Advertisement

Paleontological Journal

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 500–513 | Cite as

Ants of the tribe Formicini (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from Late Eocene amber of Europe

  • G. M. Dlussky
Article

Abstract

The tribe Formicini (Formicinae) from the Late Eocene Baltic, Bitterfeld, Rovno, and Scandinavian ambers is revised. Ants are recorded for the first time from the Bitterfeld and Scandinavian ambers. Two new genera (Cataglyphoides gen. nov. and Conoformica gen. nov.) and six new species (Cataglyphoides intermedius sp. nov., Conoformica bitterfeldiana sp. nov., Formica kutscheri sp. nov., F. palaeopolonica sp. nov., F. radchenkoi sp. nov., F. zherikhini sp. nov.) are described. A new combination, Cataglyphoides constrictus (Mayr, 1868), comb. nov., is established. A lectotype of Camponotus constrictus Mayr, 1868 and a neotype of Formica phaethusa Wheeler, 1915 are designated. Formica clymene Wheeler, 1915 is recognized as a new synonym of F. phaethusa Wheeler, 1915. An identification key for workers of Formicini species from Late Eocene European ambers is provided.

Key words

ants Formicini Formicidae Hymenoptera Late Eocene Europe amber 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. André, “Notice sur les fourmis fossiles de l’ambre de la Baltique et description de deux espèces nouvelles,” Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr. 20, 80–84 (1895).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Baroni Urbani and S. Graeser, “1987 REM-Analysen an einer pyritisierten Ameise aus baltischem Bernstein,” Stuttg. Beitr. Naturk., Ser. B, No. 133, 1–16 (1987).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Bolton, A New General Catalogue of the Ants of the World (Harvard Univ. Press, London, 1995).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Bolton, “Synopsis and Classification of Formicidae,” Mem. Am. Entomol. Inst. 71, 1–370 (2003).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Bolton, G. Alpert, P. S. Ward, and P. Naskrecki, Bolton’s Catalogue of Ants of the World 1758–2005: CD Version (Harward Univ. Press, London, 2005).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Burnham, “Survey of Social Insects in the Fossil Records,” Psyche 89, 85–133 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dalla Torre C. G., Catalogus Hymenopterorum, hucusque descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus. V. 7 (W. Engelmann, Leipzig, 1893).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. M. Dlussky, “Ants of the Genus Formica from the Baltic Amber,” Paleontol. Zh., No. 2, 80–89 (1967).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. M. Dlussky, Ants of Deserts (Nauka, Moscow, 1981) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. M. Dlussky, “Genera of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Baltic Amber,” Paleontol. Zh., No. 6, 50–62 (1997) [Paleontol. J. 31 (6), 616–627 (1997)].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. M. Dlussky, “Syntypes of the Baltic Amber Ants Formica flori Mayr and Ponera atavia Mayr (Hymenoptera: Formicidae),” Russ. Entomol. J. 11(3), 291–298 (2002).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. M. Dlussky and E. B. Fedoseeva, “The Origin and Early Stages in the Evolution of Ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae),” in The Cretaceous Biocenotic Crisis and Evolution of Insects (Nauka, Moscow, 1988), pp. 70–144 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. M. Dlussky and E. E. Perkovski, “Ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from the Rovno Amber,” Vestn. Zool. 36(5), 3–20 (2002).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. M. Dlussky and A. P. Rasnitsyn, “The Paleontological Record and Stages in the Evolution of Ants,” Usp. Sovrem. Biol. 127(2), 118–134 (2007).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. G. Giebel, Fauna der Vorwelt mit steter Berücksichtigung der lebenden Thiere. Monographisch Dargestellt. Zweiter Band. Gliederthiere. Erste Abtheilung. Insecten und Spinnen (Brockhaus, Leipzig, 1856).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Handlirsch, Die fossilen Insekten und Phylogenie der rezenten Formen (W. Engelmann, Leipzig, 1906–1908).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    O. Heer, Die Insektenfauna der Tertiärgebilde von Oeningen und von Radoboj in Croatien. Zweiter Theil: Heuschrecken, Florfliegen, Aderflüger, Schmetterlinge und Fliegen (W. Engelmann, Leipzig, 1849).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O. Heer, “Fossile Hymenopteren aus Oeningen und Radoboj,” Neue Denkschr. Allg. Schweiz. Ges. Gesammten Naturwiss. 22, 1–42 (1867).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. Holl, Handbuch der Petrefactenkunde. Bd. 2 (P. O. Hilschersche Buchhandlung, Dresden, 1829), pp. 117–232.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. L. Mayr, “Vorläufige Studien über die Radoboj-Formiciden, in der Sammlung der geologischen Reichsanstalt,” Jb. geol. Reichsan. Wien 17, 47–62 (1867).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. L. Mayr, “Die Ameisen des Baltischen Bernstein,” Beitr. Naturk. Preuss. Königsberg 1, 1–102 (1868).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    E. E. Perkovski, A. P. Rasnitsyn, A. P. Vlaskin, and M. V. Taraschuk, “A Comparative Analysis of the Baltic and Rovno Amber Arthropod Faunas: Representative Samples,” Afr. Invertebr. 48(1), 229–245 (2007).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. G. Ponomarenko and O. Schultz, “Typen der geologisch-paläontologischen Abteilung: Fossile Insekten,” Kataloge wiss. Sammlung Naturhist. Museums in Wien, Paläozoologie 6(1), 1–30 (1988).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. S. Presl, “Additamenta ad faunam protogaem, sistens descriptiones aliquat animalium in succino inclusorum,” in Deliciae Pragenses, historiam naturalem spectantes, V. 1, Ed. by J.S. Presl and K.B. Presl (Calvae, Pragae, 1822), pp. 191–210.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    W. M. Wheeler, “The Ants of the Baltic Amber,” Schrift. phys.-ökon. Ges. Königsberg 55, 1–142 (1915).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations