To cite this page, please use the following:
· For print: . Accessed
· For web:
Types. - The present species was described upon eight workers, four from Clorinda (Formosa) and 4 from Rio Saladillo (Salta) in the Argentine. Unfortunately, the specimens could not be located in the Miguel Lillo collection, after Dr. Kusnezov's untimely death. Unless some specimens were deposited in other collections, the types are apparently lost. Yet recognition of lilloanusHNS should not prove difficult on account of the peculiar, completely unarmed, thorax.
Worker (after original description and figures). Color uniformly ochraceous. Integument opaque, finely sculptured. Size of " quebradaeHNS ", but Kusnezov's measurements are decidedly too low in both cases, as I was able to check on " quebradaeHNS " types. Mandibles with approximately 8 small teeth. Frontal lobes greatly expanded laterad, nearly covering completely the antennal scrobe in full-face view, scarcely constricted behind; frontal carinae subparallel, reaching the little prominent occipital corner where they join the preocular carinae, and circumscribe completely the antennal scrobe. Scapes in repose reaching, not surpassing the occipital corner. Funicular segments 2-9 broader than long. Occipital border gently emarginate, lacking a median notch; apparently no paired carinae on vertex. Thorax completely unarmed, only posterior corners of basal face of epinotum arc somewhat marked and tooth-like (in his 1957 key, Kusnezov says that epinotum is completely rounded!). Petiolar and postpetiolar nodes broader than long, the latter over twice as broad as long. Tergum I of gaster with a sagittal furrow on anterior third. Pubescence rare and very fine, scarcely visible.
Discussion. - The specific distinction of lilloanusHNS is unquestionable and bears no further comment. There is a question about its affinities. By placing it into subgenus Syphomannia, Kusnezov seems to point towards laevigatus WeberHNS (the type and only species of the subgenus) as the closest relative, although he dit not fail in stressing the nearly abysmal differences that separate both species.
As shown elsewhere (Kempf, 1962: 30-31), CyphomanniaHNS is untenable as a group-name, laevigatusHNS being just a slightly aberrant species of the rimosus-group. Moreover, lilloanusHNS, due to its multidentate mandibles and configuration of antennal scrobe and preocular carina, belongs clearly to the strigatus-group. Although the description does not elucidate the detail, the broad postpetiole of lilloanusHNS has presumably the lateral lobes ventrally excavate and salient, i. e. not appressed to the body or sternum of the segment, and the antennal scrobe distinctly reticulate. If this is true, lilloanusHNS is a somewhat discrepant member of the olitor-subgroup.