| Notice: |
This page is derived from the original publication listed below, whose author(s) should always be credited. Further contributors may edit and improve the content of this page and, consequently, need to be credited as well (see page history). Any assessment of factual correctness requires a careful review of the original article as well as of subsequent contributions.
If you are uncertain whether your planned contribution is correct or not, we suggest that you use the associated discussion page instead of editing the page directly.
This page should be cited as follows (rationale):
Esteves F, Fisher B (2021) Corrieopone nouragues gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Ponerinae from French Guiana (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 1074 : 83–173, doi. Versioned wiki page: 2021-12-03, version 195017, https://species-id.net/w/index.php?title=Corrieopone&oldid=195017 , contributors (alphabetical order): Pensoft Publishers.
Citation formats to copy and paste
BibTeX:
@article{Esteves2021ZooKeys1074,
author = {Esteves, Flavia A. AND Fisher, Brian L.},
journal = {ZooKeys},
publisher = {Pensoft Publishers},
title = {Corrieopone nouragues gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Ponerinae from French Guiana (Hymenoptera, Formicidae)},
year = {2021},
volume = {1074},
issue = {},
pages = {83--173},
doi = {10.3897/zookeys.1074.75551},
url = {https://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=75551},
note = {Versioned wiki page: 2021-12-03, version 195017, https://species-id.net/w/index.php?title=Corrieopone&oldid=195017 , contributors (alphabetical order): Pensoft Publishers.}
}
RIS/ Endnote:
Wikipedia/ Citizendium:
See also the citation download page at the journal. |
Taxonavigation
Ordo: Hymenoptera
Familia: Formicidae
Name
Corrieopone Esteves & Fisher, 2021 gen. nov. – Wikispecies link – ZooBank link – Pensoft Profile
Type species
Corrieopone nouragues sp. nov., by present designation.
Diagnosis based on workers
Medium-sized, slender Neotropical ants (TL 6.5–7.1 mm; Fig. 37) with characters of Ponerinae (as in Fisher and Bolton 2016[1]) and Ponerini (as in Schmidt and Shattuck 2014[2]), in addition to the following (asterisks indicate putative autapomorphies):
1. Mandibles triangular, with distinct masticatory and basal margins; inserted at the anterolateral corners of the head (Fig. 38A, E).
2. Mandibles edentate (Fig. 38A, E).
3. Mandible devoid of any pit or sulcus: basolateral and dorsal pits and dorsolateral and dorsomasticatory sulci absent (Fig. 38A–C, E).
4. * Clypeus complex: In dorsal view, clypeus projected anteromedially as a broad, truncated prominence, overhanging the basal margins of the mandibles, and overlapping the basal portion of the masticatory margins of fully closed mandibles; anterior margin of the clypeal projection approximately as wide as the distance between the lateral arches of the toruli, devoid of stout setae or additional protrusions (Figs 37B, 38A, E). In profile, clypeal projection with a broad anteroventral face (avf, Fig. 39A–D), which extends ventroposteriorly (i.e., obliquely) from the clypeal dorsal face in almost 90 degrees; the ventralmost point of this anteroventral face meets the “true” clypeal ventral face (= surface of the clypeal infold in Boudinot et al. 2021[3]; vf, Fig. 39A–D). In anteroventral view, clypeal anteroventral face subrectangular (avf, Fig. 39D). Median area of the clypeus bulging (Fig. 37A, E); seen in profile, it ascends steeply from the clypeal anterior margin to the torular lobes, with posterior portion slightly convex (Fig. 38B, D).
5. In dorsal view, torular lobes closely approximated.
6. In dorsal view, torular lobes medium- to small-sized: not concealing the lateral arches of the toruli (Fig. 38F). Median and lateral arches of the torulus with discontinuous posterior margins (Fig. 38D).
7. In profile, torular lobes located at the dorsalmost part of a prominence formed by the clypeal median area and the frontal carinae (Fig. 38B).
8. Compound eyes small and located immediately anterior to the midline of the head (Fig. 38A, B, D).
9. Ocelli absent (Fig. 38A).
10. Labrum apically bilobed; with a long, acute cleft at the midpoint of its apical margin. Lobes broadly rounded apicolaterally and unarmed (Fig. 39E).
11. Palpal formula: 4,4 (four maxillary, four labial palpomeres; Fig. 39F).
12. Mesonotum rounded, dome-shaped in profile (Fig. 40A), rounded in dorsal view (Fig. 37A).
13. Notopleural suture distinct (Fig. 40A, B).
14. Metanotal sulcus deeply impressed (Fig. 40A). 15. Mesopleuron in profile divided into anepisternum and katepisternum (Fig. 40A, B).
16. Metathoracic spiracle concealed by a spiracular lobe (Fig. 40B).
17. Orifice of the metapleural gland round, opening posterolaterally on the metapleuron, with its ventral margin atop the posteriormost portion of the metapleural carina (Fig. 40C, D).
18. Metapleural longitudinal flange absent (Fig. 40C, D).
19. Propodeal dorsum devoid of a median longitudinal groove or impression.
20. Propodeum unarmed: without dorsoposterior projections (Fig. 40A).
21. In profile, propodeal lobe round, not surpassing posteriorly the dorsoposterior-most point of the rim of the propodeal foramen (Fig. 40C).
22. Propodeal spiracle slit-shaped (Fig. 40C). 23. Mesosternal process bidentate; metasternal process bilobate, long (Fig. 40F).
24. Metacoxal cavities open; cavities tightly encircled by cuticle, but cuticular annulus not fused (Fig. 40E; see comment in the following section).
25. Calcar of strigil with a basoventral lamella (Fig. 41A, B).
26. Probasitarsus with anterior and ventral faces densely vested with spatulate-costate setae (Fig. 41A), except for the shorter, spatulate-bicuspid setae present on the area immediately anterior to the comb of strigil (Fig. 41B).
27. Row of stout, spine-like setae present on the posterior face of the probasitarsal notch, parallel to the comb of strigil (Fig. 41B).
28. Two well-developed mesotibial spurs: anterior spur simple, posterior spur serrate (Fig. 41C, D). 29. Apparent metatibial gland cuticular patch present on the apicoposterior face of the metatibia, next to the posterior metatibial spur (Fig. 41E).
30. Two well-developed metatibial spurs: anterior spur simple, posterior spur pectinate (Fig. 41F). 31. Stout, spine-like setae absent from the dorsal face of mid- and hindlegs (Fig. 42A, B).
32. Ventral faces of the second, third, and fourth tarsomeres of fore-, mid-, and hindlegs with a paired row of stout, spine-like setae skirting the midline of each segment (Fig. 42C–E). 33. Pro-, meso-, and metapretarsi with simple claws (Fig. 42C–F).
34. Arolia indistinct (Fig. 42F). 35. Petiole sessile, with high, unarmed, conic, scale-like node (i.e., tergite narrow in profile and dorsal view; Figs 37A, C, 43A).
36. Petiolar tergite with anteroventral lateral carina (= lateral, dorsoventral carina in Ward 1990[4], character 29); posteroventral portion of tergite strigate (Fig. 43A). 37. Petiolar laterotergite distinct (Fig. 43A).
38. Proprioceptor zone on anterior disc of petiolar sternite shaped as a large circular area (Fig. 43B).
39. Petiolar sternite without posterior spatulate projection (Fig. 43B); articulation with helcium visible in ventral view.
40. Helcium infra-axial: positioned ventrad the midheight of the anterior face of abdominal segment III (Fig. 43C).
41. Prora present as a lip-shaped, transverse projection on the anterior portion of the abdominal poststernite III (Fig. 43C, D); projection not extending anteriorly to the area between the ventroposterior margins of helcial tergite (Fig. 43D).
42. Abdominal segment IV tubular: tergite and sternite with similar lengths; tergite not arched (Fig. 43C).
43. Presclerites of abdominal segment IV forming an even surface with postsclerites: girdling constriction absent (Fig. 43C).
44. Stridulitrum present on abdominal pretergite IV, small (Fig. 43E, F).
45. Pygidium devoid of stout, spine-like setae or spine-like microtrichia; dorsal face convex.
46. * Ventral face of hypopygium longitudinally concave (Fig. 44A, B). Longitudinal carina present at midline of concavity’s posterior portion, skirted laterally by stout, hook-shaped setae (Fig. 44C, D). 47. Hypopygium posterolateral region without stout, spine-like setae or spine-like microtrichia.
Comments on worker characters
The enumeration below corresponds to character numbers presented above.
1. The mandibles articulate with the anterolateral corners of the head in virtually all Ponerinae and are either triangular or subtriangular in most genera (N = 29). Other mandibular shapes with little intrageneric variation are the oblique (Boloponera, Buniapone, Dinoponera, Iroponera, Plectroctena, and Promyopias), pitchfork-like (Belonopelta, Emeryopone, Thaumatomyrmex), elongate sub-oblique (Streblognathus), and scythe-shaped (Harpegnathos). The shape of the mandibles varies from triangular to elongate-triangular in Centromyrmex; from triangular to subtriangular, to oblique in Cryptopone; from subtriangular to oblique, to falcate, to bizarre forms in-between in Leptogenys and Myopias; from sub-oblique to falcate in Psalidomyrmex; and from subtriangular to oblique in Simopelta. Anochetus and Odontomachus are the only ponerines in which the mandibles insert near the midline of the anterior margin of the head.
2. The mandible of Corrieopone is completely edentate (i.e., devoid of any teeth, denticle, or projected apex). To our knowledge, this condition is virtually absent in other Ponerinae, apart from some species of Leptogenys (see Arimoto and Yamane 2018[5]) and Platythyrea (see Fisher and Bolton 2016[1]).
3. Ponerine may present mandibles ornamented with pits and sulci, which are relatively good diagnostic characters to genera.
3.1. The basolateral pit (= basal pit in Fisher and Bolton 2016[1]) is a round to oblong impression on the basal portion of the lateral face of the mandible. It occurs in most Brachyponera species (excluding species from Borneo, Bali, Krakatau, and Sumatra, according to Yamane 2007[6]), Cryptopone [except for C. guianensis and, based on its original description, C. mirabilis (Mackay & Mackay), as far as we know], and Euponera (see Schmidt and Shattuck 2014[2]). The pit is also present in Fisheropone ambigua (Fig. 45A, B), which disagrees with Schmidt and Shattuck (2014)[2] and Fisher and Bolton (2016)[1].
3.2. The dorsal pit resembles the basolateral pit, although more elongated and impressed on the dorsal face of the mandible. In Ponerinae, it is only present in Dolioponera, Euponera fossigera Mayr (see Mayr 1901[7]), Hagensia, and Iroponera (Fig. 45C; contrary to Schmidt and Shattuck 2014[2]).
3.3. The dorsolateral sulcus runs obliquely along the mandible, from the basal portion of the dorsal face towards the lateral face. It is widespread among the Ponerinae and may be shallowly or deeply impressed, restricted to the basal portion of the mandible, or present along almost the entire lateral face of the mandible. The sulcus is consistently present in species of Asphinctopone, Boloponera, Buniapone, Centromyrmex, most (perhaps all) Ectomomyrmex, Feroponera, Loboponera, Myopias, Odontoponera, Paltothyreus, Phrynoponera, Plectroctena, Promyopias, Psalidomyrmex, Pseudoponera, and Streblognathus (see Suppl. material 3: Table S3; Schmidt and Shattuck 2014[2]; Fisher and Bolton 2016[1]). On the other hand, the presence of this character varies among species of other genera, such as Bothroponera (present in B. crassa, absent in B. pachyderma), Dinoponera (weakly present in D. lucida; absent in D. longipes), Leptogenys (see Bolton 1975[8]), Mesoponera (only present in M. subiridescens), Neoponera [present in N. fauveli (Emery), weakly impressed in N. apicalis, absent in N. fisheri], Platythyrea (present in P. punctata, absent in P. turneri), and Pseudoneoponera (present in P. porcata, absent in P. denticulata). Contrary to Schmidt and Shattuck (2014)[2], the sulcus is distinct in all Rasopone species examined here (Fig. 45D); although short and constrained to the basal region of the mandibles, it is also present in Austroponera castanea (Fig. 45E). Among the Pachycondyla species examined, the sulcus is a shallow and short basal impression save in P. lenis, where it is absent. In Euponera sikorae (and in all other Malagasy species, according to Rakotonirina and Fisher 2013[9]), the lateral face of the mandible bears a longitudinal sulcus that runs apicad from the lateral margin of the dorsal mandibular articulation. Whether this sulcus is present in Euponera species occurring in other bioregions remains unknown, but it is absent in at least two Afrotropical species, E. brunoi and E. sjostedti. 3.4. Plectroctena species present a sulcus that skirts the mandibular masticatory margin dorsally (Fisher and Bolton 2016[1]), which we refer to as the dorsomasticatory sulcus.
Among the specimens examined, the following taxa present mandibles devoid of any pit or sulcus, like Corrieopone: Anochetus angolensis, A. emarginatus, Belonopelta deletrix, Bothroponera cariosa, B. pachyderma, B. talpa, Cryptopone guianensis, Diacamma ceylonense, Dinoponera longipes, Emeryopone buttelreepeni, Harpegnathos saltator, Hypoponera punctatissima, Mayaponera, Megaponera analis, Mesoponera ambigua, M. australis, M. caffraria, M. elisae rotundata, M. melanaria macra, M. papuana, M. rubra, Neoponera commutata, N. fisheri, N. laevigata, N. luteola, N. verenae, N. villosa, Odontomachus bauri, Ophthalmopone berthoudi, Pachycondyla lenis, Parvaponera darwinii madecassa, Platythyrea turneri, Ponera alpha, P. pennsylvanica, Simopelta oculata, S. transversa, Thaumatomyrmex fraxini, and T. zeteki.
6. We assessed the size of the torular lobes across taxa examined according to the degree of connection between median and lateral arches of torulus (as in Keller 2011[10], character 08). Among material examined, the lobes are anteriorly and posteriorly continuous with the lateral torular arches in taxa whose antennal sockets are largely exposed in full-face view (Belonopelta, Leptogenys, and Ophthalmopone). On the other extreme, hypertrophied lobes are anteriorly and posteriorly discontinuous with the lateral arches of the torulus (as in Boloponera, Bothroponera sensu stricto group, Loboponera, Platythyrea punctata, Plectroctena, and Psalidomyrmex). Like Corrieopone, most ponerines present intermediate-sized torular lobes that are anteriorly continuous and posteriorly discontinuous with respective lateral arches. In this latter state, the lobes may conceal entirely or partially the lateral arches of the torulus.
For the record, the torular lobes in Bothroponera sulcata species-group members (sensu Schmidt and Shattuck 2014[2]) resemble those of Corrieopone, except for B. henryi (Donisthorpe) (see specimen CASENT0902482) and B. zumpti Santschi (see CASENT0922370), where the lobes are hypertrophied as in the Bothroponera sensu stricto group.
9. Ocelli are invariably present on Harpegnathos workers; it is absent in the worker caste of other Ponerinae, apart from occasional workers.
11. A count of four maxillary and four labial palpomeres is consistently present in Buniapone, Dinoponera, Hagensia, Harpegnathos, Mayaponera (note that we did not examine M. longidentata), Megaponera, Odontoponera, Ophthalmopone, Paltothyreus, Phrynoponera, Promyopias, Streblognathus (see Suppl. material 3: Table S3; Bolton 2003[11]; Fisher and Bolton 2016[1]). We are hesitant to affirm that this is also the case in Neoponera, Pachycondyla, Pseudoneoponera, and Rasopone. These characters usually have been neglected in taxonomic reviews and descriptions of new species, and we did not examine every species in these genera. Yet, in every species we did examine (Neoponera aenescens, N. apicalis, N. bugabensis, N. carinulata, N. commutata, N. crenata, N. curiosa, N. dismarginata, N. fisheri, N. foetida, N. globularia, N. insignis, N. inversa, N. laevigata, N. luteola, N. moesta, N. obscuricornis, N. schoedli, N. striadinodis, N. unidentata, N. verenae, N. villosa, Pachycondyla crassinoda, P. harpax, P. impressa, P. lattkei, P. lenis, P. procidua, P. striata, Pseudoneoponera porcata, P. tridentata, Rasopone costaricensis, R. cryptergates, R. cubitalis, R. guatemalensis, R. panamensis, R. pluviselva, and R.politognatha), the palpal formula was 4,4. The count is also 4,4 in some species of genera with variable palpal formulae, such as Anochetus, Bothroponera, Leptogenys, Mesoponera, and Myopias (see Suppl. material 3: Table S3; Willey and Brown 1983; Bolton 2003[11]; Fisher and Bolton 2016[1]).
While conducting this study, we noticed that the palpal formula of some taxa was incorrectly reported or missing in the pertinent literature. Thus we correct or update the record here. Contrary to Fisher and Bolton (2016)[1], the palpal formula in Dolioponera fustigera is 3,3 (not 2,2, as previously stated; Fig. 45F), and 3,3 in Fisheropone ambigua (not 3,2; Fig. 45G, H). Contrary to Bolton (2003)[11], Keller (2011)[10], and Fisher and Bolton (2016)[1], the palpal formula in Loboponera obeliscata is 2,3 (not 2,2; Fig. 45I, J); the formula in L. vigilans was correctly reported as 2,2 by these authors (verified on specimen CASENT0003102). We also report for the first time the palpal formula in Boloponera ikemkha (2,3; Fig. 45K, L), Cryptopone hartwigi (3,3; Fig. 46A, B), and Simopelta transversa (2,2; Fig. 46C). The specimen of Thaumatomyrmex atrox examined by Keller (2011)[10] was later determined to be T. fraxini by D’Esquivel et al. (2017)[12] – note that the specimen is not in the list of material examined by the latter authors, but some SEM images taken by Keller (2011[10]; specimen ANTWEB1008597) were used to illustrate the new taxon description. One detail not mentioned by D’Esquivel et al. (2017)[12] was the palpal formula of T. fraxini, which is 3,3 (Fig. 46D; previously reported for T. atrox by Keller 2011[10]). Finally, although Fisher and Bolton (2016)[1] stated that the palpal formula in Parvaponera darwinii madecassa is unknown, Brown (1963) provided the correct count, which is 4,3 (Fig. 46E).
12–14. In Corrieopone, the mesonotum is dome-shaped in profile, with a round dorsal margin that is discontinuous with the outline of the pronotum (i.e., it is slightly higher than the pronotum). The promesonotum is much higher than the propodeum, and a deeply impressed metanotal sulcus separates the two. A distinct notopleural suture delimits the mesonotum from the mesopleuron. In dorsal view, the mesonotum is round. Taxa that bear some resemblance to Corrieopone in this combination of characters are: several Anochetus species (e.g., A. altisquamis Mayr, specimen CASENT0915154; A. armstrongi McAreavey, CASENT0902449; A. brevis Brown, CASENT0902439), Asphinctopone, Austroponera [except A. rufonigra (Clark), CASENT0249178], Brachyponera, Euponera sikorae, Fisheropone ambigua, Hagensia, some Hypoponera [e.g., H. foreli (Mayr), CASENT0173714; H. herbertonensis (Forel), CASENT0907320; H. mesoponeroides (Radchenko), CASENT0917250], some Leptogenys (e.g., L. borivava Rakotonirina & Fisher, CASENT0430091; L. ixta, L. peruana, L. sonora), Mayaponera, Megaponera analis (dome-shaped mesonotum in larger specimens, as CASENT0781129), most Mesoponera (e.g., M. ambigua, M. australis, M. caffraria, M. elisae rotundata, M. melanaria, M. papuana, M. rubra, M. subiridescens), several Myopias [e.g., M. castaneicola (Donisthorpe), CASENT0902520; M. chapmani Willey & Brown, CASENT0902533; M. latinoda (Emery), CASENT0270592], several Neoponera (e.g., N. apicalis, N. aenescens, N. fisheri, N. schoedli, N. villosa), some Odontomachus (e.g., O. bauri; O. laticeps Roger, CASENT0904008; O. spissus Kempf, CASENT0281868), Odontoponera transversa, Ophthalmopone, Rasopone rupinicola, R. cubitalis, and Streblognathus.
16. The spiracular lobe is present in most ponerine genera; it is present in Boloponera ikemkha (CASENT0254321) and B. vicans (CASENT0401737), contrary to Fisher and Bolton (2016)[1].
The lobe is absent in Dolioponera, Fisheropone, some Loboponera species, the Afrotropical and Malagasy Hypoponera, H. punctatissima, Simopelta oculata, S. transversa, and Thaumatomyrmex fraxini (Suppl. material 3: Table S3; Fisher and Bolton 2016[1]). Interestingly, while the lobe is absent in the Afrotropical Cryptopone (according to Fisher and Bolton 2016[1]; here confirmed on C. hartwigi), it is present in the Neotropical C. gilva (ANTWEB1008514), C. guianensis (ANTWEB1008565), C. holmgreni (ECOFOG-IT14-0276-07), and C. pauli (CASENT0637806).
18. The metapleural longitudinal flange is a carina that extends along the metapleuron in profile, with its posterior end immediately dorsad the metapleural gland orifice. When well-developed, it projects laterad or ventrolaterad and may overhang the gland orifice (as defined by Keller 2011[10]: character 62). In Simopelta species (ANTWEB1008589), this flange is strongly projected ventrolaterad and overlaps the gland orifice.
19. The propodeal dorsum presents a well-delimited, narrow, median longitudinal groove in Psalidomyrmex (Fisher and Bolton 2016[1]; ANTWEB1008585). In addition, a vestigial longitudinal groove may be present on the propodeal dorsal face of specimens of the Plectroctena minor group (see Bolton and Brown 2002). The propodeal dorsum is transversely concave along its entire length, or only posteriorly, in Hagensia, Mayaponera (CASENT0249137), several Mesoponera (CASENT0249194), and Pseudoponera (CASENT0923115).
20. Most ponerine genera present an unarmed propodeum. In profile, the propodeal dorsoposterior corner bears acute projections in several Anochetus species (e.g., CASENT0902431, CASENT0815182, CASENT0746783), Phrynoponera (CASENT0178230), Streblognathus (ANTWEB1008591), some Platythyrea (CASENT0281867, CASENT0900569, CASENT0903799), and Pseudoneoponera bispinosa (Smith). Also, some species of the Loboponera vigilans group (CASENT0003111), Plectroctenaminor group (CASENT0915285), and P. mandibularis group (CASENT0102947) present the lateral margin of the propodeal declivity with a lamella that is dorsally toothed; in other species of the L. vigilans group, the lateral margin of the propodeal declivity is toothed dorsally, but the lamella is absent (CASENT0003098; see Bolton and Brown 2002). 22. In general, the shape of the propodeal spiracle is constant within genus in Ponerinae. A slit-shaped spiracle (i.e., external atrial opening > 2 × longer than wide; as in Keller 2011[10], character 65) is present in Asphinctopone, Austroponera, Bothroponera, Buniapone, Corrieopone, Diacamma, Dinoponera, Ectomomyrmex, Euponera, Feroponera, Fisheropone, Hagensia, Harpegnathos, Megaponera, Odontoponera, Ophthalmopone, Pachycondyla, Paltothyreus, Phrynoponera, Pseudoneoponera, and Streblognathus. A round to oval spiracle occurs in Belonopelta, Boloponera, Dolioponera, Emeryopone, Hypoponera, Iroponera, Loboponera, Mayaponera, Myopias, Odontomachus, Plectroctena, Ponera, Promyopias, Psalidomyrmex, Rasopone, Simopelta, and Thaumatomyrmex. The propodeal spiracle is round to oval in most Brachyponera species but varies from oval to slit-shaped in B. atrata and B. sennaarensis.
24. We classified the metacoxal cavities as closed or open by integrating the definition given by Keller (2011[10]: character 69) with that in Fisher and Bolton (2016[1]; see also Bolton 2003[11]: character 41). If closed, the medial surface of the metacoxal acetabulum does not have a fenestra, and thus, the metacoxal cavity is not connected internally with the propodeal foramen; the annulus externally encircling the cavity is fused. If open, the internal medial surface of the cavity is fenestrate and connects with the propodeal foramen, and the annulus is unfused. In this case, the annulus may encircle the cavity with its free ends overlapping next to the propodeal foramen; or there may be a gap in the annulus.
An unfused cuticular annulus tightly encircles the metacoxal cavities in most Ponerinae we dissected. This condition occurs in Phrynoponera pulchella specimens from Kenya (CASENT0178203, CASENT0178204, CASENT0217125), which is in accord with Bolton and Fisher (2008a)[13]. However, a specimen from Tanzania possesses an annular gap in both metacoxal cavities (Fig. 46H); we are uncertain if those were natural or dissection artifacts, as unfortunately, only one specimen from that population was available to us. Metacoxal cavities also present an annular gap in Phrynoponera transversa and Platythyrea punctata. On the other hand, the annulus is fused and uninterrupted in Harpegnathos saltator, Platythyrea cribrinodis (Fig. 46F; contrary to Fisher and Bolton 2016[1]), and Myopias darioi (Fig. 46G).
25. The calcar of strigil presents a basoventral lamella in most Ponerinae evaluated (as in Keller 2011[10], character 74). For clarification, we consider the calcar to present a small lamella in Loboponera obeliscata (Fig. 46I) and that it is entirely pectinate in Platythyrea punctata and P. turneri (specimens ANTWEB1008574 and ANTWEB1008575, respectively), which is contrary to Keller (2011)[10]. The lamella is also absent in Boloponera, Brachyponera sennaarensis, Diacamma ceylonense, Dolioponera fustigera, Emeryopone buttelreepeni, Harpegnathos saltator, Hypoponera punctatissima, Leptogenys ixta, L. peruana, L. pucuna, L. sonora, L. wheeleri, Loboponera vigilans, Mesoponera ambigua, M. elisae rotundata, Myopias darioi, Platythyrea cribrinodis, Ponera alpha, P. pennsylvanica, Promyopias silvestrii, Simopelta oculata, S. transversa, Thaumatomyrmex fraxini, and T. zeteki.
27. A row of stout, spine-like setae occurs along the posterior face of probasitarsal notch, parallel to the comb of strigil, in most Ponerinae taxa examined. We adopted the definition of “row” analogous to that of a line, whose existence requires at least two points in space. Thus, the row is present if two or more spine-like setae are aligned longitudinally along the posterior face of the probasitarsal notch; less than two setae make the row absent. Among material examined, the row is absent on the posterior face of the probasitarsal notch in Dolioponera fustigera, Leptogenys, Myopias darioi, and Thaumatomyrmex fraxini.
28. Most Ponerinae taxa present two mesotibial spurs. Among taxa examined, the anterior spur is simple, and the posterior spur is serrate in Brachyponera chinensis, B. croceicornis, B. lutea, B. luteipes, B. obscurans, Dinoponera longipes, D. lucida, Hagensia havilandi marleyi, Harpegnathos saltator, Leptogenys peruana, L. pucuna, and Ophthalmopone berthoudi.
For the record, only one mesotibial spur is visible under a stereomicroscope in Asphinctopone silvestrii and Fisheropone ambigua; however, SEM images reveal that a vestigial anterior spur is present in both taxa (Fig. 47C, E); A. differens also seems to bear a minute anterior spur on the mesotibia.
29. The metatibial gland has been confirmed in Bothroponera tesseronoda (Emery), several species of Diacamma Mayr, Harpegnathos saltator, Neoponera crenata, N. marginata (Roger), Paltothyreus tarsatus, Pseudoneoponera rufipes (Jerdon), and P. tridentata (see Hölldobler et al. 1996[14]; Billen 2009[15]). The gland is associated with a cuticular pore plate, which may be covered by a brush of stouter, distinctly-shaped setae (as in Diacamma and Paltothyreus tarsatus), or it may be an oblong, glabrous, distinctly colored, smooth, or distinctly sculptured cuticular patch (Hölldobler et al. 1996[14]). Here, we list taxa that present the latter condition, which is what is seen in Corrieopone. Among the taxa examined, the cuticular patch is present on the apicoposterior face of the metatibia in Bothroponera crassa, B. silvestrii, Brachyponera croceicornis, B. lutea, B. luteipes, B. obscurans, B. sennaarensis, Cryptopone hartwigi, Ectomomyrmex javanus, Emeryopone buttelreepeni, Euponera sikorae, E. sjostedti, Feroponera ferox, Hagensia havilandi marleyi, Mesoponera caffraria, Pseudoneoponera porcata, and P. tridentata.
30. Most Ponerinae taxa present two metatibial spurs. Here, all specimens examined present a pectinate posterior spur, and in the majority, the anterior spur is simple, as in Corrieopone (see Suppl. material 3: Table S3).
For the record, Schmidt and Shattuck (2014[2]: 185) and Fernandes and Delabie (2019[16]: 411) stated that Cryptopone species present one metatibial spur (excluding C. guianensis, and in the case of the latter authors, also C. pauli). Those assertions are puzzling, as several Cryptopone species have two spurs on the metatibia [e.g., C. arabica Collingwood & Agosti, C. gilva, C. holmgreni (Wheeler), C. ochracea Mayr; see Fig. 47A; Kempf 1961b[17]; Bernard 1967[18]; Collingwood and Agosti 1996[19]]. Belonopelta deletrix has two spurs on the metatibia (Fig. 47B), as correctly stated by Baroni Urbani (1975), but contrary to Schmidt and Shattuck (2014)[2]. Asphinctopone silvestrii presents a minute additional metatibial spur (Fig. 47D), anterior to the much larger pectinate spur; A. differens seems to present the same. The metatibia of Fisheropone ambigua, which bears a single spur, long and pectinate, also presents a fovea where the anterior spur would be located (Fig. 47F). 31. Taxa without stout, spine-like setae on the dorsal face of the mid- and hindlegs are Anochetus angolensis, A. emarginatus, Asphinctopone differens, As. silvestrii, Belonopelta deletrix, Boloponera ikemkha, B. vicans, Bothroponera silvestrii, Brachyponera chinensis, B. croceicornis, B. luteipes, B. obscurans, B. sennaarensis, Diacamma ceylonense, Dolioponera fustigera, Emeryopone buttelreepeni, Euponera sikorae, E. sjostedti, Hagensia havilandi marleyi, Harpegnathos saltator, Iroponera odax, Leptogenys ixta, L. peruana, L. pucuna, L. sonora, L. wheeleri, Loboponera obeliscata, L. vigilans, Mayaponera conicula, Myopias darioi, M. maligna, Neoponera bugabensis, N. carinulata, N. cavinodis, N. crenata, N. dismarginata, N. fiebrigi cf., N. fisheri, N. foetida, N. globularia, N. insignis, N. inversa, N. luteola, N. moesta, N. obscuricornis, N. striadinodis, N. unidentata, N. villosa, Odontomachus bauri, Odontoponera transversa, Ophthalmopone berthoudi, Platythyrea cribrinodis, P. punctata, P. turneri, Simopelta oculata, S. transversa, Thaumatomyrmex fraxini, and T. zeteki.
Contrary to Fisher and Bolton (2016)[1], Fisheropone ambigua presents stout, spine-like setae on the dorsal face of the mesobasitarsus (Fig. 48A).
33. We categorized the shape of pro-, meso-, and metapretarsal claws according to the presence, location, and number of acute projections on their inner margins (modified from Keller 2011[10], character 82). A simple pretarsal claw is devoid of prominences (Fig. 48B) or presents a blunt basal angle or rounded swell (Fig. 48C), and is found in the following taxa: Anochetus angolensis, A. emarginatus, Asphinctopone differens, A. silvestrii, Austroponera castanea, Belonopelta deletrix, Boloponera ikemkha, B. vicans, Bothroponera crassa, B. silvestrii, Brachyponera chinensis, B. croceicornis, B. lutea, B. luteipes, B. obscurans, B. sennaarensis, Centromyrmex brachycola, C. decessor, C. ereptor, C. raptor, Cryptopone gilva, C. guianensis, C. hartwigi, Diacamma ceylonense, Dolioponera fustigera, Ectomomyrmex javanus, Emeryopone buttelreepeni, Euponera brunoi, E. sikorae, E. sjostedti, Feroponera ferox, Fisheropone ambigua, Hypoponera punctatissima, Iroponera odax, Loboponera obeliscata, L. vigilans, Mayaponera becculata, M. cernua, M. conicula, M. constricta, Mesoponera ambigua, M. australis, M. caffraria, M. elisae rotundata, M. melanaria macra, M. papuana, M. rubra, M. subiridescens, Myopias darioi, M. maligna, Neoponera aenescens, N. apicalis, N. bugabensis, N. cavinodis, N. crenata, N. dismarginata, N. eleonorae, N. fiebrigi cf., N. fisheri, N. foetida, N. globularia, N. insignis, N. inversa, N. laevigata, N. luteola, N. obscuricornis, N. schoedli, N. striadinodis, N. unidentata, N. verenae, N. villosa, Odontomachus bauri, Odontoponera transversa, Pachycondyla lattkei, Parvaponera darwinii madecassa, Plectroctena strigosa, Ponera alpha, P. pennsylvanica, Psalidomyrmex procerus, Pseudoneoponera porcata, Pseudoponera gilberti, P. stigma, Rasopone costaricensis, R. cryptergates, R. cubitalis, R. guatemalensis, R. panamensis, R. pluviselva, R. politognatha, Simopelta oculata, S. transversa, and Streblognathus peetersi.
A claw with a basal tooth bears an acute prominence on the basal third of its inner margin (Fig. 12B). The basal tooth overhangs the outline of the inner margin of the claw and may bear several small, acute projections (Fig. 48D). This type of claw occurs in Bothroponera cariosa, B. pachyderma, B. talpa, Mayaponera arhuaca, M. pergandei, Megaponera analis, Neoponera carinulata, N. commutata, N. moesta, Ophthalmopone berthoudi, Pachycondyla crassinoda, P. harpax, P. impressa, P. lenis, P. procidua, P. striata, Phrynoponera pulchella, P. transversa, and Pseudoneoponera tridentata. A claw with a preapical tooth has an acute projection rising from the apical two-thirds of its inner margin (Fig. 48E). It is present in Dinoponera longipes, D. lucida, Hagensia havilandi marleyi, Harpegnathos saltator, Paltothyreus tarsatus, Platythyrea cribrinodis, P. punctata, P. turneri, Thaumatomyrmex fraxini, and T. zeteki. Pectinate pretarsal claws are shaped like a comb and are unique to Leptogenys among Ponerinae (Fig. 48F).
Finally, we found shape variations among the claws of the fore-, mid-, and hindlegs only in Buniapone amblyops and Promyopias silvestrii. These taxa present a propretarsal claw with a long basal tooth, while their meso- and metapretarsi claws are simple (Fig. 48G–I). This condition contradicts Bolton and Fisher (2008b)[20] and Fisher and Bolton (2016)[1], who stated the claws are simple in P. silvestrii. 34. The arolium was absent or reduced to a membranous cuticular flap between the pretarsal claws of most taxa examined (Figs 12B, 48D–I). Exceptions were Belonopelta deletrix, Diacamma ceylonense, Harpegnathos saltator, Iroponera odax, Mayaponera, Neoponera, Parvaponera darwinii madecassa, Platythyrea cribrinodis, P. punctata, P. turneri, Rasopone guatemalensis, Simopelta oculata, S. transversa (Fig. 48C), Thaumatomyrmex fraxini, and T. zeteki.
Contrary to Schmidt and Shattuck (2014)[2], we consider that Mayaponera constricta has indistinct arolia like all its congeners (Fig. 48B). In this species, the arolium is reduced to a cuticular flap, although more developed than what we classified as indistinct in other taxa. However, this feature was not noticeable under our stereo microscope.
35. The petiolar node of Corrieopone lacks a spine-like or any other acute projection and is narrow in profile, with its anterior and posterior surfaces tapering to an insignificant dorsal surface.
Ponerine taxa with an unarmed scale-like petiole are: several Anochetus (see CASENT0915154); Asphinctopone (CASENT0915481); Austroponera (FOCOL0965); Brachyponera (CASENT0915660); Buniapone (CASENT0903944); some Cryptopone (ANTWEB1008000); some Ectomomyrmex (CASENT0907270); Euponera fossigera species group [viz.: E. brunoi, E. fossigera Mayr (SAM-HYM-C002649B), E. malayana (Wheeler), E. sharpi Forel, E. wroughtonii Forel, E. wroughtonii crudelis Forel, and probably also E. sakishimensis (Terayama)]; Fisheropone (CASENT0906215); Hagensia (CASENT0256487); several Hypoponera (CASENT0281911); some Leptogenys (CASENT0902609); Mayaponera (USNMENT00442104); Mesoponera (CASENT0249169); some Neoponera (ANTWEB1014009); very few Odontomachus (CASENT0281868); very few Pachycondyla (UFV-LABECOL-000002); some Parvaponera (CASENT0915276); some Ponera (CASENT0235336); and Pseudoponera [CASENT0902509; except P. pachynoda (Clark), ANTWEB1008183].
36. The strigation on the posteroventral portion of the petiolar tergite of Corrieopone resembles that of Asphinctopone (CASENT0178221).
39. The spatulate projection rises from the posterior portion of the petiolar sternite and extends posteriad, overlapping either partially or entirely the remaining sternite. This definition departs from Keller (2011[10], character 111) in not requiring (a) the projection to extend beyond the posterior margin of the petiolar sternite and (b) close proximity between projection and remaining sternite. The reason is the character varies continuously, which invalidates both requirements. The variation comprises projections that are long and conceal the helcial sternite almost completely to partially (as in Phrynoponera pulchella, specimen ANTWEB1008573, and Platythyrea punctata, respectively; Fig. 49A); those that reach or almost reach the posterior margin of the petiolar sternite (as in Platythyrea turneri, Fig. 49B); and those even shorter (as in Asphinctopone silvestrii; Fig. 49C). In addition, projections may tightly envelop the remaining sternite (as in Phrynoponera pulchella and Platythyrea punctata, ANTWEB1008574; Fig. 49D); or a slight gap may be present [as in Platythyrea turneri, specimen ANTWEB1008575, and Phrynoponera gabonensis (André); Fig. 49E]; or the gap may be slightly broader (as in Rasopone jtl030; Fig. 49F) to much broader (as in Streblognathus peetersi; Fig. 49G).
Thus, according to our definition, the spatulate projection of the petiolar sternite is present in Austroponera, Asphinctopone, Brachyponera, Megaponera analis, Ophthalmopone, Phrynoponera, Platythyrea, Rasopone, and Streblognathus; see also Fisher and Bolton (2016)[1] for the description of the sternite in some of these taxa. The petiolar sternite in Belonopelta deletrix, immediately anterior to its posterior margin, is projected ventrad and slightly posteriad; the same seems to happen in Thaumatomyrmex fraxini. According to the species redescription given by Mackay and Mackay (2010)[21], Neoponera magnifica may also present the character.
40. Like Corrieopone, most ponerine genera present an infra-axial helcium (i.e., positioned ventrad the midheight of the anterior face of abdominal segment III; see Keller 2011[10], character 114). A few taxa examined present an axial helcium (i.e., positioned at midheight of the anterior face of abdominal segment III): Boloponera, Buniapone, Centromyrmex, Cryptopone (except C. guianensis), Dolioponera, Feroponera, Iroponera, Platythyrea, and Promyopias.
41. As far as we know, the prora is present and well-developed in most Ponerinae. It is usually indistinct in Platythyrea, but contrary to Fisher and Bolton (2016)[1], it is well-developed in some species [as in P. lamellosa (Roger); Fig. 49H], and weakly projected but still visible in others [as in P. pilosula (Smith); Fig. 49I]. According to Schmidt and Shattuck (2014)[2], the prora is absent in Iroponera, but SEM images of I. odax reveal that it is present, albeit weakly projected (Fig. 49J). According to Fisher and Bolton (2016)[1], the trait is absent in Dolioponera, which agrees with what we saw in most specimens. However, SEM images of specimen ANTWEB1008521 show a weak projection on the anterior face of abdominal sternite III; we are unsure whether that detail is natural or an image artifact.
We consider the prora present in Mayaponera and Rasopone, in disagreement with Longino and Branstetter (2020)[22]. The trait, although small, is distinct in the profile view of M. becculata, M. conicula, M. constricta, and R. panamensis. In the first two species and R. panamensis, the prora rises from the anterior portion of the abdominal poststernite III (see specimens CASENT0249130, CASENT0644252). In M. constricta, it projects from the area in between the ventral margins of the helcial tergite arch and the anterior portion of the abdominal poststernite III (Fig. 49K) and resembles the condition seen in Dinoponera, Pachycondyla, and Streblognathus (ANTWEB1014000, CASENT0249148, and Fig. 49G, respectively). In M. arhuaca, M. cernua, M. pergandei, and other Rasopone species, the prora is indistinct in the profile view of undissected specimens, for it is a minute prominence located in the area between the ventral margins of the helcial tergite (as in Brachyponera, Fig. 49L), and may be fused entirely with it (as described for Phrynoponera by Bolton and Fisher 2008a[13]).
43. We considered the girdling constriction present if the surface between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segment IV was interrupted by a shallow or deep impression on the integument. A line, if present, only constituted a constriction if the integument was depressed.
Among taxa examined, the constriction is absent in Asphinctopone, Brachyponera sennaarensis (weakly impressed in other species), Corrieopone, Mesoponera (except M. caffraria), Odontomachus, Odontoponera, Simopelta, Streblognathus, and Thaumatomyrmex fraxini.
44. The stridulitrum is consistently present on abdominal pretergite IV in Austroponera, Belonopelta, Dinoponera, Harpegnathos, Megaponera, Neoponera, Odontoponera, Ophthalmopone, Streblognathus, and Thaumatomyrmex. The trait’s occurrence is variable in Anochetus, Bothroponera (present in members of the sulcata group), Brachyponera, Hypoponera, Mayaponera (only present in M. constricta), Mesoponera, Myopias, Odontomachus, Phrynoponera (only present in P. pulchella), and Ponera (Suppl. material 3: Table S3; see also Markl 1973[23]; Schmidt and Shattuck 2014[2]; Fisher and Bolton 2016[1]). Schmidt and Shattuck (2014)[2] state that it is universally present in Leptogenys and Platythyrea. However, Markl (1973)[23], after a comprehensive taxa examination, affirmed that the occurrence of the trait is variable among species in both genera. Contrary to Fisher and Bolton (2016)[1], the stridulitrum is present in Brachyponera obscurans (Fig. 50A) and at least two Afrotropical and Malagasy species of Mesoponera (Fig. 50B, C). For the record, it is absent in Boloponera ikemkha. In addition, the midline of the fourth abdominal pretergite is strigulate and dissimilar to the surrounding sculpture in Euponera sikorae (Fig. 50D, E) and Mesoponera caffraria (Fig. 50F); the ridges are set farther apart and form a narrower area in the latter species. However, whether they have a stridulatory function in those species is unclear. Finally, the stridulitrum is present in males of Mayaponera pergandei (Fig. 50G; contrary to Mackay and Mackay 2010[21]) but absent in the worker caste (Fig. 50H, I). Assuming that W. P. Mackay correctly determined the two males we examined, this intercaste variation is interesting because (1) it has not been observed in ants (see Markl 1973[23]), and (2) it suggests that this trait has a reproductive function in M. pergandei. 47. The hypopygium (abdominal sternite VII) is armed with spine-like setae that flank the sting in some Ponerinae. According to previous studies, the setae are present in Dinoponera, Ophthalmopone, Pachycondyla, Paltothyreus, some Leptogenys, and few Ponera (Schmidt and Shattuck 2014[2]; Fisher and Bolton 2016[1]). However, in Pachycondyla, we found that the hypopygial setae may be spine-like or aristate (Figs 10C–F, 12C, D; see details in the preceding subsection “Transfers between Neoponera to Pachycondyla”).
Hypopygial spine-like setae occur in several Brachyponera (Fig. 51A), Buniapone amblyops (Fig. 51B), Mayaponera becculata (Fig. 51C), some Mesoponera (Fig. 51D), Myopias darioi (Fig. 51E), M. maligna, some Neoponera (Fig. 10A, B; see subsection “Transfers between Neoponera to Pachycondyla”), Parvaponera darwinii madecassa (Fig. 51F), Promyopias silvestrii (Fig. 51G), and Rasopone panamensis (Fig. 51H; see also Suppl. material 3: Table S3). In Thaumatomyrmex fraxini and T. zeteki, the hypopygium vestiture is composed of minute spine-like microtrichia (Fig. 51I).
Original Description
- Esteves, F; Fisher, B; 2021: Corrieopone nouragues gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Ponerinae from French Guiana (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) ZooKeys, 1074: 83-173. doi
Images
| Figure 7. Glossary of terminology, part IV: vestiture. Individual parts show SEM images taken from Corrieopone nouragues; paratypes, worker caste. Distinct types of seta and microtrichium are highlighted in orange A buoyant seta B elliptic seta C filiform seta D helicoid seta E hook-shaped seta F lanceolate microtrichium G spatulate seta H spatulate microtrichium I spatulate-costate seta J spatulate-bicuspid seta K stout, spine-like seta L tubiform microtrichium. Specimens imaged: CASENT0872031 ( A, C, D, K) and CASENT0923158 ( B, E–J, L). Images by FA Esteves; available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.01 mm. |
| Figure 8. Glossary of terminology, part V: sculpture. Individual parts show SEM images taken from Corrieopone nouragues; holotype, worker ( CASENT0830464) A rectangle encloses the colliculate sculpture on the metatibial apicoposterior surface B rectangle encloses the costulate lateral surface of the pronotum C arrows indicate the fossulae on the dorsal face of the mandible D punctate sculpture on the dorsoposterior area of the head E rectangle encloses the confused rugose sculpture on the petiolar profile F declivitous face of the propodeum and petiole in dorsal view; arrow indicates the strigulate sculpture; star highlights the strigate sculpture. Images by M Esposito ( A, E) and FA Esteves ( B–D, F); available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.1 mm ( A, D); 0.2 mm ( B, C, E, F). |
| Figure 12. Pachycondyla procidua comb. rev.; worker ( CASENT0830573) A median area of the abdominal pretergite IV in dorsal view B pretarsus and apex of apicalmost tarsomere in posterodorsal view C posterolateral face of the hypopygium D close-up of the posterolateral face of the hypopygium. Images by FA Esteves; available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.02 mm ( A, B); 0.04 mm ( C, D). |
| Figure 38. Corrieopone nouragues, paratype, worker ( CASENT0872031) A head in full-face view B head in profile; arrow indicates the torular lobes atop a prominence formed by the clypeal median area and the frontal carinae C dorsolateral face of the mandible D clypeus and torulus in profile; the arrowhead indicates the discontinuity between the posterior margins of the median and lateral arches of the torulus E dorsal face of clypeus and mandibles F torular lobes in dorsal view; the arrow points to the exposed lateral arch of the torulus. Images by FA Esteves; available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.5 mm ( A, B); 0.3 mm ( C, D, E, F). |
| Figure 39. Corrieopone nouragues, paratype, worker caste A clypeus in profile; mandible removed B anterior part of the head in oblique anterior view; mandibles and maxilla-labial complex removed C clypeus in oblique anterior view; mandibles and maxilla-labial complex removed D anterior part of the head in ventral view; mandibles and maxilla-labial complex removed E outer face of the labrum; basal towards the top of the image F outer face of the maxillolabial complex; basal towards the bottom of the image; Roman numerals indicate the count of maxillary and labial palpomeres. Specimens imaged: CASENT0923158 ( E, F); CASENT0872031 ( A–D). Images by FA Esteves; available at AntWeb.org. Abbreviations: avf, clypeal anteroventral face; df, clypeal dorsal face; vf, clypeal ventral face. Scale bars: 0.1 mm. |
| Figure 40. Corrieopone nouragues, paratypes, worker caste A mesosoma in profile B mesopleuron and part of metapleuron and propodeum in profile C katepisternum, metapleuron, and propodeum in profile D metapleural gland orifice in posterolateral view E metapleuron (and posterior part of the mesopleuron) in ventral view; arrowhead indicates the unfused annulus around the metacoxal cavity F mesosternal and metasternal processes in posterolateral view, highlighted by arrowhead and star, respectively. Specimens imaged: CASENT0872031 ( A); CASENT0923158 ( B–F). Images by FA Esteves; available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.2 mm. |
| Figure 41. Corrieopone nouragues, worker caste A protibia and protarsus in anterior view B protibial apex and probasitarsus in posteroventral view C mesotibial apex and basal portion of the mesobasitarsus in ventral view D mesotibial apex and basal portion of the mesobasitarsus in posterior view E metatibial apex in posterior view; note the lighter, colliculate cuticular patch next to the posterior metatibial spur F metatibial spurs in anterior view. Specimens imaged: holotype CASENT0830464 ( E); paratype CASENT0923158 ( A, C, D, F); paratype CASENT0872031 ( B). Images by FA Esteves ( A–D, F) and M Esposito ( E); available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.1 mm. |
| Figure 42. Corrieopone nouragues, paratypes, worker caste A midleg (minus coxa) in posterior view B hindleg (minus coxa) in anterior view C apex of the foreleg in anteroventral view D apex of the midleg in anteroventral view E apex of the hindleg in anteroventral view F apicalmost tarsomere and pretarsus of the foreleg in anteroventral view. Specimens imaged: CASENT0923158 ( A–C, E, F); CASENT0872031 ( B). Images by FA Esteves; available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.1 mm. |
| Figure 43. Corrieopone nouragues, paratypes, worker caste A petiole in profile; arrowhead indicates the anteroventral lateral carina of the petiolar tergite B petiolar sternite in postlateroventral view; arrow indicates the proprioceptor zone on the anterior disc of the sternite C gaster in profile D helcium and prora in anterior view E the posterior portion of the abdominal tergite III and the anterior portion of the abdominal tergite IV in dorsal view; arrowhead indicates the stridulitrum F stridulitrum on abdominal pretergite IV. Specimens imaged: CASENT0923158 ( A, B, D); CASENT0872031 ( C, E, F). Images by FA Esteves; available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.1 mm. |
| Figure 44. Corrieopone nouragues, worker caste A the concave ventral face of the hypopygium armed with stout, hook-shaped setae (see arrowheads) on its posteriormost portion B hypopygium in ventrolateral view C close-up of the median carina (see arrowhead) and hook-shaped setae of the hypopygium in ventrolateral view D hook-shaped setae of the hypopygium in posteroventral view. Specimens imaged: holotype CASENT0830464 ( A); paratype CASENT0923158 ( B–D). Images by FA Esteves; available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.1 mm. |
| Figure 45. A left mandible of Fisheropone ambigua in dorsal view; worker ( CASENT0906209); arrow indicates the basolateral pit B left mandible of Fisheropone ambigua in postdorsolateral view ( CASENT0906209); arrow indicates the basolateral pit C anterior part of the head of Iroponera odax in dorsal view; worker (ANTWEB1008537); arrow indicates the dorsal pit D head of Rasopone panamensis in profile; worker ( CASENT0644543); arrow indicates the dorsolateral sulcus E anterior portion of the clypeus and posterior portion of the mandible of Austroponera castanea in dorsolateral view; worker ( CASENT0097796); arrow indicates the short and shallow dorsolateral sulcus F the expanded maxillolabial complex of Dolioponera fustigera in ventral view; worker ( CASENT0411307); Roman numerals indicate the count of maxillary and labial palpomeres G apical portion of the outer face of the left maxilla of Fisheropone ambigua ( CASENT0906209); Roman numerals indicate the count of maxillary palpomeres H outer face of the labium of Fisheropone ambigua ( CASENT0906209); Roman numerals indicate the count of labial palpomeres I apical portion of the outer face of the right maxilla of Loboponera obeliscata; worker (ANTWEB1008545); Roman numerals indicate the count of maxillary palpomeres J outer face of the labium and left maxilla of Loboponera obeliscata (ANTWEB1008545); Roman numerals indicate the count of labial palpomeres K apical portion of the outer face of the left maxilla of Boloponera ikemkha; paratype, ergatoid queen ( CASENT0254321); Roman numerals indicate the count of maxillary palpomeres L outer face of the labium and right maxilla of Boloponera ikemkha ( CASENT0254321); Roman numerals indicate the count of labial palpomeres. Images by FA Esteves ( A, B, E–H, K, L), RA Keller ( C, I, J), and JT Longino ( D); available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.02 mm ( A–C, F, G, I, J–L); 0.2 mm ( D, E); 0.01 mm ( H). |
| Figure 46. A outer face of the left maxilla of Cryptopone hartwigi; worker ( CASENT0251956); Roman numerals indicate the count of maxillary palpomeres B outer face of the labium of Cryptopone hartwigi ( CASENT0251956); Roman numerals indicate the count of labial palpomeres C expanded maxillolabial complex of Simopelta transversa in ventral view; worker ( ANTWEB1008589); Roman numerals indicate the count of maxillary and labial palpomeres D maxillolabial complex of Thaumatomyrmex fraxini in ventroapical view; worker ( ANTWEB1008597); Roman numerals indicate the count of maxillary and labial palpomeres E expanded maxillolabial complex of Parvaponera darwinii madecassa in ventral view; worker ( CASENT0389498); Roman numerals indicate the count of maxillary and labial palpomeres F right metacoxal cavity of Platythyrea cribrinodis in ventral view; worker ( CASENT0778160); arrowhead indicates the fused annular cuticle encircling the cavity externally G right metacoxal cavity of Myopias darioi in ventral view; paratype, worker ( CASENT0810080); arrowhead indicates the fused annular cuticle encircling the cavity externally H right metacoxal cavity of Phrynoponera pulchella in ventral view; worker ( CASENT0217034); arrowhead indicates the annular gap around the cavity F protibial apex and basal region of the probasitarsus of Loboponera obeliscata in posterior view; worker (ANTWEB1008545); arrowhead indicates the minute basoventral lamella of the calcar. Images by FA Esteves ( A, B, E–H) and RA Keller ( C, D, I); available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.02 mm ( A, B, D); 0.03 mm ( C); 0.04 mm ( E–I). |
| Figure 47. A apex of the metatibia and basal region of the metabasitarsus of Cryptopone gilva in anterior view; worker (ANTWEB1008514); arrows highlight the metatibial spurs B apex of the metatibia and basal region of the metabasitarsus of Belonopelta deletrix in anterior view; worker (ANTWEB1008507); arrows highlight the metatibial spurs C ventroapical portion of the mesotibia of Asphinctopone silvestrii in anteroventral view; worker ( CASENT0824505); arrows highlight the minute anterior and much larger posterior spurs D ventroapical portion of the metatibia of Asphinctopone silvestrii in anteroventral view ( CASENT0824505); arrows highlight the minute anterior and much larger posterior spurs E ventroapical portion of the mesotibia of Fisheropone ambigua in ventral view; worker ( CASENT0906216); arrows highlight the vestigial anterior and well-developed posterior spurs F ventroapical portion of the metatibia of Fisheropone ambigua in oblique anteroventral view ( CASENT0906216); arrows highlight a fovea at the place the anterior spur would be located and the large posterior spur. Images by RA Keller ( A, B) and FA Esteves ( C–F); available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.03 mm ( A, B); 0.004 mm ( C–F). |
| Figure 49. A petiole of Platythyrea punctata in ventral view; worker ( ANTWEB1008574) B petiole of Platythyrea turneri in ventral view; worker ( ANTWEB1008575) C petiole of Asphinctopone silvestrii in ventral view; worker ( CASENT0824505) D petiole of Phrynoponera pulchella in profile; worker ( ANTWEB1008573) E petiole of Phrynoponera gabonensis in profile; worker ( CASENT0250060) F petiole of Rasopone jtl030 in profile; worker ( CASENT0633075) G petiole of Streblognathus peetersi in profile; worker ( CASENT0258947) H petiole and abdominal segment IV of Platythyrea lamellosa in profile; worker ( CASENT0252018); arrow indicates the prora I petiole and abdominal segment IV of Platythyrea pillosula in profile; worker ( CASENT0260481); arrows indicate the prora J petiole and anterior portion of the abdominal segment IV of Iroponera odax in ventral view; worker (ANTWEB1008537); arrow indicates the prora K petiole and anterior portion of the abdominal segment IV of Mayaponera constricta in profile; worker ( CASENT0643469); arrow indicates the prora L posterior portion of the petiole and the helcium of Brachyponera croceicornis in ventral view; worker (ANTWEB1008564); arrow indicates the minute prora projected from the area in between the ventral margins of the helcium tergite. Images by RA Keller ( A, B, D, J, L), FA Esteves ( C,K), B Reynolds ( E, H), JT Longino ( F), M Esposito ( G), and W Ericson ( I); available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.2 mm. |
| Figure 53. Corrieopone nouragues, paratype, dealated queen ( CASENT0923157) A head in full-face view B body in profile C mesosoma in profile D body in dorsal view E metatibial apex and basal portion of the metabasitarsus in posterior view F medial area of abdominal segments III and IV in dorsal view. Images by M Esposito ( A, B, D, F) and FA Esteves ( C, E); available at AntWeb.org. Numbers: 1, mesoscutum; 2, indentation of the scutoscutellar sulcus; 3, mesoscutellum; 4, metanotum; 5, anepisternum; 6, katepisternum; 7, upper section of the metapleuron; 8, lower section of the metapleuron; 9, parapsidal line. Scale bars: 1 mm ( A, B, D); 0.2 mm ( C, E, F). |
| Figure 54. Antenna of Corrieopone nouragues; paratypes, worker caste A right antenna in ventral view ( CASENT0923158) B lateral face of the bulbus, bulbus neck, and basal portion of the main shaft of the scape; arrow indicates the notched lateral margin of the bulbus ( CASENT0872031) C bulbus (arrowhead) and bulbus neck (arrow) in anterior view, with the lateral side facing the right of the image ( CASENT0923158) D bulbus (indicated by arrowhead) and bulbus neck (indicated by arrow) in dorsal view with lateral side facing the right of the image ( CASENT0923158). Images by FA Esteves; available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.1 mm. |
| Figure 55. Labrum and maxillolabial complex of Corrieopone nouragues; paratypes, worker caste A outer face of the labrum in ventrolateral view ( CASENT0872031); arrow indicates transverse protrusion; arrowhead indicate median carina B outer face of the labrum in apical view ( CASENT0923158); arrow indicates transverse protrusion; arrowhead indicate weak median carina C outer face of the maxillolabial complex ( CASENT0923158); basal towards the bottom of the image; Roman numerals indicate the count of maxillary and labial palpomeres D outer face of the galea ( CASENT0923158); galeal comb in orange; arrows indicate elliptic seta on the galeal crown; Roman numerals indicate maxillary palpomeres. Images by FA Esteves; available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.1 mm. |
| Figure 56. Leg of Corrieopone nouragues; paratypes, worker caste A calcar of strigil in anterior view ( CASENT0872031) B probasitarsus in ventroanterior view ( CASENT0923158) C probasitarsal notch in posterior view ( CASENT0923158); arrow indicates longitudinal sulcus next to comb of strigil D ventral area of the mesotibia apical half and mesobasitarsus ( CASENT0872031). Images by FA Esteves; available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.1 mm. |
| Figure 57. Leg of Corrieopone nouragues; paratypes, worker caste A colliculate cuticular patch on the posterior face of the metatibial apex ( CASENT0872031) B close-up of the colliculate cuticular patch on the metatibia ( CASENT0872031) C posterior metatibial spur in posterior view ( CASENT0872031) D metatibial spurs and metabasitarsus in anterior view ( CASENT0923158) E basal portion of the metabasitarsus in anterior view ( CASENT0923158); note the short, median carina (arrowhead) armed with a row of short, spine-like setae (colored in orange) F portion of the metabasitarsus anterior to its midlength, in anterior view ( CASENT0923158). Images by FA Esteves; available at AntWeb.org. Scale bars: 0.05 mm ( A, B); 0.2 mm ( C, D); 0.1 mm ( E, F). |
|
Other References
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 Fisher B, Bolton B (2016) Ants of Africa and Madagascar: A guide to the genera.University of California Press, Berkeley, 514 pp. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520962996
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 Schmidt C, Shattuck S (2014) The higher classification of the ant subfamily Ponerinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), with a review of ponerine ecology and behavior.Zootaxa3817: 1–242. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3817.1.1
- ↑ Boudinot B, Moosdorf O, Beutel R, Richter A (2021) Anatomy and evolution of the head of Dorylus helvolus (Formicidae: Dorylinae): Patterns of sex- and caste-limited traits in the sausagefly and the driver ant.Journal of Morphology282: 1616–1658. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.21410
- ↑ Ward P (1990) The ant subfamily Pseudomyrmecinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): generic revision and relationship to other formicids.Systematic Entomology15: 449–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.1990.tb00077.x
- ↑ Arimoto K, Yamane S (2018) Taxonomy of the Leptogenys chalybaea species group (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Ponerinae) from Southeast Asia. Asian Myrmecology 10: e010008. https://doi.org/10.20362/am.010008
- ↑ Yamane S (2007) Pachycondyla nigrita and related species in Southeast Asia. In: Snelling R Fisher B Ward P (Eds) Advances in ant systematics (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): homage to E.O. Wilson – 50 years of contributions. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute, 80. American Entomological Institute, Gainesville, 650–663.
- ↑ Mayr G (1901) Südafrikanische Formiciden, gesammelt von Dr. Hans Brauns.Annalen des Kaiserlich-Königlichen Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien16: 1–30. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.25873
- ↑ Bolton B (1975) A revision of the ant genus Leptogenys Roger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the Ethiopian region with a review of the Malagasy species. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History).Entomology31: 235–305. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.29487
- ↑ Rakotonirina J, Fisher B (2013) Revision of the Pachycondyla sikorae species-group (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Madagascar.Zootaxa3683: 447–485. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3683.4.8
- ↑ 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 10.10 10.11 10.12 Keller R (2011) A phylogenetic analysis of ant morphology (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) with special reference to the poneromorph subfamilies.Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History355: 1–90. https://doi.org/10.1206/355.1
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Bolton B (2003) Synopsis and classification of Formicidae. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 71.American Entomological Institute, Gainesville, 370 pp.
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 D’Esquivel M, Jahyny B, Oliveira M, Lacau L, Delebie J, Lacau S (2017) Thaumatomyrmex fraxini sp. nov. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), a new ant species from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.Sociobiology64(2): 159–165. https://doi.org/10.13102/sociobiology.v64i2.1615
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Bolton B, Fisher B (2008a) The Afrotropical ponerine ant genus Phrynoponera Wheeler (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).Zootaxa1892: 35–52. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1892.1.3
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Hölldobler B, Obermayer M, Peeters C (1996) Comparative study of the metatibial gland in ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae).Zoomorphology116: 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02527156
- ↑ Billen J (2009) Occurrence and structural organization of the exocrine glands in the legs of ants.Arthropod Structure & Development38: 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asd.2008.08.002
- ↑ Fernandes I, Delabie J (2019) A new species of Cryptopone Emery (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Ponerinae) from Brazil with observations on the genus and a key for new word species.Sociobiology66: 408–441. https://doi.org/10.13102/sociobiology.v66i3.4354
- ↑ Kempf W (1961b) A survey of the ants of the soil fauna in Surinam (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).Studia Entomologica4: 481–524. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.26018
- ↑ Bernard F (1967) Faune de l’Europe et du Bassin Méditerranéen 3. Les fourmis (HymenopteraFormicidae) d’Europe occidentale et septentrionale.Masson, Paris, 411 pp.
- ↑ Collingwood C, Agosti D (1996) Formicidae (Insecta: Hymenoptera) of Saudi Arabia (part 2).Fauna of Saudi Arabia15: 300–385. https://ia802304.us.archive.org/23/items/ants_08420/8420_text.pdf
- ↑ Bolton B, Fisher B (2008b) Afrotropical ants of the ponerine genera Centromyrmex Mayr, Promyopias Santschi gen. rev. and Feroponera gen. n., with a revised key to genera of African Ponerinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).Zootaxa1929: 1–37. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1929.1.1
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 Mackay W, Mackay E (2010) The systematics and biology of the New World ants of the genus Pachycondyla (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston (New York): 642 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4271.8726
- ↑ Longino J, Branstetter M (2020) Phylogenomic species delimitation, taxonomy, and ‘bird guide’ identification of the Neotropical ant genus Rasopone (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).Insect Systematics and Diversity4: 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/isd/ixaa004
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 Markl H (1973) The evolution of stridulatory communication in ants. In: Butler C Howse P (Eds) Proceedings of the International Union for the Study of Social Insects.VII International Congress, London, September 1973. University of Southampton, Southampton, 258–265. https://cataglyphis.fr/Actes-SF-UIEIS/IUSSI-Londres-1973/VII-Congres-IUSSI-Londres-Septembre-1973.htm
