Beiträge von Teleutotje

FIRE ANTS by Stephen Welton
Taber Texas A & M University Press. 368 pp.
ISBN: 0890969450

Stephen Taber has gone out fishing on the flood tide of fire ant literature, and has hauled in a ton of facts. Tossed in gleaming heaps on the deck of his 368-page book, these facts fill the entomologist with admiration, as well as with gratitude that any personal obligation to troll the murky depths of a hundred journals is thus obviated. Here, laid out in a row, are the ant-conquered southern states, extending east and west from the Alabama entry point. Here, still feebly and reflexively gasping and flipping their tails, are the bloated and ignominious fire ant eradication programs. Here are the problems of fire ant taxonomy, still tangled in a snarl of fishing line, but out in the open. The entomologist is not the only beneficiary of this bounty; the journalist should be equally pleased. News items, such as, "Fire Ants Kill Easter Chicks at Local Pet Store," a headline that the journalist belatedly realizes hardly requires actual text, can be nicely padded out with educational bits on the potency of fire ant venom and the murder of hatchling quail out in the countryside.
While delighted to see this huge harvest of information all in one place, I would not want my understanding of fire ants to depend on this book. One can read the entire volume and still lack answers to reasonable questions about fire ants. Why are fire ants, especially the imported species, so much more aggressive around the nest than most other ants? How, exactly, do they so successfully displace other species? Why do they spread so rapidly in some regions and much slower in others? Why are some areas within their range wall-to-wall fire ants, while other areas have few nests? What forces brought about the decline of the devastating outbreaks of tropical fire ants in the Caribbean, and does this decline offer hope elsewhere? Symptomatic of this weakness in synthesis, the overviews of past and future fire ant scenarios seem questionable. The statement that one of the now-rejected chemical controls "might have done the job" strikes me as one of those retroactive fantasies of omnipotence typical of us middle-aged males. By the time such control was begun, the red imported fire ant had dispersed widely. Even if we modern experts had been in charge, we could not have stopped a widespread, highly mobile, generalist species that reproduces rapidly, is easily relocated by commerce, and is beautifully preadapted to the habitat disturbances diagnostic of the ecological niche of our own species. The vision, complete with map, of future distribution shows the red imported fire ant sweeping up the West Coast to Canada. This seems highly unlikely: the extremes of temperature in Seattle might not be too cold for fire ants, but the northern west coast marine climate is unfavorable to a broad spectrum of ants for other reasons.
It is easy for inaccuracies to creep in when one is dealing in an uncritical and non-selective way with a large literature (the list of references takes up 56 pages of tiny print). For this reason, one needs to exercise judgement before quoting from the book. For example, Ernst Mayr did not actually state or imply that "the introduction of an exotic is good for all but the invader's closest competitors because the presence of an additional species increases biodiversity." Ants would not make "ideal pollinators" were it not for pollen-inhibiting chemicals, because ants travel everywhere on foot, automatically making them lousy pollinators, irrespective of their body chemistry. The function of the elaiosome on seeds of a species of violet is not to "save its seeds from fire ant predation." Polygyne fire ant nests that bud off daughter nests are not an example of "asexual reproduction." In the key to species one must check the "dorsolateral junction of the propodeum," a hitherto unknown feature, which is absent from the glossary. There are many more of these little mistakes, and also many places where it would be easy to get the wrong impression about some aspect of fire ant biology.
I do not recommend this book for the more sensitive myrmecologist, who would find cause to cringe and twitch on almost every page. For tougher specialists, this book is a great labor-saving compendium.

Mark Deyrup

----------

FIRE ANTS by Stephen Welton Taber
Texas A & M University Press. 368 pp.
ISBN: 0890969450

The motive behind Deyrup's review of my book FIRE ANTS is transparent, as witnessed by the tenor of the first sentences, the choice of words therein, and by the same weaknesses exhibited in the review's conclusion. I have dismantled the reviewer's thinly-veiled jealousy at the website known as the Ant Farm's Message Board. I would encourage those interested in fair treatment of scholarly work to see Vogt's review in Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 77, March 2002, page. 73

Stephen W. Taber swtaber@aol.com

The next, number eight, is about the "Bibliography" that starts on page 243. On page xvi of the "Preface" Taber says a few times that he used "Biological Abstracts" for compiling a big part of the bibliography . Why didn't he also used the "Fire Ant Literature Database" (FALD) or "FORMIS" (In this the FALD is included as one of the foundations.). I know that "FORMIS" doesn't include all ant related articles and books (That's why they keep expanding the old references in it while they make updates!) but these are already vast resources to find scientific Fire Ant literature!
And lastly, there are some typographic errors, not to many and not disturbing ones, but these are not mistakes made by the author and they aren't included here.
Now, in this concluding section, I want, before my closing remark, to mention two paragraphs that I found confusing. Their contents is correct but, to be clear and bright, they needed more space in the book to explain them!
The first one is this: "Tropical fire ant queens do not seem to produce the diploid variety of the male sex, though the RIFA can. Diploid males have twice as many gene-bearing chromosomes as the more common haploid variety of male ant. Nor are the winged TFA virgin queens likely to shed their wings and begin laying eggs when the mated mother queen is removed from her nest. The tendency to do so seems to be unique to one or a very few fire ant species and perhaps evolved when recently mated queens attempted to usurp the reproductive role after joining established colonies." (p. 81). Just don't let you be distracted when you read this passage and everything is o.k.!
For confusion number two, we go to page 114: "It is often found that hybrids are superior in some ways to both parental species, a condition known variously as hybrid superiority or hybrid vigor. An increase in genetic variation is considered an indication of the phenomenon, and although this increase is apparent in the case of the RIFA x BIFA hybrid, the supposed superiority over the parental types does not seem to hold because hybrid fire ants which resemble a given parent more than the other are inferior in competition with that same parent. Yet the hybrid is encroaching upon the BIFA's range and may eliminate the original import with the help of the red imported fire ant. In fact, the range of the hybrid now exceeds that of the BIFA. This trend would seem to conflict with the generalization that hybrids are inferior to the parental types that surround them, and with the generalization that hybrids more like one parent than the other suffer in competition with that parent." It is correct, this passage, but a little bit mind-buzzing like it is written here! I had to read it a few times on a quit place before it sank in and got clear to me! This is the darkest passage in this book!

And now my closing remark to end this long and enduring review: I didn't "find cause to cringe and twitch on almost every page.", no, I enjoyed reading it and did find things I didn't know (e.g. "It is now possible to culture fire ant ovaries in the laboratory for a period of at least eight months. This…" you can find on page 54!). For me this was a very good review of Fire Ant literature (except the determination-key.)!

Van der Stappen Marc

Related to this is the next thing Deyrup says: "The vision, complete with map, of future distribution shows the red imported fire ant sweeping up the West Coast to Canada. This seems highly unlikely: the extremes of temperature in Seattle might not be too cold for fire ants, but the northern west coast marine climate is unfavorable to a broad spectrum of ants for other reasons." Now this is something I don't like so much either, predictions about the distribution of an animal in the future. There are so much variables that influence these distributions that speculations and predictions are unreliable! Also, probably most of the interfering factors aren't known yet or aren't quantifiable at this moment! So I don't like these computer-simulations because they are limited in their predictive powers! Taber gives them for the RIFA (p. 219-221) and makes remarks about these simulations (e.g. cold tolerance and global warming problems, p. 223 + p.225.). All this between information on the distributional history of the RIFA. But indeed, these simulations are all unreliable but Taber included them, according to me, to make his literature review complete!
And finally, Deyrup's last remark is: "In the key to species one must check the "dorsolateral junction of the propodeum", a hitherto unknown feature, which is absent from the glossary." This will lead me to the part of the book I didn't like to much ("Appendix 2") and into my own review of "Fire Ants".
If you read the revision of fire ants by J. C. Trager (1991, A revision of the fire ants, Solenopsis geminata group [Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Myrmicinae], J. New York Entomol. Soc. 99: 141-198.), you notice that Fire Ants are not an easy group (Some specimens are, at the moment, not determinable to species!). So I would like to see the following points considered or included in the next edition of the book. First, if you work, for a part, with coloration differences between species in the determination keys and you give pictures to show these differences, don't give the pictures in black and white but in color. I would suggest that at least figs. 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14 and all the photographs of "Appendix 2. How to Identify U.S. Fire Ants" should be in color . Second, the terminology in the determination keys is not so clear as in Trager's revision (e.g. the feature mentioned above by Deyrup takes, in Trager, 2 to 3 lines of explanation, starting with "…propodeal carinae originating…", in each lug of couplet 3!), but it is still detectable what is meant ! The third point is about the determination keys. Why dividing them in two parts, one for imported species and one for natives? You must get the chance to determine them with the keys even if you don't know if it's introduced or not! Yes, the division is explained on page 231 (If you need a quick determination, you take automatically the keys and not the text 3 pages earlier to start the determination of the specimen!), but I would have liked to see it in the keys! And lastly, the key I prefer is the more elaborated one of Trager! Why not asking Trager if it is possible to include his determination key (couplets 2-7/7c !) in the book. This key is more elaborate and, according to me, it is the best at this moment!

The rest of my review is about some small remarks I have about "Fire Ants".

The first remark is about the sex ratio's mentioned in the book. On page 32 Taber says "…total sex ratio is 1:1 sexual female to male,…" and on page 109 he says "…do produce approximately three times as many sexual females as males." Both quotes are about RIFA! These are contradicting results! But in the field of social evolution, these are important differences. In one case (a monogyne colony with a queen who mated only once!) it is known that females prefer a sex ratio of 1:1 and workers of 3:1 (This has to do with the asymmetric relatedness between mother and son/daughter at one side and sister and brother/sister at the other side respectively.). Later on, in the discussion about his book, Taber said "For example, I think we'll find that there is no contradiction regarding sex ratio. If one investigator finds and reports one thing, and another finds and reports a second thing. They don't have to agree at all. This isn't math, it's the variation of nature and the variation of investigators we're confronted with. I'll have to look. In any event, it probably won't be MY contradiction. For example, the sterile females are of the female sex, sterile or not, and I was merely drawing attention to what the numbers would be like IF the calculations were done differently. And remember, please don't curse the messenger..." This last remark of Taber is about the following phrase on page 32 were he says "The sex ratio would be enormously biased in favor of females if the hordes of sterile workers were included in the calculations." This is never done! Only the possible future reproductive individuals are counted.
Second, on page 43, when talking about polygyne colonies, Taber says "…, the recognition pheromone of one appears to be more attractive to workers than that of any other queen,…". In that case the other queens loses in the end and, after execution of these "losers", one queen remains and the colony becomes monogynous! This can't be the outcome in nature where a polygynous colony stays polygynous.
The third remark is about the location of the metapleural gland on the "…front part of the abdomen…" (p.44) and on "…the anterior abdomen." (p.77). On page 77 Taber also uses the terms head, thorax and gaster (The correct and accepted terms in Myrmecology!) so I would have preferred that he said "…at the lower hind corner of the thorax."
On page 48, for my remark number four, you can read "…, but because the vast majority of males in polygyne nests are sterile for some reason,…". These males are from inseminated eggs (diploid) but the information on the corresponding genes is identical (mostly as a result of inbreeding!). Because of that, these males have problems with the production of sperm cells and that is the reason why these males are sterile! These results are from research done by Ross and Fletcher .
The fifth remark is a very small one about "Chapter 10. Medical Importance of Fire Ants." (It starts on page128.). This is a very good review of fire ant venom and it's effect on humans! The only remark I can make about this chapter is that I would have liked some figures of the alkaloids and the allergenic proteins mentioned in this chapter.
Then, on page 148, I read about "the Mrak report of 1969." But I would appreciate it if I could find the reference for it in the "Bibliography."
Remark number seven goes about a passage you can find on page 151. Talking about virgin egg laying females in polygyne colonies, Taber writes that they "…will probably be limited to the production of male offspring, which are commonly sterile in polygyne colonies anyway." Now, this is the combination of two different things, first that virgin queens lay eggs that aren't inseminated and these are producing males (haploid and fertile!) and, second those males I referred to in my remark number four.

Battle of the gi-ants: A fight between a fire ant specialist, an author and a reader of "Fire Ants"!
Or: A review of "Fire Ants" by S. W. Taber and it's review.

FIRE ANTS by Stephen Welton Taber Texas A & M University Press. 368 pp. ISBN: 0890969450

"In the early years of the twentieth century, South American fire ants crossed the Caribbean and invaded the shores of the south-eastern United States. These imported fire ants quickly found a niche in Gulf Coast fields and lawns, overpowered the native species, and began spreading. In the process they became a notorious pest to some, a beneficial ally to others, and a potential killer to allergy sufferers. As a result, they are among the most intensely studied insects in the world." Because the literature about Fire Ants has grown to such a massive amount, S. W. Taber decided to write a survey of what has been written about these ants.
The first person to review this book was Mark A. Deyrup, a Fire Ant specialist in Florida. Starting with this review, the debate about the book got sometimes very angry and I decided, reading the book, to review not only the book but also M. A. Deyrup's review. If you allow, I'll start with this first and then look at the rest of the book.
The first problem dealt with the Tropical Fire Ant (TFA) and the elaiosomes of a violet species (Viola odorata) . Both are native to the southern U.S.A. and Middle America . Taber wrote: "In Central Texas the plant "Wedelia hispida" uses fire ants to disperse its seeds. The seeds have oil-rich appendages called "elaiosomes" that the insects eat after they collect the seed and take it back to the nest. The discarded seeds germinate at a distance from the parent plant, thus perhaps avoiding competition with others of their own species. The plant's strategy is called myrmecochory. The arrowroot plant "Calathea microcephala" of tropical Mexico has similar success. But the ploy does not always work. The TFA takes the elaiosomes of the related arrowroot "C. ovandensis", leaving its seeds behind, still attached to the plant and undispersed. The ants build soil tunnels over these seeds while they do their work. At least one violet species is able to save its seeds from fire ant predation with an elaiosome. In the Dominican Republic the TFA disperses seeds of the pope's head cactus "Melocactus communis" in a similar fashion." (p. 73-74). Deyrup's remark in the review was: "The function of the elaiosome on seeds of a species of violet is not to "save its seeds from fire ant predation.""
The quoted passage of "Fire Ants" is all that you can find in the book about the function of elaiosomes. The elaiosome is developed as an organ to attract ants (including TFA) and stimulate them to take the seed to the nest. There the ants eat the elaiosome and the seed stays in the nest or is taken to the refuse heap. In short, the seed is transported to a different place (dispersed) that gives a form of protection (from animals that eat it) and is richer in nutrients (food-products) for the seed! Also, while eating the elaiosome, the ant does not eat the seed. Thus, the plant and the ant developed together and all functions are clear. So, as a way of saying, the seeds are saved from predators, including the Fire Ants themselves!
In the original article about the violet, Beattie and Lyons wrote: "One V. arvensis seed was found destroyed and empty, while five V. odorata seeds had been gnawed, the elaiosomes removed, and returned to the surface intact. …the results of this experiment suggested that predator avoidance plus dispersal could be achieved by providing large seeds with tough seed coats but very large food bodies as bait." and "When the elaiosome is small or perhaps nonexistent the ants are more likely to eat the seed itself. When the elaiosome is present the ants were at least sometimes content with this food and did not follow through on seed destruction." (p. 717).
The second remark of Deyrup was: "Polygyne fire ant nests that bud off daughter nests are not an example of "asexual reproduction."" This is related to two passages in Taber's book: "Queens of the polygyne social type disperse to begin nests of their own by simply leaving the colony in an overland march with a contingent of workers. This is dispersal by a kind of "budding" that calls to mind the asexual reproduction of yeasts or protozoa." (p.24) and "… ; (2) polygyne nests that bud off daughter colonies in a manner like that of a budding yeast cell, when queens simply leave with a contingent of workers; …" (p. 54).
In both cases Taber compares the budding of a colony with the asexual reproduction of yeast or protozoa (to make it visual!) but does not say that it is asexual reproduction! It is only a comparison that was misinterpreted!
Next, Deyrup writes: "The statement that one of the now-rejected chemical controls "might have done the job" strikes me as one of those retroactive fantasies of omnipotence typical of we middle-aged males. By the time such control was begun, the red imported fire ant had dispersed widely. Even if we modern experts had been in charge, we could not have stopped a widespread, highly mobile, generalist species that reproduces rapidly, is easily relocated by commerce, and is beautifully preadapted to the habitat disturbances diagnostic of the ecological niche of our own species."
Taber makes indeed that statement on page xv. But if you read chapter 11 ("Chemical Control and the Pesticide Issue.") you will see that there were a few good candidates to eradicate the Fire Ants! One was "Heptachlor" but it was to dangerous for humans and wildlife and stayed to long in the environment. The other was "Mirex" but this was rejected after a lot of years because they said e.g. that it caused cancer (never proven and related products were tumor-inhibitors.) and it killed and deformed rodent-embryo's (but it was originally released as a rodenticide!). So the two best candidates were rejected although they were very good against fire ants!
The forth dispute was about Taber saying: "An unidentified substance on the TFA exoskeleton decreases the viability of narcissus pollen. This may explain why ants are not pollinators, though they would appear to be ideal candidates because they are dominant arthropods and because pollination behavior is so widespread among their wasp and bee relations." (p. 77). Deyrup's remark goes: "Ants would not make "ideal pollinators" were it not for pollen-inhibiting chemicals, because ants travel everywhere on foot, automatically making them lousy pollinators, irrespective of their body chemistry."
Now , I would restrict Taber's remark to fire ants and not to ants in general because there are ant species that pollinate flowers (e.g. Myrmecia workers in Australia that pollinate, together with a few other species, a series of Orchids. There are also a few other plants that are pollinated by worker or male ants !). For the same reason, Deyrup's remark isn't also correct. It depends on cuticular chemistry and behavior, but it doesn't exclude that there are ants that pollinate flowers!
Now we reach critique number five. Deyrup states: "…Ernst Mayr did not actually state or imply that "the introduction of an exotic is good for all but the invader's closest competitors because the presence of an additional species increases biodiversity.""
In the attacked passage, Taber is wondering if the Fire Ants are pests or blessings and this as an introduction to the chapter "Fire Ants Pro and Con". Now here you have to read a little bit more: "Some evolutionists and even a few ecologists seem to believe that the introduction of an exotic is good for all but the invader's closest competitors because the presence of an additional species increases biodiversity (Mayr 1963; Elton 1958). This view is definitely opposed to the mainstream opinion. However, the issue has never been properly addressed in the case of the fire ants." ( p. 194 ). In a reply to Deyrup's criticism , Taber quoted from page 76 of E. Mayr's "Animal Species and Evolution" (1963): "It should be mentioned that every new arrival in an area tends to add to the total diversity and to enrich thereby the opportunities of other organisms except the most immediate competitors..."
So , Taber does not say that it is good or bad to introduce ants and he is not quoting (exactly) Mayr or Elton. He is just thinking: Is it good or bad and what are the opinions of others? He even says that most are against introductions. The problem is that nobody has looked at the case "The Fire Ants" and in the rest of the chapter he provides points pro and contra for Fire Ants. At the end of the chapter he makes the remark "…that fire ants have a beneficial side that has been largely overlooked." (p. 215) and that we don't have to see them only as big noxious pests!
The sixth remark of Deyrup is: "One can read the entire volume and still lack answers to reasonable questions about fire ants." Taber did not have the intention to answer unsolved questions (A synthesis doesn't give answers to things that aren't looked at!), but to review all that was written about Fire Ants ("My own purpose is a synthesis of the enormous literature on the fire ants of the world.", p. xv.) and, according to me, he succeeded in it! I'm amazed how much information can be included in such a small book! You also have to remember that this book was written in 1999 and published in 2000, so don't expect scientific findings that were published after 1999 (e.g. the review of "Pseudacteon" flies.)! Also, sometimes a synthesis brings answers in the open that stayed in the dark, but not always, and this book doesn't!

Chapter 3 is the bulk of the book (602 pages!). In it all the species are reviewed. First the 142 extant species, then the five fossil ones and the nine names that are incertae sedis. Each extant species has a full synonymic list, list of type localities and type specimens, material examined, distribution, etymology of the species name and all the synonyms, notes (why names are synonymized, what problems still exist in the species – morphological gradients, cryptic species, eco-types... –, problems with types, eventually descriptions – see the start of this review – and so on) and ecology. Also, all the known and described castes are depicted, drawn as much as possible from type material.
One of the biggest surprises – for me – about the ecology stands on page 103: while there are a few species known to live in very salty environments, workers of M. bergi, when their nest is flooded by a salty lake nearby, are known to “actively swim, sometimes for several tens of meters.” This is described in a Russian publication of 1998. The only other known actively swimming ant is Polyrhachis sokolova from northern Australia.
Other nice ecological points are 1) that colonies of M. pulchella were found in internodal cavities of bamboo (p. 222-223) and 2) on page 233 they describe why M. rubra is such a successful invader.
The most difficult species in the whole book is M. tulinae. The workers are almost identical to M. sabuleti-workers and the males are almost identical to M. scabrinodis-males. M. tulinae belongs to the scabrinodis-complex of the scabrinodis-group (the sabuleti-complex also belongs in this group!). This makes the separation of these species very difficult in regions like Middle Europe. All three species are found there and most collections of these ants are workers (series) or lone males... So, we are obliged to collect nest-series INCLUDING males to separate these species in the future!
Sadly, there are a series of errors, omissions and mistakes in the chapter (most of them are luckily minor ones!):
– Page 107– 108: Eidmann1941 and 1942 should all be 1941.
– Page 108: Although the male is known for M. cagnianti it isn’t depicted.
– Page 115: (see notes to M. rugulosa) should be on page 114 at the end of the notes for M. constricta.
– Page 118-119: The authors didn’t indicate why M. plana is synonymized under M. deplanata. Also, in the synonymic list, M. plana is indicated as described as a subspecies of M. lobicornis but on page 270 Radchenko and Elmes say it was described as a subspecies of M. schencki.
– Page 143: The queen of M. gigantea is known but not depicted.
– Page 146: The etymology of caucasica is easy but not given.
– Page 158: The queen of M. juglandeti is known but not depicted.
– Page 176: Etymology of M. ruzskyi isn’t given (but of course it is obvious!).
– Page 193: First description of the queen of M.lobulicornis but on page 191 it is indicated that the queen of M. alpine (a synonym of M.lobulicornis) was described by Stärcke in 1927.
– Page 239: Types were studied for M. silvestrii but they aren’t indicated in the list of material examined on page 237.
– Page 259: In the synonymic list, under M. rolandi, stands “see notes below and…” but in the notes I can’t find anything about M. rolandi.
– Page 313 under M. turcica: In the notes is indicated “… M. kozakorum (see Notes to that species).” But there you can’t find any comparison with M turcica. Look instead under M. georgica where the story is told (as indicated in the second line of p. 313)!
– Page 382: Queen syntype? No syntype queen indicated on page 113 under M. constricta.
– Page 458: A paratype queen is depicted for M. kirghisorum but the original description is of worker and male (page 167) and no queen.
– Page 489 depicts a paratype male of M. luteola but the male was described four years after the description of worker and queen (p. 197).
– Page 497: Only the head of the male of M. myrmecoxena is depicted. The authors indicate in the description of the species that they didn’t see any males and the figure of the head is after Kutter (1977).
– Page 591: M. specioides, a paralectotype male is depicted but on page 284 the male is excluded of the type-series and on page 288 males are included as paralectotypes. So, are they included in the types-series or not?
If you look at this list you may say “So many errors!” But no, if you consider that for the review of extant species 574 pages are needed, I found very few errors (17 to be exact). Of these only the reason M. plana is synonymized, the list of examined material of M. silvestrii and the notes for M.rolandi really matter (and are what I would also like to know!).
After reading the book I looked up one of the M. plana problems I noticed. It is originally described as Myrmica lobicornis var. plana by Karavaiev in 1927 but in 1929 Karavaiev placed it under M. schencki as M. schencki var. plana. Later, in 1934, Karavaiev synonymized it under M. deplanata (in the same year Arnoldi made plana a "natio" of M. deplanata). So, who can follow all this?
This review of extant species, together with the fossil species and the names incertae sedis, are the core of the book and, yes, they are very well reviewed!
The chapter ends with lists of the nomina nuda, unavailable names and the transferred/excluded species. In the last list Radchenko and Elmes did forget to mention for five species which castes were described (M. nylanderi, M. rugiceps, M. semipolita, M. sordidula and M. striatula.).

Chapter 4 describes the zoogeography and evolution of the genus. This is a chapter everybody needs to read! If you consider Myrmica to be a genus of the plains, forget it: Myrmica is originally a genus of mountainous regions! The boreal fauna is the derived group. Also, a lot of endemic species await discovery in the Central Asian Mountains (some are already being described), South and South-East Asia, the Tibetan Mountains and the Mediterranean region. For the rest of this chapter: it is so good you have to read it yourselves, I’m not going to reproduce it here!

Chapter 5 gives good keys to the species but separate for certain regions. Maybe not the best method for the Old World as a whole but easier for the regions! For the most part they are keys for workers only but for the Western part of the Old World you also need the males to separate a few species.

For the references that end the book, very nice! Only the citations of Weir, J. S. need to be corrected (‘58a and ‘59a are the same and ‘58c and ‘59c are also the same!).

My final and personal judgment: Very, very good. If Nothomyrmica, M. plana, M. silvestrii, M. rolandi and Weir, J. S. were corrected/included the book would be near-perfect. For all working in the Old World, it is surely a book you should have (notwithstanding the price!) or have read.

P.S.1: Both authors of the book have seen a draft of this review and appreciated the comments in it.
P.S.2: Since the publication of this book B. Seifert reviewed the M. salina species complex in 2011, H. Bharti, Y. P. Sharma and I. Gul described nine species from the Himalayas in 2011 and 2012, and A. Radchenko and Z. Yusupov described one species from the Caucasus in 2012.

17 March 2013.
Revised: 31 December 2013.

http://www.asian-myrmecology.org/public ... n-2014.pdf

Myrmica Ants of the Old World

von Teleutotje » Freitag 14. Oktober 2016, 17:17

“FAUNA MUNDI Volume 3: Myrmica ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the Old World.”
Alexander G. Radchenko and Graham W. Elmes, 2010.
Publisher: Natura Optima Dux Foundation, Wilcza 64., 00-679 Warszawa, Poland.
ISSN 2081-4615, ISBN 978-83-930773-1-1
789 pages, 333 figs, 163 maps, hardcover, 165 x 235 mm.
Price: 150 euro.

Reviewed by Marc Van der Stappen
Biologist (State University Genth, Belgium, 1987), working in the public transport sector. Interested in behavior and systematics of ants for more than 30 years.
teleutotje@live.be

This “little” book is in a lot of ways much better than I hoped for when I ordered it. It is also not as boring as I, and probably also a few others, might have thought. Someone who orders this book to find descriptions of all the species: well, he will be disappointed. This is not to say you won’t find any descriptions in it; you can find in this book the descriptions of:
M. arisana (first description of queen and male), M. bactriana stat. rev. (redescription of worker and male), M. bakurianica (redescription of worker, queen and male), M. kozakorum n. sp. (description of worker, queen and male), M. lobulicornis (first description of queen and male), M. pleiorhytida (first description of queen), M. pulchella stat.rev. stat. nov. (first description of queen), M. schoedli (first description of male), M. turcica (first description of male) and M. wesmaeli (first description of male).
Beside the already indicated stat. rev., stat. nov. and n. sp., two nomenclatural changes are given: M. ruzskyana nom. nov. (for M. exigua Ruzsky, 1915) and M. slovaca (priority over M. curvithorax). And last but not least, 20 new synonyms are indicated (one each for M. bactriana, M. deplanata, M. rubra, M. scabrinodis, M. schencki and M. transsibirica, two each for M. kurokii and M. sulcinodis, three each for M. ruginodis and M. specioides and four for M. kozlovi.).

But what makes this book so marvelous? The book contains, besides an abstract and a preface, five chapters, each with interesting and good scientific content. It starts with a preface that recalls the beginning of the research on “red ants” (old common name for ants of the genus Myrmica) and the origin of the collaboration of the authors, Radchenko and Elmes. In it, two names are worth remembering: J. Ray and W. Gould (p. 8). Both were important in the 18th Century as pioneers in the systematic and natural history of ants (including Myrmica!).

Chapter 1 describes a “General background and biology of Myrmica”. It gives the scope and the layout of the work, the general biology of the genus, a brief but thorough history of the taxonomy of the Old World species, a review and critique of morphometrics and, last but not least in the chapter, small biographies of all the authors who were important in describing species of Old World Myrmica’s.
The chapter starts with N. A. Weber and his first and the only prior attempt at a worldwide review of the genus. Here I find one of the rare acknowledgements of Jean Bondroit (I. H. H. Yarrow was another important myrmecologist who recognized Bondroit’s work!) “… who had a far better record in naming “good species” of Myrmica compared to his contemporaries…” Radchenko and Elmes originally started a world revision of Myrmica but later omitted the Nearctic species for a number of reasons (p. 13-14). The most important reason is that in the New World there is so much confusion about which names are connected with which species. This part they end with: “In our opinion, the time is ready for a complete revision of North American Myrmica that should start with no pre-conceptions and a fresh examination of the collections to erect a new taxonomy based on the modern concept of species variation in the genus Myrmica. Only then, should the types be examined and the existing names fitted to the modern taxonomy.” They also hope that their book “might stimulate a New World revision.”
After an overview of the book comes the review of Myrmica-biology/ecology/physiology. It’s a nice but quick review that, sadly, is a little bit too quick and jumpy in two paragraphs (p.17 on population dynamics and p. 19 on the frequency distribution of queens).
The part on taxonomic history is divided into a pre-1950 and a post-1950 account. On page 31 the authors indicate a few times that still more species await discovery in the Old World and that even now, after their revision, some problems still exist in the taxonomy of certain species. The review of morphometrics also discusses the critiques about this method.
Last, this chapter ends with the biographies of the most important Myrmica-taxonomists. While most get from ¼ to ½ page, Bondroit has a biography of more than 1 page. This befits their approval of Bondroit as a taxonomist as indicated throughout the book: “…we consider that his appreciation of the genus Myrmica was far superior to that of many of his better known contemporaries.” My impression is that Bondroit’s biggest problem, later used against him, was that he didn’t read the descriptions of species published in reviews from other regions than France or Belgium or that he didn’t understand about which species they really talked. So, except for his four really good species, most of the other names he used or described were known under other names. I also agree with Radchenko and Elmes that Bondroit should be appreciated more by modern taxonomists.

Chapter 2 describes the taxonomic position and definition of Myrmica (description of worker, queen and male) and how it is divided into species groups. Only one little omission in this chapter: although they say in the text that Nothomyrmica was synonymised with Myrmica, in the synonymic list they forget to include Nothomyrmica.

Revision and redefinition of the crematogastrine genus Tetheamyrma BOLTON, 1991, with the description of a new species and the first description of the dealate queen (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).
General, D.E.M & Buenavente, P.A.

https://www.myrmecologicalnews…_printable.pdf&format=raw

Formica goesswaldi Kutter, 1967.

This taxon is not in use as it is currently considered to be a junior synonym of Formica foreli.

Kutter, H., 1967 [1966]:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/5/5b ... _1967a.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/1968/4726.pdf

Seifert, B., 2000:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/3/31 ... _2000a.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/4033/seifer ... vision.pdf

Leptothorax goesswaldi Kutter, 1967.

Bolton, B., 2003:

http://www.amentinst.org/memoirs.php
or
http://antcat.org/documents/3806/20263.pdf

Buschinger, A., 1981:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/3/33 ... r_1981.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/546/10962.pdf

Buschinger, A., 2009:

https://www.myrmecologicalnews.org/cms/ ... Itemid=356
or
http://antcat.org/documents/6097/buschi ... _suppl.pdf

Heinze, J., 1998 [1995]:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/1/14/Heinze_1995.pdf
or
http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/p ... 069812.pdf

Kutter, H., 1967:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/8/8c ... _1967c.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/1970/4727.pdf
or
https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=s ... 67:40::309

Ødegaard, F., Olsen, K. M., Staverløkk, A., Gjershaug, J. O., 2015:

http://www.entomologi.no/journals/nje/2 ... egaard.pdf

Schultz, R., Buschinger, A., 2006:

https://www.myrmecologicalnews.org/cms/ ... Itemid=353

Epimyrma goesswaldi Menozzi, in Gösswald, 1930.

This taxon is not in use as it is currently considered to be a junior synonym of Temnothorax ravouxi.

Buschinger, A., 1982:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/c/c5 ... r_1982.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/547/6827.pdf

Gösswald, K., 1930:

http://hymfiles.biosci.ohio-state.edu/p ... /23165.pdf

Kutter, H., 1973:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/9/97 ... _1973f.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/1975/4734.pdf
or
https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=s ... 73:46::358

Menozzi, C., 1931:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/5/5a ... _1931c.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/2222/4288.pdf

Teleutomyrmex seiferti Kiran & Karaman, in Kiran, et al. 2017.
Tetramorium seiferti (Kiran & Karaman, in Kiran, et al. 2017).

Kiran, K., Karaman, C., Lapeva-Gjonova, A., Aksoy, V., 2017:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/3/3c ... myrmex.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/6779/kiran_ ... myrmex.pdf
or
https://www.myrmecologicalnews.org/cms/ ... Itemid=407

Discothyrea stumperi Baroni Urbani, 1977.

Baroni Urbani, C., 1977:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/e/e8 ... _1977f.pdf

De Andrade, M. L., 1998:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/a/a9 ... _1998c.pdf

Temnothorax stumperi (Kutter, 1950).

Buschinger, A., Ehrhardt, W., Fischer, K., 1981:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/2/2e ... l_1981.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/563/10963.pdf

Kutter, H., 1950:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/d/de ... _1950b.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/1962/4718.pdf
or
https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=s ... 50:23::485

Kutter, H., 1951:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/a/a9/Kutter_1951.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/5041/4720.pdf
or
https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=s ... 51:24::462

Kutter, H., 1973:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/9/97 ... _1973f.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/1975/4734.pdf
or
https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=s ... 73:46::358

Schulz, A., Sanetra, M., 2002:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/3/31 ... a_2002.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/5129/20284.pdf
or
http://www.zobodat.at/pdf/ENT_0023_0157-0172.pdf

Stumper, R., Kutter, H., 1951:

http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/6/61 ... r_1951.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/2953/2779.pdf

Teleutomyrmex schneideri Kutter, 1950.

https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=s ... 60:33::331
http://www.ngzh.ch/archiv/1965_110/110_4/110_28.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Schneider-Orelli
http://antcat.org/documents/1961/4717.pdf

Tetramorium schneideri Emery, 1898.

http://antcat.org/documents/1129/3809.pdf
http://antcat.org/documents/6341/ward_e ... p_info.pdf

Teleutomyrmex kutteri Tinaut, 1990.

http://antcat.org/documents/3074/2878.pdf

Tetramorium semilaeve var.kutteri Santschi, 1927.

http://antcat.org/documents/2597/3622.pdf
http://antcat.org/documents/6780/wagner ... omplex.pdf
http://antcat.org/documents/6341/ward_e ... p_info.pdf

Camponotus (Karavaievia) maschwitzi Dumpert, 2006.

Dumpert et al., 2006:

http://www.antwiki.net/wiki/images/9/93 ... g_2006.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/3856/21110.pdf
or
https://www.myrmecologicalnews.org/cms/ ... Itemid=352

Cladomyrma maschwitzi Agosti, 1991.

Agosti, 1991:

http://antcat.org/documents/12/6850.pdf

Agosti, Moog & Maschwitz, 1999:

http://antcat.org/documents/3784/8083.pdf
or
http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/bitstrea ... sAllowed=y

Dolichoderus maschwitzi Dill, 2002.

Dill, 2002:

http://www.antwiki.net/wiki/images/5/54/Dill_2002.pdf
or
http://antcat.org/documents/4340/Dill_2 ... ch_Ges.pdf

Euprenolepis maschwitzi LaPolla, 2009.

LaPolla, 2009:

http://antcat.org/documents/4500/LaPoll ... olepis.pdf

For the descriptions see:

Leptothorax buschingeri Kutter, 1967.

Kutter, H., 1967:

http://antcat.org/documents/1970/4727.pdf
or
https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=s ... 67:40::309

Teleutomyrmex buschingeri Lapeva-Gjonova, 2017.

Kiran, et al. 2017:

http://antcat.org/documents/6779/kiran_ ... myrmex.pdf
or
http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/images/3/3c ... myrmex.pdf
or
https://www.myrmecologicalnews.org/cms/ ... Itemid=407

...Could Be Next Bait for Fruit Fly Pest.

https://entomologytoday.org/20…-wing-drosophila-suzukii/ or https://academic.oup.com/jee/a…0.1093/jee/toy304/5126420 or https://academic.oup.com/jee/a…oy304/25995354/toy304.pdf / https://oup.silverchair-cdn.co…r-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA

Khalife, A., Keller, R.A., Billen, J., Hita Garcia, F., Economo, E.P., & Peeters, C. (2018) Skeletomuscular adaptations of head and legs of Melissotarsus ants for tunnelling through living wood. Frontiers in Zoology 15: 30.

https://frontiersinzoology.bio…10.1186/s12983-018-0277-6 or

https://frontiersinzoology.bio…10.1186/s12983-018-0277-6 and https://static-content.springe…3_2018_277_MOESM2_ESM.pdf

Salata, S.; Borowiec, L. 2018b. A new species of the ant genus Lasius Fabricius, 1804 from Crete (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 789:139–159.

https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/27022/ or https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/27022/download/pdf/

Gómez, K.; Lorite, P.; García, F.; Tinaut, A.; Espadaler, X.; Palomeque, T.; Sanllorente, O.; Trager, J. 2018. "Differentiating Iberoformica and Formica (Serviformica) with Description of the Sexual Castes of Formica (Serviformica) gerardi Bondroit, 1917 stat. rev." Sociobiology 65(3):463-470.

http://periodicos.uefs.br/ojs/…rticle/download/3315/2948

Gösswald was a little bit easier, only 3 species names from which only 1 survived!

Formica goesswaldi Kutter, 1967.

This taxon is not in use as it is currently considered to be a junior synonym of Formica foreli.

Formica (Coptoformica) goesswaldi Kutter, 1967: 234, figs. 15-22 (w.q.m.) Germany. Junior synonym of foreli: Seifert, 2000: 544. See also: Kutter, 1977: 284.

Kutter, H., 1967 [1966], “Einige Ergebnisse weiterer Coptoformica-Studien.” Insectes Soc. 13: 227-240.
Kutter, H., 1977, “Hymenoptera, Formicidae.” Insecta Helv. Fauna 6: 1-298.
Seifert, B., 2000, “A taxonomic revision of the ant subgenus Coptoformica Mueller, 1923 (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).” Zoosystema 22: 517-568.

Leptothorax goesswaldi Kutter, 1967.

Leptothorax goesswaldi Kutter, 1967: 82, figs. 3-8, 10 (q.) Germany. Kutter, 1977: 129 (m.). Combination in Doronomyrmex: Buschinger, 1981: 215; in Leptothorax: Heinze, 1998: 195 (combination not stated); Bolton, 2003: 270.

Bolton, B., 2003, “Synopsis and Classification of Formicidae.” Mem. Am. Entomol. Inst. 71: 370pp.
Buschinger, A., 1974, “Zur Biologie der sozialparasitischen Ameise Leptothorax goesswaldi Kutter (Hym., Formicidae).” Ins. Soc. 21, 133-144.
Buschinger, A., 1981, “Biological and systematic relationships of social parasitic Leptothoracini from Europe and North America.” P. 211-222 in: Howse, P. E., Clement, J.-L. (eds.), “Biosystematics of social insects.” Systematics Association Special Volume No. 19. London: Academic Press, 346 pp.
Buschinger, A., 2009, “Social parasitism among ants: a review. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).” Myrmecological News 12: 219-235.
Buschinger, A., Klump, B., 1988, “Novel strategy of host-colony exploitation in a permanently parasitic ant, Doronomyrmex goesswaldi.” Naturwissenschaften 75, 577-578.
Douwes, Per, Abenius, J., Cederberg, B., Wahlstedt, U., 2012, “Steklar: Myror - getingar | Hymenoptera: Formicidae – Vespidae.”
Heinze, J., 1998 [1995], “The origin of workerless parasites in Leptothorax (s. str.) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).” Psyche (Camb.) 102: 195-214.
Kutter, H., 1967, “Beschreibung neuer Sozialparasiten von Leptothorax acervorum F. (Formicidae).” Mitt. Schweiz. Entomol. Ges. 40: 78-91.
Kutter, H., 1977, “Hymenoptera, Formicidae.” Insecta Helv. Fauna 6: 1-298.
Ødegaard, F., Olsen, K. M., Staverløkk, A., Gjershaug, J. O., 2015, “Towards a new era for the knowledge of ants (Hymenoptera,Formicidae) in Norway? Nine species new to the country.” Norwegian Journal of Entomology. 62: 80-99.
Schultz, R., Buschinger, A., 2006, “First Asian record of the parasitic ant, Leptothorax goesswaldi Kutter, 1967 (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).” Myrmecologische Nachrichten. 9: 33-34.

Epimyrma goesswaldi Menozzi, in Gösswald, 1930.

This taxon is not in use as it is currently considered to be a junior synonym of Temnothorax ravouxi.

Epimyrma goesswaldi Menozzi, in Gösswald, 1930: 464, figs. 1-3 (w.q.m.) Germany. [Also described as new by Menozzi, 1931: 41.] Junior synonym of ravouxi: Buschinger, 1982: 352. See also: Stitz, 1939: 186; Kutter, 1973: 281.

Buschinger, A., 1982, “Epimyrma goesswaldi Menozzi 1931 = Epimyrma ravouxi (André 1896). Morphologischer und biologischer Nachweis der Synonymie (Hym., Formicidae).” Zool. Anz. 208: 352-358.
Gösswald, K., 1930, “Die Biologie einer neuen Epimyrma art aus dem mittleren Maingebiet.” Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Zoologie 136: 464-484.
Kutter, H., 1973, “Beitrag zur Lösung taxonomischer Probleme in der Gattung Epimyrma (Hymenoptera, Formicidae).” Mitt. Schweiz. Entomol. Ges. 46: 281-289.
Menozzi, C., 1931, “Revisione del genere Epimyrma Em. (Hymen. Formicidae) e descrizione di una specie inedita di questo genere.” Mem. Soc. Entomol. Ital. 10: 36-53.
Stitz, H., 1939, “Die Tierwelt Deutschlands und der angrenzenden Meersteile nach ihren Merkmalen und nach ihrer Lebensweise. 37. Theil. Hautflüger oder Hymenoptera. I: Ameisen oder Formicidae.” Jena, G. Fischer, 428 pp.

Stumper got two names of ants behind him, Seifert only one:

Teleutomyrmex seiferti Kiran & Karaman, in Kiran, et al. 2017.
Tetramorium seiferti (Kiran & Karaman, in Kiran, et al. 2017).

Teleutomyrmex seiferti Kiran & Karaman, in Kiran, et al. 2017: 148, figs. 3a, 4a, 5a, 6-8 (q.m.) Turkey.
[Note: Kiran, et al. 2017: 146, retain the paraphyletic genus Teleutomyrmex.].

Kiran, K., Karaman, C., Lapeva-Gjonova, A., Aksoy, V., 2017, "Two new species of the “ultimate” parasitic ant genus Teleutomyrmex Kutter, 1950 from the Western Palaearctic." Myrmecological News 25: 145-155.

Discothyrea stumperi Baroni Urbani, 1977.

Discothyrea stumperi Baroni Urbani, 1977, 97, figs. 1, 2 (w.) Bhutan.

Baroni Urbani, C., 1977, “Discothyrea Stumperi n. sp. du Bhoutan, premier représentant du genre dans le Subcontinent Indien (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).” Arch. Inst. Grand-Ducal Luxemb. (n.s.) 37: 97-101.
De Andrade, M. L., 1998, “First fossil records of the ant genus Discothyrea in Dominican and Mexican amber (Hymenoptera, Formicidae).” Fragm. Entomol. 30: 201-214,

Temnothorax stumperi (Kutter, 1950).

Epimyrma stumperi Kutter, 1950: 340, figs. 4-7 (m.) Switzerland. Combination in Myrmoxenus: Schulz & Sanetra, 2002: 162. Kutter, 1951: 153 (w.q.); in Temnothorax: Ward et al., 2014: 15. See also: Stumper & Kutter, 1951: 983; Kutter, 1973: 281.

Buschinger, A., Ehrhardt, W., Fischer, K., 1981, “Doronomyrmex pacis, Epimyrma stumperi und E. goesswaldi (Hym., Formicidae) neu für Frankreich.” Insectes Sociaux 28: 67-70.
Kutter, H., 1950, “Über zwei neue Ameisen.” Mitt. Schweiz. Entomol. Ges. 23: 337-346.
Kutter, H., 1951, “Epimyrma Stumperi Kutter (Hym. Formicid.). 2. Mitteilung.” Mitt. Schweiz. Entomol. Ges. 24: 153-174.
Kutter, H., 1973, “Beitrag zur Lösung taxonomischer Probleme in der Gattung Epimyrma (Hymenoptera, Formicidae).” Mitt. Schweiz. Entomol. Ges. 46: 281-289.
Schulz, A., Sanetra, M., 2002, “Notes on the socially parasitic ants of Turkey and the synonymy of Epimyrma (Hymenoptera, Formicidae).” Entomofauna 23(14): 157-172.
Stumper, R., Kutter, H., 1951, “Sur l'éthologie du nouveau myrmécobionte Epimyrma Stumperi (nov. spec. Kutter).” C. R. Séances Acad. Sci. 233: 983-985.