Bactromantis virga

[minard734]

So, has anyone seen this legendary mantis? Bactromantis virga... If anyone has info on it, please comment here!

 

[Dracus]

Quite a strange species. Here's the images of one syntype from Mantodea Project database. Looks very unusual for Bactromantis.

 

[Sticky]

The mantis in the pics look like an old dried mantis broken in half.

 

[CosbyArt]

The mantis in the pics look like an old dried mantis broken in half.

Wow, your right, awful pics ( 1 antenna, only 2 walking legs, and no abdomen).

Lots of searching for the species on Google didn't help much either. Best I could find was 4 pictures of a different Bactoimantis mantis. No real details either for it, hopefully someone has something.

 

[Dracus]

Wow, your right, awful pics ( 1 antenna, only 2 walking legs, and no abdomen).

I hope you mean the specimen itself, because the picture is of the best quality and very high resolution.

As for the specimen, no wonder, it is one of the types and it was collected before 1896, when Scudder described the species.

Here's some additional pages about this species: the original description by Scudder and species' page in MSF Online with many references.

It is the type species of the genus Bactromantis. However, on the genus page at MSF there is a reference to synonymy with Stagmomantis by Hebard,

I couldn't find that reference. But if you look at the labels of the type in question, you may notice an additional label by Hebard with an indication that this is a synonym of Stagmomantis carolina. Looking at the type, I think it is certainly a possibility. In addition, the type is clearly immature.

Maybe B. virga was collected only once, the genus was described after it, and due to some confusion other unrelated species (B. mexicana and B. tolteca) were included in it erroneously.

On the other hand, Thespidae monograph by Max Beier depicts male B. virga looking very similar to the two other species (same picture could be viewed at Tree of Life). It is unknown though, whether Beier himself has seen the species.

In the end, to know the truth we have to wait for the revision of the whole Thespidae family, which I think is in progress...

Best I could find was 4 pictures of a different Bactoimantis mantis.

Please, never use project Noah, ispot and similar sites for identifications. The amount of wildly incorrect guesses is staggering.

The mantis on the pictures is some species of Stagmomantis.

 

[CosbyArt]

I hope you mean the specimen itself, because the picture is of the best quality and very high resolution.

As for the specimen, no wonder, it is one of the types and it was collected before 1896, when Scudder described the species.

Here's some additional pages about this species: the original description by Scudder and species' page in MSF Online with many references.

It is the type species of the genus Bactromantis. However, on the genus page at MSF there is a reference to synonymy with Stagmomantis by Hebard,

I couldn't find that reference. But if you look at the labels of the type in question, you may notice an additional label by Hebard with an indication that this is a synonym of Stagmomantis carolina. Looking at the type, I think it is certainly a possibility. In addition, the type is clearly immature.

Maybe B. virga was collected only once, the genus was described after it, and due to some confusion other unrelated species (B. mexicana and B. tolteca) were included in it erroneously.

On the other hand, Thespidae monograph by Max Beier depicts male B. virga looking very similar to the two other species (same picture could be viewed at Tree of Life). It is unknown though, whether Beier himself has seen the species.

In the end, to know the truth we have to wait for the revision of the whole Thespidae family, which I think is in progress...

Indeed it was referring to the specimen itself, but with all things considered I imagine it was the best one could hope for.

Reading what little I can find and what you posted is this a extinct mantid, misclassified, or what? Very interesting none the less.

Please, never use project Noah, ispot and similar sites for identifications. The amount of wildly incorrect guesses is staggering.

The mantis on the pictures is some species of Stagmomantis.

Thanks for the tip I will avoid those sites in the future. I know of a few others like bugguide.net seems to have the same issues.

 

[Dracus]

Reading what little I can find and what you posted is this a extinct mantid, misclassified, or what?

Summarizing, for now, until it is properly redescribed, it is a valid species of doubtful identity and a possible synonym of Stagmomantis carolina.

The only specimens that may be considered to be "properly identified as B. virga" are those of the type series.

 

[Kris Anderson]

Summarizing, for now, until it is properly redescribed, it is a valid species of doubtful identity and a possible synonym of Stagmomantis carolina.

The only specimens that may be considered to be "properly identified as B. virga" are those of the type series.

Scudder introduced the genus Bactromantis in 1896 wherein to place what he believed was a previously undescribed species that was collected in Sandford, FL sometime earlier.  He offered a brief and rather ambiguous description of his proposed type and established it as Bactromantis virga. In 1914, Hebard examined the Bactromantis virga type specimen that was used by Scudder for his original description twenty years prior and noted “Synonym S. Carolina (Johan.)” on the label.  In their subsequent paper in 1916, Rehn & Hebard concluded that the series of type specimens that Scudder introduced as Bactromantis virga were in fact male nymphs of Stagmomantis carolina, thereby equating B. virga with S. carolina and invalidating the Bactromantis genus erected by Scudder, synonymizing it with Stagmomantis.  Despite this documented discovery, this synonymy has been neglected by several succeeding authors where B. virga has been listed as a valid species for many decades and as recently as 2002. After an extensive review of available “Bactromantis” material, I have been unable to locate a single specimen that matches Scudder’s type.   Further, digital analysis of Scudder’s type specimen, in conjunction with a careful comparison of his original description, revealed a perfect alignment with an immature S. carolina.  It is therefore asserted that Bactromantis virga should resume to be treated as a synonym of Stagmomantis carolina and Bactromantis should resume to be treated as a synonym of Stagmomantis, as was originally denoted by Rehn & Hebard in 1916.