Encyclopedia of Social Insects

Living Edition
| Editors: Christopher Starr

Marauder Ants (Carebara in Part)

  • Mark W. MoffettEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90306-4_75-1

Synonyms

Pheidologeton

The term marauder ant refers to the two species Carebara diversa and C. silenus, myrmicine ants until recently placed in their own genus, Pheidologeton. This is a monophyletic group of behaviorally and ecologically distinct ants [ 1]. The better-known species, C. diversa, is most common in disturbed habitats extending from India across Southeast Asia to southern China and Taiwan, while C. silenus resides in forests of the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Java, and Borneo. These species warrant attention because of their extreme physical castes and a remarkably flexible foraging strategy that includes finding food en masse, at a scale similar to many doryline army ants, with the collective foraging raids of marauder ants reaching into the tens of thousands of participants [ 2] (Fig. 1).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Fischer, G., Azorsa, F., & Fisher, B. L. (2014). The ant genus Carebara Westwood (Hymenoptera, Formicidae): Synonymisation of Pheidologeton Mayer under Carebara, establishment and revision of the C. polita species group. ZooKeys, 438, 57–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moffett, M. W. (1984). Swarm raiding in a myrmicine ant. Naturwissenschaften, 71, 588–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moffett, M. W. (1988). Foraging dynamics in the group-hunting ant, Pheidologeton diversus. Journal of Insect Behavior, 1, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berghoff, S. M., Weissflog, A., Linsenmair, K. E., Hashim, R., & Maschwitz, U. (2002). Foraging of a hypogaeic army ant: A long neglected majority. Insectes Sociaux, 49, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moffett, M. W. (1987). Division of labor and diet in an extremely polymorphic ant Pheidologeton diversus. National Geographic Research, 3, 282–304.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moffett, M. W. (1988). Cooperative food transport by an Asiatic ant, Pheidologeton diversus. National Geographic Research, 4, 386–394.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lanan, M. (2014). Spatiotemporal resource distribution and foraging strategies in ants (Hymenptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News, 20, 53–70.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rettenmeyer, C. W. (1963). Behavioral studies of army ants. University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 44, 281–465.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moffett, M. W. (1988). Foraging in the Malayan swarm-raiding ant, Pheidologeton silenus. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 81, 356–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moffett, M. W. (1988). Nesting emigrations and colony foundation in two group-hunting myrmicine ants. In J. C. Trager (Ed.), Advances in myrmecology (pp. 355–370). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moffett, M. W. (1987). Sociobiology of the ants of the genus Pheidologeton. Ph.D. thesis. Organismic and evolutionary biology, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moffett, M. W. (2010). Adventures among ants: A global safari with a cast of trillions. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brady, S. G., Fisher, B. K., Schultz, T. R., & Ward, P. S. (2014). The rise of army ants and their relatives: Diversification of specialized predatory doryline ants. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 14, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kronauer, D. J., Schöning, C., Vilhelmsen, L. B., & Boomsma, J. J. (2007). A molecular phylogeny of Dorylus army ants provides evidence for multiple evolutionary transitions in foraging niche. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7, 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EntomologyNational Museum of Natural HistoryWashingtonUSA