Aphaenogaster subterraneosplendida André, 1883

Schifani, Enrico & Alicata, Antonio, 2023, Nomenclatural changes on some Mediterranean Aphaenogaster Mayr, 1853 taxa (Hymenoptera, Formicidae), Zootaxa 5277 (1), pp. 59-70 : 68

Aphaenogaster subterraneosplendida André, 1883

= Aphaenogaster sicula Emery, 1908 syn. nov.

What follows is based on a taxonomic change that appeared on AntCat in 2022 as ‘unpublished’ that declared A. sicula Emery, 1908 to be a junior synonym of A. subterraneosplendida André, 1883 ( Bolton 2022) . The purpose of this section is to formalize this change in a taxonomic paper as suggested by Bolton (pers. comm.) and discuss it. Aphaenogaster sicula is a recently redescribed member of the crocea group endemic to Sicily and Calabria ( Alicata & Schifani 2019; Schifani et al. 2022). It was described by Emery (1908) to replace the quadrinomial “ Aphaenogaster subterranea striola subterraneo-splendida ” previously published by Emery & Forel (1879) as a nomen nudum and with the geographic origin (Palermo, Sicily) as the only information. This first name was a puzzle of the actual gibbosa , splendida, and subterranea groups. This mixing testifies to the difficulties encountered at that time in classifying Aphaenogaster species as well as the fact that the crocea group was still unrecognized ( Alicata & Schifani 2019; Schifani et al. 2022). The description by Emery (1908), almost three decades later, aimed to clarify the identity of this taxon but was based on the wrong assumption that the previous name had remained a nomen nudum. Instead, André (1883), in a key containing several Aphaenogaster species , treated also “ A. subterranea var. subterraneo-splendida Emery & Forel” and made a very brief description of its morphology based on specimens from Sicily and from Lebanon, which represents a valid description. Thus, A. subterraneosplendida André, 1883 has priority over A. sicula . Treating A. subterraneosplendida as a subspecies of A. subterranea (Latreille, 1798) is clearly incorrect ( Alicata & Schifani 2019; Schifani et al. 2022).

Thus, the Lebanese specimens that André (1883) mentioned certainly are not conspecific with the Sicilian ones and perhaps represented what Emery (1908) eventually described as A. gibbosa syriaca Emery, 1908 . André and Emery, at least for some years, had a close collaboration and exchanged Sicilian samples on different occasions ( Schifani et al. 2020). This obligate synonymization that follows the ICZN code unfortunately retroactively strips Emery of the paternity of a taxon he first discovered and later described in detail, even though there is no evidence that André (1883) intended to make a formal description.