identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
90C57AC13D1C36B0B5322CC9FE0AB3A7.text	90C57AC13D1C36B0B5322CC9FE0AB3A7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acanthostichus Mayr 1887	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Acanthostichus Mayr, 1887</p><p>= Ctenopyga Ashmead, 1906</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Typhlopone serratula, by monotypy.</p><p>Acanthostichus is a New World genus of termite-hunting dorylines most closely related to Cylindromyrmex .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. The workers of this distinctive lineage can be recognized by a combination of 12-segmented antennae, absence of ridge on pronotal collar, unfused pronotomesopleural Pronotomesopleural suture, highly positioned helcium, a single pectinate spur on mid and hind tibiae, propodeal spiracle usually positioned below the midheight of the sclerite, and large pygidium armed with modified finger-like setae. Restricted to the New World, the species of Acanthostichus are medium-sized ants that are often brown or yellowish in coloration and lack distinctive sulcate or striate sculpturing characteristic of its close relative Cylindromyrmex or very conspicuous constrictions between gastral segments of Sphinctomyrmex . Other New World dorylines (army ants related to Eciton, species of Leptanilloides) all have simple, small pygidium, at most armed with several thick setae. Workers of Syscia and the introduced Ooceraea biroi, also found in the New World, can be distinguished by antennal segment count reduced to 11 or 9, respectively.</p><p>Male. The male of Acanthostichus can be separated from all other dorylines by a combination of propodeal lobes conspicuous, supraaxial helcium, single spur on each mid and hind tibiae, costal vein (C) present in fore wing, and R·f3 present past pterostigma but not enclosing a cell with Rs·f5. Most species appear to have 12-segmented antennae but at least Acanthostichus texanus and Acanthostichus davisi are known to have 13 antennal segments. Among New World dorylines the habitus of males is similar to that of Cylindromyrmex, Neocerapachys, Syscia, and Sphinctomyrmex . Sphinctomyrmex has conspicuous constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI in combination with narrow axial helcium, Cylindromyrmex has two tibial spurs, and Syscia lacks the costal vein in the fore wing. Neocerapachys has either a closed marginal cell or lacks cross-vein 2rs-m. Furthermore, Acanthostichus males that lack 2rs-m have a broader helcium and more poorly developed posterior face of the petiole than is characteristic of Neocerapachys . Other dorylines found in the New World include the army ants, and males in these genera always have marginal cell closed by R·f3 and Rs·f5, only one well-differentiated waist segment, and no constriction between abdominal segments III and IV. The remaining neotropical genus, Leptanilloides, has no conspicuous tegula and venation reduced, without R·f3 or discal cell.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment moderately enlarged, broader than and about equal in length to two preceding segments combined. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex horizontal. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 3-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with median tooth or triangular, edentate. Eyes present, composed of 1-20 ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen absent or present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused partway to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove replaced by cuticular ridge. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally weakly to conspicuously marginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low or high on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally marginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and supraaxial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin or reduced to small longitudinal ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured or weakly cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent or present. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field, and armed with modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent or oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 12 or 13 segments. Antennal scapes dorsoventrally flattened. Clypeus with cuticular apron, not translucent. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 3-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli absent or present. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent or present. Propodeal declivity reduced, without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening present. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and supraaxial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin or V-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent or present. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with no sulcus trace at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting or separated. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella gradually tapering toward apex. Penisvalva laterally flattened, at apex hooked ventrally. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate or narrow, demilanceolate in shape. Abscissa R·f3 present and running toward distal wing margin but not enclosing cell with Rs·f5. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 absent or present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, connected to Rs·f2-3&amp;Rs·f4, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 present, fused in absence of 2rs-m or differentiated into Rs·f4 and Rs·f5 by 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing contiguous with Rs+M. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing present, separated from Rs+M by Rs·f2. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing absent or present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent or with both branches Cu1 and Cu2. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R+Rs present. Vein R in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m, sometimes a stub. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, longer than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing absent or present, about as long as M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing absent or present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing absent or present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing absent or present. Vein Cu in hind wing absent or present. Vein A in hind wing absent or with abscissa A·f1 present.</p><p>Gyne. Acanthostichus gynes are known either as alates or subdichthadiiform, i.e. ergatoid without wing sclerites but possessing hypertrophied gasters. The former are currently known for Acanthostichus emmae and Acanthostichus texanus, the latter in Acanthostichus brevicornis, Acanthostichus quadratus, and Acanthostichus laticornis . In the fully alate gynes the eyes are large and three ocelli are present and abdominal segment III is differentiated from succeeding segments. In the subdichthadiigynes the eyes are present but small, three small ocelli are present, the head is more round than in workers, and mandibles are falcate; there are no flight-associated sclerites, abdominal segment II (petiole) is broadly attached posteriorly to segment III, which is also enlarged, not separated from the rest of the gaster by a constriction (Emery 1895, MacKay 1996). The distinction between alate versus wingless gynes was the basis for the separation of the genus Ctenopyga from Acanthostichus (see above; Brown 1975, MacKay 1996).</p><p>Larva. Described in Emery (1899c), Bruch (1925). Cocoons absent.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Acanthostichus is a genus of 24 described species, occurring in southern United States, Mexico, and most of South America. The genus has long been thought absent from Central America, but at least one specimen is known from Costa Rica. This is unlikely due to undersampling, as Central American countries have been the subject to some of the most intensive surveys of ant faunas (Longino et al. 2014). Acanthostichus hispaniolicus has been described from Dominican amber (Miocene) of Hispaniola.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Acanthostichus was erected by Mayr (1887) for the species Typhlopone serratula Smith 1858, then known only from workers. Ashmead (1906) later introduced the genus Ctenopyga, based on an alate gyne and males. He differentiated it from Acanthostichus based on the gyne morphology, as by then wingless gynes were found in Acanthostichus (Emery 1895l). MacKay (1996) synonymized the otherwise remarkably similar Ctenopyga under Acanthostichus and I follow his decision here. MacKay (1996) also revised the genus and provided keys to all species, later adding one more species and describing a gyne of Acanthostichus brevicornis (MacKay 2004). De Andrade described the species from Dominican amber (de Andrade 1998b).</p><p>Males described by Marion Smith (1942b) and attributed to ' Cerapachys ' (here Syscia) augustae and Cerapachys davisi match the morphology of Acanthostichus males. A specimen of Cerapachys davisi was also included in a molecular phylogeny and was shown to be a close relative of Acanthostichus punctiscapus . Therefore davisi was transferred to Acanthostichus (Brady et al. 2014). It is possible that Smith’s putative males of Syscia augustae and Acanthostichus davisi will turn out to be conspecific with Acanthostichus arizonensis and Acanthostichus punctiscapus, respectively. MacKay (1996) collected numerous males of Acanthostichus davisi (then recognized as Cerapachys) at the type locality of Acanthostichus punctiscapus .</p><p>It is now established that Acanthostichus is most closely related to Cylindromyrmex (Brady and Ward 2005, Brady et al. 2006, Brady et al. 2014, Borowiec, in prep.). There have been no efforts to infer the internal phylogeny of the genus, but MacKay divided Acanthostichus into three species groups based on morphology (MacKay 1996).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Along with their close relatives in Cylindromyrmex, Acanthostichus species are predators of termites, unlike most other doryline species which prey on ants (Kusnezov 1962, Brown 1975, MacKay 1996). Acanthostichus truncatus has been observed to raid an arboreal termite nest (MacKay 1996) and Acanthostichus hispaniolicus is known from multiple specimens in Dominican amber suggesting that this species was also an arboreal forager. Unlike Cylindromyrmex, however, they nest in soil, under stones, and in rotting wood (Kusnezov 1962 a, MacKay 1996). These ants are rarely encountered and little is known of Acanthostichus ecology, nest size or other particulars of their biology. It is unclear whether brood production is synchronized.</p><p>Species of Acanthostichus</p><p>Acanthostichus arizonensis Mackay, W.P., 1996: United States</p><p>Acanthostichus bentoni Mackay, W.P., 1996: Brazil</p><p>Acanthostichus brevicornis Emery, 1894: French Guiana</p><p>Acanthostichus brevinodis Mackay, W.P., 1996: Brazil</p><p>Acanthostichus concavinodis Mackay, W.P., 1996: Bolivia</p><p>Acanthostichus davisi (Smith, M. R., 1942a): United States</p><p>Acanthostichus emmae Mackay, W.P., 1996: Mexico</p><p>Acanthostichus femoralis Kusnezov, 1962: Argentina</p><p>Acanthostichus flexuosus Mackay, W.P., 1996: Brazil</p><p>Acanthostichus fuscipennis Emery, 1895b: Brazil</p><p>† Acanthostichus hispaniolicus De Andrade, 1998b: Dominican amber</p><p>Acanthostichus kirbyi Emery, 1895b: Paraguay</p><p>Acanthostichus laevigatus Mackay, W.P., 1996: Venezuela</p><p>Acanthostichus laticornis Forel, 1908: Paraguay</p><p>Acanthostichus lattkei Mackay, W.P., 1996: Venezuela</p><p>Acanthostichus longinodis Mackay, W.P., 2004: Paraguay</p><p>Acanthostichus punctiscapus Mackay, W.P., 1996: United States</p><p>Acanthostichus quadratus Emery, 1895: Bolivia</p><p>Acanthostichus quirozi Mackay, W.P., 1996: Mexico</p><p>Acanthostichus sanchezorum Mackay, W.P., 1985: Colombia</p><p>Acanthostichus serratulus (Smith, F., 1858): Brazil</p><p>Acanthostichus skwarrae Wheeler, W. M., 1934: Mexico</p><p>Acanthostichus texanus Forel, 1904: United States</p><p>Acanthostichus truncatus Mackay, W.P., 1996: Colombia</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/90C57AC13D1C36B0B5322CC9FE0AB3A7	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
6B6B460BD72B329EB2537394F5E808A7.text	6B6B460BD72B329EB2537394F5E808A7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aenictogiton Emery 1901	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Aenictogiton Emery, 1901b</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Aenictogiton fossiceps, by monotypy.</p><p>This Afrotropical genus was until recently known only from male specimens and little is known about its biology except that it is likely a subterranean nester and forager.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. The workers of the one Aenictogiton species for which this caste is known so far are unique in having propodeal spiracles situated high on the sclerite and propodeal lobes reduced, pygidium large but not armed with modified setae, and possessing marked constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI. Small body size is also characteristic, with mesosoma length under 0.65 mm in the only species known from workers. The same characters will serve to distinguish Aenictogiton from other Afrotropical dorylines that either have spiracles situated low on the propodeum, propodeal lobes well-developed and pygidium armed ( Eburopone, Lioponera, Ooceraea, Parasyscia, Zasphinctus) or are markedly larger and have at most weakly impressed abdominal sternites at junction of segments IV, V, and VI, never conspicuous constrictions on both tergites and sternites ( Aenictus, Dorylus).</p><p>Male. Aenictogiton males have distinctive wing venation where cross-vein cu-a in the fore wing arises proximal to M·f1, R·f3 is absent and is Rs·f3 ‘hanging’ free in the submarginal cell in the absence of Rs·f2. This, combined with the 'army ant-like’ habitus that includes the lack of constriction between abdominal segments III and IV (no postpetiole), will serve to distinguish it from all other dorylines. The two other army ant genera that occur in the Afrotropics, Aenictus and Dorylus, do not have free Rs·f3 in fore wings.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment moderately enlarged, broader than and about equal in length to two preceding segments combined. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum without median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 1-segmented. Labial palps 1-segmented. Mandibles falcate, with teeth on elongated masticatory margin. Eyes absent. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture conspicuous and complete, but immobile. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused up to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove deeply impressed, conspicuous. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity absent, but a minute pit present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated high on sclerite. Propodeal declivity without distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes absent. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, laterally above spiracle im marginate . Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and sculptured but not cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI present. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI present. Pygidium large, without impressed medial field, and simple, not armed with cuticular spines or modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single simple/barbulate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Apparently monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical, reduced small, single vertical carina. Maxillary palps 1-segmented. Labial palps 1-segmented. Mandibles falcate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli absent. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent but horizontal depression may be present. Propodeal declivity reduced, without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes absent. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at Pronotomesopleural suture and axial. Prora simple, not delimited by carina. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV absent, i.e. pre- and postsclerites indistinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV absent, not impressed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head); all apodemes very short. Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with no sulcus trace at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere expanded at apex. Volsella narrow, hook-shaped, occasionally forming two hooks at apex. Penisvalva laterally compressed, narrow and lance-shaped at apex. Legs: Mid tibia with pectinate and simple spur. Hind tibia with pectinate and simple spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 absent. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, disconnected from Rs+M. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, connected to Rs·f2-3&amp;Rs·f4. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 differentiated into Rs·f4 and Rs·f5 by 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing contiguous with Rs+M. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R+Rs present. Vein R in hind wing present, extending past Sc+R but not reaching distal wing margin. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, contiguous with Rs·f2. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing absent. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Not described.</p><p>Larva. Not described.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>This is an exclusively Afrotropical lineage and most species have been described from the Congo Basin but records extend to southern and eastern Africa.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>The taxonomic history of Aenictogiton begins with Emery’s description of Aenictogiton fossiceps, a male-based taxon that he placed in the Dorylinae (Emery 1901d). Subsequently, six other male-based species were described from the territory of Democratic Republic of the Congo. Santschi (1924) gave a key to all the species then known from males. The worker caste of Aenictogiton remained a mystery for over a century, until it was discovered in Uganda in 2008 and then collected again in 2012 in the same country. The genus has been most often collected from the Congo Basin (Brown 1975), although there are records from southern Angola, northern Namibia (Parr et al. 2003), and southwestern Kenya (Hita Garcia et al. 2009).</p><p>Aenictogiton is the sister taxon to Dorylus (Brady et al. 2006, Brady et al. 2014, Borowiec, in prep.).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Virtually nothing is known about the biology of Aenictogiton . Most records of males coming to light are associated with forest habitats (Brown 1975), except the savanna/woodland record from Namibia (Parr et al. 2003). The Ugandan workers collected in 2012 come from leaf litter sifted near a log in a moist evergreen forest in Kibale National Park. The mode of foraging, brood production, and colony life cycle remain unknown.</p><p>Species of Aenictogiton</p><p>Aenictogiton attenuatus Santschi, 1919b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Aenictogiton bequaerti Forel, 1913a: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Aenictogiton elongatus Santschi, 1919b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Aenictogiton emeryi Forel, 1913a: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Aenictogiton fossiceps Emery, 1901b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Aenictogiton schoutedeni Santschi, 1924: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Aenictogiton sulcatus Santschi, 1919b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6B6B460BD72B329EB2537394F5E808A7	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
BA3793B3561883D43D31020C7FD2F535.text	BA3793B3561883D43D31020C7FD2F535.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aenictus Shuckard 1840	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Aenictus Shuckard, 1840b</p><p>= Paraenictus Wheeler, W. M., 1929</p><p>= Typhlatta Smith, 1857</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Aenictus ambiguus, by original designation.</p><p>This Old World lineage contains some of the more conspicuous army ants and is the largest doryline genus with 183 described species.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. The workers of Aenictus be recognized by a combination of 8 to 10-segmented antennae, propodeal spiracle positioned high on the propodeum, and conspicuously binodal waist (abdominal segment IV is conspicuously the largest abdominal segment). Aenictus is most similar to the New World genus Neivamyrmex, which can be distinguished by 12-segmented antennae. Two other army ant genera co-occur with Aenictus: Aenictogiton and Dorylus . In Aenictogiton there are also constrictions between abdominal segments IV–VI, absent from Aenictus . Dorylus has a uninodal waist with no tapering towards the anterior of abdominal segment IV.</p><p>Male. The males of Aenictus are of decidedly army ant-like habitus and distinguishable from other dorylines by a combination of single segment in the waist, femora never extremely flattened relative to tibia, M·f1 vein of fore wing situated distal or near to cu-a, Rs·f2-3 absent, pterostigma broad and conspicuous. All New World army ant genera with similar habitus can be distinguished by fore wing venation, in particular presence of Rs·f2-3 and marginal cell closed along the leading edge by R·f3 connected to Rs·f5. In the Old World, Aenictogiton males can be easily told apart by their ‘hanging’ Rs·f2-3 vein in the fore wing, while Dorylus have a narrow pterostigma and dramatically flattened femora that contrast with tibiae that are more circular in cross-section.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 8, 9, or 10 segments. Apical antennal segment not enlarged, not broader and longer than two preceding segments combined to moderately enlarged, broader than and about equal in length to two preceding segments combined. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges absent or reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes not projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, prementum exposed when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with teeth or with one median tooth, or falcate. Eyes absent. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen; in some species differentiation weak. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused; Aenictus philippinensis group species with grooved cuticular lip anteriorly. Mesometapleural groove not impressed to deeply impressed, conspicuous. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity absent. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent or present. Propodeal spiracle situated high on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with or without distinct dorsal edge or margin and triangular or broadly oval in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, short. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate with carina low on anterior face, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate or marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and infraaxial. Prora forming a V-shaped protrusion or narrowed into anteriorly directed spine. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III about half size of succeeding segment IV, which is strongly constricted at presegmental portion (binodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV a gradual concavity, not gutter-like. Abdominal segment IV conspicuously the largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium small, reduced to narrow strip, without impressed medial field and simple, not armed with cuticular spines or modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with two spurs, one barbulate and one simple, or with two simple spurs. Hind tibia with two barbulate/simple spurs or with one barbulate and one pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle to patch occupying at least half of tibia length. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic to moderately polymorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical, reduced to vertical carina or entirely absent. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 1-segmented. Mandibles falcate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli absent. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Propodeal declivity reduced, without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes absent. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at Pronotomesopleural suture and axial. Prora simple, not delimited by carina. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular, oval, or slit-shaped. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV absent, i.e. pre- and postsclerites indistinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV absent, not impressed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula strap-like, very short relative to rest of genital capsule and of approximately equal length on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, basimere with no sulcus trace at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms separated. Telomere expanded at apex. Volsella variable. Penisvalva not flattened at apex, expanded. Legs: Mid tibia without spurs or with two simple spurs. Hind tibia without spurs or with two simple spurs. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, narrow, demilanceolate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 absent. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 absent. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, connected to Rs·f2-3&amp;Rs·f4. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 differentiated into Rs·f4 and Rs·f5 by 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing contiguous with Rs+M. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, reaching or not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from Cu and distal to, at or near M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing absent or present, extending past Sc+R but not reaching distal wing margin. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, contiguous with Rs·f2. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing present, about as long as M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Dichthadiiform, blind and with one or none ocelli, so far known in 13 species (Bharti 2003).</p><p>Larva. Larvae of several Indomalayan and Australasian Aenictus species have been described (Wheeler 1943, Wheeler and Wheeler 1964b, 1984, 1990). Cocoons are absent.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Aenictus is widely distributed in the Old World. The vast majority of species is found in Southeast Asia, with the Afrotropics being the other center of diversity. A few species range into the southern parts of the Palearctic region, and there is a number of species known from Australia.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>The phylogenetic position of Aenictus has been difficult to infer. Phylogenomic data suggests that it is sister to the Aenictogiton plus Dorylus clade but they also show that these two lineages diverged very long ago, most likely in the Cretaceous (Borowiec, in prep.). The comprehensive morphology-based study of Brady and Ward (2005) placed it sister to Aenictogiton plus Dorylus; subsequent molecular analyses recovered it sister to New World army ants (Brady et al. 2006) and, later, sister to the Aenictogiton plus Dorylus clade, although with low support (Brady et al. 2014). The internal phylogeny shows that the African species of Aenictus are nested within South East Asian forms (Munetoshi Maruyama pers. comm.; Borowiec, in prep.).</p><p>Aenictus was first described based on a male from India, named for its 'aenigmatical structure’ by Shuckard (1840b). Shuckard correctly recognized its affinity to other doryline ants, but the worker caste was not known at the time. Frederick Smith (1857) described a new genus based on workers, Typhlatta from Borneo, from material collected by Alfred Russell Wallace. It was not until 1890 that the male and workers of these ants were collected together (Forel 1890 c).</p><p>The trend of describing unassociated males unfortunately continued and Aenictus is an example of 'dual taxonomy’ . Many names are either worker- or male-based, and there is no single species known from workers, queens and males (Gotwald and Leroux 1980, Bolton 2003). The internal phylogeny of the genus has been tackled with the cladistics analysis of Wilson (1964) and a phenetic study of quantitative traits (Gotwald and Barr 1988). As of this writing, Munetoshi Maruyama (pers. comm.) is working on a comprehensive molecular phylogeny of the genus. The taxonomy of the Asian forms received most attention and was first the subject of a thorough revision of Wilson (1964), recently followed by a long series of studies that described many new taxa and provided new keys for most of the species groups (Bharti et al. 2012, Jaitrong and Eguchi 2010, Jaitrong and Hashimoto 2012, Jaitrong and Nur-Zati 2010, Jaitrong and Wiwatwitaya 2013, Jaitrong and Yamane 2010, 2011a, 2012b, 2013, Jaitrong et al. 2010, 2011, 2012, Li and Wang 2005, Liu et al. 2015, Mathew and Tiwari 2000, Staab 2014a, Staab 2015, Terayama and Yamane 1989, Terayama and Kubota 1993, Wang 2006, Wong and Guénard 2016, Wiwatwitaya and Jaitrong 2011, Yamane and Hashimoto 1999, Yamane and Wang 2015, Zettel and Sorger 2010, Zhou 2001, Zhou and Chen 1999). Jaitrong and Yamane (2011) established the current species-group classification and provided keys that make identifications in this large genus feasible. Shattuck (2008) revised the Australian species. In contrast to the Asian fauna, the taxonomy of African species has been largely neglected and never received a comprehensive treatment. Because of the above mentioned 'dual taxonomy’ it is even difficult to give an estimate of the total number of species in the Afrotropical region, although Wilson (1964) estimated the number of species to be 'at least 12'. Papers by Campione et al. (1983), Gotwald and Cunningham-van Someren (1976), and Gotwald and Leroux (1980) are the only modern references discussing taxonomy of Afrotropical Aenictus . Several species of the genus reach the Palearctic region; recently Aktaç et al. (2004) and Radchenko and Alipanah (2004) discussed the West Palearctic species and Sharaf et al. (2012) described an additional species from Saudi Arabia.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Given the number of described species and their abundance and importance as insect predators in the Old World tropics, the biology of Aenictus is poorly studied. The impressive species and morphological diversity is likely reflected in the diversity of habits, although all thus far observed species seem to be specialized predators of other ants (but see Staab 2014b for a report on honeydew feeding). Members of some groups are known to form colonies of up to 80,000 individuals, forage above-ground in conspicuous columns and bivouac in semi-open spaces, while others are much more inconspicuous and cryptic. Aenictus queens synchronize brood production and colony life cycle goes through statary and nomadic phases (Schneirla and Reyes 1966). The nomadic phase lasts on average 14 days, about the same amount of time as in the Neotropical genera, but the statary phase is much longer and lasts 28 days, as opposed to 20 days in Eciton . During the nomadic phase in Eciton the daily colony emigrations always follow raids, whereas in Aenictus they can be initiated after a time of quiescence and occur without regularity, often multiple times a day. The descriptions of foraging behavior for several species are available; Wilson (1964) in his revision pro vides notes on foraging of selected species. Chapman (1965) recounts observations of a few species in the Philippines, mostly Aenictus gracilis and Aenictus laeviceps, and Schneirla and Reyes (1966, 1969) study these two epigaeic species in detail. Schneirla (1971) compares raiding and emigration behavior of Aenictus laeviceps to other army ants, Eciton and Neivamyrmex .</p><p>Rościszewski and Maschwitz (1994) and Hirosawa et al. (2000) studied prey specialization among sympatric Aenictus in Asia. Both studies found evidence of resource partitioning and observed differences in foraging strategies. Gotwald and Cunningham-van Someren (1976) and Gotwald (1976) are the only publications focusing on the behavior of African forms. At least some species support a community of myrmecophiles (Chapman 1965, Maruyama et al. 2009).</p><p>Billen and Gotwald (1988) described the anatomy of Dufour gland in three Asian Aenictus and argued that its structure, unusual among ants, shows affinity with Dorylus . Oldham et al. (1994) characterized the trail pheromone of Aenictus species related to Aenictus laeviceps and demonstrated that it is produced by the postpygidial gland and Billen et al. (1999) further studied the structure of this gland. Hölldobler et al. (1996) described the histology and ultrastructure of the metatibial gland in Aenictus ceylonicus .</p><p>Species of Aenictus</p><p>Aenictus abeillei ( André, 1886): Algeria</p><p>Aenictus acerbus Shattuck, 2008: Australia</p><p>Aenictus aitkenii Forel, 1901a: India</p><p>Aenictus alluaudi Santschi, 1910c: Kenya</p><p>Aenictus alluaudi falcifer Santschi, 1924: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Aenictus alticola Wheeler, W. M. and Chapman, 1930a: Philippines</p><p>Aenictus ambiguus Shuckard, 1840b: India</p><p>Aenictus anceps Forel, 1910b: Eritrea</p><p>Aenictus annae Forel, 1911a: Indonesia (Java)</p><p>Aenictus appressipilosus Jaitrong andYamane, 2013: Malaysia (Sabah)</p><p>Aenictus arabicus Sharaf and Aldawood, 2012: Saudi Arabia</p><p>Aenictus aratus Forel, 1900a: Australia</p><p>Aenictus artipus Wilson, 1964: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus arya Forel, 1901a: India</p><p>Aenictus asantei Campione, Novak and Gotwald, 1983: Ghana</p><p>Aenictus asperivalvus Santschi, 1919a: Ivory Coast</p><p>Aenictus bakeri Menozzi, 1925: Philippines</p><p>Aenictus baliensis Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Indonesia (Bali)</p><p>Aenictus bayoni Menozzi, 1932: Uganda</p><p>Aenictus binghami Forel, 1900a: Myanmar</p><p>Aenictus biroi Forel, 1907a: Sri Lanka</p><p>Aenictus bobaiensis Zhou and Chen, 1999: China</p><p>Aenictus bodongjaya Jaitrong and Yamane, 2011a: Indonesia (Sumatra)</p><p>Aenictus bottegoi Emery, 1899a: Ethiopia</p><p>Aenictus bottegoi noctivagus Santschi, 1913: Ethiopia</p><p>Aenictus brazzai Santschi, 1910: Republic of the Congo</p><p>Aenictus breviceps Forel, 1912b: Indonesia (Java)</p><p>Aenictus brevicornis (Mayr, 1879): India</p><p>Aenictus brevinodus Jaitrong and Yamane, 2011a: Indonesia (Sulawesi)</p><p>Aenictus brevipodus Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Vietnam</p><p>Aenictus buttelreepeni Forel, 1913c: Indonesia (Sumatra)</p><p>Aenictus buttgenbachi Forel, 1913a: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Aenictus camposi Wheeler, W. M. and Chapman, 1925: Philippines</p><p>Aenictus carolianus Zettel and Sorger, 2010: Philippines</p><p>Aenictus certus Westwood, 1842: India</p><p>Aenictus ceylonicus (Mayr, 1866a): Sri Lanka</p><p>Aenictus changmaianus Terayama and Kubota, 1993: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus chapmani Wilson, 1964: Papua New Guinea</p><p>Aenictus clavatus Forel, 1901a: India</p><p>Aenictus clavatus atripennis Forel, 1913c: Indonesia (Sumatra)</p><p>Aenictus clavatus kanariensis Forel, 1901a: India</p><p>Aenictus clavatus sundaicus Forel, 1909c: Indonesia (Java)</p><p>Aenictus clavitibia Forel, 1901a: India</p><p>Aenictus clavitibia facetus Forel, 1911a: Indonesia (Java)</p><p>Aenictus concavus Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus congolensis Santschi, 1911a: 'Congo français’</p><p>Aenictus cornutus Forel, 1900a: Malaysia (Sarawak)</p><p>Aenictus crucifer Santschi, 1914a: Kenya</p><p>Aenictus crucifer tuberculatus Arnold, 1915: Zimbabwe</p><p>Aenictus currax Emery, 1900a: Papua New Guinea</p><p>Aenictus cylindripetiolus Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus decolor (Mayr, 1879): ‘Ost-Afrika’</p><p>Aenictus dentatus Forel, 1911c: Malaysia (Negeri Sembilan)</p><p>Aenictus diclops Shattuck, 2008: Australia</p><p>Aenictus dlusskyi Arnol’di, 1968: Armenia</p><p>Aenictus doryloides Wilson, 1964: India</p><p>Aenictus doydeei Jaitrong and Yamane, 2011b: Laos,</p><p>Aenictus duengkaei Jaitrong and Yamane, 2012: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus eguchii Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Vietnam</p><p>Aenictus eugenii Emery, 1895a: South Africa</p><p>Aenictus eugenii caroli Forel, 1910b: Eritrea</p><p>Aenictus eugenii henrii Santschi, 1924: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Aenictus exilis Wilson, 1964: Papua New Guinea</p><p>Aenictus feae Emery, 1889: Myanmar</p><p>Aenictus fergusoni Forel, 1901a: India</p><p>Aenictus foreli Santschi, 1919a: Ivory Coast</p><p>Aenictus formosensis Forel, 1913b: Taiwan</p><p>Aenictus fuchuanensis Zhou, 2001: China</p><p>Aenictus fulvus Jaitrong and Yamane, 2011a: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus furculatus Santschi, 1919a: Senegal</p><p>Aenictus furculatus andrieui Santschi, 1930: Sudan</p><p>Aenictus furibundus Arnold, 1959: Zimbabwe</p><p>Aenictus fuscipennis Forel, 1913c: Indonesia (Sumatra)</p><p>Aenictus fuscovarius Gerstäcker, 1859: Mozambique</p><p>Aenictus fuscovarius laetior Forel, 1910b: Eritrea</p><p>Aenictus fuscovarius magrettii Emery, 1892: Sudan</p><p>Aenictus fuscovarius sagittarius Santschi, 1938: Egypt</p><p>Aenictus gibbosus Dalla Torre, 1893: Indonesia (Sumatra)</p><p>Aenictus gibbosus ashaverus Forel, 1913c: Indonesia</p><p>Aenictus glabratus Jaitrong and Nur-Zati, 2010: Malaysia (Selangor)</p><p>Aenictus glabrinotum Jaitrong and Yamane, 2011: Malaysia (Sabah)</p><p>Aenictus gleadowii Forel, 1901a: India</p><p>Aenictus gonioccipus Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Indonesia (Sulawesi)</p><p>Aenictus gracilis Emery, 1893b: Malaysia (Sarawak)</p><p>Aenictus grandis Bingham, 1903: Myanmar</p><p>Aenictus gutianshanensis Staab 2014a: China</p><p>Aenictus hamifer Emery, 1896d: Ethiopia/Somalia</p><p>Aenictus hamifer spinosior Stitz, 1917: Algeria</p><p>Aenictus henanensis Li and Wang, 2005: China</p><p>Aenictus hilli Clark, 1928: Australia</p><p>Aenictus hodgsoni Forel, 1901a: Myanmar</p><p>Aenictus hoelldobleri Staab, 2015: China</p><p>Aenictus hottai Terayama and Yamane, 1989: Indonesia (Sumatra)</p><p>Aenictus humeralis Santschi, 1910c: Mali</p><p>Aenictus humeralis chevalieri Santschi, 1910c: Senegal</p><p>Aenictus humeralis viridans Santschi, 1915: Benin</p><p>Aenictus huonicus Wilson, 1964: Papua New Guinea</p><p>Aenictus icarus Forel, 1911a: Indonesia (Java)</p><p>Aenictus icarus incautus Forel, 1911a: Indonesia (Java)</p><p>Aenictus idoneus Menozzi, 1928: Indonesia (Java)</p><p>Aenictus inconspicuus Westwood, 1845: South Africa</p><p>Aenictus indicus Bharti, Wachkoo and Kumar, 2012: India</p><p>Aenictus inflatus Yamane and Hashimoto, 1999: Malaysia (Sarawak)</p><p>Aenictus itoi Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Indonesia (Sumatra)</p><p>Aenictus jacobsoni Forel, 1909c: Indonesia (Java)</p><p>Aenictus jarujini Jaitrong and Yamane, 2010a: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus javanus Emery, 1896a: Indonesia (Java)</p><p>Aenictus jawadwipa Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Indonesia (Java)</p><p>Aenictus khaoyaiensis Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus kutai Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Indonesia</p><p>Aenictus laeviceps (Smith, F., 1857): Malaysia (Sarawak)</p><p>Aenictus latifemoratus Terayama and Yamane, 1989: Indonesia (Sumatra)</p><p>Aenictus latiscapus Forel, 1901a: India</p><p>Aenictus latiscapus fumatus Wheeler, W. M., 1927: China</p><p>Aenictus latiscapus sauteri Forel, 1913b: Taiwan</p><p>Aenictus leliepvrei Bernard, 1953a: Algeria</p><p>Aenictus leptotyphlatta Jaitrong and Eguchi, 2010: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus levior (Karavaiev, 1926): Indonesia (Buru Is.)</p><p>Aenictus lifuiae Terayama, 1984: Taiwan</p><p>Aenictus longi Forel, 1901a: India</p><p>Aenictus longi taivanae Forel, 1913b: Taiwan</p><p>Aenictus longicephalus Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Indonesia (Lombok)</p><p>Aenictus longinodus Jaitrong and Yamane, 2012: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus luteus Emery, 1892: Sierra Leone</p><p>Aenictus luteus moestus Santschi, 1930: Mali</p><p>Aenictus luzoni Wheeler, W. M. and Chapman, 1925: Philippines</p><p>Aenictus maneerati Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus mariae Emery, 1895a: South Africa</p><p>Aenictus mariae natalensis Forel, 1901c: South Africa</p><p>Aenictus mauritanicus Santschi, 1910c: probably Morocco</p><p>Aenictus mentu Weber, 1942: South Sudan</p><p>Aenictus minimus Jaitrong and Hashimoto, 2012: Vietnam</p><p>Aenictus minipetiolus Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Indonesia (Lombok)</p><p>Aenictus minutulus Terayama and Yamane, 1989: Indonesia (Sumatra)</p><p>Aenictus mocsaryi Emery, 1901c: Papua New Guinea</p><p>Aenictus moebii Emery, 1895b: Togo</p><p>Aenictus moebii sankisianus Forel, 1913a: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Aenictus montivagus Jaitrong and Yamane, 2011a: Malaysia (Sabah)</p><p>Aenictus mutatus Santschi, 1913: Ivory Coast</p><p>Aenictus mutatus pudicus Santschi, 1919a: Ivory Coast</p><p>Aenictus nesiotis Wheeler, W. M. and Chapman, 1930b: Philippines</p><p>Aenictus nganduensis Wilson, 1964: Papua New Guinea</p><p>Aenictus nishimurai Terayama and Kubota, 1993: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus obscurus Smith, F., 1865: 'New Guinea’</p><p>Aenictus orientalis (Karavaiev, 1926): Indonesia (Aru Is.)</p><p>Aenictus pachycerus (Smith, F., 1858): India</p><p>Aenictus pangantihoni Zettel and Sorger, 2010: Philippines</p><p>Aenictus paradentatus Jaitrong and Yamane, 2012: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus parahuonicus Jaitrong and Yamane, 2011a: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus peguensis Emery, 1895c: Myanmar</p><p>Aenictus pfeifferi Zettel and Sorger, 2010: Malaysia (Sarawak)</p><p>Aenictus pharao Santschi, 1924: Sudan</p><p>Aenictus philiporum Wilson, 1964: Australia</p><p>Aenictus philippinensis Chapman, 1963: Philippines</p><p>Aenictus piercei Wheeler, W. M. and Chapman, 1930d: Philippines</p><p>Aenictus pilosus Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Philippines</p><p>Aenictus pinkaewi Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus porizonoides Walker, 1860: Sri Lanka</p><p>Aenictus powersi Wheeler, W. M. and Chapman, 1930e: Philippines</p><p>Aenictus prolixus Shattuck, 2008: Australia</p><p>Aenictus pubescens Smith, F., 1859: India</p><p>Aenictus punctatus Jaitrong and Yamane, 2012: Brunei</p><p>Aenictus punctiventris Emery, 1901b: Indonesia (Laut Island)</p><p>Aenictus punctiventris scutellaris Forel, 1912d: Indonesia (Sumatra)</p><p>Aenictus punensis Forel, 1901a: India</p><p>Aenictus rabori Chapman, 1963: Philippines</p><p>Aenictus raptor Forel, 1913a: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Aenictus reyesi Chapman, 1963: Philippines</p><p>Aenictus rhodiensis Menozzi, 1936: Greece</p><p>Aenictus rixator Forel, 1901: South Africa</p><p>Aenictus rotundatus Mayr, 1901: South Africa</p><p>Aenictus rotundatus guineensis Santschi, 1924: Guinea</p><p>Aenictus rotundatus merwei Santschi, 1932: South Africa</p><p>Aenictus rotundicollis Jaitrong and Yamane, 2011a: Malaysia (Sarawak)</p><p>Aenictus rougieri André, 1893: Tunisia</p><p>Aenictus sagei Forel, 1901a: India</p><p>Aenictus schneirlai Wilson, 1964: Papua New Guinea</p><p>Aenictus seletarius Wong and Guénard, 2016: Singapore</p><p>Aenictus shillongensis Mathew and Tiwari, 2000: India</p><p>Aenictus shuckardi Forel, 1901a: India</p><p>Aenictus siamensis Jaitrong and Yamane, 2011a: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus silvestrii Wheeler, W. M., 1929: West Malaysia</p><p>Aenictus sirenicus Yamane and Wang, 2015: Malaysia (Sabah)</p><p>Aenictus sonchaengi Jaitrong and Yamane, 2011a: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus soudanicus Santschi, 1910c: Senegal?</p><p>Aenictus soudanicus brunneus Forel, 1913a: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Aenictus spathifer Santschi, 1928: Indonesia (Sumatra)</p><p>Aenictus steindachneri Mayr, 1901: South Africa</p><p>Aenictus stenocephalus Jaitrong, Yamane and Wiwatwitaya, 2010: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus subterraneus Jaitrong and Hashimoto, 2012: Malaysia (Sabah)</p><p>Aenictus sulawesiensis Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Indonesia (Sulawesi)</p><p>Aenictus sumatrensis Forel, 1913c: Indonesia (Sumatra)</p><p>Aenictus sumatrensis maxillosus Forel, 1913c: Indonesia (Sumatra)</p><p>Aenictus sundalandensis Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Indonesia (Java)</p><p>Aenictus thailandianus Terayama and Kubota, 1993: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus togoensis Santschi, 1915: Togo</p><p>Aenictus trigonus Forel, 1911a: Indonesia (Java)</p><p>Aenictus turneri Forel, 1900a: Australia</p><p>Aenictus vagans Santschi, 1924: Niger</p><p>Aenictus vaucheri Emery, 1915c: Morocco</p><p>Aenictus vieti Jaitrong and Yamane, 2010a: Vietnam</p><p>Aenictus villiersi Bernard, 1953b: Guinea</p><p>Aenictus watanasiti Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus wayani Jaitrong and Yamane, 2011a: Indonesia (Sulawesi)</p><p>Aenictus weissi Santschi, 1910: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Aenictus westwoodi Forel, 1901a: India</p><p>Aenictus wilaiae Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus wilsoni Bharti, Wachkoo and Kumar, 2012: India</p><p>Aenictus wiwatwitayai Jaitrong and Yamane, 2013: Thailand</p><p>Aenictus wroughtonii Forel, 1890: India</p><p>Aenictus wudangshanensis Wang, W., 2006: China</p><p>Aenictus yamanei Wiwatwitaya and Jaitrong, 2011: Malaysia (Sarawak)</p><p>Aenictus yangi Liu, Hita Garcia, Peng and Economo, 2015: China</p><p>Aenictus zhengi Zhang, 1995: China</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/BA3793B3561883D43D31020C7FD2F535	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
03C3800536A1F4FE74422EB8E564B09B.text	03C3800536A1F4FE74422EB8E564B09B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cerapachys Smith, F. 1857	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Cerapachys Smith, F., 1857</p><p>= Ceratopachys Schulz, 1906</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Cerapachys antennatus, by subsequent designation of Bingham, 1903</p><p>This relatively species-poor lineage is apparently restricted to forest habitats of Southeast Asia.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. Cerapachys belongs to non-army ant dorylines with spiracle positioned below midheight of the propodeum and pygidium well-developed, armed with modified setae. It has a well-developed carina on the pronotal collar and a distinct pronotomesopleural Pronotomesopleural suture, a single pectinate spur on each mid and hind tibia, and helcium positioned supraaxially, above midheight of abdominal segment III. Some species have pretarsal claws armed with a tooth. Cerapachys is a genus of medium-sized, universally dark-colored ants that could be confused Lividopone . Distributions of the two genera do not overlap, however, with Lividopone being so far known only from Madagascar. Lividopone is further distinguished by almost complete fusion of pronotomesopleural Pronotomesopleural suture, which is unfused in Cerapachys . Lioponera overlaps in range with Cerapachys and certain species can be superficially similar but a more narrow and axially positioned helcium, dorsolaterally carinate petiole, and a flange on the posterior face of the coxae will distinguish Lioponera .</p><p>Male. The male of Cerapachys has 12-segmented antennae, a transverse groove running diagonally across the mesopleuron, vein C in fore wing present, one sub marginal cell closed by Rs·f2-3, 2rs-m absent, and marginal cell closed by R·f3 and Rs·f4-5. Neocerapachys males have similar wing venation but in Cerapachys the antennal segment III is similar in length to segment IV, while in Neocerapachys the segment III is conspicuously the shortest antennal segment. Furthermore, Neocerapachys is only found in the New World.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment conspicuously enlarged, much broader than and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus with or without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 3-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with teeth. Eyes present, composed of more than 20 ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused partway to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove deeply impressed, conspicuous. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma present. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland without bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and supraaxial. Prora forming a V-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field, and armed with modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple or each claw armed with a tooth. Polymorphism: Monomorphic to moderately polymorphic.</p><p>Male .Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges present. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 5-segmented. Labial palps likely 3-segmented (uncertain in-situ count). Mandibles triangular, edentate or crenulate. Ventrolateral margins of head with cuticular ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge or not separated. Notauli present. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Propodeal declivity reduced, with or without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate or marginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and supraaxial. Prora forming a V-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, occasionally slightly smaller; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured or cross-ribbed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines. with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with sulcus discernable at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella gradually tapering toward apex. Penisvalva laterally compressed, rounded at apex. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth; simple claws not observed but presumably absent from certain species as in worker. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 present, running toward distal wing margin and enclosing cell with Rs·f5. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 present, fused in absence of 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing contiguous with Rs+M or separated from Rs+M by Rs·f2. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, not reaching wing margin to almost reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with both branches Cu1 and Cu2. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing fused with M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing absent. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne . Alate, fully winged with large eyes and three ocelli, or also possibly ergatoid (Brown 1975), larger than worker, with large eyes and three ocelli but no wings.</p><p>Larva. Not described. Cocoons absent.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Cerapachys is distributed from northwestern India and Tibet, through southern China to Java, Borneo and the Philippines.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>This is the lineage where the type species of Cerapachys, Cerapachys antennatus, belongs. The type series was collected by A. R. Wallace in Sarawak and described by F. Smith in 1857.</p><p>Cerapachys is a member of a predominantly South East Asian clade that also includes Chrysapace and Yunodorylus (Borowiec, in prep.). All three lineages diverged long ago and although it seems that Cerapachys is the sister genus to Chrysapace, this relationship is not certain.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Almost nothing is known about the biology of this group. Most records seem to come from forest habitats. Brood development may be synchronized, based on the author’s observation of brood of uniform size in the single examined nest collection of Cerapachys antennatus .</p><p>Species of Cerapachys</p><p>Cerapachys antennatus Smith, F., 1857: Malaysia (Sarawak)</p><p>Cerapachys jacobsoni Forel, 1912b: Indonesia (Java)</p><p>Cerapachys manni Crawley, 1926: Indonesia (Sumatra)</p><p>Cerapachys sulcinodis Emery, 1889c: Myanmar</p><p>Cerapachys xizangensis Tang and Li, 1982: Tibet</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C3800536A1F4FE74422EB8E564B09B	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
C8FA13935B35D652E2D55B6668C0ED30.text	C8FA13935B35D652E2D55B6668C0ED30.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cheliomyrmex Mayr 1870	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Cheliomyrmex Mayr, 1870</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Cheliomyrmex nortoni (junior synonym of Labidus morosus), by monotypy.</p><p>Cheliomyrmex is a rarely encountered genus of New World army ants that is a mostly subterranean predator with likely a specialized diet.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. Workers of Cheliomyrmex can be recognized by a combination of propodeal spiracle positioned high on the propodeum, propodeal declivity simple and not armed with cuticular ridges or denticles, abdominal segment III small but broad posteriorly and thus waist appearing one-segmented, pygidium small and armed with at most a pair of modified setae, and pretarsal claws armed with a tooth. Cheliomyrmex is perhaps most similar to Labidus and certain Neivamyrmex but it is unique among New World army ants in having abdominal segment III broadly attached to segment IV (i.e. it has a uninodal waist) and thus easily told apart from all other army ant genera in this region.</p><p>Male. The males of Cheliomyrmex share the following wing venation characters with other New World army ants ( Eciton, Labidus, Neivamyrmex and Nomamyrmex): costal (C) vein present in the fore wing, relatively narrow pterostigma, presence of vein 2 rs-m and two closed submarginal cells, marginal cell closed by R·f3 and Rs·f4-5, 2rs-m present, and M·f1 vein arising from M+Cu at an angle lower than 45° and conspicuously proximal to cu-a. This characteristic venation pattern serves to distinguish New World army ants from the Old World army ants ( Aenictogiton, Aenictus, Dorylus) that have no vein R·f3 and where M·f1 arises near cu-a and at an angle close to or higher than 45°. Aenictus and Dorylus additionally have no vein Rs·f2-3 and so only one submarginal cell that is closed distally by 2rs-m. In other dorylines with well-developed wing venation (e.g. Chrysapace, Cylindromyrmex) the vein M·f1 arises distal to cu-a and pterostigma is very broad and conspicuous. Within the New World army ants, wing venation is relatively conserved and thus of little use in discrimination of genera. Genitalic characters have been found to be the most reliable (Watkins 1976), although impossible to ascertain without dissection. A combination of absence of very long setae approaching femur length on the abdomen, apices of penisvalvae with setae, and the sternite of abdominal segment IX (subgenital plate) with four teeth, and a simple hind basitarsus will distinguish Cheliomyrmex males from all other army ant genera in the New World. The long setae on gaster are characteristic of Nomamyrmex . The penisvalvae with setae are also present in Labidus but the latter can be told apart by having only two teeth on the abdominal sternite IX and a complex hind basal tarsal segment, which has a conspicuous oblique groove that accommodates the hind tibial spur.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment not enlarged, not broader and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes not projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, prementum exposed when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 3-segmented. Mandibles polymorphic, from triangular with teeth through triangular with median tooth to falcate, with teeth on elongated masticatory margin. Eyes present, composed of 1-5 ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused partway to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove weakly impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma present. Propodeal spiracle situated high on sclerite. Propodeal declivity without distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes absent. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at Pronotomesopleural suture and infraaxial. Prora narrowed into anteriorly directed spine. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI oval. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium small, reduced to narrow strip, without impressed medial field, and simple, not armed with cuticular spines or modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth. Polymorphism: Polymorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 3-segmented. Mandibles falcate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli absent. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Propodeal declivity reduced, without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes absent. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at Pronotomesopleural suture and axial. Prora simple, not delimited by carina. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI slit-shaped. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV absent, i.e. pre- and postsclerites indistinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV absent, not impressed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two outer spines and additional two inner denticles, with lateral apodemes longer than much reduced medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula very long, nearing or surpassing length of rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere narrowly fused to telomere, with sulcus visible at least partway through junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere expanded at apex. Volsella narrow, hook-shaped. Penisvalva not flattened at apex, expanded. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma narrow. Abscissa R·f3 present, running toward dis tal wing margin and enclosing cell with Rs·f5. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 differentiated into Rs·f4 and Rs·f5 by 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing present, separated from Rs+M by Rs·f2. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from Cu and distal to, at or near M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with both branches Cu1 and Cu2. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing present. Vein R in hind wing present, extending past Sc+R but not reaching distal wing margin. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing present, about as long as M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Not described.</p><p>Larva. Larvae of Cheliomyrmex megalonyx have been described (Wheeler 1943, Wheeler and Wheeler 1984). Presence of cocoons unknown.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Cheliomyrmex is present in most of Central America, including southern Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama, but so far it has not been collected in Nicaragua or Costa Rica. It is also known from northern and northwestern South America south to Peru and Bolivia.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Cheliomyrmex was introduced by Mayr in 1870 who described Cheliomyrmex nortoni, now a junior synonym of Cheliomyrmex morosus (Smith 1859) and recognized its affinity to other dorylines. The genus-level taxonomy of Cheliomyrmex has been relatively stable and there are four currently recognized species. Because of its morphology, notably the fact that Cheliomyrmex are the only New World army ants that possess only a single waist segment, the genus has been often considered of particular importance to army ant systematics (Wheeler 1921, Gotwald 1971, Gotwald and Kupiec 1975, Gotwald 1979). However, the current understanding of doryline phylogeny shows Cheliomyrmex nested within the New World army ants (Brady et al. 2014), sister to the ( Labidus ( Eciton plus Nomamyrmex)) clade.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Ants in this lineage have been rarely observed or collected. The raids and emigrations of these ants are mostly subterranean, only occasionally seen above ground. Raids have been observed mostly under stones or rotting wood (Wheeler 1921, Gotwald 1971). A diverse fauna of associates was reported from an emigration column of Cheliomyrmex morosus, including phorid flies, staphylinid beetles, silverfish and mites (Berghoff and Franks 2007). The 2007 study and the only other published observation of a Cheliomyrmex emigration ( Cheliomyrmex megalonyx; Wheeler 1921), described galleries of soil built by the ants to cover the areas where the ant columns had to proceed on the surface. Wheeler also reported a behavior where stationary major workers were guarding the emigration columns and compared it to that of African Dorylus, although this behavior is also known in Labidus (Rettenmeyer 1963). As Wheeler observed only larvae being carried by the workers, it has been postulated that brood production is synchronized (Rettenmeyer 1963). Cheliomyrmex andicola has been observed feeding on a dead snake and actively pursuing and killing a giant earthworm in Ecuador ( O’Donnell et al. 2005). Given that no other prey has been observed for this genus, combined with the specialized mandibular morphology and potent sting, O’Donnell et al. (2005) proposed that Cheliomyrmex are specialized predators of large subterranean invertebrates or maybe even vertebrates.</p><p>Species of Cheliomyrmex</p><p>Cheliomyrmex andicola Emery, 1894: Peru</p><p>Cheliomyrmex audax Santschi, 1921b: Ecuador</p><p>Cheliomyrmex megalonyx Wheeler, W. M., 1921: Guyana</p><p>Cheliomyrmex morosus (Smith, 1859): Mexico</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C8FA13935B35D652E2D55B6668C0ED30	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
FC611DA2C8E0684D5097C827087E5321.text	FC611DA2C8E0684D5097C827087E5321.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chrysapace Crawley 1924	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Chrysapace Crawley, 1924a gen. rev.</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Chrysapace jacobsoni, by monotypy.</p><p>Chrysapace is the only extant doryline genus also known from Baltic amber (late Eocene). These ants are extremely rarely collected and no observations of their biology have ever been published.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. The workers of this lineage are recognizable by a combination of prominent costate sculpture present on most of body surface, large eyes, exposed antennal sockets, two spurs on mid and hind tibiae, and pretarsal claws with a tooth. The New World Cylindromyrmex are the only other dorylines that have two pectinate tibial spurs and strongly costate or rugose sculpture but they are recognized by at least moderately developed antennal scrobes and horizontal torulo-posttorular complex that partly conceals antennal sockets. In Chrysapace there are no scrobes and antennal sockets are fully exposed.</p><p>Male. The males share the characteristic spur formula with the workers, have a well-defined groove on the mesopleuron, two submarginal cells, the marginal cell enclosed by R·f1 and Rs·f4-5, and pretarsal claws armed with a tooth. Acanthostichus and Cylindromyrmex can have similar wing venation. The former has only one pectinate tibial spur on each mid and hind tibiae and the latter has no transverse groove on the mesopleuron and simple pretarsal claws. Males attributed to Procerapachys also have similar wing venation but only a single tibial spur and no transverse groove on the mesopleuron.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment moderately enlarged, broader than and about equal in length to two preceding segments combined. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxil lary palps 5-segmented. Labial palps 3-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with teeth. Eyes present, composed of more than 20 ommatidia. Ocelli present. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate or marginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused up to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove replaced by cuticular ridge. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity absent. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with or without distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland without bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a V-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and sculptured, cross-ribbed or not. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field and armed with modified setae and sometimes emarginate to deeply notched. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with two pectinate spurs. Hind tibia with two pectinate spurs or with one barbulate and one pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth, sometimes very small. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges present. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps unknown. Labial palps unknown. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen unknown. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli present. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening present. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a V-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with sulcus discernable at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms separated. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella gradually tapering toward apex. Penisvalva laterally compressed, rounded at apex. Legs: Mid tibia with two pectinate spurs. Hind tibia with two pectinate spurs. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 present, running toward distal wing margin and enclosing cell with Rs·f5. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 differentiated into Rs·f4 and Rs·f5 by 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing present, separated from Rs+M by Rs·f2. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with both branches Cu1 and Cu2. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing fused with M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Alate, similar to worker except for flight-adapted mesosoma. See Terayama et al. (1988) for a description of Cerapachys sauteri gyne.</p><p>Larva. Not described. Presence of cocoons unknown.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>This rarely collected lineage is represented by at least four extant species of unusual geographic distribution. Chrysapace costatus, Chrysapace crawleyi and Cerapachys sauteri occur in Asia, while an additional, undescribed species has been recently found in northern Madagascar (Brian Fisher pers. comm.). One species is known from Baltic amber.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>The genus Chrysapace was proposed by Crawley in 1924 for Cerapachys jacobsoni from Sumatra as distinct from the then recognized Cerapachys and Phyracaces . The same year W. M. Wheeler (1924b) published a note where he pointed out that sometime in the future a synonymization of Chrysapace and Cerapachys seems likely, and that this synonymy would render Cerapachys jacobsoni Crawley a junior homonym of Cerapachys jacobsoni Forel, 1912. Wheeler thus proposed a replacement name Chrysapace crawleyi, which was accepted by Brown after he synonymized the genus under Cerapachys in 1975. Cerapachys sauteri Forel from Taiwan was recognized as a relative by Brown based on the original description, and later Terayama et al. (1988) provided a detailed redescription of this species, confirming its affinity with Chrysapace crawleyi . Until recently these two species from Southeast Asia were the only taxa known in this lineage, but the discovery of an undescribed species in Madagascar and the description of Cerapachys costatus from northwest India has significantly broadened the lineage’s known distribution. An additional species of Chrysapace has been recently discovered in Baltic amber ( author’s unpublished observation).</p><p>Chrysapace is a member of a well-supported clade that also includes Cerapachys and Yunodorylus, and is possibly the sister genus of Cerapachys although this relationship received less support (Borowiec, in prep.).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>To the best of my knowledge, nothing on the foraging, nesting, or other aspects of Chrysapace biology has ever been published.</p><p>Species of Chrysapace</p><p>Chrysapace costatus (Bharti and Wachkoo, 2013): India, comb. n.</p><p>Chrysapace jacobsoni Crawley, 1924: Indonesia (Sumatra), nom. rev.</p><p>Chrysapace sauteri (Forel, 1913b): Taiwan, comb. n.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/FC611DA2C8E0684D5097C827087E5321	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
6DC4A6D055FF04E3D14475FC418CDDAA.text	6DC4A6D055FF04E3D14475FC418CDDAA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cylindromyrmex Mayr 1870	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Cylindromyrmex Mayr, 1870</p><p>= Holcoponera Cameron, 1891</p><p>= Hypocylindromyrmex Wheeler, W. M., 1924a</p><p>= Metacylindromyrmex Wheeler, W. M., 1924a</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Cylindromyrmex striatus, by monotypy.</p><p>Cylindromyrmex is a genus of mostly arboreal-nesting termite hunters, rarely encountered but distributed throughout New World tropics, including the Antilles.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. With a combination of large eyes, conspicuously costate or striate sculpture, torulo-posttorular complex horizontal and concealing antennal sockets, two pectinate spurs on mid and hind tibiae, and simple pretarsal claws, the workers of Cylindromyrmex can be readily distinguished from all other dorylines. The only other genus with large eyes, conspicuously sulcate sculpture, and two tibial spurs is Chrysapace, but it has fully exposed antennal sockets, possesses toothed pretarsal claws, and occurs only in the Old World. The extinct Procerapachys, which can also have sulcate sculpturing, has a single pectinate spur on each mid and hind tibiae.</p><p>Male. The males of Cylindromyrmex are also easily differentiated from all other genera by two tibial spurs, simple pretarsal claws, no transverse groove on the mesopleuron, and well-developed wing venation with costal (C) vein present in fore wing, two submarginal cells and marginal cell closed. The only other genus with two tibial spurs and similar venation is the Old World genus Chrysapace, but it has a transverse groove on the mesopleuron and pretarsal claws armed with a tooth. Putative males of the extinct Procerapachys have only one spur on each mid and hind tibiae.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment moderately enlarged, broader than and about equal in length to two preceding segments combined. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex horizontal. Antennal scrobes present. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 3- or 2-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with teeth or edentate. Eyes present, always composed of more than 5 ommatidia and usually more than 20 ommatidia. Ocelli present or absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge or not. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused up to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove deeply impressed, conspicuous. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland bulla visible or not visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, dorsolaterally marginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and supraaxial. Prora forming a V-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI present or absent. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field and armed with modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with two pectinate spurs. Hind tibia with two pectinate spurs. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 2-segment ed . Labial palps 3- or 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge or not separated. Notauli absent or present. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening present. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and supraaxial. Prora forming a U-shaped margin with median ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured or cross-ribbed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with sulcus discernable at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella laterally flattened, at apex with dorsal lobe and hooked ventrally. Penisvalva laterally compressed, rounded at apex. Legs: Mid tibia with two pectinate spurs. Hind tibia with two pectinate spurs. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 present, running toward distal wing margin and enclosing cell with Rs·f5. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 differentiated into Rs·f4 and Rs·f5 by 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing contiguous with Rs+M. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with both branches Cu1 and Cu2. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing present, extending past Sc+R but not reaching distal wing margin. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing fused with M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Alate, similar to worker except for the mesosoma; known for several species. See descriptions in De Andrade (1998a).</p><p>Larva . Not described. Cocoons absent.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Cylindromyrmex is an exclusively Neotropical lineage with ten extant species and three extinct species known from Dominican amber (De Andrade 1998a). Its distribution extends from the state of Veracruz, Mexico to Rio Grande do Sul in southern Brazil (De Andrade 1998a, Quiroz-Robledo 2003). Known from Cuba and Hispaniola, Cylindromyrmex darlingtoni is also the only member of the Dorylinae endemic in the Antilles. Cylindromyrmex whymperi has been apparently introduced and established in Galapagos Islands (De Andrade 1998a).</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Cylindromyrmex has three generic synonyms: Holcoponera Cameron, Hypocylindromyrmex Wheeler, and Metacylindromyrmex Wheeler. Cameron’s Holcoponera has been considered a synonym since the end of 19th century (Forel 1892 a), and the two other names were introduced as subgenera by Wheeler (1924a) but have not been used as valid since Brown’s (1975) work on the ' Cerapachyinae '. De Andrade (1998a) revised, illustrated, and keyed all the species of Cylindromyrmex, subsequently adding new records and a second fossil taxon from Dominican amber (De Andrade 2001).</p><p>Cylindromyrmex is the sister genus to Acanthostichus (Brady et al. 2006, Brady et al. 2014, Borowiec, in prep.). A morphology-based internal phylogeny is also available, inferred by De Andrade (1998a).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Members of this lineage have been reported to be termite predators (De Andrade 1998a). Some authors described Cylindromyrmex as termite inquilines based on records of workers from termite nests (Wheeler 1936, Overal and Bandeira 1985). It seems possible, however, that these specimens represent raiding foragers of arboreal-nesting ants, as complete nest series containing brood and reproductives are so far known apparently only from wood ( Fernández and Escobar 1997, De Andrade 1998a, Mariano et al. 2004, Philip Ward pers. comm.).</p><p>A colony of Cylindromyrmex whymperi has been recently found in Peru and studied in captivity by Josh Richards, an ant keeper from Lima, Peru. He has observed that these ants readily pursue and sting termites, which are brought to the nest paralyzed but apparently not dead. When outnumbered in a confrontation, Cylindromyrmex workers first sting as many termites as possible before attempting to carry some of them back to the nest (Josh Richards pers. comm.).</p><p>Gobin et al. (2001) described a novel type of gland between sternites VI and VII in Cylindromyrmex whymperi and demonstrated that this species employs mass recruitment to termite prey. Morgan et al. (2008) chemically analyzed Dufour’s gland secretions of the same species. Three species of Cylindromyrmex ( Cylindromyrmex brasiliensis, Cylindromyrmex brevitarsus and Cylindromyrmex longiceps) have been reported occurring in sympatry, collected in Malaise traps in a single locality in Bahia, Brazil. The flying males and gynes were present in samples from the end of August to beginning of December, with at least one of the samples containing all the three species (Delabie and Reis 2000).</p><p>All known queens of Cylindromyrmex are winged and brood production is apparently synchronized (Mariano et al. 2004, Josh Richards pers. comm.).</p><p>Species of Cylindromyrmex</p><p>† Cylindromyrmex antillanus De Andrade, 1998a: Dominican amber</p><p>Cylindromyrmex boliviae Wheeler, W. M., 1924a: Bolivia</p><p>Cylindromyrmex brasiliensis Emery, 1901a: Brazil</p><p>Cylindromyrmex brevitarsus Santschi, 1925: Brazil</p><p>Cylindromyrmex darlingtoni Wheeler, W. M., 1937: Cuba</p><p>† Cylindromyrmex electrinus De Andrade, 1998a: Dominican amber</p><p>Cylindromyrmex escobari De Andrade, 1998a: Colombia</p><p>Cylindromyrmex godmani Forel, 1899: Panama</p><p>† Cylindromyrmex inopinatus De Andrade, 2001: Dominican amber</p><p>Cylindromyrmex longiceps André, 1892: Brazil</p><p>Cylindromyrmex meinerti Forel, 1905: Venezuela</p><p>Cylindromyrmex striatus Mayr, 1870: Suriname</p><p>Cylindromyrmex whymperi (Cameron, 1891): Ecuador</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6DC4A6D055FF04E3D14475FC418CDDAA	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
FB705FE0C721C3A393B51DD0057635C3.text	FB705FE0C721C3A393B51DD0057635C3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorylus Fabricius 1793	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Dorylus Fabricius, 1793</p><p>= Alaopone Emery, 1881, syn. n.</p><p>= Anomma Shuckard, 1840c, syn. n.</p><p>= Cosmaecetes Spinola, 1851</p><p>= Dichthadia Gerstäcker, 1863, syn. n.</p><p>= Rhogmus Shuckard, 1840c, syn. n.</p><p>= Shuckardia Emery, 1895b</p><p>= Sphecomyrmex Schulz, 1906</p><p>= Sphegomyrmex Imhoff, 1852</p><p>= Typhlopone Westwood, 1839, syn. n.</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Vespa helvola, by monotypy.</p><p>The Afrotropical 'driver ants’ of this genus epitomize the army ant lifestyle, but they represent only a fraction of the diversity of Dorylus . Most species are much less commonly observed, and forage underground or in leaf litter.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. The workers of Dorylus are readily recognized by a combination of well-developed promesonotal Pronotomesopleural suture, propodeal spiracle positioned high on the propodeum and lack of propodeal lobes, single waist segment, pygidium large and with a flattened surface and armed with two cuticular projections, and pretarsal claws simple. Other army ants of the Old World, Aenictus and Aenictogiton, are not easily confused with Dorylus as the former always has a well-differentiated second waist segment (postpetiole) and in Aenictogiton the gaster has more developed constrictions between gastral pre- and post-sclerites, resulting in apparent constriction between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI. Yunodorylus is superficially similar but is easily distinguished from all army ants by the propodeal spiracle situated low and presence of propodeal lobes . Among the New World army ants only Cheliomyrmex has one-segmented waist but Cheliomyrmex does not have a promesonotal Pronotomesopleural suture, its pygidium is reduced and never armed with cuticular projections, and its pretarsal claws are armed with a tooth.</p><p>Male. In general appearance Dorylus males are similar to other army ant genera but possess flattened femora that are much broader and more compressed than the tibiae and tarsi. This trait alone is sufficient to separate them from all other male dorylines, but a combination of single-segmented waist, M·f1 vein of fore wing arising from M+Cu at about 45° and situated near to cu-a, Rs·f2-3 lost, pterostigma narrow and inconspicuous can also be used to recognize Dorylus . The Old World army ant genera Aenictus and Aenictogiton have similar fore wing venation but both have a well-developed and broad pterostigma and the latter has a ‘free-hanging’ Rs·f3 vein. In the New World army ants M·f1 arises at a lower angle and is conspicuously proximal to cu-a, and Rs·f2-3 are present, forming two submarginal cells. Dorylus males also possess unique genital capsule morphology, where a tiny diamond-shaped structure is formed from a fragment of the basimeres and visible dorsally over the aedeagus ( ‘patella’ of Birket-Smith 1981; Brendon Boudinot pers. comm.). The telomeres in lateral view do not conceal inner valves of the genital capsule as in most dorylines but instead form a characteristic shape of a spiral arm folding first proximally and then projecting distally over the rest of genital capsule thus concealing it from above.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 8, 9, 11, or 12 segments. Apical antennal segment not enlarged, not broader and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum without median notch or concavity. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 2- or 1-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles elongately triangular to falcate, with teeth on elongated masticatory margin. Eyes absent. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen entirely absent, including ventrally. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture conspicuous and complete, but immobile. Pronotomesopleural suture complete, continuous with promesonotal Pronotomesopleural suture. Mesometapleural groove deeply impressed, conspicuous. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated high on sclerite. Propodeal declivity without distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle in smaller workers, mostly obscured in large workers. Propodeal lobes absent. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin. Spiracle openings of ab dominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and sculptured but not cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI present. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI present. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field, and armed with cuticular spines. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Highly polymorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical, carinae separated by broad flat or convex area between exposed antennal sockets. Maxillary palps 2- or 1-segmented. Labial palps 1-segmented. Mandibles falcate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli absent. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Propodeal declivity reduced, without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes absent. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora simple, not delimited by carina. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI slit-shaped. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV absent, i.e. pre- and postsclerites indistinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV absent, not impressed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes short, directed sideways. Genitalia: Cupula short relative to rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere fused basally, with a fragment reduced to tiny, plate-like sclerite. Telomere folding backwards and then over rest of genital capsule, concealing it dorsally. Volsella gradually tapering toward apex. Penisvalva laterally compressed, rounded at apex. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma narrow. Abscissa R·f3 absent. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 absent. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, connected to Rs·f2-3&amp;Rs·f4. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 differentiated into Rs·f4 and Rs·f5 by 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing contiguous with Rs+M. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from Cu and distal to, at or near M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with both branches Cu1 and Cu2. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing unknown. Vein C in hind wing present. Vein R in hind wing present, extending past Sc+R but not reaching distal wing margin. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing present, shorter than M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Dichthadiiform, blind, with median ocellus (see e.g. Barr et al. 1985).</p><p>Larva. Larvae of Dorylus have been described in Wheeler (1943) and Wheeler and Wheeler (1984). Cocoons are absent.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Dorylus ranges from Sub-Saharan Africa throughout North Africa and Asia Minor to Borneo in Southeast Asia. The Afrotropics harbor the highest number of species and are the home of the surface- and leaf litter-foraging species.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>The long and confusing taxonomic history of the genus begins with a male ant from South Africa, described as Vespa helvola by Linnaeus in 1764. Later Fabricius (1793) created the genus Dorylus for that species. Similarly to Aenictus, for a time the males and females were known under different generic names, with Dorylus being applied to males and Anomma and Typhlopone to the workers. 85 years after the original description of Vespa helvola, T. S. Savage observed males and workers together in the field and recognized that they belonged to one species (Savage 1849). A very readable overview of the early taxonomic history of Dorylus can be found in Gotwald (1995: 13). The modern subgeneric division of Dorylus was stabilized by Emery (1895b, 1910). This classification has come under scrutiny using molecular data in the recent decades, and two of the most speciose subgenera of Dorylus, Anomma and Dorylus s. str. were found to be not monophyletic (Kronauer et al. 2007). Because of these phylogenetic considerations, also backed up by morphological study (Caspar Schöning pers. comm.), I propose to abandon the traditional subgeneric classification. Although the surface-foraging (as opposed to leaf litter) species of Anomma species form a clade and it is even possible to differentiate it based on apomorphic morphological characters from other Dorylus ( Schöning et al. in preparation), recognizing Anomma would likely leave the large Dorylus s. str. paraphyletic. Other Dorylus subgenera are likely monophyletic (Kronauer et al. 2007). Subgeneric classification is not currently adopted for any other doryline genus, and I propose the following informal species-groups to be recognized instead of the subgenera (for species known from the worker caste):</p><p>Dorylus orientalis -group (equivalent of Alaopone), comprising species acutus, aethiopicus, atriceps, attenuatus, brevis, buyssoni, conradti, diadema, distinctus, ductor, katanensis, montanus, orientalis, vishnui .</p><p>Dorylus nigricans -group (equivalent of Anomma excluding emeryi and kohli ( Schöning et al. 2008)), comprising species atratus, erraticus, funereus, mayri, niarembensis, nigricans, rufescens, stanleyi, wilverthi .</p><p>Dorylus laevigatus -group (equivalent of Dichthadia), comprising species laevigatus .</p><p>Dorylus politus -group (species excluded from Dorylus s. str. based on phylogeny in Kronauer et al. 2007), comprising species politus, spininodis .</p><p>Dorylus helvolus -group (equivalent of Dorylus s. str. but excluding species of politus -group and including two species previously assigned to Anomma), comprising species affinis, agressor, alluaudi, bequaerti, bishyiganus, braunsi, brevipennis, congolensis, depilis, emeryi, faurei, furcatus, gaudens, ghanensis, gribodoi, helvolus, kohli, mandibularis, moestus, schoutedeni, stadelmani, staudingeri, striatidens, titan .</p><p>Dorylus fimbriatus -group (equivalent of Rhogmus), comprising species fimbriatus, fuscipennis, leo, ocellatus, savagei, termitarius .</p><p>Dorylus fulvus -group (equivalent of Typhlopone), comprising species fulvus, labiatus .</p><p>Species unassigned to species-groups: atratus, westwoodii .</p><p>Dorylus is the sister taxon to Aenictogiton (Brady et al. 2006, 2014, Borowiec, in prep.). As explained above, the internal phylogeny of the genus (Kronauer et al. 2007) shows that the subgenera Anomma and Dorylus as they were traditionally defined are not monophyletic. The Asian species Dorylus laevigatus represents the earliest-branching lineage of the genus. The time-calibrated phylogeny of Kronauer et al. (2007) estimated crown group age of Dorylus to be between 30 and 64 million years, but more recent studies suggest much younger ages at about 22 million years (Brady et al. 2014) or even younger than 20 million years (Borowiec, in prep.).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Because some species of this lineage are so conspicuous and are the most important arthropod predators of the Afrotropics, this group has attracted considerable attention.</p><p>The best studied species include the Afrotropical species that forage above ground (Raignier and Boven 1955, Raignier 1972, Gotwald 1995), but one subterranean species, Dorylus laevigatus has been the subject of some work (Berghoff et al. 2002a, b, 2003a, b, Weissflog et al. 2000). Good overviews of Dorylus biology can be found in Raignier and Boven (1955) and Gotwald (1995). The surface- and leaf litter-foraging species have been collectively referred to as 'driver ants’ (Savage 1847), and traditionally classified in the polyphyletic subgenus Anomma (see Taxonomy and phylogeny above). Here I follow this convention and use the terms 'driver ants’ and ‘surface-‘ or 'epigaeically-foraging species’ interchangeably.</p><p>The life cycle of Dorylus colony is similar to that of Eciton and many other army ants but there are no pronounced nomadic and statary phases. The brood production is not synchronized (Gotwald 1995, Schöning et al. 2005b), and the colonies move from old to new nesting sites at irregular intervals (Gotwald and Cunningham van Sommeren 1990, Schöning et al. 2005b). A mature colony will produce about a dozen virgin queens and eventually undergo fission. About half of the worker force will depart with the old, fertilized queen, while the other half will remain with the virgin queens. Ul timately, all except one of the new queens are cannibalized (Raignier 1972). The new colony does not produce sexual brood until the workers mothered by the old queen have died (Kronauer et al. 2004).</p><p>Copulation in Dorylus has been observed only once (Kronauer and Boomsma 2007a). Males collected at lights and two inseminated queens from established Dorylus molestus bivouacs were coupled under laboratory conditions. The male first uses his sickle-shaped mandibles to grasp the queen behind her petiole and performs bending movements, searching the tip of the queen’s abdomen. Once engaged, the pairs remained in copulation for five to ten hours. After this period, the male relaxes his grip on queen’s petiole but remains connected to the queen. Twenty hours after the copulations, the two pairs were killed and dissected, both males remaining attached to the queens. The males apparently succeeded in transferring sperm to the queens, and the dissections confirmed that the male accessory testes were empty after the copulations. Despite these observations, Kronauer and Boomsma (2007a) find little evidence for army ant queens re-mating later in life and point out that the males were not attracted to old queens in most trials.</p><p>The reproductive potential of Dorylus queens is impressive, at least in the surface-foraging species studied thus far. The queen mates between 15-20 times (Kronauer et al. 2004, 2006) early in her life and stores up to 880 million spermatozoa (Kronauer and Boomsma 2007a). A Dorylus wilverthi queen can produce an estimated 3-4 million eggs per month, for a total over 250 million eggs during her lifetime (Raignier and Boven 1955, Kronauer and Boomsma 2007b). This is even more than Eciton queens (see under Eciton; Schneirla 1971, Kronauer and Boomsma 2007b).</p><p>These army ants always occupy subterranean nests, either constructed by excavating large amounts of soil and/or taking advantage of a preexisting cavity ( Schöning et al. 2005b, Boven and Lévieux 1968). Because of these underground habits, colony size estimates are rare. A single excavated colony of Dorylus laevigatus contained about 300,000 workers (Berghoff et al. 2002), and estimates of colony size for the surface foragers Dorylus nigricans and Dorylus wilverthi range from 1 million to over 20 million workers (Voessler 1905, Raignier and Boven 1955). The dry mass of Dorylus nigricans colonies has been estimated to be 9-15 kg (Leroux 1982). The underground nests of Dorylus are quite different from the above-ground bivouacs of Eciton (Gotwald 1995). Raignier and Boven (1955) categorized them as either occupying a single large chamber or dispersed among subterranean galleries and chambers. The first type is exemplified by Dorylus wilverthi and the second by Dorylus nigricans . Both nest types are often found among root systems of trees. These ants actively excavate soil and one estimate gives 20 kg of soil per day removed in the first week of a Dorylus nigricans colony settling into a new site (Leroux 1977).</p><p>Dorylus emigrate irregularly and the colony often returns to the same nesting spot. Gotwald and Cunningham van Sommeren (1990) followed a single colony of Dorylus molestus for 432 days and observed 38 emigrations during that time, spanning an area of about 5 hectares. One colony of Dorylus nigricans has been recorded to remain in one bivouac site for 125 consecutive days (Raignier and Boven 1955). The adaptive significance of the cycles in brood production and colony activity remains unclear, but it seems to be correlated with highly variable food availability (Kronauer 2009). While phasic species of Aenictus, Eciton, and other New World army ants rely heavily on brood of other social insects, Dorylus are more generalist (Gotwald 1995).</p><p>Dorylus gynes may or may not be able to move on their own during nest emigration. All queen specimens known so far are missing tarsal segments (Raignier 1972, Berghoff et al. 2002), so that they are assisted to a new site by the entourage of workers (Berghoff et al. 2002). Raignier (1972) observed missing tarsal segments in very young queens of Dorylus nigricans, prior to their first emigration. The causes and significance of this tarsal mutilation are not known.</p><p>A diversity of foraging habits and prey preferences has been documented for Dorylus (Gotwald 1995). According to the most popular classification ( Schöning et al. 2005a, Kronauer et al. 2007), three major foraging strategies can be distinguished: subterranean, leaf litter, or surface foragers. The surface-swarming driver ants are generalist predators that will take any kind of prey, ranging from immatures of other insects to vertebrate carrion ( Schöning and Moffett 2007). Seasonal, habitat, and intraspecific differences can be seen in prey composition and intake in these ants, but the proportion of social insect prey is small ( Schöning et al. 2008). This is in contrast to Eciton burchellii, whose diet is general but it still relies heavily on this kind of prey (Rettenmeyer 1963). The few subterranean species of Dorylys that have been studied have also been recorded to be generalist predators but additionally often feeding on termites (Darlington 1985, Berghoff et al. 2002). Dorylus orientalis is recognized as a vegetable crop pest, apparently being mainly or exclusively herbivorous (Roonwal 1975). Variation in foraging can also be seen within the general foraging strategies. Schöning et al. (2008) reported that two surface-swarming species, Dorylus wilverthi and Dorylus molestus, differ in their diets and raiding behavior. Dorylus molestus is often seen capturing earthworms and exhibits digging behavior, while earthworms are rarely a major component of the diet for Dorylus wilverthi, whose workers have not been observed digging. Two sympatric, subterranean species of Dorylus from Asia have also been compared and shown to differ in their foraging behavior and prey preference (Berghoff et al. 2003).</p><p>Kronauer et al. (2007) used molecular phylogenetics and ancestral state reconstruction to address the evolution of the foraging niche in Dorylus . They categorized species as either subterranean, leaf litter, or surface foragers and inferred that subterranean foraging was the ancestral state for the genus. Both surface and leaf litter foraging strategies likely evolved once within Dorylus . The descendants of a leaf litter-dwelling ancestor gave rise to both surface foragers and species that reverted to subterranean foraging. An earlier study ( Schöning et al. 2005a) showed how allometry in the worker caste is correlated with the foraging niche, although the authors did not examine this in a phylogenetic framework (Felsenstein 1985). These authors demonstrated that surface-adapted species possess appendages and mandibles that are longer relatively to their body size than in the leaf-litter and in the subterranean foragers. Kronauer et al. (2007) further assessed allometry in the context of Dorylus phylogeny and concluded that the species that reverted to underground foraging re-evolved morphology similar to the ancestral, short-limbed condition.</p><p>Similarly to New World army ants, Dorylus colonies have numerous invertebrate and vertebrate associates, although these companion faunas are not as well described (Gotwald 1995). Remarkably, the foragers of African driver ants are followed by several species of birds specializing on prey flushed by the ants, much like the swarms of Eciton burchellii in the New World (Peters et al. 2008). Other vertebrates, such as chimpanzees are known to rely on Dorylus for food (Kingdon 1997, Schöning et al. 2007, Sanz et al. 2010). Because the apes utilize sticks and plant stems to extract the ants, this is an important study system in the primate culture and tool use (Humle 2011).</p><p>A variety of other research has been carried out on Dorylus, but most of these studies are isolated in nature. Kronauer et al. (2011) documented significant amounts of hybridization between the driver ants Dorylus wilverthi and Dorylus molestus, and Barth et al. (2013) undertook a population genetics study on Dorylus fulvus .</p><p>Species of Dorylus</p><p>Dorylus acutus Santschi, 1937a: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus aethiopicus Emery, 1895b: 'Sudan, Abessinien, Tunis’</p><p>Dorylus affinis Shuckard, 1840c: Gambia</p><p>Dorylus affinis aegyptiacus Mayr, 1865: Egypt</p><p>Dorylus affinis denudatus Santschi, 1910c: Niger</p><p>Dorylus affinis exilis Santschi, 1914a: Tanzania</p><p>Dorylus affinis hirsutus Wheeler, W. M., 1922a: Egypt, Ethiopia</p><p>Dorylus affinis loewyi Forel, 1907b: Tanzania</p><p>Dorylus affinis parapsidalis Santschi, 1917: Malawi</p><p>Dorylus affinis pulliceps Santschi, 1917: Ivory Coast</p><p>Dorylus affinis sudanicus Santschi, 1917: Chad</p><p>Dorylus affinis ugandensis Santschi, 1914a: Uganda</p><p>Dorylus agressor Santschi, 1923b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus alluaudi Santschi, 1914a: Uganda</p><p>Dorylus alluaudi lobatus Santschi, 1919b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus atratus Smith, F., 1859: Nigeria</p><p>Dorylus atriceps Shuckard, 1840c: Gambia</p><p>Dorylus attenuatus Shuckard, 1840c: Gambia</p><p>Dorylus attenuatus acuminatus Emery, 1899b: South Africa</p><p>Dorylus attenuatus australis Santschi, 1919a: South Africa</p><p>Dorylus attenuatus bondroiti Santschi, 1912: South Africa</p><p>Dorylus attenuatus latinodis Forel, 1920: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus bequaerti Forel, 1913a: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus bishyiganus (Boven, 1972): Rwanda</p><p>Dorylus braunsi Emery, 1895b: Liberia</p><p>Dorylus braunsi anceps Forel, 1914: Zimbabwe</p><p>Dorylus brevipennis Emery, 1895b: Tanzania</p><p>Dorylus brevipennis marshalli Emery, 1901d: Zimbabwe</p><p>Dorylus brevipennis zimmermanni Santschi, 1910c: Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus brevis Santschi, 1919b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus buyssoni Santschi, 1910c: Kenya</p><p>Dorylus buyssoni conjugens Santschi, 1910c: Kenya</p><p>Dorylus congolensis Santschi, 1910: Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus conradti Emery, 1895b: Togo</p><p>Dorylus conradti berlandi Santschi, 1926a: Ivory Coast</p><p>Dorylus depilis Emery, 1895b: Cameroon</p><p>Dorylus depilis clarior Santschi, 1917: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus diadema Gerstäcker, 1859: Mozambique</p><p>Dorylus diadema arnoldi Forel, 1914: Zimbabwe</p><p>Dorylus diadema fusciceps Emery, 1899b: Malawi</p><p>Dorylus distinctus Santschi, 1910c: Guinea</p><p>Dorylus ductor Santschi, 1939: ‘Congo’</p><p>Dorylus emeryi Mayr, 1896: Cameroon</p><p>Dorylus emeryi opacus Forel, 1909b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus emeryi pulsi (Forel, 1904): 'Afrique occidentale’</p><p>Dorylus erraticus (Smith, F., 1865): 'New Guinea’ (labeling error: Wilson 1964: 443)</p><p>Dorylus faurei Arnold, 1946: South Africa</p><p>Dorylus fimbriatus (Shuckard, 1840c): Gambia</p><p>Dorylus fimbriatus crampeli Santschi, 1919a: Central African Republic</p><p>Dorylus fimbriatus laevipodex Santschi, 1919a: Kenya</p><p>Dorylus fimbriatus poweri Forel, 1914: South Africa</p><p>Dorylus fulvus (Westwood, 1839): 'North Africa’</p><p>Dorylus fulvus badius Gerstäcker, 1859: Mozambique</p><p>Dorylus fulvus crosi Santschi, 1926b: Algeria</p><p>Dorylus fulvus dentifrons Wasmann, 1904: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus fulvus eurous Emery, 1915b: Ethiopia</p><p>Dorylus fulvus glabratus Shuckard, 1840c: Gambia</p><p>Dorylus fulvus juvenculus Shuckard, 1840c: Morocco</p><p>Dorylus fulvus mordax Santschi, 1931: Ivory Coast</p><p>Dorylus fulvus obscurior Wheeler, W. M., 1925a: Guinea</p><p>Dorylus fulvus punicus Santschi, 1926b: Tunisia</p><p>Dorylus fulvus ruficeps Santschi, 1926b: Lebanon</p><p>Dorylus fulvus saharensis Santschi, 1926b: ‘Sahara’</p><p>Dorylus funereus Emery, 1895b: Ghana</p><p>Dorylus funereus acherontus Santschi, 1937b: Cameroon</p><p>Dorylus funereus pardus Santschi, 1937b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus funereus stygis Santschi, 1937b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus funereus zumpti Santschi, 1937b: Cameroon</p><p>Dorylus furcatus ( Gerstäcker, 1872): South Africa</p><p>Dorylus fuscipennis (Emery, 1892): Ghana</p><p>Dorylus fuscipennis lugubris Santschi, 1919a: Ivory Coast</p><p>Dorylus fuscipennis marginiventris Santschi, 1919a: Ivory Coast</p><p>Dorylus gaudens Santschi, 1919b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus ghanensis Boven, 1975: Ghana</p><p>Dorylus gribodoi Emery, 1892: Togo</p><p>Dorylus helvolus (Linnaeus, 1764): South Africa</p><p>Dorylus helvolus pretoriae Arnold, 1946: South Africa</p><p>Dorylus katanensis Stitz, 1911: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus kohli Wasmann, 1904: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus kohli chapini Wheeler, W. M., 1922a: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus kohli frenisyi Forel, 1916: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus kohli indocilis Santschi, 1933: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus kohli langi Wheeler, W. M., 1922a: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus kohli militaris Santschi, 1923b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus kohli minor Santschi, 1911a: Angola</p><p>Dorylus kohli victoriae Santschi, 1921a: Uganda</p><p>Dorylus labiatus Shuckard, 1840c: India</p><p>Dorylus laevigatus (Smith, F., 1857): Malaysia (Sarawak)</p><p>Dorylus leo Santschi, 1919a: Ivory Coast</p><p>Dorylus mandibularis Mayr, 1896: Cameroon</p><p>Dorylus mandibularis pulchellus Santschi, 1920a: Ivory Coast</p><p>Dorylus mayri Santschi, 1912: Cameroon</p><p>Dorylus moestus Emery, 1895b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus moestus claripennis Santschi, 1919b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus moestus morio Santschi, 1919b: Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus moestus schereri Forel, 1911d: Liberia</p><p>Dorylus montanus Santschi, 1910c: Tanzania</p><p>Dorylus niarembensis (Boven, 1972): Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus nigricans Illiger, 1802: Sierra Leone</p><p>Dorylus nigricans arcens (Westwood, 1847): Liberia</p><p>Dorylus nigricans burmeisteri (Shuckard, 1840c): Sierra Leone</p><p>Dorylus nigricans molestus ( Gerstäcker, 1859): Mozambique</p><p>Dorylus nigricans pallidus Santschi, 1921a: Cameroon</p><p>Dorylus nigricans rubellus (Savage, 1849): Gabon</p><p>Dorylus nigricans sjoestedti Emery, 1899b: Cameroon</p><p>Dorylus nigricans sjostedtiwilverthi (Wasmann, 1917): Cameroon</p><p>Dorylus nigricans terrificus Santschi, 1923b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus ocellatus (Stitz, 1910): Cameroon</p><p>Dorylus orientalis Westwood, 1835: India</p><p>Dorylus orientalis obscuriceps Santschi, 1920b: India</p><p>Dorylus politus Emery, 1901d: Cameroon</p><p>Dorylus rufescens Santschi, 1915: Cameroon</p><p>Dorylus savagei Emery, 1895b: 'Gabon und Congo’</p><p>Dorylus savagei mucronatus Emery, 1899b: Nigeria</p><p>Dorylus schoutedeni Santschi, 1923b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus spininodis Emery, 1901d: Cameroon</p><p>Dorylus spininodis longiceps Viehmeyer, 1914: Tanzania</p><p>Dorylus stadelmanni Emery, 1895b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus stanleyi Forel, 1909b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus staudingeri Emery, 1895b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus striatidens Santschi, 1910c: Senegal</p><p>Dorylus termitarius Wasmann, 1911: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus titan Santschi, 1923b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus titan vinalli Santschi, 1933: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Dorylus vishnui Wheeler, W. M., 1913: Myanmar</p><p>Dorylus westwoodii (Shuckard, 1840b): 'South America’ (locality incorrect)</p><p>Dorylus wilverthi Emery, 1899b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/FB705FE0C721C3A393B51DD0057635C3	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
A079E321C5938F1E67277156AE5D5CED.text	A079E321C5938F1E67277156AE5D5CED.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eburopone	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Eburopone gen. n.</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Cerapachys wroughtoni, by present designation.</p><p>Only one species of this group has been described from Afrotropics, but Madagascar harbors a considerable undescribed diversity.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. Workers of Eburopone are most easily recognized from other dorylines by a unique whitish patch of cuticle of presumably glandular function present on the posterior edge of abdominal sternite IV, although the patch may be faint in small or pale-colored specimens. A combination of 12-segmented antennae, propodeal spiracle placed low on the sclerite and propodeal lobes present, petiole dorsolaterally immarginate, lack of conspicuous constrictions posterior to abdominal segment IV, helcium narrow and placed at about mid-height of the segment, pronotomesopleural Pronotomesopleural suture present, and mid and hind tibiae each with a single pectinate spur will serve to distinguish Eburopone workers from other dorylines. In the Afrotropics and in Madagascar other non-army dorylines include Ooceraea, Parasyscia, Lividopone, Lioponera, and Zasphinctus . None of these genera possesses the characteristic, apparently glandular, patch on the underside of gaster, but if that character is not obvious or obscured, it is still relatively easy to distinguish Eburopone: Ooceraea found in this region ( Ooceraea biroi) have 9-segmented antennae, Parasyscia and Lividopone have pronotomesopleural sutures fused, and Lioponera has a dorsolaterally marginate petiole and a raised flange on hind coxa. Zasphinctus belongs to the genera with pronounced constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI.</p><p>Male. The male morphology of Eburopone is very variable, including wing venation, but the following combination of characters usually allows separation from other genera: Antennae with 13 segments, at least weak constriction present anterior to abdominal segment IV, costal vein (C) present in the fore wing, submarginal cell open, presence of R·f3 and a free 'stigmal vein’ formed by 2r-rs and Rs·f4-5 in the absence of Rs·f2-3 or 2rs-m, not running to the wing margin. Among non-army ant dorylines that overlap in range with Eburopone, Lioponera and Ooceraea can have a free stigmal vein but these genera never have costal vein running along the anterior margin of the fore wing in combination with R·f3 present past pterostigma.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment moderately enlarged, broader than and about equal in length to two preceding segments combined to conspicuously enlarged, much broader than and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth present. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Eyes absent or present, composed of at most several weakly differentiated ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange often separated from collar by ridge, usually distinct but rarely poorly developed or absent. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture present, weakly differentiated or with Pronotomesopleural suture conspicuous and complete but immobile. Pronotomesopleural suture visible as groove but not unfused. Mesometapleural groove deeply impressed, conspicuous. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland usually with bulla visible through cuticle, sometimes obscured. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate or marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a U-shaped margin with median ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Abdominal segment III about half size of succeeding segment IV, which is strongly constricted at presegmental portion (binodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed; sculpturing may be weak. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal segment IV conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field, and armed with modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with sin gle pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus with or without cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 4- or 3-segmented. Labial palps 3- or 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular with teeth or falcate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent or present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli present at least anteriorly, very rarely absent. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent or present. Propodeal declivity reduced, without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate or marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora simple, not delimited by carina. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and of approximately equal length on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with no sulcus trace at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere not apically expanded, very reduced relative to basimere. Volsella variable. Penisvalva laterally compressed, rounded at apex. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 present and running toward distal wing margin but not enclosing cell with Rs·f5 or rarely absent. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 absent. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, forming base of 'free stigmal vein’ (2r-rs&amp;Rs·f4-5) in absence of Rs·f3 and 2rs-m or rarely absent. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 fused in absence of 2rs-m or rarely absent. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing contiguous with Rs+M or rarely absent. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, reaching wing margin or not, rarely entirely absent. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present or rarely absent. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal or near M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent or absent past M+Cu. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 or only A·f1 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing present, extending past Sc+R but not reaching distal wing margin. Vein Sc +R in hind wing absent or present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing absent or present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing fused with M·f1 or absent. Vein M+Cu in hind wing absent or present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing absent or present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing absent. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing absent or present. Vein Cu in hind wing absent or present. Vein A in hind wing present with abscissa A·f1 present or absent.</p><p>Gyne. At least one dealate gyne specimen with fully developed wing sclerites is known, but ergatoid queens have also been collected (Peter Hawkes pers. comm.).</p><p>Larva. Larvae have not been described. Cocoons present.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>One species of Eburopone, Eburopone wroughtoni, has been described so far from South Africa and Zimbabwe, but more species are evidently to be found throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, as evidenced by unassociated males and gynes present in collections. Specimens belonging to this group have also been collected in Cameroon and Mozambique, suggesting that Eburopone is widely distributed in Africa. This lineage is also represented by a major radiation in Madagascar with dozens of species, none of which has been described.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Cerapachys wroughtoni was originally described by Forel from South Africa and the same author subsequently described Cerapachys wroughtoni var. rhodesiana and Cerapachys roberti, both considered junior synonyms of wroughtoni by Brown (1975).</p><p>The position of Eburopone on the doryline tree is uncertain (Brady et al. 2014, Borowiec, in prep.) and the internal phylogeny of the group has never been investigated in detail, although it appears that the Madagascar species are nested within Afrotropical lineages and that the crown group of this genus is very old (Borowiec, in prep.).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>There are no published reports on the biology of this lineage, although field observations suggest that most species are subterranean, have relatively populous colonies, and forage on brood of other ants. Based on several nest samples of undescribed Malagasy species where only larvae or pupae were collected, brood production appears to be synchronized (Brian Fisher pers. comm., author’s observations).</p><p>Species of Eburopone</p><p>Eburopone wroughtoni (Forel, 1910c): South Africa, comb. n.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A079E321C5938F1E67277156AE5D5CED	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
C60680698B2E844D6B82BAABE89E8F1E.text	C60680698B2E844D6B82BAABE89E8F1E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eciton Latreille 1804	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Eciton Latreille, 1804</p><p>= Camptognatha Grey, 1832</p><p>= Holopone Santschi, 1925</p><p>= Mayromyrmex Ashmead, 1905</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Formica hamata, by subsequent designation of Shuckard, in Swainson and Shuckard, 1840.</p><p>Eciton comprises the most conspicuous army ants in the New World. The huge colony size combined with epigaeic nesting and foraging habits makes these ants major invertebrate predators and key species of the tropical ecosystems.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. Eciton is recognized by a combination of 12-segmented antennae, propodeal spiracle high on the propodeum, propodeal declivity armed with cuticular tubercles or lamellae, binodal waist, pretarsal claws armed with a tooth and presence of a prominent metatibial gland visible as an elongate patch of whitish or yellowish cuticle on the flexor (inner) surface of tibia. Among New World army ants, Eciton is similar to its closest relative Nomamyrmex, with which it shares propodeal armament, but workers of all sizes are easily separated by a conspicuous white stripe on inner hind tibiae that is absent in Nomamyrmex . Labidus species can be distinguished from Eciton by their smooth, unarmed propodeum.</p><p>Male. The males of Eciton possess wing venation characteristic of all the New World army ants (also see under Cheliomyrmex male diagnosis). A combination of absence of very long setae approaching femur length on abdomen, apices of penisvalvae without setae, gradually tapering volsellae, and deeply concave dorsal surface of the petiole will distinguish Eciton males from all other army ant genera in the New World. The dense tufts of long setae on abdomen are characteristic of Nomamyrmex, although Eciton setigaster also has long setae abdominal setae; those are not quite as long and abundant as in Nomamyrmex, however, not approaching fore femur length. The penisvalvae without setae are also found in Neivamyrmex but in that genus the volsellae taper to a sharp point and often turn downwards towards the apex or are forked, not simply gradually narrowing to a blunt apex as in Eciton . In addition, Eciton males have a very conspicuously excavated dorsal surface of the petiole, which is usually more flattened in Neivamyrmex .</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment not enlarged, not broader and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 3-segmented. Mandibles polymorphic, from triangular with teeth through falcate with teeth on masticatory margin, to falcate without teeth on elongated masticatory margin. Eyes present, appearing as single large and convex ommatidium, in reality composed from fused ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Mesometapleural groove not impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma present. Pro podeal spiracle situated high on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin and in form of narrow strip. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, short. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate or marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora narrowed into anteriorly directed spine. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI slit-shaped or oval in small workers. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III about half size of succeeding segment IV, which is strongly constricted at presegmental portion (binodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV a gradual concavity, not gutter-like. Abdominal segment IV conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium small, reduced to narrow strip, without impressed medial field and simple, not armed with cuticular spines or modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as patch of whitish cuticle occupying at least half of tibia length. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth. Polymorphism: Highly polymorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles falcate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli absent. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Propodeal declivity reduced, without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at Pronotomesopleural suture and axial. Prora forming a simple, wide U-shaped margin not delimited by ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI slit-shaped. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV absent, i.e. pre- and postsclerites indistinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV absent, not impressed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes longer than much reduced medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula very long, nearing or surpassing length of rest of genital capsule and of approximately equal length on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. Basimere narrowly fused to telomere, with Pronotomesopleural suture modified into membrane at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere expanded at apex. Volsella laterally flattened, narrow and tapered towards tip. Penisvalva hook-like, strongly curved ventrally. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma narrow. Abscissa R·f3 present, running toward distal wing margin and enclosing cell with Rs·f5. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 differentiated into Rs·f4 and Rs·f5 by 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing present, separated from Rs+M by Rs·f2. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from Cu and distal to, at or near M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with both branches Cu1 and Cu2. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing present, reaching distal wing margin. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing fused with M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Dichthadiiform, with eyes but no ocelli (see e.g. Wheeler 1921, 1925b, Borgmeier 1958). See Hölldobler (2016) for a description of queen exocrine glands in Eciton .</p><p>Larva. Larvae of several Eciton species have been described by Wheeler (1943) and Wheeler and Wheeler (1964b, 1984). Cocoons are present.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>From northern Mexico to northern Argentina.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Eciton is the sister lineage to Nomamyrmex (Brady et al. 2014, Borowiec, in prep.). An effort to infer the internal phylogeny is currently under way (Daniel Kronauer, Max Winston pers. comm.).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Eciton is the best studied lineage of the dorylines, owing to the lifetime efforts by pioneers of army ant biology, including Thomas Schneirla, Thomas Borgmeier and Carl Rettenmeyer.</p><p>Among the twelve described species, Eciton burchellii has attracted the most attention, followed by Eciton hamatum, although most species have been at least briefly observed in the field. Most accounts of Eciton biology are based on the two well-known species.</p><p>The literature on Eciton is vast, and it is impossible to cite all of the even more significant original contributions. Good overviews of Eciton biology can be found in Rettenmeyer (1963), Schneirla (1971), Telles Da Silva (1977a, 1977b), Rettenmeyer et al. (1983) and Gotwald (1982, 1995). The account below is based on these sources, unless noted otherwise.</p><p>The life of an Eciton colony can be summarized as follows. The colony alternates between the so-called statary and nomadic phases. The cycles are understood to be regulated by brood development rather than an endogenous rhythm in adult ants. During the statary phase a single queen is laying eggs and the brood inside the nest consists of pupae and eggs; foraging does not happen every day and raids are relatively much less intensive. There are no emigrations to new nesting sites. In the nomadic phase, the queen stops producing new eggs and her abdomen contracts; the colony contains many developing larvae that need nutrition. Raids and emigrations usually occur every day. In Eciton burchellii, the statary phase lasts on average 20 days and the nomadic phase is 14 days long.</p><p>A mature colony containing a single mated queen will eventually produce up to six virgin queens and hundreds to thousands of males, depending on the species. Usually the queen that emerges first leaves the colony with workers clustered around her. She has the best chance to survive and lead the fissioning part of the nest. About half of the workers eventually leave with the virgin queen. Because the colony is divided into approximately equal halves, the workers represent a substantial part of the reproductive investment. This explains the highly male-biased sex ratio, also typical of other social insects with colony fission (Pamilo 1991). The older, mated queen emigrates together with brood while the virgin queen disperses with the remaining workers. Shortly after the fission, the colony will accept multiple males that enter the bivouac. The males must first be accepted by the workers and they lose their wings before mating. Each male can mate only once, but Eciton burchellii queens are known to mate with a dozen males on average, this mating frequency being among the highest in eusocial Hymenoptera (Kronauer et al. 2006).</p><p>Although mature colonies have been observed to occasionally admit new males, there is strong evidence that all of the mating occurs when the queen is young (Kronauer and Boomsma 2007a). A fertilized queen can produce up to 225,000 eggs per 35-day cycle and 14 million eggs during her lifetime (Schneirla 1971, Kronauer and Boomsma 2007a).</p><p>Colony structure and nesting behavior has been studied in some detail in several species. Temporary nests are made up of bodies of workers, hanging together by their legs from a supporting structure. These bivouacs can be found in a variety of microhabitats, but common nesting sites include hollow logs, spaces between buttresses of large trees, and empty soil cavities such as abandoned mammal burrows. Eciton species vary in their preferences for bivouac sites, with Eciton burchellii and Eciton hamatum nesting in exposed sites, the former often hanging above ground without touching the surface. Eciton dulcius and Eciton mexicanum are known to nest only in underground cavities, and Eciton vagans is intermediate, sometimes found in relatively exposed sites, but often nesting under logs and in rock crevices.</p><p>Colony size estimates vary widely and reliable data exists only for Eciton burchellii and Eciton hamatum . Rettenmeyer estimated that mature colonies of Eciton burchellii contain from 300,000 to 700,000 worker ants before fission and 100,000 to 500,000 for Eciton hamatum . Colony densities have been estimated in several localities for Eciton burchellii, ranging from 3.5 colonies per 100 ha on Barro Colorado Island, Panama, to 11 colonies in Corcovado, Costa Rica (Franks 1982, Vidal-Riggs and Chaves-Campos 2008).</p><p>Foraging behavior in Eciton has been studied extensively. Workers forage either mostly above ground ( Eciton burchellii, Eciton hamatum, Eciton rapax) or with some part of the raid unfolding underground. The latter mode has been reported for most other species, but the paucity of data precludes comparisons. The surface foragers also ascend vegetation and are capable of foraging arboreally. Ant brood constitutes a major portion of Eciton prey, although other arthropods, especially other social insects, are often targeted. Eciton burchellii is the most generalist predator, still hunting ants, but also actively preying on a variety of other arthropods and even opportunistically killing small vertebrates.</p><p>At the beginning of a raid, foragers emerge from the nest and gradually assemble into narrow trails that often branch and extend for up to 100 m (200 m in Eciton rapax) from the bivouac. These columns are typical of most species except for Eciton burchellii where the front of each raid progresses as a ‘swarm’, a continuous front up to 10 m wide. Group foraging is a self-organizing process with no scouts to guide the ants to a particular source of food, but the workers do follow trail pheromones produced by sternal glands (Billen and Gobin 1996). The progress of an advancing ant column can be rapid, and was estimated at up to 20 m per hour in Eciton hamatum . A remarkable adaptation for improving the efficiency of foraging is found in Eciton burchellii . Workers of this species have the ability to form living plugs over gaps in the substrate, significantly smoothening the surface and allowing faster movement of fellow foragers (Powell and Franks 2007). Eciton foragers are also extremely efficient at cooperative transport of prey. As a group they are able to carry more than a combined mass of what they could transport individually. Although cooperative transport has been documented for many ant species, this type of ‘superefficient’ transport is rare (Czaczkes and Ratnieks 2013, McCreery and Breed 2014). Eciton raids also establish caches for temporary storage of prey along the trail. In the species foraging in columns there can be more than one trail radiating from a bivouac at any given time, whereas an Eciton burchellii colony conducts one swarm raid at a time. The direction of raids of Eciton burchellii during the statary phase has been also shown to systematically change each day, apparently minimizing the overlap of foraging area (Willson et al. 2011).</p><p>During the nomadic phase, Eciton conducts raids every day and at some point these raids transition into an exodus of workers and finally an emigration of the entire colony. The emigration doesn not always follow the same route as the day’s raid and can be sustained by agitated returning foragers carrying booty past the bivouac. Other workers follow these foragers and eventually start to carry brood away from the bivouac. When the transport of brood is well advanced, myrmecophiles appear in the emigration column and the queen passes, surrounded by an entourage of workers. The duration of emigration is dependent on the colony size and species, and distances covered vary greatly as well; Schneirla (1971) reported emigration trail lengths from 100 to 450 m in Eciton hamatum .</p><p>Eciton colonies have an extraordinarily rich associate fauna and over 300 species, from mites to birds, have been recorded to depend on Eciton burchellii (Kistner 1982, Rettenmeyer et al. 2011). Remarkably, as many as 29 species are birds that rely almost exclusively on insect prey flushed out of the leaf litter by Eciton raids. This behavior evolved multiple times, and obligate ‘antbirds’ are found in the families Thamnophilidae, Formicariidae, and Furnariidae (Willis and Oniki 1978, Rettenmeyer et al. 2011). The bird droppings in turn attract many butterflies, especially skippers (family Hesperiidae; DeVries et al. 2009). A multitude of fly, wasp, beetle, and other arthropod species are found preying on the insects fleeing from a raid or scavenging in the refuse piles of Eciton bivouacs. It seems that relatively very few of these are predators or parasites of the ants themselves, although rove beetles in the genus Tetradonia are known to kill and feed on injured workers. Within the colony, some mites are known to suck on the ant hemolymph. Macrocheles rettenmeyeri is a parasitic mite found with Eciton dulcius . It is remarkable because it functionally replaces the ant’s distal tarsal segment. The mite attaches itself to the membrane of hind leg pulvilli and its curved hind legs serve as the ant’s claws without affecting the host’s behavior. As documented for the staphylinid genus Vatesus, some myrmecophiles synchronize their life cycle with the nomadic and statary phases of their host Eciton colonies (von Beeren et al. 2016).</p><p>Eciton species are important predators of ants and other social insects and elicit a wide range of responses from its prey. Chadab-Crepet and Rettenmeyer (1982) studied behavior of social wasps affected by army ant raids and found that many species exhibit coordinated alarm response allowing the adult wasps to survive and reestablish the nest later. Dejean et al. (2013) review the antipredatory behaviors of ants to army ants in general and to Eciton burchellii and Eciton hamatum in particular. They show that many species evacuate the nest in the face of an Eciton raid. This behavior ranges from well-organized evacuations starting in advance of the attack and resulting in no casualties on either side to cases where a substantial portion of brood is lost by the defending species. Paratrechina longicornis is an example of the former, while the less efficient Pachycondyla harpax represents the latter. Some species of ants are ignored by Eciton, particularly the enormous colonies of leaf-cutting Atta, and some can have a repellent effect, like the antplant-associated Pseudomyrmex ferrugineus and Azteca alfari . A few species, such as the arboreal Azteca chartifex and Dolichoderus bispinosus, manage to resist Eciton raids by attacking the raiding army ants (Dejean et al. 2013).</p><p>Species of Eciton</p><p>Eciton burchellii (Westwood, 1842): Brazil</p><p>Eciton burchellii cupiens Santschi, 1923a: French Guiana</p><p>Eciton burchellii foreli Mayr, 1886b: Panama</p><p>Eciton burchellii parvispinum Forel, 1899: Guatemala</p><p>Eciton burchellii urichi Forel, 1899: Trinidad and Tobago</p><p>Eciton drepanophorum Smith, F., 1858: Brazil</p><p>Eciton dulcium Forel, 1912a: Brazil</p><p>Eciton dulcium crassinode Borgmeier, 1955: Panama</p><p>Eciton hamatum (Fabricius, 1782): French Guiana</p><p>Eciton jansoni Forel, 1912a: Nicaragua</p><p>Eciton lucanoides Emery, 1894: Peru</p><p>Eciton lucanoides conquistador Weber, 1949b: Panama</p><p>Eciton mexicanum Roger, 1863: Mexico</p><p>Eciton mexicanum argentinum Borgmeier, 1955: Argentina</p><p>Eciton mexicanum goianum Borgmeier, 1955: Brazil</p><p>Eciton mexicanum latidens Santschi, 1911b: French Guiana</p><p>Eciton mexicanum moralum Santschi, 1923c: French Guiana</p><p>Eciton mexicanum panamense Borgmeier, 1955: Panama</p><p>Eciton quadriglume (Haliday, 1836): Brazil</p><p>Eciton rapax Smith, F., 1855: Brazil</p><p>Eciton setigaster Borgmeier, 1953: Brazil</p><p>Eciton uncinatum Borgmeier, 1953: Ecuador</p><p>Eciton vagans (Olivier, 1792): French Guiana</p><p>Eciton vagans allognathum Borgmeier, 1955: Venezuela</p><p>Eciton vagans angustatum Roger, 1863: Mexico</p><p>Eciton vagans dispar Borgmeier, 1955: Brazil</p><p>Eciton vagans dubitatum Emery, 1896b: Paraguay</p><p>Eciton vagans fur Borgmeier, 1955: Brazil</p><p>Eciton vagans mutatum Borgmeier, 1955: Costa Rica</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C60680698B2E844D6B82BAABE89E8F1E	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
159C422D2E915B699F9570CABB377B49.text	159C422D2E915B699F9570CABB377B49.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eusphinctus Emery 1893	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Eusphinctus Emery, 1893a gen. rev.</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Eusphinctus furcatus, by monotypy.</p><p>Eusphinctus is a species-poor South East Asian genus with apparently small colonies.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. Eusphinctus workers belong to dorylines with conspicuous gastral constrictions visible between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI. This morphology is also seen in Aenictogiton, certain species of Leptanilloides, Sphinctomyrmex, and Zasphinctus . Eusphinctus is unique in the combination of propodeal spiracle situated low on the sclerite and propodeal lobes present, a large pygidium armed with modified setae, pronotomesopleural Pronotomesopleural suture present, and cinctus of abdominal segment IV simple and not cross-ribbed. This genus is thus far known only from India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Thailand and the only lineage with gastral constriction that is currently known to overlap with it is Zasphinctus . In Zasphinctus the pronotomesopleural Pronotomesopleural suture is fused, in Aenictogiton the propodeal spiracle is positioned high and there are no propodeal lobes, Leptanilloides has a reduced and unarmed pygidium, and the neotropical Sphinctomyrmex has 12-segmented antennae and the cinctus on abdominal segment IV smooth. The relative proportions of abdominal segments are also different, with segments IV, V, and VI being about equal in size in Sphinctomyrmex and Zasphinctus, while in Eusphinctus segment IV is the largest of the three.</p><p>Male. The male of Eusphinctus can be recognized by a combination of 12-segmented antennae, pronounced propodeal lobes, narrow axial helcium, conspicuous constrictions present between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI, costal (C) cell present in the fore wing, submarginal cell closed by Rs·f2-3, R·f3 present past pterostigma, and marginal cell open. Abdominal sternite IX (subgenital plate) in Eusphinctus gradually tapers caudad and has simple, straight spines directed posteriorly. Sphinctomyrmex and Zasphinctus also have constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI but the former always has 13-segmented antennae and the latter lacks veins C and R·f3 in the fore wing.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 11 segments. Apical antennal segment moderately enlarged, broader than and about equal in length to two preceding segments combined. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth present. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum unknown. Proximal face of stipes unknown. Maxillary palps unknown. Labial palps unknown. Mandibles triangular, with teeth. Eyes present, composed of fewer than five ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused up to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove weakly impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland without bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI present. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI present. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field, armed with modified setae, and deeply notched at apex. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps unknown. Labial palps unknown. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli present. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and supraaxial. Prora forming a V-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI present. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and of approximately equal length on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with sulcus discernable at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella narrow, hook-shaped. Penisvalva laterally compressed, rounded at apex. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 absent. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, disconnected from Rs+M. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 present, fused in absence of 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing contiguous with Rs+M. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from Cu and distal to, at or near M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing absent. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing fused with M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Ergatoid, 'scarcely different in size from the workers’ (Brown 1975) except slightly larger eyes and wider abdominal segment II (petiole). Presence of ocelli unknown.</p><p>Larva. Larva not known. Presence of cocoons unknown.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Indomalayan, known from India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Thailand.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Based on morphological and molecular evidence (Borowiec in prep.), I revive Eusphinctus from synonymy with Sphinctomyrmex . The taxonomic history of taxa classified under Sphinctomyrmex is somewhat complicated. Detailed discussions can be found in Wheeler (1918) and Brown (1975), and I only briefly recount the history of taxonomic changes to provide a background for an arrangement proposed here. The genus Sphinctomyrmex was established by Mayr (1866b) based on a single dealate gyne specimen from Brazil. Mayr emphasized the prominent constrictions between abdominal segments present in the specimen in the description, which gave inspiration for the name. Later, Emery (1893a) described a new genus from Myanmar, Eusphinctus, for an ant with similar constrictions. Other species from the Old World followed, described under either name. Wheeler in 1918 decided (after André 1905) to reserve Sphinctomyrmex for all New World forms and further split Eusphinctus into three subgenera, Eusphinctus s. str., Nothosphinctus, and Zasphinctus, according to various combinations of the gyne morphology, number of antennal segments (11 or 12), and presence or absence of eyes in the worker. Brown (1975) discussed the taxonomic history of the genus and all of Wheeler’s characters in detail. He pointed out that the characters used to differentiate these vary and the combinations enumerated by Wheeler do not hold as generic diagnoses with newly discovered species. Brown thus concluded that it was most sensible to synonymize all the genus-level names under Sphinctomyrmex until more evidence, particularly from male morphology, was gathered. However, he allowed for a possibility that two species, Eusphinctus furcatus and Eusphinctus taylori indeed deserved a separate generic status (Brown 1975).</p><p>Here I propose a new classification where all the New World species are retained in Sphinctomyrmex, while most of the described Old World forms are relegated to Zasphinctus . The two remaining above mentioned Old World species are separated from Zasphinctus as Eusphinctus . Molecular data shows that all three genera arose independently on the dorylomorph tree (see Figure 1; Borowiec, in prep.). Despite sharing characteristic gastral constrictions, these lineages are also discrete in worker and male morphology (see diagnosis above). Both morphology and molecules support the notion that abdominal constrictions have been independently derived several times in the Dorylinae: in Eusphinctus, Sphinctomyrmex, and Zasphinctus and also in Aenictogiton and some Leptanilloides .</p><p>Eusphinctus belongs to a clade that also includes Ooceraea and Syscia (Borowiec, in prep.). The members of this clade share the universal reduction in the number of antennal segments, from 12 to 11 or fewer in the worker caste and from 13 to 12 or fewer in males.</p><p>There are only two species of Eusphinctus, both quite similar, and Brown (1975: 75) allowed the possibility that specimens described as Eusphinctus taylori may be just small workers of Eusphinctus furcatus, but he decided not to synonymize them until more specimens are available.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>A. B. Soans and W. L. Brown collected two colonies of Eusphinctus furcatus in Kottiyoor, Kerala, India. One was located in leaf litter near a rotting log and the other one was found under a stone in a shaded creek bottom. There were about 50 workers in each of the observed nests, and one colony contained two ergatoid gynes (Brown 1975).</p><p>Species of Eusphinctus</p><p>Eusphinctus furcatus Emery, 1893a: Myanmar, comb. rev.</p><p>Eusphinctus taylori (Forel, 1900b): Bangladesh, India, comb. n.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/159C422D2E915B699F9570CABB377B49	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
98D7F2AE462F77F834FBD14108460EB5.text	98D7F2AE462F77F834FBD14108460EB5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Labidus Jurine 1807	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Labidus Jurine, 1807</p><p>= Nycteresia Roger, 1861</p><p>= Pseudodichthadia André, 1885</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Labidus latreillii (junior synonym of Formica coeca), by monotypy.</p><p>With seven described species, Labidus is a relatively small but widely distributed genus. Its members are more generalized predators than most other New World army ants and may have the greatest overall ecological impact due to high densities.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. Labidus workers are easily recognized by a combination of spiracle positioned high on the propodeum, 12-segmented antennae, propodeum not armed with spines or cuticular lamellae, short propodeal lobes, two-segmented waist, metatibial gland present, and pretarsal claws with a tooth. Labidus belongs to New World army ants with an unarmed propodeum and it could only be confused with Cheliomyrmex and certain larger species of Neivamyrmex . The former have one-segmented waist, and the latter always lack teeth on pretarsal claws.</p><p>Male. Labidus males have the army ant habitus with abdominal segment III much larger than the preceding segment II (petiole), and head small relative to mesosoma. See discussion under Cheliomyrmex for characters differentiating New World army ant males from those of Old World Aenictus, Aenictogiton, and Dorylus . Among New World army ants, Labidus possesses the following unique character combination: no conspicuous tufts of long setae on gaster, apices of penisvalvae with setae, abdominal sternite IX (subgenital plate) with two spines, and hind basitarsus with a groove that accommodates the tibial spur. The lack of long gastral setae differentiates Labidus from Nomamyrmex, the apices of penisvalvae are hairy in Eciton and Neivamyrmex, and in Cheliomyrmex there are four spines on the abdominal sternite IX and hind basitarsus has no oblique grooves.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment not enlarged, not broader and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus with or without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 3-segmented. Mandibles polymorphic, from triangular with teeth to falcate with teeth on elongated masticatory margin. Eyes present, composed of seemingly single large ommatidium, in reality composed from multiple fused ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Mesometapleural groove not impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma present. Propodeal spiracle situated high on sclerite. Propodeal declivity without distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes absent or very short. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate with carina low on anterior face, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a V-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI oval. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III about half size of succeeding segment IV, which is strongly constricted at presegmental portion (binodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and sculptured but not cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium small, reduced to narrow strip, without impressed medial field and armed with modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as patch of whitish cuticle occupying at least half of tibia length. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth. Polymorphism: Highly polymorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles falcate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli absent. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Propodeal declivity reduced, without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at Pronotomesopleural suture and axial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin or a broad cuticular lip, not delimited by carina; central protuberance may be present. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI slit-shaped. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV absent, i.e. pre- and postsclerites indistinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV absent, not impressed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes longer than much reduced medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula very long, nearing or surpassing length of rest of genital capsule and of approximately equal length on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. Basimere narrowly fused to telomere, with sulcus discernable at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere expanded at apex. Volsella laterally flattened, narrow and tapered towards tip. Penisvalva not flattened at apex, expanded. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma narrow. Abscissa R·f3 present, running toward distal wing margin and enclosing cell with Rs·f5. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 differentiated into Rs·f4 and Rs·f5 by 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing present, separated from Rs+M by Rs·f2. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from Cu and distal to, at or near M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with both branches Cu1 and Cu2. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing present. Vein R in hind wing present, reaching distal wing margin. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing fused with M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Dichthadiiform, with minute eyes and no ocelli. The queen is known for Labidus coecus and Labidus praedator . For more details and a description of the former see Weber’s (1941) and Borgmeier (1958) for a description of Labidus praedator queen.</p><p>Larva. Larvae of Labidus have been described in Wheeler (1943) and Wheeler and Wheeler (1964b, 1984). Cocoons present.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Sout Central United States to northern Argentina.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>The species-level taxonomy of Labidus requires revision. There are currently seven valid species names and three of those are based only on males. In addition, morphology and preliminary molecular analyses suggest that the widely distributed Labidus praedator may be in fact a complex of reproductively isolated species (Barth et al. 2015). The phylogenetic position of Labidus is well-established as the sister group to the Eciton plus Nomamyrmex clade (Brady et al. 2014, Borowiec, in prep.).</p><p>Biology .</p><p>Labidus are often the most common army ants throughout their range, with up to three species occurring in a given area (do Nascimiento et al. 2004, author’s personal observations). They nest mostly underground (Fowler 1979) and forage in swarm raids. It is unclear whether brood production is synchronized; colonies appear to emigrate infrequently, their bivouacs staying in place for prolonged periods of time (Fowler 1979).</p><p>Rettenmeyer (1963) and Fowler (1979) detailed the biology of Labidus praedator . The bivouacs are found in rotten logs or are subterranean, occupying preformed cavities such as abandoned nest chambers of Atta leaf-cutting ants (Rettenmeyer 1963, Monteiro et al. 2008). Mature colonies have been estimated to contain up to a million individuals (Fowler 1979).</p><p>Labidus forages in swarm raids similar to those of Eciton burchellii (Rettenmeyer 1963) and its species are even more generalized predators that in addition to ant brood will take a variety of other arthropods, sugar, and plant parts, including flowers, seeds, fruit, and even processed food such as boiled rice (Borgmeier 1955, Monteiro et al. 2008). The two best-studies species, Labidus coecus and Labidus praedator, are similar in this respect and data on other species is lacking. Henry Walter Bates (1863) described Labidus coecus constructing soil tunnels over its raiding columns. Monteiro et al. (2008) studied Labidus praedator in agricultural lands in Brazil, finding that Lepidoptera caterpillars were the most common type of prey, followed by arils of many plant species and various non-Lepidopteran arthropods, both in adult and larval stages. Fowler (1979) observed the same species in Paraguay and reported that it frequently raided other ant colonies. The raids occur mostly during the day, although nocturnal activity is also substantial ( O’Donnell et al. 2009). Perfecto (1992) observed an underground raid of Labidus coecus on several ant species.</p><p>The reproductive biology of Labidus is poorly known. There is conflicting evidence as to whether brood production is synchronized or not, with available brood samples consisting of immatures at one or multiple stages of development and queen specimens with either extended or contracted gasters (Rettenmeyer 1963). Given the rarity of emigrations and confirmed existence of long-term bivouac sites, lasting up to eight months (Fowler 1979), it is possible that Labidus queens retain the ability to lay eggs in pulses but do not cease brood production long enough for non-overlapping brood cohorts to emerge and for colonies to exhibit the nomadic-statary cycle characteristic of Eciton .</p><p>Species of Labidus</p><p>Labidus auropubens (Santschi, 1920a): French Guiana</p><p>Labidus coecus (Latreille, 1802): ‘Amérique méridionale’</p><p>Labidus curvipes (Emery, 1900b): Costa Rica</p><p>Labidus mars (Forel, 1912a): Brazil</p><p>Labidus mars denticulatus Borgmeier, 1955: Brazil</p><p>Labidus praedator (Smith, F., 1858): Brazil</p><p>Labidus praedator sedulus (Menozzi, 1926): Colombia</p><p>Labidus spininodis (Emery, 1890): Costa Rica</p><p>Labidus truncatidens (Santschi, 1920a): French Guiana</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/98D7F2AE462F77F834FBD14108460EB5	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
FA9647313C96C81B21DB4EFA72DF42D2.text	FA9647313C96C81B21DB4EFA72DF42D2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Leptanilloides Mann 1923	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Leptanilloides Mann, 1923</p><p>= Amyrmex Kusnezov, 1953, syn. n.</p><p>= Asphinctanilloides Brandão, Diniz, Agosti and Delabie, 1999, syn. n.</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Leptanilloides biconstricta, by original designation.</p><p>This is a lineage of subterranean ants from Central and South America. Its members had been extremely rarely encountered before collecting methods targeting soil-dwelling ants were popularized: 17 out of the 19 currently known species were described after 1998.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. The workers of Leptanilloides are rather variable but can be distinguished from all other dorylines by a combination of promesonotal Pronotomesopleural suture variously developed but often conspicuous, propodeal spiracles positioned low, lack of metanotal groove, absence of propodeal lobes, and small and unarmed pygidium. The positioning of the propodeal spiracle may be rather high on the sclerite in some species and so these could conceivably be mistaken for small Neivamyrmex . The latter, however, can be distinguished by a complete lack of a promesonotal Pronotomesopleural suture in dorsal view and abdominal segment IV much larger than the succeeding segment V, with no apparent constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI. Although some larger Leptanilloides species can have an inconspicuous promesonotal Pronotomesopleural suture, those will have visible constrictions on the gaster and abdominal segment IV and that segment is never much larger than succeeding gastral segments.</p><p>Male. The males of Leptanilloides are distinct in their extreme reduction of tegulae. The wing venation is reduced and unusual among dorylines because of the combination of costal cell (C) present in fore wing and discal cell always being open. The males of Leptanilloides also lack conspicuously bispinose abdominal sternite IX (subgenital plate) characteristic of almost all other male dorylines.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment not enlarged, not broader and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent or present. Parafrontal ridges absent or reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum without median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 2- or, rarely, 1-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with teeth or triangular with median tooth. Eyes absent. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent or present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection variable, with Pronotomesopleural suture present, weakly differentiated, immobile or with Pronotomesopleural suture conspicuous and complete, but immobile, or with Pronotomesopleural suture complete and mobile. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused up to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove weakly impressed to deeply impressed and conspicuous. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity absent. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma present. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity without distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes absent. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate or marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial or slightly supraaxial. Prora simple, not delimited by carina, a simple U-shaped margin, or a V-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III variable, more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist) or abdominal segment III about half size of succeeding segment IV, which is strongly constricted at presegmental portion (binodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured or a gradual concavity, not gutter-like. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent or present. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent or present. Pygidium small, reduced to narrow strip, without impressed medial field and simple, not armed with cuticular spines or modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single simple/barbulate spur, with single pectinate spur, or rarely with two simple spurs. Hind tibia with pectinate spur or rarely with one barbulate and one pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus with or without cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps unknown. Labial palps unknown. Mandibles falcate or, more rarely, elongately triangular, edentate, or intermediate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli absent. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Propodeal declivity reduced, without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes absent. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite or at Pronotomesopleural suture and axial. Prora simple, not delimited by carina. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV absent, i.e. pre- and postsclerites indistinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV absent, not impressed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX simple or cleft, with lateral apodemes reduced, only medial apodeme conspicuous, short. Genitalia: Cupula short relative to rest of genital capsule and of approximately equal length on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with sulcus discernable at junction or no sulcus trace at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella gradually tapering toward apex. Penisvalva laterally compressed, rounded at apex. Legs: Mid tibia with single simple/barbulate spur or with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula absent or extremely small. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma narrow or broad. Abscissa R·f3 absent. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 present, fused in absence of 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing contiguous with Rs+M or absent. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing absent or present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing absent. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from Cu and distal to, at or near M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent. Vein A in fore wing with abscissa A·f1 present. Vein C in hind wing absent or present. Vein R in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R in hind wing absent or present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing absent or present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing absent or present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing absent. Vein M+Cu in hind wing absent. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing absent. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing absent. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing absent. Vein Cu in hind wing absent. Vein A in hind wing absent.</p><p>Gyne. The queens of Leptanilloides collected so far have been ‘subdichthadiiform’, or wingless ergatoids with eyes and hypertrophied gaster, including abdominal segment III. The gynes possess eyes but no ocelli. See description of Leptanilloides erinys gyne in Borowiec and Longino (2011); Donoso et al. (2006) also reported blind intercastes in addition to a subdichthadiigyne in Leptanilloides nubecula .</p><p>Larva. Larva was described by Brandão et al. (1999a). Presence of cocoons unknown.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Leptanilloides is a genus found throughout Central America, from Chiapas, Mexico to Panama, and from scattered, mostly high-elevation records from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. It is also present in the Amazon Basin and one species has been described from the Atlantic forest habitat of São Paulo, Brazil. A recent collection from western Texas (MacGown et al. 2015) is a remarkable range extension for this lineage.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Leptanilloides was described with one species, Leptanilloides biconstricta, in 1923 (Mann 1923). Subsequently a closely related genus Asphinctanilloides was described, along with new Leptanilloides species ( Brandão et al. 1999a). Asphinctanilloides was originally differentiated from Leptanilloides by several characters. The genus Amyrmex, known only from males, was originally placed erroneously in the Dolichoderinae (Ward and Brady 2009). Recent descriptions of additional Leptanilloides species reveal greater morphological diversity of the genus and blur the distinction from Asphinctanilloides (Longino 2003, Donoso et al. 2006, Borowiec and Longino 2011). Because of this it has been suggested that Leptanilloides may eventually prove paraphyletic with regards to Asphinctanilloides and it has already been shown to be paraphyletic with respect to Amyrmex (see Ward and Brady 2009). No Asphinctanilloides have ever been included in a molecular analysis but it is possible that the males described as Amyrmex in fact correspond to Asphinctanilloides . Here I propose synonymy of both Amyrmex and Asphinctanilloides under Leptanilloides . Leptanilloides in this new sense is easily identified in both worker and males and guarantees more stable taxonomy in the face of potential paraphyly issues, although it encompasses morphologically disparate forms. It is possible that future workers will feel justified to split this genus once again after a better understanding of worker and male diversity is attained. Delsinne et al. (2015) provide the most recent key to species of Leptanilloides excluding Asphinctanilloides, but the species that were placed in the latter can still be identified using Brandão et al. (1999a).</p><p>The phylogenetic position of Leptanilloides within Dorylinae was difficult to ascertain with Sanger sequencing data (Brady et al. 2014) but genomic data suggest that it forms a clade with Sphinctomyrmex and New World army ants. Several species have been included in morphology-based and molecular phylogenies ( Brandão et al. 1999a, Ward 2007, Ward and Brady 2009, Delsinne et al. 2015, MacGown et al. 2015, Borowiec, in prep.) but the availability of fresh material precludes a comprehensive analysis.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Leptanilloides nomada was observed foraging at night in partly subterranean, partly exposed, columns but the ants did not carry any prey (Donoso et al. 2006). In Leptanilloides nubecula the colonies are apparently polygynous, with subdichthadiigyne queens and intercastes present (Donoso et al. 2006), but a complete colony of Leptanilloides erinys contained only single subdichthadiiform queen (Borowiec and Longino 2011). Brood apparently develops in synchrony, as all nest collections so far contain larvae of uniform size ( Brandão et al. 1999a, b, Donoso et al. 2006, Borowiec and Longino 2011). Brandão et al. (1999b) summarized the scant information available on species then classified in Asphinctanilloides . They report workers of Leptanilloides anae moving in columns similar to that of army ants, preying on an unidentified, dismembered arthropod under cow dung. This would suggest that this species may not be a specialized predator of other ants, like most dorylines, although it is clear that more observations are needed. As evidence for hypogaeic habits Brandão et al. (1999b) note that where intensive surveys of leaf litter ants have been carried out specimens have not been collected by that method but only from soil samples. Specimens have also been extracted from stomachs of subterranean amphisbaenians, giving further evidence for the underground lifestyle.</p><p>Species of Leptanilloides</p><p>Leptanilloides amazona Brandão, Diniz, Agosti and Delabie, 1999: Brazil, comb. n.</p><p>Leptanilloides anae Brandão, Diniz, Agosti and Delabie, 1999: Brazil, comb. n.</p><p>Leptanilloides atlantica Silva, Brandão, Feitosa and Freitas, 2013: Brazil</p><p>Leptanilloides biconstricta Mann, 1923: Bolivia</p><p>Leptanilloides caracola Donoso, Vieira and Wild, 2006: Ecuador</p><p>Leptanilloides chihuahuaensis MacGown, Schiefer and Branstetter 2015: United States</p><p>Leptanilloides copalinga Delsinne and Donoso 2015: Ecuador</p><p>Leptanilloides erinys Borowiec and Longino, 2011: Ecuador</p><p>Leptanilloides femoralis Borowiec and Longino, 2011: Venezuela</p><p>Leptanilloides golbachi Kusnezov, 1953: Argentina, comb. n.</p><p>Leptanilloides gracilis Borowiec and Longino, 2011: Mexico</p><p>Leptanilloides improvisa Brandão, Diniz, Agosti and Delabie, 1999: Ecuador</p><p>Leptanilloides legionaria Brandão, Diniz, Agosti and Delabie, 1999: Colombia</p><p>Leptanilloides manaura Brandão, Diniz, Agosti and Delabie, 1999: Brazil, comb. n.</p><p>Leptanilloides mckennae Longino, 2003: Costa Rica</p><p>Leptanilloides nomada Donoso, Vieira and Wild, 2006: Ecuador</p><p>Leptanilloides nubecula Donoso, Vieira and Wild, 2006: Ecuador</p><p>Leptanilloides prometea Delsinne and Donoso, 2015: Ecuador</p><p>Leptanilloides sculpturata Brandão, Diniz, Agosti and Delabie, 1999: Colombia</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/FA9647313C96C81B21DB4EFA72DF42D2	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
C2A93C56BE7FFA9592101DC6D3F28761.text	C2A93C56BE7FFA9592101DC6D3F28761.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lioponera Mayr 1879	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Lioponera Mayr, 1879 gen. rev.</p><p>= Neophyracaces Clark, 1941, syn. n.</p><p>= Phyracaces Emery, 1902, syn. n.</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Lioponera longitarsus, by monotypy.</p><p>This is the most species-rich genus that is revived here from synonymy under Cerapachys . Lioponera occurs only in the Old World and all species observed thus far prey on other ants.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. The workers of Lioponera are distinguishable using the combination of a unique cuticular flange present on the posterior edge of the hind coxa, just posterior to the femur attachment, at least the anterior half of the petiole being dorsolaterally marginate, and a peculiar development of the metatibial gland that forms an open slit in the cuticle. The coxal flange should not to be confused with the elevated faces of coxa that can be conspicuous when there is a deep trench leading to the articulation with the femur, as can be sometimes seen in e.g. Simopone . The coxal flange and metatibial gland have been reduced in a handful of Australasian species, but in these the dorsolateral carinae of petiole and (usually) also postpetiole and mesosoma, are prominent. The dorsolateral margination of the body is characteristic and in most species very conspicuous on the abdominal segments II (petiole) and III. In a few species the margination extends from the head to the abdominal segment IV. The only other genera that can possess somewhat similar dorsolateral carinae on the petiole are Acanthostichus, Cerapachys, and Cylindromyrmex . The workers of those groups, however, do not possess a coxal flange.</p><p>Male. The males of the many species of Lioponera are variable. Several characteristics can point to the affinity with this genus: antennae are 13-segmented, costal vein (C) is always absent from the fore wing, a 'free stigmal vein’ (2r-rs&amp;Rs·f4-5) is present and R·f3 and Rs·f2-3 are always absent. Cross-vein 2rs-m is usually absent but its traces can be rarely seen as a weak spectral vein arising close to 2r-rs. There is a constriction between abdominal segments III and IV but no succeeding segments and the middle tibiae are armed with a single spur. The notauli are present or absent, pretarsal claws are unarmed, and the palp formula is either 4,3 or 3,2. Compare diagnoses of the genera where a free stigmal vein is also found ( Eburopone, Ooceraea, Syscia, Tanipone). Eburopone can be distinguished by costal (C) vein always present in the fore wing, Ooceraea and Syscia have 12- or 11-segmented antennae, and Tanipone has very long, 6-segmented maxillary palps that are extruded in mounted specimens and reach the occipital foramen.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment not enlarged, not broader and longer than two preceding segments combined to moderately enlarged, broader than and about equal in length to two preceding segments combined. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 4- or 3-segmented. Labial palps 3- or 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with teeth. Eyes present, composed of more than 20 ommatidia. Ocelli absent or more rarely present. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head with or without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate or marginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused partway to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove deeply impressed, conspicuous. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate, weakly marginate, or conspicuously marginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with or without distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally marginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate or marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at Pronotomesopleural suture and axial. Prora simple, not delimited by carina or a V-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate or marginate and dorsolaterally immarginate or marginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured or cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field and armed with modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with pectinate spur or, more rarely, with barbulate spur and simple spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa produced as raised lamella or rarely without lamella. Metatibial gland present in form of slit or orifice in cuticle or rarely absent. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 3-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Ventrolateral margins of head with or without cuticular ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli absent or present. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening present. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate or marginate, dorsolaterally marginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at Pronotomesopleural suture and axial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin or U-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX cleft or modified into two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and of approximately equal length on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with no sulcus trace at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella gradually tapering toward apex. Penisvalva constricted basally, distally a widening triangle, serrated ventrally. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa produced as raised lamella or not. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing absent. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 absent. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 absent. Cross- vein 2r-rs most often present and forming base of 'free stigmal vein’ (2r-rs&amp;Rs·f4-5) in absence of Rs·f3 and 2rs-m or present and connected to Rs·f2-3&amp;Rs·f4 or, rarely, absent. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 absent or present, fused in absence of 2rs-m or, more rarely, differentiated into Rs·f4 and Rs·f5 by 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing absent or contiguous with Rs+M. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present or more rarely absent. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M·f1 or more rarely absent. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent or absent past M+Cu. Vein A in fore wing with abscissa A·f1 present with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing absent or present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing absent or present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing absent or present, about as long as M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing absent or present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing absent or present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing absent. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing absent or present. Vein Cu in hind wing absent or present. Vein A in hind wing absent or with abscissa A·f1 present.</p><p>Gyne. Alate or ergatoid; apparent intercastes have also been reported. Alate or apparently alate (known from dealated specimens) gynes are known in a number of species, for example in Lioponera clarki, Lioponera daikoku, Lioponera fervida, Lioponera huode, Lioponera pubescens, Lioponera turneri . Ergatoid gynes are known to vary in morphology, from scarcely different from the worker, through possessing relatively larger eyes and ocelli, to having the mesosomal morphology identical to that of winged queens but possessing no wings. Ergatoids have been reported in, for example, Lioponera angustata, Lioponera bicolor, Lioponera constricta, Lioponera elegans, Lioponera gilesi, Lioponera nigriventris, Lioponera punctatissima, Lioponera simmonsae . Malagasy species related to Lioponera kraepelini and Lioponera mayri also possess ergatoid gynes ( author’s observations). Intercastes with morphologies intermediate between workers and alate gynes have been reported to occur along with fully developed gynes in Lioponera clarki (Clark 1924 a, 1924b). See Clark (1924 a, 1924b) for example descriptions and illustrations of Lioponera gynes.</p><p>Larva. Larvae of Lioponera have been described by Wheeler and Wheeler (1964a). Cocoons are present.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>This is the most species-rich lineage outside the true army ants, distributed throughout the Old World, from Africa to Oceania, with a major radiation in Australia.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Originally Lioponera was described for Lioponera longitarsus, a species from India (Mayr 1879). In Genera Insectorum, Emery (1911) recognized Lioponera, Phyracaces and Cerapachys in his tribe Cerapachyini . Since then, several species were described in Lioponera, but many more taxa placed here under that name were originally described in Phyracaces . Brown (1975) synonymized both taxa under Cerapachys .</p><p>Lioponera is part of a well-supported Old World clade where the intergeneric relationships are known (Brady et al. 2014, Borowiec, in prep.). Within this clade, Lioponera branches off first and is sister to the ( Lividopone ( Parasyscia plus Zasphinctus) clade. A phylogeny of the relatively few species that have been sequenced suggests that the genus may have originated in Africa and later spread to the Indomalayan and Australasian regions.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Members of this lineage have been observed both in the field and in the laboratory (Brown 1975, Clark, 1924a and 1924b, Hölldobler 1982, Wilson 1958). As with most other dorylines, they are predators of other ants and a variety of prey species have been reported. Hölldobler (1982) studied an Australian Lioponera species near turneri under laboratory conditions. He showed that scouts recruit nestmates to raids via a pheromone trail, the species exhibited a preference for Pheidole when presented with a variety of other ants, and that the brood of the prey was paralyzed by stinging and stored alive for up to two months. Brood production is apparently not synchronized, at least in some species. Clark (1924 a, 1924b) observed the Australian species Lioponera clarki and Lioponera punctatissima foraging singly around its nest but did not mention any prey; he reported that the workers were peculiar in holding their abdomens over the mesosma when foraging in both species. Some Australian species are said to be crepuscular foragers, active in either morning or evening, while others are capable of raiding during the hottest parts of the day (Clark 1924 b).</p><p>Lioponera nests are found in a variety of microhabitats, including soil, under stones, in rotting logs or arboreally in hollow twigs (Wilson 1958, Brown 1975).</p><p>Species of Lioponera</p><p>Lioponera aberrans (Clark, 1934): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera adama (Forel, 1910a): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera angustata (Clark, 1924b): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera anokha (Bharti and Akbar, 2013): India, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera bakeri Wheeler, W. M. and Chapman, 1925: Philippines, comb. rev.</p><p>Lioponera bicolor (Clark, 1924b): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera binodis (Forel, 1910a): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera braunsi (Emery, 1902): South Africa, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera braytoni (Weber, 1949a): Kenya, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera brevicollis (Clark, 1924a): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera brevis (Clark, 1924b): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera clarki (Crawley, 1922): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera clarus (Clark, 1930): Australia, nom. rev.</p><p>Lioponera cohici (Wilson, 1957): New Caledonia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera collingwoodi (Sharaf, 2007): Egypt, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera constricta (Clark, 1924a): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera coxalis (Arnold, 1926): Zimbabwe, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera crassa (Clark, 1941): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera daikoku (Terayama, 1996): Japan, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera decorsei Santschi, 1912: Chad, comb. rev.</p><p>Lioponera desertorum (Dlussky, 1990): Uzbekistan, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera dumbletoni (Wilson, 1957): New Caledonia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera elegans (Wheeler, W. M., 1918): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera emeryi (Viehmeyer, 1914): Australia, nom. rev.</p><p>Lioponera fervida (Wheeler, W. M., 1918): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera ficosa (Wheeler, W. M., 1918): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera flammea (Clark, 1930): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera foreli (Santschi, 1914b): Ghana, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera gilesi (Clark, 1924a): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera grandis (Clark, 1934): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera greavesi (Clark, 1934): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera gwynethae (Clark, 1941): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera heros (Wheeler, W. M., 1918): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera hewitti (Wheeler, W. M., 1919): Malaysia (Sarawak), comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera huode (Terayama, 2009): Taiwan, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera inconspicua (Clark, 1924b): Australia, nom. rev.</p><p>Lioponera jovis (Forel, 1915): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera kraepelinii (Forel, 1895d): Madagascar, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera krombeini (Donisthorpe, 1947): Papua New Guinea, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera larvata (Wheeler, W. M., 1918): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera longitarsus Mayr, 1879: India, comb. rev.</p><p>Lioponera luzuriagae Wheeler, W. M. and Chapman, 1925: Philippines, comb. rev.</p><p>Lioponera macrops (Clark, 1941): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera marginata (Emery, 1897): Papua New Guinea, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera mayri (Forel, 1892b): Madagascar, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera mjoebergi (Forel, 1915): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera mullewana (Wheeler, W. M., 1918): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera nayana (Bharti and Akbar, 2013): India, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera nigra Santschi, 1914a: Kenya, comb. rev.</p><p>Lioponera nigriventris (Clark, 1924b): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera nkomoensis (Forel, 1916): Democratic Republic of the Congo, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera noctambula Santschi, 1910a: Tunisia, comb. rev.</p><p>Lioponera picipes (Clark, 1924b): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera picta (Clark, 1934): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera piliventris (Clark, 1941): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera potteri (Clark, 1941): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera pruinosa (Brown, 1975): Philippines, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera pubescens (Emery, 1902): Indonesia (Laut Island), comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera punctatissima (Clark, 1924a): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera reticulata (Clark, 1926): Australia, nom. rev.</p><p>Lioponera ruficornis (Clark, 1924a): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera rugulinodis (Wheeler, W. M., 1918): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera senescens (Wheeler, W. M., 1918): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera similis Santschi, 1930: Ivory Coast, comb. rev.</p><p>Lioponera simmonsae (Clark, 1924a): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera singaporensis (Viehmeyer, 1916): Singapore, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera singularis (Forel, 1900a): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera sjoestedti (Forel, 1915): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera suscitata (Viehmeyer, 1913): Indonesia (Sulawesi, in copal), comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera turneri (Forel, 1902): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera varians (Clark, 1924b): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Lioponera versicolor Donisthorpe, 1948: Indonesia (Papua), comb. rev.</p><p>Lioponera vespula (Weber, 1949a): Kenya, comb. n.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C2A93C56BE7FFA9592101DC6D3F28761	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
0C25C24AD4A866CA757E18398A880253.text	0C25C24AD4A866CA757E18398A880253.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lividopone Fisher & Bolton 2016	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Lividopone Fisher &amp; Bolton, 2016</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Cerapachys lividus, by subsequent designation.</p><p>This relatively speciose lineage includes species nesting in a variety of substrates, from soil to twigs. It is known that they prey on brood of other ants.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. The workers of Lividopone are recognized by a combination of 12-segmented antennae, pronotomesopleural Pronotomesopleural suture fused, propodeal spiracle positioned low and presence of propodeal lobes, pygidium large and armed with modified setae, helcium broad and positioned supraaxially on the sclerite, middle tibiae with a single pectinate spur, and pretarsal claws simple. Cerapachys is similar in general habitus but it is easily differentiated because of its unfused pronotomesopleural Pronotomesopleural suture. Parasyscia, certain Lioponera and Simopone may have a similar habitus but those genera never have a broad, highly positioned helcium.</p><p>Male. The male of Lividopone shares the broad supraaxial helcium with the worker caste, which makes it easy to distinguish from any other doryline when combined with well-developed propodeal lobes, antennal toruli exposed in full-face view, one spur on each mid and hind tibia, and no C or R·f3 veins in the fore wing. Males of Lividopone can potentially be confused with Lioponera and Parasyscia which also lack veins C and R·f3 and with which it co-occurs, but the highly broad positioned helcium alone can distinguish it from those two lineages.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment conspicuously enlarged, much broader than and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus with or without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 3-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with teeth or edentate. Eyes present, composed of more than 20 ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head with cuticular ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent or present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated or not from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Mesometapleural groove deeply impressed, conspicuous. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with or without distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland without bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and supraaxial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin or V-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field, and armed with modified setae, and in some species deeply notched at apex. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges present. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps unknown. Labial palps unknown. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Ventrolateral margins of head with cuticular ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen unknown. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli present. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at Pronotomesopleural suture and supraaxial. Prora forming a U-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and of approximately equal length on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with sulcus discernable at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella gradually tapering toward apex. Penisvalva constricted basally, distally a widening to narrow triangle, serrated ventrally. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing absent. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 ab sent . Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2 or more rarely absent. Cross-vein 2r-rs absent or present, forming base of 'free stigmal vein’ (2r-rs&amp;Rs·f4-5) in absence of Rs·f3 and 2rs-m, or (most commonly) present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 absent or more often present, fused in absence of 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing absent or present, separated from Rs+M by Rs·f2. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing absent or a stub. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing absent or present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing absent or fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent. Vein A in fore wing absent or with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R in hind wing absent. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing absent or present, longer than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing absent or stub present. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing absent or present, about as long as M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing absent or present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing absent or present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing absent or present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing absent. Vein Cu in hind wing absent or present. Vein A in hind wing absent.</p><p>Gyne. Alate with large eyes and ocelli or ergatoid. The latter variously developed, from forms possessing flight-associated mesosomal sutures but no wings to extremely worker-like, without ocelli and of similar size, with only erect pubescence distinguishing the gyne from worker. In some species intercastes occur in addition to alate gynes (Barry Bolton pers. comm.).</p><p>Larva. Not described. Cocoons are present.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>This group is relatively species-rich with only one named species but some 30 more species awaiting description. The genus appears to be restricted to Madagascar.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Brown (1975) described Cerapachys lividus from Madagascar, for which the name Lividopone was recently proposed (Fisher and Bolton 2016).</p><p>Lividopone is sister to the Zasphinctus plus Parasyscia clade (Brady et al. 2014, Borowiec, in prep.).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Brown (1975) observed about 20 workers of Lividopone livida raiding a Pheidole nest in a rainforest habitat. I discovered a nest of Lividopone in a dead log in mid-elevation forest, containing only about 15 workers, one dealate gyne and no brood. Similarly small colonies were recorded for an undescribed arboreal Lividopone . All four nests of that species I collected were in hollow twigs situated above forest floor. These colonies each contained multiple apparent gynes, which were extremely worker-like and differed from other individuals only in conspicuously erect pilosity. One of the colonies contained brood of Monomorium termitobium as prey. This arboreal species also apparently synchronizes brood production and nest samples containing brood of the same stage of development are known for Lividopone livida and other undescribed species ( author’s observations)</p><p>Species of Lividopone</p><p>Lividopone livida (Brown, 1975): Madagascar</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0C25C24AD4A866CA757E18398A880253	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
F5C72BA48AF2A9FC18DAABA00AD3477B.text	F5C72BA48AF2A9FC18DAABA00AD3477B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neivamyrmex Borgmeier 1940	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Neivamyrmex Borgmeier, 1940</p><p>= Acamatus Emery, 1894</p><p>= Woitkowskia Enzmann, 1952</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Eciton (Acamatus) schmitti (junior synonym of Labidus nigrescens), by subsequent designation of Ashmead, 1906.</p><p>Neivamyrmex is the most species-rich and widely distributed genus of New World army ants. The biology of the vast majority of the 130 described species is unknown, but Neivamyrmex nigrescens has become one of the best studied dorylines.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. Neivamyrmex have 12-segmented antennae, propodeal spiracle high on the sclerite, lack conspicuous propodeal lobes, pygidium small and without a central impressed field, waist two-segmented, and pretarsal claws without a tooth. The simple claws distinguish Neivamyrmex workers from all other New World army ant genera ( Cheliomyrmex, Eciton, Labidus, and Nomamyrmex). Aenictus in the Old World will also match some of these diagnostic characters but workers of this genus never have more than 10 antennal segments.</p><p>Male. Neivamyrmex males share the army ant-like habitus with other members of the Eciton genus-group. See discussion under Cheliomyrmex male diagnosis for characters differentiating New World army ant males from those of the Old World. Among the New World army ants, Neivamyrmex can most reliably distinguished by a combination of apex penisvalvae without setae, no dense setation on gaster, and abdominal segment II (petiole) without a deeply notched or concave surface. The bare penisvalvae are shared only with Eciton and Nomamyrmex but the former always has a deeply excavated petiole and the latter has conspicuous tufts of dense setae on the gaster.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment not enlarged, not broader and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 3- or 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with teeth. Eyes absent or present, composed of few poorly defined ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen; differentiation sometimes weak. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge or separated by ridge that is low on pronotum. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused or Pronotomesopleural suture weakly differentiated, immobile. Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused or unfused partway to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove not impressed to weakly impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent or present. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metano tal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma present. Propodeal spiracle situated high on sclerite. Propodeal declivity without distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, short. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin or V-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular, oval, or slit-shaped. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III about half size of succeeding segment IV, which is strongly constricted at presegmental portion (binodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and sculptured but not cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium small, reduced to narrow strip, without impressed medial field and simple, usually not armed with cuticular spines or modified setae but occasionally with one or two pairs of thick modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent to conspicuous patch of whitish cuticle occupying at least half of tibia length. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic to polymorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 3- or 2-segmented. Mandibles falcate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli absent. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Propodeal declivity reduced, without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes absent or present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora simple, not delimited by carina. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI oval or slit-shaped. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV absent, i.e. pre- and postsclerites indistinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV absent, not impressed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, often with additional projections such as medial spine or paired median denticles, with lateral apodemes longer than much reduced medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula very long, nearing or surpassing length of rest of genital capsule and of approximately equal length on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. Basimere narrowly fused to telomere, with sulcus visible at least partway through junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere expanded at apex. Volsella narrow, hook-shaped or laterally flattened, triangular in lateral view, narrowing towards tip. Penisvalva not flattened at apex, expanded. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple or each armed with a tooth. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 present, running toward distal wing margin and enclosing cell with Rs·f5. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 differentiated into Rs·f4 and Rs·f5 by 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing present, separated from Rs+M by Rs·f2. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from Cu and distal to, at or near M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with both branches Cu1 and Cu2. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing present. Vein R in hind wing present, reaching distal wing margin. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing present, about as long as M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Dichthadiiform, blind or with very small eyes, without ocelli. Known for several species. See e.g. Watkins (1972) and Wheeler (1921) for descriptions and illustrations of Neivamyrmex gynes.</p><p>Larva. Described in Wheeler and Wheeler 1984.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Central and southern United States, south to central Argentina.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>First species now classified in Neivamyrmex were described from males by William Shuckard in his 1840 series 'Monograph of the Dorylidae '. Borgmeier later erected the genus (Borgmeier 1940) and cemented its future use with his classification of New World army ants presented in his monographs (Borgmeier 1953, 1955). Borgmeier (1955) also presented an internal classification for the genus with fourteen informal species groups, including five based solely on males as, typically for army ants, numerous names have been proposed for males without associations with workers. Later work on Neivamyrmex taxonomy has been dominated by Julian Watkins who published many new isolated species descriptions and also provided updated identification resources for this and other New World army ant genera, first for New World in general (Watkins 1976) and later for United States in particular (Watkins 1985). This latter resource was recently updated with a publication by Snel ling and Snelling (2007). Neivamyrmex is the most species-rich of the Eciton genus-group with 127 extant species. The genus is the sister group to the clade of the other four New World army ant genera and is monophyletic (Borowiec, in prep.). There is no comprehensive internal phylogeny, but preliminary data indicates that some of the species groups proposed by Borgmeier are not monophyletic (Borowiec, in prep.).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>The majority of species has never been studied in any detail, and much of what we know comes from the observations made on one relatively common species, Neivamyrmex nigrescens , studied extensively by Howard Topoff and his students (Gotwald 1995). The biology of other species has been summarized by Rettenmeyer (1963).</p><p>If Neivamyrmex nigrescens is representative of this genus, the lineage’s habits are similar to those of other New World army ants. There are marked nomadic and statary phases, lasting about 16 and 20 days, respectively. The colonies are of moderate size, containing 80,000 to 140,000 workers (Rettenmeyer 1963; Topoff et al. 1980 estimate 10,000-50,000) and bivouacs are subterranean. The prey consists of almost exclusively other ants’ brood.</p><p>Nesting sites of Neivamyrmex are rarely observed. Rettenmeyer (1963) reported that although known bivouac sites of Neivamyrmex nigrescens in Kansas are typically at least 1 meter below the surface, two bivouacs were discovered that were completely contained within the upper 30 cm of the soil. Emigration behavior in this species has been very well described. Environmental factors, such as prey availability/density and nest site availability, influence the emigration behavior (Topoff and Mirenda 1980, Mirenda and Topoff 1980). Neivamyrmex carolinensis and Neivamyrmex kiowapache are unusual among army ants in that they are the only species known to be polygynous, with colonies reported to contain over a dozen queens (Rettenmeyer and Watkins 1978, see also Snelling and Snelling 2007). The queens of Neivamyrmex kiowapache have been shown to mate with much lower frequency than other army ants. This is in accordance with the prediction that the costly multiple matings will be reduced or lost if genetic diversity of workers can be achieved through polygyny (Kronauer and Boomsma 2007b).</p><p>The foraging biology of Neivamyrmex nigrescens in Arizona was studied in detail by Mirenda et al. (1980). They reported that these army ants forage at night and raid nests of many other ants and termites. The ants in the genus Pheidole were shown to be the preferred prey, being taken twice as often as expected based on colony density. Pogonomyrmex, Forelius, and Myrmecocystus were reported to be avoided. The authors observed temporal variation in prey composition, noting that as the season progressed and conditions became drier, many of the prey Pheidole species ceased activity and sealed their nests. Neivamyrmex nigrescens was then observed to rely more heavily on Novomessor cockerelli as prey.</p><p>Several Neivamyrmex species can occur sympatrically, and it is likely that a diversity of prey preferences exists in the genus. Mirenda et al. (1980) also observed multiple raids of Neivamyrmex harrisii, sympatric with Neivamyrmex nigrescens, and noted that Solenopsis xyloni was the only species being attacked.</p><p>Neivamyrmex nigrescens uses both tactile and chemical cues in orientation (Topoff and Lawson 1979).</p><p>Many species of ants respond to a Neivamyrmex attack by nest evacuation and this behavior has been highlighted as a tool for collecting colonies of soil-nesting species that are normally difficult to excavate. Smith and Haight (2008) showed that 150-300 Neivamyrmex nigrescens workers poured into the nest entrance of Novomessor cockerelli induced evacuation of a mature colony, including brood and queen.</p><p>Species of Neivamyrmex</p><p>Neivamyrmex adnepos (Wheeler, W. M., 1922b): Trinidad and Tobago</p><p>Neivamyrmex agilis Borgmeier, 1953: Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex albacorpus Varela-Hernández and Castaño-Meneses, 2011: Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex alfaroi (Emery, 1890): Costa Rica</p><p>Neivamyrmex andrei (Emery, 1901b): Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex angulimandibulatus Watkins, 1974: Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex angustinodis (Emery, 1888): Argentina</p><p>Neivamyrmex antillanus (Forel, 1897): Grenada</p><p>Neivamyrmex asper Borgmeier, 1955: Costa Rica</p><p>Neivamyrmex balzani (Emery, 1894): Bolivia</p><p>Neivamyrmex baylori Watkins, 1973: United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex bohlsi (Emery, 1896c): Paraguay</p><p>Neivamyrmex bruchi (Forel, 1912c): Argentina</p><p>Neivamyrmex bureni (Enzmann, E.V., 1952): Peru</p><p>Neivamyrmex californicus (Mayr, 1870): United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex carettei (Forel, 1913d): Argentina</p><p>Neivamyrmex carinifrons Borgmeier, 1953: Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex carolinensis (Emery, 1894): United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex chamelensis Watkins, 1986: Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex clavifemur Borgmeier, 1953: Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex cloosae (Forel, 1912a): Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex coeca (Buckley, 1867): United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex compressinodis Borgmeier, 1953: Costa Rica</p><p>Neivamyrmex cornutus Watkins, 1975a: Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex crassiscapus Watkins, 1990: Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex cratensis Borgmeier, 1953: Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex cristatus ( André, 1889): ‘Amérique du Sud’</p><p>Neivamyrmex curvinotus Watkins, 1994: Peru</p><p>Neivamyrmex densepunctatus (Borgmeier, 1933): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex detectus Borgmeier, 1953: Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex diabolus (Forel, 1912a): Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex diana (Forel, 1912c): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex digitistipus Watkins, 1975b: Costa Rica</p><p>Neivamyrmex diversinodis (Borgmeier, 1933): Bolivia</p><p>Neivamyrmex dorbignii (Shuckard, 1840b): No locality given</p><p>† Neivamyrmex ectopus Wilson, 1985: Dominican amber</p><p>Neivamyrmex emersoni (Wheeler, W. M., 1921): Guyana</p><p>Neivamyrmex emeryi (Santschi, 1921b): Bolivia, Peru</p><p>Neivamyrmex erichsonii (Westwood, 1842): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex falcifer (Emery, 1900b): Bolivia</p><p>Neivamyrmex foveolatus Borgmeier, 1953: Panama</p><p>Neivamyrmex fumosus (Forel, 1913d): Guatemala</p><p>Neivamyrmex fuscipennis (Smith, M.R., 1942b): United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex genalis Borgmeier, 1953: Bolivia</p><p>Neivamyrmex gibbatus Borgmeier, 1953: Costa Rica</p><p>Neivamyrmex goeldii (Forel, 1901d): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex graciellae (Mann, 1926): Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex gracilis Borgmeier, 1955: Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex gradualis Borgmeier, 1953: Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex guerinii (Shuckard, 1840d): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex guyanensis (Santschi, 1916): French Guiana</p><p>Neivamyrmex halidaii (Shuckard, 1840a): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex harrisii (Haldeman, 1852): United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex hetschkoi (Mayr, 1886a): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex hopei (Shuckard, 1840b): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex humilis (Borgmeier, 1939): Costa Rica</p><p>Neivamyrmex iheringi (Forel, 1908): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex imbellis (Emery, 1900b): Peru, Venezuela</p><p>Neivamyrmex impudens (Mann, 1922): Honduras</p><p>Neivamyrmex inca (Santschi, 1921b): Peru</p><p>Neivamyrmex inflatus Borgmeier, 1958: Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex iridescens Borgmeier, 1950: Guyana</p><p>Neivamyrmex jerrmanni (Forel, 1901e): Paraguay</p><p>Neivamyrmex kiowapache Snelling, G.C. and Snelling, R.R., 2007: United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex klugii (Shuckard, 1840b): Saint Vincent and the Grenadines</p><p>Neivamyrmex klugii distans Borgmeier, 1953: Costa Rica</p><p>Neivamyrmex kuertii (Enzmann, E.V., 1952): Peru</p><p>Neivamyrmex laevigatus (Borgmeier, 1948): Argentina</p><p>Neivamyrmex latiscapus (Emery, 1901b): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex legionis (Smith, F., 1855): Argentina</p><p>Neivamyrmex leonardi (Wheeler, W. M., 1915a): United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex leptognathus (Emery, 1900b): Bolivia</p><p>Neivamyrmex lieselae (Forel, 1913d): Argentina</p><p>Neivamyrmex longiscapus Borgmeier, 1953: Costa Rica</p><p>Neivamyrmex macrodentatus (Menozzi, 1931): Costa Rica</p><p>Neivamyrmex mandibularis (Smith, M.R., 1942b): United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex manni (Wheeler, W. M., 1914): Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex maroccanus (Santschi, 1926b): Morocco (labeling error)</p><p>Neivamyrmex maxillosus (Emery, 1900b): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex megathrix Kempf, 1961: Suriname</p><p>Neivamyrmex melanocephalus (Emery, 1895d): Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex melshaemeri (Haldeman, 1852): United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex micans Borgmeier, 1953: Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex microps Borgmeier, 1955: United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex minensis (Borgmeier, 1928): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex minor (Cresson, 1872): United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex modestus (Borgmeier, 1933): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex mojave (Smith, M.R., 1943): United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex moseri Watkins, 1969: United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex ndeh Snelling, G.C. and Snelling, R.R., 2007: United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex nigrescens (Cresson, 1872): United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex nordenskioldii (Holmgren, 1908): Peru</p><p>Neivamyrmex nyensis Watkins, 1977: United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex opacithorax (Emery, 1894): United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex orthonotus (Borgmeier, 1933): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex pacificus Borgmeier, 1955: Peru</p><p>Neivamyrmex pauxillus (Wheeler, W. M., 1903a): United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex perplexus Borgmeier, 1953: Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex pertii (Shuckard, 1840b): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex physognathus (Emery, 1900b): Bolivia</p><p>Neivamyrmex pilosus (Smith, F., 1858): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex piraticus Borgmeier, 1953: Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex planidens Borgmeier, 1953: Ecuador</p><p>Neivamyrmex planidorsus (Emery, 1906): Paraguay</p><p>Neivamyrmex postangustatus (Borgmeier, 1934): Suriname</p><p>Neivamyrmex postcarinatus Borgmeier, 1953: Panama</p><p>Neivamyrmex pseudops (Forel, 1909a): Paraguay</p><p>Neivamyrmex puerulus Borgmeier, 1955: Panama</p><p>Neivamyrmex pulchellus Borgmeier, 1955: Panama</p><p>Neivamyrmex pullus Borgmeier, 1953: Panama</p><p>Neivamyrmex punctaticeps (Emery, 1894): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex quadratoocciputus Watkins, 1975c: El Salvador</p><p>Neivamyrmex radoszkowskii (Emery, 1900b): Peru</p><p>Neivamyrmex raptor (Forel, 1911b): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex romandii (Shuckard, 1840b): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex rosenbergi (Forel, 1911d): Ecuador</p><p>Neivamyrmex rugulosus Borgmeier, 1953: Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex scutellaris Borgmeier, 1953: Panama</p><p>Neivamyrmex shuckardi (Emery, 1900b): Paraguay</p><p>Neivamyrmex spatulatus (Borgmeier, 1939): Costa Rica</p><p>Neivamyrmex spoliator (Forel, 1899): Costa Rica</p><p>Neivamyrmex sulcatus (Mayr, 1868): Argentina</p><p>Neivamyrmex sumichrasti (Norton, 1868): Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex swainsonii (Shuckard, 1840a): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex tenuis Borgmeier, 1953: Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex texanus Watkins, 1972: United States</p><p>Neivamyrmex tristis (Forel, 1901e): Mexico</p><p>Neivamyrmex vicinus Borgmeier, 1953: Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex walkerii (Westwood, 1842): Brazil</p><p>Neivamyrmex wilsoni Snelling, G.C. and Snelling, R.R., 2007: United States</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F5C72BA48AF2A9FC18DAABA00AD3477B	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
2F82A87BB53AF2D41EB1CEAEF5D986CD.text	2F82A87BB53AF2D41EB1CEAEF5D986CD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neocerapachys	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Neocerapachys gen. n.</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Cerapachys (Cerapachys) neotropicus, by present designation.</p><p>Neocerapachys is a rarely encountered Neotropical lineage with unknown habits.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. Neocerapachys can be recognized by a combination of relatively low-positioned propodeal spiracle, propodeal lobes present, constriction present between abdominal segments III and IV, middle tibiae with a single spur, pretarsal claws unarmed, petiole dorsolaterally rounded (not marginate), constriction absent from between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI, pronotomesopleural Pronotomesopleural suture fused, helcium axial, abdominal segment III anterodorsally often marginate, and two spots where pilosity is denser than the surrounding hairs present laterally on abdominal tergite IV. Neocerapachys is superficially very similar to certain species of Parasyscia of the Old World but the latter never has lateral clumps of hair on abdominal tergite IV and its metapleural gland trench is broader than in Neocerapachys . Palp formulae also differ in these two lineages with 3,3 in Neocerapachys and 3,2 or 2,2 in Parasyscia . The neotropical Sphinctomyrmex shares several characters with Neocerapachys but is distinguished by constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI.</p><p>Male. Males of Neocerapachys possess well-developed propodeal lobes, mid and hind tibiae each with one spur, C and R·f3 veins in the fore wing, Rs·f2-3 abscissae present, cross-vein 2rs-m absent, third antennal segment conspicuously the shortest segment, and conspicuously marginate propodeal declivity. This combination will serve to distinguish it from all other lineages. Indomalayan Cerapachys is a relatively similar genus but it differs in longer, normally developed third antennal segment and eyes situated further away from mandibular insertions. In the Neotropics, Sphinctomyrmex males have similar wing venation but are easily told apart by constrictions visible between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment conspicuously enlarged, much broader than and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 3-segmented. Labial palps 3-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with teeth. Eyes present, composed of 1-5 ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head with cuticular ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused partway to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove weakly impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla partially obscured but often discernable through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally marginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field, and armed with modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges present. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 4-segmented. Labial palps 3-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Ventrolateral margins of head with cuticular ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli present. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at Pronotomesopleural suture and supraaxial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV or about half size; latter weakly or strongly constricted at presegmental portion (transitional between uninodal waist and binodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines curving dorsally at apices, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and of approximately equal length on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, basimere with no sulcus trace at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella laterally flattened, at apex with dorsal lobe and hooked ventrally. Penisvalva laterally compressed, rounded at apex. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 present and running toward distal wing margin and enclosing marginal cell with Rs·f5 or not. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2 or disconnected from Rs+M. Cross-vein 2r-rs absent. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 present, fused in absence of 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing contiguous with Rs+M. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with both branches Cu1 and Cu2. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing present, extending past Sc+R but not reaching distal wing margin. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing present, about as long as M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing absent or present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Apparently alate or ergatoid with well-developed mesosomal sutures; with large eyes and three ocelli. This interpretation is based on one gyne specimen from Venezuela (John T. Longino personal collection, LACMENT 142669).</p><p>Larva. Not described. Presence of cocoons unknown.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>This lineage ranges from Costa Rica south to southern Brazil and apparently is not very species-rich with only two species described.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Both currently named species have been described under Cerapachys and later discussed by Brown (1975) as similar to the ' dohertyi - cribrinodis group’ (here Parasyscia). Brown even speculated that Neocerapachys neotropicus had been introduced from the Old World, but molecular data (Brady et al. 2014, Borowiec, in prep.) prove that the resemblance to Parasyscia is superficial.</p><p>The exact phylogenetic position of Neocerapachys is not known with certainty, but in molecular analyses based on genomic data it is a part of a large New World clade that includes Acanthostichus, Cylindromyrmex, Leptanilloides, Sphinctomyrmex, and the Eciton genus-group (Borowiec, in prep.).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>I am not aware of any nest collections or observations of behavior of Neocerapachys .</p><p>Species of Neocerapachys</p><p>Neocerapachys neotropicus (Weber, 1939): Trinidad and Tobago, comb. n.</p><p>Neocerapachys splendens (Borgmeier, 1957): Brazil, comb. n.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2F82A87BB53AF2D41EB1CEAEF5D986CD	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
553A744260A1CFE7CA77B4D5A9060533.text	553A744260A1CFE7CA77B4D5A9060533.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nomamyrmex Borgmeier 1936	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Nomamyrmex Borgmeier, 1936</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Eciton crassicornis (junior synonym of Labidus esenbeckii), by original designation.</p><p>Nomamyrmex is a relatively commonly observed genus with only two species and two additional subspecies recognized. It is the only army ant genus that has been reported to successfully attack well-defended and often enormous colonies of Atta leaf cutter ants.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. The workers of Nomamyrmex are easily recognized by a combination of highly positioned spiracle and lack of pronounced propodeal lobes, propodeum armed with cuticular projections, two-segmented waist, armed pretarsal claws, and absence of metatibial gland. The lack of conspicuous lighter area of cuticle on the inner side of hind tibia (the metatibial gland) distinguishes this genus from all other Eciton genus-group ants except for some Neivamyrmex, but those always have simple pretarsal claws.</p><p>Male. Nomamyrmex males possess traits characteristic of New World army ants; see discussion under Cheliomyrmex for characters distinguishing New World army ant males from those of the Old World. Nomamyrmex is also easily told apart from other New World army ant males by its dense tufts of very long hairs present on the gaster. Eciton setigaster is one species that could be mistaken for a Nomamyrmex, but the setae on its gaster are not as dense or as long, not approaching front femur length.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment not enlarged, not broader and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 3-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with teeth. Eyes present, appearing as single large and convex ommatidium, in reality composed from fused ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge or not. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused partway to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove not impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma present. Propodeal spiracle situated high on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with or without distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, short. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at Pronotomesopleural suture and axial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin or V-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI oval to slit-shaped. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III about half size of succeeding segment IV, which is strongly constricted at presegmental portion (binodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and sculptured but not cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium small, reduced to narrow strip, without impressed medial field and simple, not armed with cuticular spines or modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth. Polymorphism: Polymorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 3- or 2-segmented. Mandibles falcate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli absent. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Propodeal declivity reduced, without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at Pronotomesopleural suture and axial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI slit-shaped. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula very long, nearing or surpassing length of rest of genital capsule and of approximately equal length on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. Basimere narrowly fused to telomere, with sulcus discernable at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere expanded at apex. Volsella laterally flattened, narrowly triangular in lateral view, narrowing towards tip. Penisvalva curved ventrally at apex, with short dorsal and longer ventral process. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma narrow. Abscissa R·f3 present, running toward distal wing margin and enclosing cell with Rs·f5. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 differentiated into Rs·f4 and Rs·f5 by 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing present, separated from Rs+M by Rs·f2. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from Cu and distal to, at or near M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with both branches Cu1 and Cu2. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing present. Vein R in hind wing present, reaching distal wing margin. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing present, about as long as M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Dichthadiiform, with falcate mandibles, small eyes, and no ocelli. Known for Nomamyrmex esenbeckii (Borgmeier 1958).</p><p>Larva. Not described. Cocoons present.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Both Nomamyrmex species are widely distributed and the genus is found from Texas to northern Argentina.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>The two species of Nomamyrmex were known since Westwood described them in 1842, but he treated them under Labidus . Borgmeier introduced Nomamyrmex as a subgenus of Eciton (Borgmeier 1936). Several names have been published for these widely distributed insects but the species-level taxonomy has been in relative stability thanks to the monumental efforts of Borgmeier (1953, 1955) who examined much of the type material available and recognized the extensive synonymy, reducing the number of species to the two originally described by Westwood, Nomamyrmex esenbeckii and Nomamyrmex hartigii . There is a marked variation in the morphology of Nomamyrmex esenbeckii and this led Borgmeier and subsequent authors to recognize three or four subspecies (see Watkins 1977 b). Borgmeier reported sympatry of some of those subspecies (Borgmeier 1955, 1958) but recently the view has expressed that this variation is seen in largely allopatric populations with numerous intermediates known and that the subspecies are best treated as synonyms of esenbeckii (Gordon Snelling pers. comm., Wild 2007). However, the formal synonymization of two of these subspecies, Nomamyrmex esenbeckii wilsoni and Nomamyrmex esenbeckii mordax has yet to be made. The species-level taxonomy of Nomamyrmex would benefit from a thorough morphometric and molecular phylogenetic study.</p><p>Brady et al. (2014) and genomic data (Borowiec, in prep.) recover a well-resolved clade of Labidus sister to Nomamyrmex plus Eciton . It may be noted that Borgmeier (1955: 137) wrote ' Nomamyrmex stands between Labidus and Eciton ' when referring to the genital morphology of Nomamyrmex as showing similarities to the latter two genera.</p><p>Biology .</p><p>Henry Walter Bates was perhaps the first to report on the habits of Nomamyrmex in his famous narrative (Bates 1863), describing a '(...) very stout-limbed Eciton, the Eciton crassicornis, whose eyes are sunk in rather deep sockets’ that '(...) goes on foraging expeditions like the rest of its tribe, and attacks even the nests of other stinging species ( Myrmica), but it avoids the light, moving always in concealment under leaves and fallen branches’ .</p><p>Borgmeier (1955) and Rettenmeyer (1963) summarize what was known about Nomamyrmex to date, most observations being on Nomamyrmex esenbeckii . The summary below regarding raids and emigrations is based on these resources unless stated otherwise. Nomamyrmex presumably forms bivouacs which are always subterranean and have never been directly observed. Based on the durations of emigrations observed, Rettenmeyer (1963) estimated that the colonies must be enormous, perhaps in the excess of a million workers. The diet of these army ants consists mostly of immatures of multiple species of other ants, although they have been observed raiding nests of other social insects, including termites and bees (see also Souza and Moura 2008). It appears that raids are primarily subterranean, although columns of these ants are also observed above ground. The raid columns are narrow, not forming swarms. The raids have been observed both at night and during the day and often last throughout the day. Rettenmeyer reports that Nomamyrmex esenbeckii on Barro Colorado, Panama conducted raids mostly during the day but there are reports of the same species raiding at night and being strongly photophobic ( Sánchez-Peña and Mueller 2002). Given the large size of the colonies, raids and emigrations can take a very long time and last well over 24 hours (Rettenmeyer 1963, Powell and Clark 2004). Numerous myrmecophiles have been observed in emigration columns, including multiple limulodid beetles riding the emigrating queen. The brood is synchronized.</p><p>A remarkable aspect of Nomamyrmex biology is the capability to successfully raid the huge colonies of leaf-cutting ants in the genus Atta, otherwise mostly ignored by army ants. Most published records of Nomamyrmex foraging contain observations of raids on leaf cutters (Swartz 1998, Sánchez-Peña and Mueller 2002 and references therein) and Powell and Clark (2004) conducted the most comprehensive study of interactions between these ants to date. They show that Nomamyrmex is capable of successfully raiding both young and mature colonies of Atta and that the latter respond in a specific manner to the presence of workers of Nomamyrmex but not Eciton . The leafcutters defend their nests by mobilizing large numbers of major workers and plugging nest entrances with cut leaves. Nomamyrmex and Atta workers that directly engage in combat are most often the largest ants in the colonies of both species and the encounters usually result in the ants becoming locked head-to-head. Furthermore, slightly smaller workers of both species also participate in combat but in a slightly different way. On the Atta side, they assist in spread-eagling the attacking army ants while the 'primary combatants’ are locked with their mandibles. On the Nomamyrmex side they overrun and sting the leaf-cutter majors to death.</p><p>Nomamyrmex is capable of inflicting significant damage on a raided Atta colony. A subterranean raid on a partially excavated Atta mexicana colony was observed where the army ants killed a large proportion of adult Atta, including the queen (Rettenmeyer et al. 1983). Swartz (1998) reported that an army ant raid on a young Atta cephalotes colony extirpated the leaf-cutters and eventually turned into an emigration, the Nomamyrmex colony relocating into the abandoned nest. Powell and Clark (2004) estimated that during one nearly 36-hour raid the Nomamyrmex removed over 60,000 brood items from an Atta cephalotes colony, possibly over a half of all the brood present in the nest.</p><p>Species of Nomamyrmex</p><p>Nomamyrmex esenbeckii (Westwood, 1842): Brazil</p><p>Nomamyrmex esenbeckii mordax (Santschi, 1929): Mexico</p><p>Nomamyrmex esenbeckii wilsoni (Santschi, 1920a): United States</p><p>Nomamyrmex hartigii (Westwood, 1842): Brazil</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/553A744260A1CFE7CA77B4D5A9060533	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
D682205D1366F67C4669FA7E42FBF70E.text	D682205D1366F67C4669FA7E42FBF70E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ooceraea Roger 1862	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Ooceraea Roger, 1862 gen. rev.</p><p>= Cysias Emery, 1902, syn. n.</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Ooceraea fragosa, by monotypy.</p><p>Ooceraea is an Old World lineage that contains a species emerging as the only model organism among dorylines, the clonal Ooceraea biroi .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. The workers of Ooceraea can be distinguished by a combination of propodeal spiracle positioned low on the sclerite and pygidium armed with modified setae, antennae with 11 or fewer segments, pronotomesopleural Pronotomesopleural suture developed, two-segmented waist with abdominal segment III strongly tubulated, and no constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI. The abdominal segment IV is conspicuously the largest and its tergite does not fold over the sternite anteriorly. The habitus of Ooceraea is distinctive, with conspicuously differentiated abdominal segment III forming a postpetiole, eyes small or absent, and coarse cuticular sculpturing. Among the non-army ant dorylines that exhibit reduction in antennomere count Ooceraea can only be confused with Syscia and Parasyscia . The former exhibits a conspicuous folding of the anterior portion of abdominal tergite IV and possesses a unique mid-tibial gland (see below). The few Parasyscia species that have 11 antennal segments can be distinguished from Ooceraea by fused pronotomesopleural Pronotomesopleural suture and larger abdominal segment III.</p><p>Male. The males of Ooceraea commonly have only 11 antennal segments, which is unique among male dorylines, but a few have 12-segmented antennae, a state shared with most Acanthostichus and all Eusphinctus, Simopone, and Syscia . In Acanthostichus and Eusphinctus the costal vein of fore wing is always present, while missing from the majority of Ooceraea . Additionally, in Acanthostichus the vein R·f3 is visible beyond pterostigma and in Eusphinctus the submarginal cell is closed by Rs·f2-3. Both of these veins are always absent in Ooceraea . Distinguishing between males of Ooceraea and Syscia is difficult. As mentioned above, the majority of species in Ooceraea have 11-segmented antennae, while in Syscia these seem to be always 12-segmented. In Ooceraea the discal cell is closed by cross-vein 1m-cu in the majority of males examined, except for the smallest of specimens, while in the limited material of Syscia I have examined this vein appears to be universally absent. Additionally, most Ooceraea males have a unique specialization of abdominal sternite VII, ranging from a deep cleft in the middle of the posterior margin and denser pilosity on lateral sides, to conspicuous cuticular projections with a brush of hairs. No Syscia have such modifications but in certain Ooceraea this character is not obvious (e.g. Ooceraea biroi) or absent (a male tentatively associated with Ooceraea coeca).</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 9, 10 (rarely) or 11 segments. Apical antennal segment conspicuously enlarged, much broader than and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus with or without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth present. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 3-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with teeth. Eyes absent or present but small, composed of 1-5 ommatidia, very rarely composed of 6-20 ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge or not. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused or Pronotomesopleural suture present, weakly differentiated, immobile. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused up to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove not impressed to weakly impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with or without distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland bulla visible or not through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora simple, not delimited by carina or a U-shaped margin with median ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III about half size of succeeding segment IV, which is strongly constricted at presegmental portion (binodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium medium-sized, with impressed medial field, and armed with modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed or armed with modified setae. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 11 segments or more rarely with 12 segments. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 5-segmented. Labial palps 3-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge, occasionally ridge marked on sides. Notauli present. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Propodeal declivity reduced, with or without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate, inconspicuously in small species. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin or a U-shaped margin with median ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III about half size of succeeding segment IV or less; latter strongly constricted at presegmental portion (binodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII modified, rarely simple. Abdominal sternite IX cleft to modified into two spines, sometimes with additional medial projection or spine, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with no sulcus trace at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella gradually tapering toward apex. Penisvalva laterally compressed, rounded at apex. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present or absent. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 absent. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 absent. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, forming base of 'free stigmal vein’ (2r-rs&amp;Rs·f4-5) in absence of Rs·f3 and 2rs-m, although 2rs-m may be present as stub. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 present, fused in absence of 2rs-m or absent. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing contiguous with Rs+M. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing absent. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing absent or present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M ·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent. Vein A in fore wing with abscissa A·f1 or with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing absent or present, extending past Sc+R but not reaching distal wing margin. Vein Sc+R in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing absent. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing absent or present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing absent. Vein M+Cu in hind wing absent or present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing absent. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing absent. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing absent or present. Vein Cu in hind wing absent. Vein A in hind wing absent or with abscissa A·f1 present.</p><p>Gyne. Ergatoid or replaced by fertile workers (Tsuji and Yamauchi 1995). Mesosomal morphology with wing remnants in one undescribed species suggests that brachypterous or fully winged queens may also occur in this genus. In Ooceraea crypta the ergatoid queen possesses multifaceted eyes, three ocelli, no sign of additional sutures on the mesosoma, and an enlarged abdominal segment III (Mann 1921); this morphology could perhaps be called ‘subdichthadiigyne’, although the presence of three well-developed ocelli is atypical. In Ooceraea besucheti the only differences between ergatoid gynes and workers include presence of ocelli and enlarged gaster (Brown 1975).</p><p>Larva. Larva has been described for Ooceraea australis (Wheeler and Wheeler 1964a, 1973). Cocoons absent.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Ooceraea is a lineage confined to the Indomalayan and Australasian regions, including the Fijian archipelago. Ooceraea biroi is a tramp species that has been more widely introduced across tropical regions of the world.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>The taxonomic history of Ooceraea is complicated. The genus was originally described by Roger (1862) to include Ooceraea coeca from Sri Lanka. Roger did not place Ooceraea in a particular group but subsequent authors classified the genus in Myrmicinae (Mayr 1865, Emery 1877), most likely due to the relatively small abdominal segment III (postpetiole) present in these ants. Dalla Torre (1893) considered it a member of the Ponerinae . Later Forel (1893a) established the tribe ‘Cerapachysii’ within Ponerinae, where he included Ooceraea along with Cerapachys and others. Starting with Emery (1902), Ooceraea was treated as a subgenus of Cerapachys until Brown’s provisional (1973) and formal (1975) synonymizations of all Cerapachys subgenera.</p><p>Cysias is a name introduced by Emery (1902) for Ooceraea papuana and Ooceraea pusilla as a subgenus of Cerapachys . In Genera Insectorum (Emery 1911) he considered it a synonym of Syscia, but explained in his diagnosis of the latter that it encompassed species with two distinct morphologies: 'Antennae with 9 segments. Without eyes. Basal segment of gaster not much larger than postpetiole ( Syscia), or much larger and longer than the latter and covering almost all of gaster ( Cysias)'. This was because of his inclusion of species here placed in Syscia, Syscia typhla, which also has 9-segmented antennae but a relatively large abdominal segment III (postpetiole). Based on morphology, papuana and pusilla are here considered species of Ooceraea . See also the discussion of Emery’s Genera Insectorum classifications in the section on doryline taxonomy above.</p><p>Genomic data show that Ooceraea is most closely related to Eusphinctus and Syscia (Borowiec, in prep.). No attempts to investigate the internal phylogeny have been made.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>The members of this lineage are found primarily in leaf litter and soil core samples. Worker morphology (eyes often very small or absent) is also suggestive of subterranean habits.</p><p>Ooceraea biroi is perhaps the best studied doryline species. The army ants Eciton and Dorylus have been extensively researched in the field, but their huge colonies are exceptionally difficult to manipulate in laboratory conditions. In contrast, Ooceraea biroi is a species much more amenable to experimental manipulation and has been the focal organism for multiple published laboratory-based studies.</p><p>Ooceraea biroi is a clonal species where all workers in a colony have reproductive potential and multiple individuals are active egg layers (Tsuji and Yamauchi 1995). Brood is synchronized and alternating cycles of reproductive and foraging phases occur, much like in Eciton (Ravary and Jaisson 2002, 2004, Ravary et al. 2006). Much like most other dorylines, Ooceraea biroi is a specialist predator on other ants’ brood, although it can attack other soft-bodied insects (Wetterer et al. 2012). The workers are blind and, like many dorylines, rely solely on chemical communication. A recent study found that Ooceraea biroi has the largest number of odorant receptor genes of any insect sequenced (Oxley et al. 2014). The colonies number between a hundred and several hundred individuals. Ooceraea biroi is also a 'tramp species’ whose native range is likely limited to mainland southeast Asia (Kronauer et al. 2012), but it has been established in numerous tropical islands throughout the world, including Japan, Hawaii, Madagascar and Seychelles, and the West Indies (Wetterer et al. 2012). It is the only member of the subfamily whose genome has been published (Oxley et al. 2014).</p><p>In addition to offering a rare opportunity for studying the habits of a non-army ant doryline, Ooceraea biroi has also provided some important insights into social insect biology in general. A study by Ravary et al. (2007) showed that division of labor is influenced by learning in this species. Individuals that experienced high success rates in foraging would specialize in this task, whereas ants failing at prey discovery would decrease their foraging activity and spend more time on brood care. Teseo et al. (2013) demonstrated that Ooceraea biroi workers will execute their genetically identical sisters if they fail to conform to the reproductive activity cycles necessary for synchronized brood development. This behavior in the absence of genetic conflict highlights the importance of worker policing for the economics of a social insect colony (Oldroyd 2013).</p><p>It is unknown whether the clonal reproduction and brood production synchronicity in Ooceraea biroi is representative of other Ooceraea and if the species is a part of an older clade of parthenogenetic lineages or an exception. Subdichthadiigyne queens of Ooceraea crypta suggest more traditional reproduction in at least one other species. Many males of Ooceraea have a highly modified abdominal sternite VII, suggesting its involvement in copulation (see discussion of male characters above). An Australian species Ooceraea australis is relatively common throughout the continent and has been reported to form colonies with thousands of individuals (Heterick 2009).</p><p>Species of Ooceraea</p><p>Ooceraea alii (Bharti and Akbar, 2013): India, comb. n.</p><p>Ooceraea australis (Forel, 1900a): Australia, nom. rev.</p><p>Ooceraea biroi (Forel, 1907a): Singapore, comb. n.</p><p>Ooceraea besucheti (Brown, 1975): India, comb. n.</p><p>Ooceraea coeca Mayr, 1897: Sri Lanka, comb. rev.</p><p>Ooceraea crypta (Mann, 1921): Fiji, comb. n.</p><p>Ooceraea fuscior (Mann, 1921): Fiji, comb. n.</p><p>Ooceraea fragosa Roger, 1862: Sri Lanka, comb. rev.</p><p>Ooceraea papuana Emery, 1897: Papua New Guinea, comb. rev.</p><p>Ooceraea pawa (Mann, 1919): Solomon Islands, comb. n.</p><p>Ooceraea pusilla Emery, 1897: Papua New Guinea, comb. n.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D682205D1366F67C4669FA7E42FBF70E	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
4CA3E233042B444AA893AAD4AE31245E.text	4CA3E233042B444AA893AAD4AE31245E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Parasyscia Emery 1882	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Parasyscia Emery, 1882 gen. rev.</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Parasyscia piochardi, by monotypy.</p><p>After Lioponera this is the most species-rich lineage formerly included in Cerapachys .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. Parasyscia workers are distinguished by a combination of propodeal spiracle positioned low on the sclerite and propodeal lobes present, constriction between abdominal segments III and IV, petiole dorsolaterally not marginate, no constriction between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI, pronotomesopleural Pronotomesopleural suture fused, helcium axial, middle tibiae with a single pectinate spur, pretarsal claws unarmed, and abdominal segment III anterodorsally often marginate. Parasyscia is an exclusively Old World group and is most similar to Neocerapachys of the New World, which can be differentiated by narrower trench leading to the metapleural gland orifice, the presence of two patches of denser pilosity on abdominal tergite IV, and different palp formula (3,3 in Neocerapachys versus 3,2 or 2,2 in Parasyscia).</p><p>Male. The males of Parasyscia have variably developed wing venation and are generally diverse, making them somewhat challenging to identify. Most species share characteristic venation: C and R·f3 are absent, Rs·f2-3 is present and runs all the way from Rs+M to 2r-rs, closing a submarginal cell. In addition, Parasyscia males have 13-segmented antennae, antennal toruli fully exposed, no constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI, narrow and axial helcium, and a single spur on each middle and hind tibia. Lividopone and Zasphinctus may have similar wing venation but the former has a broad supraaxial helcium and the latter has pronounced constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI. Along with Lioponera, Parasyscia males are among the most common of non-army ant doryline males in collections from the Old World. Except for specimens with much reduced wing venation, Lioponera can be distinguished by a 'free stigmal vein’ formed in complete absence of Rs·f2-3.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 11 or 12 segments. Apical antennal segment conspicuously enlarged, much broader than and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 3- or 2-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with teeth. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Eyes present, composed of 1 to more than 20 ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head with or without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated or not from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Mesometapleural groove weakly impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent or present. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with or without distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland without bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate or marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at Pronotomesopleural suture and axial. Prora forming a U-shaped margin with median ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field and armed with modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges present. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge mostly on sides or not separated. Notauli absent or present. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Propodeal declivity reduced, with or without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate or marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a U-shaped margin with median ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with no sulcus trace at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms separated. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella gradually tapering toward apex. Penisvalva laterally flattened, at apex hooked ventrally. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing absent. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 absent. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, disconnected from Rs+M or connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 present, fused in absence of 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing present, separated from Rs+M by Rs·f2 or contiguous with Rs+M. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing absent or present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu at variable distance, proximal, distal to, at or near M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent. Vein A in fore wing with abscissa A·f1 present or with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present; A·f2 short. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R in hind wing absent. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing absent. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing present, about as long as M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing absent or present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissa A·f1 or with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Alate gynes are known in a number of species, e.g. Parasyscia afer, Parasyscia imerinensis, Parasyscia reticulata . Ergatoid gynes are also known, for example in Parasyscia indica, Parasyscia nayana, Parasyscia schoedli, Parasyscia seema, and Parasyscia sudanensis . The ergatoid gyne of Parasyscia schoedli is extremely worker-like, does not possess ocelli, and differs form the worker mostly in relatively larger gaster and more erect pilosity. In Parasyscia seema intercastes or ergatoids with ocelli but no modifications to the mesosoma are known in addition to a gyne with well-developed mesosomal sutures. It is unclear, however, whether the latter is dealated or never possessed wings (Bharti and Akbar 2013).</p><p>Larva. The larva of Parasyscia opaca has been described (Wheeler and Wheeler 1964a). Cocoon presence unknown.</p><p>Distribution .</p><p>50 species of Parasyscia are known, distributed throughout the warm temperate and tropical Old World, extending into New Guinea and many Pacific islands but absent from Australia.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Parasyscia was described as a genus by Emery in 1882 and shortly afterwards treated as a subgenus by Forel 1892. Most authors adopted Forel’s decision and finally Kempf synonymized it under Cerapachys in his catalog of Neotropical ants (Kempf 1972). Relatively few species have been described under this name, but in the sense proposed here it is equivalent to Brown’s ' dohertyi - cribrinodis group’ (Brown 1975), keyed with other Cerapachys in the same publication (Brown 1975).</p><p>Parasyscia has been identified as the sister group of Zasphinctus (Brady et al. 2014), but there have been no attempts to reconstruct the internal phylogeny. Material examined in collections suggests that many species remain to be described ( author’s unpublished observations).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Two Parasyscia species, Parasyscia flavaclavata and Parasyscia opaca, were observed in the field in New Guinea (Wilson 1958). Parasyscia flavaclavata was seen raiding a colony of a Pheidole species. A nest of Parasyscia opaca was collected from a rotting log, containing &lt;100 workers, a single queen, and brood and adults of the apparent prey, Strumigenys loriae . The brood of Parasyscia opaca consisted of larvae of the same size, suggesting synchronized brood production. Other species have been collected from rotten logs and under stones (Brown 1975), and at least one, Parasyscia zimmermanni, is an arboreal nester (Sarnat and Economo 2012). Parasyscia imerinensis was observed in an urban habitat of the botanical garden and zoo in Antananarivo, Madagascar. Two workers were seen slowly walking on pavement stones shortly after dark. It is difficult to assess whether these individuals represented scouts or if this species forages solitarily ( author’s observations).</p><p>Species of Parasyscia</p><p>Parasyscia afer (Forel, 1907a): Tanzania, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia aitkenii (Forel, 1900b): India, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia arnoldi (Forel, 1914): South Africa, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia browni (Bharti and Wachkoo, 2013): India, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia bryanti (Wheeler, W. M., 1919): Malaysia (Sarawak), comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia centurio (Brown, 1975): Democratic Republic of the Congo, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia conservata (Viehmeyer, 1913): Indonesia (Sulawesi, in copal), comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia cribrinodis Emery, 1899b: Cameroon, comb. rev.</p><p>Parasyscia desposyne (Wilson, 1959): Papua New Guinea, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia dohertyi (Emery, 1902): Indonesia (Laut Island), comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia dominula (Wilson, 1959): Indonesia (Papua), comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia faurei (Arnold, 1949): South Africa, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia flavaclavata (Donisthorpe, 1938): Indonesia (Papua), comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia fossulata (Forel, 1895a): Sri Lanka, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia foveolata (Radchenko, 1993): Vietnam, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia hashimotoi (Terayama, 1996): Japan, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia imerinensis Forel, 1891: Madagascar, comb. rev.</p><p>Parasyscia inconspicua Emery, 1901c: Papua New Guinea, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia indica (Brown, 1975): India, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia kenyensis (Consani, 1951): Kenya, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia keralensis (Karmaly, 2012): India, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia kodecorum (Brown, 1975): Indonesia (South Kalimantan), comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia lamborni (Crawley, 1923): Malawi, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia lindrothi (Wilson, 1959): Fiji, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia luteoviger (Brown, 1975): Sri Lanka, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia majuscula (Mann, 1921): Fiji, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia muiri (Wheeler, W. M. and Chapman, 1925): Philippines, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia natalensis (Forel, 1901d): South Africa, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia nitens (Donisthorpe, 1949): Indonesia (Papua), comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia nitidula (Brown, 1975): Democratic Republic of the Congo, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia opaca (Emery, 1901c): Papua New Guinea, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia peringueyi Emery, 1886: South Africa, comb. rev.</p><p>Parasyscia piochardi Emery, 1882: Syrian Arab Republic, comb. rev.</p><p>Parasyscia polynikes (Wilson, 1959): Papua New Guinea, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia reticulata (Emery, 1923): Taiwan, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia rufithorax (Wheeler, W. M. and Chapman, 1925): Philippines, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia salimani (Karavaiev, 1925): Indonesia (Java), comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia seema (Bharti and Akbar, 2013): India, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia schoedli (Bharti and Akbar, 2013): India, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia sculpturata (Mann, 1921): Fiji, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia sudanensis (Weber, 1942): South Sudan, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia sylvicola (Arnold, 1955): Zimbabwe, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia superata (Wilson, 1959): Papua New Guinea, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia terricola (Mann, 1919): Solomon Islands, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia valida (Arnold, 1960): South Africa, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia villiersi (Bernard, 1953b): Guinea, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia vitiensis (Mann, 1921): Fiji, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia wighti (Bharti and Akbar, 2013): India, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia wittmeri (Collingwood, 1985): Saudi Arabia, comb. n.</p><p>Parasyscia zimmermani (Wilson, 1959): Fiji, comb. n.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4CA3E233042B444AA893AAD4AE31245E	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
2B312946A2D3EC18DDA0134C92DD9916.text	2B312946A2D3EC18DDA0134C92DD9916.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Procerapachys Wheeler, W. M. 1915	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Procerapachys Wheeler, W. M. 1915b</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Procerapachys annosus, by original designation.</p><p>Procerapachys is an extinct genus known from Baltic amber.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. The extinct Procerapachys is apparently unique among non-army ant dorylines in having a large but unarmed pygidium. All other dorylines with unarmed pygidium have either highly positioned propodeal spiracles and no propodeal lobes ( Aenictus, Aenictogiton, Dorylus) or a reduced pygidium ( Leptanilloides). When pygidium is not clearly visible, these often heavily-sculptured ants can be confused with Chrysapace, which also occurs in Eocene ambers (see under that taxon above). Chrysapace and Procerapachys differ in spur formula, however. The former has two pectinate spurs on each mid and hind tibia, and the latter has only one pectinate spur. Procerapachys specimens were also reported to have palp formula 5,4, which is different from 5,3 counted in one of the extant Chrysapace .</p><p>Male. The status of the putative males of Procerapachys is uncertain, but the specimens originally attributed to this genus had well-developed wing venation with two submarginal cells and the marginal cell closed, similar to Chrysapace and Cylindromyrmex . The most reliable character that separates these males from these two genera is a single pectinate tibial spur in Procerapachys and two spurs present in both Chrysapace and Cylindromyrmex .</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment not enlarged, not broader and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeal apron unknown. Lateroclypeal teeth unknown. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum shape unknown. Proximal face of stipes unknown. Maxillary palps 5-segmented. Labial palps 4-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Eyes present, composed of more than 20 ommatidia. Ocelli absent or present. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head unknown. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen unknown. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture conspicuous and complete, but immobile. Pronotomesopleural suture complete, continuous with promesonotal Pronotomesopleural suture. Mesometapleural groove not impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity unknown. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland unknown. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally unknown, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Placement of helcium unknown. Prora unknown. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI unknown. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally unknown and dorsolaterally unknown. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV unknown. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field and simple, not armed with cuticular spines or modified setae. Hypopygium unknown. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa unknown. Metatibial gland unknown. Metabasitarsal gland unknown. Hind pretarsal claws unknown. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Unknown.</p><p>Male. (putative, see under Taxonomy and phylogeny below) Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeal lamella unknown. Parafrontal ridges unknown. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps unknown. Labial palps unknown. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Ventrolateral margins of head unknown. Carina surrounding occipital foramen unknown. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli unknown. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening unknown. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle unknown. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora unknown. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV unknown. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX unknown. Genitalia: Genital morphology unknown. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa unknown. Metatibial gland unknown. Metabasitarsal glands unknown. Hind pretarsal claws unknown. Wings: Tegula unknown. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 present, running toward distal wing margin and enclosing cell with Rs·f5. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 differentiated into Rs·f4 and Rs·f5 by 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing present, separated from Rs+M by Rs·f2. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from Cu and distal to, at or near M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with both branches Cu1 and Cu2. Hind wing venation unknown.</p><p>Gyne. Not described. Wheeler (1915) mentioned that some of the specimens possessed ocelli while others did not and suggesting that these may represent ergatogynes.</p><p>Larva. Not described. Presence of cocoons unknown.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Procerapachys was described based on several workers and two male specimens by W. M. Wheeler (1915) in his monograph on the Baltic amber collection of the Geological Institute of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia). Unfortunately, most of this collection was destroyed during WWII, including the Procerapachys material (Dlussky, 2009). Dlussky (2009) redescribed the genus based on additional specimens of what he identified as the type species, Procerapachys annosus, designated a neotype for it, and added a new species, Procerapachys sulcatus . Both worker and putative male morphologies of Procerapachys annosus and Procerapachys sulcatus are reminiscent of the extant genus Chrysapace . If the published descriptions are accurate, however, there are important differences that include a single pectinate spur on each mid and hind tibiae (mentioned by both Wheeler and Dlussky), different palp formula, and, perhaps most importantly, a pygidium not impressed and without modified spine-like setae in the worker. According to the descriptions it also appears that at least some specimens of Procerapachys lack ocelli, while ocelli are present in all Chrysapace material I examined in the course of this study. In addition, one of the species, Procerapachys favosus, lacks the coarse sulcate sculpturing characteristic of Chrysapace . In fact, there are amber doryline specimens without coarse sculpturing that fit the original Procerapachys by having a single tibial spur and a smooth pygidium, for which I was able to examine high-quality photographs and consult these characters with Vincent Perrichot, who was able to confirm them directly on the specimens. Unfortunately, I was not able to examine any of the specimens on which Dlussky based his descriptions. I have examined a specimen identified as Procerapachys annosus from the collection of Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum Frankfurt and found it to be a typical Chrysapace with two conspicuous tibial spurs. I have also examined photographs of a specimen (Vincent Perrichot pers. comm.) from a private collection that fits the original description of Procerapachys annosus and its habitus appears to be distinct from Chrysapace, although I could not assess the shape of the pygidium or tibial spur configuration. Thus at least some of the species attributed in the past to Procerapachys indeed represent a distinct doryline lineage. In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, I treat Procerapachys as distinct from Chrysapace or any other genus recognized here. However, a careful reevaluation of the amber fossil dorylines, most crucially the neotype of Procerapachys annosus, as well as the putative males, is much needed.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Eocene Baltic and Bitterfeld ambers.</p><p>Species of Procerapachys</p><p>† Procerapachys annosus Wheeler, W. M. 1915b: Baltic amber</p><p>† Procerapachys favosus Wheeler, W. M. 1915b: Baltic amber</p><p>† Procerapachys sulcatus Dlussky, 2009: Baltic amber</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2B312946A2D3EC18DDA0134C92DD9916	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
F60D4407E2814EA3C723CDDFD0438045.text	F60D4407E2814EA3C723CDDFD0438045.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Simopone Forel 1891	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Simopone Forel, 1891</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Simopone grandidieri, by monotypy.</p><p>Simopone is a genus of arboreal predators of other ants, found in the Old World tropics.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. Workers of Simopone are unique among all dorylines in the combination of 11-segmented antennae, eyes and ocelli present, no spur on mid tibia, and the lack of metatibial gland. Simopone also possess a conspicuous groove on the interior surface of hind basitarsus. Other dorylines lacking mid tibial spur include certain species of Lioponera, all Tanipone, and Vicinopone . All these genera have 12-segmented antennae.</p><p>Male. The males are easily identified by a combination of antennal sockets partially concealed by the torulo-posttorular complex in full-face view, 12-segmented antennae, presence of notauli, and lack of spurs on middle tibiae. The only other non-army ant doryline genus that lacks spurs on middle tibiae is Tanipone, although it is possible that Vicinopone males will turn out to lack them also, when discovered. All Tanipone males known thus far have fully exposed antennal sockets, 13-segmented antennae, and no notauli, in addition to characteristically long maxillary palps that reach the occipital foramen.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 11 segments. Apical antennal segment not enlarged, not broader and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges absent or reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex horizontal. Antennal scrobes absent or present. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 6- or 5-segmented. Labial palps 4- or 3-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Eyes present, composed of more than 20 ommatidia. Ocelli present. Head capsule without differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange often separated from collar by distinct ridge, occasionally ridge absent. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture present, weakly differentiated, immobile. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused up to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove weakly impressed or not impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent or present. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal groove on mesosoma absent or shallowly impressed but well-defined line. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity often without distinct dorsal edge or margin but occasionally marginate, rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland without bulla visible through cuticle. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate or marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora simple, not delimited by carina, a U-shaped margin, or U-shaped margin with median ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdomi nal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field, armed with modified setae, and in some species deeply notched at apex. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia without spurs. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal gland present. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges present. Torulo-posttorular complex horizontal. Maxillary palps 6- or 5-segmented. Labial palps 4- or 3-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli present. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a U-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with no sulcus trace at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms separated. Telomere expanded at apex. Volsella variable. Penisvalva laterally compressed, rounded at apex. Legs: Mid tibia without spurs. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing absent. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 absent. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3 or absent. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 present, fused in absence of 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing present, separated from Rs+M by Rs·f2. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present or absent. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with both branches Cu1 and Cu2. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing unknown. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing unknown. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing present, about as long as M·f1, never tubular. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Alate or extremely ergatoid/ replaced by fertile workers. Alate and dealated queen specimens are known in all three Simopone species-groups recognized by Bolton and Fisher (2012), e.g. in Simopone annettae of the schoutedeni group, Simopone latiscapa of the emeryi group, and Simopone bakeri of the grandidieri group. Members of all three species-groups occur also on Madagascar. However, no morphologically distinct gynes have ever been collected among the 16 species occurring on the island, despite multiple nest samples available. It is possible that queens have been replaced there by reproductively active workers, the so-called gamergates (Bolton and Fisher 2012).</p><p>Larva. Not described. Cocoons absent.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Simopone is limited to the Old World and currently contains 39 named species. Most occur in Madagascar and in the Afrotropics but five rare species have been recorded from the Indomalayan Region (China, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Philippines) and New Guinea.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Bolton and Fisher (2012) revised and keyed all species in the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions. They also classified Simopone species into three groups based on morphology, but it is unknown whether these are monophyletic. The phylogenetic position of Simopone is not well understood (Brady et al. 2014, Borowiec, in prep.).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Despite relatively high species diversity very little is known about the biology of Simopone, although several species have been recorded nesting arboreally (Brown 1975, Bolton and Fisher 2012). One species, the Madagascan Simopone sicaria, was observed during a raid. The ants took the brood of arboreal Terataner alluaudi as prey (Bolton and Fisher 2012).</p><p>Brood production appears not to be synchronized ( author’s observations).</p><p>Species of Simopone</p><p>Simopone amana Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Gabon</p><p>Simopone annettae Kutter, 1976: Cameroon</p><p>Simopone bakeri Menozzi, 1926: Singapore</p><p>Simopone brunnea Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Gabon</p><p>Simopone chapmani Taylor, 1966: Philippines</p><p>Simopone conradti Emery, 1899b: Cameroon</p><p>Simopone consimilis Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone dignita Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone dryas Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Kenya</p><p>Simopone dux Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone elegans Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone emeryi Forel, 1892b: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone fera Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone fulvinodis Santschi, 1923b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Simopone grandidieri Forel, 1891: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone grandis Santschi, 1923b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Simopone gressitti Taylor, 1965: Indonesia (Papua)</p><p>Simopone inculta Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone laevissima Arnold, 1954: Uganda</p><p>Simopone latiscapa Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Ghana</p><p>Simopone marleyi Arnold, 1915: South Africa</p><p>Simopone matthiasi Kutter, 1977: Cameroon</p><p>Simopone mayri Emery, 1911: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone merita Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone miniflava Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Gabon</p><p>Simopone nonnihil Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone occulta Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Gabon</p><p>Simopone oculata Radchenko, 1993: Vietnam</p><p>Simopone persculpta Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Kenya</p><p>Simopone rabula Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Tanzania</p><p>Simopone rex Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone schoutedeni Santschi, 1923b: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Simopone sicaria Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone silens Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone trita Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone vepres Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Ghana</p><p>Simopone victrix Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Simopone wilburi Weber, 1949a: Democratic Republic of the Congo</p><p>Simopone yunnanensis Chen, Zhou and Liang, 2015: China</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F60D4407E2814EA3C723CDDFD0438045	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
B26E4C6E778E9BB7CAE3419CB91925D7.text	B26E4C6E778E9BB7CAE3419CB91925D7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sphinctomyrmex Mayr 1866	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Sphinctomyrmex Mayr, 1866b</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Sphinctomyrmex stali, by monotypy.</p><p>Sphinctomyrmex is a Neotropical lineage of extremely rarely encountered ants. Nothing is known about their biology.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. Workers of Sphinctomyrmex are among the dorylines with prominent girdling constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI. These include Aenictogiton, Eusphinctus, Leptanilloides, and Zasphinctus . Sphinctomyrmex can be differentiated from these genera by a combination of presence of propodeal lobes and propodeal spiracle positioned high (no lobes and spiracle low on propodeum in Aenictogiton), metapleural gland trench narrow (broad in Zasphinctus), large pygidium armed with modified setae (pygidium unarmed and reduced to a narrow strip in Leptanilloides), and girdling constriction between abdominal segments III and IV cross-ribbed and segment IV similar in size to segments V and VI (girdling constriction smooth and segment IV larger than V and VI in Eusphinctus). Among these genera, only Leptanilloides occurs in sympatry with Sphinctomyrmex .</p><p>Male . The males of Sphinctomyrmex also show girdling constrictions between abdominal segments III, IV, and V. Among male dorylines, this state is restricted to the Old World taxa Eusphinctus and Zasphinctus . They differ in wing venation, shape of abdominal sternite IX and genitalia and the venation characters are the easiest to assess for identification. The marginal cell is closed in Sphinctomyrmex (open in Eusphinctus) and the costal vein (C) is present in the fore wing (absent in Zasphinctus). Malagasy Tanipone may also have weak abdominal constrictions but are distinguished by very long, 6-segmented maxillary palps that are visible in mounted specimens and reach occipital foramen. Some Acanthostichus or Cylindromyrmex males may also have gastral constrictions but in the former helcium is broad and supraaxial and in the latter there are two spurs on hind tibiae.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment conspicuously enlarged, much broader than and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 3-segmented. Labial palps 3-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Eyes present, composed of 1-5 ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused or with Pronotomesopleural suture present, weakly differentiated, immobile. Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused but impressed line present. Mesometapleural groove weakly impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a U-shaped margin with median ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI present. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI present. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field, and armed with modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps unknown. Labial palps unknown. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli present. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Propodeal declivity with dorsal edge present, incomplete. Metapleural gland opening present. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a U-shaped margin with median ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI present. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with no sulcus trace at junction, ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella laterally flattened, at apex with dorsal lobe and hooked ventrally. Penisvalva laterally compressed, rounded at apex. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 present, running toward distal wing margin and enclosing cell with Rs·f5. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 absent or present, very short and disconnected from Rs+M. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, forming base of 2r-rs&amp;Rs·f4-5 in absence of 2rs-m or differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of short Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 present, fused in absence of 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing contiguous with Rs+M. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing present, extending past Sc+R but not reaching distal wing margin. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing pre sent, longer than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, short, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing absent. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing absent. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing absent. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing absent or stub present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissa A·f1 present.</p><p>Gyne. Gynes are so far only known for Sphinctomyrmex stali . One apparently dealated gyne has been collected in this species, in addition to ergatoid/intercaste specimens with relatively large eyes and ocelli. For a detailed discussion see Feitosa et al. (2011).</p><p>Larva. Not described. Cocoons unknown.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>So far only known from Amazonas, Santa Catarina, and São Paulo states in Brazil, and Jujuy province in Argentina but likely present throughout most of South America.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>For taxonomic history see under Eusphinctus .</p><p>The three known species of Sphinctomyrmex are reviewed and keyed in Feitosa et al. (2011).</p><p>The affinities of the genus are not known exactly but genomic data suggests that it forms a clade with Leptanilloides and the Eciton genus-group (Borowiec, in prep.).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Virtually nothing is known of this lineage’s biology, and no nest series have ever been collected (Feitosa et al. 2011). Several workers have been collected by digging in soil in a dry forest habitat in Jujuy, Argentina (Brian Fisher pers. comm.).</p><p>Species of Sphinctomyrmex</p><p>Sphinctomyrmex marcoyi Feitosa, Brandão, Fernández and Delabie, 2011: Brazil</p><p>Sphinctomyrmex schoerederi Feitosa, Brandão, Fernández and Delabie, 2011: Brazil</p><p>Sphinctomyrmex stali Mayr, 1866b: Brazil</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B26E4C6E778E9BB7CAE3419CB91925D7	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
66F6CA3C2CDC489BB01690FFB563C951.text	66F6CA3C2CDC489BB01690FFB563C951.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Syscia Roger 1861	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Syscia Roger, 1861 gen. rev.</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Syscia typhla, by monotypy.</p><p>Syscia is the only doryline genus with a disjunct distribution between the Old and New World, and includes many cryptic, undescribed species.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. Syscia workers have 11- or 9-segmented antennae, eyes small to absent, and are usually heavily sculptured with abundant body pilosity. Body is usually uniformly colored and ranges from yellow through reddish to dark brown but never black. They possess apparently autapomorphic characters that serve to easily distinguish this lineage from all other dorylines: basal segment of hind tarsus widening distally with a light patch of cuticle on the inner (flexor) side, and abdominal tergite IV anteriorly folding over sternite. This combination is unique to Syscia and although species in other lineages may have similar habitus ( Ooceraea, Parasyscia), none of these possess these characteristics.</p><p>Male. The males of Syscia have the number of antennal segments reduced to 12. They can be difficult to distinguish from Ooceraea (see under diagnosis for that genus), but a lack of constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI, presence of a spur on middle tibia, and no costal vein (C) in the fore wing will distinguish them from the other genera where a reduction in the number of antennal segments is currently known, which include Acanthostichus, Eusphinctus, and Simopone .</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 9 or 11 segments. Apical antennal segment conspicuously enlarged, much broader than and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth present. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Eyes absent or present, composed of 1-5 ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused up to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove not impressed. Mesometapleural groove weakly impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present or absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity without distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a U-shaped margin with median ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured or cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment or conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV folding over sternite, anterior portion of sternite concealing tergite in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium medium-sized, with impressed medial field, and armed with modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed or armed with modified setae. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus widening distally, oval in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland present. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges present. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 4-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli present. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Propodeal declivity reduced, without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a U-shaped margin with median ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Abdominal segment III about half size of succeeding segment IV or less; latter strongly constricted at presegmental portion (binodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines. with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with no sulcus trace at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella not tapering much toward apex, relatively broad. Penisvalva laterally flattened, at apex hooked ventrally, in Neotropical forms also apparently curving outwards. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing absent. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 absent. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 absent. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, forming base of 'free stigmal vein’ (2r-rs&amp;Rs·f4-5) in absence of Rs·f3 and 2rs-m. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 present, fused in absence of 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing contiguous with Rs+M. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, short, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing absent. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing absent past M+Cu. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, longer than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing absent or present, about as long as M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing absent. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing absent. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing absent. Vein Cu in hind wing absent. Vein A in hind wing with abscissa A·f1 present.</p><p>Gyne. Alate, brachypterous, or ergatoid with eyes of variable size and with or without ocelli. Gynes are known for Syscia augustae, Syscia honduriana, Syscia humicola, and Syscia typhla . In Syscia typhla the gynes have well-developed flight sclerites on the mesosoma but I have never examined a specimen with wings. Field observations of Syscia augustae or a closely related species suggest that virgin queens may be brachypterous (Michael Branstetter pers. comm.). Ergatoid queens have been reported in Syscia humicola (Ogata 1983), and their morphology is very similar to that of the worker, except for larger size, presence of compound eyes and a single ocellus in some but not all gynes. Confirmed alate or apparently dealated gynes are so far known only in undescribed forms from both Old and New World.</p><p>Larva. Described for Syscia augustae (Wheeler 1903b). Cocoons absent.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>This is the only doryline genus with a disjunct distribution between the New and Old Worlds (except for tramp Ooceraea biroi), with one center of diversity in Central America, with records from the Antilles (Cuba and Dominican Republic) and as far north as Arkansas, United States, and the other center in Southeast Asia west of Wallace’s Line, especially Borneo, reaching Japan to the north and southern India to the west.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Syscia was described by Roger (1861) in his paper on ' Ponera -like ants’ . Forel (1893a) included it in his newly erected ‘Cerapachysii’ and subsequently it was treated as either a genus (e.g. Forel 1900b, Bingham 1903) or a subgenus of Cerapachys (e.g. Wheeler 1902, Emery 1911 e) until Kempf (1972) treated it as a synonym of the latter.</p><p>Syscia is here recognized as a valid genus, following the molecular evidence that Neotropical and Indomalayan species form a clade (Brady et al. 2014, Borowiec, in prep.) and because species related to typhla are easily distinguished from a closely related group, Ooceraea . There are five species currently described but at least fifteen additional morphospecies present in collections from the Old World and more than 30 undescribed species in the New World (Theodore Sumnicht pers. comm.).</p><p>This lineage belongs to a clade with Eusphinctus and Ooceraea (Borowiec, in prep.). No attempts of reconstructing the internal phylogeny have been made.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Syscia species are found in leaf litter samples and soil cores. The foraging habits are not known. Syscia augustae, a species present in southern United States, has been observed on diurnal emigrations and briefly studied under laboratory conditions (Clint Penick pers. comm.). The brood production in Syscia augustae is synchronized. Gyne morphology varies in this lineage, with ergatoid, brachypterous, and fully winged individuals known. There is an observation of a brachypterous gyne aggregation under a stone (Michael Branstetter pers. comm.). It is unknown whether this represents cooperative colony foundation.</p><p>Species of Syscia</p><p>Syscia augustae (Wheeler, W. M., 1902): United States, comb. n.</p><p>Syscia honduriana (Mann, 1922): Honduras, comb. n.</p><p>Syscia humicola (Ogata, 1983): Japan, comb. n.</p><p>Syscia tolteca (Forel, 1909a): Guatemala, comb. n.</p><p>Syscia typhla Roger, 1861: Sri Lanka, comb. rev.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/66F6CA3C2CDC489BB01690FFB563C951	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
D3DDB12DF2E357CA6D4D1B54BC6F25E4.text	D3DDB12DF2E357CA6D4D1B54BC6F25E4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tanipone Bolton & Fisher 2012	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Tanipone Bolton &amp; Fisher, 2012</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Tanipone hirsuta, by original designation.</p><p>Tanipone is a small genus with unknown biology, endemic to arid and semi-arid habitats of Madagascar.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. Tanipone workers are distinctive ants with large eyes and ocelli, very long palps and unique glandular patches on abdominal segment III. The latter are present in all species except one ( Tanipone aglandula). The body coloration is black or bicolored reddish and black, with a light band or two light spots present at the posterior edge of abdominal segment III. The workers of Tanipone lack a conspicuous mid tibial spur. Other genera without the spur include Simopone and Vicinopone . Additionally, in certain species of Lioponera the mid tibial spur may be reduced and not easily discernible. Tanipone workers can be easily distinguished from all three lineages by remarkably long palps that are always visible on preserved specimens, reaching the occipital foramen.</p><p>Male. The male of Tanipone is also easily distinguished from all other dorylines by the long maxillary palps, almost always extruded and reaching occipital foramen. The wing venation is variously developed but the submarginal cell (SMC) is open or closed by a faint 2rs-m cross-vein. There are no notauli and no spurs on middle tibiae.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment not enlarged, not broader and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 6-segmented. Labial palps 4-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Eyes present, composed of more than 20 ommatidia. Ocelli present. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused up to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove deeply impressed, conspicuous. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent or a weakly impressed line. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland without bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora simple, not delimited by carina. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and smooth or cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI present or absent. Pygidium large, with weakly impressed medial field, and armed with few modified setae restricted to apex. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia without spurs. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 6-segmented. Labial palps 4-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge or not. Notauli absent. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin or U-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with no sulcus trace at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms separated. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella gradually tapering toward apex. Penisvalva laterally compressed, rounded at apex. Legs: Mid tibia without spurs. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing absent. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 absent. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 absent. Cross-vein 2r-rs absent, present and forming base of 'free stigmal vein’ (2r-rs&amp;Rs·f4-5) in absence of Rs·f3 and 2rs-m, or present and connected to Rs·f2-3&amp;Rs·f4. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 absent or differentiated into Rs·f4 and Rs·f5 by 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing absent or contiguous with Rs+M. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing absent or present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing absent or present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent. Vein A in fore wing with only abscissa A·f1 present or with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, as long as 1rs-m or longer than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing absent or present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing absent or present, about as long as M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing absent. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing absent or present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing abscissa A·f1 or with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present.</p><p>Gyne. Presumably extremely ergatoid in all species; specimens identified as putative gynes differ from workers only in sculpturation. See Bolton and Fisher (2012) for a discussion.</p><p>Larva. Not described. Cocoons absent.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Endemic to Madagascar.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>There are ten Tanipone species currently known, all confined to Madagascar (Bolton and Fisher 2012). The position of this lineage is not known, and internal phylogeny has never been investigated, although Bolton and Fisher (2012) assigned the species to three species-groups.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>The known specimens have been collected mostly in a variety of drier habitats in Madagascar, including dry tropical forest, savannah, and spiny forest. Most workers were collected on low vegetation, on the ground or in rot holes on tree trunks. The sole nest sample of Tanipone ( Tanipone zona) was collected under a stone. Nothing is known about feeding habits of this lineage. The putative queen specimens are ergatoid. Based on nest collections where larvae of different sizes and pupae were collected together, known for Tanipone hirsuta, Tanipone subpilosa, and Tanipone zona, brood development appears not synchronized.</p><p>Species of Tanipone</p><p>Tanipone aglandula Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Tanipone aversa Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Tanipone cognata Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Tanipone hirsuta Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Tanipone maculata Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Tanipone pilosa Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Tanipone scelesta Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Tanipone subpilosa Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Tanipone varia Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p><p>Tanipone zona Bolton and Fisher, 2012: Madagascar</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D3DDB12DF2E357CA6D4D1B54BC6F25E4	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
8298DB7F7208C0A4A6E1342A7E34AE81.text	8298DB7F7208C0A4A6E1342A7E34AE81.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Vicinopone Bolton & Fisher 2012	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Vicinopone Bolton &amp; Fisher, 2012</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Simopone conciliatrix, by original designation.</p><p>Vicinopone is a monotypic lineage of arboreal ants.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. The workers of the sole species of Vicinopone are slender and small yellowish ants with large eyes and no ocelli. The cuticle is sculptured with weak punctation. Vicinopone is recognized by a combination of propodeal spiracle high on the sclerite and propodeal lobes present, no constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI, large pygidium armed with modified setae, no ocelli in the worker, 12-segmented antennae and no spur on the middle tibiae. This genus is most similar to Simopone with which it shares the lack of a mid tibial spur, but in Simopone the antennae are 11-segmented and workers have ocelli.</p><p>Male. The male of Vicinopone is unknown.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 12 segments. Apical antennal segment moderately enlarged, broader than and about equal in length to two preceding segments combined. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent. Parafrontal ridges reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes not projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, prementum exposed when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 3-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate. Eyes present, composed of more than 20 ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule without differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused partway to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove weakly impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a U-shaped margin with median ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like and cross-ribbed. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field, armed with modified setae. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia without spurs. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws each armed with a tooth. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male. Not described.</p><p>Gyne. Apparently alate, with ocelli and flight sclerites but only dealated specimens known (Bolton and Fisher 2012).</p><p>Larva. Not described. Cocoons absent.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>So far Vicinopone has been collected in Ghana, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, and Tanzania but it is likely that it is more widely distributed in sub-Saharan Africa.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>Vicinopone is a genus recently established by Bolton and Fisher (2012) to accommodate the only currently known species, Vicinopone conciliatrix .</p><p>The phylogenetic position of Vicinopone is uncertain (Brady et al. 2014, Borowiec, in prep.).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Little is known of the species’ habits, but the two known nest samples have been taken from dead twigs on trees, suggesting that this is an obligatory arboreal nester. Two dealate gynes were collected with the type nest series (Brown 1975), suggesting that the ant may be polygynous. Brood production is not synchronized, as larvae and pupae of various stages were present in the nests at times of collection.</p><p>Species of Vicinopone</p><p>Vicinopone conciliatrix (Brown, 1975): Ghana</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/8298DB7F7208C0A4A6E1342A7E34AE81	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
75F42A1629CCDB06447802A8F86FE6F2.text	75F42A1629CCDB06447802A8F86FE6F2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Yunodorylus Xu 2000	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Yunodorylus Xu, 2000 gen. rev.</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Yunodorylus sexspinus, by original designation.</p><p>This is a poorly known genus with striking morphology somewhat reminiscent of Dorylus .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. Workers of Yunodorylus are stout ants with no eyes and body coloration ranging from yellow to reddish, with cuticle sculpture and pilosity moderate. Yunodorylus is the only non-army ant doryline with a single waist segment and no or very weak girdling constriction on abdominal segment IV. It can be distinguished from army ant dorylines by relatively high positioned propodeal spiracle and presence of propodeal lobes.</p><p>Male. The males of Yunodorylus have a distinctive habitus with abdominal segment III very broadly attached posteriorly to segment IV and gaster widest towards the apex, posterior of abdominal segment IV. A combination of propodeal lobes well-developed, 13-segmented antennae, helcium relatively narrow and axial, no constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI, and wings always with veins C, R·f3, and at least a stub of Rs·f2-3 will distinguish Yunodorylus males from other genera. Although there may be gutter-like constrictions on abdominal segment IV and beyond, these are restricted to the tergites and do not produce constricted appearance in lateral view as in, for example, Zasphinctus . Sharp and conspicuously ventrally hooked penisvalvae appear to be unique among dorylines.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 11 or 12 segments. Apical antennal segment not enlarged, not broader and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus without cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth present. Parafrontal ridges absent or reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, concealing prementum when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 2-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with teeth or falcate, with teeth on elongated masticatory margin. Eyes absent. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture visible, unfused partway to notal surface. Mesometapleural groove weakly impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity without distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland with bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, short. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial or supraaxial. Prora forming a vertical carina. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV absent, i.e. pre- and postsclerites indistinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV not impressed. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Pygidium medium-sized, with impressed medial field, and armed with cuticular spines. Hypopygium unarmed. Legs: Mid tibia with pectinate and simple spur. Hind tibia with pectinate and simple spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not pro duced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic to moderately polymorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 13 segments. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 3-segmented. Labial palps 2-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate to falcate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally absent. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange not separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli absent. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent or present. Propodeal declivity reduced, without distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent or present. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle immarginate or marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and axial. Prora forming a simple U-shaped margin. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI absent. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines, with lateral apodemes about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head). Genitalia: Cupula short relative to rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with no sulcus trace at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella gradually tapering toward apex. Penisvalva hook-like, strongly curved ventrally. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing present. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 present and running toward distal wing margin and enclosing cell with Rs·f5 or not. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, disconnected from Rs+M, rarely closely approaching Rs+M. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, connected to Rs·f2-3&amp;Rsf4. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 present, fused in absence of 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing contiguous with Rs+M. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R in hind wing present. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing present, shorter than 1rs-m. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing present, about as long as M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing absent. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissa A·f1 present.</p><p>Gyne . A detailed description of a gyne of Yunodorylus is currently in preparation (Eguchi et al. in press).</p><p>Larva. Not described. Presence of cocoons unknown.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>This is a species-poor lineage, apparently restricted to mainland Southeast Asia and Borneo, although it is possible it will be eventually found on other islands.</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>The genus was originally established for Yunodorylus sexspinus by Xu (2000) from Yunnan, China and synonymized by Bolton (2003) under Cerapachys . In a recent contribution I provided descriptions and a key to the four species so far known from workers (Borowiec 2009).</p><p>Based on genomic data, Yunodorylus is part of a well-supported clade also including Cerapachys and Chrysapace .</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Very little is known about this lineage. Yunodorylus eguchii nests in soil in evergreen forests and dry dwarf forests in southern Vietnam. A colony sample (type series) of Yunodorylus eguchii contain larvae of various sizes. The field and laboratory observations of two queen-right colonies of Yunodorylus eguchii will be reported by Eguchi et al. (in press) and Mizuno et al. (in prep.).</p><p>Species of Yunodorylus</p><p>Yunodorylus doryloides (Borowiec, 2009): Malaysia (Sarawak), comb. n.</p><p>Yunodorylus eguchii (Borowiec, 2009): Vietnam, comb. n.</p><p>Yunodorylus paradoxus (Borowiec, 2009): Malaysia (Sarawak), comb. n.</p><p>Yunodorylus sexspinus Xu, 2000: China, comb. rev.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/75F42A1629CCDB06447802A8F86FE6F2	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
4C18DFED707CDF415F6D750256BBE62D.text	4C18DFED707CDF415F6D750256BBE62D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Zasphinctus Wheeler, W. M. 1918	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Zasphinctus Wheeler, W. M., 1918 gen. rev.</p><p>= Aethiopopone Santschi, 1930, syn. n.</p><p>= Nothosphinctus Wheeler, W. M. 1918, syn. n.</p><p>Type-species.</p><p>Sphinctomyrmex turneri, by monotypy.</p><p>Zasphinctus is a moderately speciose lineage of specialized ant predators, most prominent in Australia.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Worker. The workers of Zasphinctus are ants of variable size, color, and sculpturation, but always possessing conspicuous girdling constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI. The eyes absent in most species. Zasphinctus can be distinguished from other lineages with pronounced abdominal constrictions by highly-positioned propodeal spiracles, propodeal lobes present, pygidium large and armed with modified setae, and pronotomesopleural Pronotomesopleural suture fused. See also diagnoses of Eusphinctus and Sphinctomyrmex .</p><p>Male. The males of Zasphinctus also possess the characteristic abdominal constrictions between abdominal segments IV, V, and VI and can be recognized by a combi nation of costal vein (C) absent from the fore wing, submarginal cell (SMC) closed by Rs·f2-f3, vein 2rs-m absent, pronotum not marginate anterodorsally, and antennae 13-segmented. This venation is similar to Lividopone and Parasyscia but Zasphinctus can be recognized by the presence of abdominal constrictions and different appearance of abdominal sternite IX (subgenital plate). In Zasphinctus, the sternite is abruptly constricted proximal to where spines arise and is much wider at midlength. In Lividopone and Parasyscia in contrast, the sternite IX is usually gradually narrowing to the point of bifurcation. The males of Eusphinctus and Sphinctomyrmex have similar abdominal constrictions but the former has 12-segmented antennae and the latter has different wing venation with costal vein present.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Worker.Head: Antennae with 11 or 12 segments. Apical antennal segment conspicuously enlarged, much broader than and longer than two preceding segments combined. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Lateroclypeal teeth absent or present. Parafrontal ridges absent or reduced. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Antennal scrobes absent. Labrum with median notch or concavity. Proximal face of stipes not projecting beyond inner margin of sclerite, prementum exposed when mouthparts fully closed. Maxillary palps 3-segmented. Labial palps 3-segmented. Mandibles triangular, with teeth or edentate. Eyes absent or present, composed of more than 20 ommatidia. Ocelli absent. Head capsule with differentiated vertical posterior surface above occipital foramen. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Posterior head corners dorsolaterally immarginate. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge or not. Promesonotal connection with Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Pronotomesopleural suture completely fused. Mesometapleural groove not impressed or weakly impressed. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron absent or present. Pleural endophragmal pit concavity present. Mesosoma dorsolaterally immarginate. Metanotal depression or groove on mesosoma absent. Propodeal spiracle situated low on sclerite. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin and rectangular in posterior view. Metapleural gland without bulla visible through cuticle. Propodeal lobes present, well developed. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate or immarginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate or rarely immarginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at posttergite and helcium axial, occasionally slightly supraaxial. Prora simple, not delimited by carina. Prora forming a U-shaped margin with median ridge. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III anterodorsally immarginate and dorsolaterally immarginate. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV, which is weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV not impressed. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal tergite IV not folding over sternite, and anterior portions of sternite and tergite equally well visible in lateral view. Girdling constriction between pre- and posttergites of abdominal segments V and VI present. Girdling constriction between pre- and poststernites of abdominal segments V and VI present. Pygidium large, with impressed medial field, and armed with modified setae, sometimes notched. Hypopygium armed with modified setae. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind basitarsus not widening distally, circular in cross-section. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland absent or an oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal gland absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Polymorphism: Monomorphic.</p><p>Male.Head: Antennae with 12 or 13 segments. Clypeus with cuticular apron. Parafrontal ridges absent. Torulo-posttorular complex vertical. Maxillary palps 3-segmented. Labial palps 3-segmented. Mandibles triangular, edentate to falcate. Ventrolateral margins of head without lamella or ridge extending towards mandibles and beyond carina surrounding occipital foramen. Carina surrounding occipital foramen ventrally present. Mesosoma: Pronotal flange separated from collar by distinct ridge. Notauli present or, more rarely, absent. Transverse groove dividing mesopleuron present. Propodeal declivity with distinct dorsal edge or margin. Metapleural gland opening absent. Propodeal lobes present. Metasoma: Petiole anterodorsally marginate, dorsolaterally immarginate, and laterally above spiracle marginate. Helcium in relation to tergosternal Pronotomesopleural suture placed at Pronotomesopleural suture and axial. Prora forming a V-shaped protrusion. Spiracle openings of abdominal segments IV–VI circular. Abdominal segment III more than half size of succeeding segment IV; latter weakly constricted at presegmental portion (uninodal waist). Girdling constriction of segment IV present, i.e. pre- and postsclerites distinct. Cinctus of abdominal segment IV gutter-like, not sculptured. Girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segments V and VI present. Abdominal segment IV not conspicuously largest segment. Abdominal sternite VII simple. Abdominal sternite IX distally armed with two spines curved dorsally at apices, with lateral apodemes shorter than or about as long as medial apodeme, directed anteriorly (towards head); all apodemes long. Genitalia: Cupula long relative to rest of genital capsule and shorter ventrally than dorsally. Basimere broadly fused to telomere, with sulcus discernable at junction, and ventrally with left and right arms abutting. Telomere gradually tapering toward apex. Volsella laterally flattened, at apex with dorsal lobe and hooked ventrally. Penisvalva laterally compressed, rounded at apex. Legs: Mid tibia with single pectinate spur. Hind tibia with single pectinate spur. Posterior flange of hind coxa not produced as raised lamella. Metatibial gland present as oval patch of whitish cuticle. Metabasitarsal glands absent. Hind pretarsal claws simple. Wings: Tegula present, broad, demiovate in shape. Vein C in fore wing absent. Pterostigma broad. Abscissa R·f3 absent. Abscissae Rs·f2-3 present, connecting with Rs+M&amp;M·f2 or disconnected from Rs+M. Cross-vein 2r-rs present, differentiated from Rs·f4 by presence of Rs·f2-3. Abscissae Rs·f4-5 present, fused in absence of 2rs-m. Abscissa M·f2 in fore wing present, separated from Rs+M by Rs·f2. Abscissa M·f4 in fore wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1m-cu in fore wing present. Cross-vein cu-a in fore wing present, arising from M+Cu and proximal to M·f1 or near M·f1. Vein Cu in fore wing present, with only Cu1 branch prominent. Vein A in fore wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present. Vein C in hind wing absent. Vein R in hind wing absent. Vein Sc+R in hind wing absent. Abscissa Rs·f1 in hind wing not differentiated in absence of Sc+R. Abscissa Rs·f2 in hind wing present, not reaching wing margin. Cross-vein 1rs-m in hind wing fused with M·f1. Vein M+Cu in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f1 in hind wing present. Abscissa M·f2 in hind wing absent. Cross-vein cu-a in hind wing present. Vein Cu in hind wing present. Vein A in hind wing with abscissae A·f1 and A·f2 present; The latter a stub.</p><p>Gyne. Alate, ergatoid, or subdichthadiigyne. Alate gynes are known in an undescribed species from Africa (Brown 1975) and in Zasphinctus occidentalis (Clark 1924 a). In Zasphinctus asper, Zasphinctus duchaussoyi, and Zasphinctus steinheili known gyne specimens are wingless ergatoids that possess eyes and ocelli. The gyne of Zasphinctus imbecilis can be considered a ‘subdichthadiigyne’; it possesses only vestigial eyes and one or no ocelli in addition to enlarged gaster. Descriptions and extensive discussions of gyne morphology in Zasphinctus can be found in Brown (1975), Clark (1924 a), and Wheeler (1918).</p><p>Larva. Cocoons present.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>The twenty described species of Zasphinctus are distributed throughout Australasia, including New Caledonia and New Guinea, and the Afrotropics. Most species are known from Australia, with only three taxa described from Africa. Recently a species has been described from Thailand (Jaitrong et al. 2016), and unidentified Zasphinctus males are also known from Myanmar ( author’s unpublished observations).</p><p>Taxonomy and phylogeny.</p><p>This name is here revived from synonymy with Sphinctomyrmex . For a brief account of taxonomic history and justification see under Eusphinctus .</p><p>Brown (1975) gave a preliminary key to Indomalayan and Australasian species.</p><p>The position of Zasphinctus within dorylines appears to be well established as the sister group to Parasyscia, and it is reasonably certain that this lineage was derived independently from the Neotropical Sphinctomyrmex (Figure 1; Brady et al. 2014, Borowiec, in prep.).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Wilson provided notes on the biology of Zasphinctus caledonicus from New Caledonia and Zasphinctus steinheili from Australia. The former was observed raiding a nest of Stigmacros ants in the field, and the latter was feeding on ant brood of several species in the laboratory. Both were reported to have colonies containing multiple ergatoid gynes and synchronized brood. Buschinger et al. (1990) studied a species related to Zasphinctus steinheili in more detail under laboratory conditions. They largely confirmed Wilson’s preliminary observations and further demonstrated functional polygyny, since most dissected queens were fertilized with well-developed ovaries. The ants would indeed take brood of several ant species, including European forms, but the colonies ceased producing new eggs after two brood cycles were completed and thereafter slowly declined. Briese (1984) described a nest evacuation response in a Monomorium species raided by Zasphinctus in Australia. Hölldobler et al. (1996) described the metatibial gland of Zasphinctus steinheili .</p><p>Species of Zasphinctus</p><p>Zasphinctus asper (Brown, 1975): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus caledonicus (Wilson, 1957): New Caledonia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus cedaris (Forel, 1915): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus chariensis (Santschi, 1915): Chad, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus clarus (Forel, 1893b): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus cribratus (Emery, 1897): Papua New Guinea, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus duchaussoyi ( André, 1905): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus emeryi (Forel, 1893b): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus froggatti (Forel, 1900a): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus imbecilis (Forel, 1907c): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus mjobergi (Forel, 1915): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus myops (Forel, 1895b): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus nigricans (Clark, 1926): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus occidentalis (Clark, 1924a): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus rufiventris (Santschi, 1915): Benin, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus septentrionalis (Crawley, 1925): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus siamensis (Jaitrong, 2016): Thailand, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus steinheili (Forel, 1900a): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus trux (Brown, 1975): Australia, comb. n.</p><p>Zasphinctus turneri (Forel, 1900a): Australia, comb. n.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4C18DFED707CDF415F6D750256BBE62D	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Borowiec, Marek L.	Borowiec, Marek L. (2016): Generic revision of the ant subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 608: 1-280, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.608.9427
