Ctenopyga, Ashmead
publication ID |
6751 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6284642 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6D3D2EEF-C27A-936D-4021-2296D9A1EE77 |
treatment provided by |
Christiana |
scientific name |
Ctenopyga |
status |
|
(provisionally restored to generic status)
= Ctenopyga HNS Ashmead, 1906: 29 - 30, dealate [[ queen ]] and [[ male ]]. Type: Ctenopyga townsendi Ashmead HNS = Acanthostichus texanus Forel HNS , by original designation, monobasic.
< Acanthostichus HNS : Forel, 1904: 168, dealate [[ queen ]]. ----- Brown, 1973: 179. = Acanthostichus HNS subgenus Ctenopyga HNS : Emery, 1911: 13. ----- M. R. Smith,
1947, Amer. Midl. Natur. 37: 526, pl. 1, fig. 4, 529, [[ queen ]]. ----- M. R. Smith, 1955: 49 - 50, synonymy and distribution summarized.
I considered this genus to be a straight synonym of Acanthostichus HNS until a very late stage of the preparation of this part of the Reclassification — so late, in fact, that for very compelling reasons, publication can no longer be delayed while I make the studies of type specimens necessary to fully define Ctenopyga HNS . Under the circumstances, it might seem better for me to have left things as they stand, with Ctenopyga HNS , as considered by most workers, either a subgenus or a synonym of Acanthostichus HNS . Such a solution, after all, would only recall the situation in Sphinctomyrmex HNS , in which subdichthadiiform queens and winged queens are found in different species of the same genus. In Acanthostichus HNS , however, we do not know of any intermediate kinds of queens such as we have in Sphinctomyrmex HNS ; the queens known for 2 of the 6 - 8 valid South American Acanthostichus HNS species are both subdichthadiiform, while that of the single valid Ctenopyga HNS species is large-eyed and winged. The geographical distribution of these forms may also be significant; Acanthostichus HNS is South American, with no known representation west of the Andes, in northern Venezuela, or in Central America. Only 1 species, A. skwarrae HNS , is known from outside continental South America, and this somewhat aberrant form, from Veracruz, is represented by a single (now headless) worker; it could well belong to Ctenopyga HNS , and it must at least be considered as doubtfully belonging to Acanthostichus HNS . For what the negative evidence may be worth, no winged or dealate female " Acanthostichus HNS " have yet been reported from South or Central America, at light or otherwise.
Evidence from the males is also noteworthy. The Acanthostichus HNS s. str. males so far reported, all from South America, have distinctive 12 - merous antennae with the funiculus gradually but distinctly broadened from base toward apex; the pedicel is short, and the following segment (funiculus II) is even shorter. The genitalia of these males (at least 3 species examined, none associated with workers or queens) varies among species, but all specimens have a distinctive aedeagus (figs. 140, 141) in which the valves are broad, each coarsely serrate on the convex ventral margin, with the apex differentiated as a last and largest, beaklike, downcurved point, separated from the serrations by a curved emargination. Such males have been taken on numerous occasions at light at widely separated points in South America, but they are unreported from Central or North America.
The 2 males originally described as Ctenopyga townsendi HNS were collected at La Puerta, presumably in Chihuahua, by C. H. T. Townsend. They came on separate pins, and the dealate queen described with them, from the same locality, was on another pin. So far as I am aware, no males and queens of this species under any name have ever been taken in the nest, in copulo, or in any circumstances that would make it reasonably certain that they belonged to the same species. Apart from locality data, all we have to go on are Ashmead's original assumption that male and queen were conspecific and certain habitus indications that both sexes are " cerapachyine. " With these considerations in mind, I belatedly dissected the terminalia of a syntype male of C. townsendi HNS , which M. R. Smith (1947, loc. cit. supra) has shown to be a junior synonym of C. texanus HNS .
To begin with, the C. townsendi HNS male has a furciform subgenital plate, but the 2 teeth are much broader and more triangular than in the South American Acanthostichus HNS . The parameres and laciniae are also quite different, but these parts can differ considerably between species in Acanthostichus HNS . In the valves of the aedeagus comes the big difference; the townsendi HNS male type has slender aedeagal valves broadened into thick, angularly capitate apices; the stem-like basal parts are smooth, without any sign of serration along their concave ventral edges. The other fact about the C. townsendi HNS male — a character that seems long to have been lost sight of — is that the antennae have 13 segments, with the funiculus not so distinctly incrassate as in most South American Acanthostichus HNS . In genitalic and other characters, in fact, the C. townsendi HNS type looks more like the numerous light-caught males attributed to Cerapachys augustae HNS by M. R. Smith (1942) and others than like the South American Acanthostichus HNS . Thus it seems to me that we should face up to the possibility that the assumed male of Ctenopyga texana HNS (= townsendi HNS ) is instead the male of some Cerapachys HNS species. If the assumed male does in fact prove to be the real male of C texana HNS , then the differences between Acanthostichus HNS and Ctenopyga HNS are widened, and generic distinction is made surer than when it is based upon the queen alone.
Much depends on determining what kind of male and queen go with A. skwarrae HNS , and what kind of worker goes with male and queen C. texanus HNS . Smith (1955: 48 - 49) mentions an Arizona worker specimen that he did not feel confident in associating with texanus HNS . This problem may be solved by other material already in collections, since samples from Sonoran North America have been accumulating rapidly in recent years, but if such samples exist, I have not seen them.
Meanwhile, taxonomic logic seems best served by considering Ctenopyga HNS , with the sole known species texanus HNS , to be a genus apart from Acanthostichus HNS . The species skwarrae HNS could well belong to Ctenopyga HNS , but in the lack of hard evidence, it remains formally in Acanthostichus HNS . Thus, Ctenopyga HNS is left with the single species texanus HNS (= townsendi HNS ), for which M. R. Smith (1955) is the appropriate summary reference. Ctenopyga HNS seems to be centered in the Sonoran zone of Mexico, with extensions into southern Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and eventually, perhaps, southern California. The best assumption is that, like Acanthostichus HNS , it feeds on termites, but this remains to be checked.
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 |
|
SubFamily |
Ponerinae |
Tribe |
Acanthostichini |