Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 281–292 | Cite as

The largest animal association centered on one species: the army ant Eciton burchellii and its more than 300 associates

  • C. W. Rettenmeyer
  • M. E. Rettenmeyer
  • J. Joseph
  • S. M. BerghoffEmail author
REVIEW ARTICLE (C.W. Rettenmeyer memorial paper)


As possibly two of the last true naturalists, Carl Rettenmeyer and his wife Marian dedicated their lives to the study of army ants and their associates. Over the course of 55 years, the Rettenmeyers went on numerous field trips mainly to the Central American tropics and analyzed hundreds of self-collected samples and those sent by a multitude of other scientists, who were inspired by Carl’s enthusiasm. It comes as no surprise that Carl Rettenmeyer became the world’s leading expert on army ant associates. This paper, which the Rettenmeyers nearly completed before Carl’s death in 2009, gives the first comprehensive list of animals known to be found in the company of a single army ant species: Eciton burchellii. The 557 recorded associates range from birds to insects and mites and comprise the largest described animal association centering around one particular species. Although some of these associates may be opportunistic encounters, we are confident that approximately 300 of the recorded species depend on the ants, at least in part, for their existence. The extinction of E. burchellii from any habitat over its vast area of distribution is likely to cause the extinction of numerous associated animals at that site. This overview will hopefully inspire researchers throughout the world to follow in the Rettenmeyers’ footsteps and continue the investigation of army ants and their associates.


Myrmecophiles Ant guests Symbiosis Arthropods Tropical ecology Biodiversity 



We are grateful for the help of numerous field assistants and students aiding in the collection and sorting of army ants and their associates. Naming all of them would go beyond the scope of this paper. Our special thanks go to the following taxonomists for identifying and/or describing E. burchellii associates: Sidney Camras, Henry Disney, Ernst Ebermann, Richard Elzinga, David Kistner, Sandor Mahunka, Lubomir Masner, and Alexy Tishechkin. We would also like to thank Charlene and Adam Fuller for many hours spent in the field gathering information about E. burchellii and their associates and Adam for photographing and identifying antbirds. We thank Daniel Kronauer for comments on an earlier draft of this paper and for the permission to use some of his photographs as illustrations. Last but not least, we thank Phillip DeVries (Lepidoptera) and Henry Disney (Phoridae) for checking and adding to the respective tables. This work was supported by the British Ecological Society (SEPG 39/39), the Carl and Marian Rettenmeyer Ant-Guest Collection Endowment of the University of Connecticut, the Leverhulme Trust (F/00 182/AI), the Smithsonian Institution (SRA), the State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart, and the National Science Foundation. We thank the Asa Wright Nature Centre (Trinidad), the Estación Biologica de Monteverde (Costa Rica), the Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS) (Costa Rica), the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) (Panama), and the Summer Institute of Linguistics (Ecuador) for providing facilities and arranging collection and export permits. This work conforms to the legal requirements of the countries in which samples were collected.

Supplementary material

40_2010_128_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (160 kb)
Supplementary material (PDF 160 kb)


  1. Akre R.D. 1968. The behavior of Euxenister and Pulvinister, Histerid beetles associated with army ants. Pan-Pac. Entomol. 44: 87-101Google Scholar
  2. Akre R.D. and Rettenmeyer C.W. 1966. Behavior of Staphylinidae associated with army ants (Formicidae: Ecitonini). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 39: 745-782Google Scholar
  3. Akre R.D. and Rettenmeyer C.W. 1968. Trail-following by guests of army ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Ecitonini). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 41: 165-174Google Scholar
  4. Akre R.D. and Torgerson R.L. 1969. Behavior of Vatesus beetles associated with army ants (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Pan-Pac. Entomol. 45: 269-281Google Scholar
  5. Bates H.W. 1863. The naturalist on the river Amazons. John Murray, London. 407 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Beebe W. 1919. The home of the army ants. Atlantic Mon. 124: 454-464Google Scholar
  7. Beneway D.F. 1961. Androeuryops, a new genus of Tachinidae (Diptera) from Central America. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 34: 44-47Google Scholar
  8. Berghoff S.M., Wurst E., Ebermann E., Sendova-Franks A.B., Rettenmeyer C.W. and Franks N. 2009. Symbionts of societies that fission: mites as guests or parasites of army ants. Ecol. Entomol. 34: 684-695Google Scholar
  9. Bickford D., Lohman D.J., Sodhi N.S., Ng P.K.L., Meier R., Winker K., Ingram K.K. and Das I. 2007. Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 148-155Google Scholar
  10. Borgmeier T. 1928. Investigacoes sobre phorideos myrmecophilos (Diptera: Phoridae). Arch. Inst. Biol. S. Paulo 1: 159-192, pl. 127-135Google Scholar
  11. Borgmeier T. 1955. Die Wanderameisen der Neotropischen Region. Stud. Entomol. 3: 1-717Google Scholar
  12. Chaves-Campos J. 2003. Localization of army-ant swarms by ant-following birds on the Caribbean slope of Costa Rica: following the vocalization of antbirds to find the swarms. Ornitol. Neotrop. 14: 289-294Google Scholar
  13. Chesser R.T. 1995. Comparative diets of obligate ant-following birds at a site in Northern Bolivia. Biotropica 27: 382-390Google Scholar
  14. Chillcott J.G. 1958. Two new species of Euryomma (Stein) (Muscidae: Diptera) from Panama. Can. Entomol. 90: 725-731Google Scholar
  15. Curran C.H. 1934. Review of the Tachinid genus Calodexia van der Wulp (Diptera). Am. Mus. Novit. 685: 1-21Google Scholar
  16. Del Hoyo J., Elliott A. and Christie D.A. (Eds) 2003. Handbook of the Birds of the World (Volume 8): Broadbills to Tapaculos. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 845 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. DeVries P.J., Austin G.T. and Martin N.H. 2009. Estimating species diversity in a guild of Neotropical skippers (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) with artificial lures is a sampling problem. Insect Conserv. Diver. 2: 125-134Google Scholar
  18. Disney R.H.L. and Berghoff S.M. 2005. New species and new records of scuttle flies (Diptera: Phoridae) associated with army ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Trinidad and Venezuela. Sociobiology 45: 887-898Google Scholar
  19. Dodge H.R. 1968. The Sarcophagidae of Barro Colorado Island, Panama (Diptera). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 61: 421-450Google Scholar
  20. Drummond I. and Boyce A. 1976. Buttterflies associated with an army ant swarm raid in Honduras. J. Lepidopt. Soc. 30: 237-238Google Scholar
  21. Elzinga R.J. 1978. Holdfast mechanisms in certain Uropodine mites (Acarina: Uropodina). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 71: 896-900Google Scholar
  22. Elzinga R.J. 1979. Evolution of the holdfast structures in Planodiscus-Antennequesoma-Coxequesoma complex of army ant mites. Recent Adv. Acarology 2: 447-450Google Scholar
  23. Elzinga R.J. 1993. Larvamimidae, a new family of mites (Acari, Dermanyssoidea) associated with army ants. Acarologia 34: 95-103Google Scholar
  24. Elzinga R.J. 1998. A new genus and five new species of mites (Acari: Ascidae) associated with army ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 31: 351-361Google Scholar
  25. Elzinga R.J. and Rettenmeyer C.W. 1974. Seven new species of Circocylliba (Acarina: Uropodina) found on army ants. Acarologia 16: 595-611Google Scholar
  26. Faria C.M.A. and Rodrigues M. 2009. Birds and army ants in fragmented Atlantic Forest of Brazil. J. Field Ornithol. 80: 328-335Google Scholar
  27. Franks N.R. 1982. Ecology and population regulation in the army ant Eciton burchellii. In: The Ecology of a Tropical Forest: Seasonal Rhythms and Long-Term Changes (Leigh E.G., Rand A.S. and Windsor D.M., Eds), Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. pp 389-395Google Scholar
  28. Franks N.R. 1985. Reproduction, foraging efficiency and worker polymorphism in army ants. In: Experimental Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology: in Memoriam Karl von Frisch,1886-1982 (Hölldobler B. and Lindauer M., Eds), G. Fischer Verlag, Sunderland, Mass. pp 91-107Google Scholar
  29. Franks N.R. and Fletcher C.R. 1983. Spatial patterns in army ant foraging and migration: Eciton burchellii on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 12: 261-270Google Scholar
  30. Gotwald W.H. Jr. 1995. Army Ants: the Biology of Social Predation. Cornell University Press/Comstock Press, Ithca. 302 ppGoogle Scholar
  31. Houck M.A. 1991. Ecological and evolutionary significance of phoresy in the Astigmata. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 36: 611-636Google Scholar
  32. Kistner D.H. 1979. Social and evolutionary significance of social insect symbionts. In: Social Insects (Hermann H.R., Ed), Academic Press, New York, London. pp 339-413Google Scholar
  33. Kistner D.H. and Jacobson H.R. 1990. Cladistic analysis and taxonomic revision of the ecitophilous tribe Ecitocharini with studies of their behavior and evolution (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae). Sociobiology 17: 333-480Google Scholar
  34. Kumar A. and O’Donnell S. 2007. Fragmentation and elevation effects on bird-army ant interactions in neotropical montane forest of Costa Rica. J. Trop. Ecol. 23: 581-590Google Scholar
  35. Lamas G., Mielke O.H.H. and Robbins R.K. 1993. The Arenholz technique for attracting tropical skippers (Hesperiidae). J. Lepidopt. Soc. 47: 80-82Google Scholar
  36. Loomis H.F. 1959. New myrmecophilous millipeds from Barro Colorado Island, Canal Zone, and Mexico. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 32: 5-11Google Scholar
  37. Mann W.M. 1934. Stalking ants, savage and civilized, A naturalist braves bites and stings in many lands to learn the story of an insect whose ways often parallel those of man. National Geogr. Mag. 66: 171-192Google Scholar
  38. Masner L. and García J.L.R. 2002. The Genera of Diapriinae (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae) in the New World. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., N.Y. 268: 1-138Google Scholar
  39. Ray T.S. and Andrews C.C. 1980. Antbutterflies: Butterflies that follow army ants to feed on antbird droppings. Science 210: 1147-1148Google Scholar
  40. Reichensperger A. 1925. “Ameisenmimikry” und “Metöke Myrmekoidie”. Biol. Zentralbl. 45: 290-303Google Scholar
  41. Rettenmeyer C.W. 1961a. Observations on the biology and taxonomy of flies found over swarm raids of army ants (Diptera: Tachinidae, Conopidae). Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. 42: 993-1066Google Scholar
  42. Rettenmeyer C.W. 1961b. Arthropods associated with Neotropical army ants with a review of the behavior of these ants (Arthropoda: Formicidae: Dorylinae). Ph.D. University of KansasGoogle Scholar
  43. Rettenmeyer C.W. 1962a. Behavior, abundance and host specificity of mites found on Neotropical army ants (Acarina; Formicidae: Dorylinae). Proc. 11th Int. Congr. Entomol., Vienna. pp 610-612, Table 617Google Scholar
  44. Rettenmeyer C.W. 1962b. The behavior of millipedes found with Neotropical army ants. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 35: 377-384Google Scholar
  45. Rettenmeyer C.W. 1963a. Behavioral studies of army ants. Univ.Kansas Sci. Bull. 44: 281-465Google Scholar
  46. Rettenmeyer C.W. 1963b. The behavior of Thysanura found with army ants. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 56: 170-174Google Scholar
  47. Rettenmeyer C.W. 2009. Associates of Eciton burchellii. Available from: or see acknowledgements above
  48. Rettenmeyer C.W. and Akre R.D. 1968. Ectosymbiosis between phorid flies and army ants. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 61: 1317-1326Google Scholar
  49. Roberts D.L., Cooper R.J. and Petit L.J. 2000. Flock characteristics of ant-following birds in premontane moist forest and coffee agroecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 10: 1414-1425Google Scholar
  50. Schneirla T.C. 1971. Army Ants. A Study in Social Organization. Freeman, W.H. San Francisco. 349 ppGoogle Scholar
  51. Steiger S.S., Fidler A.E., Valcu M. and Kempenaers B. 2008. Avian olfactory receptor gene repertoires: evidence for a well-developed sense of smell in birds? Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci 275: 2309-2317Google Scholar
  52. Swartz M.B. 1997. Behavioral and population ecology of the army ant Eciton burchellii and ant-following birds. The University of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  53. Swartz M.B. 2001. Bivouac checking, a novel behavior distinguishing obligate from opportunistic species of army-ant-following birds. Condor 103: 629-633Google Scholar
  54. Wasmann E. 1887. Neue Brasilianische Staphyliniden, bei Eciton hamatum gesammelt von Dr. W. Müller. Deut. Entom. Zeit. 31: 403-416, pl. 405Google Scholar
  55. Wasmann E. 1894. Kritisches Verzeichniss der Mymecophilen und Termitophilen Arthropoden. Mit Angabe der Lebensweise und mit Beschreibung neuer Arten. Felix L. Dames Berlin. xv + 231 ppGoogle Scholar
  56. Wasmann E. 1903. Zum Myrmecrytypus der Dorylinengäste. Biol. Centralbl. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8: 581-590Google Scholar
  57. Watkins J.F.I. 1976. The Identification and Distribution of New World Army Ants (Dorylinae: Formicidae). Markham Press Fund of Baylor University Press Waco, Texas. 102 ppGoogle Scholar
  58. Willis E.O. and Oniki Y. 1978. Birds and army ants. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 9: 243-263Google Scholar
  59. Wrege P.H., Wikelski M., Mandel J.T., Rassweiler T.A. and Couzin A.D. 2005. Antbirds parasitize foraging army ants. Ecology 86: 555-559Google Scholar
  60. Zikán J.F. 1929. Myrmekophilie bei Hesperiden? Entomol. Rundschau 46: 27-28Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. W. Rettenmeyer
    • 1
  • M. E. Rettenmeyer
    • 1
  • J. Joseph
    • 1
  • S. M. Berghoff
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations