identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
1E4F1E82A8B9A6A9B14902CD580CF401.text	1E4F1E82A8B9A6A9B14902CD580CF401.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pheidole anastasii Emery	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Pheidole anastasii Emery Figs 74, 88a</p><p>Pheidole anastasii . Pheidole anastasii Emery 1896: 76 (s.w.) COSTA RICA, Jiménez, [MCSN]. Queen described Forel 1901: 78. Junior synonym of bilimeki Mayr: Wilson 2003: 378. Revived status: Longino and Cox 2009: 40. Nec M.R. Smith 1933, Naves 1985, Boer and Vierbergen 2008.</p><p>Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole .</p><p>Color usually dull yellow to dull brownish yellow. MajorHW 0.83-1.05, HL 0.90-1.11, SL 0.49-0.62, CI 88-98, SI 50-61 (n=43, Longino pers. comm.). Head uniform in color (Fig. 35); subquadrate (Fig. 7); often entirely punctate (Fig. 11), but portions of posterolateral lobes can be glossy. Posterolateral lobes never with distinct rugae. Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4). Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Postpetiole relatively broad; distinctly more than 2 × petiolar width in dorsal view (Fig. 31). First gastral tergite with anterior third to entire surface matte. MinorHW 0.38-0.50, HL 0.44-0.59, SL 0.44-0.58, CI 82-90, SI 106-120 (n=49, Longino pers. comm.). Head dull, entirely covered by reticulated network of punctures (Fig. 37). Posterior head margin relatively narrow and rounded (Fig. 58). Antennal scapes lack standing hairs (Fig. 55); scapes surpass posterior head margin by a distance equal to or greater than eye (Fig. 40). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Hairs on mesosoma stout, stiff, of equal length and arranged in pairs (Fig. 53). Postpetiole narrow in dorsal view, only slightly broader than petiole. Gaster with at least anterior 1/3 of first tergite matte (Fig. 33).</p><p>Identification, taxonomy and systematics.</p><p>Pheidole anastasii, Pheidole bilimeki and Pheidole punctatissima all belong to the Pheidole punctatissima clade (Economo et al. 2015). These ants are all relatively small species characterized by densely punctate ground sculpture that gives them a dull, matte appearance. Among species treated here, the Pheidole punctatissima clade species are most easily confused with those of the closely related Pheidole flavens complex. Major and minor workers are most reliably diagnosed from those of the Pheidole flavens complex by the relatively broad postpetiole (Fig. 31, major; Fig. 62, minor) and the matte anterior portion of the gaster (Fig. 33) in addition to other characters listed in the key. The minor workers can also be confused with those of Asian native Pheidole parva, but can be distinguished by the more uniform and stout mesosomal hairs (Fig. 53), and by the antennal scapes which lack erect hairs (Fig. 55) and tend to surpass the posterior head margin by a distance equal to or greater than eye (Fig. 40). In the Neotropics, there are many native species that closely resemble Pheidole anastasii (Wilson 2003), and identification of the minor worker subcaste is especially challenging.</p><p>Among introduced members of the clade, the major workers of Pheidole punctatissima are immediately distinguished from those of both Pheidole anastasii and Pheidole bilimeki by the bicolored head (Fig. 33). The minor workers of Pheidole punctatissima tend to have narrower posterior head margins and longer antennal scapes than those of Pheidole anastasii and Pheidole bilimeki . Separating Pheidole anastasii from Pheidole bilimeki is particularly difficult. They are most reliably distinguished by ecological characteristics, with the former preferring to nest arboreally and the latter preferring to nest under stones or in dead wood. The morphological characters separating these two species are highly variable, but the major workers of Pheidole anastasii tend more often towards yellow (versus tending towards brown in Pheidole bilimeki) and can have relatively wider heads (HW 0.74-1.16 mm vs. 0.71-1.07 mm). The minor workers of Pheidole anastasii tend to have more narrow heads posteriorly then Pheidole bilimeki (Fig. 58 vs. Fig. 57) and relatively longer scapes (SI 103-125 vs. 95-108). See Longino and Cox (2009) for additional details.</p><p>Adding to the already confusing taxonomy separating Pheidole anastasii and Pheidole bilimeki is the widespread application of the name Pheidole floridana Emery to populations across the southern United States. The first record of Pheidole floridana from Florida was the type series described by Emery from Coconut Grove (Miami area) in 1895. Smith (1930) recorded Pheidole floridana in his original list of Florida ants, and added Pheidole anastasii three years later (1933), stating only "This species [ Pheidole anastasii], which was originally described from Costa Rica, is recorded here for Florida on the basis of information secured from Dr. Wheeler … I have seen the same species in greenhouses in the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and Illinois." The previous year (1932) Wheeler, who had received type material of Pheidole floridana from Emery (Wheeler 1908c), included Pheidole floridana and Pheidole anastasii in his own list of Florida ants.</p><p>Naves (1985) in his study of Florida Pheidole, also recognized both species and distinguished Pheidole anastasii from Pheidole floridana by the matte base of the gaster in the former and the glossy gaster in the latter. Indeed, the type specimens of Pheidole floridana from Coconut Grove are consistent with this characterization (CASENT0904424, CASENT0904425). Naves wrote that the Miami area was the only place where he was able to locate Pheidole floridana . Pheidole anastasii, in contrast, was reported by Naves as widely distributed across the state.</p><p>Deyrup et al. (1988), lamenting the taxonomic confusion surrounding Pheidole floridana, Pheidole flavens and Pheidole anastasii in Florida, stated, "Traditionally (Creighton 1950; Smith 1979) the name Pheidole floridana has been applied to a widespread upland species that has a distinctive matte area on the base of the first gastral tergite and very evenly rugose head … This is the species we report from the Keys [Florida]." Subsequent reviews of Florida ants have thus excluded Pheidole anastasii from their lists (Deyrup 2003; Deyrup et al. 2000; Moreau et al. 2014). Wilson (2003) followed Deyrup in treating all outdoor populations from the United States as Pheidole floridana, but conceded that his concept of Pheidole floridana could represent a northern geographic variant of Pheidole bilimeki or an endemic species modified by intergradation with a Pheidole bilimeki immigrant population.</p><p>With respect to all outdoor North American records, we follow Wheeler (1932), Smith (1933), and Naves (1985) in treating the localized glossy-gaster Pheidole floridana as distinct from the widespread matte-gaster species referred to as Pheidole anastasii by the aforementioned authors. However, the relatively short scapes and posteriorly broad heads of the minor workers, together with the habitat and nesting preferences of the matte-gaster species suggests the name Pheidole bilimeki Mayr more accurately applies to this widespread taxon than does Pheidole anastasii Emery. The issue is discussed in further detail under the Pheidole bilimeki section.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Pheidole anastasii, named by Emery on behalf of Sig. Anastasio Alfaro, is a Neotropical species that is occasionally found indoors beyond its native range. Although at least some arboreal colonies appear to be polydomous, Pheidole anastasii is a low-impact adventive that has thus far shown little capacity for becoming a significant invader. The biology of Pheidole anastasii, especially across its native range in Costa Rica and in comparison to Pheidole bilimeki was reviewed by Longino and Cox (2009). The species was noted as being among the most abundant ants in the low arboreal forest understory of La Selva Biological Station (Costa Rica). Although tolerant of disturbance, Pheidole anastasii requires some vegetation cover and does not occur in open areas. All collections reviewed by Longino and Cox were from wet forest habitats. Most were from below 500 m elevation, but several ranged to a maximum of 1200 m. The propensity for the species to be inadvertently transported to greenhouses across the world is predicted by its arboreal foraging and nesting habits. Longino and Cox (2009) observed the species nests in almost any kind of cavity or sheltered space, including live stems, and that workers often build galleries and tunnels with carton or earthen construction. The species was reported to occur in lowland second growth, evergreen forest, coffee plantation, limestone, ravine, mixed hardwood-pine forest, wet forest, on karst, and cloud forest. It was also reported to nest in dead sticks and branches on or above the forest floor, under bark flaps on tree trunks, beneath epiphytes and under stones.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Pheidole anastasii is a Neotropical native that ranges from Mexico to southern Central America or northern South America. We consider many of the outdoor records of Pheidole anastasii from the southern United States to refer instead to Pheidole bilimeki (see discussion above). There are, however confirmed records of the species from heated indoor locations - especially greenhouses. In North America there are records from hothouses in Washington D.C. and New York (Longino and Cox 2009), and also from Massachusetts. In Europe, the Netherlands occurrences reported as Pheidole anastasii by Boer and Vierbergen (2008) refer to Pheidole bilimeki (Boer, pers. comm.). The records from Denmark and Norway might also refer to Pheidole bilimeki, but until specimens can be examined we follow the authors’ use of Pheidole anastasii (Birkemoe and Aak 2008; Lomholdt 1986).</p><p>Risk statement.</p><p>Pheidole anastasii is a synanthropic species with a high tolerance for habitat disturbance. It is occasionally found in human habitations and in greenhouses. There is little indication that is causes significant impact to agricultural systems or native ecosystems. The species is a quarantine risk, and is thought to be transported with fresh plant material.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/1E4F1E82A8B9A6A9B14902CD580CF401	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	Sarnat, Eli M.;Fischer, Georg;Guenard, Benoit;Economo, Evan P.	Sarnat, Eli M., Fischer, Georg, Guenard, Benoit, Economo, Evan P. (2015): Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1-109, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
AE648D7ED4E23E3DB6F773DBEE5B0393.text	AE648D7ED4E23E3DB6F773DBEE5B0393.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pheidole bilimeki Mayr	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Pheidole bilimeki Mayr Figs 75, 88b</p><p>Pheidole bilimeki . Pheidole bilimeki Mayr 1870b: 985 (s.) MEXICO (Bilimek) [NHMW]. Lectotype (s.) designated: Wilson 2003: 378. Nec Donisthorpe 1946, Wittenborn and Jeschke 2011.</p><p>Pheidole deplanata . Pheidole floridana var. deplanata Pergande 1896: 883 (s.w.) MEXICO, Tepic (Eisen and Vaslit) [USNM]. Junior synonym of bilimeki Wilson 2003: 378.</p><p>Pheidole antoniensis . Pheidole floridana var. antoniensis Forel 1901b: 364 (s.w.) COLOMBIA, San Antonio, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (Forel) [MHNG]. Junior synonym of bilimeki: Wilson 2003: 378.</p><p>Pheidole annectens . Pheidole punctatissima subsp. annectens Wheeler, W.M. 1905: 93 (s.) BAHAMAS, Mangrove Key, Andros Island (Wheeler) [MCZC]. Junior synonym of bilimeki: Wilson 2003: 378.</p><p>Pheidole insulana . Pheidole punctatissima subsp. insulana Wheeler, W.M. 1905: 93 (s.w.) BAHAMAS Southern Bight, Andros Islands; BAHAMAS, Blue Hills, New Providence Island (Wheeler) [MCZC]. Junior synonym of bilimeki: Wilson 2003: 378.</p><p>Pheidole venezuelana . Pheidole anastasii var. venezuelana Forel 1905b: 159 (s.m.) VENEZUELA, Caracas (Meinert) [MHNG]. Junior synonym of bilimeki: Wilson 2003: 378.</p><p>Pheidole johnsoni . Pheidole anastasii var. johnsoni Wheeler, W.M. 1907: 272 (s.w.m.) HONDURAS, Manatee (Johnson) [MCZC]. Junior synonym of bilimeki: Wilson 2003: 378.</p><p>Pheidole ares . Pheidole floridana subsp. ares Forel 1908: 57 (s.w.m.) COSTA RICA, Cote du Tablazo, 1500 m; COSTA RICA, San Juan de Tobozi, 1400 m (Biolley) [MHNG]. Junior synonym of bilimeki: Wilson 2003: 378.</p><p>Pheidole lauta . Pheidole lauta Wheeler, W.M. 1908c: 470 (s.w.q.m.) U.S.A. Subspecies of floridana: Creighton 1950: 179. Junior synonym of floridana: Gregg 1959: 21. See also Wilson 2003: 424. n. syn.</p><p>Pheidole cellarum . Pheidole anastasii var. cellarum Forel 1908: 55 (s.w.) greenhouses in Zurich (SWITZERLAND), Kew (GREAT BRITAIN), Dresden (GERMANY) [MHNG]. Description of queen (as Pheidole anastasii, based on material from Guatemala intercepted at Hamburg; material labeled incorrectly as cellarum types in Forel collection): Forel 1901a: 78. Description of queen in key: Forel 1915: 34. Junior synonym of bilimeki: Wilson 2003: 378.</p><p>Pheidole rectiluma . Pheidole rectiluma Wilson 2003: 493 (s.w.) NICARAGUA, Hotel Selva Negra, 139 km north of Matagalpa, 1200 m (Kugler &amp; Hahn). Junior synonym of bilimeki: Longino 2009: 16.</p><p>Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole .</p><p>Color usually red brown, rarely yellow brown. MajorHW 0.75-1.04, HL 0.79-1.13, SL 0.44-0.57, CI 87-97, SI 50-65 (n=39, Longino pers. comm.). Head uniform in color (Fig. 35); subquadrate (Fig. 7); often entirely punctate (Fig. 11), but portions of posterolateral lobes can be glossy. Posterolateral lobes never with distinct rugulae. Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4). Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Postpetiole relatively broad; distinctly more than 2 × petiolar width in dorsal view (Fig. 31). First gastral tergite with anterior third to entire surface matte. MinorHW 0.42-0.52, HL 0.47-0.59, SL 0.40-0.54, CI 83-93, SI 88-108 (n=38, Longino pers. comm.). Head, including the area mesad of the frontal carinae, entirely covered by reticulated network of punctures, giving it a dull appearance (Fig. 37). Posterior head margin relatively broad and flat (Fig. 57). Antennal scapes lack standing hairs (Fig. 55); surpass posterior head margin by a distance equal to or greater than eye (Fig. 40). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Hairs on mesosoma stout, stiff, of equal length and arranged in pairs (Fig. 53). Postpetiole narrow in dorsal view, only slightly broader than petiole. Gaster with at least anterior 1/3 of first tergite matte (Fig. 33).</p><p>Identification, taxonomy and systematics.</p><p>Pheidole bilimeki is a member of the Neotropical Pheidole punctatissima clade, together with Pheidole anastasii and Pheidole punctatissima (Economo et al. 2015). Among species treated here, it is easily confused with the aforementioned and members of the Pheidole flavens complex. Minor workers can also be confused with those of Pheidole parva . See section under Pheidole anastasii for identification notes. In the southeastern United States, Pheidole bilimeki is often confused with Pheidole floridana Emery, which is discussed in more detail below. In the Neotropics, there are many native species that closely resemble Pheidole bilimeki (Wilson 2003).</p><p>We propose the synonymy of Pheidole lauta Wheeler to be transferred from Pheidole floridana to Pheidole bilimeki . In his original description Wheeler (1908c) wrote, “… the worker has the base of the gaster opaque whereas this is shining in the specimen of floridana given me by Prof. Emery." The description and the photographs we have examined of the type specimens all agree with the concept of Pheidole bilimeki used here and in Longino and Cox (2009).</p><p>Should Pheidole floridana therefore be synonymized under Pheidole bilimeki ? Wilson (2003) offered that the former might represent the northernmost population of the latter, and recent phylogenetic analyses (Economo et al. 2015; Moreau 2008) show these two as sibling taxa. Based on the results of her analysis, Moreau (2008) found that her samples of Pheidole bilimeki (Costa Rica, RA0162) and putative Pheidole floridana (Florida, RA0331) were each other’s closest relatives, and that this pair was sister to Pheidole anastasii (Costa Rica). The result is also supported by Economo et al. (2015), which found a shallow divergence separating Pheidole bilimeki from putative Pheidole floridana, especially compared to the deep divergence separating these sister taxa from Pheidole anastasii . Moreau (2008) concluded that in order for Pheidole anastasii to be a valid member of Pheidole bilimeki, as proposed by Wilson (2003), Pheidole floridana would also have to be accepted as a synonym of Pheidole bilimeki .</p><p>We suggest that this conundrum stems from the common misapplication of the name Pheidole floridana (a shiny gaster species) to collections of what are in fact the North American population of Pheidole bilimeki (a matte gaster species). Naves (1985) came to a similar conclusion in his revision of the Pheidole of Florida, "P. floridana seems to be confined to southeast Florida in the Miami area. This is the only place where I was able to locate this species. Due to its close relationship to Pheidole anastasii the latter has been misidentified as Pheidole floridana many times, thus, mistakenly extending the supposed range of P. floridana. P. anastasii is actually the species widely distributed in Florida, while floridana is absent or at least must be rare in most of the state."</p><p>One explanation for the confusing phylogenetic results is that RA0331 actually refers to Pheidole bilimeki Mayr, and that true members of Pheidole floridana Emery from the Miami area were not included in the aforementioned phylogenetic analyses. The samples of RA0331 were collected in central Florida from Polk County, well outside the Miami area from which the Pheidole floridana Emery is known (Naves 1985). Deyrup, who collected and identified the specimens of RA0331, has previously (2003; 1988; 1989) applied the name Pheidole floridana to matte gaster specimens that earlier authors (Naves 1985; Smith 1933; Wheeler 1932) would have considered Pheidole anastasii Emery, and that we consider Pheidole bilimeki Mayr.</p><p>To properly ascertain the taxonomic status of Pheidole floridana Mayr we suggest a future phylogenetic analysis that includes specimens matching the type material of Pheidole floridana, preferably from the Miami area. If there is evidence supporting the conspecificity of samples matching our concept of Pheidole bilimeki, then the validity of Pheidole floridana Emery must be revaluated. If, rather, the Pheidole floridana samples are heterospecific with respect to Pheidole bilimeki, then there are at least two hypotheses that could explain this result. One is that Pheidole floridana is endemic to Florida. The second, perhaps more compelling albeit ironic explanation, would propose the Miami population of Pheidole floridana is conspecific with a Neotropical species inadvertently introduced to Florida. Miami is a major shipping port and was the gateway for many introduced ants over the past two centuries (Deyrup et al. 2000).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>The taxonomic confusion surrounding whether published accounts refer to our proposed concept of Pheidole bilimeki, or instead to either Pheidole floridana or Pheidole anastasii, makes it difficult to ascertain the natural history of the species. The following account given by Longino and Cox (2009), however, refers definitively to Pheidole bilimeki . They report that Pheidole bilimeki is a common species in open, recently or frequently disturbed habitats. In Costa Rica it occurs in lowland dry forest, lowland wet forest, and montane habitats to about 1500 m elevation. It is a common ant of roadsides, nesting under stones or in dead fence posts. It is a frequent pest ant in houses and is a common ant at baits in second growth dry forest vegetation in seasonally dry Guanacaste Province. It can also be abundant and dominant in large disturbances deep within primary forest reserves. We tentatively treat the account given by Wilson (2003) for Pheidole floridana as referring to the North American population of Pheidole bilimeki . That account stated that winged reproductives have been found in nests during September and October, and that the species occurs in a variety of woodland habitats, nests in soil, litter, and rotten wood, and in both xeric and mesic situations. It also noted the observation of Stefan Cover that colonies are monogynous, may contain 1000 or more ants, and are sometimes polydomous. Cover observed that the species is omnivorous, but does not appear to harvest seeds (but see Naves 1985). Naves (1985) discussed the biology of Pheidole bilimeki (as Pheidole anastasii) in Florida. He found the species most often nesting under the bark at the base of pines or along the roots, but occasionally found it nesting in the soil. The colonies he observed supported over 600 workers with a 5:1 ratio of minors to majors. Mature colonies were monogynous, although in laboratory conditions colonies that lost their original queen would accept other conspecific queens. Several colonies were discovered with two or three founding females, but laboratory experiments found that one would kill the others before the rearing of the first brood. Naves also recorded that the species feeds on seeds, fruits, and scavenges on small dead arthropods and is predaceous on small live arthropods.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Pheidole bilimeki is a Neotropical native that ranges from northern South America to southern North America and across the Caribbean. The records included here from the southern United States have previously been treated as Pheidole anastasii and Pheidole floridana (see discussion). Pheidole bilimeki was not reported from Florida until 1932 (Wheeler). While it is possible that the penetration of Pheidole bilimeki into the southern United States represents a recent dispersal event, even one that has been anthropogenically facilitated, there are several reasons for considering Pheidole bilimeki as native to the region. Firstly, the range of North American populations appear contiguous with those of Mexico and the Caribbean, and gene flow among them is probable. Secondly, populations from Florida are known to host two parasites, a mermithid that parasitizes workers, and a hymenopteran parasite species of the genus Orasema (Naves 1985). Pheidole bilimeki has been recorded from greenhouses in Illinois and Ohio in North America. The species has also been found indoors and greenhouses across Europe, including the Netherlands (Boer and Vierbergen 2008), Germany (Forel 1908), Great Britain (Forel 1908), Ireland (Stelfox 1927), and Switzerland (Forel 1908). The only occurrence of Pheidole bilimeki in Jamaica is reported by Wilson (2003). Although the species might occur there, it is also possible that Wilson was referring to Pheidole jamaicensis Wheeler. The single Mauritius occurrence is of a single minor worker examined by Donisthorpe (1946), but this specimen more likely refers to the superficially similar Pheidole parva which is widespread across the island and its neighbors in the Indian Ocean.</p><p>Risk statement.</p><p>Pheidole bilimeki is a synanthropic species with a high tolerance for habitat disturbance. It is occasionally found indoors, especially in greenhouses. There is little indication that is causes significant impact to agricultural systems or native ecosystems.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/AE648D7ED4E23E3DB6F773DBEE5B0393	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	Sarnat, Eli M.;Fischer, Georg;Guenard, Benoit;Economo, Evan P.	Sarnat, Eli M., Fischer, Georg, Guenard, Benoit, Economo, Evan P. (2015): Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1-109, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
BACDE9800BB9117FBC3616CC8CDDC163.text	BACDE9800BB9117FBC3616CC8CDDC163.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pheidole fervens F. Smith	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Pheidole fervens F. Smith Figs 76, 88c</p><p>Pheidole fervens . Pheidole fervens Smith, F. 1858: 176 (s.) SINGAPORE (BMNH). Lectotype (s.) (CASENT0901520) designated: Fischer and Fisher 2013: 322.</p><p>Pheidole pungens . Solenopsis pungens Smith 1861: 48. INDONESIA, Menado, Sulawesi (A.R. Wallace). Combination in Pheidologeton: Donisthorpe 1932: 469; in Pheidole: Bolton 1995: 328. Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens; lectotype (s.) designated: Eguchi 2004b: 198.</p><p>Pheidole javana . Pheidole javana Mayr, 1867: 66 (s.w.) INDONESIA, Batavia [Jakarta], Java. Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens: Wilson and Taylor 1967: 45. Lectotype (s.) designated: Eguchi 2004b.</p><p>Pheidole cavannae . Pheidole cavannae Emery 1887: 464 (footnote) (s.) NEW CALEDONIA. Subspecies of Pheidole oceanica: Emery 1914: 401. Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens: Wilson and Taylor 1967: 45.</p><p>Pheidole dharmsalana . Pheidole javana var. dharmsalana Forel 1902c: 184, 198 (s.) INDIA, Dharmsala (Sage). [Also described as new by Forel 1902: 546]. Subspecies of Pheidole fervens: Bolton 1995: 320. Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens; lectotype (s.) designated: Eguchi 2004b: 198.</p><p>Pheidole amia . Pheidole amia Forel 1912: 60 (s.w.) TAIWAN, Takao [Kaohsiung]. Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens; lectotype designated: Eguchi 2004b: 197.</p><p>Pheidole dolenda . Pheidole javana var. dolenda Forel 1912: 60 (s.w.) TAIWAN, Akau. Subspecies of Pheidole fervens: Bolton 1995: 320. Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens; lectotype designated: Eguchi 2004b: 198.</p><p>Pheidole nigriscapa . Pheidole oceanica subsp. nigriscapa Santschi, 1928: 48 (s.w.) SAMOA, Apia, Upolu (H. Swale). Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens: Wilson and Taylor 1967: 45.</p><p>Pheidole tahitiana . Pheidole oceanica subsp. nigriscapa var. tahitiana Santschi [in Cheesman and Crawley 1928]: 516. FRENCH POLYNESIA, Tahiti. Unavailable name; material referred to Pheidole fervens by Wilson and Taylor 1967: 45.</p><p>Pheidole desucta . Pheidole javana var. desucta Wheeler, W.M. 1929: 2 (s.w.q.) CHINA, Back Liang. Subspecies of Pheidole fervens: Bolton 1995: 320. Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens: Eguchi 2001a: 53. Lectotype designated: Eguchi 2004b.</p><p>Pheidole soror . Pheidole javana var. soror Santschi 1937: 369 (s.w.) TAIWAN, Hokuto. Subspecies of Pheidole fervens: Bolton 1995: 330. Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens; lectotype designated: Eguchi 2004b: 198.</p><p>Pheidole azumai . Pheidole nodus st. azumai Santschi 1941: 274 (s.w.) JAPAN, Tennooji, Osaka. Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens; lectotype designated: Eguchi 2004b: 198.</p><p>Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole .</p><p>Color yellowish brown to dark brown. MajorHW 1.13-1.44, HL 1.13-1.56, SL 0.80-0.95, CI 92-100, SI 61-71 (n=15, Eguchi 2001a; 2008; Fischer and Fisher 2013). Head square to subquadrate (Fig. 7); rugoreticulate on posterolateral lobes and laterad of frontal carinae (Fig. 13a), but frons dominated by long, well-organized and parallel longitudinal rugae (Fig. 13b). Antennal scrobes indistinct to moderately impressed, but frontal carinae always forming a border capable of accepting the antennal scape (Fig. 13c). Frontal carinae relatively longer, extend 4/5 distance of head before terminating (Fig. 14). Promesonotum in profile with two convexities (Fig. 5), the large anterior dome in addition to a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). MinorHW 0.52-0.63, HL 0.66-0.73, SL 0.77-0.87, CI 79-88, SI 133-154 (n=16, Eguchi 2001a; 2008; Fischer and Fisher 2013). Head predominantly glossy (Fig. 36), lacking punctation or rugulae above eye level. Posterior head margin weakly convex to flat in full-face view (Fig. 45). Antennal scapes long (e.g. Fig. 39), but not surpassing the posterior head margin by more than 2 × eye length. Promesonotum in profile with two convexities, the large anterior dome (Fig. 43a) in addition to a distinct prominence on the posterior slope (Fig. 43b). Promesonotal prominence relatively flat (Fig. 49a). Metanotal depression relatively deep (Fig. 49b). Petiole and postpetiole glossy to very weakly sculptured laterally (Fig. 48). Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3).</p><p>Identification, taxonomy and systematics.</p><p>Pheidole fervens is a medium to large sized species with long limbs. It belongs to the Pheidole fervens clade along with its Australasian congeners Pheidole cariniceps, Pheidole hospes, Pheidole impressiceps, and Pheidole oceanica (Economo et al. 2015). The major workers have strong cephalic rugulae that become reticulated towards the posterior of the head and the minor workers have completely glossy heads with very long antennal scapes. Majors and minors of the species can be separated from those of Pheidole megacephala and Pheidole noda by the postpetiole which is not swollen compared to the petiole (Fig. 3), and the promesonotum which has the large anterior dome in addition to a distinct prominence on the posterior slope (Fig. 5, major; Fig. 43, minor). The minors of Pheidole fervens can also be separated from those of Pheidole megacephala by their larger size and longer antennal scapes (Fig. 39). The majors are easily distinguished from Pheidole megacephala by the very sculptured head (Fig. 13).</p><p>Among species treated here, Pheidole fervens is most easily confused with its close relative, Pheidole indica, and the characters used to separate these two are subtle. For both subcastes, the promesonotal prominence is flatter in Pheidole fervens (Fig. 49a, minor; Fig. 63a, major) compared to that of Pheidole indica (Fig. 50a, minor; Fig. 64a, major). The eyes of Pheidole fervens minors (Fig. 65) are relatively smaller than those of Pheidole indica minors (Fig. 66), especially in comparison to antennal segment 10. The propodeal spines of Pheidole fervens are weaker, narrower, and more downcurved in majors of Pheidole fervens (Fig. 63b) compared to those of Pheidole indica (Fig. 64b). Readers are referred to Eguchi (2004b; 2008) for characters used to separate Pheidole fervens and Pheidole indica from their Asian congeners.</p><p>In the Pacific Island region Pheidole fervens is often confused with the nearly identical Pheidole oceanica, which is native to that region. The carinae between eye and mandible are branching and reticulated in the majors of Pheidole fervens (Fig. 67), versus parallel and not reticulated in those of Pheidole oceanica (Fig. 68). This character was erroneously reversed in the key provided in Sarnat and Economo (2012). The minors are more difficult to separate, but in Pheidole fervens the length of propodeal spine is equal to or less than the diameter of propodeal spiracle (Fig. 69), whereas in Pheidole oceanica it is greater (Fig. 70).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>For such a ubiquitous species across its native and introduced range, very little is known about the biology of Pheidole fervens . It is a synanthropic species with a high tolerance for disturbance (Eguchi 2004b; Fischer and Fisher 2013; Martínez 1996), but can also thrive under some degree of canopy cover (Morrison 1996; Sarnat and Economo 2012). In Fiji, where it is likely a recent colonizer, it was collected most frequently in human dominated landscapes between 0-800 m, although several collections were also made from primary forest at low elevations. In Hawaii, where it is definitely an introduced species, it is more abundant locally in wet regions than Pheidole megacephala (Gruner et al. 2003) and occurs in the hot lowlands only below 900 m (Reimer 1994). In the Philippines, Pheidole fervens is found in irrigated lowlands (rice fields) where it is characterized as dominant species capable of displacing Solenopsis geminata in the dry season (Way et al. 1998). In Japan it occurs in open land grading to forest edge (Harada et al. 2009; Ogata 1981). Pheidole fervens recruits in large numbers to bait and forages both on the ground and on vegetation (Sarnat and Economo 2012). Baiting experiments on Pacific Islands found that Pheidole fervens can act as a numerically and behaviorally dominant species capable of excluding other invasive ant species (including Anoplolepis gracilipes, Nylanderia bourbonica, and Tetramorium bicarinatum) from baits (Morrison 1996). Although foragers can be slow to discover food resources, once found they can recruit in large numbers and displace competing species (Morrison 1996). Experiments in China suggest that Pheidole fervens can provide some degree of biotic resistance to the Red Imported Fire Ant ( Solenopsis invicta) by acting in groups to dismember the limbs of individual fire ants (Chen et al. 2011). Martínez (1996) suggested the California population of Pheidole fervens was polydomous, and Passera (1994) suggested the Hawaii population is unicolonial and polygynous, but detailed colony-level studies of the species are required to verify these claims. Wittenborn and Jeschke (2011) attributed their assertion that Pheidole fervens practices dependent colony founding to Harris et al. (2005a), but we were unable to find any reference to colony foundation in that report and cannot substantiate their evidence.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>We consider Pheidole fervens as native to a broad expanse of the Indo-Malay region spanning from India east to the Philippines and south to the islands west of New Guinea. This is a broad and admittedly arbitrary boundary, but a more precise circumscription of the native range requires a population-level analysis outside the scope of the present study. In particular, it is difficult to ascertain the extent of its range into the Pacific Island region prior to the Anthropocene. The only known occurrence of Pheidole fervens from New Guinea was a single record from the westernmost part of the island (Emery 1887b). East of New Guinea, however, the species is established on nearly all islands of the Pacific, including those which were uninhabited by any ant prior to human arrival. Although it is quite possible that Pheidole fervens reached some of these islands without human assistance - especially those between Taiwan and mainland Japan - we treat these as introduced populations. And although established on Mauritius, the species is rarely encountered there and is currently known from only two localities (Fischer and Fisher 2013). The only record of introduction in North America is a California population that established nests in cracks of roads and along the sides of buildings in a two-block area of downtown Los Angeles ( Martínez 1996). Pheidole fervens has been collected from greenhouses in the Netherlands (Boer and Vierbergen 2008), and is frequently intercepted by quarantine inspections (Ward et al. 2006).</p><p>Risk statement.</p><p>Pheidole fervens can be a dominant species where it is locally abundant. Although few studies have measured the effect of Pheidole fervens on native ecosystems, we predict that it could negatively impact native arthropods. We were unable to find documentation on the effect of Pheidole fervens on agricultural systems, but it can be among the most abundant ant species in irrigated lowland crop systems such as rice fields. Pheidole fervens can also be an indoor nuisance species (Wilson and Taylor 1967), but is not a risk for structural damage. According to New Zealand records, the species is among the most commonly intercepted ants in that country (Ward et al. 2006). Sixty- nine percent of the interceptions were in freight from Fiji (&gt; 92% from the Pacific Islands). Interceptions were mostly in fresh produce (69%) and cut flowers (8%). Pheidole fervens was also intercepted multiple times in air passengers’ luggage and shipping containers. The species could become more globally widespread in the future.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/BACDE9800BB9117FBC3616CC8CDDC163	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	Sarnat, Eli M.;Fischer, Georg;Guenard, Benoit;Economo, Evan P.	Sarnat, Eli M., Fischer, Georg, Guenard, Benoit, Economo, Evan P. (2015): Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1-109, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
E4EA04871C786D6EC8D235EB6B284538.text	E4EA04871C786D6EC8D235EB6B284538.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pheidole flavens Roger	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Pheidole flavens Roger Figs 77, Fig. 88d</p><p>Pheidole flavens . Pheidole flavens Roger 1863a: 198 (s.w.q.) CUBA. Wheeler, W.M. 1905: 92 (m.). Neotype designated: Barrajagua, Las Villas, CUBA (E.O. Wilson): Wilson 2003: 419.</p><p>Pheidole tuberculata . Pheidole exigua var. tuberculata Mayr 1887: 585 (s.) St. Catharina, BRAZIL. Subspecies of flavens: Emery 1894: 157. Junior synonym of flavens: Wilson 2003: 419.</p><p>Pheidole vincentensis . Pheidole flavens var. vincentensis Forel 1893a: 411 (s.w.q.m.) SAINT VINCENT. Junior synonym of flavens: Wilson 2003: 419.</p><p>Pheidole gracilior . Pheidole flavens r. gracilior Forel 1901a: 78 (s.w.q.) GERMANY (intercepted in quarantine, from West Indies). Junior synonym of flavens: Wilson 2003: 419.</p><p>Pheidole haytiana . Pheidole flavens var. haytiana Forel 1907: 6 (w.) HAITI, Port-au-Prince (Keitel). Wheeler, W.M. &amp; Mann, 1914: 24 (s.q.m.). Junior synonym of flavens: Wilson 2003: 419.</p><p>Pheidole spei . Pheidole flavens st. spei Santschi 1930: 77 (s.w.) CUBA, Pinar del Rio, Punta Esperanza, 4.i.2030, 7 s., 10 w. (Bierig). Junior synonym of flavens: Wilson 2003: 419.</p><p>Pheidole aechmeae . Pheidole floridana subsp. aechmeae Wheeler, W.M. 1934: 166 (s.w.) MEXICO, Camaron near Mirador, Vera Cruz, in Aechmea bracteata, No. 472 (Skwarra). Junior synonym of flavens: Wilson 2003: 419.</p><p>Pheidole greggi . Pheidole greggi Naves, 1985: 62, figs. 21, 45, 57 (s.w.) U.S.A., Miami, Florida, 19.xii.1945 (W.F. Buren). Junior synonym of flavens: Wilson 2003: 419.</p><p>Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole .</p><p>See notes under Pheidole flavens -complex. Neotype major: HW 0.72, HL 0.74, SL 0.42, CI 103, SI 58. Paraneotype minor: HW 0.34, HL 0.42, SL 0.34, CI 124. SI 100. Non-type measurements, major: HW 0.68-0.83, HL 0.74-0.88, SL 0.39-0.42, CI 87-97, SI 52-59. Non-type measurements, minor: HW 0.34-0.45, HL 0.39-0.49, SL 0.34-0.42, CI 81-93, SI 89-104.</p><p>Identification, taxonomy and systematics.</p><p>Pheidole flavens belongs to the Pheidole flavens -complex along with a putatively large number of other nominal taxa. However, the Pheidole flavens group as conceived by Wilson (2003) is now known to be polyphyletic (Economo et al. 2015; Moreau 2008). Readers are referred to the Pheidole flavens -complex for additional discussion of identification, taxonomy and systematics. The taxonomy of Pheidole flavens and its close relatives remains in a state of confusion. It is beyond the scope of the present study to resolve this issue, but we contribute the following discussion as a step towards that goal.</p><p>Pheidole flavens was originally described by Roger from Cuba, but the type material is considered to be lost. Wilson (2003) designated a neotype from Cuba and synonymized a total of eight nominal taxa with Pheidole flavens . Of these, Pheidole greggi Naves (Florida) and perhaps Pheidole flavens st. spei Santschi (Mexico) are most similar to the Cuban neotype. They, together with the types of Pheidole moerens subsp. creola, are the only specimens examined thus far that have clearly reticulated rugulae posterior to the scrobes of major workers. Naves’ (1985: fig. 55) concept of Pheidole flavens Roger, at least as evidenced by his figures and descriptions, more closely matches our concept Pheidole navigans, a species that is spreading across the southeastern United States. The syntype major of Pheidole flavens var. vincentensis Forel differs substantially from the neotype in that the head is completely glossy between the rugulae, which are themselves entirely longitudinal and do not extend far beyond the maximum extent of the antennal scapes in repose. These characters make it at least superficially more similar to Pheidole moerens and Pheidole navigans . Pheidole flavens r. gracilior and Pheidole navigans were both described by Forel from workers intercepted at a Hamburg quarantine facility, which is testament to the dispersive ability of this complex. The syntype major of the latter species and that of Pheidole floridana subsp. aechmeae Wheeler, also described from Mexico, are quite similar. Pheidole exigua var. tuberculata Mayr has the strongly convex head and promesonotal dome of Pheidole exigua Mayr, and also exhibits tuberculate angles on the mesonotal declivity. Type specimens of Pheidole flavens var. haytiana Forel were not examined for this study.</p><p>The only material from outside Central America and the Caribbean that we were able to confirm as matching the Wilson’s neotype was from Florida. The Florida populations referred to here as Pheidole flavens and Pheidole navigans are almost certainly heterospecific. We suspect that Nearctic records of Pheidole flavens outside of Florida such as those reported from Louisiana (Colby and Prowell 2006; Dash and Hooper-Bùi 2008) refer to either Pheidole bilimeki or the species we are treating as Pheidole navigans in the southeastern USA.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>The biology of Pheidole flavens, as currently conceived, was reviewed by Wilson (2003) with contributing observations by Jack Longino. The species prefers rotting wood, but also nest beneath the bark of trees, in dead knots on tree trunks, in sod on rocks, in the soil beneath stones, and in epiphyte masses. In the Caribbean it is recorded from forests and thickets from sea level to 900 m, and in Costa Rica it occurs in both wet and dry forests below 1000 m. The nest galleries are diffuse and irregular. Mature colonies are large containing up to thousands of workers. Workers collect small arthropods and will recruit to sugar baits.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Pheidole flavens is among the most widespread and abundant species of its genus in the New World, although this range might be representative of multiple cryptic species. As currently conceived, however, we consider Pheidole flavens native from southern Mexico east through the Caribbean and south to Uruguay and northern Argentina. It is difficult to know whether the disjunction separating the western and eastern regions of South America is accurate or a sampling artifact. The Florida population is believed to have derived from an accidental introduction by commerce (Deyrup et al. 2000; Wilson 2003).</p><p>Risk statement.</p><p>Pheidole flavens (or at least it’s very close relatives) are easily transported long distances, and are known to hitchhike with fresh plant material (Wilson 2003). However, the species is not known to cause significant impact to agricultural systems or native ecosystems, and is not considered a house pest (Hedges 1998; Klotz et al. 1995).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E4EA04871C786D6EC8D235EB6B284538	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	Sarnat, Eli M.;Fischer, Georg;Guenard, Benoit;Economo, Evan P.	Sarnat, Eli M., Fischer, Georg, Guenard, Benoit, Economo, Evan P. (2015): Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1-109, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
A0F4553A2370FDC3EBA61145C53DF85F.text	A0F4553A2370FDC3EBA61145C53DF85F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pheidole indica Mayr	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Pheidole indica Mayr Figs 73, 78, 88f</p><p>Pheidole indica . Pheidole indica Mayr 1879: 679 (s.w.q.) INDIA, Calcutta [NHMW, paralectotype s.w., examined]. Forel 1902b: 199 (m.); Imai et al. 1984: 6 (k.). Lectotype designated Eguchi 2004b: 199 (s.).</p><p>Pheidole Note. Material of the unavailable name Pheidole javana r. jubilans var. formosae Forel 1912: 60 referred to Pheidole indica: Eguchi 2004b: 199.</p><p>Pheidole striativentris . Pheidole striativentris Mayr 1879: 678 (s.) INDIA: Calcutta. Forel 1902b: 195 (w.q.). Junior synonym of indica: Eguchi 2004b: 199.</p><p>Pheidole teneriffana . Pheidole teneriffana Forel 1893b: 465 (s.w.) SPAIN, Canary Is. (s.) Laguna, Tenerife (M. Medina); (q.) Las Palmas, Canarías (Cabrera y Díaz). [Also described as new by Forel 1894a: 160.] Queen described: Santschi 1908: 521. Male described: Gómez and Espadaler 2006: 229. n. syn.</p><p>Pheidole voeltzkowii . Pheidole voeltzkowii Forel 1894b: 227 (s.w.m.) MADAGASCAR. Queen described: Forel 1897: 207. Junior synonym of teneriffana: Fischer and Fisher 2013: 340. n. syn.</p><p>Pheidole himalayana . Pheidole indica r. himalayana Forel 1902b: 185 (s.), 199 (w.) INDIA. [Also described as new by Forel 1902a: 546.] Raised to species: Bingham 1903: 265. Subspecies of indica: Emery 1921: 91; Menozzi 1939: 298; Pisarski 1967: 385. Junior synonym of indica: Eguchi 2004b: 198.</p><p>Pheidole rotschana . Pheidole indica r. rotschana Forel 1902b: 185 (s.), 199 (w.m.) INDIA: Poona, Orissa, Trevandrum and Thana. Lectotype designated Eguchi 2004b: 199 (s.) INDIA: Poona. Imai et al. 1984: 6 (k.). [Also described as new by Forel 1902a: 546.] Raised to species: Bingham 1903: 264. Subspecies of indica: Forel 1909b: 394; Forel 1911a: 222. Junior synonym of indica: Eguchi 2004b: 199.</p><p>Pheidole taina . Pheidole teneriffana subsp. taina Aguayo 1932: 219 (s.) CUBA, Holguín, viii.1930 (C.G. Aguayo). Junior synonym of teneriffana: Wilson 2003: 640. See also: Baroni Urbani 1968: 438; Snelling, R.R. 1992: 121. n. syn.</p><p>Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole .</p><p>Light to dark reddish brown. MajorHW 1.32-1.74, HL 1.31-1.76, SL 0.73-0.91, CI 94-117, SI 47-62 (n=22). Head subquadrate (Fig. 7); rugoreticulate on posterolateral lobes and laterad of frontal carinae (Fig. 13a), but frons dominated by long, well-organized and parallel longitudinal rugae (Fig. 13b). Frontal carinae extend 3/4 distance of head before terminating (Fig. 15). Antennal scrobes indistinct to moderately impressed, but frontal carinae always forming a border capable of accepting the antennal scape (Fig. 13c). Hypostoma with weakly produced median tooth and submedian teeth. Promesonotum in profile with two convexities (Fig. 5), the large anterior dome in addition to a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). MinorHW 0.50-0.65, HL 0.60-0.74, SL 0.64-0.81, CI 72-90, SI 120-149 (n=20). Head predominantly glossy (Fig. 36), lacking punctation and or rugae above eye level. Posterior head margin weakly convex to flat in full-face view (Fig. 45). Antennal scapes long (e.g. Fig. 39), but not surpassing the posterior head margin by more than 2 × eye length. Promesonotum in profile with two convexities, the large anterior dome (Fig. 43a) in addition to a distinct prominence on the posterior slope (Fig. 43b). Promesonotal prominence relatively convex (Fig. 50a). Metanotal depression relatively shallow (Fig. 50b). Petiole and postpetiole glossy to very weakly sculptured laterally (Fig. 48). Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3).</p><p>Identification, taxonomy and systematics.</p><p>Pheidole indica is a medium to large reddish brown species with relatively long limbs. It belongs to the Pheidole fervens clade along with its Australasian congeners Pheidole cariniceps, Pheidole fervens, Pheidole hospes, Pheidole impressiceps, and Pheidole oceanica (Economo et al. 2015, unpublished data). The major and minor workers are distinguished from those of Pheidole megacephala by the lack of a swollen postpetiole (Fig. 3). The majors are also easily separated from those of Pheidole megacephala by the strongly sculptured head (Fig. 13). The minors can be confused with those of Pheidole megacephala because both have glossy heads. However, the minors of Pheidole fervens can be separated from those of Pheidole megacephala by the relatively longer antennal scapes (Fig. 39 vs. Fig. 40) and the presence of a promesonotal prominence (Fig. 43 vs. Fig. 42). Pheidole indica is broadly sympatric with Pheidole noda and Pheidole fervens . It is easily separated from the former by the lack of a swollen postpetiole (Fig. 3 vs. Fig. 2). Separation from Pheidole fervens is quite difficult, and readers are referred to corresponding section under that species for distinguishing characters. Readers are referred to Eguchi (2004b; 2008) for characters used to separate Pheidole indica and Pheidole fervens from their Asian congeners.</p><p>Pheidole indica was originally described from India. Eguchi (2004b) synonymized several other Asian congeners under Pheidole indica and discussed taxonomic differences used to distinguish it from Pheidole fervens and other morphologically similar species. We synonymize Pheidole teneriffana under Pheidole indica based on morphological analysis of the type specimens and genetic analysis of previously determined specimens (unpublished data). Forel, in his original description of Pheidole teneriffana, noted the similarity between it and Pheidole striativentris [= indica].</p><p>The biogeographical origin of Pheidole teneriffana has been a minor mystery of the past century, as revealed by the recent review of the species by Wetterer (2011). There appeared to be general consensus that Pheidole teneriffana was native to at least some portion of North Africa, Arabia, the Middle East or the Mediterranean. Santschi (1918), suggested the upper Nile area (South Sudan). Wilson (2003) suggested North Africa and potentially the Canary Islands. Collingwood et al. (2004) suggested it was native throughout northern Africa and observed it to be, "spreading over a wide front in the Middle East, Arabia and the Mediterranean countries." Wetterer (2011) found the distribution of Pheidole teneriffana enigmatic, "Curiously, most Old World records of Pheidole teneriffana are subtropical, but all New World records are tropical, except one from California … If Pheidole teneriffana is truly native across North Africa, it is remarkable how few records I found from any North African country other than Egypt."</p><p>Biology.</p><p>In Asia Pheidole indica is known to nest in soil or under stones in open and dry habitats (Eguchi 2004b). It is among the most widespread Pheidole species in Asia. In the Caribbean Wetterer (2011) found Pheidole indica [as Pheidole teneriffana] almost exclusively on beaches and at highly disturbed urban sites, particularly in waterfront areas. In northern Africa, Santschi (1908) noted the tramp-like distribution of what he treated as Pheidole teneriffana, "This species, described by Forel on samples from the Canary Islands, was sent to me from Cairo. I discovered it most recently in Sousse [Tunisia], in the park, near the port. As it does not exist in the interior, I think it is one species cosmopolitan tendencies. It nests in the ground and under stones." Santschi (1934) later reported the species from Alexandria, Egypt, and noted that Pheidole teneriffana was rarely reported far from seaports. Collingwood et al. (1997) reported that in the United Arab Emirates, Pheidole indica [as Pheidole teneriffana] was populous in irrigated gardens and along the coast where it appeared to be spreading rapidly, possibly to the detriment of local species. The species has also been reported from urban areas of the Balearic Islands where it is common in the gardens and trees and on sidewalks near the harbor ( Gómez and Espadaler 2006). Fischer and Fisher (2013) reported Pheidole indica [as Pheidole teneriffana] from the Malagasy region. It was collected on the Comoros, Mauritius, the Seychelles, and from coastal towns in Madagascar, usually from under stones, ground nests, or foraging on the ground or lower vegetation in urban or garden habitats at elevations below 300 m. It was also found on Mayotte in native littoral and secondary forest below 10 m.</p><p>Perhaps the most detailed study of Pheidole indica in the New World comes from the account of Martínez (1992) who reported a vigorous population, represented by a putatively single polydomous colony spanning several hectares, that was discovered in Long Beach, California in 1989. Martínez (1992) reportedly observed 23 inseminated queens from a single colony that was changing nest sites (although no details are given for how he knew the queens were inseminated). He described the colony nests as low mounds on the soil, along curbs or sidewalks, at the edges of lawns, in cracks in pavement, and at the bases of trees. New colonies were started by budding. Workers foraged night and day unless temperature exceeded 26 °C, taking seeds and scavenging dead or dying insects. They were observed feeding on sweet or greasy foods, but were not seen tending aphids. Martínez (1992) observed the species attacking native ants, including Pogonomyrmex californicus (Buckley). More remarkably, he reportedly observed Pheidole indica destroying colonies and taking over nest sites of Linepithema humile . Despite the purported success of these battles, Pheidole indica must have lost the larger war against Linepithema humile, as the eventual extirpation of the Californian population was attributed to the Argentine ant (Gulmahamad 1999).</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>We treat all occurrence records from the regions of Indomalaya west of the Korean Peninsula as native. The Korean and Japanese populations are considered introduced (Choi and Bang 1993; Choi et al. 1993a; Choi et al. 1993b; Terayama 1992), and additional portions of the range in Asia might also have resulted from anthropogenic transport. Pheidole indica has been introduced to scattered localities across the globe, although the vast majority of these records were attributed to its junior synonym, Pheidole teneriffana . Introduced populations have been reported from the Mediterranean, northern Africa, the Malagasy region, Western Australia, Peru, the Caribbean, and southern California.</p><p>Risk statement.</p><p>Pheidole indica is not considered to be a major pest to either agriculture or native ecosystems. Although the species is tolerant of disturbed and urban areas, we found no reports of it infesting structures. Few studies have measured the effect of Pheidole indica on ecosystem health, but we predict that it could negatively impact native arthropods. The species is continuing to spread across the globe and further studies are required to test its ecological and agricultural impact outside its native range.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A0F4553A2370FDC3EBA61145C53DF85F	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	Sarnat, Eli M.;Fischer, Georg;Guenard, Benoit;Economo, Evan P.	Sarnat, Eli M., Fischer, Georg, Guenard, Benoit, Economo, Evan P. (2015): Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1-109, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
5F4328F064013669DFDE7A1D2A38D25D.text	5F4328F064013669DFDE7A1D2A38D25D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pheidole megacephala (Fabricius)	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Pheidole megacephala (Fabricius) Figs 79, 88g</p><p>Pheidole edax . Formica edax Forskål 1775: 84 (w.) EGYPT. Junior synonym of megacephala: Emery 1892: 160; Dalla Torre 1892: 90. [If synonymy correct then edax is the senior name; however, under Art. 23.9 of ICZN (1999) edax is a nomen oblitum.]</p><p>Pheidole megacephala . Formica megacephala Fabricius, 1793: 361 (s.) MAURITIUS 'Ile de France’ [presumed lost]. Neotype (s.) designated: MAURITIUS, Camizard Mt., Bambous, 20.3328 S, 57.723 E, 375 m, rainforest, ex rotten log, collection code BLF12051, 27.v.2005 (B.L. Fisher et al.) (CASC: CASENT0104990): (Fischer and Fisher 2013): 332. Latreille 1802: 232 (q.); Mayr 1861: 70 (s.w.q.m.); Wheeler, G.C. &amp; Wheeler, J. 1953: 75 (l.). Combination in Pheidole: Roger 1863b: 30. [ Pheidole megalocephala Schulz 1906: 155; unjustified emendation.] Current subspecies: nominal plus costauriensis, duplex, ilgi, impressifrons, melancholica, nkomoana, rotundata, speculifrons, talpa .</p><p>Pheidole Note: Pheidole megacephala Smith, F. 1860: 112 is a junior synonym of Carebara diversus (Jerdon): Emery 1893: 206.</p><p>Pheidole trinodis . Myrmica trinodis Losana 1834: 327, pl. 36, fig. 6 (w.) ITALY, Piedmont. Junior synonym of megacephala: Roger 1863b: 30.</p><p>Pheidole pusilla . Oecophthora pusilla Heer 1852: 15, pl. 1, figs. 1-4 (s.w.q.m.) PORTUGAL, Madeira I. Combination in Pheidole: Smith, F. 1858: 173. Subspecies of megacephala: Emery 1915b: 235. Senior synonym of janus: Mayr 1886: 360; of laevigata Smith: Roger 1859: 259; Emery 1915b: 235; of laevigata Mayr: Mayr 1870b: 981 (footnote). Junior synonym of megacephala: Wheeler, W.M. 1922b: 812.</p><p>Pheidole laevigata . Myrmica (?) laevigata Smith 1855: 130, pl. 9, figs. 7, 8 (w.) GREAT BRITAIN, Battersea. Junior synonym of Pheidole pusilla: Roger 1859: 259; of Pheidole pallidula: Smith 1858: 282; of Pheidole megacephala: Roger 1863: 30; of Pheidole pusilla: Emery 1915: 235.</p><p>Pheidole agilis . Myrmica agilis Smith, F. 1857: 71 (w.) MALAYSIA, Malacca. Combination in Pheidole: Donisthorpe 1932: 449. Junior synonym of megacephala: Eguchi 2008: 56.</p><p>Pheidole janus . Pheidole janus Smith, F. 1858: 175, pl. 9, figs. 13-17 (s.w.) SRI LANKA. Junior synonym of pusilla: Mayr 1886: 360.</p><p>Pheidole testacea . Atta testacea Smith, F. 1858: 168 (s.w.) BRAZIL. Combination in Pheidole: Mayr 1886: 360. Junior synonym of megacephala: Brown 1981: 530.</p><p>Pheidole perniciosa . Oecophthora perniciosa Gerstäcker 1859: 263 (w.) MOZAMBIQUE. [Also described as new by Gerstäcker 1862: 516.] Combination in Pheidole: Roger 1863b: 31. Junior synonym of megacephala: Emery 1915b: 235.</p><p>Pheidole suspiciosa . Myrmica suspiciosa Smith, F. 1859: 148 (w.) INDONESIA, Aru I. (A.R. Wallace). Junior synonym of megacephala: Donisthorpe 1932: 455.</p><p>Pheidole laevigata . Pheidole laevigata Mayr 1862: 747 (s.) BRAZIL. Unresolved junior secondary homonym of Pheidole laevigata Smith, F. Junior synonym of Pheidole pusilla: Mayr 1870: 981 (footnote).</p><p>Pheidole scabrior . Pheidole megacephala var. scabrior Forel 1891: 178 (s.w.) MADAGASCAR. Junior synonym of megacephala: Fischer and Fisher 2013: 333.</p><p>Pheidole picata . Pheidole megacephala var. picata Forel 1891: 178 (s.w.) MADAGASCAR. Subspecies of megacephala: Forel 1895: 49; of punctulata: Forel 1897: 186; Forel 1905: 163; Santschi 1910: 370. Raised to species: Emery 1915b: 245; Wheeler, W.M. 1922a: 1019. Junior synonym of megacephala: Fischer and Fisher 2013: 333.</p><p>Pheidole gietleni . Pheidole punctulata r. gietleni Forel 1905b: 164 (s.w.) MADAGASCAR. Subspecies of picata: Emery 1915b: 245. Junior synonym of megacephala: Fischer and Fisher 2013: 333.</p><p>Pheidole bernhardae . Pheidole picata var. bernhardae Emery 1915b: 245 (s.w.) MADAGASCAR. [First available use of Pheidole punctulata r. spinosa var. bernhardae Forel, 1905: 164; unavailable name.] Junior synonym of megacephala: Fischer and Fisher 2013: 333.</p><p>Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole .</p><p>Light brown to dark brown. MajorHW 1.10-1.54, HL 1.04-1.59, SL 0.59-0.76, CI 97-106, SI 47-58 (n=19, Fischer and Fisher 2013). Head heart-shaped (Fig. 6); posterior 1/3 of dorsal surface smooth, glossy and entirely lacking rugoreticulate sculpture. Hypostoma lacking distinct median and submedian teeth. Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Postpetiole with a posterodorsal (Fig. 1a) and anteroventral (Fig. 1b) bulge. MinorHW 0.50-0.61, HL 0.57-0.68, SL 0.61-0.72, CI 86-92, SI 114-122 (n=20, Fischer and Fisher 2013). Head predominantly glossy (Fig. 36), lacking punctation and or rugae above eye level. Antennal scapes surpass posterior head margin by approximately same length as eye (Fig. 40). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Postpetiole with a posterodorsal (Fig. 1a) and anteroventral (Fig. 1b) bulge.</p><p>Identification, taxonomy and systematics.</p><p>Pheidole megacephala is a medium sized species of variable color that is most easily recognized outside of its native range by the heart-shaped head and bulging postpetiole. It belongs to a diverse and taxonomically confusing clade of morphologically similar taxa centered in the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions. Both major and minor workers are distinguished from all other introduced Pheidole by the swollen shape of the postpetiole (Fig. 1). Pheidole noda also has a swollen postpetiole, but whereas the postpetiole of Pheidole megacephala is characterized by a posterodorsal and anteroventral bulge, that of Pheidole noda is formed as a high dorsally bulging dome that is tallest at its midpoint.</p><p>Pheidole megacephala has often been confused for Pheidole pallidula Nylander in Europe, especially in the Mediterranean region. The introduced populations of Pheidole megacephala can be distinguished from Pheidole pallidula by the following characters. For both major and minor workers the postpetiole of Pheidole megacephala has a posterodorsal (Fig. 1a) and anteroventral (Fig. 1b) bulge, while that of Pallidula is not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). The propodeal spines of both subcastes are distinct in Pheidole megacephala but are strongly reduced in Pheidole pallidula . Additionally, the major worker of Pheidole megacephala has a heart shaped head that broadens significantly posterior to eye-level (Fig. 6) while the head of Pallidula is more rectangular (more approximate to Fig. 7).</p><p>Accurate identification within the Afrotropics is more problematic. While for Madagascar previously described subspecies have been synonymized with Pheidole megacephala (Fischer and Fisher 2013), the taxonomy of the megacephala group in Africa remains rather chaotic with a number of unrevised subspecies, most of which remain insufficiently characterized. In a taxonomic overview of the group, Emery (1915) studied type and non-type material of Pheidole megacephala -related species, yet for several subspecies he was not able to define clear species limits from the multitude of different, yet highly similar, phenotypes. We suspect that some of those names are probably due to intraspecific variation within Pheidole megacephala and Pheidole punctulata Mayr. Other, morphologically unique taxa like Pheidole megacephala nkomoana Forel are clearly valid biological species. However, without a comprehensive taxonomic treatment supported by a robust phylogeny, the following species characterizations may be subject to future taxonomic changes.</p><p>Within the megacephala group, minor workers are difficult to separate morphologically and thus have only limited use for species identification, but the majors tend to be more distinct in their morphologies and can be separated by differences in head and body shape and sculpture, and in size and pilosity, although the limits are often unclear and characters are sometimes distributed along a continuum rather than being separated into distinct, clear-cut states.</p><p>Major workers of Pheidole megacephala melancholica Santschi are characterized by presence of weak punctures on the majority of the head, including the sides in lateral view, promesonotum with punctures and irregular transverse rugulae, and moderately abundant short and stout standing hairs on head and body, whereas major workers of Pheidole megacephala entirely lack punctures on the posterior 1/3 of the head, have a mostly smooth and glossy promesonotum, and often possess longer, more flexuous standing hairs, which often branch at the tips. Pheidole megacephala nkomoana majors are characterized by a weakly defined antennal scrobe and relatively long frontal carinae that reach about ¾ towards the posterior head margin, two well-defined submedian hypostomal teeth, a weak prominence on the promesonotal dome, and very long, flexuous standing hairs on the dorsal promesonotum. Also the spines tend to be shorter than in Pheidole megacephala, in length almost equal to the diameter of the propodeal spiracle. Both subspecies have been described from and collected in western African forests. Another closely related species to Pheidole megacephala is Pheidole punctulata . It is very widespread in sub-Saharan Africa and usually found in dry forests and grassland habitats. Morphologically close to Pheidole megacephala, its major workers can be distinguished by their often enlarged and strongly heart-shaped heads, the presence of a softly or superficially punctuated sculpture on parts of the head dorsum, promesonotum, postpetiole and gaster, and relatively uniform, short and stout, erect hairs covering the body. Minor workers tend to be slightly larger and more robust than in megacephala, often with a few oblique carinae present between the eyes and the mandibles and reaching the posterior eye level, the hairs similar as in major workers and usually more abundant than in Pheidole megacephala .</p><p>Morphologically very similar to Pheidole punctulata are Pheidole megacephala ilgi Forel, megacephala impressifrons Wasmann, and megacephala rotundata Forel. Like Pheidole punctulata, they are usually found in drier forest and grassland habitats and their workers seem to be highly polymorphic, which means that in addition to normal major workers, colonies are capable of producing so-called supermajors. These supermajors possess a very strongly heart-shaped head, which can be disproportionately big compared to the size of the mandibles and the rest of their bodies. As Emery (1915) stated for Pheidole megacephala rotundata, on first glace they look quite distinct from Pheidole punctulata, but at closer examination of series with different major worker sizes it seems impossible to define species limits. From our own observations it seems likely that these subspecies are a result of sampling bias and phenotypic variation within Pheidole punctulata, rather than historic speciation events (Fischer et al., in preparation). Incomplete sampling can also be a problem when only smaller major and minor workers are collected, which are often very similar to those of Pheidole megacephala, with very similar head sculpture and general morphology.</p><p>In the Malagasy region, Pheidole megacephala can be confused with three other species: Pheidole punctulata spinosa Forel, which, on average, has longer spines, a slightly higher propodeum and a more extensively smooth and glossy posterior portion of the head in the larger major workers. Pheidole megatron, which was described from the Comoros and is possibly present in the Northwest of Madagascar as well, is characterized by major workers with a less heart-shaped, and slightly more rectangular head shape, and sometimes sculpture and rugulae present on the posterior head portion (see Fischer and Fisher 2013). Finally, Pheidole decepticon, described from Mayotte and distributed over several of the smaller Southwest Indian ocean islands, is characterized by possessing a denser, more prominent and longer pilosity as well as slightly smaller, less rounded ventral bulges on the postpetiole in both minor and major workers (see Fischer and Fisher 2013). It is however possible that Pheidole decepticon is a geographic variation of and conspecific with Pheidole punctulata spinosa .</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Pheidole megacephala is listed among the top five invasive ants (Lowe et al. 2000). Although this species prefers humid and disturbed habitats where it is usually found in very high abundances (Burwell et al. 2012; Hoffmann et al. 1999; Wilson 2003), it can generally be found in a large variety of landscapes, from coastal habitats to human settlements and plantations in lower elevations, degraded dry forest, to mid-elevation rainforest or even montane forest - in Papua New Guinea up to 2150 meters altitude (Fischer and Fisher 2013). The distribution range and activity of Pheidole megacephala appears to be somewhat limited by susceptibility to desiccation and higher temperatures. Thus, colonies are often found in more humid microhabitats, and workers tend to forage inside the leaf-litter and at night, or even build covered trails (Greenslade 1972, personal observations). However, some studies reported that on smaller islands or after successful introduction in a new area, Pheidole megacephala expanded its range and invaded into the forest interiors where it attacked and displaced other introduced and natively occurring ant species (Burwell et al. 2012; Hoffmann 1998). In a citrus orchard in Tanzania for example, Pheidole megacephala was able to partly displace highly territorial and competitive Oecophylla weaver ants (Seguni et al. 2011). Pheidole megacephala is an especially common and abundant nuisance and pest on islands, which are generally more strongly impacted by invasions of alien species.</p><p>Part of the success of Pheidole megacephala as a pantropic pest species is its generalist behavior. Like many other Pheidole species its diet is broadly omnivorous with a large proportion of its food probably acquired by scavenging on the ground. Pheidole megacephala is also a good predator with an efficient nest mate recruitment that enables the species to dominate baits and to retrieve prey too large for single workers to carry (Dejean et al. 2008; Dejean et al. 2007). Devastating effects on the abundance and diversity of native invertebrates, in northern Australia for example, are well documented (Hoffmann 1998; Hoffmann et al. 1999; Hoffmann and Parr 2008). Pheidole megacephala has also been documented to negatively impact agricultural systems. Workers tend plant and crop-damaging scale insects for honeydew (Campbell 1994; Gaigher et al. 2011; González Hernández et al. 1999; Greenslade 1972; Petty and Tustin 1993; Reimer et al. 1993), protect plants with extrafloral nectaries from phytophagous insects and possibly collect seeds (Hoffmann 1998). A recent study experimentally evaluating the performance in interference competition found that Pheidole megacephala ranked lowest among seven of the world’s worst most destructive invasive ant species (Bertelsmeier et al. 2015). The authors, citing Dejean et al. (2008) suggested that Pheidole megacephala does not dominate invaded ant communities through direct physical interactions (interference competition) but by raiding their colonies.</p><p>Nesting sites are variable and can occur in any crack and crevice that is large enough for them to enter, including soil, inside rotting logs, under rocks, in houses or in tree bark. As in several other invasive ant species, colonies are polygynous, and dependently founded via budding, with nests in large areas often forming supercolonies (Hoffmann 1998) that aggressively fight other ants or outcompete them by depleting their prey and other resources (Dejean et al. 2008; Fournier et al. 2009; Hoffmann et al. 1999; Vanderwoude et al. 2000).</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Pheidole megacephala is a cosmopolitan species that has established across the globe as a household and agricultural pest throughout the tropics. Wetterer (2012) provided a detailed review of the worldwide spread of Pheidole megacephala, and cites Wheeler’s statement (Wheeler 1922a) that it is most likely of Afrotropical or Malagasy origin, the only two regions with a diversity of related species ("subspecies and varieties"). Theoretically it is possible that a common ancestor of Pheidole megacephala and the Malagasy endemics Pheidole punctulata spinosa, Pheidole megatron and Pheidole decepticon arrived on the islands in prehistoric times, diversified there, and that Pheidole megacephala was later transported to all other regions including Africa only after the arrival of humans. But the distribution of Pheidole megacephala on Madagascar strongly resembles the distributions of other invasive species on the island - e.g. those of Monomorium floricola, Monomorium pharaonis, Tapinoma melanocephalum, Technomyrmex albipes, Trichomyrmex destructor . While Pheidole punctulata spinosa has established a broad distribution range across the island’s variable habitats and elevations, Pheidole megacephala, like the other invasives, is found mostly along the coast, in low elevation and disturbed habitats or near human settlements.</p><p>Similar to Wheeler’s observation, our argument for the “out-of-Africa” hypothesis is an overall much higher complexity in different morphotypes and species-level diversity in African megacephala group taxa and the presence of both, very closely, but also more distantly related taxa (e.g Pheidole aurivillii Mayr). For these reasons and for the purposes of this study, we consider all records from Africa to represent the native range of Pheidole megacephala . However, a further resolution will require a comprehensive phylogeographic study of the species and its allied taxa, especially from the poorly studied and sampled African region.</p><p>Populations of Pheidole megacephala recorded from the southwestern extent of the Arabian Peninsula are treated as native as this region is commonly considered as belonging to the Afrotropics. However, recent studies on generic distributions of global ant diversity that find little support for including any portion of the Arabian Peninsula in the Afrotropics (unpublished data). Until robust phylogeographic data is available for Pheidole megacephala, this decision must be considered tentative and open to future revision.</p><p>We do agree with Wetterer’s (2012) conclusions that records of Pheidole megacephala from Mediterranean Europe northward are either temporary indoor records or misidentifications of Pheidole pallidula . Outside of Africa, the Malagasy region and the range of Pheidole pallidula (western Palearctic), Pheidole megacephala is easily recognized as it does not co-occur with species of similar morphology. We therefore consider all records reviewed from outside the aforementioned regions as confirmed unless otherwise stated.</p><p>Dubious records.</p><p>The following records are considered dubious mostly because there is reason to believe they represent misidentifications of Pheidole pallidula . However, it is possible that some of the following literature records were based on accurate identifications, but that Pheidole megacephala was since extirpated from the referenced localities. This latter possibility is plausible especially for the Mediterranean region where Linepithema humile has established a stronghold. For example, (Heer 1852) described Oecophthora pusilla (= Pheidole megacephala) as ubiquitous on the island of Madeira, "In the town of Funchal there is probably not a single house that does not harbor millions of the tiny creatures …” Less than a century later Wheeler (Wheeler 1927b) reported, "Now it is an interesting fact that the Argentine ant, soon after its arrival in Madeira, completely replaced the Pheidole as a house ant." Similar instances of well-established populations of introduced ant species becoming locally extirpated have been documented (Moreau et al. 2014; Wetterer 2006).</p><p>Algeria: The material referred to by André (1883) Pheidole megacephala is distinguished by that author from Pheidole pallidula only by the difference in size of the propodeal spine, and was otherwise observed to be identical. Considering the other characters separating these two species discussed earlier, we tentatively consider this record to be a misidentification of Pheidole pallidula . Croatia: The material listed from this country (Petrov and Collingwood 1992; Petrov and Legakis 1996) is considered to refer to Pheidole pallidula according to Bračko (2006). Egypt: Egypt is the type locality of the nomen oblitum Formica edax Forskål . Emery (1892) wrote that edax is undoubtedly a small Pheidole, and possibly refers to Pheidole megacephala . Dalla Torre (1892) was also uncertain as to which species (or even genus) the name edax referred to. Given the uncertainty of these two authors, the occurrence of Pheidole pallidula in Egypt and the unconfirmed single literature record of Bakr et al. (2007), it is difficult to know when Pheidole megacephala was first reported from Egypt. France: Bignell (1901) reported the ant species listed in his study of Corsica were identified by Saunders, who is known to have confused Pheidole pallidula for Pheidole megacephala . As Pheidole pallidula was not listed in the publication, we consider the record to either be a misidentification of that species or from an extirpated population. Greece: The only primary references to an outdoor occurrence we could confirm are Collingwood (1993) and Borowiec and Salata (2012). The former authors reported Pheidole megacephala was found only once during their study of five Greek islands on the threshold of a small hotel in Pigadhia on Karpathos. The second study reported finding the species on a road in Crete. The record from Macedonia in (Karaman 2011) is from material identified by Petrov. We tentatively follow ( Bračko 2006) as treating this as a misidentification of Pheidole pallidula . Italy: Piedmont is the type locality for Myrmica trinodis Losana which was synonymized with megacephala by Roger in 1863. Losana also lists a Messor megacephala Latrielle in the same publication. Latrielle never described any species by the name megacephala, however. Losana might have instead been referring to Messor megacephala Leech (= Messor barbarous Mayr). Regardless, the original description of Myrmica trinodis states that the species was collected from outdoor gardens. There is some reason to suspect this name might refer instead to Pheidole pallidula, as the only verifiable occurrences of megacephala in Italy since are for specimens collected from plant nurseries, greenhouses and cargo hangars used for holding imported plants, fruits and vegetables (Jucker et al. 2008; Limonta and Colombo 2003). Morocco: Saunders (1888) appears to be the only primary reference for Pheidole megacephala occurring in Morocco, but it is likely that the author was referring to misidentified material of Pheidole pallidula (Wetterer 2012). This view is further evidenced by Cagniant and Espadaler (1993) who were unable to find the species in their survey. Spain: We consider the following records from the Balearic Islands and Gibraltar to refer to Pheidole pallidula (Saunders 1888; Saunders 1904; Walker 1889). USA: The specimens reported in Fischer and Fisher (2013) from Arizona were from a quarantine collection intercepted from Florida, and there is no reason to believe the species has ever established in Arizona. Wetterer (2012) cited a specimen record of Pheidole megacephala from Catalina Island (California). If the identification proves accurate, it is the only known record from that island and the population has since been extirpated (perhaps by Linepithema humile). However, a population (CASENT0248690) has been discovered recently in southern California (Orange Co.). Although Pheidole megacephala is listed in the Missouri Ants web page (2015), we cannot verify the entry with any specimen or literature record.</p><p>Risk statement.</p><p>Pheidole megacephala is known as a major agricultural and ecological pest species (Williams 1994) and its widespread pantropic distribution and often very close association with humans make it a high-risk invasive species with a serious potential for ecological, agricultural and economic damage. In Ward et al. (2006) it has been the most intercepted exotic ant species (890 out of 4355 interception records between 1955 and 2005) arriving with trade products in New Zealand. Many aspects of its biology indicate that it is highly adaptable and thus able to survive outside of its preferred habitat, by finding suitable microhabitats for nesting and by killing or outcompeting native species. Although mutualistic relationships with scale insects and other crop pests are dominant in agricultural systems with introduced Pheidole megacephala, positive side-effects on plant fitness have been observed as well (Bach 1991).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/5F4328F064013669DFDE7A1D2A38D25D	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	Sarnat, Eli M.;Fischer, Georg;Guenard, Benoit;Economo, Evan P.	Sarnat, Eli M., Fischer, Georg, Guenard, Benoit, Economo, Evan P. (2015): Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1-109, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
C3CE2D802CB143185B6A9E75135FB346.text	C3CE2D802CB143185B6A9E75135FB346.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pheidole navigans Forel	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Pheidole navigans Forel stat. rev., stat. n. Figs 80, 88h</p><p>Pheidole navigans . Pheidole flavens r. navigans Forel 1901a: 79 (s.w.) GERMANY (intercepted in quarantine from Veracruz, Mexico) [MHNG, examined photographs of CASENT0908269 (s.), CASENT0908270 (w). Junior synonym of flavens: Wilson 2003: 419. stat. rev., stat. n.</p><p>Pheidole Pheidole moerens (nec Forel): M.R. Smith 1967, Wojcik 1975, Glancey 1976, Naves 1985, Deyrup 1988, Deyrup 2000, Dash 2008, MacGown 2010, Guénard 2012. [We propose the preceding authors misapplied the name Pheidole moerens Forel to material considered here as referring to Pheidole navigans Forel. Pheidole moerens remains a valid name].</p><p>Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole .</p><p>Color reddish brown. MajorHW 0.84-0.88, HL 0.88-0.91, SL 0.46-0.48, CI 95-99, SI 53-56 (n=4). Head subquadrate (Fig. 7). Longitudinal carinae of the frons extend to approximately an eye’s length distance from the posterior head margin (Fig. 25). Rugae of posterolateral lobes predominantly longitudinal. Posterior head margin always free of distinct rugae (Fig. 25) or rugoreticulum (Fig. 27). Microsculpture of posterolateral lobes glossy to weakly punctate. Antennal scrobe distinct and narrow, shallow but capable of receiving the entire antennal scape in repose (Fig. 71a); bordered by strong, unbroken frontal carina mesially (Fig. 71b); depression marked by a continuous smooth surface entirely (or nearly entirely) uninterrupted by rugulae. Hypostoma with stout median and submedian teeth. Promesonotal dorsum with distinct transverse striae (Fig. 21). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Promesonotum not strongly transverse with strongly projecting sides in dorsal view (Fig. 29). Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Postpetiole relatively narrow in dorsal view; distinctly less than 2 × petiolar width (Fig. 30). Gaster with entire first tergite glossy (Fig. 32). MinorHW 0.40-0.45, HL 0.45-0.50, SL 0.40-0.44, CI 86-92, SI 96-102 (n=8). Head covered in punctate microsculpture, giving it a dull appearance (Fig. 37). Antennal scapes reach or weakly surpass posterior head margin; if they do it is usually by a distance less than eye length. Antennal scapes with standing hairs present (Fig. 56). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Hairs on mesosoma fine and flexuous, not arranged in pairs. Pronotal humeri not angular. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Postpetiole relatively narrow (Fig. 30); distinctly less than 2 × petiolar width in dorsal view. Gaster with entire first tergite glossy (Fig. 32).</p><p>Identification, taxonomy and systematics.</p><p>Pheidole navigans is a small, short-limbed, reddish brown species that belongs to the Pheidole flavens complex. See discussion under corresponding section of Pheidole flavens complex for how to distinguish this species from introduced Pheidole outside the complex. Within the complex, minor workers are impossible to distinguish based on known characters. Major workers can be separated from those of Pheidole flavens by the combination of predominantly longitudinal rugae on the posterolateral lobes, the more distinct and narrow antennal scrobe bordered mesially by strong, unbroken frontal carina, and the more continuously glossy scrobe depression.</p><p>Although the type locality of Pheidole navigans is Germany, the species was originally described by Forel from specimens intercepted during quarantine inspection of orchids originating from Veracruz, Mexico. We revive this name from synonymy and elevate it to species rank so that it can be applied to a putative species that has recently established in the southeastern United States and Hawaii. This ant has most often been referred to as Pheidole moerens since it was first reported from Alabama nearly fifty years ago by M.R. Smith (1967). However, the examination of type specimen photographs (MCZ-ENT00009137) suggests that these introduced populations are heterospecific with Pheidole moerens Wheeler.</p><p>Whether the introduced populations are actually conspecific with Pheidole navigans Forel will require a thorough revision of this taxonomically vexing species complex. Of all the type material we have examined, however, that of Pheidole navigans bears the closest resemblance in gross morphology. Thus we propose Pheidole navigans Forel be used in place of Pheidole moerens for referring to the aforementioned introduced populations. Future systematic study of this species should also examine Pheidole floridana subsp. aechmeae (currently synonymized under Pheidole flavens, but also recorded from Veracruz, Mexico) and Pheidole flavens var. mediorubra Santschi (described from Loreto, Argentina and currently treated as a synonym of Pheidole alacris Santschi).</p><p>The major workers of Pheidole navigans differ from those of Pheidole moerens in the following respects. They exhibit a distinct and narrow antennal scrobe capable of receiving the entire antennal scape in repose. The scrobe is bordered by a strong, unbroken frontal carina mesially, and the depression is marked by a continuous smooth surface entirely (or nearly entirely) uninterrupted by rugulae. The rugulae of the frons extend to approximately an eye’s length distance from the posterior head margin. The anterior portion of the promesonotum is crossed by long and distinct transverse striae.</p><p>The examined major workers of Pheidole navigans from Alabama (CASENT0106664) and Venezuela (CASENT0248831), along with those from Florida and Hawaii, and a specimen imaged from Paraguay (CASENT0178020), share a notably consistent morphology for being spread across such as wide range. The characteristics shared among these majors include the following. Frontal carinae strongly produced, forming the mesad border of a shallow but well-demarcated antennal scrobe capable of accommodating the entire scape in repose. Antennal scrobe weakly foveolate. Cephalic carinulae mostly longitudinal with very little reticulation posterior to the eye. Cephalic carinulae extending up to, but not beyond the medial excision ( ‘V’) of the posterior head margin. Promesonotal dome with a relatively low profile, mesonotal declivity short and relatively gradual. In dorsal view, promesonotum weakly punctate, anterior portion with distinct transverse carinulae. Although we tentatively treat the specimen from California (CASENT0005742) as Pheidole navigans, it differs morphologically from the aforementioned specimens and bears closer resemblance to Pheidole exigua var. tuberculata Mayr (currently synonymized under Pheidole flavens).</p><p>The similarity of these northern hemisphere specimens to the one from Paraguay raises the possibility that these putatively conspecific populations originated in South America. Indeed, the Paraguay specimen was collected in the Reserva Natural del Bosque Mbaracayú near the Río Paraná - a region infamous for serving as a cradle of ant invasion (Suarez and Tsutsui 2008).</p><p>Biology.</p><p>In Florida, Naves (1985) reported Pheidole navigans (as Pheidole moerens) nesting under boards, at base of oak trees and fence posts, along roots, under palm leaves, inside wall crevices, and rarely in the ground. The chambers are built with small soil or debris particles and have small openings. Most nuptial flights occur in July. The species was found to practice dependent nest founding, but became monogynous before the first brood was reared. Mature colonies can support over 100 majors and over 500 workers. They feed on seeds and scavenge and prey on small dead or live arthropods, and forage very close to the nesting sites. Deyrup (2000) also provided observations of this species (as Pheidole moerens) from Florida, adding that it occurs in both disturbed areas and mesic or moist woods, also nests in hollow twigs, nuts and in leaf litter, and is occasionally arboreal.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>The precise native range of Pheidole navigans is unknown, but it is certainly of Neotropical origin. The record of the species from the Paraná region of South America suggests it could be South America. We tentatively treat both known South American records (Paraguay and Venezuela) as native, and the Mexican record as introduced, but other scenarios are equally possible. Pheidole navigans was first reported as introduced in the United States by M.R. Smith (1967) under the name Pheidole moerens . The name Pheidole moerens has since been applied to North American records from Alabama (Glancey et al. 1976; Smith 1967), California (Garrison 1996; Martínez 1997), Florida (Deyrup et al. 1988; Deyrup et al. 2000; Wojcik et al. 1975), Louisiana (Dash and Hooper-Bùi 2008), Mississippi (MacGown and Hill 2010), North Carolina ( Guénard et al. 2012) and Texas (Wilson 2003). We tentatively treat all of these records as Pheidole navigans, but the California and Texas records could also belong to another species in the flavens complex. In the Pacific, Pheidole navigans is established in Hawaii (Gruner et al. 2003). We cannot confirm whether the Pheidole moerens records from Cocos Island (Solomon and Mikheyev 2005) or the indoor records from a butterfly house in the northwestern United States (collection code KRW26Feb99) refers to Pheidole navigans or another member of the flavens complex.</p><p>Risk statement.</p><p>The species most often referred to as Pheidole moerens in the southeastern United States, and treated here as Pheidole navigans, has been expanding its range since it was first reported in Alabama in 1967. However, this species is not considered a major pest and is only occasionally reported to enter houses (Deyrup et al. 2000). In Louisiana Pheidole navigans is considered a pest (Dash and Hooper-Bùi 2008). Pheidole navigans could become more regionally and possibly globally widespread in the future.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C3CE2D802CB143185B6A9E75135FB346	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	Sarnat, Eli M.;Fischer, Georg;Guenard, Benoit;Economo, Evan P.	Sarnat, Eli M., Fischer, Georg, Guenard, Benoit, Economo, Evan P. (2015): Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1-109, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
CC7B768F847F396BDA90C282D57D4088.text	CC7B768F847F396BDA90C282D57D4088.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pheidole noda F. Smith	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Pheidole noda F. Smith Figs 81, 88i</p><p>Pheidole noda . Pheidole nodus Smith, F. 1874: 407 (s.) JAPAN, Hyogo. Forel 1900: 268 (w.); Wheeler, W.M. 1906: 309 (q.); Ogata 1982: 196 (m.); Wheeler, G.C. &amp; Wheeler, J. 1953: 75 (l.).</p><p>Pheidole rhombinoda . Pheidole rhombinoda Mayr 1879: 678 (s.) INDIA, Calcutta [NHMW]. Bingham 1903: 251 (q.). Subspecies of noda: Wheeler, W.M. 1929: 3; Santschi, 1937: 371. Junior synonym of noda: Yasumatsu 1962: 96. [Misspelled as rhomboida by Santschi 1925: 83.]</p><p>Pheidole micantiventris . Pheidole rhombinoda var. micantiventris Mayr 1897: 427 (s.) SRI LANKA. Junior synonym of noda: Yasumatsu 1962: 96.</p><p>Pheidole taprobanae . Pheidole rhombinoda var. taprobanae Forel 1902c: 178 (s.), 195 (w.) SRI LANKA (Yerbury) [MHNG]. [Unresolved junior primary homonym of taprobanae Smith, F. 1858: 175.] [Also described as new by Forel 1902b: 544.] Subspecies of rhombinoda: Forel 1913b: 662; of noda: Santschi 1937: 371. Junior synonym of noda, lectotype designated: Eguchi 2008: 59.</p><p>Pheidole treubi . Pheidole treubi Forel 1905a: 19 (s.q.) INDONESIA, Bogor [Buitenzorg], Java [MHNG]. Junior synonym of noda, lectotype (s.) designated: Eguchi 2001b: 18.</p><p>Pheidole stella . Pheidole rhombinoda subsp. stella Forel 1911c: 380 (s.) INDIA, Sikkim, Himalaya, 1200 m [MHNG]. Subspecies of noda: Wheeler, W.M. 1929f: 3. Junior synonym of noda, lectotype (s.) designated: Eguchi 2008: 59.</p><p>Pheidole formosensis . Pheidole rhombinoda var. formosensis Forel 1913a: 193 (s.w.q.m.) TAIWAN, Kankau, [MHNG] (H. Sauter). Subspecies of noda: Santschi 1937: 370. Junior synonym of noda: Eguchi 2008: 59.</p><p>Pheidole praevexata . Pheidole nodus var. praevexata Wheeler W.M. 1929: 3 (s.w.q.) JAPAN, Okayama (H. Sauter). Junior synonym of noda: Yasumatsu 1962: 96.</p><p>Pheidole Pheidole nodus st. rhombinoda var. gratiosa Santschi 1937: 371, unavailable name. Material referable to this form: Eguchi 2008: 59.</p><p>Pheidole flebilis . Pheidole nodus var. flebilis Santschi 1937: 370 (s.w.) TAIWAN, Hori [NHMB]. Junior synonym of noda: Eguchi 2008: 59.</p><p>Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole .</p><p>Medium to dark reddish brown. MajorHW 1.58-1.82, HL 1.69-1.91, SL 1.00-1.12, CI 93-98, SI 56-65 (n=5, Eguchi 2008). Head subquadrate (Fig. 7). Head rugoreticulate on posterolateral lobes and laterad of frontal carinae (Fig. 13a), but frons dominated by long, well-organized and parallel longitudinal rugae (Fig. 13b). Antennal scrobes indistinct to moderately impressed, but frontal carinae always forming a border capable of accepting the antennal scape (Fig. 13c). Promesonotum in profile with two convexities (Fig. 5), the large anterior dome in addition to a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Postpetiole forming a high dorsally bulging dome that is tallest at midpoint (Fig. 2a); ventral margin flat to very weakly convex (Fig. 2b). MinorHW 0.57-0.66, HL 0.71-0.82, SL 0.91-1.07, CI 80-82, SI 157-162 (n=5, Eguchi 2008). Head predominantly glossy (Fig. 36), lacking punctation and or rugae above eye level. Posterior head margin strongly convex (Fig. 44). Antennal scapes long (e.g. Fig. 39), but not surpassing the posterior head margin by more than 2 × eye length. Promesonotum in profile with two convexities, the large anterior dome (Fig. 43a) in addition to a distinct prominence on the posterior slope (Fig. 43b). Petiole and postpetiole glossy to very weakly sculptured laterally (Fig. 48). Postpetiole forming a high dorsally bulging dome that is tallest at midpoint; ventral margin flat to very weakly convex (Fig. 2).</p><p>Identification, taxonomy and systematics.</p><p>Pheidole noda is a large, long-limbed, dark colored species most easily recognized by its distinctly enlarged dome-like postpetiole. The species belongs to a clade of large-bodied species that has diversified across Indomalaya (Economo et al. 2015). Although both Pheidole noda and Pheidole megacephala are considered to have an enlarged postpetiole, they are very different in shape. That of the former is dome-like (Fig. 2) and that of the latter has an anteroventral bulge in addition to the posterodorsal bulge (Fig. 1). The majors of Pheidole noda are easily separated from those of Pheidole megacephala by the strongly sculptured face (Fig. 8 vs. Fig. 9). The minors both have glossy faces, but those of Pheidole noda are larger with relatively longer antennal scapes (Fig. 39 vs. Fig. 40). Pheidole noda is occasionally confused with other Asian tramp Pheidole, including Pheidole fervens and Pheidole indica, but both major and minor workers are easily separated from these by the enlarged postpetiole. Readers are referred to Eguchi (2008) for characters used to separate Pheidole noda from its other Asian congeners.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Despite being a relatively common species across its native range, little is known about the biology of Pheidole noda . The species is apparently easy to keep in laboratory settings, and Yamamoto et al. (2009) reported that they kept a colony with five dealated queens, suggesting dependent colony foundation or polygyny. The authors also noted that in Japan it nests in the ground but also forages in vegetation. Pheidole noda was the most frequent visitor to extrafloral nectaries of Mallotus japonicus in an experiment conducted in Japan (Yamawo et al. 2012). Eguchi (2008) observed that Pheidole noda occurs from open lands to relatively developed forests, and nests in the soil, under shelters on the ground, and in rotting logs. Eguchi (2004a) noted that the species takes seeds of sesame and amaranth put on the ground, and majors serve as repletes. During a recent survey in Yunnan, China, the species was found to occur in rubber tree plantations and rainforest between 550 and 1219 m (Liu et al. 2015).</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Pheidole noda is considered native across mainland Asia, occurring from western India east to Japan. Forel (1903) reported the species from the Andaman Islands but it was not recovered during a more recent survey of the islands (Mohanraj et al. 2010). There is geographic disjunction between the mainland Asia population and the populations from the southern islands of Indonesia. The majors of the Indonesian taxon, originally described as Pheidole treubi Forel, were considered a distinct population by (Eguchi 2001b), but conspecific with Pheidole noda . Although not included on the map, if verified, the records from the Russian Far East (Kupianskaia 1990) would be the most northern extent of the native range. The dispersive capacity of Pheidole noda is demonstrated by its colonization of Volcano Island (Nishino-shima Island), which is 22 ha in size and located 1,000 km south of mainland Japan. The island erupted in 1973, virtually eradicating all life. Pheidole noda was the only ant species discovered during the 1983 survey, and was one of only two discovered during the 2004 survey (the other being Tetramorium bicarinatum).</p><p>The only confirmed record of Pheidole noda occurring outside of its putative native range is from a glasshouse in Italy (Limonta and Colombo 2003), where it was found together with Pheidole megacephala and Tetramorium bicarinatum on nursery plants imported from Asia. The species was also found on plant material imported from Asia and intercepted at quarantine facilities in Washington and Hawaii.</p><p>Risk statement.</p><p>Pheidole noda is not considered an agricultural, ecological or structural pest species, although it is often associated with disturbed habitats. The species is also not known to have established outdoors beyond its native range. However, perhaps because it can be easily maintained in artificial nests, colonies with laying queens listed as Pheidole noda and Pheidole cf. noda are available for sale from businesses advertising on the internet. The shipment of this species outside its native range to hobbyists increases its chances of accidental release into non-native habitats.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CC7B768F847F396BDA90C282D57D4088	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	Sarnat, Eli M.;Fischer, Georg;Guenard, Benoit;Economo, Evan P.	Sarnat, Eli M., Fischer, Georg, Guenard, Benoit, Economo, Evan P. (2015): Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1-109, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
8EBEF84D7CB258DFD1ADE89D91D60B8E.text	8EBEF84D7CB258DFD1ADE89D91D60B8E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pheidole obscurithorax Naves	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Pheidole obscurithorax Naves Figs 82, 88j</p><p>Pheidole obscurithorax . Pheidole fallax subsp. obscurithorax Naves 1985: 61 (s.w.) ARGENTINA, Alta Gracia, Córdoba (Bruch). [First available use of Pheidole fallax st. arenicola var. obscurithorax Santschi 1923: 58; unavailable name.] Raised to species; lectotype (s.) (CASENT0913311, NHMB) designated: Wilson 2003: 331.</p><p>Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole .</p><p>Medium reddish brown to dark brown. MajorHW 1.47-1.70, HL 1.49-1.84, SL 0.98-103, CI 92-99, SI 58-70 (n=3). Head subquadrate (Fig. 7); almost entirely covered by a network of intersecting rugae (Fig. 12a), lacking long, well-organized and parallel longitudinal rugae on the frons (Fig. 12b). Frontal carinae indistinct, quickly becoming integrated into dense rugoreticulum that covers the entire face. Antennal scrobes entirely lacking. Antennal insertions surrounded by deeply excavated pits (Fig. 12c). Head often a lighter reddish brown than the mesosoma. Promesonotum in profile with two convexities (Fig. 5), the large anterior dome in addition to a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). MinorHW 0.60-0.67, HL 0.78-0.85, SL 0.94-1.08, CI 76-82, SI 152-173 (n=5). Head predominantly glossy (Fig. 36), lacking punctation and or rugae above eye level. Posterior margin strongly convex in full-face view such that the head outline forms a single unbroken curve from eye to eye (Fig. 44). Antennal scapes extremely long, surpassing posterior head margin by more than 2 × eye length (Fig. 39). Promesonotum in profile with two convexities, the large anterior dome (Fig. 43a) in addition to a distinct prominence on the posterior slope (Fig. 43b). Mesopleuron mostly sculptured. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Petiole and postpetiole strongly sculptured laterally (Fig. 47).</p><p>Identification, taxonomy and systematics.</p><p>Pheidole obscurithorax is a member of the New World (and polyphyletic, see Moreau 2008) Pheidole fallax species group defined by Wilson (2003). It is a large dark species over 6 mm in body length. The species is easily distinguished from Pheidole megacephala by the much larger body size and relatively reduced postpetiole, in addition to the strongly sculptured head of the major worker (Fig. 12), and the much longer antennal scapes of the minor. It is separated from other New World species treated here, including those of the Pheidole punctatissima clade and Pheidole flavens complex, by the much larger size, prominence on the posterior slope of the promesonotum (Fig. 5, major; Fig. 50, minor), densely rugoreticulate face of the major (Fig. 12), and smooth head and long antennal scapes of the minor. The Old World species Pheidole fervens, Pheidole indica, and Pheidole noda all have majors with strongly sculptured head and minors with smooth heads, and the reader is referred to the key for characters used to separate these from Pheidole obscurithorax .</p><p>Biology.</p><p>In its introduced range of the southeastern United States, Pheidole obscurithorax is characterized by its large size, large nest mounds, very active foraging and fast recruitment to bait such as cookie crumbs (King and Tschinkel 2007). It nests in soil in open areas, where it produces conspicuous nests, each generally with a single large opening often covered by a leaf or other collected material (Storz and Tschinkel 2004). The species is an omnivorous scavenger of dead arthropods (possibly including dead fire ants), and less frequently of plant material such as flower petals (Storz and Tschinkel 2004). Studies in its introduced range found evidence that Pheidole obscurithorax is monogynous and is spreading by natural dispersal of winged females in addition to human-mediated long-distance dispersal (King and Tschinkel 2007). The species was most often found associated with disturbed habitats such as lawns and roadsides, but there are also records of it occurring in natural areas such as hardwood forests (Wilson 2003). However, its steady expansion across the southeastern United States and co-occurrence with Solenopsis invicta suggest it is an important species to monitor.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Pheidole obscurithorax is presumed native to the South American region of Argentina, Paraguay and southern Brazil that includes the Paraguay, La Plata and Parana Rivers. This flood-prone area is the cradle of many other well-known invasive ants including fire ants ( Solenopsis invicta Buren and Solenopsis richteri Forel), the Argentine ant ( Linepithema humile), and many lesser-known species that were anthropogenically introduced (King and Tschinkel 2007; Storz and Tschinkel 2004; Suarez and Tsutsui 2008; Wilson 2003). Most of these species, including Pheidole obscurithorax, were first introduced to North America via the Mobile, Alabama shipping port pathway. Pheidole obscurithorax was introduced to Mobile, Alabama around 1950 (Naves 1985) and subsequently expanded its range to include Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas (Storz and Tschinkel 2004; Wilson 2003). Additional occurence records, including the first record for Bolivia, were published (Wetterer et al. 2015) just as this manuscript was going to press, and were not included in the present study.</p><p>Risk statement.</p><p>Pheidole obscurithorax is not currently considered a pest in its introduced range, as it does not sting and is not known to infest dwellings or structures (King and Tschinkel 2007). However, the species is an aggressive predator (Deyrup et al. 2000) and may have the potential to become a pest or to negatively impact native species if its populations continue to grow and spread. Pheidole obscurithorax is thought to spread across the southeastern United States by mated queens (not colony fragments) that are being transported in substrates such as potted plants. It is possible that Pheidole obscurithorax could become more widespread regionally and globally in the future.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/8EBEF84D7CB258DFD1ADE89D91D60B8E	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	Sarnat, Eli M.;Fischer, Georg;Guenard, Benoit;Economo, Evan P.	Sarnat, Eli M., Fischer, Georg, Guenard, Benoit, Economo, Evan P. (2015): Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1-109, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
640A5224C4170AB60B9335D41B6190E6.text	640A5224C4170AB60B9335D41B6190E6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pheidole parva Mayr	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Pheidole parva Mayr Fig. 83, Fig. 88K</p><p>Pheidole parva . Pheidole parva Mayr 1865: 98, pl. 4, fig. 28 (s.w.) SRI LANKA [NHMW]. Bingham 1903: 245 (q.).</p><p>Pheidole decanica . Pheidole parva var. decanica Forel 1902c: 175 (s.), 192 (w.q.m.) INDIA, Cochin (Rothney) [MHNG]. [Also described as new by Forel 1902b: 542.] Junior synonym of parva; lectotype designated: Eguchi, Yamane &amp; Zhou 2007: 261.</p><p>Pheidole sauteri . Pheidole sauteri Wheeler, W.M. 1909: 334 (s.w.) TAIWAN, Kaoshung (H. Sauter) [MCZC cotype 20671] Junior synonym of parva: Eguchi, Yamane &amp; Zhou 2007: 262.</p><p>Pheidole mala . Pheidole rinae var. mala Forel 1911b: 205 (s.w.) INDONESIA, Semarang, Java (Jacobson) [MHNG]. Lectotype (s.) designated: Eguchi 2001a: 39. Junior synonym of parva: Eguchi, Yamane &amp; Zhou 2007: 262.</p><p>Pheidole tipuna . Pheidole rinae r. tipuna Forel 1912: 68 (s.w.) TAIWAN, Takao (H. Sauter) [MHNG]. Junior synonym of parva; lectotype (s.) designated: Eguchi, Yamane &amp; Zhou 2007: 262.</p><p>Pheidole bugi . Pheidole bugi Wheeler, W.M. 1919: 66 (s.w.) MALAYSIA, Sarawak, Borneo (R. Thaxter) [MCZC cotype-8947]. Lectotype (s.) designated: Eguchi 2001a: 37. Junior synonym of parva: Eguchi, Yamane &amp; Zhou 2007: 262.</p><p>Pheidole farquharensis . Pheidole flavens var. farquharensis Forel 1907: 91 (w.) SEYCHELLES, Farquhar Atoll, v–xii .1905 (J.S. Gardiner) [BMNH]. Junior synonym of parva: Fischer and Fisher 2013: 340.</p><p>Pheidole tarda . Pheidole (Pheidole) tardus Donisthorpe 1947: 285 (q.) MAURITIUS, Rose Hill, 07.v.1946 (R. Mamet) [BMNH]. Junior synonym of parva: Fischer and Fisher 2013: 341.</p><p>Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole .</p><p>Yellowish brown to dark brown. MajorHW 0.85-0.92, HL 0.96-1.07, SL 0.41-0.45, CI 85-92, SI 45-51 (n=11, Eguchi et al. 2007). Head subquadrate (Fig. 7). Posterolateral lobes, including posterior head margin, covered in rugoreticulum (Fig. 26). Antennal scrobes indistinct to moderately impressed, but frontal carinae always forming a border capable of accepting the antennal scape (Fig. 13c). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Promesonotum in dorsal view transverse with strongly projecting shoulders (Fig. 28). Promesonotal dorsum rugoreticulate with distinct long longitudinal striae in addition to shorter sections of transverse and intersecting striae (Fig. 22). Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). MinorHW 0.39-0.50, HL 0.43-0.54, SL 0.38-0.46, CI 88-94, SI 84-102 (n=17, Eguchi et al. 2007). Posterior portion of head with many short to medium length segments of striae distinctly interlaced among punctate ground sculpture (Fig. 59). Antennal scapes with erect to suberect hairs (Fig. 56); scapes do not surpass posterior head margin (Fig. 41). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Pronotal humeri angular (Fig. 28). Hairs on mesosoma fine, flexuous, of unequal length and not arranged in pairs (Fig. 54). Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3); postpetiole narrow in dorsal view, only slightly broader than petiole (Fig. 61).</p><p>Identification, taxonomy and systematics.</p><p>Pheidole parva is a very small and inconspicuous species that is thus far reported only from Asia, a few localities in Arabia, and the islands of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. It belongs to an Old World clade scattered across Indomalaya and into Oceania, and was treated as part of the Pheidole rinae complex by Eguchi et al. (2007). The minor workers are completely covered in punctate sculpture and are difficult to differentiate from those of the Neotropical Pheidole flavens complex. The similarity is so close that an introduced population of Pheidole parva from the Seychelles was described by Forel, on the basis of the minor worker, as Pheidole flavens var. farquharensis . The similarity is entirely convergent, as these lineages are distantly related. Pheidole parva minors can be separated from those of the Pheidole flavens complex most reliably by the interrupted striae that are interlaced among the punctate ground sculpture of the posterior head (Fig. 59 vs. Fig. 60). This character can also be viewed in the dorsal view. Pheidole parva minors can be separated from those of the Pheidole punctatissima clade treated here by the glossy gaster (Fig. 32 vs. Fig. 33) and finer mesosomal hairs of unequal length (Fig. 54 vs. Fig. 53). The major workers are characterized by a defined and moderately depressed antennal scrobe and a thick network of reticulated rugulae on the posterior lobes. This pattern is most similar to that of the broadly sympatric Pheidole fervens and Pheidole indica, but Pheidole parva is much smaller than those species (HW &lt;0.95 mm vsHW&gt; 1.10 mm) and lacks the distinct prominence on the posterior slope of the promesonotal dorsum (Fig. 4 vs. Fig. 5). The majors of Pheidole parva can be separated from those of the Pheidole flavens and Pheidole punctatissima group species treated here by the much stronger and more reticulated carinae which reach the posterior margin (Fig. 26 vs. Fig. 25 and Fig. 27) in addition to other characters given in the key. Readers are referred to Eguchi (2008; 2007) for characters separating Pheidole parva from its Asian congeners.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Little is known about the biology of Pheidole parva, but it does appear to be expanding its range and is worth monitoring in the future as it exhibits a high tolerance for disturbance. Eguchi (2008) observed that the species seems to inhabit open lands and forest edges, and has probably expanded its range in some part as the result of human commerce. Pheidole parva was one of the most commonly collected ants in a myrmecological study of agricultural fields in Vietnam and Okinawa (Anh et al. 2010; Suwabe et al. 2009). A recent study of 18 structure invading pest ants of healthcare facilities in Singapore found Pheidole parva the most frequently encountered species (Man and Lee 2012). Pheidole parva and Pheidole megacephala were the two most common ant species encountered and together accounted for over 50% of the total collection (25.9% and 25.2%, respectively). In Mauritius and the Seychelles Pheidole parva can be locally abundant and can be found in soil and leaf litter, under stones or root mats, in rotten logs, foraging on or nesting in the ground, as well as in lower vegetation and even under the bark of live trees (Fischer and Fisher 2013). It was collected there in parks, gardens, mangrove, coastal scrub, degraded dry forest, littoral and mixed forest, and rainforest, in elevations between 1-445 m. It was collected inland on the Arabian Peninsula from date tree orchards, banana plantations and under potted plants between 675-735 m elevation (Fischer and Fisher 2013).</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Pheidole parva is considered here as native to the Indo-Malay region. The species is recorded from the Asian mainland from India east to China. We consider the records from Indonesia, Borneo, the Philippines and Taiwan to be native, but much of this distribution could represent a more recent anthropogenic expansion. We consider the records from the Okinawa and Kagoshima prefectures of Japan to be introduced along with the records from Palau to represent introduced populations, but it is difficult to know whether the species arrived in these islands before, with or after the arrival of humans. The species is introduced in the Seychelles, Mauritius, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (Fischer and Fisher 2013). Pheidole parva was also collected from hothouses in Austria and Germany.</p><p>Risk statement.</p><p>Pheidole parva is not currently considered to be a significant pest species, and no impacts on agricultural systems or native ecosystems have been documented as of yet. The species is known to invade structures, however, and its prevalence in Singapore health care facilities (Man and Lee 2012) suggests it could become a more widespread nuisance pest in the future. Live colonies have been reported from various ships (Fischer and Fisher 2013) and should be screened for during quarantine inspections.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/640A5224C4170AB60B9335D41B6190E6	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	Sarnat, Eli M.;Fischer, Georg;Guenard, Benoit;Economo, Evan P.	Sarnat, Eli M., Fischer, Georg, Guenard, Benoit, Economo, Evan P. (2015): Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1-109, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
00B3E1BF609BB512110653C565F3B443.text	00B3E1BF609BB512110653C565F3B443.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pheidole proxima Mayr	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Pheidole proxima Mayr Fig. 84, 88L</p><p>Pheidole proxima . Pheidole proxima Mayr 1876: 104 (s.w.) AUSTRALIA, Peak Downs, Queensland [NHMW, examined]. Current subspecies: nominal plus bombalensis, transversa .</p><p>Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole .</p><p>Reddish brown. MajorHW 0.95-1.05, HL 1.04-1.21, SL 0.44-0.50, CI 87-92, SI 42-52 (n=4). Head subquadrate (Fig. 7). Posterolateral lobes lacking sculpture (including foveolate ground sculpture, carinae and rugae) posterior to maximum extent of antennal scapes in repose (Fig. 9). Head glossy, lacking foveolate ground sculpture. Hypostomal bridge with a small median tooth in addition to a pair of larger inner teeth (Fig. 18). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Promesonotal dorsum glossy, lacking foveolate ground sculpture or striae. Pronotal striae in dorsal view mostly absent (Fig. 23). Metapleuron with moderate rugulae and some weak punctation (Fig. 16). Petiolar node strongly punctate (Fig. 16). Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). MinorHW 0.46, HL 0.52, SL 0.40, CI 90, SI 86 (n=1). Head predominantly glossy (Fig. 36), lacking punctation and or rugae above eye level. Posterior head margin weakly convex (Fig. 45) to weakly concave (Fig. 46) in full-face view. Antennal scapes reach but do not surpass posterior head margin (Fig. 41). Mesopleuron entirely punctate (Fig. 52a). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Propodeal spines moderately produced and spiniform (Fig. 52b). Petiole distinctly sculptured except for apical portion of node. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3).</p><p>Identification, taxonomy and systematics.</p><p>Pheidole proxima is a relatively small, brownish yellow, short-limbed species with a strongly shining integument. The phylogenetic placement of Pheidole proxima is unknown, but it almost certainly clusters within an Old World clade that has radiated across Australia and New Guinea. The species is slightly smaller than Pheidole megacephala, but both have workers with almost entirely glossy faces. The postpetiole of Pheidole proxima is not swollen relative to the petiole (Fig. 3), as it is in Pheidole megacephala (Fig. 1). The head of the major is subquadrate (Fig. 7), while that of Pheidole megacephala is more heart-shaped (Fig. 6). The antennal scapes of the minor do not surpass the posterior head margin (Fig. 41), as they do in Pheidole megacephala (Fig. 40). The other two Pheidole species established in New Zealand are Pheidole rugosula and Pheidole vigilans . The glossy face of Pheidole proxima easily separates both worker castes of from those of Pheidole rugosula . In addition to being significantly smaller (major HW &lt;1.0 mm, minor HW &lt;0.48 mm) than Pheidole vigilans (major HW&gt; 1.2 mm, minor HW&gt; 0.52 mm), the major of Pheidole proxima is more sculptured (Fig. 16 vs. Fig. 17), and the hypostomal bridge has a distinct median tooth (Fig. 18 vs. Fig. 19). The minors of Pheidole proxima are separated from those of Pheidole vigilans by the shorter scapes (Fig. 41 vs. Fig. 40), more sculptured mesopleuron (Fig. 52a vs. Fig. 51a), and more robust propodeal spines (Fig. 52b vs. Fig. 51b). Additional taxonomy of these species is discussed in (Berry et al. 1997).</p><p>Comparison of the Pheidole proxima Mayr type series and images of the two subspecies suggests that all three taxa are heterospecific. There is some reason to believe, however, that the name Pheidole proxima Mayr does not apply perfectly to the species recently introduced to New Zealand. The specimens examined from New Zealand conflict with Mayr’s original description and type specimens on several points. The pronotal dorsum of the type major worker is transversely rugose whereas that of the New Zealand specimens are completely glossy. Although we were unable to examine minors from the type series, Mayr described the head of the minor worker as coriaceous and striate-rugose with scapes that barely exceed the posterior margin. In contrast the minor workers from New Zealand have heads that are completely glossy and scapes that do not exceed the posterior head margin. Forel, in his description of Pheidole proxima subsp. bombalenis, describes the minor worker as identical to Pheidole proxima Mayr with the exception of having longer propodeal spines. The specimen images of the Pheidole bombalensis syntype minor show a strongly sculptured face, similar to the pattern described by Mayr. The major workers from the type series are larger than the New Zealand specimen we measured (HW 1.03-1.05 mm vs.HW 0.95 mm), have relatively narrower heads (CI 87-89 vs.CI 92), and relatively shorter antennal scapes (SI 42-46 vs.SI 52). While a more exhaustive survey of Australia’s Pheidole may reveal the New Zealand population to be more closely related to another species from that fauna, we follow Berry et al. (1997) in using Pheidole proxima Mayr.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>The only natural history published for Pheidole proxima was recorded by Green and Gunawardana (2006) from their work with the New Zealand incursion. They reported that Pheidole proxima produced large nests recognizable by tiny conical mounds of sandy or grainy material above the ground near the entrance. The size of the mounds varies with soil type, with mounds as small as 5 mm high by 200-300 mm in diameter. They are tolerant to disturbance and capable of invading structures. The minor and major workers are both active foragers and were observed recruiting to both sweet and savory baits in high numbers.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Pheidole proxima Mayr is native to Queensland, Australia. The sparse records of the species are scattered from Cape York at the northernmost tip of the continent down to the Gold Coast. The species is introduced to New Zealand and was first detected during a 2004 survey of the Port of Napier following an incursion of Solenopsis invicta (Green and Gunawardana 2006). The species is now widespread across the North Island from the Napier-Hastings area to Auckland.</p><p>Risk statement.</p><p>Pheidole proxima is at most considered a nuisance species in New Zealand on account of its ability to infest structures. However, very little is known about the species, including its impact on agricultural systems and native ecosystems. There is little reason to believe that it will become globally or regionally widespread.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/00B3E1BF609BB512110653C565F3B443	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	Sarnat, Eli M.;Fischer, Georg;Guenard, Benoit;Economo, Evan P.	Sarnat, Eli M., Fischer, Georg, Guenard, Benoit, Economo, Evan P. (2015): Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1-109, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
D3A294CE7E42819D4D24ECC9E6A913CF.text	D3A294CE7E42819D4D24ECC9E6A913CF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pheidole punctatissima Mayr	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Pheidole punctatissima Mayr Figs 85, 88M</p><p>Pheidole punctatissima . Pheidole punctatissima Mayr 1870a: 400 (s.w.) MEXICO (E. Norton) [NHMW]. Description of queen: Forel 1908: 52. Lectotype (major worker, CASENT0601256) designated: Longino and Cox 2009: 41. See also: Wilson 2003: 618.</p><p>Pheidole napaea . Pheidole punctatissima subsp. napaea Wheeler, W.M. 1934: 165 (s.w.) MEXICO, Mirador, Veracruz (E. Skwarra). Junior synonym of punctatissima: Brown 1981: 525.</p><p>Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole .</p><p>Body reddish brown to nearly black. MajorHW 0.86-1.06, HL 0.94-1.13, SL 0.56-0.63, CI 92-97, SI 57-68 (n=9, Longino pers. comm.). Head bicolored with the yellowish posterior two-thirds contrasting with the darker brown anterior third and rest of body (Fig. 34). Head subquadrate (Fig. 7); often entirely foveolate (Fig. 11), but portions of posterolateral lobes can be glossy. Posterolateral lobes never with distinct rugae. Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Promesonotal dorsum usually foveolate and never with distinct transverse striae. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Postpetiole relatively broad; distinctly more than 2 × petiolar width in dorsal view (Fig. 31). Gaster with at least anterior 1/3 of first tergite matte (Fig. 33). MinorHW 0.44-0.50, HL 0.54-0.59. SL 0.55-0.58, CI 79-85, SI 114-125 (n=14, Longino pers. comm.). Head, including the area mesad of the frontal carinae, entirely covered by reticulated network of punctures (Fig. 37). Posterior head margin relatively narrow (Fig. 58). Antennal scapes lack standing hairs (Fig. 55); scapes surpass posterior head margin by a distance equal to or greater than eye (Fig. 40); scapes relatively long (SI 103-125). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Hairs on mesosoma stout, stiff, of equal length and arranged in pairs (Fig. 53). Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Postpetiole broad in dorsal view, distinctly broader than petiole (Fig. 62). Gaster with at least anterior 1/3 of first tergite matte (Fig. 33).</p><p>Identification, taxonomy and systematics.</p><p>Pheidole punctatissima is a small species with entirely punctate minor workers that are usually dark red brown to nearly black. The major workers are easily recognizable by the distinct bicolored head which is dark anteriorly and yellowish white posteriorly. Pheidole punctatissima is a member of the Neotropical Pheidole punctatissima clade, together with Pheidole anastasii and Pheidole bilimeki (Economo et al. 2015). Among species treated here, it is easily confused with the aforementioned and with members of the Pheidole flavens complex. Minor workers can also be confused with those of Pheidole parva . Within the Pheidole punctatissima clade, the major workers of Pheidole punctatissima are immediately distinguished from those of both Pheidole anastasii and Pheidole bilimeki by their bicolored heads (Fig. 33). The minor workers of Pheidole punctatissima tend to have relatively narrower posterior head margins and longer antennal scapes than those of Pheidole anastasii and Pheidole bilimeki, but separation can be difficult. See section under Pheidole anastasii for identification notes.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Pheidole punctatissima is a weedy species that tends to be arboreal and prefers open, disturbed habitat (Longino and Cox 2009). It is most commonly found nesting in dead wood on the ground or in dead tree branches. Wilson (2003) reported winged reproductives were found in nests during April and July. Specimen records retrieved from Antweb.org indicate the species was collected from 10-2500 m elevation (570 m average). Pheidole punctatissima has also managed to establish indoors in several European countries. Colonies were found in Denmark infesting a hospital and in Norway inhabiting private homes and a nursing home (Birkemoe and Aak 2008). Birkemoe and Aak (2008) speculated that the species was inadvertently imported along with nursery plants.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Pheidole punctatissima is considered here as broadly native to the Neotropics from southern Mexico to northern South America. We tentatively treat the Caribbean records as native but these might represent more recent human-mediated dispersal events. The records from southern Brazil, reported at least in part from 10 different urban centers (Lutinski et al. 2013), have not been verified with specimen examination. Should the records refer to Pheidole punctatissima Mayr and not one of its many morphologically similar congeners we would consider this to be an introduced population. Indoor colonies were found in Denmark and Norway (Birkemoe and Aak 2008).</p><p>Risk statement.</p><p>Pheidole punctatissima is considered a nuisance pest that can infest structures both in its native and introduced ranges (Longino and Cox 2009). The presence of this species in hospitals and nursing homes suggest it could be a potential nuisance.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D3A294CE7E42819D4D24ECC9E6A913CF	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	Sarnat, Eli M.;Fischer, Georg;Guenard, Benoit;Economo, Evan P.	Sarnat, Eli M., Fischer, Georg, Guenard, Benoit, Economo, Evan P. (2015): Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1-109, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
ED714072331727DDA4F6B00604F66699.text	ED714072331727DDA4F6B00604F66699.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pheidole rugosula Forel	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Pheidole rugosula Forel Figs 86, 88N</p><p>Pheidole rugosula . Pheidole variabilis var. rugosula Forel 1902a: 423 (s.w.) AUSTRALIA, Bong-Bong, N.S.W. (Froggatt). Raised to species Berry et al. 1997: 29.</p><p>Pheidole Note: The elevation to species rank proposed by Berry et al. (1997) had been heretofore overlooked by Bolton (2014).</p><p>Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole .</p><p>Yellowish brown. MajorHW 0.88, HL 0.94, SL 0.45, CI 94, SI 51 (n=1). Head subquadrate (Fig. 7); with distinct parallel rugae extending from frontal lobes posterior to apices of frontal carinae. Shorter lengths of rugae present across entire posterior region of head and extending to posterior margin in full-face view (Fig. 24). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Promesonotal dorsum glossy with thin but distinct subparallel striae running oblique to the longitudinal midline (Fig. 20). Pronotal striae in dorsal view mostly oblique (Fig. 20). Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). MinorHW 0.45, HL 0.48, SL 0.41, CI 95, SI 91 (n=1). Head with well-defined, long segments of rugae running longitudinally from below the eyes to the posterior head margin (Fig. 38). Frontal carinae distinct and reaching towards the posterior head margin, although they may occasionally be interrupted (Fig. 38). Punctate ground sculpture present on lateral surfaces of head and just mesad of the frontal carinae, but median portion of head with a large glossy section (Fig. 38). Antennal scapes reach but do not surpass posterior head margin (Fig. 41). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3).</p><p>Identification, taxonomy and systematics.</p><p>Pheidole rugosula is a small, brownish yellow, short-limbed species with moderate head sculpturing that most likely belongs to the Australian-New Guinea clade that includes close relatives of Pheidole variabilis Mayr. The head sculpturing of both the major (Fig. 10) and the minor (Fig. 38) is distinct among all other Pheidole species treated here. These characters easily separate Pheidole rugosula from Pheidole megacephala (Fig. 24, Fig. 36). These same characters, together with a more sculptured promesonotal dorsum (Fig. 20, major) and stout propodeal spines, can be used to separate Pheidole rugosula from its two other congeners that are established in New Zealand, Pheidole proxima and Pheidole vigilans (which is also much larger, major HW&gt; 1.20 mm). There is a bewildering diversity of native Australian (and to a lesser extent New Guinea) Pheidole that approach the morphology of Pheidole rugosula . Additional characters for identifying New Zealand Pheidole species are provided in Berry et al. (1997). A significant revision of the Pheidole variabilis group is required before Pheidole rugosula can be reliably separated from these species.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>In New Zealand, Pheidole rugosula is strongly associated with human disturbance and is the most commonly encountered of the four Pheidole species established in New Zealand (Berry et al. 1997). It has been recorded frequently from gardens, orchards, structures and urban areas. The species was reported nesting in compost, in the soil of vegetable gardens, in the soil of lawns, and near rubbish baskets (Berry et al. 1997; Harris et al. 2005b). It has also been recorded as scavenging dead arthropods, human food waste, nuts and seeds, and is often found associated with rotting fruit (Berry et al. 1997; Harris et al. 2005b). Other collection records suggest Pheidole rugosula will forage arboreally. Berry et al. (1997) also mention that label data suggests the species was collected several times attacking ootheca of mantids, including those of the native mantid Orthodera novaezealandiae (Colenso).</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Pheidole rugosula is believed to be native to the New South Wales region of Australia. The only country where the species has established is New Zealand (Berry et al. 1997). Berry et al. (1997) published museum records of Pheidole rugosula from New Zealand. The first known occurrence of Pheidole rugosula in New Zealand is from Takapuna, where it was collected in 1958 and it had reached Auckland by 1963. Since then it has been found across the Auckland and Waikato regions.</p><p>Risk statement.</p><p>Pheidole rugosula is considered to be a nuisance pest around urban areas in New Zealand (Harris et al. 2005b), where foragers are attracted to pet food left out and to windfall fruit. Although it occurs in native habitats in New Zealand, its impacts are unknown. Collection data indicating a Pheidole rugosula attack of native mantids suggest it could have some negative impact on native biodiversity, however.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/ED714072331727DDA4F6B00604F66699	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	Sarnat, Eli M.;Fischer, Georg;Guenard, Benoit;Economo, Evan P.	Sarnat, Eli M., Fischer, Georg, Guenard, Benoit, Economo, Evan P. (2015): Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1-109, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
23E1F8ADFCD1348629E67D6240A4B5BB.text	23E1F8ADFCD1348629E67D6240A4B5BB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pheidole vigilans (F. Smith)	<div><p>Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae</p><p>Pheidole vigilans (F. Smith) Figs 87, 88O</p><p>Pheidole vigilans . Atta vigilans Smith, F. 1858: 166 (w.) AUSTRALIA, Melbourne [BMNH, MCZC]. Combination in Aphaenogaster: Dalla Torre 1893:108; in Pheidole: Emery 1915a: 69.</p><p>Pheidole dolichocephala . Pheidole dolichocephala André 1896: 262 (s.) AUSTRALIA, Western Australia [MNHN]. Junior synonym of vigilans: Brown 1971: 13.</p><p>Pheidole parallela . Pheidole ampla var. parallela Forel 1902a: 435 (s.w.m.) AUSTRALIA, N.S.W. (Froggatt) [ANIC]. Junior synonym of vigilans: Brown 1971: 13.</p><p>Pheidole yarrensis . Pheidole ampla var. yarrensis Forel 1902a: 434 (s.w.q.) AUSTRALIA, Yarra districts, Victoria (Froggatt) [MHNG]. Junior synonym of vigilans: Brown 1971: 13.</p><p>Pheidole norfolkensis . Pheidole ampla subsp. norfolkensis Wheeler, W.M. 1927: 134, fig. 3 (s.w.) AUSTRALIA, Norfolk Island (A.M. Lea) [MCZC]. Donisthorpe 1941: 91 (q.m.). Junior synonym of vigilans: Brown 1971: 13.</p><p>Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole .</p><p>Smooth yellowish to reddish brown. MajorHW 1.30, HL 1.43, SL 0.68, CI 91, SI 52. Head subquadrate (Fig. 7); glossy, lacking foveolate ground sculpture. Posterolateral lobes lacking sculpture (including foveolate ground sculpture, carinae and rugae) posterior to maximum extent of antennal scapes in repose (Fig. 9). Hypostomal bridge with two well-developed inner teeth but lacking a median tooth (Fig. 19). Promesonotal dorsum glossy, lacking foveolate ground sculpture or striae. Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Metapleuron almost completely glossy with strongly reduced carinulae and lacking punctation (Fig. 17). Petiolar node mostly glossy (Fig. 17), not covered by punctate sculpture. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). MinorHW 0.55, HL 0.58, SI 0.55, CI 95, SI 101. Head predominantly glossy (Fig. 36), lacking punctation and or rugae above eye level. Antennal scapes surpass posterior head margin by approximate distance of eye length (Fig. 40). Mesopleuron entirely glossy (Fig. 51a). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Propodeal spines weakly produced and dentiform (Fig. 51b). Petiole almost entirely glossy. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3).</p><p>Identification, taxonomy and systematics.</p><p>Pheidole vigilans is a large, light colored, glossy species native to Australia and introduced in New Zealand. The species belongs to an Old World clade centered in Australia. The glossy head of the majors and minors give it a superficial appearance to Pheidole megacephala, but it is substantially larger than that species. Additionally, the postpetiole of Pheidole proxima is not swollen relative to the petiole (Fig. 3) as in Pheidole megacephala (Fig. 1), and the head of the major is subquadrate (Fig. 7), while that of Pheidole megacephala is more heart-shaped (Fig. 6). Readers are referred to the section under Pheidole proxima and Pheidole rugosula for a discussion of how to differentiate it from the other Pheidole species established in New Zealand. Additional taxonomy of these species is discussed in (Berry et al. 1997). Within Australia, there are many taxa similar to Pheidole vigilans and its close relative Pheidole ampla Forel. However, a revision of that fauna is required before it can be reliably diagnosed there.</p><p>Biology.</p><p>Records show it has established in urban areas and been found with fruit, in gardens, indoors and nesting in failing pasture (Berry et al. 1997).</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Pheidole vigilans is considered endemic to the south eastern corner of Australia (Brown 1971). Heterick et al. (2013) reported Pheidole vigilans as introduced to Perth in Western Australia. The species was first collected outside of Australia in Kerikeri, New Zealand in 1956, and remains the least frequently collected Pheidole species in New Zealand (Berry et al. 1997; Cumber 1959). Although Pheidole ampla subsp. norfolkensis Wheeler was originally described as endemic to the Norfolk Islands, Brown (1971) later proposed that the species was introduced to those islands.</p><p>Risk statement.</p><p>Pheidole vigilans is not considered a pest in New Zealand, but it has been collected from urban areas and may be a minor garden nuisance (Harris et al. 2005c).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/23E1F8ADFCD1348629E67D6240A4B5BB	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	Sarnat, Eli M.;Fischer, Georg;Guenard, Benoit;Economo, Evan P.	Sarnat, Eli M., Fischer, Georg, Guenard, Benoit, Economo, Evan P. (2015): Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1-109, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
