Hennigophora pria Grimaldi 2018

Hennigophora pria (Grimaldi and Cumming),

new combination

Figures 18, 46C, 47A

SUMMARY: The original (holotype) specimen of H. pria is covered with a milky coating that obscures many surface details, critically the acrostichals, as well as the presence/absence of a median furrow on the frons, and terminalia, though portions of larger macrosetae protrude through the coating. A new specimen in New Jersey amber, AMNH NJ-Ch1, has some critical features that are better preserved, but this specimen lost the left side of the head and thorax before or during fossilization, and the abdomen has a thin milky coating. A few acrostichals can be seen in left profile, which appear to be in one (or possibly several) rows and are significantly smaller than those in H. robusta (whose acrostichals are about as large as the flanking dorsocentrals; fig. 19). Male genitalic structure cannot be compared to H. robusta since this specimen is female. Most importantly, the stridulatum is present in AMNH NJ-Ch1, with a scraper very visible on the mesal surface of the right profemur, and a file on the lateral surface of the left procoxa. The location, arc, and length of the stridulatum are just as in living sciadocerines, but the number and structure of ridges and teeth are not visible. A stridulatum was also observed in H. robusta based on a file on the right procoxa of a male specimen, AMNH Ba-JH58 (fig. 19) (this specimen also lacks a median furrow on the frons).

Hennigophora pria is similar to H. robusta in venation (proportions and lengths of main veins, a tubular stem of M; fig. 47A, B), setation of legs; and a broad frons (judging from the preserved right half in AMNH NJ-Ch1). It differs from H. robutsa by having a pair of reclinate interfrontals, near the frontal margin of the frons (vs. absent); also, setae are shorter, especially the acrostichals, supraalars, postalars, and scutellars. In agreement with Brown (2007a), Archiphora should be restricted to the sole living species.