Aenictus Shuckard, 1840
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.184817 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3513458 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038FD126-FF87-C85D-FF24-FCB77880FA59 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Aenictus Shuckard, 1840 |
status |
|
Aenictus Shuckard, 1840 View in CoL
Aenictus Shuckard, 1840: 266 View in CoL .
Typhlatta Smith, 1857: 79 View Cited Treatment (synonym of Aenictus View in CoL by Forel, 1890: ciii; removed from synonymy as subgenus of Aenictus View in CoL by Wheeler,1930: 198; synonym of Aenictus View in CoL by Wilson, 1964: 444). Type species. Aenictus View in CoL : Aenictus ambiguus Shuckard, 1860 View in CoL , by original designation. Typhlatta : Typhlatta laeviceps Smith , by monotypy.
Diagnosis. Workers of Aenictus may be separated from other Australian ants by their moderately small size (less than about 4 mm), lack of eyes, long slender bodies and long legs. They are superficially similar to some myrmicines but differ in lacking the frontal lobes and in having the antennal sockets completely visible when viewed from the front (myrmicines have frontal lobes that are expanded towards the sides of the head and partly cover the antennal sockets). Some of the smaller, paler species are also similar to Leptanilla workers, but differ in being larger and only ten segments in the antennae rather than 12, and lacking a flexible promesonotal suture.
Males of Aenictus can be separated from those of other Australian ants by the exposed antennal sockets and lack of a postpetiole (the gaster is smooth and lacks a constriction between the first and second segments).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
Aenictus Shuckard, 1840
Shattuck, Steven O. 2008 |
Aenictus
Shuckard 1840: 266 |