Cyphomyrmex bigibbosus

Kempf, W. W., 1968, A new species of Cyphomyrmex from Colombia, with further remarks on the genus (Hymenoptera, Formicidae)., Revista Brasileira de Biologia 28, pp. 35-41 : 40

3. The bigibbosus problem -

Previously the Amazonian bigibbosus was taken as a single species that included aside from the typical form also three subspecies: faunulus , tumulus and petiolatus , all based on single nest series, and more or less sympatric in their distribution. Having seen the types of the forms involved, except for the nominal subspecies, and nearly a hundred specimens belonging to this complex, I was able to distinguish what seems to be two sympatric species, a smaller one with posteriorly excised postpetiole, and a slightly larger one with the posterior border of postpetiole entire, (for additional characters, see Kempf, 1964: 20-25) which were respectively given the oldest available names. If not entirely satisfactory, this classification allowed for a clear-cut separation of all material which so far has come to my attention, Surely, I did not see the type of the nominal bigibbosus , but Weber's scant information (1966: 167) on the type falls in line with my definition, because it is even smaller than the smallest bigibbosus specimen examined by myself. Weber states that by comparison between the types, his own tumulus (placed into synonymy of bigibbosus by myself) appeared to be subspecifically distinct, but fails to give any reason for it. The few characters which he cites in favor of the validity of the other race, petiolatus , are exactly the same ones which made me to separate it from bigibbosus and to place it into synonymy of faunulus . In short, as long as there is no factual evidence to the contrary, I shall maintain bigibbosus Emery and faunulus Wheeler as separate species, tumulus Weber as a synonym of the former and petiolatus of the latter.

4. Weber's notes on Cyphomyrmex types. Aside from the comments on bigibbosus , already discussed, there is little else to say. However, I do object to his statement that daguerrei Santschi and olitor Forel are related with or close to, rimosus . Even a perfunctory perusal of my revisionary papers will show that such a statement is misleading, since both (types of each examined by myself) belong doubtless to the well-circumscribed strigatus-group (cf. Kempf, 1964: 28-34).