworking and redeposition to Upper Oligocene strata, and its age is assumed to be distinctly older, with the most probable date being assigned as Middle to Upper Eocene [19,21,33,54]. At the time of (re)deposition of the resins in the amberiferous layers of Bitterfeld, the area was positioned at the northern margin of the Bohemian Massif, between 44.9 and 45.3° N [22,44,45,55,56,57]. This area has been subject to repeated changes in continental and marine-brackish facies as a result of climatic, epeirogenic and fractional tectonic shifts. During the Oligocene/Miocene transition, this region was an estuary branch of the Thierbach river system [22,58], placed in the floristic North European Province, within an area dominated by vegetation of the fossil Thierbach floral complex, which may be the source of both succinite and accessory resins [22,59,60]. The presence of the same species in geographically and stratigraphically distinct regions, albeit not very remote, may be attributable to the reworking and transportation of amber pieces during geological changes in these areas [44,45,55]. It can be plausibly hypothesised that Pudrica christianottoi was the species that occurred in the forests of the southern banks of the sea, and that the inclusions were spread during these events. Notwithstanding the scarce data on fossil whiteflies, the ‘taxonomic landscape’ of these insects is of considerable interest. The whiteflies inclusions from the Gulf of Gdańsk are represented by Aleyrodinae genus Snotra (2 spp.), and Aleurodicinae genera: Paernis (1 sp.), Gregorites (1 sp.), Eogroehnia (1 sp.), Medocellodes (1 sp.); in amber from Denmark only Aleurodicinae genus Gregorites (7 spp.) are present; amber from Rovno Aleurodicinae is genus Rovnodicus (1 sp.), while in succinite from Bitterfeld and Lower Lusatia only Aleyrodinae genus Pudrica (1 sp.) is known so far. Older, Lowermost Eocene inclusions in amber of Oise represent only Aleurodicinae (with monospecific genera Clodionus, Isaraselis, Lukotekia, Oisedicus). The prevalence of Aleurodicinae in the Eocene fossil records is of particular interest, as it stands in opposition to the contemporary perception of the taxonomic diversity of whiteflies. The contemporary fauna is dominated by Aleyrodinae (approx. 150 genera and over 1500 species), in contrast to the representation of Aleurodicinae comprising 21 genera and approx. 130 species. The Aleyrodinae are cosmopolitan, with the greatest diversity found in tropical and warm-temperate regions, where an estimated 63% of all whitefly species are distributed. Regarding available data, the Aleyrodinae achieved success with feeding on gymnosperms, as evidenced by their continued presence, while the Aleurodicinae do not favour these plants [9]. Representatives of both subfamilies demonstrate a marked preference for dicotyledones over monocotyledones, with the highest numbers of records pertaining to representatives of Fabales (core eudicots, rosid I clade) and Poales (monocots). The question of the potential host plant of Pudrica christianottoi remains unresolved; in both sites, the floristic lists of taxa encompass representatives of various groups of angiosperm and gymnosperm plants [22,28,32]. The majority of species belonging to the modern Aleurodicinae subfamily have been reported in tropical and warm-temperate Central and South America and the Caribbean. Consequently, the fossils from Europe may be indicative of the shift and ecological change reflected in the modern distribution and diversity of whiteflies.

5. Conclusions

Whiteflies seldom endure the process of fossilisation, thus making these discoveries of paramount importance to the fields of palaeontology and palaeoentomology. These specimens represent a significant source of information about the biodiversity and climatic conditions of the ‘amber forests’ of the Paleogene, which are believed to have been characterised by a warm and humid climate. The discovery of the Pudrica christianottoi specimen in Bitterfeld succinite provides further evidence in discussions about the nature, formation conditions, deposition sites and taphonomic fate of Eocene fossil resins in Central and Eastern Europe. The recent findings, accompanied by comprehensive descriptions and in-depth analyses of morphological traits and taxonomic diversity of whiteflies (utilised as a model group), in conjunction with geochemical and taphonomical data from sites containing amber deposits, and further elaborations of fossil resins and their fates within the geosphere, have the potential to enhance our comprehension of past events. These findings may serve as pivotal insights into the dynamics of rapid environmental changes in the present.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.D. and J.S.; data curation, J.D.; documentation and morphological elaboration of the specimens, A.G., N.T. and M.K.-K.; designation of the research, writing the drafts and composition of the final version, generation of the analysed data and drafting of the taxonomic section, J.D. and J.S.; writing—review and editing, J.D. and J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is supported by the National Science Centre, Poland, grant no. 2022/47/B/NZ8/02113 granted to J.D.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Christel and Hans Werner Hoffeins for loaning the specimen.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Szwedo, J. The unity, diversity and conformity of bugs (Hemiptera) through time. Earth Environ. Sci. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 2018, 107, 109–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Drohojowska, J.; Szwedo, J.; Żyła, D.; Huang, D.-Y.; Müller, P. Fossils reshape the Sternorrhyncha evolutionary tree (Insecta, Hemiptera). Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 11390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Song, N.; Wang, M.M.; Huang, W.C.; Wu, Z.Y.; Shao, R.; Yin, X.M. Phylogeny and evolution of hemipteran insects based on expanded genomic and transcriptomic data. BMC Biol. 2024, 22, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Henry, T.J. Biodiversity of Heteroptera. In Insect Biodiversity: Science and Society, 2nd ed.; Foottit, A.G., Adler, P.H., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2017; Volume 1, pp. 279–336. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bartlett, C.R.; Deitz, L.L.; Dmitriev, D.A.; Sanborn, A.F.; Soulier-Perkins, A.; Wallace, M.S. The diversity of the true hoppers (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha). In Insect Biodiversity: Science and Society; Foottit, A.G., Adler, P.H., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2018; pp. 501–590. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hardy, N.B. The biodiversity of Sternorrhyncha: Scale insects, aphids, psyllids, and whiteflies. In Insect Biodiversity: Science and Society; Foottit, A.G., Adler, P.H., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2018; pp. 591–625. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kieran, T.J.; Gordon, E.R.; Forthman, M.; Hoey-Chamberlain, R.; Kimball, R.T.; Faircloth, B.C.; Weirauch, C.; Glenn, T.C. Insight from an ultraconserved element bait set designed for hemipteran phylogenetics integrated with genomic resources. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2019, 130, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Oberemok, V.V.; Gal’chinsky, N.V.; Useinov, R.Z.; Novikov, I.A.; Puzanova, Y.V.; Filatov, R.I.; Kouakou, N.J.; Kouame, K.F.; Kra, K.D.; Laikova, K.V. Four most pathogenic superfamilies of insect pests of suborder Sternorrhyncha: Invisible superplunderers of plant vitality. Insects 2023, 14, 462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gerling, D. Whiteflies: Their Bionomics, Pest Status and Management; Intercept Ltd.: Andover, The Netherlands, 1990; 348p. [Google Scholar]
  10. Grimaldi, D.; Engel, M.S. Evolution of the Insects; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005; 772p. [Google Scholar]
  11. Evans, G.A.; Martin, J.H.; Drohojowska, J.; Szwedo, J.; Dubey, A.K.; Dooley, J.W.; Stocks, I.C. Whiteflies of the world (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha, Aleyrodidae)—A catalogue of the taxonomy, distribution, hosts and natural enemies of whiteflies. Zootaxa, 2025; in press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Shcherbakov, D.E. The most primitive whiteflies (Hemiptera; Aleyrodidae; Bernaeinae subfam. nov.) from the Mesozoic of Asia and Burmese amber, with an overview of Burmese amber hemipterans. Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. (Geol.) 2000, 56, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
  13. Drohojowska, J.; Wegierek, P.; Evans, G.A.; Huang, D.Y. Are contemporary whiteflies living fossils? Morphology and systematic status of the oldest representatives of the Middle-late Jurassic Aleyrodomorpha (Sternorrhyncha, Hemiptera) from Daohugou. Palaeoentomology 2019, 2, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Drohojowska, J.; Zmarzły, M.; Szwedo, J. The discovery of a fossil whitefly from Lower Lusatia (Germany) presents a challenge to current ideas about Baltic amber. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 23102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Anderson, K.B.; Winans, R.E.; Botto, R.E. The nature and fate of natural resins in the geosphere—II. Identification, classification and nomenclature of resinites. Org. Geochem. 1992, 18, 829–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Matuszewska, A. Bursztyn i Inne Żywice Kopalne, Subfossylne i Współczesne; Uniwersytet Śląski. Oficyna Wydawnicza Wacław Walasek: Katowice, Poland, 2010; 234p. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  17. Kosmowska-Ceranowicz, B. Bursztyn w Polsce i na Świecie. Amber in Poland and in the World, 2nd ed.; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego: Warsaw, Poland, 2017; 311p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wolfe, A.P.; McKellar, R.C.; Tappert, R.; Sodhi, R.N.S.; Muehlenbachs, K. Bitterfeld amber is not Baltic amber: Three geochemical tests and further constraints on the botanical affinities of succinite. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 2016, 225, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sadowski, E.M.; Schmidt, A.R.; Seyfullah, L.J.; Kunzmann, L. Conifers of the “Baltic Amber Forest” and their palaeoecological significance. Stapfia 2017, 106, 1–73. [Google Scholar]
  20. Perkovsky, E.; Rasnitsyn, A.; Vlaskin, A.; Taraschuk, M. A comparative analysis of the Baltic and Rovno amber arthropod faunas: Representative samples. Afr. Invert. 2007, 48, 229–245. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dunlop, J.A.; Kotthoff, U.; Hammel, J.U.; Ahrens, J.; Harms, D. Arachnids in Bitterfeld amber: A unique fauna of fossils from the heart of Europe or simply old friends? Evol. Syst. 2018, 2, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rappsilber, I. Bitterfelder Bernstein: Geschichte, Vielfalt, Entstehung/Bitterfeld Amber: History, Diversity, Origin; Ampyx Verlag: Halle (Saale), Germany, 2022; 323p. [Google Scholar]
  23. Krumbiegel, G.; Kosmowska-Ceranowicz, B. Fossile Harze der Umgebung von Halle (Saale) in der Sammlung des Geiseltalmuseums der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. Wiss. Z. Univ. Halle 1992, 41, 5–35. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fuhrmann, R. Die Bitterfelder Bernsteinarten. Mauritiana 2010, 21, 13–58. [Google Scholar]
  25. Knuth, G.; Koch, T.; Rappsilber, I.; Volland, L. Zum Bernstein im Bitterfelder Raum-Geologie und genetische Aspekte. Hallesches Jahrb. Geowiss. 2002, 24, 35–46. [Google Scholar]
  26. Blumenstengel, H. Zur Palynologie und Stratigraphie der Bitterfelder Bernsteinvorkommen (Tertiär). In Bitterfelder Bernstein: Lagerstätte, Rohstoff, Folgenutzung. Programm, Vortragskurzfassungen und Exkursionsführer zum 16. Treffen des Arbeitskreises Bergbaufolgelandschaften, Bitterfeld, 4/5.07.2004; Wimmer, R., Holz, U., Rascher, J., Eds.; Exkurs.f. u. Veröfftl. GGW; Deutsche Geologische Gesellschaft—Geologische Vereinigung (DGGV): Berlin, Germany, 2004; Volume 224, pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  27. Fuhrmann, R. Entstehung, Entdeckung und Erkundung der Bernsteinlagerstätte Bitterfeld. In Bitterfelder Bernstein: Lagerstätte, Rohstoff, Folgenutzung. Programm, Vortragskurzfassungen und Exkursionsführer zum 16. Treffen des Arbeitskreises Bergbaufolgelandschaften, Bitterfeld, 4/5.07.2004; Wimmer, R., Holz, U., Rascher, J., Eds.; Exkurs.f. u. Veröfftl. GGW; Deutsche Geologische Gesellschaft—Geologische Vereinigung (DGGV): Berlin, Germany, 2004; Volume 224, pp. 25–31. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rappsilber, I. Fauna und Flora des Bitterfelder Bernsteinwaldes. Eine Auflistung der bis 2014 Publizierten Organismentaxa aus dem Bitterfelder Bernstein; Ampyx-Verlag: Halle (Saale), Germany, 2016; 78p. [Google Scholar]
  29. Pańczak, J.; Kossakowski, P.; Zakrzewski, A. Biomarkers in fossil resins and their palaeoecological significance. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2023, 242, 104455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yamamoto, S.; Otto, A.; Krumbiegel, G.; Simoneit, B.R.T. The natural product biomarkers in succinite, glessite and stantienite ambers from Bitterfield, Germany. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 2006, 140, 27–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vávra, N. Chemie des Baltischen und Bitterfelder Bernsteins: Methoden, Möglichkeiten, Resultate. In Bitterfelder Bernstein Versus Baltischer Bernstein: Hypothesen, Fakten, Fragen, Proceedings of the II. Bitterfelder Bernsteinkolloquium, Bitterfeld, Germany, 25–27 September 2008; Rascher, J., Wimmer, R., Krumbiegel, G., Schmiedel, S., Eds.; Exkursionsführer und Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Geowissenschaften (EDGG); Mecke: Duderstadt, Germany, 2008; Volume 236, pp. 69–76. [Google Scholar]
  32. Halbwachs, H.; Clus Bässler, C.; Worobiec, E. Palynomorphs in Baltic, Bitterfeld and Ukrainian ambers: A comparison. Palynology 2021, 45, 441–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alekseev, V.I.; Bukejs, A.; Pollock, D.A. The first fossil of a tenebrionoid taxonomic enigma: Agnathus Germar (Coleoptera: Pyrochroidae: Agnathinae) in Bitterfeld amber, with remarks about age and geographic origin of the fossil. His. Biol. 2025, 37, 714–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Drohojowska, J.; Szwedo, J. New Aleyrodidae (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Aleyrodomorpha) from the Eocene Baltic amber. Pol. J. Entomol. 2011, 80, 659–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Linnaeus, C. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae, Secundum Classes, Ordinus, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis; Editio Decima, Reformata; Tomus Primus, Impensis Direct; Laurentii Salvii: Stockholm, Sweden, 1758; 824p. [Google Scholar]
  36. Amyot, C.J.-B.; Audinet-Serville, J.G. Deuxième Partie. Homoptères. Homoptera Latr. In Histoire Naturelle des Insects. Hemiptères; Librairie encyclopedique de Roret: Paris, France, 1843; 676p. [Google Scholar]
  37. Chou, I. Some viewpoints about insect taxonomy. Acta Entomol. Sin. 1963, 12, 586–596. [Google Scholar]
  38. Westwood, J.O. An Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects Founded on the Natural Habits and Corresponding Organization of Different Families; Longman, Orme, Brown and Green: London, UK, 1840; Volume 2, pp. i–xi. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hoffeins, H.W. On the preparation and conservation of amber inclusions in artificial resin. Pol. Pismo Entomol. 2001, 70, 215–219. [Google Scholar]
  40. Standke, G. Bitterfelder Bernstein gleich Baltischer Bernstein?—Einegeologische Raum-Zeit-Betrachtung und genetische Schlußfolgerungen In Bitterfelder Bernstein Versus Baltischer Bernstein: Hypothesen, Fakten, Fragen, Proceedings of the II. Bitterfelder Bernsteinkolloquium, Bitterfeld, Germany, 25–27 September 2008; Rascher, J., Wimmer, R., Krumbiegel, G., Schmiedel, S., Eds.; Exkursionsführer und Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Geowissenschaften (EDGG); Mecke: Duderstadt, Germany, 2008; Volume 236, pp. 11–33. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rappsilber, I.; Wendel, A. Bernsteingewinnung aus dem Bernsteinsee bei Bitterfeld und erste wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse. Mauritiana 2019, 37, 87–112. [Google Scholar]
  42. Suhr, P.; Schneider, W.; Lange, J.M. Facies relationships and depositional environments of the Lausitzer (Lusatic) Tertiary. In 13th IAS Regional Meeting on Sedimentology; Excursion Guide-Book; Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Institut für Geowissenschften: Jena, Germany, 1992; pp. 229–260. [Google Scholar]
  43. Standke, G. Tertiär. In Geologie von Brandenburg; Stackebrandt, W., Franke, D., Eds.; Schweizerbart: Stuttgart, Germany, 2015; pp. 259–323. [Google Scholar]
  44. Meschede, M. Geologie Deutschlands. Ein Prozessorientierter Ansat; Springer-Verlag GmbH: Stuhr, Germany, 2018; 249p. [Google Scholar]
  45. Meschede, M.; Warr, L.N. The Geology of Germany. A Process-Oriented Approach; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; 304p. [Google Scholar]
  46. Standtke, G.; Rascher, J.; Volkman, N. Lowstand cycles and coal formation in paralic environments: New aspects in sequence stratigraphy. In Northern European Cenozoic Stratigraphy, Proceedings of the 8th Biannual Meeting RCNNS/RCNPS, Salzau Castle, Germany, 2–7 October 2002; Gürs, K., Ed.; Landesamt für Natur und Umwelt des Landes Schleswig-Holstein: Flintbek, Germany, 2002; Volume 7, pp. 153–161. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kus, J.; Dolezych, M.; Schneider, W.; Hofmann, T.; Visiné Rajczi, E. Coal petrological and xylotomical characterization of Miocene lignites and in-situ fossil tree stumps and trunks from Lusatia region, Germany: Palaeoenvironment and taphonomy assessment. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2020, 217, 103283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Seifert, A.; Brause, H.; Rascher, J. Geology of the Niederlausitz Lignite district, Germany. Int. J. Coal Geol. 1993, 23, 263–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Steinthorsdottir, M.; Coxall, H.K.; de Boer, A.M.; Huber, M.; Barbolini, N.; Bradshaw, C.D.; Burls, N.J.; Feakins, S.J.; Gasson, E.; Henderiks, J.; et al. The Miocene: The future of the past. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. 2021, 36, e2020PA004037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kus, J.; Dolezych, M.; Schneider, W.; Hower, J.C.; Hofmann, T.; Visiné Rajcz, E.; Bidló, A.; Bolodár-Varga, B.; Sachsenhofer, R.F.; Bechtel, A.; et al. High-cellulose content of in-situ Miocene fossil tree stumps and trunks from Lusatia lignite mining district, Federal Republic of Germany. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2024, 286, 104494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kosmowska-Ceranowicz, B.; Krumbiegel, G. Geologie und Geschichte des Bitterfelder Bernsteins und anderer fossiler Harze. Hallesches Jahrb. Geowiss. 1989, 14, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  52. Krumbiegel, G. Der Bitterfelder Bernstein (Succinite); Lausitzer und Mitteldeutsche Bergbau-Verwaltungsgesellschaft: Bitterfeld, Germany, 1997; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  53. Barthel, M.; Hetzer, H. Bernstein-Inklusen aus dem Miozän des Bitterfelder Raumes. Z. Angew. Geol. 1982, 28, 314–336. [Google Scholar]
  54. Dubovikoff, D.A.; Dlussky, G.M.; Perkovsky, E.E.; Abakumov, E.V. A new species of the genus Protaneuretus Wheeler (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from Bitterfeld amber (Late Eocene), with a key to the species of the genus. Paleontol. J. 2020, 54, 389–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gibbard, P.L.; Lewin, J. Filling the North Sea Basin: Cenozoic sediment sources and river styles. André Dumont medallist lecture 2014. Geol. Belg. 2016, 19, 201–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vaes, B.; van Hinsbergen, D.J.J.; van de Lagemaat, S.H.A.; van der Wiel, E.; Lom, N.; Advokaat, E.L.; Boschman, L.M.; Gallo, L.C.; Greve, A.; Guilmette, C.; et al. A global apparent polar wander path for the last 320 Ma calculated from site-level paleomagnetic data. Earth Sci. Rev. 2023, 245, 104547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Vaes, B.; van Hinsbergen, D.; Paridaens, J. APWP-online.org: A global reference database and open-source tools for calculating apparent polar wander paths and relative paleomagnetic displacements. Tektonika 2024, 2, 174–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fuhrmann, R. Die Bernsteinlagerstätte Bitterfeld, nur ein Höhepunkt des Vorkommens von Bernstein (Succinit) im Tertiär Mitteldeutschlands. Z. Dtsch. Ges. Geowiss. 2005, 156, 517–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Akhmetiev, M.A.; Lopatin, A.V.; Sytchevskaya, E.K.; Popov, S.V. Biogeography of the northern Peri-Tethys from the Late Eocene to the Early Miocene: Part 4. Late Oligocene-Early Miocene: Terrestrial biogeography. Conclusions. J. Paleontol. 2005, 39, S1–S54. [Google Scholar]
  60. Fuhrmann, R. Der Bernsteinwald im Tertiär Mitteldeutschlands—Auewald versus Sumpfwald. Mauritiana 2011, 22, 61–76. [Google Scholar]
Insects 17 00050 g001
Figure 1. Pudrica christianottoi, male: (A,C) Body in dorsal view. (B,D) Body in ventral view. (E) Head and thorax in dorsal view. (F) Head and legs in ventral view; scale bars: 0.5 mm for (A,B); 0.2 mm for (C–F).
Figure 1. Pudrica christianottoi, male: (A,C) Body in dorsal view. (B,D) Body in ventral view. (E) Head and thorax in dorsal view. (F) Head and legs in ventral view; scale bars: 0.5 mm for (A,B); 0.2 mm for (C–F).
Insects 17 00050 g001
Insects 17 00050 g002
Figure 2. Pudrica christianottoi, male: (A) Head with antennae in ventral view. (B–F) Antenna; scale bars: 0.2 mm for (A–C,E); 0.1 mm for (D,F).
Figure 2. Pudrica christianottoi, male: (A) Head with antennae in ventral view. (B–F) Antenna; scale bars: 0.2 mm for (A–C,E); 0.1 mm for (D,F).
Insects 17 00050 g002
Insects 17 00050 g003
Figure 3. Pudrica christianottoi, male: (A–C) fore wing. (D) hind wing. (E,F) abdomen. (G,H) genitalia. Scale bars: 0.2 mm for (A–G); 0.1 mm for (H).
Figure 3. Pudrica christianottoi, male: (A–C) fore wing. (D) hind wing. (E,F) abdomen. (G,H) genitalia. Scale bars: 0.2 mm for (A–G); 0.1 mm for (H).
Insects 17 00050 g003
Table 1. Pudrica christianottoi, male specimen MAIG 7290 and holotype female specimen GPIH 5083 measurements.
Table 1. Pudrica christianottoi, male specimen MAIG 7290 and holotype female specimen GPIH 5083 measurements.
Measurement (in mm)MaleFemaleMeasurement (in mm)MaleFemale
Body length total1.031.15Fore wing width 0.50.64
Head with compound eyes width0.240.31Hind wing length0.91.24
Antennal segment I0.020.03Hind wing width0.390.54
Antennal segment II0.060.11Profemur length-0.37
Antennal segment III0.140.2Protibia length0.240.33
Antennal segment IV0.030.1Basiprotarsomere length0.090.13
Antennal segment V0.040.08Apical protarsomere length0.070.1
Antennal segment VI0.030.1Claws 1 length0.02-
Antennal segment VII0.040.12Mesofemur length-0.25
Rostrum length 0.15-Mesotibia length0.270.37
Pronotum width0.260.35Basimesotarsomere length0.10.13
Pronotum length in midline0.020.03Apical mesotarsomere length0.070.1
Mesopraescutum width0.140.17Claws 2 length0.02-
Mesopraescutum length in midline0.080.14Metafemur length0.250.3
Mesoscutum width0.270.35Metatibia length0.370.5
Mesoscutum length in midline0.030.05Basimetatarsomere length0.120.17
Mesoscutellum width0.120.17Apical metatarsomere length0.080.13
Mesoscutellum length0.030.05Claws 3 length0.02-
Mesopostnotum width0.1-Abdomen length including genitalia0.620.6
Mesopostnotum length0.1-Pygofer length0.16-
Metascutum width0.240.13Pygofer width0.10-
Metascutum length 0.04-Claspers length0.11-
Fore wing length1.071.46
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Drohojowska, J.; Gorzelańczyk, A.; Tomanek, N.; Kalandyk-Kołodziejczyk, M.; Szwedo, J. The First Record of Whitefly (Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha, Aleyrodidae) from Bitterfeld Amber. Insects 2026, 17, 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17010050

AMA Style

Drohojowska J, Gorzelańczyk A, Tomanek N, Kalandyk-Kołodziejczyk M, Szwedo J. The First Record of Whitefly (Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha, Aleyrodidae) from Bitterfeld Amber. Insects. 2026; 17(1):50. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17010050

Chicago/Turabian Style

Drohojowska, Jowita, Anita Gorzelańczyk, Natalia Tomanek, Małgorzata Kalandyk-Kołodziejczyk, and Jacek Szwedo. 2026. "The First Record of Whitefly (Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha, Aleyrodidae) from Bitterfeld Amber" Insects 17, no. 1: 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17010050

APA Style

Drohojowska, J., Gorzelańczyk, A., Tomanek, N., Kalandyk-Kołodziejczyk, M., & Szwedo, J. (2026). The First Record of Whitefly (Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha, Aleyrodidae) from Bitterfeld Amber. Insects, 17(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17010050

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop