oa African Invertebrates - A comparative analysis of the Baltic and Rovno amber arthropod faunas : representative samples

Volume 48, Issue 1
  • ISSN : 1681-5556
  • E-ISSN: 2305-2562



A comprehensive comparison is provided for the first time for arthropod-assemblage compositions in Rovno and Baltic ambers, based on representative samples from Klesov (Pugach) and Dubrovitsa (Vol'noje) quarries (1256 fossils) and Yantarny quarry (757 fossils), respectively. A representative collection of Baltic amber was taken in Yantarny at the local mining factory (only smaller pieces that fitted through a 32 mm sieve were selected). A representative collection of Rovno amber was taken at the factory "UkrAmber" (Rovno). Results indicate the compositions of the assemblages to be different enough to consider the origin of Rovno and Baltic ambers as geographically different. The relative abundance of mites (Acari) in the Rovno sample is 0.6 times that in the Baltic sample (the share of dominant Koch & Berendt in the Rovno smple is 0.3 times that in Baltic amber), and the relative abundance of Homoptera in the Rovno sample is almost half of that in the Baltic sample (mainly due to relative rarity of both the dominant aphid , whose share is 0.2 times that in the Baltic sample, and the scale insects). Within Diptera, the proportion of Chironomidae is almost half, and Sciaridae twice that of the Baltic sample. In terms of ants (Formicidae), the proportion of (Mayr) in the Rovno sample is half of that in the Baltic sample. The most striking are differences in species-level composition : 9 of 37 ants found in the Rovno representative sample belong to species and genera unknown in Baltic amber. Some differences encountered are of an ecological nature : aquatic and subaquatic arthropods are comparatively rare and leaf-litter dwellers of the zone are very abundant in Rovno amber. The age of the Baltic amber and stratigraphic correlation of the amber-bearing Prussian Formation are also considered in some detail. It is concluded that the proposal for their Ypresian-Lutetian age contradicts a wide array of the palaeontological, radiological, and stratigraphic data and thus cannot be accepted on the basis of available evidence.

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Article metrics loading...


This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error