Geol?gica Acta, Vol.1, N^1, 2003, 145 - 150 Available online at www.geologica-acta.com geologic BOOK REVIEWS Trilobites worldwide The world of trilobites and their Reflection in Philately. By Hans Ulrich ERNST and Frank RUDOLPH (2002). Dr. Friederich Pfeil Editor- ial. Munich (Germany). 118 pages, 173 figures; 21,3 x 24,5 cm, hardcover; ISBN 3-89937-003-1. The aim of this book (a bilingual text, written in both German and English) is to present the trilobites depicted on stamps issued to date by postal authorities in various countries. Official postmarks, envelopes and postcards illustrating trilobites are also included. The book is the outcome of exhaustive research throughout the world. It is the largest compilation on this particular subject and one of the most important books on nature, comparable with other catalogues of minerals, birds, plants and other fos- sils, although the latter rarely provide such appropriate complementary information as that offered by this cata- logue-book. The quality of edition and printing of the book (excel- lent paper and binding) is consistent with its aim, which is to reach a wide range of readers interested in Palaeontol- ogy, be they professionals or amateurs. Of a total of 118 pages, the first 110 are dedicated to texts and figures and the rest to bibliography (111-113), an index of stamps and postmarks (114-117) and an index of illustrations (118). Dr. R. M. Owens, of the National Museum of Wales, a reputed specialist in trilobites and an expert on Philately, is the author of the splendid foreword. He begins by emphasising the interest people have in collecting objects, and gives a historical view of one of the most popular pas- times. Philately, a field in which collectors specialise to a greater or lesser extent. Fossils are one of these new spe- cialities. Dr. Owens points out the contrast between the big interest of collectors for trilobites and the small volume of stamps with trilobites as their theme issued by postal authorities in different countries in comparison to the vol- ume of other groups of fossils, dinosaurs, for instance. However, some countries such as the Czech Republic are well aware of their "trilobitic" heritage. Although such countries have considered the trilobites from a philatelic point of view there remain many gaps as the number of trilobites featured in stamps, postmarks and other forms of philatelic stationary is far from the number of trilobites found. The prologue concludes with an optimistic tone as the number of stamps with references to palaeontology, including trilobites, in different countries has grown phe- nomenally in the last few years. Although their issue has been sporadic in the past, over half of the stamps in the book have appeared in the last six years. In the introduction the authors give a short review of philatelic collecting and introduce the very first trilobite stamp, issued by the People's Republic of China in 1958. This stamp illustrated a cranidium and pygidium of the late Cambrian Kaolishania pustulosa from northern China swimming in the seas of the Paleozoic. Among the published works dealing with philately and trilobites the authors of the present book point out two that differ from other common catalogues in view of the com- plementary information they give. The first, written by R. M. Owens, is published in "Trilobite Papers", No. 3, 1991 and includes ten detailed stamps featuring different species of trilobites. The second, with a summary of commemora- tive stamps, envelopes and postcards depicting trilobites, was written by H. Schumacher in 1996 and published in the special 20* edition of "Mitteilungsbl?ter der Motiv- gruppe Geologie". Like most treatises on Palaeontology the rest of the book is divided into two parts. "What is a trilobite?" is the title of the first, a short, eleven-page summary focused on palaeontographic and functional anatomy aspects of the trilobites and their stratigraphie distribution from their ori- gin in the Early Cambrian Epoch until the nearly end of the Permian. A description of the morphologic characteris- tics, the sense organs, ontogeny, locomotion, way of life and behaviour of trilobites is also included. This first part is complemented with a schematic figure of morphologi- cal terminology of trilobites and a series of photographs, some of them exceptional, that round off the texts and ease the understanding of the descriptions of species or genera depicted in stamps and other philatelic material in the next part. The second part is longer, with a total of 89 pages. Stamps and related philatelic stationary are classified. Unlike ordinary books and catalogues, where the arran- ? UB-IJA 11451 Book Reviews gement is made according to countries, dates or subjects, in this book trilobites are arranged following the classifi- cation proposed by R. A. Fortey (1997) in the Treatise on invertebrate Palaeontology and followed by almost all palaeontologists. According to both this classification and the fact that authors found examples of all orders of trilo- bites, this part of the book is divided into nine chapters. The first eight focus on each of the accepted orders and the last chapter deals with both non-determinable trilobites and those stylised by designers of stamps and philatelic motifs. Invertebrate Palaeontology, together with photographs of the classified species and the wide and precise information given, distinguishes this book from other catalogues. For this reason, as the authors themselves state, this book is intended for those interested in fossils, trilobites in partic- ular, and those interested in Philately, whether or not they are specialists. Dr. Miguel A. Arbizu Department of Geology University of Oviedo. Spain The number of times the various orders of trilobites appear is highly variable. The order of Agnostide is only represented once. In contrast, the order of Phacopida, the most frequently found in Philately, shows twelve species; two of these twelve species, in open nomenclature, are included in the genera of Phacops and Asteropyge by the authors. Other orders have intermediate appearances: four different species for each order of Redlichiida and Corinexochida; six for Lichda and Proetida; and seven for the orders of Asaphida and Ptychopariida. Some of species appear more than once on different stamps and/or postmarks and other related philatelic stationary. Such is the case of Olenoides serratas, P.(Pedinopariops) brong- niarti, Selenopeltis buchi and others. Those stamps and postmarks featuring trilobites that either have not been classified or exhibit characteristics that do not fit any accepted species are found at the end of the systematics chapter. Neither these forms nor an extra form mentioned in the appendix, together with a warning about the danger of forgery in the market, will be considered here. The philatelic reproduction of the trilobites agrees with the number of genera found in the fossil record that belong to each of the systems of the Palaeozoic. Thus, the best represented systems are the Cambrian and the Ordovician with 13 and 17 different species respectively featured in stamps, postmarks and other related philatelic material. Six species belong to the Silurian and another nine to the Devonian. It is important to notice the decrease in the number of forms in the Silurian during this period, when the fauna was recovering from the Great Extinction at the end of Ordovician. It is during the Devonian that trilobites recover their importance both in the fossil register and, nowadays, in philately. Finally, the Carboniferous and Per- mian systems are both represented by just one species. This shows the little opportunity trilobites had to diversify after the episodes of extinction, Kellwasser in the Upper Devonian and Hangenberg in the Devonian - Carbonifer- ous boundary when a general decline ended with their extinction in the Late Permian. The presentation of the philatelic material following the systematic arrangements employed in the Treatise on Atlas of Plants and Animals in Baltic Amber. By W. WEITSCHAt and W. WICHARD (2002). Dr. Friedrich Pfeil Editorial, Munich (Germany). 256 pages, 92 color plates, 124 figures; 29 x 21.7 cm, hardcover; ISBN 3- 931516-94-6; Euro 75,00, US$ 98.00. When asked by people as to the nature of my employment, I often respond by saying that "I am a paleobiologist." Often the reaction is a quizzical look, in which I state that "paleobiology is the study of ancient life," Afterward, I almost always receive some variation of the following comment: "Oh, then you must study dinosaurs, look at amber, or go on digs for artifacts." This is usually fol- lowed by my feeble attempt to relate paleobiology to their earlier comments, but nevertheless I am always amazed by the pervasiveness of amber in the public consciousness amid discussions of fossils or premodern organisms. Whereas dinosaurs exert a fascination that is larger than life, it seems that amber represents another exceptional feature of the fossil record: namely, it is viewed as the epitome in fossil preservation and presentation. Interest- ingly, these two celebrated features of the fossil record? dinosaurs and amber?crossed paths several years ago in the popular movie Jurassic Park, and in spite of some inaccuracies on the screen, made an audience aware that the study of amber is a serious intellectual quest. The task of presenting the science and wonder of amber has been greatly extended by coauthors Wolfgang Weitschat and Wilfried Wichard in Atlas of Plants and Animals in Baltic Amber. The front and back endpapers essentially are a prodromus: the front drawing presents a conspicuous kingfisher in the foreground, a tarsier-like primate in the middle distance, and faint outlines of tapirs browsing in the distant mist, all of which are surrounded by epiphytic bromeliads, ferns, clinging lianas and a generic conifer producing copious flows of resin as drag- onflies, butterflies and other insects flit about. The back endpaper depicts a large, ominous and predaceous bird, a Diatryma, lurking amid palmettos in the background, as various insects dance above a water-lily pond and grassy glade, all of which are surrounded by the same resin-gush- Geologica Acta, Vol.1, N'1, 2003, 145-150 |146| Book Reviews ing and moss-encrasted conifers. These backdrops are reinforced by the author's preface (p. 4), in which they state that, although their volume is an "interim report," they "...would like to provide readers with a well- researched standard reference that gives an informative and interesting overview of the plant and animal groups in Baltic amber on the basis of illustrations, photographs and accompanying texts." With some reservations regarding the latter, they accomplish their stated goals with diligence and grace. Their production represents an updated version that was translated from the German of an earlier version published in 1998. This is a volume that fills an important niche, in spite of a spate of recent books devoted to the scholarly and artistic illustration and discussion of amber and their inclusions. These books generally have focused on more recently dis- covered amber from the Dominican Republic (Poinar, 1992, 1999; Grimaldi, 1996). By contrast, volumes on Baltic amber?which represent the oldest scientifically known and continuously studied such deposit?are com- paratively older. Book-length examples discussing and figuring Baltic amber originate from (1) the early mono- graphic period of the 1800's and include the work of Presl, Berendt, Runge, Goeppert, Menge, and Conwentz, (2) syntheses of the middle last century (Ander, 1942; Bachofen-Echt, 1949; Andr?e, 1951), and (3) a disciph- narily diverse array of accounts beginning during the late 1970's (Larsson, 1978; Schlee and Gl?ckner, 1978; Schlee, 1980, 1990; Krzeminska et al., 1992; Wichard and Weitschat, 1996). Given this historical precedence, the time was certainly ripe for a comprehensive, up-to-date English-language atlas of the inclusions in Baltic amber and a discussion of their significance. On balance, this is a very useful and well-produced volume. However, the volume does present some omissions and difficulties, which involve two general issues. The first consists of general criticisms involving content that focus on the absence of relevant and recent research for updating cer- tain text sections, errors of fact, and topics that should have been included. As for sections that could have been illuminated by inclu- sion of the results from current research, one major absence was recent evidence indicating the taxonomic affinities of the Baltic amber producing tree p. 13-16). Ignored was Langenheim's (1995) analysis, who favors an araucariaceous origin perhaps close to Agathis, and espe- cially Anderson and LePage's (1995) study in the same volume, indicating a pinaceous source plant related or ancestral to golden larch (Pseudolarix). Both hypotheses contradict the historical view that the source tree was tax- onomically proximal to or actually a Pinus. An addition- al neglected topic was the entire subject of retrieving DNA from Baltic amber. The initial optimism of using insect DNA sequences to address phylogenetic hypotheses of insect evolution during the early 1990's was dashed later in the decade by the analyses and reviews of Pawlowski, Austin and colleagues, who reported the irreproducibility of the original studies, including those of Baltic amber (Pawlowski et al., 1996; Austin et al., 1997). Their con- clusion was that fossil resins are highly unlikely to pre- serve original DNA and that the spate of earlier reports purporting to demonstrate the presence of amber DNA millions to tens of millions of years old is more likely attributable to modem contamination. Another absence is the section on paleoclimate of the Baltic amber forest (p. 22), which could have benefited from some modem refer- ences that have considerably refined the timing of the Ear- ly Cenozoic Thermal Maximum event (p. 27, 28). It has been known for the past several years that the peak of maximum temperature is significantly closer to the Pale- ocene/Eocene boundary (Wing et al., 1999; Wilf, 2000) than that displayed in fig. 18. Last, the statement that myr- iapods are the closest relatives of hexapods and that they constitute a monophyletic Tracheata (p. 82) is certainly at odds of virtually all molecular analyses of the recent past (Averof and Akam, 1995; Panganiban et al., 1995). These missed opportunities to set the record straight indicate that more attention should have been devoted toward consult- ing the more recent literature. Factual errors occasionally dot the text. Perhaps the most glaring is the statement that "...the preservation and visi- bility of microstructures conserved in amber is unique in the field of paleontology" (p. 29). Such is not the case. It has been well established for more than 50 years that acetate peels of plants from many Carboniferous coal-ball deposits retain permineralized microstructure at the cellu- lar and subcellular levels as well as the best preserved of amber fossils. For example, details such as trichome cell- wall construction and the surface ornamentation of spores are readily observable on microscope slides or SEM preparations of acetate peels (Millay, 1979). Interestingly, these same Late Carboniferous deposits contain the per- mineralized foliage of certain tree ferns {Pecopteris) and seed ferns (Alethopteris), which we find out also occur in Baltic amber (p. 40). This 250 million-year range for a foliage form-genus certainly must be the greatest record for longevity of any terrestrial plant! Undoubtedly such assignments have more to do with application of the form- genus concept than for any meaningful documentation lin- eage duration. Also noted were sundry misstatements such as coniferous reproductive structures which were referred to as "flowers" (p. 44) rather than cones or stro- bili; and the dating of the neuropterid insect Juraco- niopteryx of Karatau, in Kazakhstan, as Upper Cretaceous (p. 144) when it should have been assigned to the Upper Jurassic (Meinander, 1975). A few topics of broad evolutionary interest could have sparked additional interest in the Baltic amber biota. The Geol?gica Acta, Vol.1, N'1, 2003, 145-150 |147| Book Reviews authors state that ".. .the composition of the flora and fau- na preserved in Baltic amber is a 'curious mixture of tem- perate, subtropical and tropical life forms'" (p. 38) and that it is most closely related to Southeast Asia (p. 72), an observation that is mentioned repeatedly in the ensuing text. A more explicit, process-oriented discussion of why the overwhelming biogeographical affinities are with the Southeast Asian biota would have been rewarding, espe- cially one that involved consideration of the climatic his- tory and tectonic movements of Cenozoic Eurasia and its constituent continental fragments. Also warranted would have been a section discussing the evolutionary longevity of insect and other taxa at lower taxonomic levels, partic- ularly extant genera and presumably species. This sur- prising feature of the Baltic amber biota has been com- mented on by various authors (Klyuge, 1986; R?schmann, 1999), and is particularly striking when compared to the vast disparities in taxonomic rank for analogous vertebrate faunas spanning the same time interval (Labandeira and Sepkoski, 1993). Finally, in the context of the diversity of the insect fauna, a separate section should have been devoted to those taxa that were first found as Baltic amber fossils, and later discovered to be extant, such as the false click beetle Electribius (Lawrence, 1995) and the net winged beetle Kolibaceum (Kasantsev, 1997) which were not mentioned, and Raptophasma, and the first discovered member of the new order Mantophasmatodea which was cited in passing (p. 110) (Klass et al., 2002). Undoubted- ly there are other Baltic amber taxa that await discovery in the Recent, which may be a testament to how better known this Lagerst?tten is relative to many relatively unexplored regions of the modern world. Lastly, mention of the pres- ence of proturans is tantalizing (p. 83), particularly as the Protura are the only major hexapod clade that supposedly lack a fossil record. A section and photographic docu- mentation devoted to this group would have been most welcome. My second group of criticisms are more particular, and concerns peccadilloes such as oversights in translation of the German to accessible English, confusions in entomo- logical and botanical terminology, the presence of awk- ward syntax, inconsistencies between figures and their labels, and incorrect author names in the references. Much more care should have been exercised by the trans- lators and editors in the catching these errors, especially avoiding the rendering of German into stilted or otherwise stodgy English. Improper renderings of German into Eng- lish, for example, resulted in factual difficulties, such as conflation of the verbs "diversify" and "diverge" in the passage "...in the Late Mesozoic and early Cenozoic, when the angiosperms and gymnosperms (specifically the conifers) diverged" (p. 10), when in fact the ancestors of these two seed-plant clades diverged significantly earlier during the Paleozoic (Stewart and Rothwell, 1993). Oth- er examples include the replacement of "utterly" by "entirely" in "The paleogeographical situation changed utterly once again in the Neogene" (p. 17); the somewhat humorous "principle of actuality" (p. 37) instead of the "principle of actualism," which is part of the broader con- cept of uniformitarianism as a way of understanding the past; the substitution of "lightning strokes" for "lightning strikes" (p. 46); "spinner" for "spinneret" (p. 76); and "coverts" rather than "coverlets" (p. 220) to describe a type of feather. More of a nuisance, at least to a North American entomo- logical audience, are unconventional uses of entomologi- cal terminology. The most confusing example is use of the terms "larva" and "nymph" in the context of holometabolous and nonholometabolous insects. In North America the term larva is restricted to holometabolous insects; the immatures of nonholometabolous insects are termed "nymphs" if terrestrial, or if aquatic, the designa- tion "naiad" is frequently used (China, 1958; Davies, 1958). These distinctions?the European (Sehnal et al., 1996) and the North American (Truman and Riddiford, 2002)?survive to the present day. Although comprehen- sible to an European audience, I was content to learn that subadult cockroaches are nymphs (p. 106) but surprised to be informed that subadult earwigs are larvae (p. 102). A short explanation of the European and North American usage of the term, larva, would have been helpful. A sec- ond confusion is the lack of a distinction between a para- site and parasitoid. On page 36, roundworms of the fami- ly Mermithidae are deemed (endo)parasites even though they eventually cause the insect host's death?an essential feature of being a parasitoid (Godfray, 1994). Similarly almost all chalcidoid and chrysidoid wasps (p. 174, 176) and many strepsipterans (p. 170) were claimed to be para- sites whereas they are parasitoids that kill their arthropod hosts toward the end of their life cycle. A favorite entomological diversions is tracking the lack of common-name equivalents of insect taxa across languages and in the scientific literature. Perhaps the authors should not be faulted for this, but there are some glaring bloopers in the text. For example, the substitution of "lung snails" for "pulmonate snails" (p. 54) sounds like a newfound res- piratory condition for vertebrates; as to "seed shrimps" for "ostracods" (p. 80), the former term was unknown to our resident ostracodologist; "walking leaves" are properly termed "leaf insects" (p. 110); the common name for a corixid (p. 118) is a water boatman; on page 206 several dipteran families do have widely known common names, such as hover flies for Syrphidae, soldier flies for Stra- tiomyiidae, and wormlions for Vermelionidae; and the authors repeat the very common mistake of designating the Drosophilidae as fruit flies when in fact they are pomace flies and it is the Tephritidae that are appropriate- ly termed fruit flies. Finally, the oribatid mite genus Liodes is assigned to the family Liodidae, not Oribatidae. Geol?gica Acta, Vol.1, N'1, 2003, 145-150 |148| Book Reviews There were an unacceptable number of passages where the meaning was not clear because of imperfect sentence structure. A mistake repeated from previous cited litera- ture was the quote that amber consists of ".. .natural fossil resins that are 'several million years old'" (p. 9), implying that amber can not be older than this, when what is meant is that amber is older than several million years in age. Another awkward construction is the sentence "The distri- bution ranges of the Anapidae and Archaeidae are similar- ly indifferent" (p. 72), suggesting a human emotional attribute to the biogeographical pattern of a taxon. Also, there is a lack of distinction in referring to deposits of allochthonous amber as involving cycles of deposition, as in the enigmatic phrase "...Lower Miocene sediments" occurring in their "third deposit" (p. 104). Minor nuisances from the text include misspellings, prob- lems associating figure caption texts with their respective illustrations, and a final check of the references for mis- takes. Misspellings include "Glassata" for "Glossata" with reference to a higher-level lepidopteran taxon (p. 196), "monophylety" for "monophyly" (p. 210), and the lizard genus Knemidophorus which should have been Cnemidophorus (p. 218). Problems with figures and their captions begin with a general complaint regarding the fre- quent absence of designations of either "Baltic amber" or "Recent" to contextualize line drawings of organisms in Section 2; the labels of "ventral" and "dorsal" for views of Figure 19a and 19b, respectively, although they instead are right-lateral and left-lateral (p. 30); and the reference to Raptophasma kerneggeri as Plate 63f (p. 110), which should be Plate 36f. As for the references, problems occurred principally with the spelling of author's names, including Jablokov-Chnzorjan (p. 232), which should have been transliterated as lablokoff-Khnzorian, Uhmann was misspelled as Uhnann (p. 243), and Szadziewski (p. 242) was also entered as Zadziewski (p. 245). Lastly, a subject index should have been included. These textual deficiencies notwithstanding, the wide- spread appeal and applicability of this book is very evi- dent. It is the best reference on Baltic amber that ade- quately (and impressively!) illustrates the variety of its inclusions, and assembles a reasonably timely and topical review of the relevant literature. There are many well- researched sections in this volume, including discussions of the nature of sedimentary recycling and the occurrence of Baltic amber in successively younger deposits (p. 10); taxonomic and taphonomic biases of organisms that involve microhabitat, size, behavior, and seasonality of resin production (p. 33-35); and the potential for host-spe- cific insects (p. 164,166) in elucidating the botanical com- position of the amber forest. Given the high construction- al quality of the book, it is modestly priced at Euro 75,00 or $US 98.00, and certainly is worth the price. This vol- ume not only should grace coffee tables, but more impor- tantly belongs on the desk of every researcher interested in terrestrial arthropod fossil history, insect evolution, or the variety of life in one of the fossil world's best-preserved ecosystems. References Ander, K. 1942. Die Insektenfauna des baltischen Bernsteins nebst damit verkn?pften zoogeographischen Problemen. Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, N.F., 38, 82 p. Anderson, K.B., and B.A. LePage. 1995. Analysis of fossil resins from Axel Heiberg Island, Canadian Arctic. Ameri- can Chemical Society Symposium Series, 617: 170-192. Andr?e, K. 1951. Der Bernstein: Das Bernsteinland und sein Leben. Kosmos, Stuttgart, 96 p. Austin, I., A.I. Ross, A.B. Smith, R.A. Fortey, and R.H. Thomas. 1997. Problems of reproducibility?does geologically ancient DNA survive in amber-preserved insects? Proceed- ings of the Royal Society of London (B), 264: 467-474. Averof, M., and M. Akam. 1995. Insect-crustacean relation- ships: Insights from comparative developmental and mole- cular studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci- ety of London (B), 347: 293-303. Bachofen-Echt, 1949. Der Bernstein und seine Einschl?sse. Springer, Vienna, 204 p. China, W.E., H. Henson, B.M. Hobby, H.E. Hinton, T.T. Macan, O.W. Richards and V.B. Wigglesworth. 1958. The terms "larva" and "nymph" in entomology. Transactions of the Society for British Entomology, 13: 17-24. Davies, D.R. 1958. The terminology of the juvenile phases of insects. Transactions of the Society for British Entomology, 13: 25-36. Godfray, H.C.I. 1994. Parasitoids: Behavioral and Evolutionary Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New ler- sey, 473 p. Grimaldi, D.A. 1996. Amber: Window to the Past. Abrams, New York, 216 p. Kasantsev, S. 1997. A recent species of the fossil genus Kolibaceum Winkler (Cole?ptera, Lycidae) from eastern China. Entomol?gica Basiliensia, 20: 159-164. Klass, K.-D., O. Zompro, N.P Kristensen, and I. Adis. 2002. Mantophasmatodea: a new insect order with extant mem- bers in the Afro tropics. Science, 296: 1456-1459. Klyuge, N.Y. 1986. A recent mayfly species (Ephemeroptera, Heptageniidae) in Baltic amber. Paleontological loumal, 20: 106-107. Krzeminska, E., W. Krzeminski, I.-P Haenni, and C. Dufour. 1992. Les Fant?mes de l'Ambre: Insectes Fossiles dans l'Ambre de la Baltique. Mus?e d'Histoire Naturelle de Neuch?tel, Switzerland, 142 p. Labandeira, C.C., and i.i. Sepkoski, Ir. 1993. Insect diversity in the fossil record. Science, 261: 310-315. Langenheim, I.H. 1995. Biology of amber-producing trees: focus on case studies of Hymenaea and Agathis. American Chemical Society Symposium Series, 617: 1-31. Larsson, S.G. 1978. Baltic amber?a palaeobiological study. Geol?gica Acta, Vol.1, N'1, 2003, 145-150 |149| Book Reviews Entomonograph, 1, 192 p. Lawrence, J.R 1995. Electribius Crowson: alive and well in Mesoamerica, with notes on Ctesibius Champion and the classification of Artematopodidae. In J. Pakaluk and S.A. Slipinski, (eds.). Biology, Phylogeny, and Classification of Cole?ptera: Papers Celebrating the 80th Birthday of Roy A. Crowson, pp. 411 -431. Museum and Zoological Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw. Meinander, M. 1975. Fossil Coniopterygidae (Neuroptera). Notulae Entomologicae, 60: 53-57. Millay, M.A. 1979. Studies of Paleozoic marattialeans: a mono- graph of the American species of Scolecopteris. Palaeonto- graphica (B), 169: 1-69. Panganiban, G., A. Sebring, L. Nagy, and S. Carroll. 1995. The development of crustacean limbs and the evolution of arthropods. Science, 270: 1363-1366. Pawlowski, J., D. Kmieciak, R. Szadziewski, and A. Burkiewicz. 1996. Attempted isolation of DNA from insects embedded in Baltic amber. Inclusion, 22: 12-13. Poinar, G.O., Jr. 1992. Life in Amber. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 350 p. Poinar, CO., Jr., and R. Poinar. 1999. The Amber Forest: A Reconstruction of a Vanished World. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 239 p. R?schmann, F. 1999. Revision of the evidence of Tetracha Car- olina (Cole?ptera, Cicindelidae) in Baltic amber (Eocene- Oligocene). Estudios del Museo de Ciencias Naturales de ?lava, 14: 205-209. Schlee, D. 1980. Bernstein-Rarit?ten?Farben, Strukturen, Fos- silien, Handwerk. Staatlichen Museums f?r Naturkunde in Stuttgart, 90 p. Schlee, D. 1990. Das Bernstein-Kabinett?Begleitheft zur Bernsteinausstellung im Museum am L?wentor, Stuttgart. Stuttgarter Beitrage zur Naturkunde (C), 28, 100 p. Schlee, D., and W. Gl?ckner. Bernstein?Bernsteine und Bern- stein-Fossilien. Stuttgarter Beitrage zur Naturkunde (C), 8, 72 p. Sehnal, F., P. Sv?cha, and J. Zrzavy. 1996. Evolution of insect metamorphosis. In L.I. Gilbert, J.R. Tata, and B.G. Atkin- son, (eds.). Metamorphosis: Postembryonic Reprogram- ming of Gene Expression in Amphibian and Insect Cells, pp. 3-58. Academic Press, San Diego. Stewart, W.N., and G.W Rothwell. 1993. Paleobotany and the Evolution of Plants. Second Edition. Cambridge Universi- ty Press, Cambridge, U.K., 521 p. Truman, J.W., and L.M. Riddiford. 2002. Endocrine insights into the evolution of metamorphosis in insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 47: 467-500. Weitschat, W., and W. Wichard. 1998. Atlas der Pflanzen und Tiere im Baltischen Bernstein. Verlag Friedrich Pfeil, Munich, 256 p. Wichard, W., and W. Weitschat. 1996. Wasserinsekten im Bern- stein: eine pal?obiologische Studie. Entomologische Mit- teilunge aus dem L?bbecke Museum & Aquazoo, 4, 121 p. Wilf, P. 2000. Late Paleocene-early Eocene climate changes in southwestern Wyoming: Paleobotanical analysis. Geologi- cal Society of America Bulletin, 112: 292-307. Wing, S.L., H. Bao, and PL. Koch. 1999. An early Eocene cool period? Evidence for continental cooling during the warmest part of the Cenozoic. In B.T. Huber, K. MacLeod and S.L. Wing, (eds.). Warm Climates in Earth History, pp. 197-237. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Conrad C. Labandeira Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History Department of Paleobiology Geol?gica Acta, Vol.1, N'1, 2003, 145-150 |150|