Eocenomyrma electrina, Dlussky & Radchenko, 2006
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.13651933 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13651953 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F1ED0B-FFF7-FFFC-2334-FA67B8C2F891 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Eocenomyrma electrina |
status |
sp. nov. |
Eocenomyrma electrina sp. nov.
Fig. 2 View Fig ; Tables 1, 2.
Derivation of the name: After Latin electrum —amber.
Holotype: ZMUC 328 View Materials , worker, complete specimen, leg. G.V. Henningsen, 16/5−1956.
Locality and horizon: Scandinavian Amber, late Eocene.
Diagnosis.—Total length ca. 3 mm. The new species is characterised by the following apomorphies: frontal carinae are short, quite strongly curved and merge with rugae, which surround antennal sockets, frons not very wide, but frontal lobes quite big and extended laterally; mesosoma short and robust, not constricted behind so that propodeum not much narrower than promesonotum, metanotal groove distinct, though not deep (seen in profile), promesonotum (seen from above) with weak but distinct promesonotal suture; propodeal spines of moderate length, wide and stout, rather blunt, slightly curved downwards, directed mainly backward and feebly divergent (seen from above); petiole only slightly longer than high, with distinct but not very long peduncle, petiolar node with rounded dorsum, without dorsal plate; lower (anterior) part of frons with not coarse longitudinal rugae, remainder part of head dorsum with longitudinal rugosity and reticulation; mesosoma with coarse reticulation, petiole and postpetiole with not coarse longitudinal rugae.
Eocenomyrma electrina differs from the all known Eocenomyrma species by its relatively short and robust mesosoma (AI 1.80 versus> 2.30 in other species) and much shorter petiole (PI 1.27 versus> 1.55 in other species). Additionally, it differs from E. elegantula by the body sculpture (see below); from E. rugosostriata it differs by the reticulated mesosoma, by the distinctly narrower frons (FI 0.39 versus 0.48–0.52), by the much more extended frontal lobes (FLI 1.24 versus 1.10–1.14), by the longer antennal scape (SI 1 0.71 versus 0.59), by reticulated sculpture of the mesosoma, by the smaller body size; for the differences between E. electrina and E. orthospina see above.
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.