Echinopla senilis Mayr, 1862

Zettel, Herbert & Laciny, Alice, 2015, Contributions to the taxonomy of the ant genus Echinopla Smith, 1857 (Hymenoptera, Formicidae), Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 62 (1), pp. 101-121 : 116-118

Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae

Echinopla senilis Mayr, 1862 stat. rev. Figs 39-42, 43

Type material examined.

Lectotype (worker, present designation) from “Sambelong” ( Mayr 1862); labels see Figure 42.

Measurements of the lectotype.

TL 7.2; HW1 1.85; HW2 1.80; HL 1.67; EL 0.37; SL 1.72; SW 0.20; HaL 0.36; PML 1.30; PMW 1.63; PpL 1.13; PpW 1.28; PH 0.50; PL 0.55; PW 1.28; GL 1.96; GW 2.15. Indices: CI 110; SI 93; MI 149.

Notes.

Although the collection of NHMW contains two specimens labelled as Echinopla senilis , only one specimen fairly agrees with Mayr’s (1862) original description and is designated as the lectotype. This lectotype does not bear a locality label and we do not know about records that connect the code letter K (Fig. 42) with a specific locality of the Novara expedition. We trust Mayr (1862) that the type was collected in “Sambelong”, a name for the Southern Group of the Nicobar Islands. The second specimen in NHMW was probably mislabelled by the former curator Anton Handlirsch (1865-1935) when he integrated Mayr’s collection into the museum’s main collection. It is a typical specimen of Echinopla lineata and bears the same code letter Q as the lectotype of Echinopla lineata (see notes of this species).

Echinopla senilis is very similar to Echinopla lineata . It was treated as a variety of Echinopla lineata by Emery (1896) and as a subspecies by Emery (1900). It is currently catalogued as a subspecies by Bolton (2015). With more specimens of Echinopla lineata available, some differences given by Mayr (1862) and subsequently by Mayr (1865) are not diagnostic. In fresh specimens of Echinopla lineata the appressed hair is as abundant as in Echinopla senilis , and the shape of the petiole (comp. Mayr 1865: tab. II, Figs 12c and 13c; see Fig. 43) is rather variable. A bluish black colour of the body ( “blauschwarz” in Mayr 1862, “dunkelblau” in Mayr 1865) can hardly be recognized in the lectotype of Echinopla senilis (Figs 39-41). However, the sculptural differences are rather strong and were clearly pointed out by Gustav Mayr (1862, 1865): On the clypeus and on the sides of the mesosoma the striation is regularly striate in Echinopla lineata whereas it is intermixed with punctures in Echinopla senilis ; at the hind margin of the propodeum and on the posterior face of the petiole, the sculpture consists of transverse striae in Echinopla lineata whereas it is irregular and fine in Echinopla senilis . Moreover the propodeum is anteriorly more strongly, more roundly constricted in Echinopla senilis . We conclude that Echinopla senilis should better be regarded as a distinct species.