Key to Species of Rimosus Group Workers

Fig. 5. Side view of a male of Cyphomyrmex wheeleri (from Creighton, 1950). Fig. 1. Side view of a worker of Cyphomyrmex sp. (from Serna, 1999).

Fig. 6. Fore wing of a female of Cyphomyrmex wheeleri (from Creighton, 1950).

Fig. 2. Head of a worker of Cyphomyrmex sp. (from Serna, 199?). Key to the workers of the of the genus Cyphomyrmex, rimosus species complex 1

1. Preocular carina not curved mesally in front of eye; postero-lateral Fig. 3. Side view of a worker of limit of scrobe marked by a difference in Cyphomyrmex wheeleri (from Creighton, sculpture and usually without posterior 1950). carina (Fig. x), except C. wheeleri (Fig. x) ...... …………...... …………..... 2 - Preocular carina curved mesally in front of eye; postero-lateral limit of scrobe marked by another carina arising from occipital corner and extending to border of eye, but never confluent with preocular carina (Fig. x) ……...... 4 2(1). Antennal scape not surpassing Fig. 4. Side view of a female of Cyphomyrmex wheeleri (from Creighton, occipital corner in repose; lateral 1950). pronotal tubercles prominent; posterior genal carina present ...... 3 - Antennal scape surpassing occipital corner in repose; lateral

1 From Snelling and Longino (1992) pronotal tubercles absent; posterior genal - Metafemur not dilated and carina absent below………………….. ventrally carinate at basal one-third (Fig. …………………… longiscapus Weber x) ; funicular segments 2 - 8 distinctly 3(2). Disc of first gastral tergum with longer than broad .....…………...... 9 strong longitudinal ridge on each side of 8(7). Propodeum dentate with basal middle; mid-pronotal tubercles absent; face laterally marginate to carinate (Fig. postero-dorsal margin of petiole neither xx); apex of scape scarcely surpassing drawn out nor bidentate tip of occipital corner………………… ……………...... …………………….. flavidus Pergande costatus Mann - Propodeum edentate and basal - Disc of first gastral tergum face rounded, neither marginate nor without costa on either side of middle; carinate laterally (Fig. x); apex of scape mid-pronotal tubercles present; postero- surpassing occipital corner by more than dorsal margin of petiole drawn out as its greatest thickness foliaceous bidentate lamina ……...... peltatus …………...... …...... Kempf wheeleri Forel 9(7). Occipital corner low and obtuse, 4(1). Antennal scape not surpassing not spine-like (Fig. x); anterior strongly auriculate occipital corner (Fig. mesonotal tubercles low and obtuse (Fig. x); pronotum without tubercles (Fig. x) ...... ……...... 10 x) ...... - Occipital corner prominent and ………...... 5 spine-like (Fig. x); anterior mesonotal - Antennal scapes usually tubercles prominent, acute and distinctly surpassing occipital corner (Fig. x); if longer than wide at base (Fig. latter are prolonged, at least lateral x) ...... cornutus pronotal tubercles are present (Fig x) ... Kempf …………………………………….... 6 10(9). Anterior clypeal margin distinctly 5(4). Anterior mesonotal tubercles emarginate in middle; parafrontal tooth conical, posterior tubercles low and conspicuous (Fig. x); propodeum not tumuliform,; petiole node much less than angulate in profile (Fig. 3 times wider than long x) ...... nesiotus Snelling ……………… ...... and Longino ………... bicornis Forel - Clypeal margin straight; - Mesosoma completely unarmed, parafrontal tooth weak; propodeum dorsal profile evenly rounded (Fig x); angulate in profile (Fig. x) ………. petiole node about 3 times broader than …… ...... …...... kirbyi long ..……………..... laevigatus Weber Mayr 6(4). Mid-pronotal tubercle pair 11(6). Maximum expansion of frontal absent ...... carinae less than, or equal to, distance ...... 7 between eyes (Fig. x); mesosoma tinely? - Mid-pronotal tubercle pair but distinctly rugose (lateral pronotal present ...... 11 and anterior mesonotal tubercles long 7(6). Metafemur dilated and ventrally and spine-like) ..………………...... 12 carinate at basal one-third (Fig x); - Maximum expansion of frontal funicular segments 2-8 about as long as carinae conspcuously greater than broad ...... 8 distance between eyes (Fig. x); tubercle lower and more obtuse than mesosoma granulose, without rugae . 13 anterior tubercle …….…... salvini Forel 12(11).Expanse of frontal carinae less - Occipital spine broader at base than interocular distance; propodeum than high; propodeum with sharply with pair of longitudinal submedian defined lateral carinae terminating on carinae; dorsal lobes of post-petiole declivity as a triangular tooth (Fig. x); strongly raised and subspiniform ……… posterior mesonotal tubercle nearly as ...... …...... …..... foxi Andre high and acute as anterior tooth ………. - Expanse of frontal carinae at …… bicarinatus Snelling and Longino least equal to interocular distance; 17(13).Node of petiole less than three propodeum without longitudinal times as broad as long; disc of node of submedian carinae; dorsal lobes of post- post-petiole with median impression petiole low and rounded .……………..... shallow and ill-defined; body hairs ...... podargus Snelling and Longino usually fine …………………….…… 18 13(11).Occipital corners, in frontal view, - Node of petiole three times as elevated as a broad lobe (Fig. x) or broad as long; disc of node of post- distinctly spine-like; anterior mesonotal petiole broad and deeply impressed; tubercles high, usually conical ...….... 14 body hairs thickly squamose ………… - Occipital corners, in frontal view, ……………………. transversus Emery low and sub-angulate, neither elevated 18(17).Hairs on head and gaster nor spine-like (Fig. x); anterior appressed and scaliform; mesosomal mesonotal tubercles usually low and tubercles usually low and tumuliform, tumuliform ....……….…………….... 17 but if subacute or dentiform, propodeum 14(13).Occipital corners produced as is bispinose ……………………..…... 19 spine-like process (Fig. x) anterior - Hairs on head and first gastral mesonotal tubercle high, conical ...... 15 tergum recurved or hook-like, neither - Occipital corner produced as appressed nor scaliform; thoracic broad lobe, frontal carina extending to tubercles sharply pointed and top of lobe to join posterior carina (Fig. propodeum without spines ………..…… x); anterior mesonotal tubercle high but ..……………….…... hamulatus Weber obtuse (Fig. x) ...…………. major Forel 19(18).Posterior face of propodeum 15(14).Basal longitudinal groove of first slightly angulate or with pair of broad, gastral tergum distinct; posterior tooth-like protuberances (Fig. x) …... 20 mesonotal tubercles conical; appressed - Posterior face of propodeum with and subappressed hairs of gastral tergum pair of definitely spiniform processes broad and scale-like .…...... 16 (Fig. x) ... dixus Snelling and Longino - Basal longitudinal groove of first 20(19).Small species, head width 0.56 gastral tergum weak or absent; posterior mm or less; hairs in center of first gastral mesonotal tubercles low, not tooth-like; tergum closely appressed and mostly hairs of gastral tergum slender or broad, separated by more than their own all appressed ..………... vorticis Weber lengths; median basal groove of first 16(15).Occipital spine higher than broad gastral tergum short and usually at base; propodeum without sharply indistinct (Fig. x) …...… minutus Mayr defined lateral ridges and without tooth - Larger species, head width more on declivity; posterior mesonotal than 0.62 mm; hairs in center of first gastral tergum coarse, not fully appressed, and mostly separated by less x); hind femora noticeably broadened than their own lengths; basal groove of and angulate beneath at basal third, with first gastral tergum distinct and more a prominent foliaceous rim on posterior than twice as long as wide (Fig. x) border …………….. plaumanni Kempf ……………….…..… rimosus (Spinola) - Frontal lobes more rounded and distinctly constricted behind, not continuous with frontal carinae (Fig. x); Key to the Workers of hind femora not conspicuously broadened nor angulate at basal third, Cyphomyrmex of the strigatus lacking a foliaceous rim on posterior 2 group border ……………...... strigatus Mayr 6(3). Scape in repose surpassing occipital lobe (Fig. x); pronotal and 1. Promesonotum without tubercles posterior mesonotal tubercles well- ………………..….. lilloanus Kusnezov developed and conical; epinotum in - Promesonotum with at least some profile angulate or dentate (Fig. x) of the tubercles developed ………..… 2 ……………………. paniscus Wheeler 2(1). Occipital lobes distinctly - Scape in repose not surpassing auriculate (Fig. x), protruding also in occipital lobe (Fig. x); only anterior profile (Fig. x); antennal scrobe opaque mesonotal tubercles well-developed, with indistinct microsculpture ……….. 3 high and conical, all other very low, tumuliform (Fig. x); propodeum in - Occipital lobes not auriculate profile rounded and unarmed …….….. 7 (Figs x), or if somewhat projecting in 7(6). Posterior border of postpetiole full-face view, they do not project in deeply excised (Fig. x) ………..………. profile (Figs xx); antennal scrobe …………………….. bigibbosus Emery superficially reticulate and somewhat - Posterior border of postpetiole shining ……………………….………. 8 straight (Fig. x) ….... faunulus Wheeler 3(2). Tergum 1 of gaster laterally 8(2). Basal face of epinotum very carinate with 2 additional longitudinal short and completely unarmed (Fig. x); carinae on disc ……………………….. 4 frontal carinae covering the upper orbit - Tergum 1 of gaster lacking discal of eye in full-face view (Fig. x); inferior carinae, lateral ones usually not well- occipital corner with a foliaceous rim developed …………………………..... 6 (Fig. x) ………………….... lectus Forel 4(3). Occipital lobes horn-like, longer - Basal face of propodeum almost than their maximum width (Fig. x); as long as posterior face, bearing mesonotum with high, acute conical posteriorly a pair of at least feeble spines (Fig. x) ………….. auritus Mayr tubercles or teeth; frontal carinae less - Occipital lobes distinctly shorter expanded laterad, not reaching upper than their maximum width (Fig. xx); orbit of eye in full-face view; inferior mesonotum bluntly tuberculate (Fig. x) corner of occiput without a foliaceous …………………..……………………. 5 rim ….………………………………... 9 5(4). Frontal lobes nearly straight and 9(8). Posterior loop of antennal scrobe scarcely constricted behind, only vestigially marginate, its lateral subcontinuous with frontal carinae (Fig. border not coinciding with lateral border of head (Fig. x); antero-inferior corner of 2 From Kempf (1964) pronotum produced anteriorlly into a midpronotal tubercles usually present; short spine (Fig. x) ……morschi Emery propodeal spines well-developed …….. - Posterior loop of antennal scrobe ……………..…………... auritus Mayr sharply marginate, its lateral border - Occipital lobes short and coinciding with lateral border of head; rounded, shorter than their width at base; antero-inferior corner of pronotum midpronotal tubercles always absent; subrectangular …………………….... 10 epinotum practically unarmed ……….. 10(9). Scape in repose conspicuously ………………………. strignatus Mayr surpassing the occipital corner (Fig. x); 3(1). Antennal scrobe densely, but hind femora longer than maximum indistinctly granulate and opaque; length of head capsule, ventrally not paraptera of mesonotum with tooth that dilated nor carinate at basal third ……… either projects upward or caudad ……. 4 ……………………. daguerrei Santschi - Antennal scrobe sharply and - Scape in repose barely if at all distinctly reticulate and somewhat surpassing the occipital corner; hind shining; paraptera of mesonotum femora not longer than maximum length flattened above, its lateral and posterior of head capsule, ventrally dilated or margin completely rounded without angulate and carinate at basal third .... 11 projecting tooth ……………………… 6 11(10).Lateral lobes of petiole ventrally 4(3). Antennal scape in repose deeply excavate, outer borders broadly surpassing occipital lobes; propodeal foliaceous; midpronotal and antero- spines well developed; lateral borders of lateral mesonotal tubercles indistinct, gastric tergum 1 marginate ……………. dorsum of thorax in profile strikingly flat ………………..…… paniscus Wheeler (Fig. x) ………………. bruchi Santschi - Antennal scape in repose not - Lateral lobes of petiole ventrally surpassing occipital lobes; propodeal at most shallowly excavate and mostly spines at best vestigial; lateral borders solid; midpronotal and antero-lateral of first gastric tergum immarginate mesonotal tubercles distinct, dorsum of ……………………………………….. 5 mesosoma in profile convex with 5(4). Posterior border of postpetiole prominent tubercles and deeper with deep mesial excision, flanked by impressions (Fig. x) ……… olitor Forel prominent tubercles . bigobbosus Emery - Posterior border of postpetiole straight, without a mesial excision Key to the Known ……………………. faunulus Wheeler Females of the strigatus 6(3). Hind femora longer than head 2 capsule, slender, ventrally not gradually group of Cyphomyrmex dilated towards basal third nor angulate, their posterior ventral border not 1. Tergum 1 of gaster with 4 carinate; antennal scape in repose longitudinal carinae, 2 on disc and 1 on surpassing occipital angle or lobe …… 7 each side ……………………………... 2 - Hind femora shorter than head - Tergum 1 of gaster lacking a capsule, ventrally gradually dilated pair of longitudinal carinae on disc; sides towards basal third where they form either marginate or immarginate ..…... 3 more or less distinct angle; their postero- 2(1). Occipital lobes long, horn-like, ventral border carinate to crested; longer than their width at base; antennal scape in repose not surpassing occipital lobe ……………………..….. 8 7(6). Petiole longer than broad, its dorsum with pair of prominent and laterally compressed teeth; maximum diameter of eyes nearly one third of head length …………..…… occultus Kempf - Petiole broader than long, dorsally completely flattened without teeth; maximum diameter of eyes less than ¼ of head length ……………….. ……………………...... morschi Emery 8(6). Longitudinal furrow on tergum 1 of gaster broad and distinct, traversed by rugulae; propodeal spines almost obsolete …………….. nemei Kusnezov - Longitudinal furrow on tergum 1 of gaster less distinctly impressed, not traversed by rugulae; propodeal spines usually fairly well developed ………….. ……………………….…… olitor Forel

Literature Cited Kempf, W. 1964. A revision of the Neotropical fungus-growing ants of the genus Cyphomyrmex Mayr. Part I: Group of strigatus Mayr (Hym., Formicidae). Stud. Entomol. 7:1- 44. Serna, F. 1999. Hormigas de la zona de influencia del Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Porec II. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, xiv + 250 pp. Snelling, R. and J. Longino. 1992. Pevisionary notes on the fungus-growingants of the genus Cyphomyrmex, rimosus group. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Attini). pp.479-494. In: Quintero, D. and A. Aiello (ed.), Insects of Panama and Mesoamerica: selected studies. Oxford University Press, 692 pp.