And we've put together a handy little guide to show you all the new features and enhancements - why don't you have a quick look to check out all the new features and enhancements?
To cite this page, please use the following:
· For print: . Accessed
· For web:
Wo r k e r probably monomorphic; head in lateral view subrectangular; frontal carina and antennal scrobe absent; median portion of clypeus forming steep anterior face, with weak submedian carinae; anteromedian portion of clypeus forming a transverse strip with anterior margin weakly pointed in middle, lacking an isolated median seta; posteromedian portion of clypeus relatively narrowly inserted between frontal lobes; mandible elongate-trianglar, with 8 teeth that decrease in size from apex to base; antenna 12-segmented, with inconspicuous 3-segmented club; eye well developed; promesonotum in lateral view slightly convex, only a little higher than anterior border of propodeum, in dorsal view with obtusely angulate humeri; promesonotal suture absent dorsally; metanotal groove distinct; propodeal spine distinct; propodeal lobe present as a small angulate lobe; petiole pedunculate, with high and thin node; postpetiole higher than long, in lateral view roundly convex dorsally; gastral shoulder absent.
All of the described species of LasiomyrmaHNS have 11-segmented antennae (Terayama & Yamane 2000, Jaitrong 2010). However, a single worker of LasiomyrmaHNS collected from northern Vietnam (L. sp. eg-1) has 12-segmented antennae, thus the worker diagnosis of the genus given in Terayama & Yamane (2000) should be widened as "antenna 11- or 12-segmented". The worker of LasiomyrmaHNS is morphologically very similar to those of Lordomyrma bhutanensisHNS (Baroni Urbani) and L. sinensisHNS (Ma, Xu, Makio & DuBois) which were recently transferred to LordomyrmaHNS from StenammaHNS by Branstetter (2009). These LordomyrmaHNS species completely lack antennal scrobes and have the apex of anterior clypeal margin with a small projecting tooth. We provisionally accept LasiomyrmaHNS as a valid genus but suggest that a comprehensive re-examination of LordomyrmaHNS and LasiomyrmaHNS is needed.