Ant Taxonomy SubFamily- Dorylinae

Ant Mania > Family > SubFamily (Dorylinae)

About SubFamily Dorylinae

Dorylinae

Dorylinae is an ant subfamily with distributions in both the Old World and New World. Dorylinae genera are suggested to have evolved sometime between 102 to 74 million years ago, subsequently undergoing rapid adaptive radiation events during their early history.

Classification

Kingdom Animalia (Animals)
Phylum Arthropoda (Arthropods)
Subphylum Hexapoda (Hexapods)
Class Insecta (Insects)
Order Hymenoptera
No Taxon
Superfamily Formicoidea (Ants)
Family Formicidae (Ants)
Subfamily Dorylinae (Army Ants)

The generic classification of the ant subfamily Dorylinae is revised to facilitate the identification of easily-diagnosable monophyletic genera. The new classification is based on recent molecular phylogenetic evidence and a critical reappraisal of doryline morphology. New keys and diagnoses based on workers and males are provided, along with reviews of natural history and phylogenetic relationships, distribution maps, and a list of valid species for each lineage. Twenty-eight genera (27 extant and 1 extinct) are recognized within the subfamily, an increase from 20 in the previous classification scheme. Species classified in the polyphyletic Cerapachys and Sphinctomyrmex before this publication are here distributed among 9 and 3 different genera, respectively. Amyrmex and Asphinctanilloides are synonymized under Leptanilloides, and the currently recognized subgenera are synonymized for Dorylus.

No tribal classification is proposed for the subfamily, but several apparently monophyletic genus groups are discussed

Valid generic names include

• Acanthostichus
• Aenictogiton
• Aenictus
• Cerapachys
• Cheliomyrmex
• Hypocylindromyrmex
• Dorylus
• Rhogmus
• Eciton
• Eusphinctus
• Labidus
• Leptanilloides
• Lioponera
• Lividopone
• Neocerapachys
• Ooceraea
• Parasyscia
• Procerapachys
• Tanipone
• Vicinopone
• Yunodorylus
• Zasphinctus

The ant subfamily Dorylinae is a monophyletic group of aggressive ants, occurring throughout many subtropical and exotic regions of the globe, with wide varieties in cozy temperate environments. The relatively few dorylines for which foraging biology is understood prey typically on various other ants or social bugs. Notable exceptions take place, and several charming ‘army ants’ also progressed much more generalized predatory practices.

Numerous studies on the biology of a few noticeable species have been published, but our total knowledge of this clade is inadequate. A likely adding factor is that numerous varieties are subterranean or take place at low wealth. It is additionally likely that comparative studies of doryline biology have been thwarted by bad taxonomic expertise, lack of identification resources, and classification that does not reflect evolutionary partnerships.

The taxonomic limits of the Dorylinae have been in substantial flux given its facility. As presently circumscribed, the group has never gotten a focused treatment at the genus level. Until recently, our understanding of doryline morphology and phylogeny was inadequate to provide a stable category based on quickly identified monophyletic groupings.

Present sights on doryline category and advancement

The existing subfamily restrictions were not established until the molecular research study by Brady et al. was released in 2014. As clarified, before that, this group’s genera had been classified as great deals of six subfamilies. The affinities of those subfamilies had not always been identified. Still, a close connection has actually been well demonstrated via a collection of independent morphological (Bolton 1990b, Baroni Urbani et al. 1992, Brady and Ward 2005) and molecular phylogenetic research studies (Brady 2003, Brady et al. 2006).

The study stated above study of Brady as well as affiliates (Brady et al. 2014) was a significant improvement in our understanding of doryline phylogeny. There is modest support for the monophyly of real military ants, in addition to a considerable split between the New World genera (Cheliomyrmex, Eciton, Labidus, Neivamyrmex, Nomamyrmex) and Old World army ants (Aenictus, Aenictogiton, Dorylus), an outcome also recovered in an earlier molecular phylogeny (Brady 2003). Following the synonymization of the 6 subfamilies, Brady et al. (2014) did not suggest a tribal classification within the group, showing the absence of understanding of many connections.

Current developments in DNA sequencing strategies present orders of importance much more information than has been made use of in phylogeny restoration in prior research (Brady 2003, Brady et al. 2014), as well as this method, has honestly been utilized to the doryline phylogeny (Borowiec, in prep.). The results reveal that army ant monophyly is probably an artifact driven by organized predisposition from layout misspecification. The most recent verdicts furthermore use an even more durable indicator of broad biogeographic routines. Even the genomic data, nonetheless, does not provide a positive self-image in all connections at the backbone of the doryline tree. The phylogeny that stemmed from this unpublished genomic data is recapitulated in Number 1. All the categories acknowledged right here show up monophyletic, and a couple of well-supported clades of more than one genus are recuperated. These clades include (1) a clade of Chrysapace, Cerapachys, and also Yunodorylus, (2) a clade making up Eusphinctus, Ooceraea, and also Syscia, (3) a distinct clade that was already strongly supported by earlier analyses (Brady et al. 2014), including Lioponera, Lividopone, Parasyscia, and also Zasphinctus, (4) a clade signing up with all New World dorylines aside from for the Central and North American species of Syscia, and (5) Old World army ants clade, which comprises Aenictogiton, Aenictus, as well as Dorylus. Eburopone, Simopone, Tanipone, and Vicinopone can not be placed with self-confidence in any particular setting on the doryline tree.

The affinities of those subfamilies had not always been acknowledged. Nevertheless, a close relationship has been convincingly revealed through a series of independent morphological (Bolton 1990b, Baroni Urbani et al. 1992, Brady and also Ward 2005) as well as molecular phylogenetic research studies (Brady 2003, Brady et al. 2006).

The above-pointed-out research study of Brady and partners (Brady et al. 2014) significantly developed our understanding of doryline phylogeny. Present developments in DNA sequencing methods supply orders of size much more information than has actually been made use of in phylogeny reconstruction in previous study studies (Brady 2003, Brady et al. 2014), as well as this method has made use of the doryline phylogeny (Borowiec, in prep work.). These clades include (1) a clade of Chrysapace, Cerapachys, and Yunodorylus, (2) a clade composing Eusphinctus, Ooceraea, and also Syscia, (3) a distinctive clade that was already strongly sustained by earlier evaluations (Brady et al. 2014), including Lioponera, Lividopone, Parasyscia, and also Zasphinctus, (4) a clade uniting all New Globe dorylines apart from for the Central as well as North American species of Syscia, and (5) Old Globe military ants clade, which makes up Aenictogiton, Aenictus, as well as Dorylus.

Still, a close connection has been shown with a collection of independent morphological (Bolton 1990b, Baroni Urbani et al. 1992, Brady and Ward 2005) as well as molecular phylogenetic research study studies (Brady 2003, Brady et al. 2006).

The research stated that the research of Brady and affiliates (Brady et al. 2014) was a significant renovation of our understanding of doryline phylogeny. Current developments in DNA sequencing strategies present orders of significance much more information than has been used in phylogeny restoration in previous research studies (Brady 2003, Brady et al. 2014), and this strategy has honestly been used to the doryline phylogeny (Borowiec, in preparation.). Current breakthroughs in DNA sequencing methods give orders of size much more information than has been utilized in phylogeny restoration in previous research studies (Brady 2003, Brady et al. 2014). This technique has also been used to the doryline phylogeny (Borowiec, in preparation.)

[FULL LIST OF Dorylinae GENUS]

Subfamilies Of Ants