<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<tax:taxonx xmlns:tax="http://www.taxonx.org/schema/v1" xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3"
  xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
  xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.taxonx.org/schema/v1       ../lib/taxonx1.xsd
  http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3       ../lib/mods-3-1.xsd"
  xmlns:dc="http://digir.net/schema/conceptual/darwin/2003/1.0">
  <!-- Marked up from http://antbase.org/ants/publications/20971/20971.pdf. Text copied and pasted into xml doc.
    xml mark up: Donat Agosti, Oxygen, taxonx1, 26.11.2005
  -->
  <!-- Revised by Terry Catapano 2006-12-30 Oxygen 8.0; @2 hours.
  Some issues with morphological encoding. Two approaches present below. The first nests sibling character and
  state within a character element. The second merely tags the state within a character. Schema may need to be
  revised to include a "descriptive statement" element to wrap related characters and states
  -->
  <!-- Revised by TC. 2007-01-07; Oxygen 8; @1hr.
    Added xid's to some cites for which there are doi's available through cross-search's doi lookup.
    Added MODS data based on info from HNS
  -->
  <!-- Revised by TC. 2007-01-08; Oxygen 8; @1hr.
  Added HNS numbers in xid for species being described
  Addded Darwin Core in xmldata for first species described.
  Revised encoding of collection_event.
  -->
  <tax:taxonxHeader>

    <mods:mods>
      <mods:titleInfo>
        <mods:title>A New Species of Discothyrea Roger from Mauritius and a New Species of Proceratium Roger from
          Madagascar (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)</mods:title>
      </mods:titleInfo>
      <mods:name type="personal">
        <mods:role>
          <mods:roleTerm>Author</mods:roleTerm>
        </mods:role>
        <mods:namePart>Fisher, B. L.</mods:namePart>
      </mods:name>
      <mods:typeOfResource>text</mods:typeOfResource>
      <mods:relatedItem type="host">
        <mods:titleInfo>
          <mods:title>Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences</mods:title>
        </mods:titleInfo>
        <mods:part>
          <mods:detail type="volume">
            <mods:number>56</mods:number>
          </mods:detail>
          <mods:extent unit="page">
            <mods:start>657</mods:start>
            <mods:end>667</mods:end>
          </mods:extent>
          <mods:date>2005</mods:date>
        </mods:part>
      </mods:relatedItem>
      <mods:location>
        <mods:url>http://antbase.org/ants/publications/20971/20971.pdf</mods:url>
      </mods:location>
      <mods:identifier type="HNS-PUB">20971</mods:identifier>
    </mods:mods>
  </tax:taxonxHeader>
  <tax:taxonxBody>
    <tax:pb id="pb-1" n="657"/>

    <tax:head>
      <tax:title> A New Species of Discothyrea Roger from Mauritius and a New Species of Proceratium Roger from
        Madagascar (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) </tax:title>
      <tax:author>Brian L. Fisher</tax:author> Department of Entomology, California Academy of Sciences, 875 Howard
      Street, San Francisco, California 94103 USA; bfisher@calacademy.org </tax:head>
    <tax:div type="abstract">
      <tax:p> The worker of Discothyrea berlita sp. nov. from Mauritius is described. This is the first record of the
        genus from Mauritius. D. berlita is known from a single locality, Le Pouce, a small sanctuary of native ants on
        an island overrun with invasive ant species. Proceratium avium is recollected at Le Pouce and is the senior
        synonym of Proceratium avioide de Andrade (syn. nov.). The practice of manually removing alien plants from
        native forest plots in Mauritius is not advised for the Le Pouce forest patch because this practice facilitates
        the establishment of invasive ants, which eliminate native ants. Proceratium google sp. nov. is described from
        Madagascar. </tax:p>
      <tax:p> KEYWORDS: Conservation, Discothyrea, Formicinae, Hymenoptera, Invasive, Madagascar, Mauritius,
        Proceratium. </tax:p>
    </tax:div>
    <tax:div type="introduction">
      <tax:p> In May 2005, I joined a team of Malagasy ant specialists on an expedition to the island of Mauritius,
        where we conducted an ant inventory and a search for indigenous species. The status of the remaining native
        species of Mauritius was called into question by P.S. Ward (1990). In inspired literary prose, he described, as
        W.L. Brown (1974) did earlier, the alarming difficulty of finding native species. Habitat destruction and
        introduced ants and plants dominate the landscape, pushing native ants up to and possibly over the brink of
        extinction. </tax:p>
      <tax:p> Mauritius has had a long history of exploitation, habitat modification and extinction. With the extinction
        of the dodo in 1681, 80 years after humans first arrived on Mauritius, colonizers continued to modify habitat at
        an alarming rate (Lorence and Sussman 1986). The dense Mauritian forests were converted into tea and sugar
        plantations in the 19th century. During this time, habitat modification on Mauritius reached to almost every
        corner of the island (Safford 1997). Mauritius is an instructive example of what could happen to other insular
        environments, such as Madagascar, if habitat destruction is left unchecked. On Mauritius, as on Madagascar,
        invasive plant and animal species pose major problems. Once established, many invasive ants in Mauritius may be
        virtually impossible to eradicate, thus preventing the return of native ants (Holway et al. 2002). </tax:p>
      <tax:p> The known native ant fauna of Mauritius includes 18 valid species, with 9 endemic to the island (Table 1).
        It is interesting that the endemic ants are all confined to upland forest. One could conclude that Mauritius has
        few endemics all of which are on mountaintops. On the other hand, these endemics could be the only remaining
        examples of a much richer endemic fauna that disappeared with the destruction of the lowland forest. The
        discovery of a new genus record on Le Pouce, suggests that there are more species to discover on the island and
        that Le Pouce is a surprising sanctuary of taxonomically peculiar endemic ants. <tax:pb id="pb-2" n="658"/>
      </tax:p>
      <tax:p> The site encompasses a rugged and spectacular mountain chain above the industrial city of Port Louis in
        north-west Mauritius. The main ridge runs approximately east to west, and three long spurs extend northward.
        Major peaks include Pieter Both (823 m), Le Pouce (812 m) and Montagne Ory (c.700 m). Le Pouce captures moisture
        from the prevailing wind and clouds, resulting in the presence of native cloud-forest there. This is the only
        remaining area of native vegetation, although native plants are scattered throughout the range. Exotic
        vegetation dominates, most notably a scrub of strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum) and privet (Ligustrum
        robustrum) — but grassland and Eucalyptus plantations also occur. The best native forest found during our trip,
        and also the place of greatest number of endemic ants, was a small patch of forest, less than one hectare in
        area, just at the southeast face of the peak. Based on our survey results across the island, this forest patch
        on Le Pouce is the only remaining forest refuge for these mountain endemics of Mauritius and should receive high
        conservation priority. </tax:p>
      <tax:div type="synopsis">
        <tax:p> TABLE 1 List of valid names for native ants recorded from the island of Mauritius. Native ants
          restricted to Rodrigues (Monomorium elongatum Smith, 1876, Tapinoma fragile Smith, 1876, Tapinoma pallipes
          Smith, 1876) are excluded. Species in bold are endemic to the island </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Camponotus aurosus Roger, 1863 </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Camponotus grandidieri Forel, 1886 </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Crematogaster sewellii Forel, 1891 </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Dicothryea berlita sp. nov. </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Hypoponera johannae (Forel, 1891) </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Nesomyrmex gibber Donisthorpe, 1946 </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Ochetellus vinsoni (Donisthorpe, 1946) </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Pheidole picata Forel, 1891 </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Pheidole tarda Donisthorpe, 1947 </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Plagiolepis madecassa Forel, 1892 </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Pristomyrmex bispinosus (Donisthorpe, 1949) </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Pristomyrmex browni Wang, 2003 </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Pristomyrmex trispinosus (Donisthorpe, 1946) </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Proceratium avium Brown, 1974 </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Pseudolasius dodo (Donisthorpe, 1946) </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Solenopsis mameti Donisthorpe, 1946 </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Strumigenys agetos Fisher, 2000 </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Technomyrmex primrosae Donisthorpe, 1949 </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
    </tax:div>
    <tax:div type="materials_methods">
      <tax:p> MATERIALS AND METHODS </tax:p>
      <tax:p> This work is based on ant inventories in Mauritius from 25 May–31 May, 2005. During that period, we
        visited Le Pouce Mt., Pieter Both Mt., and Calebasses Mt. in the Moka Range, and Camizard Mt., and Brise Mt. in
        the Bambous Range. We also collected at Basin Blanc, Ile aux Aigrettes, Cocotte Mt., and Petite Rivière Noire
        Mt. Ants were collected using general hand search techniques and leaf litter extraction. The work in Madagascar
        is based on arthropod surveys in Madagascar that included over 6,000 leaf litter samples, 4,000 pitfall traps,
        and 8,000 additional hand collecting events throughout Madagascar in 1992 through 2004 (Fisher 2005). The
        species described here was collected as part of an inventory of Réserve Spéciale d’Anjanaharibe-Sud organized by
        Steve Goodman (Fisher 1998). </tax:p>
      <tax:p> All species and type material examined in this study have been imaged and are available on AntWeb
        (www.antweb.org). Material was deposited at California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco (CASC) Museum of
        Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (MCZC), and British Museum of Natural History
        (BMNH). </tax:p>
      <tax:p> Digital images (Fig. 1–17) were created using a JVC KY-F75 digital camera and Syncroscopy Auto-Montage (v
        5.0) software. All metric measurements were taken at 80× power with a Leica MZ APO microscope using an
        orthogonal pair of micrometers and recorded to the nearest 0.001mm and rounded to two decimal places for
        presentation. The accuracy of the micrometers was tested against a 0.01 mm microscope micrometer before and
        after measurements. Measurement indices and their abbreviations used in the paper are based on those used by
        Ward (1988). Size and the shape of the IV abdominal segment are the most important characters for the
        identification and delimitation of Proceritiinae species. </tax:p>
      <tax:pb id="pb-3" n="659"/>

      <tax:div>
        <tax:p> List of Abbreviations Used </tax:p>
        <tax:p> HL Head length: maximum longitudinal length from the anteriormost portion of the projecting clypeus to
          the midpoint of a line across the back of the head. </tax:p>
        <tax:p> HW Head width: maximum width of head, including the eyes, and is taken behind them. </tax:p>
        <tax:p> CI Cephalic index: HW/HL x 100. </tax:p>
        <tax:p> SL Scape length: maximum chord length excluding basal condyle and neck. </tax:p>
        <tax:p> SI Scape index: SL/HW x 100. </tax:p>
        <tax:p> WL Weber’s length: in lateral view of the mesosoma, diagonal length from posteroventral corner of
          mesosoma to the farthest point on anterior face of pronotum, excluding the neck. </tax:p>
        <tax:p> LS4 Length of abdominal sternum IV as described in Ward (1988). </tax:p>
        <tax:p> LT4 Length of abdominal tergum IV as defined in Ward (1988). </tax:p>
        <tax:p> IGR Index of gastric reflexion: LS4/LT4 </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
    </tax:div>



    <tax:treatment rank="species">
      <tax:nomenclature>
        <tax:name><tax:xid identifier="HNS153343" source="HNS"/>Discothyrea berlita</tax:name>
        <tax:author>Fisher</tax:author>, <tax:status>sp. nov.</tax:status>
        <tax:figures> Fig. 1–4.</tax:figures>
      </tax:nomenclature>
      <tax:div> </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="materials_examined">
        <tax:p>TYPE MATERIAL.— HOLOTYPE: Worker. <tax:collection_event><tax:xmldata>
              <dc:CollectionCode>BLF12148</dc:CollectionCode>
              <dc:CatalogNumber>CASENT0007016</dc:CatalogNumber>
              <dc:DayCollected>25</dc:DayCollected>
              <dc:MonthCollected>5</dc:MonthCollected>
              <dc:YearCollected>2005</dc:YearCollected>
              <dc:Country>MU</dc:Country>
              <dc:Collector>B.L. Fisher et al</dc:Collector>
              <dc:Latitude>-20.11</dc:Latitude>
              <dc:Longitude>57.31</dc:Longitude>
            </tax:xmldata><tax:locality>MAURITIUS: Le Pouce Mt., Moka Range, 20°11′55″S, 057°31′44″E, 750 m, closed
              vegetation</tax:locality>, 25 May 2005 (coll. B.L. Fisher et al.)</tax:collection_event> Collection code:
          BLF12148, specimen code: CASENT0007016 (CASC). </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="description">
        <tax:p>Type worker measurements: <tax:character>
            <tax:character>HL</tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.57</tax:state>
          </tax:character>, <tax:character>
            <tax:character>HW</tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.52</tax:state>
          </tax:character>, <tax:character>
            <tax:character>CI</tax:character>
            <tax:state>91</tax:state>
          </tax:character>, <tax:character>
            <tax:character>
            </tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.36</tax:state>
          </tax:character>, <tax:character>
            <tax:character>SI</tax:character>
            <tax:state>70</tax:state>
          </tax:character>, <tax:character>
            <tax:character>LS4</tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.08</tax:state>
          </tax:character>, <tax:character>
            <tax:character>LT4</tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.43</tax:state>
          </tax:character>, <tax:character>
            <tax:character>WL</tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.64</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:character>IGR</tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.19</tax:state>
          </tax:character>. </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="diagnosis">
        <tax:p> DIAGNOSIS.— The following character combination differentiates berlita from all its congeners: scrobe
          absent, fused frontal carinae projecting perpendicular to the plane of the clypeus, expanding apically, not
          forming a thin lamellae; propodeal angle without acute teeth or spines; anterior margin of petiole concave
          when viewed from above. </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="etymology">
        <tax:p> ETYMOLOGY.— The specific name is an arbitrary combination, to be treated as a noun in apposition.
        </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="description">
        <tax:p> WORKER DESCRIPTION.— Form of head, mandibles, and body as shown in Figures 1–4. <tax:character> Antennae
            10-segmented</tax:character>; <tax:character>medium segments extremely short and not distinct when viewed
            with less than 100× magnification</tax:character>; <tax:character>scape expanded apically, reaching
            mid-point of head</tax:character>. <tax:character>Eyes with 2 or 3 facets</tax:character>.
            <tax:character>Without depressed scrobal area</tax:character>. Palpal segmentation requires dissection and
          thus was not determined. <tax:character>Mandible masticatory margin concave, with two teeth, sharp apical
            tooth and smaller acute basal tooth</tax:character>. <tax:character>Propodeal angle without teeth or acute
            angles</tax:character>; <tax:character>declivitous face of propodeum concave</tax:character>.
            <tax:character>Petiole thick, with lateral margins on anterior face</tax:character>; <tax:character>anterior
            margin concave when viewed from above</tax:character>. <tax:character>Petiole with distinct convex
            subpetiolar process</tax:character>. <tax:character>Abdominal segment III longer than broad</tax:character>. </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
          <tax:character>Head and mesosoma densely punctulate</tax:character>; <tax:character>petiole sculptured as
            mesosoma</tax:character>, <tax:character>abdominal segment III with sparse punctures</tax:character>;
            <tax:character>punctures evanescent on abdominal segment IV</tax:character>. <tax:character>Integument
            generally opaque, except shiny for impunctate areas of metasoma</tax:character>. </tax:p>
        <tax:p><tax:character>Body, including mandible and appendages, covered with dense fine, very short whitish
            decumbent pubescence, becoming sparse on abdominal segment III, and dense and nearly erect on abdominal
            segment IV</tax:character>. </tax:p>
        <tax:p><tax:character>
            <tax:character>Color</tax:character>
            <tax:state>testaceous red</tax:state>
          </tax:character>. </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="distribution">
        <tax:p> DISTRIBUTION.— The single specimen was collected in a leaf litter sample in the only remaining patch of
          dense native vegetation near the summit of <tax:locality>Le Pouce</tax:locality>. Samples from other nearby
          mountain tops, <tax:locality>Pieter Both (823 m)</tax:locality>, <tax:locality>Calebasses (c.600
          m)</tax:locality>, did not uncover any endemic <tax:name>Proceritiinae</tax:name>. </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="discussion">
        <tax:p> COMMENTS.— The African species of <tax:name>Discothyrea</tax:name> fall into two groups: (1) those with
          the <tax:pb id="pb-4" n="660"/>
          <tax:figure id="fig-1" n="1-4" url="http://antbase.org/ants/publications/20971/20971_0660.pdf"/>
          <tax:pb id="pb-5" n="661"/> clypeo-frontal fusion flat topped and broad and with a depressed scrobe region,
          and (2) those in which the process forms a simple convex or angular vertical plate and lack a depressed scrobe
          region (Brown 1958). The <tax:name>Discothyrea</tax:name> of Madagascar belong to the first group.
            <tax:name>D. berlita</tax:name> is most similar to those in the second group, but is distinct in that the
          vertical plate does not form a thin lamella, but is expanded apically (Fig. 3). </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
    </tax:treatment>


    <tax:treatment rank="species">
      <tax:nomenclature>
        <tax:name><tax:xid source="HNS" identifier="HNS26384"/>Proceratium avium</tax:name>
        <tax:author>Brown</tax:author>, <tax:year>1974</tax:year>
        <tax:figures>Figs. 5-13.</tax:figures>
        <tax:citation><tax:xid identifier="HNS6746" source="HNS"/><tax:nomenclature><tax:name>Proceratium avium</tax:name>
            <tax:author>Brown</tax:author>, <tax:year>1974</tax:year>: 71, <tax:figures>figs. 1 and 2</tax:figures>
            (worker, gyne and male)</tax:nomenclature>. <tax:collection_event><tax:xid identifier="MCZTYPE32216"
              source="AntWeb"/>Mauritius: Le Pouce Mt, 700- 800 m, Native forest, 1 Apr. 1969 (coll. W.L. Brown)
            [examined] AntWeb MCZTYPE32216 (MCZC) [de Andrade 2000:75]</tax:collection_event></tax:citation>
        <tax:citation>Proceratium avioide de Andrade 2003: 78, figs 37, 38 (worker, gyne and male). Mauritius: Le Pouce
          Mt, 700- 800 m, Native forest, 30 March 1969 (coll. W.L. Brown) [examined] AntWeb MCZTYPE35017
        (MCZC).</tax:citation> New synonymy [see justification below] </tax:nomenclature>
      <tax:div type="discussion">
        <tax:p> During the trip to Le Pouce on May 25 and 30, seven new collections of <tax:name>Proceratium</tax:name>
          from Le Pouce were recorded (Table 2). Because of the small size of the forest patch, only two complete
          colonies were collected. For the other colonies we encountered, only a few foragers were removed. As Brown
          (1974) observed, foragers were returning to nests with what appeared to be spider eggs. In this case, they
          carried the eggs in the mandible, and did not support the eggs with the recurved gaster (Brown 1980). Baroni
          and de Andrade (2003) suggest the recurved gaster serves a phragmotic function, but I did not observe the
          recurved gaster being used to plug up the ant nest entrance. </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="materials_examined">
        <tax:p>TABLE 2. Collection of <tax:name>Proceratium avium</tax:name> on <tax:collection_event>25 and 30 May 2005
            at <tax:locality>Le Pouce Mt., Moka Range, 20°11′55″S, 057°31′44″E, 750 m, closed
          vegetation</tax:locality></tax:collection_event>. </tax:p>
        <tax:p>Collection Habitat Caste</tax:p>
        <tax:p>BLF12011 foraging on <tax:name>Nuxia verticillata</tax:name> with <tax:name>Pristomyrmex
          bispinosus</tax:name> 1 w</tax:p>
        <tax:p>BLF12014 foraging on <tax:name>Nuxia verticillata</tax:name> with <tax:name>Pristomyrmex
          bispinosus</tax:name> 2 w</tax:p>
        <tax:p>BLF12136 ex rot pocket, <tax:name>Nuxia verticillata</tax:name>, 1. 5 m above ground 1 erg Q, 127 w</tax:p>
        <tax:p>BLF12137 ex rot pocket, <tax:name>Nuxia verticillata</tax:name>, 1. 5 m above ground 1 erg. 352w</tax:p>
        <tax:p>BLF12139 foraging on <tax:name>Nuxia verticillata</tax:name> with <tax:name>Pristomyrmex
          bispinosus</tax:name> 2 w</tax:p>
        <tax:p>BLF12140 foraging on <tax:name>Nuxia verticillata</tax:name> 8 w</tax:p>
        <tax:p>BLF12142 foraging on <tax:name>Nuxia verticillata</tax:name> 2 w</tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="discussion">
        <tax:p> Of note is the fact that colony (BLF12137) included 352 workers, one ergatoid queen, and no males. Based
          on the colony size data reported in Baroni and de Adrade (2003), this is the largest colony size recorded for
            <tax:name>Proceratium</tax:name>. Collections in May by Brown in 1969 included males. All nests encountered
          were located in <tax:name>Nuxia verticillata Lamark (Loganiaceae)</tax:name>, with entrances about 1.5–2 m
          above ground. This tree was also the preferred nesting site for <tax:name>Pristomyremx bispinosus</tax:name>.
          This tree, called bois maigre in Mauritius, has gnarled and twisted trunks. It is endemic to Mauritius and
          Reunion and appears to be the sole nesting site for <tax:name>Pristomyremx bispinosus</tax:name> and
            <tax:name> Proceratium avium</tax:name>. The high winds that are common on Le Pouce abrade the twisted and
          intertwined trunks and branches. This action damages the tree at the contact point between intersecting
          branches and leads to the creation of a rot pocket and nesting site. </tax:p>
        <tax:p> Three collections of <tax:name>Proceratium avium</tax:name> (BLF12011, 12014, and 12139) were foragers
          following <tax:name>Pristomyremx bispinosus</tax:name>. These two species are very similar in color and
          general appearance. Brown in 1969 also observed this behavior. It is unclear why
          <tax:name>Proceratium</tax:name> is interspersed among the foraging workers of <tax:name>P.
          bispinosus</tax:name>. Conservation of either of these species should include further investigation of
          potential beneficial interactions between the species. </tax:p>
        <tax:pb id="pb-6" n="662"/>
        <tax:p> JUSTIFICATION OF SYNONYMY.— Brown (1980) collected three series of <tax:name>Proceratium</tax:name> at
          Le Pouce in 1969, one on March 30, and two on April 1. The latter were located less than 500 meters from the
          March 30 collecting site. He described both of these samples as <tax:name>Proceratium avium</tax:name> (Brown
          1974). De Andrade (Baroni Urbani and de Andrade 2003) reexamined these three collections and determined that
          they represent two species, <tax:name>P. avioide</tax:name> and <tax:name>P. avium</tax:name>. She based this
          on the <tax:pb id="pb-7" n="663"/> observation that <tax:name>P. avium</tax:name> differs from <tax:name>P.
            avioide</tax:name> by the less impressed sculpture, by the denser pilosity, and by longer antennal scapes
          (P. avium SI 87.3-88.6, P. avioide SI 81.8–83.3). </tax:p>
        <tax:p> The measurements of Brown and de Andrade are not consistent, especially for the <tax:name>P.
          avioide</tax:name> material she examined. Brown noted measurements for the three collections (workers n = 19)
          as HL 0.92–0.98, HW .091–0.98, CI 96–101 SL 0.90–0.99. Brown did not calculate SI. De Andrade notes that for
          her avium: HL 1.05–1.12, HW .090–0.94, CI 84.5–85.7 SL 0.93–0.97, SI 87.3–88.6 and P. avioide, HL 1.10–1.16,
          HW .092–0.97, CI 82.1–85.1, SL 0.90–0.96, SI 81.8–83.3. Note that CI for Brown ranged from 96–101, while for
          De Andrade, CI ranged from 82.1–85.7. </tax:p>
        <tax:p> One possible reason for these differences is the differences of HW and SL definitions. Based on the
          definitions presented above, I re-measured the type material using a calibrated micrometer (see Methods
          above). Measurements are presented in Table 3. These measurements confirm the relative differences between the
          Brown collections. However, when samples from the seven new collections are included, these differences become
          less distinct. The seven collections in the study, have even less impressed sculpture than <tax:name>P.
          avium</tax:name>, similar pilosity as <tax:name>P. avium</tax:name>, and longer antennal scapes then both
            <tax:name>P. avium</tax:name> and <tax:name>P. avioide</tax:name> (SI 98–103). Based on this study of
          Brown’s material and the new collections in this study, I identify all these collections as one species. </tax:p>
        <tax:p> The variation observed in these collections is interesting in such a small area. It is possible that
          because <tax:name>P. avium</tax:name> has ergatoid queens, and disperses presumably by budding with low
          dispersal ability, the complex topography of Le Pouce contributed to the observed variation. The possible
          restriction of the remaining population to the single forest patch at the base of the southeast peak, however,
          could severely limit the observed variation in the future. </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="description">
        <tax:p>TABLE 3. Measurements and scape index of type material and new collections. MCZTYPE32216 is the holotype
          of <tax:name>Proceratium avium</tax:name>, MCZTYPE35017 is the holotype of <tax:name>Proceratium
          avioide</tax:name>. </tax:p>
        <tax:p>Specimen number HW SL SI</tax:p>
        <tax:p>MCZTYPE35017 <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.97</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.92</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>95</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>MCZTYPE32216 <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.01</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>0.96Î</tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>96</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>CASENT0055844 <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.98</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.01</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>103</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>CASENT0055842 <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.99</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.00</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>101</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>CASENT0059012 <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.97</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.99</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>102</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>CASENT0059013 <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.03</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.01</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>98</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>CASENT0059026 <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.00</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.01</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>101</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>CASENT0059030 <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.99</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.01</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>102</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>CASENT0059029 <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.01</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.00</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>98</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>min <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.97</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.92</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>95</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>max <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.03</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.01</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>103</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
      </tax:div>
    </tax:treatment>
    <tax:treatment rank="species">
      <tax:nomenclature>
        <tax:name><tax:xid identifier="HNS153344" source="HNS"/>Proceratium google</tax:name>
        <tax:author>Fisher</tax:author>, <tax:status>sp. nov.</tax:status>
        <tax:figures>Figs. 14-17.</tax:figures>
      </tax:nomenclature>
      <tax:div type="materials_examined">
        <tax:p> TYPE MATERIAL.— HOLOTYPE: Worker. <tax:collection_event><tax:locality>MADAGASCAR: Antsiranana, 11.0 km
              WSW Befingotra, Réserve Spéciale Anjanaharibe-Sud, 14°45′S, 049°27′E, 1565 m</tax:locality>, 16 Nov 1994
            (coll. B.L. Fisher) sifted litter, montane rainforest, Collection code: BLF1232(6) — CASENT0100367, (CASC)</tax:collection_event>
          <tax:collection_event>PARATYPES: 2 workers with same data as holotype but with specimen codes CASENT010068
            (BMNH), CASENT0100369 (MCZC)</tax:collection_event>; <tax:collection_event>1 worker <tax:locality>9.2 km WSW
              Befingotra, Réserve Spéciale Anjanaharibe-Sud, 14°45′S, 049°28′E, 1280 m</tax:locality>, 5 Nov 1994 (coll.
            B.L. Fisher)</tax:collection_event>, CASENT0100370; (CASC); and <tax:collection_event>1 worker same as
            latter but collected at 1200 m on 9 Nov 1994, CASENT0100371 (CASC)</tax:collection_event>. </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="diagnosis">
        <tax:p> DIAGNOSIS.— The following character combination differentiates <tax:name>P. google</tax:name> from all
          its congeners: abdominal segment IV tergite evenly rounded posteriorly, without concave impression near apex
          and not hypertrophied; truncate median clypeal lobe; low nodiform petiole without peduncle but with blunt
          anteroventral tooth; fore tibia with a basal spine, frontal carinae separate and diverging posteriorly;
          posterior dorsum of mesosoma and propodeal spines granulate-foveolate. <tax:name>P. google</tax:name> is
          easily distinguished from <tax:name>P. diplopyx</tax:name>, the only other described
          <tax:name>Proceratium</tax:name> from Madagascar, by the shape of the tergite of the abdominal segment IV. In
            <tax:name>P. diplopyx</tax:name>, the tergite is with a deep <tax:pb id="pb-8" n="664"/>
          <tax:pb id="pb-9" n="665"/> concave notch near apex. </tax:p>
        <tax:p>TABLE 4. Worker measurements: maximum and minimum based on all five <tax:name>Proceratium
          google</tax:name> specimens.</tax:p>
        <tax:p>Specimen</tax:p>
        <tax:p>CASENT # HL HW CI SL SI WL LS4 LT4 IGR</tax:p>
        <tax:p>0100367 Holotype <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.21</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.02</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>84</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.80</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>79</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.34</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.20</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.85</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.23</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>0100370 Paratype <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.24</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.07</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>86</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.92</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>86</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.49</tax:state>
          </tax:character><tax:character> 0.18</tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.79</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.23</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>0100371 Paratype <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.24</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.04</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>84</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.86</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>83</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.46</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.20</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.77</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.26</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>0100368 Paratype <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.15</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.03</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>89</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.84</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>82</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.36</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.19</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.79</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.23</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>0100369 Paratype <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.20</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.05</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>87</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.83</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>79</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.41</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.17</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.79</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.22</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>min <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.15</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.03</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>84</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.83</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>79</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.36</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.17</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.77</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.22</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
        <tax:p>max <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.24</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.05</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>89</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.86</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>83</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>1.46</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.20</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.79</tax:state>
          </tax:character>
          <tax:character>
            <tax:state>0.26</tax:state>
          </tax:character></tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="etymology">
        <tax:p> ETYMOLOGY.— Named in recognition of the support from the Google company. I hope that Google will
          continue applying its talent to serve data relevant to the biodiversity community, conservation planners, and
          the general public. By creating a “Zoogle,” Google could help achieve free and democratic access to taxonomic
          and biodiversity data on species. <tax:character>P. google</tax:character> is also suspected to be a
          specialist egg predator of spiders, which is also why this ant is aptly named after Google— for the ability to
          hunt down obscure prey. The specific name is an arbitrary combination, to be treated as a noun in apposition.
        </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="description">
        <tax:p> WORKER DESCRIPTION.— Form of head, mandibles, and body as shown in Figures 14-17. <tax:character>In
            full-face view, <tax:state>posterior margin of head rounded, not concave</tax:state></tax:character>;
            <tax:character>sides of head <tax:state>more or less straight medially</tax:state></tax:character>;
            <tax:character>in profile, dorsal margin <tax:state>marginate</tax:state></tax:character>.
            <tax:character>Mandible <tax:state>with 4 teeth</tax:state></tax:character>. <tax:character>Palpal formula
            4, 3</tax:character>. <tax:character>Antennae <tax:state>12-segmented</tax:state></tax:character>,
            <tax:character>scape <tax:state>does not reach posterior margin of head</tax:state></tax:character>.
            <tax:character>Median clypeal lobe <tax:state>raised and notched medially</tax:state></tax:character>.
            <tax:character>Eye a <tax:state>single</tax:state>, <tax:state>large</tax:state>,
            <tax:state>clear</tax:state>, <tax:state>convex facet that projects beyond the margin of the head in
              full-face view</tax:state></tax:character>. </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
          <tax:character>Mesosoma <tax:state>in dorsal view pear-shaped</tax:state>,
          <tax:state>1</tax:state></tax:character>. <tax:character>Metanotal grove
          <tax:state>unmarked</tax:state></tax:character>. <tax:character>Propodeal spines
              <tax:state>granulate-tuberculate</tax:state></tax:character>; <tax:character>declivitous face of propodeum
              <tax:state>concave</tax:state>, <tax:state>ending basally</tax:state>
            <tax:state>with an upturned tooth</tax:state></tax:character>. <tax:character>Petiole <tax:state>longer than
              wide</tax:state></tax:character>; <tax:character>subpetiolar process <tax:state>forming an obtuse tooth at
              midlength</tax:state></tax:character>. <tax:character>Tibial spur <tax:state>present on each
            leg</tax:state></tax:character>. <tax:character>Claws on all legs <tax:state>slender</tax:state>,
              <tax:state>simple</tax:state></tax:character>. </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
          <tax:character>Abdominal segment IV tergum <tax:state>evenly rounded posteriorly</tax:state>,
              <tax:state>without concave impression near apex</tax:state>.</tax:character>
        </tax:p>
        <tax:p><tax:character>Head, mesosoma, petiole, and abdominal segment III <tax:state>with dense
              granulate-foveolate sculpture</tax:state></tax:character>. In contrast, <tax:character>abdominal segment
            IV <tax:state>predominantly smooth and shiny but with sparse foveae</tax:state></tax:character>.
            <tax:character>Declivitous face of propodeum <tax:state>shiny smooth</tax:state></tax:character>. </tax:p>
        <tax:p>
          <tax:character>Body <tax:state>covered with abundant pilosity consisting of fine, curved, tapered,
              yellow-white setae</tax:state></tax:character>. Queen, male and larvae unknown. </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
      <tax:div type="distribution">
        <tax:p> DISTRIBUTION.— Known only from an isolated mountain in <tax:collection_event><tax:locality>Northeastern
              Madagascar, Réserve Spéciale Anjanaharibe-Sud, 14°45′S, 049°27′E</tax:locality>, collected at an elevation
            of 1565 m</tax:collection_event>. Collections in nearby mountains such as
          <tax:locality>Marojejy</tax:locality> did not locate any specimens of this species. </tax:p>
      </tax:div>
    </tax:treatment>
    <tax:div type="discussion">
      <tax:p> CONSERVATION </tax:p>
      <tax:p> Arthropods present several challenges to those dedicated to their conservation. First, they are small and
        inconspicuous, and thus often forgotten during the conservation planning process. Second, arthropods are
        overwhelmingly diverse and as a whole, barely known. Is it pragmatic to develop a conservation strategy for a
        fauna we scarcely know? Third, because arthropods show a <tax:pb id="pb-10" n="666"/> remarkable level of local
        endemism, they will require strategies and policies that are different from those developed to conserve birds
        and plants. A case in point is Mauritius. </tax:p>
      <tax:p> Conservation in Mauritius is heavily biased to bird and plant preservation (Safford and Jones, 1998;
        Fowler et al 2000, Nicholas et al. 2004). Land management practices are tailored to benefit plants and birds,
        but not invertebrates. They are fighting the battle to protect the dwindling patches of native vegetation and
        bird populations. For plants, this includes the establishments of Conservation Management Areas where alien
        plants are manually removed (Dulloo et al 2002). In these plots, weedy vegetation is removed up to three times a
        year. The active removal of large number of weedy plants, however, creates large areas of bare soil and
        understory (Dulloo et al 2002, pers. obs.). This disturbance facilitates the establishment of invasive ants, at
        the expense of any remaining native ants (pers. obs). </tax:p>
      <tax:p> The small, one-hectare patch of native forest left on Le Pouce could be destroyed for native ants if an
        active weeding program is initiated. The closed vegetation is essential for the survival of the endemic
          <tax:name>Discothyrea</tax:name>, <tax:name>Pristomyremx</tax:name>, and <tax:name>Acropya</tax:name>, which
        thrive in the cold, moist understory. With weeding and increased insolation and disturbance, the invasive ants
        that surround this small patch would quickly move in and destroy this ant sanctuary. </tax:p>
      <tax:p> An alternative approach to the manual weeding strategy would be to plant native trees around this patch,
        including <tax:name>Nuxia verticillata</tax:name>, which is home to <tax:name>Proceratium</tax:name> and
          <tax:name>Pristomyrmex</tax:name>. The goal would be to create a dense closed canopy of natives around this
        patch without disturbing the patch itself. Over time, the effective size of this patch could expand. We also
        advise that future collections of endemic ants in Mauritius avoid collecting entire colonies. </tax:p>
      <tax:p> Mauritius has shown that once invasive ants take hold, there is almost no way to return the land to native
        ants and healthy arthropod communities (pers. obs.). Therefore, in Madagascar, land managers must monitor for
        invasive arthropods. Even though remnant patches of forest may be preserved, invasion by aggressive exotic ants
        may drive native ants locally extinct. One of the simplest and most effective methods is to track the presence
        or absence of invasive ants. In this approach, targeted collecting can be performed in habitats and
        microenvironments most likely to harbor invasives. </tax:p>
    </tax:div>
    <tax:div type="acknowledgments">
      <tax:p> ACKNOWLEDGMENTS </tax:p>
      <tax:p> This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DEB-0344731 to B.L. Fisher and
        P.S. Ward. Fieldwork that provided the basis for this work could not have been completed without the support of
        Lorch Lach, Andy Suarez, and Vikash Tatayah from the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation. I am also grateful for the
        Arthropod Inventory Team (Balsama Rajemison, Jean-Jacques Rafanomezantsoa, Chrislain Ranaivo, Coco
        Randriambololona, Hanitriniana Rasoazanamavo, Nicole Rasoamanana, Clavier Randrianandrasana, Valerie
        Rakotomalala, and Dimby Raharinjanahary) who helped collect and process this material. I thank April Nobile for
        creating the images. </tax:p>
    </tax:div>
    <tax:ref_group>
      <tax:head>REFERENCES</tax:head>
      <tax:bibref> BARONI URBANI, C., AND M.L. DE ANDRADE. 2003. The ant genus Proceratium in the extant and fossil
        record (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Monografie 36: 1–480. </tax:bibref>
      <tax:bibref> BROWN, W.L. 1958. Contributions towards a reclassification of the Formicidae. 2. Tribe Ectatommini.
        Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. 118:175–362 </tax:bibref>
      <tax:bibref> BROWN, W.L. 1974. A remarkable new island isolate in the ant genus Proceratium (Hymenoptera:
        Formicidae). Psyche 81:70–83. </tax:bibref>
      <tax:pb id="pb-11" n="667"/>
      <tax:bibref> BROWN, W.L. 1980. A remarkable new species of Proceratium, with dietary and other notes on the genus
        (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Psyche 86:337–346. </tax:bibref>
      <tax:bibref> DULLOO, M.E., S.P. KELL, AND C.G. JONES. 2002. Conservation of endemic forest species and the threat
        of invasive species. International Forestry Review 4:277–285. </tax:bibref>
      <tax:bibref> FISHER, B.L. 1998. Ant diversity patterns along an elevational gradient in the Réserve Spéciale
        d’Anjanaharibe-Sud and on the western Masoala Peninsula, Madagascar. Pages 39–67 in S.M. Goodman, ed., A Floral
        and Faunal Inventory of the Réserve Spéciale d’Anjanaharibe-Sud, Madagascar: with Reference to Elevational
        Variation. Fieldiana: Zoology, n.s., 90:1–246 </tax:bibref>
      <tax:bibref> FISHER, B.L. 2005. AModel for a Global Inventory of Ants: ACase Study in Madagascar. Pages 78–89 in
        N.G. Jablonski and M.T. Ghiselin, eds., Biodiversity: A Symposium Held on the Occasion of the 150th Anniversary
        of the California Academy of Sciences June 17–18, 2003. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, ser.
        4, 56(Suppl. I). </tax:bibref>
      <tax:bibref> FOWLER, S.V., S. GANESHAN, J. MAUREMOOTOO, AND Y. MUNGROO. 2000. Biological Control of Weeds in
        Mauritius: Past Successes Revisited and Present Challenges. Pages 43–50 in Neal R. Spences, ed., Proceedings of
        the Xth International Symposium on Control of the Weeds, 4-14 July 1999. Montana State University, Bozeman,
        Montana, USA. </tax:bibref>
      <tax:bibref><tax:xid type="doi" identifier="doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150444"/> HOLWAY, D.A., L. LACH,
        A.V. SUAREZ, N.D. TSUTSUI, AND T.J. CASE. 2002. The causes and consequences of ant invasions. Annual Review of
        Ecology and Systematics 33:181–233. </tax:bibref>
      <tax:bibref> LORENCE, D.H., AND R. W. SUSSMAN. 1986. Exotic species invasion into Mauritius wet forest remnants.
        Journal of Tropical Ecology 2:147–162. </tax:bibref>
      <tax:bibref> NICHOLS, R., L. WOOLAVER, AND C. JONES. 2004. Continued decline and conservation needs of the
        endangered Mauritius olive white-eye Zosterops chloronothos. Oryx 38:291–296. </tax:bibref>
      <tax:bibref><tax:xid type="doi" identifier="doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00048-1"/> SAFFORD, R.J. 1997.A survey of
        the occurrence of native vegetation remnants on Mauritius in 1993. Biological Conservation 80:181–188. </tax:bibref>
      <tax:bibref><tax:xid type="doi" identifier="doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.96177.x"/> SAFFORD, R.J., AND C.G. JONES.
        1998. Strategies for Land-Bird Conservation on Mauritius. Conservation Biology 12:169–176. </tax:bibref>
      <tax:bibref> WARD, P.S. 1988. Mesic elements in the western Nearctic ant fauna: taxonomic and biological notes on
        Amblyopone, Proceratium, and Smithistruma (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society
        61:102–124. </tax:bibref>
      <tax:bibref> WARD, P.S. 1990. The endangered ants of Mauritius: Doomed like the Dodo? Notes from the Underground
        4:3–5. </tax:bibref>
    </tax:ref_group>
    <tax:div>
      <tax:p> Copyright © 2005 by the California Academy of Sciences </tax:p>

      <tax:p> San Francisco, California, U.S.A. </tax:p>

    </tax:div>

  </tax:taxonxBody>
</tax:taxonx>
