Bioacoustics of Ponera

Diagnosis. Workers of Pseudoponera lack any obvious autapomorphies and superficially resemble those of a number of other genera, including Austroponera , Cryptopone , Euponera , Hypoponera , Mesoponera and Rasopone . Separation from these and other genera of the Ponerinae is based on the following set of characters: compound eyes present, mandible with a basal groove (occasionally weakly developed) but no pit, ventral apex of the metatibia with one pectinate and one simple spur, mesosomal profile nearly continuous but interrupted by a shallowly impressed metanotal groove, propodeal spiracle slit-shaped, subpetiolar process without an anterior fenestra and prora present on the anterior margin of the first gastral sternite. Pseudoponera is morphologically most similar to Austroponera and some species of Euponera . It can be separated from Austroponera by the presence of slit-shaped propodeal spiracles (they are round in Austroponera ) and from Euponera by the lack of a basal mandibular pit. Pseudoponera is also similar to Cryptopone , but differs from it in having eyes, lacking a basal pit on the mandibles, and lacking mesotibial traction setae. Pseudoponera workers also strongly resemble those of Hypoponera , but have two metatibial spurs instead of one, generally have wider heads, and tend to be slightly larger. Pseudoponera is similar to Mesoponera but is generally smaller, with denser pilosity, smaller eyes, larger frontal lobes, a wider head, and a broader propodeal dorsum. Workers of Pseudoponera could also conceivably be confused with those of Brachyponera , but these genera differ in their metanotal groove structure (reduced to a suture in Pseudoponera but deeply impressed in Brachyponera ), and Pseudoponera lacks the basal mandibular pits of Brachyponera . Finally, Pseudoponera can be separated from Rasopone by the presence of a basal mandibular groove (occasionally weakly developed) and a slit-shaped rather than round or oval propodeal spiracle. Synoptic description. Worker. Medium-sized (TL 3.25–5.5 mm ) ants with the standard characters of Ponerini . Mandibles triangular, with roughly five to ten teeth and a basal groove (pit absent or obsolete). Anterior margin of clypeus broadly convex. Frontal lobes moderately large and closely approximated. Scapes flattened basally. Eyes very small to small (2-4 facets in diameter), located far anterior on sides of head. Mesopleuron entire. Metanotal groove present as a shallow impression. Metapleural gland orifice orifice without a posterior U-shaped cuticular lip. Propodeum generally narrowing dorsally (more strongly narrowed anteriorly) and with a distinct dorsal face. Propodeal spiracles elongate and slit-like. Metatibial spur formula (1s, 1p). Petiole generally scale-like, rounded dorsally. Gaster with a strong girdling constriction between pre- and postsclerites of A4, stridulatory organ absent. Head and body finely punctate, sometimes with light striations on the sides of the mesosoma, and with abundant pilosity and dense pubescence. Color variable, generally dark brown to ferrugineous. Queen. Similar to worker but slightly larger, alate, with ocelli and larger compound eyes, and with the modifications of the thoracic sclerites that are typical of alate ponerine queens. Male. Emery (1911) provided a diagnosis for Pseudoponera males, but he circumscribed the genus differently than it is here and some aspects of his diagnosis may no longer apply. Ogata (1987) provided a description for males of Trachymesopus , which is synonymous with our definition of Pseudoponera ( s.s. ), but he included Parvaponera darwinii , which we place in a separate genus. Larva. Described for various species by Wheeler & Wheeler (1952 , 1971a , 1976 ). Geographic distribution. The majority of species included here in Pseudoponera are Neotropical with a single species occurring in eastern Australia . One species, P. stigma , is widespread in both the Neotropics and the Asia Pacific ( Wetterer, 2012a ). It is generally accepted that this is a New World species which has become established in Asia through dispersal by humans. However, Wetterer (2012) points out that there is little direct evidence to support this and the biology of this species is not typical of invasive ants.