<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<tax:taxonx xmlns:tax="http://research.amnh.org/informatics/taxlit/taxonx/taxonx1"
  xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
  xsi:schemaLocation="http://research.amnh.org/informatics/taxlit/taxonx/taxonx1       taxonx1.xsd
  http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3       mods-3-1.xsd">
  <!-- Marked up from http://antbase.org/ants/publications/20971/20971.pdf. Text copied and pasted into xml doc.
    xml mark up: Donat Agosti, Oxygen, taxonx1, 26.11.2005
  -->
  <tax:taxonxHeader>
    <!-- 
      Use elements from the MODS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard) Schema to describe the electronic transcription and its source
           see www.loc.gov/mods for more information
      -->
    <mods:mods>
      <mods:titleInfo>
        <mods:title>A New Species of Discothyrea Roger from Mauritius and a New Species of Proceratium Roger from Madagascar (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)</mods:title>
      </mods:titleInfo>
      <mods:name type="personal">
        <mods:role>
          <mods:roleTerm>Author</mods:roleTerm>
        </mods:role>
        <mods:namePart>Fisher, Brian L. 1957 -</mods:namePart>
      </mods:name>
    </mods:mods>
  </tax:taxonxHeader>
  <tax:taxonxBody>
    <!--
      Page break. id attribute assigns a unique identifier to the page break element, The n attribute ("name") records the number/"name"
      of the page as printed or inferrable in the source
      -->
    <tax:pb id="pb-1" n="657"/>
    <!--
      Head. The heading for the document being transcribed. Title and author may be tagged,
     -->
    <tax:head>
      <tax:title>
        A New Species of Discothyrea Roger from Mauritius and a New Species of Proceratium Roger from Madagascar (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
      </tax:title> 
      <tax:author>Brian L. Fisher
      Department of Entomology, California Academy of Sciences, 875 Howard Street,
      San Francisco, California 94103 USA; bfisher@calacademy.org
      </tax:author>
    </tax:head>
    <tax:div type="abstract">
      <tax:p>
        The worker of Discothyrea berlita sp. nov. from Mauritius is described. This is the
        first record of the genus from Mauritius. D. berlita is known from a single locality,
        Le Pouce, a small sanctuary of native ants on an island overrun with invasive ant
        species. Proceratium avium is recollected at Le Pouce and is the senior synonym of
        Proceratium avioide de Andrade (syn. nov.). The practice of manually removing alien
        plants from native forest plots in Mauritius is not advised for the Le Pouce forest
        patch because this practice facilitates the establishment of invasive ants, which eliminate
        native ants. Proceratium google sp. nov. is described from Madagascar.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        KEYWORDS: Conservation, Discothyrea, Formicinae, Hymenoptera,
        Invasive, Madagascar, Mauritius, Proceratium.
      </tax:p>
    </tax:div>
    <tax:div type="introduction">
      <tax:p>
        In May 2005, I joined a team of Malagasy ant specialists on an expedition to the island of
        Mauritius, where we conducted an ant inventory and a search for indigenous species. The status of
        the remaining native species of Mauritius was called into question by P.S. Ward (1990). In inspired
        literary prose, he described, as W.L. Brown (1974) did earlier, the alarming difficulty of finding
        native species. Habitat destruction and introduced ants and plants dominate the landscape, pushing
        native ants up to and possibly over the brink of extinction.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        Mauritius has had a long history of exploitation, habitat modification and extinction. With the
        extinction of the dodo in 1681, 80 years after humans first arrived on Mauritius, colonizers continued
        to modify habitat at an alarming rate (Lorence and Sussman 1986). The dense Mauritian forests
        were converted into tea and sugar plantations in the 19th century. During this time, habitat modification
        on Mauritius reached to almost every corner of the island (Safford 1997). Mauritius is an
        instructive example of what could happen to other insular environments, such as Madagascar, if
        habitat destruction is left unchecked. On Mauritius, as on Madagascar, invasive plant and animal
        species pose major problems. Once established, many invasive ants in Mauritius may be virtually
        impossible to eradicate, thus preventing the return of native ants (Holway et al. 2002).
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        The known native ant fauna of Mauritius includes 18 valid species, with 9 endemic to the
        island (Table 1). It is interesting that the endemic ants are all confined to upland forest. One could
        conclude that Mauritius has few endemics all of which are on mountaintops. On the other hand,
        these endemics could be the only remaining examples of a much richer endemic fauna that disappeared
        with the destruction of the lowland forest. The discovery of a new genus record on Le
        Pouce, suggests that there are more species to discover on the island and that Le Pouce is a surprising
        sanctuary of taxonomically peculiar endemic ants.
       <tax:pb id="pb-2" n="658"/>
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        The site encompasses a rugged and spectacular
        mountain chain above the industrial city of Port
        Louis in north-west Mauritius. The main ridge runs
        approximately east to west, and three long spurs
        extend northward. Major peaks include Pieter Both
        (823 m), Le Pouce (812 m) and Montagne Ory
        (c.700 m). Le Pouce captures moisture from the
        prevailing wind and clouds, resulting in the presence
        of native cloud-forest there. This is the only
        remaining area of native vegetation, although
        native plants are scattered throughout the range.
        Exotic vegetation dominates, most notably a scrub
        of strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum) and
        privet (Ligustrum robustrum) — but grassland and
        Eucalyptus plantations also occur. The best native
        forest found during our trip, and also the place of
        greatest number of endemic ants, was a small patch
        of forest, less than one hectare in area, just at the
        southeast face of the peak. Based on our survey
        results across the island, this forest patch on Le
        Pouce is the only remaining forest refuge for these
        mountain endemics of Mauritius and should receive high conservation priority.
      </tax:p>
       <tax:div type="synopsis">
         <tax:p>
           TABLE 1 List of valid names for native ants
           recorded from the island of Mauritius. Native ants
           restricted to Rodrigues (Monomorium elongatum
           Smith, 1876, Tapinoma fragile Smith, 1876,
           Tapinoma pallipes Smith, 1876) are excluded.
           Species in bold are endemic to the island
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Camponotus aurosus Roger, 1863
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Camponotus grandidieri Forel, 1886
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Crematogaster sewellii Forel, 1891
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Dicothryea berlita sp. nov.
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Hypoponera johannae (Forel, 1891)
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Nesomyrmex gibber Donisthorpe, 1946
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Ochetellus vinsoni (Donisthorpe, 1946)
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Pheidole picata Forel, 1891
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Pheidole tarda Donisthorpe, 1947
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Plagiolepis madecassa Forel, 1892
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Pristomyrmex bispinosus (Donisthorpe, 1949)
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Pristomyrmex browni Wang, 2003
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Pristomyrmex trispinosus (Donisthorpe, 1946)
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Proceratium avium Brown, 1974
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Pseudolasius dodo (Donisthorpe, 1946)
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Solenopsis mameti Donisthorpe, 1946
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Strumigenys agetos Fisher, 2000
         </tax:p>
         <tax:p>
           Technomyrmex primrosae Donisthorpe, 1949
         </tax:p>
       </tax:div>
    </tax:div>
    <tax:div type="materials_methods">
      <tax:p>
        MATERIALS AND METHODS
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        This work is based on ant inventories in Mauritius from 25 May–31 May, 2005. During that
        period, we visited Le Pouce Mt., Pieter Both Mt., and Calebasses Mt. in the Moka Range, and
        Camizard Mt., and Brise Mt. in the Bambous Range. We also collected at Basin Blanc, Ile aux
        Aigrettes, Cocotte Mt., and Petite Rivière Noire Mt. Ants were collected using general hand search
        techniques and leaf litter extraction. The work in Madagascar is based on arthropod surveys in
        Madagascar that included over 6,000 leaf litter samples, 4,000 pitfall traps, and 8,000 additional
        hand collecting events throughout Madagascar in 1992 through 2004 (Fisher 2005). The species
        described here was collected as part of an inventory of Réserve Spéciale d’Anjanaharibe-Sud
        organized by Steve Goodman (Fisher 1998).
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        All species and type material examined in this study have been imaged and are available on
        AntWeb (www.antweb.org). Material was deposited at California Academy of Sciences, San
        Francisco (CASC) Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge,
        Massachusetts (MCZC), and British Museum of Natural History (BMNH).
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        Digital images (Fig. 1–17) were created using a JVC KY-F75 digital camera and Syncroscopy
        Auto-Montage (v 5.0) software. All metric measurements were taken at 80× power with a Leica
        MZ APO microscope using an orthogonal pair of micrometers and recorded to the nearest
        0.001mm and rounded to two decimal places for presentation. The accuracy of the micrometers
        was tested against a 0.01 mm microscope micrometer before and after measurements.
        Measurement indices and their abbreviations used in the paper are based on those used by Ward
        (1988). Size and the shape of the IV abdominal segment are the most important characters for the
        identification and delimitation of Proceritiinae species.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:pb id="pb-3" n="659"/>
    
      <tax:div>
        <tax:p>
        List of Abbreviations Used
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
        HL Head length: maximum longitudinal length from the anteriormost portion of the projecting clypeus to
        the midpoint of a line across the back of the head.
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
        HW Head width: maximum width of head, including the eyes, and is taken behind them.
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
        CI Cephalic index: HW/HL x 100.
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
        SL Scape length: maximum chord length excluding basal condyle and neck.
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
        SI Scape index: SL/HW x 100.
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
        WL Weber’s length: in lateral view of the mesosoma, diagonal length from posteroventral corner of
        mesosoma to the farthest point on anterior face of pronotum, excluding the neck.
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
        LS4 Length of abdominal sternum IV as described in Ward (1988).
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
        LT4 Length of abdominal tergum IV as defined in Ward (1988).
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
        IGR Index of gastric reflexion: LS4/LT4
        </tax:p> 
      </tax:div>
    </tax:div>
    <!--
      Treatment. Encloses all the text related to a treatment for a taxon
     -->
    
    
    <tax:treatment>
      <tax:nomenclature>
        <tax:name>Discothyrea berlita</tax:name> 
        <tax:author>Fisher</tax:author>, 
        <tax:status>sp. nov.</tax:status>
        <tax:figures> Fig. 1–4.</tax:figures>
      </tax:nomenclature>   
      <tax:div>
        </tax:div>
        <tax:div type="materials_examined">
            <tax:p>TYPE MATERIAL.— HOLOTYPE: Worker. MAURITIUS: Le Pouce Mt., Moka Range, 20°11′55″S,
      057°31′44″E, 750 m, closed vegetation, 25 May 2005 (coll. B.L. Fisher et al.) Collection code: BLF12148,
      specimen code: CASENT0007016 (CASC).
            </tax:p>
        </tax:div>
         <tax:div type="description"> 
            <tax:p>Type worker measurements: HL 0.57, HW 0.52, CI 91, SL 0.36, SI 70, LS4 0.08, LT4 0.43, WL 0.64 IGR 0.19.
            </tax:p>
         </tax:div>
        <tax:div type="diagnosis">
          <tax:p>
            DIAGNOSIS.— The following character combination differentiates berlita from all its congeners:
            scrobe absent, fused frontal carinae projecting perpendicular to the plane of the clypeus,
            expanding apically, not forming a thin lamellae; propodeal angle without acute teeth or spines;
            anterior margin of petiole concave when viewed from above.
          </tax:p>
        </tax:div>
        <tax:div type="etymology">
          <tax:p>
            ETYMOLOGY.— The specific name is an arbitrary combination, to be treated as a noun in apposition.
          </tax:p>
        </tax:div>
        <tax:div type="description">
          <tax:p>
            WORKER DESCRIPTION.— Form of head, mandibles, and body as shown in Figures 1–4.
            Antennae 10-segmented; medium segments extremely short and not distinct when viewed with less
            than 100× magnification; scape expanded apically, reaching mid-point of head. Eyes with 2 or 3
            facets. Without depressed scrobal area. Palpal segmentation requires dissection and thus was not
            determined. Mandible masticatory margin concave, with two teeth, sharp apical tooth and smaller
            acute basal tooth. Propodeal angle without teeth or acute angles; declivitous face of propodeum
            concave. Petiole thick, with lateral margins on anterior face; anterior margin concave when viewed
            from above. Petiole with distinct convex subpetiolar process. Abdominal segment III longer than
            broad.
          </tax:p>
          <tax:p>
            Head and mesosoma densely punctulate; petiole sculptured as mesosoma, abdominal segment
            III with sparse punctures; punctures evanescent on abdominal segment IV. Integument generally
            opaque, except shiny for impunctate areas of metasoma.
          </tax:p>
          <tax:p>Body, including mandible and appendages, covered with dense fine, very short whitish decumbent
            pubescence, becoming sparse on abdominal segment III, and dense and nearly erect on
            abdominal segment IV.
          </tax:p>
          <tax:p>Color testaceous red.
          </tax:p>
        </tax:div>
        <tax:div type="distribution">
          <tax:p>
            DISTRIBUTION.— The single specimen was collected in a leaf litter sample in the only remaining
            patch of dense native vegetation near the summit of Le Pouce. Samples from other nearby
            mountain tops, Pieter Both (823 m), Calebasses (c.600 m), did not uncover any endemic
            Proceritiinae.
          </tax:p>
        </tax:div>
        <tax:div type="discussion">
          <tax:p>
            COMMENTS.— The African species of Discothyrea fall into two groups: (1) those with the
           <tax:pb id="pb-4"   n="660"/>
            <tax:figure id="fig-1" n="1-4" url="http://antbase.org/ants/publications/20971/20971_0660.pdf"></tax:figure>
           <tax:pb id="pb-5"   n="661"/>        
                      
            clypeo-frontal fusion flat topped and broad and with a depressed scrobe region, and (2) those in
            which the process forms a simple convex or angular vertical plate and lack a depressed scrobe
            region (Brown 1958). The Discothyrea of Madagascar belong to the first group. D. berlita is most
            similar to those in the second group, but is distinct in that the vertical plate does not form a thin
            lamella, but is expanded apically (Fig. 3).
             </tax:p>
        </tax:div>
    </tax:treatment>
    
    
    <tax:treatment>
      <tax:nomenclature>
        <tax:name>Proceratium avium</tax:name> 
        <tax:author>Brown</tax:author>, 
        <tax:year>1974</tax:year>
        <tax:figures>Figs. 5-13.</tax:figures>
        <tax:citation>Proceratium avium Brown, 1974: 71, figs. 1 and 2 (worker, gyne and male). Mauritius: Le Pouce Mt, 700-
        800 m, Native forest, 1 Apr. 1969 (coll. W.L. Brown) [examined] AntWeb MCZTYPE32216 (MCZC) [de
           Andrade 2000:75]
         Proceratium avioide de Andrade 2003: 78, figs 37, 38 (worker, gyne and male). Mauritius: Le Pouce Mt, 700-
        800 m, Native forest, 30 March 1969 (coll. W.L. Brown) [examined] AntWeb MCZTYPE35017 (MCZC).
           New synonymy [see justification below]</tax:citation>
      </tax:nomenclature>
       <tax:div type="discussion">
        <tax:p>
        During the trip to Le Pouce on May 25 and 30, seven new collections of Proceratium from Le
        Pouce were recorded (Table 2). Because of the small size of the forest patch, only two complete
        colonies were collected. For the other colonies we encountered, only a few foragers were removed.
        As Brown (1974) observed, foragers were returning to nests with what appeared to be spider eggs.
        In this case, they carried the eggs in the mandible, and did not support the eggs with the recurved
        gaster (Brown 1980). Baroni and de Andrade (2003) suggest the recurved gaster serves a phragmotic
        function, but I did not observe the recurved gaster being used to plug up the ant nest entrance.
        </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="materials_examined">
        <tax:p>TABLE 2. Collection of Proceratium avium on 25 and 30 May 2005 at Le Pouce Mt., Moka Range,
          20°11′55″S, 057°31′44″E, 750 m, closed vegetation.          
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>Collection Habitat Caste</tax:p>
        <tax:p>BLF12011 foraging on Nuxia verticillata with Pristomyrmex bispinosus 1 w</tax:p>  
        <tax:p>BLF12014 foraging on Nuxia verticillata with Pristomyrmex bispinosus 2 w</tax:p>  
        <tax:p>BLF12136 ex rot pocket, Nuxia verticillata, 1. 5 m above ground 1 erg Q, 127 w</tax:p>  
        <tax:p>BLF12137 ex rot pocket, Nuxia verticillata, 1. 5 m above ground 1 erg. 352w</tax:p>  
        <tax:p>BLF12139 foraging on Nuxia verticillata with Pristomyrmex bispinosus 2 w</tax:p> 
        <tax:p>BLF12140 foraging on Nuxia verticillata 8 w</tax:p>  
        <tax:p>BLF12142 foraging on Nuxia verticillata 2 w</tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="discussion">
        <tax:p>
          Of note is the fact that colony (BLF12137) included 352 workers, one ergatoid queen, and no
          males. Based on the colony size data reported in Baroni and de Adrade (2003), this is the largest
          colony size recorded for Proceratium. Collections in May by Brown in 1969 included males. All
          nests encountered were located in Nuxia verticillata Lamark (Loganiaceae), with entrances about
          1.5–2 m above ground. This tree was also the preferred nesting site for Pristomyremx bispinosus.
          This tree, called bois maigre in Mauritius, has gnarled and twisted trunks. It is endemic to
          Mauritius and Reunion and appears to be the sole nesting site for Pristomyremx bispinosus and
          Proceratium avium. The high winds that are common on Le Pouce abrade the twisted and intertwined
          trunks and branches. This action damages the tree at the contact point between intersecting
          branches and leads to the creation of a rot pocket and nesting site.
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
          Three collections of Proceratium avium (BLF12011, 12014, and 12139) were foragers following
          Pristomyremx bispinosus. These two species are very similar in color and general appearance.
          Brown in 1969 also observed this behavior. It is unclear why Proceratium is interspersed among
          the foraging workers of P. bispinosus. Conservation of either of these species should include further
          investigation of potential beneficial interactions between the species.
        </tax:p>
        <tax:pb id="pb-6"   n="662"/> 
        <tax:p>
          JUSTIFICATION OF SYNONYMY.— Brown (1980) collected three series of Proceratium at Le
          Pouce in 1969, one on March 30, and two on April 1. The latter were located less than 500 meters
          from the March 30 collecting site. He described both of these samples as Proceratium avium
          (Brown 1974). De Andrade (Baroni Urbani and de Andrade 2003) reexamined these three collections
          and determined that they represent two species, P. avioide and P. avium. She based this on the
          <tax:pb id="pb-7"   n="663"/>
          observation that P. avium differs from P. avioide by the less impressed sculpture, by the denser
          pilosity, and by longer antennal scapes (P. avium SI 87.3-88.6, P. avioide SI 81.8–83.3).
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
          The measurements of Brown and de Andrade are not consistent, especially for the P. avioide
          material she examined. Brown noted measurements for the three collections (workers n = 19) as
          HL 0.92–0.98, HW .091–0.98, CI 96–101 SL 0.90–0.99. Brown did not calculate SI. De Andrade
          notes that for her avium: HL 1.05–1.12, HW .090–0.94, CI 84.5–85.7 SL 0.93–0.97, SI 87.3–88.6
          and P. avioide, HL 1.10–1.16, HW .092–0.97, CI 82.1–85.1, SL 0.90–0.96, SI 81.8–83.3. Note that
          CI for Brown ranged from 96–101, while for De Andrade, CI ranged from 82.1–85.7.
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
          One possible reason for these differences is the differences of HW and SL definitions. Based
          on the definitions presented above, I re-measured the type material using a calibrated micrometer
          (see Methods above). Measurements are presented in Table 3. These measurements confirm the relative
          differences between the Brown collections.
          However, when samples from the seven
          new collections are included, these differences
          become less distinct. The seven collections
          in the study, have even less impressed
          sculpture than P. avium, similar pilosity as P.
          avium, and longer antennal scapes then both
          P. avium and P. avioide (SI 98–103). Based on
          this study of Brown’s material and the new
          collections in this study, I identify all these
          collections as one species.
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
          The variation observed in these collections
          is interesting in such a small area. It is
          possible that because P. avium has ergatoid
          queens, and disperses presumably by budding
          with low dispersal ability, the complex topography
          of Le Pouce contributed to the observed variation. The possible restriction of the remaining
          population to the single forest patch at the base of the southeast peak, however, could severely limit
          the observed variation in the future.
        </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="description">
        <tax:p>TABLE 3. Measurements and scape index of type
          material and new collections. MCZTYPE32216 is the
          holotype of Proceratium avium, MCZTYPE35017 is
          the holotype of Proceratium avioide.
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>Specimen number HW SL SI</tax:p> 
        <tax:p>MCZTYPE35017 0.97 0.92 95</tax:p> 
        <tax:p>MCZTYPE32216 1.01 0.96 96</tax:p> 
        <tax:p>CASENT0055844 0.98 1.01 103</tax:p> 
        <tax:p>CASENT0055842 0.99 1.00 101</tax:p> 
        <tax:p>CASENT0059012 0.97 0.99 102</tax:p> 
        <tax:p>CASENT0059013 1.03 1.01 98</tax:p> 
        <tax:p>CASENT0059026 1.00 1.01 101</tax:p> 
        <tax:p>CASENT0059030 0.99 1.01 102</tax:p> 
        <tax:p>CASENT0059029 1.01 1.00 98</tax:p> 
        <tax:p>min 0.97 0.92 95</tax:p> 
        <tax:p>max 1.03 1.01 103</tax:p>
      </tax:div>
    </tax:treatment>
    <tax:treatment>
      <tax:nomenclature>
        <tax:name>Proceratium google</tax:name> 
        <tax:author>Fisher</tax:author>, 
        <tax:status>sp. nov.</tax:status>
        <tax:figures>Figs. 14-17.</tax:figures>
      </tax:nomenclature>
      <tax:div type="materials_examined">
        <tax:p>
          TYPE MATERIAL.— HOLOTYPE: Worker. MADAGASCAR: Antsiranana, 11.0 km WSW Befingotra,
          Réserve Spéciale Anjanaharibe-Sud, 14°45′S, 049°27′E, 1565 m, 16 Nov 1994 (coll. B.L. Fisher) sifted litter,
          montane rainforest, Collection code: BLF1232(6) — CASENT0100367, (CASC) PARATYPES: 2 workers with
          same data as holotype but with specimen codes CASENT010068 (BMNH), CASENT0100369 (MCZC); 1
          worker 9.2 km WSW Befingotra, Réserve Spéciale Anjanaharibe-Sud, 14°45′S, 049°28′E, 1280 m, 5 Nov
          1994 (coll. B.L. Fisher), CASENT0100370; (CASC); and 1 worker same as latter but collected at 1200 m on
          9 Nov 1994, CASENT0100371 (CASC).
        </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="diagnosis">
        <tax:p>
        DIAGNOSIS.— The following character combination differentiates P. google from all its congeners:
        abdominal segment IV tergite evenly rounded posteriorly, without concave impression near
        apex and not hypertrophied; truncate median clypeal lobe; low nodiform petiole without peduncle
        but with blunt anteroventral tooth; fore tibia with a basal spine, frontal carinae separate and diverging
        posteriorly; posterior dorsum of mesosoma and propodeal spines granulate-foveolate. P. google
        is easily distinguished from P. diplopyx, the only other described Proceratium from Madagascar,
        by the shape of the tergite of the abdominal segment IV. In P. diplopyx, the tergite is with a deep
          <tax:pb id="pb-8"   n="664"/> 
          <tax:pb id="pb-9"   n="665"/>
        concave notch near apex.
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>TABLE 4. Worker measurements: maximum and minimum based on all five Proceratium google
          specimens.</tax:p>
        <tax:p>Specimen</tax:p>
        <tax:p>CASENT # HL HW CI SL SI WL LS4 LT4 IGR</tax:p>
        <tax:p>0100367 Holotype 1.21 1.02 84 0.80 79 1.34 0.20 0.85 0.23</tax:p>
        <tax:p>0100370 Paratype 1.24 1.07 86 0.92 86 1.49 0.18 0.79 0.23</tax:p>
        <tax:p>0100371 Paratype 1.24 1.04 84 0.86 83 1.46 0.20 0.77 0.26</tax:p>
        <tax:p>0100368 Paratype 1.15 1.03 89 0.84 82 1.36 0.19 0.79 0.23</tax:p>
        <tax:p>0100369 Paratype 1.20 1.05 87 0.83 79 1.41 0.17 0.79 0.22</tax:p>
        <tax:p>min 1.15 1.03 84 0.83 79 1.36 0.17 0.77 0.22</tax:p>
        <tax:p>max 1.24 1.05 89 0.86 83 1.46 0.20 0.79 0.26</tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="etymology">
        <tax:p>
          ETYMOLOGY.— Named in recognition of the support from the Google company. I hope that
          Google will continue applying its talent to serve data relevant to the biodiversity community, conservation
          planners, and the general public. By creating a “Zoogle,” Google could help achieve free
          and democratic access to taxonomic and biodiversity data on species. P. google is also suspected
          to be a specialist egg predator of spiders, which is also why this ant is aptly named after Google—
          for the ability to hunt down obscure prey. The specific name is an arbitrary combination, to be treated
          as a noun in apposition.
        </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="description">
        <tax:p>
          WORKER DESCRIPTION.— Form of head, mandibles, and body as shown in Figures 14-17. In
          full-face view, posterior margin of head rounded, not concave; sides of head more or less straight
          medially; in profile, dorsal margin marginate. Mandible with 4 teeth. Palpal formula 4, 3. Antennae
          12-segmented, scape does not reach posterior margin of head. Median clypeal lobe raised and
          notched medially. Eye a single, large, clear, convex facet that projects beyond the margin of the
          head in full-face view.
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
          Mesosoma in dorsal view pear-shaped, broader across pronotum than across propodeum.
          Metanotal grove unmarked. Propodeal spines granulate-tuberculate; declivitous face of propodeum
          concave, ending basally with an upturned tooth. Petiole longer than wide; subpetiolar process
          forming an obtuse tooth at midlength. Tibial spur present on each leg. Claws on all legs slender,
          simple.
          </tax:p>
          <tax:p>Abdominal segment IV tergum evenly rounded posteriorly, without concave impression near
          apex.
          </tax:p>
          <tax:p>Head, mesosoma, petiole, and abdominal segment III with dense granulate-foveolate sculpture.
          In contrast, abdominal segment IV predominantly smooth and shiny but with sparse foveae.
          Declivitous face of propodeum shiny smooth.
          </tax:p>
          <tax:p>
          Body covered with abundant pilosity consisting of fine, curved, tapered, yellow-white setae.
          Queen, male and larvae unknown.
          </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="distribution">
        <tax:p>
        DISTRIBUTION.— Known only from an isolated mountain in Northeastern Madagascar,
          Réserve Spéciale Anjanaharibe-Sud, 14°45′S, 049°27′E, collected at an elevation of 1565 m.
          Collections in nearby mountains such as Marojejy did not locate any specimens of this species.
        </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
     </tax:treatment>
   <tax:div type="discussion">
     <tax:p>
       CONSERVATION
     </tax:p>
     <tax:p>
       Arthropods present several challenges to those dedicated to their conservation. First, they are
       small and inconspicuous, and thus often forgotten during the conservation planning process.
       Second, arthropods are overwhelmingly diverse and as a whole, barely known. Is it pragmatic to
       develop a conservation strategy for a fauna we scarcely know? Third, because arthropods show a
       <tax:pb id="pb-10"   n="666"/>
       remarkable level of local endemism, they will require strategies and policies that are different from
       those developed to conserve birds and plants. A case in point is Mauritius.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        Conservation in Mauritius is heavily biased to bird and plant preservation (Safford and Jones,
        1998; Fowler et al 2000, Nicholas et al. 2004). Land management practices are tailored to benefit
        plants and birds, but not invertebrates. They are fighting the battle to protect the dwindling patches
        of native vegetation and bird populations. For plants, this includes the establishments of
        Conservation Management Areas where alien plants are manually removed (Dulloo et al 2002). In
        these plots, weedy vegetation is removed up to three times a year. The active removal of large number
        of weedy plants, however, creates large areas of bare soil and understory (Dulloo et al 2002,
        pers. obs.). This disturbance facilitates the establishment of invasive ants, at the expense of any
        remaining native ants (pers. obs).
      </tax:p>
       <tax:p>
         The small, one-hectare patch of native forest left on Le Pouce could be destroyed for native
         ants if an active weeding program is initiated. The closed vegetation is essential for the survival of
         the endemic Discothyrea, Pristomyremx, and Acropya, which thrive in the cold, moist understory.
         With weeding and increased insolation and disturbance, the invasive ants that surround this small
         patch would quickly move in and destroy this ant sanctuary.
       </tax:p>
       <tax:p>
         An alternative approach to the manual weeding strategy would be to plant native trees around
         this patch, including Nuxia verticillata, which is home to Proceratium and Pristomyrmex. The goal
         would be to create a dense closed canopy of natives around this patch without disturbing the patch
         itself. Over time, the effective size of this patch could expand. We also advise that future collections
         of endemic ants in Mauritius avoid collecting entire colonies.
       </tax:p>
       <tax:p>
         Mauritius has shown that once invasive ants take hold, there is almost no way to return the
         land to native ants and healthy arthropod communities (pers. obs.). Therefore, in Madagascar, land
         managers must monitor for invasive arthropods. Even though remnant patches of forest may be
         preserved, invasion by aggressive exotic ants may drive native ants locally extinct. One of the simplest
         and most effective methods is to track the presence or absence of invasive ants. In this
         approach, targeted collecting can be performed in habitats and microenvironments most likely to
         harbor invasives.
       </tax:p>
   </tax:div>
    <tax:div type="acknowledgments">
      <tax:p>
        ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DEB-0344731
        to B.L. Fisher and P.S. Ward. Fieldwork that provided the basis for this work could not have been
        completed without the support of Lorch Lach, Andy Suarez, and Vikash Tatayah from the
        Mauritian Wildlife Foundation. I am also grateful for the Arthropod Inventory Team (Balsama
        Rajemison, Jean-Jacques Rafanomezantsoa, Chrislain Ranaivo, Coco Randriambololona,
        Hanitriniana Rasoazanamavo, Nicole Rasoamanana, Clavier Randrianandrasana, Valerie
        Rakotomalala, and Dimby Raharinjanahary) who helped collect and process this material. I thank
        April Nobile for creating the images.
      </tax:p>
    </tax:div>
    <tax:div>
      <tax:p>
        REFERENCES
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        BARONI URBANI, C., AND M.L. DE ANDRADE. 2003. The ant genus Proceratium in the extant and fossil record
        (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Monografie 36: 1–480.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        BROWN, W.L. 1958. Contributions towards a reclassification of the Formicidae. 2. Tribe Ectatommini. Bulletin
        of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. 118:175–362
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        BROWN, W.L. 1974. A remarkable new island isolate in the ant genus Proceratium (Hymenoptera:
        Formicidae). Psyche 81:70–83.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:pb id="pb-11"   n="667"/>
      <tax:p>
        BROWN, W.L. 1980. A remarkable new species of Proceratium, with dietary and other notes on the genus
        (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Psyche 86:337–346.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        DULLOO, M.E., S.P. KELL, AND C.G. JONES. 2002. Conservation of endemic forest species and the threat of
        invasive species. International Forestry Review 4:277–285.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        FISHER, B.L. 1998. Ant diversity patterns along an elevational gradient in the Réserve Spéciale
        d’Anjanaharibe-Sud and on the western Masoala Peninsula, Madagascar. Pages 39–67 in S.M. Goodman,
        ed., A Floral and Faunal Inventory of the Réserve Spéciale d’Anjanaharibe-Sud, Madagascar: with
        Reference to Elevational Variation. Fieldiana: Zoology, n.s., 90:1–246
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        FISHER, B.L. 2005. AModel for a Global Inventory of Ants: ACase Study in Madagascar. Pages 78–89 in N.G.
        Jablonski and M.T. Ghiselin, eds., Biodiversity: A Symposium Held on the Occasion of the 150th
        Anniversary of the California Academy of Sciences June 17–18, 2003. Proceedings of the California
        Academy of Sciences, ser. 4, 56(Suppl. I).
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        FOWLER, S.V., S. GANESHAN, J. MAUREMOOTOO, AND Y. MUNGROO. 2000. Biological Control of Weeds in
        Mauritius: Past Successes Revisited and Present Challenges. Pages 43–50 in Neal R. Spences, ed.,
        Proceedings of the Xth International Symposium on Control of the Weeds, 4-14 July 1999. Montana State
        University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        HOLWAY, D.A., L. LACH, A.V. SUAREZ, N.D. TSUTSUI, AND T.J. CASE. 2002. The causes and consequences of
        ant invasions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:181–233.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        LORENCE, D.H., AND R. W. SUSSMAN. 1986. Exotic species invasion into Mauritius wet forest remnants.
        Journal of Tropical Ecology 2:147–162.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        NICHOLS, R., L. WOOLAVER, AND C. JONES. 2004. Continued decline and conservation needs of the endangered
        Mauritius olive white-eye Zosterops chloronothos. Oryx 38:291–296.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        SAFFORD, R.J. 1997.A survey of the occurrence of native vegetation remnants on Mauritius in 1993. Biological
        Conservation 80:181–188.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        SAFFORD, R.J., AND C.G. JONES. 1998. Strategies for Land-Bird Conservation on Mauritius. Conservation
        Biology 12:169–176.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        WARD, P.S. 1988. Mesic elements in the western Nearctic ant fauna: taxonomic and biological notes on
        Amblyopone, Proceratium, and Smithistruma (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of the Kansas
        Entomological Society 61:102–124.
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p>
        WARD, P.S. 1990. The endangered ants of Mauritius: Doomed like the Dodo? Notes from the Underground
        4:3–5.
      </tax:p>
    </tax:div>
    <tax:div>
      <tax:p>
        Copyright © 2005 by the California Academy of Sciences
      </tax:p>
      
      <tax:p>
        San Francisco, California, U.S.A.
      </tax:p>
      
    </tax:div>
     
  </tax:taxonxBody>
</tax:taxonx>
