And we've put together a handy little guide to show you all the new features and enhancements - why don't you have a quick look to check out all the new features and enhancements?
To cite this page, please use the following:
· For print: . Accessed
· For web:
|Cerapachyinae as family: Bernard, 1951c: 1046 [Cerapachyidae]; Bernard, 1953b PDF: 215 [Cerapachyidae].|
|Cerapachyinae as junior synonym of Ponerinae: Brown, 1975 PDF}: 14; Snelling, 1981: 387; Hölldobler & Wilson, 1990: 10.|
|Cerapachyinae as subfamily of Formicidae: Wheeler, 1902e PDF: 185; Wheeler, 1920 PDF: 53; Wheeler, 1922: 51, 632; Donisthorpe, 1922b PDF: xlv; Borgmeier, 1923: 50; Clark, 1924a PDF: 76; Clark, 1934c PDF: 49; Donisthorpe, 1943g: 620; Creighton, 1950a PDF: 56; Clark, 1951 PDF: 15 (in key); Chapman & Capco, 1951 PDF: 17; Smith, 1951c: 781; Brown, 1954e PDF}: 26; Kusnezov, 1956a PDF: 11; Kusnezov, 1964 PDF: 48; Wheeler & Wheeler, 1972a PDF: 37; Kempf, 1972b PDF: 263; Wheeler & Wheeler, 1976b PDF: 46; Smith, 1979: 1333; Wheeler & Wheeler, 1985b PDF: 256; Ogata, 1987a PDF: 127; Bolton, 1990a PDF: 66; Bolton, 1990c PDF: 1356; Baroni Urbani, Bolton & Ward, 1992 PDF: 316; Jaffe, 1993: 9; Bolton, 1994: 18; Wu & Wang, 1995a: 47.|
|Cerapachyinae as dorylomorph subfamily of Formicidae: Bolton, 2003 PDF: 32, 137; Brady & Ward, 2005 PDF: 593.|
|Cerapachyinae as formicoid dorylomorph subfamily of Formicidae: Brady, Schultz, et al. 2006: 18173; Ward, 2007C PDF: 555.|
I have recently proposed to regard Forel's tribe " CerapachysHNS " as constituting an independent subfamily, the larvae of these ants being so different from those of the true Ponerinae and much more like the larvae of the Dorylinae.1 The limits of this new subfamily agree with those of Emery's section Prodorylinae, and Emery was probably right in contending that the CerapachyinaeHNS are intermediate between the Dorylinae and Ponerinae.
The worker caste has a ponerine habitus, but is often long and slender. The postpetiole is separated from the third abdominal segment by a well-marked constriction, and as broad as the third segment. In the Indoaustralian Eusphinctus even the gastric segments are marked off from one another. A powerful sting is present.
The characters of the female in the various genera are peculiarly diverse. In some cases ( PhyracacesHNS), this caste is winged and not unlike the females of certain Ponerinae; in others (Parasyscia, Eusphinctus), the female is wingless and ergatomorphic; and, in still others (Acanthostichus , Nothosphinctus), the female is so much like the corresponding caste in the Dorylinae that it might be regarded as a dichthadiigyne. The male, on the other hand, though lacking the cerci, has a decidedly ponerine habitus. The male genitalia are completely retractile; the subgenital lamina deeply and broadly furcate.
Wheeler, Wm. M,. 1920. 'The subfamilies of Formicidae, and other taxonomie notes. Psyche, XXVII. pp. 46-55.
The larvae are extremely like those of the Dorylinae; they are elongate and almost cylindrical, uniformly covered with short hairs, and without piliferous tubercles. The mandibles are small, narrow, pointed, and rather feebly chitinized, and I have failed to find a trophorhinium, or triturating organ in the mouth. Apparently the young are fed only on soft food. Moreover, the foraging habits at least of certain Australian Cerapachyinae (Phyracaces) resemble those of the Dorylinae.1
Dr. W. M. Mann has recently sent me specimens of his Cerapachys majusculusHNS from Fiji, with several worker pupae which are enclosed in well-developed, brown cocoons. The Cerapachyniae seem, therefore, to agree with the Ponerinae in this character.