Ants of Africa and Madagascar: A Guide to the Genera

Ants of Africa and Madagascar

Ants of Africa and Madagascar

A Guide to the Genera

BRIAN L. FISHER and BARRY BOLTON

Illustrated by Jessica Huppi

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

University of California Press, one of the most distinguished university presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit www.ucpress.edu.

University of California Press

Oakland, California

© 2016 by The Regents of the University of California

Cataloging-in-Publication Data on file at the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-0-520-27866-0 (cloth)

ISBN 978-0-520-29089-1 (paper)

ISBN 978-0-520-96299-6 (ebook)

Manufactured in the United States of America

22  21  20  19  18  17  16

10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1

We dedicate this book to those who have chosen to explore the rich ant fauna of Africa and Madagascar, such as Roy Snelling, who spent his last few years working on the Kenya fauna. Although the region offers unique challenges for ant researchers, it presents the joys of exploration and discovery at the same time.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Introduction to the Ant Genera

Introduction Plates

Family Formicidae: The Ants

Afrotropical and Malagasy Subfamilies

Key to Afrotropical and Malagasy Subfamilies (Workers)

Subfamily Accounts

Afrotropical and Malagasy Genera

Key to Afrotropical Genera (Workers)

Key to Malagasy Genera (Workers)

Genus Accounts

Glossary

References

Index

Genus Plates

EXPANDED CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Introduction to the Ant Genera

Introduction Plates

Family Formicidae: The Ants

Afrotropical and Malagasy Subfamilies

Key to Afrotropical and Malagasy Subfamilies (Workers)

Subfamily Accounts

AGROECOMYRMECINAE Carpenter, 1930

AMBLYOPONINAE Forel, 1893

APOMYRMINAE Dlussky and Fedoseeva, 1988 stat. rev.

DOLICHODERINAE Forel, 1878

DORYLINAE Leach, 1815

FORMICINAE Latreille, 1809

LEPTANILLINAE Emery, 1910

MYRMICINAE Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau, 1835

PONERINAE Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau, 1835

PROCERATIINAE Emery, 1895

PSEUDOMYRMECINAE Smith, M.R., 1952

Afrotropical and Malagasy Genera

Key to Afrotropical Genera (Workers)

Key to Malagasy Genera (Workers)

Genus Accounts

ACROPYGA Roger, 1862

ADELOMYRMEX Emery, 1897

ADETOMYRMA Ward, 1994

AENICTOGITON Emery, 1901

AENICTUS Shuckard, 1840

AGRAULOMYRMEX Prins, 1983

ANILLOMYRMA Emery, 1913

ANKYLOMYRMA Bolton, 1973

ANOCHETUS Mayr, 1861

ANOPLOLEPIS Santschi, 1914

APHAENOGASTER Mayr, 1853

APHOMOMYRMEX Emery, 1899

APOMYRMA Brown, Gotwald, and Lévieux, 1971

APTINOMA Fisher, 2009

ASPHINCTOPONE Santschi, 1914

ATOPOMYRMEX André, 1889

AXINIDRIS Weber, 1941

BARACIDRIS Bolton, 1981

BOLOPONERA Fisher, 2006

BONDROITIA Forel, 1911

BOTHROPONERA Mayr, 1862

BRACHYMYRMEX Mayr, 1868

BRACHYPONERA Emery, 1900

CALYPTOMYRMEX Emery, 1887

CAMPONOTUS Mayr, 1861

CARDIOCONDYLA Emery, 1869

CAREBARA Westwood, 1840

CATAGLYPHIS Foerster, 1850

CATAULACUS Smith, F., 1853

CENTROMYRMEX Mayr, 1866

CHRYSAPACE Crawley, 1924

CONCOCTIO Brown, 1974

CREMATOGASTER Lund, 1831

CRYPTOPONE Emery, 1893

CYPHOIDRIS Weber, 1952

CYPHOMYRMEX Mayr, 1862

DICROASPIS Emery, 1908

DIPLOMORIUM Mayr, 1901

DISCOTHYREA Roger, 1863

DOLIOPONERA Brown, 1974

DORYLUS Fabricius, 1793

EBUROPONE Borowiec (in preparation) gen. n.

ECPHORELLA Forel, 1909

ERROMYRMA Bolton and Fisher gen. n.

EUPONERA Forel, 1891

EURHOPALOTHRIX Brown and Kempf, 1961

EUTETRAMORIUM Emery, 1899

FEROPONERA Bolton and Fisher, 2008

FISHEROPONE Schmidt and Shattuck, 2014

HAGENSIA Forel, 1901

HYPOPONERA Santschi, 1938

LEPISIOTA Santschi, 1926

LEPTANILLA Emery, 1870

LEPTOGENYS Roger, 1861

LINEPITHEMA Mayr, 1866

LIOPONERA Mayr, 1879

LIVIDOPONE Bolton and Fisher gen. n.

LOBOPONERA Bolton and Brown, 2002

MALAGIDRIS Bolton and Fisher, 2014

MEGAPONERA Mayr, 1862

MELISSOTARSUS Emery, 1877

MERANOPLUS Smith, F., 1853

MESOPONERA Emery, 1900

MESSOR Forel, 1890

METAPONE Forel, 1911

MICRODACETON Santschi, 1913

MONOMORIUM Mayr, 1855

MYRMICARIA Saunders, 1842

MYSTRIUM Roger, 1862

NESOMYRMEX Wheeler, W.M., 1910

NYLANDERIA Emery, 1906

OCHETELLUS Shattuck, 1992

OCYMYRMEX Emery, 1886

ODONTOMACHUS Latreille, 1804

OECOPHYLLA Smith, F., 1860

OOCERAEA Roger, 1862

OPHTHALMOPONE Forel, 1890

PALTOTHYREUS Mayr, 1862

PARAPARATRECHINA Donisthorpe, 1947

PARASYSCIA Emery, 1882

PARATRECHINA Motschoulsky, 1863

PARVAPONERA Schmidt and Shattuck, 2014

PETALOMYRMEX Snelling, 1979

PHASMOMYRMEX Stitz, 1910

PHEIDOLE Westwood, 1839

PHRYNOPONERA Wheeler, W.M., 1920

PILOTROCHUS Brown, 1978

PLAGIOLEPIS Mayr, 1861

PLATYTHYREA Roger, 1863

PLECTROCTENA Smith, F., 1858

POLYRHACHIS Smith, F., 1857

PONERA Latreille, 1804

PRIONOPELTA Mayr, 1866

PRISTOMYRMEX Mayr, 1866

PROBOLOMYRMEX Mayr, 1901

PROCERATIUM Roger, 1863

PROMYOPIAS Santschi, 1914

PSALIDOMYRMEX André, 1890

RAVAVY Fisher, 2009

ROYIDRIS Bolton and Fisher, 2014

SANTSCHIELLA Forel, 1916

SIMOPONE Forel, 1891

SOLENOPSIS Westwood, 1840

STIGMATOMMA Roger, 1859

STREBLOGNATHUS Mayr, 1862

STRUMIGENYS Smith, F., 1860

SYLLOPHOPSIS Santschi, 1915

TANIPONE Bolton and Fisher, 2012

TAPINOLEPIS Emery, 1925

TAPINOMA Foerster, 1850

TECHNOMYRMEX Mayr, 1872

TEMNOTHORAX Mayr, 1861

TERATANER Emery, 1912

TETRAMORIUM Mayr, 1855

TETRAPONERA Smith, F., 1852

TRICHOMYRMEX Mayr, 1865

VICINOPONE Bolton and Fisher, 2012

VITSIKA Bolton and Fisher, 2014

VOLLENHOVIA Mayr, 1865

WASMANNIA Forel, 1893

XYMMER Santschi, 1914

ZASPHINCTUS Mayr, 1866

Glossary

References

Index

Genus Plates

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

One day ants will be on equal footing with birds in terms of their appreciation by the public and our understanding of their biology and their role in conservation. We hope our illustrated generic key will stimulate interest in African and Malagasy ants and open the door for ant studies across the region.

This key arrives at a particularly important time in our understanding of the regional fauna. Recent efforts to organize ant classification to reflect phylogenetic history have shuffled ant classification. For many, this key will be their first introduction to these changes. At the same time, large-scale inventories are providing improved distribution ranges for species and genera, and morphological studies have provided a greater understanding of diagnostic characters for genera. In Bolton’s 1994 generic key, for example, 89 and 46 genera were recognized for Africa and Madagascar, while in this guide we recognize 104 and 72, respectively. As one gauge of the taxonomic effort in the region, since 1994, over 650 species have been described from the African and Malagasy regions.

We could not have accomplished this work without the efforts of many, including a great number of collectors and institutions like the Natural History Museum, London and the California Academy of Sciences (CAS), which continue to support and care for their growing ant collections. Our special gratitude goes to Peter Hawkes for making his collections from southern Africa available for study and for his thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of the keys. In addition, our thanks to the authors of recent publications who kept us upto-date with their findings and novelties, including Flavia Esteves, Georg Fischer, Francisco Hita Garcia, John S. LaPolla, Jean Claude Rakotonirina, and Masashi Yoshimura, with special thanks to Marek Borowiec for permission to include findings from his ongoing research on Dorylinae.

We are very grateful to a number of people who, during the construction of these keys and definitions, took the time to help us by checking and improving various aspects of their structure, including Gary D. Alpert and Philip S. Ward. We would like to thank the instructors and students of previous African and Malagasy ant courses for their insightful criticisms of earlier versions of these keys. In addition, we thank Jessica Huppi for working over three years to complete the line illustrations, with additional work by Ginny Kirsch. Michele Esposito provided help in databasing, specimen preparation, and creating the color plates. We also thank the team of AntWeb imagers for their effort in imaging African species: Cerise Chen, Will Ericson, Michele Esposito, Shannon Hartman, Zach Lieberman, April Nobile, Estella Ortega, Ryan Perry, Erin Prado, Jean Claude Rakotonirina, and Alexandra Westrich. The virtual collection of African ants available on AntWeb helped in all stages in preparing this book.

B. Fisher would like to thank those who helped explore Africa and Madagascar, including Marius Burger, Flavia Esteves, Steve Goodman, and Simon Van Noort as well as those at the Madagascar Biodiversity Center: Balsama Rajemison, Jean-Claude Rakotonirina, Jean-Jacque Rafanomezantsoa, Chrislain Ranaivo, Hanitriniana Rasoazanamavo, Nicole Rasoamanana, Clavier Randrianandrasana, Dimby Raharinjanahary, Njaka Ravelomanana, and Manoa Ramamonjisoa. We would also like to thank the team at the University of California Press, including Merrik Bush-Pirkle, Kate Hoffman, and Claudia Smelser.

INTRODUCTION TO THE ANT GENERA

It has been more than 20 years since the last keys to the ant genera of the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions were published (Bolton, 1994). Taxonomy has advanced at a startling rate since then, much of the advancement fueled by the development of DNA analysis, which has revealed numerous relationships that were not apparent from the study of morphology alone. In recent years many researchers have become aware that the phenomena of convergence of characters and parallel evolution, especially in the huge subfamily Myrmicinae, are extensive. But progress toward untangling the mass of suppositions has been hampered by a lack of knowledge concerning which morphological characters were trustworthy enough to produce monophyletic groups, and which were the products of convergence and parallelism. DNA analysis has indicated the existence of numerous monophyletic groups that were previously unsuspected, and this in turn has allowed a reexamination of morphological features and a re-sorting of characters thus isolated.

The purpose of this volume is to reflect changes in, and additions to, the genus-rank taxonomy in the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions that have accrued through the intervening years and to present up-to-date keys and definitions that indicate the present state of the taxonomy. For the purposes of this book the Afrotropical region consists of sub-Saharan Africa and the islands in the Gulf of Guinea; the Malagasy region consists of Madagascar and the Indian Ocean islands of Aldabra, the Chagos Archipelago, Comoros, Europa, Farquhar, Mauritius, Mayotte, Réunion, Rodrigues, and Seychelles. In these 2 regions we currently recognize a total of 122 genera, distributed through 11 subfamilies. Many of these genera are common to both regions, but some are restricted to one or the other; some are represented by introductions from other zoogeographical regions, and 4 known genera await descriptions of their newly discovered regional species.

Among the endemic genera listed for the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions, 23 are currently monotypic. Of these genera, 21 contain only a single named taxon, of species rank, but in 2 genera (Megaponera and Paltothyreus) there are also formally described subspecies whose status has not been tested by modern techniques. In addition, there is Oecophylla, only 1 species of which is Afrotropical; but again, this species possesses 7 described African subspecies that have never been properly scrutinized.

Of the remaining genera, 60 have had their species-rank taxonomy revised since 1960, for one or both regions, so that relatively modern keys are available for the identification of the species in these genera. In some genera there are keys that were produced much earlier than 1960, but these are generally overloaded with infraspecific names and now unavailable infrasubspecific names. These early keys were often produced only by reference to preexisting descriptions; the actual type specimens, the material upon which the names were based, were usually not consulted. As a result, many of the pre-1960 keys were largely guesswork and consequently inaccurate, difficult to use, or both. Recent keys for the identification of species are noted following the descriptions of the individual genera.

Large Afrotropical genera that have a history of contributions by multiple authors over a long period of time usually show, just before the commencement of a full revision, a considerable number of species-rank names, surrounded by a cloud of infraspecific names, together with a number of infrasubspecific (unavailable) names. For instance, B. Bolton’s (1980) study of Afrotropical Tetramorium commenced with about 104 previously described names of species rank, 105 names of infraspecific rank, and 19 unavailable names. A number of the species were obviously valid, but several had been described twice or more, by different authors, because of the inadequacies of the original descriptions. At the same time, and for the same reason, a good number of infraspecific names had been attached to species to which they were not truly related. After revision this mass resolved into 175 valid speciesrank taxa, an increase in the number of regional species of about 68 percent.

Interestingly, a similar analysis of Bolton’s (1987) study of Afrotropical Monomorium shows an increase after revision of about 67 percent in terms of number of species. The percentage increase in numbers of Strumigenys, however, does not follow this pattern. Bolton (1983) shows a large 168 percent increase in the number of Afrotropical Strumigenys species, and B. L. Fisher (2000) an incredible 1775 percent in the same genus in the Malagasy region. The reason for these huge increases is not hard to understand. Strumigenys is predominantly a genus of small to minute species, of retiring or cryptic habits, that mostly inhabits leaf litter and topsoil, and so it is hardly ever collected by hand. The vast majority of its species therefore remained unknown to the early authors, and its real numbers did not become apparent until the advent of collections by Winkler bag technique (Fisher, 1998).

But for large genera whose species are generally collectable by hand, and which have been largely described by pre-1960 authors, let us casually assume that the increase in number of species following a formal revision will average about 65 percent. Applying this increase to some other unrevised genera would very roughly indicate a regional fauna of 279 Afrotropical and 83 Malagasy species of Camponotus, 223 Afrotropical and 36 Malagasy species of Crematogaster (the actual number of Malagasy Crematogaster species is currently 37, the figure culled from the various recent revisionary works of B. B. Blaimer; see references). A crude application of the 65 percent guess across the entire fauna yields a very rough total of about 3,000 species in the Afrotropical region and about 1,000 in the Malagasy region. This estimate, however, does not take into account the additional increase likely to result from more intensive sampling across ecoregions of the African mainland, and so likely underestimates the total species for the Afrotropical region. The total number of species in the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions may be as high as 5,000 species.

Of the 122 genera listed in Table 1, some have very restricted distributions, while others are considerably more widespread. The relative distribution of the genera found in the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions, on a worldwide scale, is summarized in Table 2.

During the long history of ant taxonomy, from 1758 to the present day, many names in the family-group (names applied to families, subfamilies, and tribes) and names in the genus-group (names applied to genera and subgenera) have been proposed. A large proportion of these have survived unchanged to the present, but a number were proposed for supposed groups that were later found to be synonyms of earlier names or were inadmissible because the name was a junior homonym—one that had already been used elsewhere, and earlier, for a different group of insects. Another category of discarded names includes those that were the results of misidentifications, where an author had placed a name in one group, only for it to be discovered later that the grouping was incorrect. This book utilizes only the most recent applications of the various names, but older literature will often show these now discarded names, whose fates can be tracked in Box 1.

The genera recognized here vary enormously in terms of the number of species that each contains, but the figures given for numbers of species are at best only an approximation of the true numbers of species represented in the wild. Collections in natural history museums, and in other collections of ants in the world, contain large numbers of species that are known to be undescribed. The task of identifying and describing these species is far from complete. Furthermore, the species-rank taxonomy of some of the largest and most important genera remains unstudied in detail and consequently rather confused. For the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions, the numbers of species currently recognized in the 110 native genera are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 includes only genera that occur naturally in the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions. Deliberately omitted are the few species that represent known or suspected introductions from other zoogeographical regions, which belong to the Neotropical genera Brachymyrmex, Cyphomyrmex, Linepithema, and Wasmannia, and the Oriental-Malesian genera Erromyrma, Ochetellus, Ponera, and Vollenhovia. When those are taken into account, the genera fall into the size categories listed in Box 2. It is interesting to note that the sum of species in just the 7 largest genera exceeds the sum of all of the other 111 genera combined, and that the most species-rich genus, hyperdiverse Tetramorium, has 115 more species than the second largest genus, Strumigenys. In other words, Tetramorium is so successful in the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions that it contains more species than the combined total of the first 82 genera listed in Box 2.

A SHORT HISTORY OF ANT TAXONOMY IN THE REGIONS

In species-rank taxonomy, our understanding of the Malagasy region’s ants began with what should have been a great advantage: the early production of a couple of authoritative volumes by A. Forel (1891, 1892), which summarized all the small taxonomic contributions to date and added a large number of new taxa, all in a unified system. Unfortunately, this excellent beginning was not developed further, and for the next hundred years only minor contributions were added. Most of these took the form of small papers that described a few new taxa collected by a single individual on Madagascar itself as well as additions to the restricted faunas of the Indian Ocean islands that constitute part of the region.

Real comprehension of the entire region’s extensive ant fauna began only with the publications of B. L. Fisher and his associates (see references), which focused on the revisionary taxonomy of whole genera, or groups of genera, from the entire region. These were based on exhaustive collecting conducted over many years by Fisher himself or by his students and colleagues. The results of these endeavors have so far covered 32 genera as represented in the region, but perhaps the most spectacular result was Fisher’s (2000) revision of the Malagasy species of the genus Strumigenys. In this genus of small, cryptic ants only 6 species had been recorded in the entire Malagasy region up to that date. Fisher’s work, coupled with a very minor contribution by Bolton (2000), raised the number to 90 well-defined, valid species.

The species-rank taxonomic situation in the Afrotropical region had no initial unified system such as was available for the Malagasy. From the earliest times to about 1950, taxonomic input for the region consisted almost entirely of scattered descriptions of whatever taxa occurred in a particular area. Frequently, these were reports on collections made in a very small area, over a very limited period, by a single entomologist. Dozens of papers appeared, year after year, and each of them merely added to the confused mass of names that had already been published. Over the years, the descriptions became more and more superficial, and the real identities and affinities of the nominal species, and their infraspecific taxa, became more obscure. It was almost as if the main taxonomists of those earlier times were in a race to see who could produce the most names, regardless of their uniqueness, accuracy, or validity. Very occasionally, an author would produce a revision, or a monograph of a particular genus, but such an offering often became just another production line for dubious names.

There were, of course, examples of authors trying to break this monotonous cycle. Outstanding among these was the production by G. Arnold (1915, 1916, 1917, 1920, 1922, 1924, 1926) of a multivolume study of the entire South African ant fauna. This survey presented keys and descriptions for all the named ant taxa of the country in a systematic order and also successfully added many new taxa to the total. Although now out of date, the work still strikes a modern reader as refreshingly different from the usual scattering of minimalist descriptions that then prevailed. Another landmark was W. M. Wheeler’s (1922) production of the monumental faunal study, The Ants of the Belgian Congo. Not only did this work treat whole genera, but it also included keys to the genera themselves, biological notes, a detailed catalogue, and much more.

By the 1950s it was apparent that the species-rank taxonomy was grossly inflated, if not almost impenetrable, and that a shift away from small-area faunistics and one-by-one descriptions and toward revisionary studies of species groups or whole genera was needed, to pin down which names were truly valid and which were synonyms or even invalid. The impetus for this was provided initially by W. L. Brown, who in the early 1950s began work on the genera of dacetine ants. The task of constructing taxonomic revisions of particular genera, as they occurred in the entire Afrotropical region, was later taken up by Bolton, his colleagues and associates, and other taxonomists between 1973 and the present (see references), so that today a good proportion of the genera (64) have received some relatively recent taxonomic attention. The task is by no means complete, as there is easily more than a lifetime’s accumulation of work remaining, but a scan through the genera included in this volume will show interested taxonomists which genera are still in need of a modern synthesis of their species.

Among higher taxa, such as subfamilies and the genera themselves, there was generally more certainty and stability than at species level. This was because, from very early times, a number of authors had striven to define the groups as accurately as was possible (for example, G. Mayr, 1865). The most influential of these was C. Emery’s (1910, 1911, 1913, 1921, 1922, 1924, 1925) masterpiece in the Genera Insectorum series. These volumes provided diagnoses and keys to the genera and higher taxa as well as a full catalogue of all named forms. It was extremely influential and was reinforced by W. M. Wheeler’s (1922) inclusion of keys to subfamilies and genera in The Ants of the Belgian Congo. The two works were very interdependent and together formed the Emery-Wheeler classification of ants, some of which still survives today. But in the years after 1925, many changes and additions were made to the Emery-Wheeler system, which gradually lost its uniformity and became partially decrepit. An attempt to update the classification and rectify the many introduced errors was made by Bolton (1994), who presented a unified set of keys to the genera of the world, treating the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions together as a single unit. The most recent printed synopsis of higher ant taxa is that of Bolton (2003), but a considerable amount of work that has improved on this study has been published in the intervening years. These contributions are noted in the text under the entries of the various subfamilies and genera.

Taxonomic catalogues are useful as they show the condition of the classification at a given time. Not only do they list described taxa in the species-group as they stood at the time of the particular catalogue’s production, but they also indicate the genera and subfamilies to which those taxa were assigned, which provides a good overview of which higher taxa were considered valid at the time. Early catalogues were published by J. Roger (1863), Mayr (1863), and C.G. de Dalla Torre (1893). In the intermediate period were the works of Emery, in the Genera Insectorum series mentioned earlier, and Wheeler’s (1922) catalogues of Afrotropical and Malagasy taxa. After a long hiatus, Bolton (1995) produced his world ant catalogue, which is now kept up-to-date online. In addition, reputable revisions of genera or higher taxa may also provide lists of included species, such as in the ponerine revision of C.A. Schmidt and S.O. Shattuck (2014).

The system of nomenclature developed for ants, from very early in its history, was blighted by an overinflated set of subdivisions of names: the weird and unnecessary pentanomial system. Under this system any taxon could have up to five names: 1. Genus; 2. Subgenus; 3. Species; 4. Subspecies (or Race, or Stirps, names of apparently equivalent, or near-equivalent, rank); and 5. Variety. Complicating matters further, a varietal name could be attached directly to a species-rank name as well as to one of subspecies/race/stirps rank. No two authors seemed able to agree on a consistent status for any one name, so that one author would call a taxon a species or a subspecies, while another would call it a subspecies, or a variety of a species, or a variety of a subspecies. For instance, the tortuously long Camponotus (Myrmoturba) maculatus st. melanocnemis var. lohieri Santschi, 1913, was referred to just a couple of years later as Camponotus (Myrmoturba) maculatus var. lohieri Emery, 1915; it is currently regarded as a straight synonym of C. maculatus. This complexity was complicated further by the fact that a single author often did not show any consistency, referring a name to one grade in one paper and a different grade in another. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (fourth edition, 1999) now regulates these excesses. Readers of older taxonomic papers should be aware of its provisions and bear them in mind when trying to interpret the status of the published names.

TAXONOMIC NOVELTIES

A number of modifications to the preexisting taxonomy are initiated in this volume. They are discussed at the appropriate places in the text:

Subfamily Apomyrminae is revived from synonymy and reinstated.

Two genera are newly described: Erromyrma (Myrmicinae) and Lividopone (Dorylinae).

One new genus-rank synonym is proposed: Vitsika = Myrmisaraka (Myrmicinae).

One species is transferred between genera: Euponera suspecta Santschi, 1914, is newly combined as Parvaponera suspecta (Santschi, 1914).

2 new synonyms are proposed of names in the species-group: Messor galla = M. galla obscurus (Myrmicinae); Bothroponera cambouei = Pachycondyla kipyatkovi (Ponerinae).

TABLE 1Endemicity of Regional Genera

+ = present; +i = present as an introduction, either certain or suspected; +X = genus present but species undescribed or indeterminate; 0 = absent; ? = taxonomy dubious.

TABLE 2Relative Distributions of the Genera

TABLE 3Number of Described Species in Endemic Regional Genera

    The entries represent the current number of validly described species for each native genus in each region; introduced genera (known or suspected), and known but undescribed species, are ignored. Numbers of unresolved infraspecific taxa (subspecies) in taxonomically unrevised genera are indicated by [n].

BOX 1Current Synonyms of Family-Group and Genus-Group Names

A number of subfamilies and genera that occur in the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions are senior synonyms of other names in the family-group (families, subfamilies, tribes), and names in the genus-group (genera, subgenera), that were originally proposed in the regions. These synonymized names may be encountered in the older literature. This alphabetically arranged list indicates these synonyms, with the valid senior synonym in bold; names that lack junior synonyms, and have never been subject to changes, are omitted. In addition, some species have been referred incorrectly to genera that do not occur in the regions under consideration; the genera in question are also listed here.

Acantholepis: homonymous name replaced by Lepisiota

Acidomyrmex: junior synonym of Tetramorium

Acrocoelia: junior synonym of Crematogaster (Crematogaster)

Acropyga Roger, 1862 = Malacomyrma Emery, 1922

Aenictinae: junior synonym of Dorylinae

Aenictogitoninae: junior synonym of Dorylinae

Aeromyrma: junior synonym of Carebara

Aethiopopone: junior synonym of Zasphinctus

Afroxyidris: junior synonym of Carebara

Anacantholepis: junior synonym of Plagiolepis

Aneleus: junior synonym of Carebara

Anergatides: junior synonym of Pheidole

Anoplolepis Santschi, 1914 = Zealleyella Arnold, 1922

Aphaenogaster Mayr, 1853 = Deromyrma Forel, 1913

Asphinctopone Santschi, 1914 = Lepidopone Bernard, 1953

Atopogyne: junior synonym of Crematogaster (Crematogaster)

Atopula: junior synonym of Tetramorium

Axinidrini: junior synonym of Dolichoderinae

Brunella: homonymous name replaced by Malagidris

Cacopone: junior synonym of Plectroctena

Cardiocondyla Emery, 1869 = Emeryia Forel, 1890, = Dyclona Santschi, 1930, = Loncyda Santschi, 1930

Carebara Westwood, 1840 = Pheidologeton Mayr, 1862, = Oligomyrmex Mayr, 1867, = Aeromyrma Forel, 1891, = Aneleus Emery, 1900, = Paedalgus Forel, 1911, = Crateropsis Patrizi, 1948, = Sporocleptes Arnold, 1948, = Nimbamyrma Bernard, 1953, = Afroxyidris Belshaw and Bolton, 1994

Cataglyphis Foerster, 1850 = Monocombus Mayr, 1855

Cataulacus Smith, F., 1853 = Otomyrmex Forel, 1891

Centromyrmecini: junior synonym of Ponerini

Centromyrmex Mayr, 1866 = Glyphopone Forel, 1913, = Leptopone Arnold, 1916

Cephaloxys: homonymous name replaced by Smithistruma (itself now a junior synonym of Strumigenys)

Cerapachyinae: junior synonym of Dorylinae

Cerapachys Smith, F., 1857. Species of this genus are absent from the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions.

Champsomyrmex: junior synonym of Odontomachus

Cladarogenys: junior synonym of Strumigenys

Crateropsis: junior synonym of Carebara

Cratomyrmex: junior synonym of Messor

Crematogaster Lund, 1831. Two subgenera are currently retained, from an earlier 8 that were recognized in the regions. Subgenus C. (Crematogaster) = C. (Acrocoelia) Mayr, 1853, = C. (Oxygyne) Forel, 1901, = C. (Decacrema) Forel, 1910, = C. (Atopogyne) Forel, 1911, = C. (Nematocrema) Santschi, 1918, = C. (Sphaerocrema) Santschi, 1918. Subgenus C. (Orthocrema) Santschi, 1918 = C. (Eucrema) Santschi, 1918

Cysias: junior synonym of Ooceraea

Decacrema: junior synonym of Crematogaster (Crematogaster)

Decamorium: junior synonym of Tetramorium

Deromyrma: junior synonym of Aphaenogaster

Diplorhoptrum: junior synonym of Solenopsis

Discothyrea Roger, 1863 = Pseudosysphincta Arnold, 1916

Dodous: junior synonym of Pristomyrmex

Dolichoderinae Forel, 1878 = Axinidrini Weber, 1941

Dorylinae Leach, 1815 = Cerapachyinae Forel, 1893, = Aenictinae Emery, 1901, = Aenictogitoninae Ashmead, 1905

Dyclona: junior synonym of Cardiocondyla

Ectomomyrmex Mayr, 1867. Species of this genus are absent from the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions.

Emeryia: junior synonym of Cardiocondyla

Engramma: junior synonym of Technomyrmex

Epitritus: junior synonym of Strumigenys

Epixenus: junior synonym of Monomorium

Equestrimessor: junior synonym of Trichomyrmex

Escherichia: junior synonym of Probolomyrmex

Eucrema: junior synonym of Crematogaster (Orthocrema)

Euponerinae: junior synonym of Ponerini

Glamyromyrmex: junior synonym of Strumigenys

Glyphopone: junior synonym of Centromyrmex

Goniothorax: homonyous name replaced by Nesomyrmex

Heptacondylus: junior synonym of Myrmicaria

Holcomyrmex: junior synonym of Trichomyrmex

Hoplomyrmus: junior synonym of Polyrhachis

Hylidris: junior stynonym of Pristomyrmex

Icothorax: junior synonym of Temnothorax

Ireneopone: junior synonym of Nesomyrmex

Iridomyrmex Mayr, 1862. Species of this genus are absent from the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions.

Isolcomyrmex: junior synonym of Trichomyrmex

Lampromyrmex: junior synonym of Monomorium

Lepidopone: junior synonym of Asphinctopone

Lepisiota Santschi, 1926 = Acantholepis Mayr, 1861 (homonym), = Pseudacantholepis Bernard, 1953 (unavailable name)

Leptogenyini: junior synonym of Ponerini

Leptogenys Roger, 1861 = Lobopelta Mayr, 1862, = Machaerogenys Emery, 1911, = Microbolbos Donisthorpe, 1948

Leptopone: junior synonym of Centromyrmex

Limnomyrmex: junior synonym of Nesomyrmex

Lioponera Mayr, 1879 = Phyracaces Emery, 1902

Lobopelta: junior synonym of Leptogenys

Loncyda: junior synonym of Cardiocondyla

Machaerogenys: junior synonym of Leptogenys

Macromischoides: junior synonym of Tetramorium

Malacomyrma Emery, 1922: junior synonym of Acropyga

Malagidris Bolton and Fisher, 2014 = Brunella Forel, 1917 (homonym)

Mesanoplolepis: junior synonym of Tapinolepis

Mesoponera Emery, 1900 = Xiphopelta Forel, 1913

Messor Forel, 1890 = Cratomyrmex Emery, 1892, = Sphaeromessor Bernard, 1985 (unavailable name)

Miccostruma: junior synonym of Strumigenys

Microbolbos: junior synonym of Leptogenys

Monocombus: junior synonym of Cataglyphis

Monomorium Mayr, 1855 = Lampromyrmex Mayr, 1868, = Epixenus Emery, 1908, = Xeromyrmex Emery, 1915, = Paraphacota Santschi, 1919, = Pharaophanes Bernard, 1967

Myopias Roger, 1861. Species of this genus are absent from the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions.

Myrmicaria Saunders, W.W., 1842 = Heptacondylus Smith, F., 1857, = Physatta Smith, F., 1857

Myrmisaraka: junior synonym of Vitsika

Nematocrema: junior synonym of Crematogaster (Crematogaster)

Nesomyrmex Wheeler, W.M., 1910 = Goniothorax Emery, 1896 (homonym), = Tetramyrma Forel, 1912, = Limnomyrmex Arnold, 1948, = Ireneopone Donisthorpe, 1946

Nimbamyrma: junior synonym of Carebara

Odontomachidae: junior synonym of Ponerini

Odontomachus Latreille, 1804 = Champsomyrmex Emery, 1892

Oligomyrmex: junior synonym of Carebara

Ooceraea Roger, 1862 = Cysias Emery, 1902

Otomyrmex: junior synonym of Cataulacus

Oxygyne: junior synonym of Crematogaster (Crematogaster)

Paedalgus: junior synonym of Carebara

Paraphacota: junior synonym of Monomorium

Parapheidole: junior synonym of Pheidole

Parholcomyrmex: junior synonym of Trichomyrmex

Pharaophanes: junior synonym of Monomorium

Pheidole Westwood, 1839 = Parapheidole Emery, 1915, = Anergatides Wasmann, 1915

Pheidologeton: junior synonym of Carebara

Phyracaces: junior synonym of Lioponera

Physatta: junior synonym of Myrmicaria

Plagiolepis Mayr, 1861 = Anacantholepis Santschi, 1914

Plectroctena Smith, F., 1858 = Cacopone Santschi, 1914

Plectroctenini: junior synonym of Ponerini

Polyrhachis Smith, F., 1857 = Hoplomyrmus Gerstäcker, 1859, = Pseudocyrtomyrma Emery, 1921

Ponerini Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau, 1835 = Odontomachidae Mayr, 1862, = Leptogenyini Forel, 1893, = Euponerinae Emery, 1909, = Centromyrmecini Emery, 1911, = Plectroctenini Emery, 1911

Prenolepis Mayr, 1861. Species of this genus are absent from the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions.

Pristomyrmex Mayr, 1866 = Hylidris Weber, 1941, = Dodous Donisthorpe, 1946

Probolomyrmex Mayr, 1901 = Escherichia Forel, 1910

Proceratiinae Emery, 1895 = Discothyrinae Clark, 1951

Proceratium Roger, 1863 = Sysphingta Roger, 1863

Proscopomyrmex: junior synonym of Strumigenys

Pseudacantholepis: unavailable name, the material of which is referable to Lepisiota

Pseudocyrtomyrma: junior synonym of Polyrhachis

Pseudolasius Emery, 1887. Species of this genus are absent from the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions.

Pseudoponera Emery, 1900. Species of this genus are absent from the Afrotropical and Malagasy regions.

Pseudosysphincta: junior synonym of Discothyrea

Quadristruma: junior synonym of Strumigenys

Pyramica: junior synonym of Strumigenys

Rhoptromyrmex: junior synonym of Tetramorium

Semonius: junior synonym of Tapinoma

Serrastruma: junior synonym of Strumigenys

Smithistruma: junior synonym of Strumigenys

Solenopsis Westwood, 1840 = Diplorhoptrum Mayr, 1855

Sphaerocrema: junior synonym of Crematogaster (Crematogaster)

Sphaeromessor: unavailable name, the