Masona prognatha van Achterberg, 1995
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5852/ejt.2024.925.2457 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D01FE9CE-15E5-46ED-A83E-F9A44D829D64 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10805379 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038787DC-FFFE-D34A-A466-FD86FD06B96D |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Masona prognatha van Achterberg, 1995 |
status |
|
Masona prognatha van Achterberg, 1995 View in CoL
Masona prognatha van Achterberg, 1995: 100–101 View in CoL (description, key, distribution, images).
Masona prognatha View in CoL – Yu et al. 2016 (catalogue). — Quicke et al. 2019a: 588 (notes); 2019b: appendix S1 (list).
Differential diagnosis
Masona progantha can be easily distinguished from all the other species of the genus by the following morphological features: (1) scutellum absent (present in M. bulbofemoralis , M. neon sp. nov., and M. popeye ); (2) processess on head absent (present in M. wow sp. nov.); (3) antenna as long as metasoma and head combined (longer in M. similis and M. infuscata ); (4) precoxal sulcus present (absent in M. similis and M. infuscata ); (5) occipital carina short, not reaching the ventral margin of the gena (well-developed in M. similis and M. infuscata ).
Original type series
Holotype (by original designation)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA • ♀; Florida, Monroe Co., Big Pine Key ; 3 May–3 Aug. [19]85; S. and J. Peck leg.; CNC.
Paratypes
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA • 6 ♂♂; CNC, RMNH • 2 ♀♀; CNC .
Material examined
Holotype
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA • ♀; “[White label] FLA: MonroeCo. / BigPineKey ,Watson / Hammock,S&JPeck / 3.V-3.VIII.85,malaise / FIT\.hardwoodhammock // [Red label] ♀ Masonia gen. nov. / prognatha sp. nov. / C. van Achterberg, 19 92 / HOLOTYPE // [Red label] HOLOTYPE / Masona / prognatha / CNC No. 22593 ”; CNC (images examined).
Male
Described in van Achterberg (1995).
Distribution
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Florida ( van Achterberg 1995) ( Fig. 3 View Fig ).
Remarks
In the original description, there is an inconsistency in the number of males and females. van Achterberg (1995: 100) listed “ 6♂♂ & 2♀♀ ” among the paratypes of the species. However, when the author listed the full locality data for each specimen, the number of males amounts to seven and that of females to one.
Known only from the original type series, this species has an interesting distribution: all specimens were collected in the Florida Keys (in Monroe Co., Florida, USA), except for a single specimen collected in mainland Florida at the Archbold Biological Station (Highlands Co., Florida, USA). It is very possible that Masona prognatha is associated with the hammock hardwood forests present in South Florida, and this apparently disjunct distribution is mainly due to a lack of sampling in the greater Miami area, between the Florida Keys and the Archbold Biological Station, where hardwood forests are still present as remnants (Fernández-Triana, pers. comm.).
CNC |
Canada, Ontario, Ottawa, Canadian National Collection of Insects |
RMNH |
Netherlands, Leiden, Nationaal Natuurhistorische Museum ("Naturalis") [formerly Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie] |
CNC |
Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids, and Nematodes |
RMNH |
National Museum of Natural History, Naturalis |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Masona prognatha van Achterberg, 1995
Pos, Davide Dal, Broad, Gavin R. & Martens, Abigail P. 2024 |
Masona prognatha
Quicke D. L. J. & Chaul J. C. M. & Butcher B. A. 2019: 588 |
Quicke D. L. J. & Chaul J. C. M. & Butcher B. A. 2019: 149 |
Yu et al. 2016: 149 |