Introduced Pheidole of The World: Taxonomy, Biology and Distribution

A peer-reviewed open-access journal
ZooKeys 543: 1–109 (2015)

Introduced Pheidole of the world 1
doi: 10.3897/zookeys.543.6050 RESEARCH ARTICLE
http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research
Introduced Pheidole of the world:

taxonomy, biology and distribution
Eli M. Sarnat1, Georg Fischer2, Benoit Guénard3, Evan P. Economo2,4
1 Department of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 320 Morrill Hall 505 South
Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA 2 Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University,
1919-1 Tancha, Onna-son, Okinawa, Japan, 904-0495 3 School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong
Kong, Kadoorie Biological Sciences Building, Pok Fu Lam Road, Hong Kong SAR, China 4 Department of
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, 830 N. University St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
Corresponding author: Eli M. Sarnat (e.sarnat@gmail.com)
Academic editor: B. Fisher | Received 20 May 2015 | Accepted 1 October 2015 | Published 9 December 2015
http://zoobank.org/4E2375F0-A382-4F3C-B7A4-DCC5148A67B0
Citation: Sarnat EM, Fischer G, Guénard B, Economo EP (2015) Introduced Pheidole of the world: taxonomy, biology
and distribution. ZooKeys 543: 1–109. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.543.6050
Abstract
The objective of this study is to provide a detailed taxonomic resource for identifying and studying ants
in the genus Pheidole that have established beyond their native ranges. There is an increasing need for
systematists to study taxa of specific concern to 21st century environmental, food security and public health
challenges. Systematics has an important role to play in both the theoretical and applied disciplines of
invasion biology. Few invaders impact terrestrial ecosystems more than ants. Among the world’s 100 worst
invasive species is the cosmopolitan and highly destructive Pheidole megacephala (Fabricius). Accurate
identification of P. megacephala is imperative for the success of screening, management and eradication
programs designed to protect native ecosystems from the impacts of this destructive species. However,
accurate identification of Pheidole species is difficult because of their taxonomic diversity, dimorphic
worker caste and lack of taxonomic resources. Illustrated keys are included, along with the taxonomic
history, taxonomic diagnoses, biological notes and risk statements for the 14 most invasive members of
the genus. Global distribution maps based on over 14,000 specimen and literature records are presented
for each species. These results of this work will facilitate identification of pest species, determination of
climatic and habitat requirements, discovery of pest origins, horizon scanning and assessment of invasion
pathways. The following new synonym is proposed, with the senior synonym listed first and the junior
synonyms in parentheses: Pheidole indica Mayr (= P. teneriffana Forel, and its synonyms P. taina Aguayo
and P. voeltzkowii Forel). Pheidole navigans Forel, stat. rev., stat. n. is removed from synonymy and
Copyright Eli M. Sarnat et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC
BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
2 Eli M. Sarnat et al. / ZooKeys 543: 1–109 (2015)
elevated to species rank. It is proposed that records of P. moerens Forel outside of the Mesoamerica and the
Caribbean refer instead to P. navigans or other heterospecific taxa in the P. flavens species complex. We
propose that the names P. anastasii Emery and P. floridana Emery have been widely misapplied to North
American outdoor records of P. bilimeki Mayr. It is suggested that the synonymy of P. lauta Wheeler be
transferred from P. floridana Emery to P. bilimeki Mayr.
Keywords
Applied systematics, big-headed ant, invasive species, invasive ants, identification key, Lucid key, Pheidole
megacephala, port of entry, species distribution
Introduction
The science of systematics has historically focused on the discovery, description and
classification of life on earth with relatively little attention given to the ecological or
economic impact of the study taxon. Today, there is an increasing need for systema-
tists to study taxa of particular concern to 21st century environmental, food security
and public health challenges. Systematics has an important role to play in both the
theoretical and applied disciplines of invasion biology (Gotzek et al. 2012; Le Roux
and Wieczorek 2009). Although biological invasion is most closely associated with the
recent range expansions of species during the Anthropocene, the dispersal of colonist
taxa into novel ecosystems is as old as life itself. Study of contemporary invasion ecol-
ogy and its evolutionary consequences informs a deeper understanding of prehistoric
patterns and processes. Correspondingly, study of ecological and evolutionary impacts
of ancient colonization events gives historical context to contemporary invasions. Sys-
tematics can help bridge this gap separating invasion biology from biodiversity science
by advancing integrative theories such as taxon cycles (Economo and Sarnat 2012;
Ricklefs and Bermingham 2002). Systematics is also critical to the success of invasive
species management. Pest screening, early detection programs and monitoring effi-
cacy all depend on accurate, species-level identifications. Obtaining high-confidence
identifications is particularly difficult for hyper-diverse groups such as insects. The few
taxonomic resources that exist for insect identification are too often dated, regional,
poorly illustrated, and inaccessible to non-specialists.
Invasive species are among the most significant drivers of global change, and few
invaders impact terrestrial ecosystems more than ants (Lach and Hooper-Bùi 2009).
Of the approximately 15,000 described ants species, more than 100 have established
populations outside of their native ranges (McGlynn 1999). Although invasive ants are
economically costly in both urban and agricultural areas, the most serious consequenc-
es of their introduction may be ecological. Invasive ants can greatly modify ecosystems
by reducing native ant diversity, displacing other arthropods, negatively impacting
vertebrate populations, and disrupting ant-plant mutualisms (Suarez et al. 2009).
A small subset of introduced ants have become highly destructive invaders, five
of which are currently listed among the world’s 100 worst invasive species (Lowe et
al. 2000). Unfortunately, detection of non-native ants is hampered by the taxonomic
specialization required for accurate species identification of these tiny and overwhelm-
ingly diverse insects. Most of the scientists responsible for identifying ant specimens
for pest screening, early-detection programs and monitoring initiatives are not trained
ant taxonomists. Although advances in specimen imaging, interactive keys and online
resources are welcome developments, increasing the taxonomic capacity for identify-
ing invasive, introduced and commonly intercepted ant species remains a challenge
(Sarnat 2011).
Among the world’s 100 worst invasive species (Lowe et al. 2000) is the cosmo-
politan and highly destructive Pheidole megacephala (Fabricius), known commonly as
the big-headed ant. Accurate identification of P. megacephala is imperative for the
success of screening, management and eradication programs designed to protect native
ecosystems from harmful impacts. Many non-specialists – and many myrmecologists
– have confused other species of Pheidole with P. megacephala (Wetterer, 2012). This
is not surprising. Pheidole (Formicidae: Myrmicinae) is arguably the most speciose
monophyletic ant genus in the world, with over 1,000 extant valid species, 138 valid
subspecies (Bolton 2014) and hundreds of undescribed species. Accurate identification
of Pheidole species is especially difficult because of their taxonomic diversity, dimor-
phic worker caste, and lack of taxonomic resources. The term ‘Pheidole sp.’ is ubiq-
uitous across ecological and biodiversity publications, including many that focus on
tramp ants (e.g. Passera 1994). Recent revisions of Pheidole (Eguchi 2001b; 2004b;
2008; Eguchi et al. 2007; Fischer and Fisher 2013; Fischer et al. 2012; Longino 2009;
Longino and Cox 2009; Sarnat 2008; Wilson 2003) have advanced the taxonomy of
this difficult group. Even at the pace of these past decades, it will be generations before
modern identification resources will be available for the majority of known species.
Identification resources for diagnosing the world’s 14 most invasive Pheidole spe-
cies are presented here (Table 1). These resources include a fully illustrated key, speci-
men photographs and distribution maps, in addition to sections on taxonomic history,
taxonomic diagnoses, biology, and risk statements. The results of this work will facili-
tate identification of pest species, determination of climatic and habitat requirements,
discovery of pest origins, horizon scanning, and assessment of invasion pathways.
This analysis of the world’s introduced Pheidole indicates that two of the most wide-
spread tramp species, P. indica Mayr and P. teneriffana Forel, each the subject of consid-
erable research and attention, are actually conspecific. This underscores the importance
of systematics in understanding biodiversity dynamics in the Anthropocene.
Defining invasiveness
Biological invasion is a process that is most simply described by successive stages of
transport, introduction, establishment and spread (Vermeij 1996). Quantifying inva-
siveness is a difficult task, but one made easier by the unified framework for biological
invasion proposed by Blackburn et al. (2011). We incorporate Pheidole taxa into this
framework in an effort to advance comparative invasion biology, but acknowledge
Table 1. Species of Pheidole recorded as established outside of their native bioregion. The clade or species
group to which each species belongs is listed and defined by the given authority. Clade names are informal
designations and are given to convey broad evolutionary relationships among the species. Asterisks (*)
note clade designations that are presumed based on morphological similarity.
Species Clade/Group Native bioregion Source

(Economo et al. 2015, unpublished
P. anastasii Emery punctatissima clade Neotropics
data; Moreau 2008)
(Economo et al. 2015, unpublished
P. bilimeki Mayr punctatissima clade Neotropics
data ; Moreau 2008) (as P. floridana)
P. fervens Smith, F. fervens clade Indoaustralia (Economo et al. 2015)
P. flavens Roger flavens-complex Neotropics (Economo et al. 2015; Moreau 2008)
P. indica Mayr fervens clade Indoaustralia (Economo et al. 2015, unpublished data)
P. megacephala
megacephala group Afrotropics (Economo et al. 2015)
(Fabricius)
Unpublished data (see discussion under
P. navigans Forel flavens-complex Neotropics
species account)
P. noda Smith, F. noda clade Indoaustralian (Economo et al. 2015)
P. obscurithorax Naves fallax clade Neotropics (Economo et al. 2015; Moreau 2008)
P. parva Mayr parva clade Indoaustralia /Indomalaya (Economo et al. 2015)
P. proxima Mayr *ampla group Indoaustralia (Australia) –
P. punctatissima Mayr punctatissima clade Neotropics (Economo et al. 2015, unpublished data)
P. rugosula Forel *variabilis clade Indoaustralia (Australia) (Economo et al. 2015)
P. vigilans (Smith, F.) undefined Indoaustralia (Australia) –
that these categories fail to convey the idiosyncrasies of each lineage’s invasion history.
Separating native range from introduced range is similarly problematic. It is likely that
all the treated species are expanding their range within their native biogeographical
region as the result of human activity and global environmental change. We therefore
define introduced populations strictly as those occurring beyond the lineage’s native
biogeographic realm.
Following the Blackburn et al. (2011) framework, we assign four Pheidole lineages
to category ‘C0’ (individuals released into the wild in location where introduced, but
incapable of surviving for a significant period) (Table 2). Pheidole noda fits this cat-
egory, as it is recorded as being introduced only in European greenhouses and is not
known to have established permanent populations outside its native range in Asia. The
other three species we assigned to the ‘C0’ category all belong to the Mesoamerican
P. punctatissima clade. All three have been reported as occurring indoors beyond their
native bioregion. Of these, P. bilimeki is the most widespread and maintains estab-
lished reproducing outdoor populations in the southern United States. While it can be
argued that these northern populations resulted from human-mediated dispersal, they
remain contiguous with putatively native Mesoamerican populations, thus we refrain
from defining them as introduced.
Nine lineages are assigned to category ‘D2’ (individuals surviving in the wild in loca-
tions where introduced, with reproduction occurring, and population self-sustaining).
Table 2. Biological characteristics of introduced Pheidole species arranged by species name. Sizes (head width measured in mm) are the same as the observed values
reported in the species accounts. Invasiveness codes refer to Blackburn et al. (2011). Asterisks indicate name used in reference is considered here to be either a junior
synonym or misapplication. References listed: (1) Birkemoe and Aak 2008, (2) Longino and Cox 2009, (3) Naves 1985, (4) Wilson 2003, (5) Morrison 1996, (6)
Passera 1994, (7) Reimer 1994, (8) Martínez 1996, (9) Chen et al. 2011, (10) Wilson and Taylor 1967, (11) Boer and Vierbergen 2008, (12) Sarnat and Economo
2012, (13) Longino 2014, (14) Martínez 1992, (15) Fischer and Fisher 2013, (16) Hölldobler and Wilson 1990, (17) Hoffmann 1998, (18) Delabie et al. 1995,
(19) Yamamoto et al. 2009, (20) Yamawo et al. 2012, (21) King and Tschinkel 2007, (22) Storz and Tschinkel 2004, (23) Man and Lee 2012, (24) Green and
Gunawardana 2006, (25) Berry et al. 1997, (26) Harris et al. 2005, (27) Wilson 1987, (28) Terayama et al., (29) Yamane et al.
Size of major Size of minor Colony Forages on or nests

Species Gyny Colony structure Colony size Indoor pest Invasiveness
(HW) (HW) foundation in vegetation
P. anastasii 0.83–1.05 0.38–0.50 monogynous [1] polydomous [2] – – yes [1, 2] yes [2] C0
Introduced Pheidole of the world

monogynous 600–4000
P. bilimeki 0.75–1.04 0.42–0.52 polydomous [4*] dependent [3*] yes [1, 2] yes [2] C0
[1, 3*, 4*] [3*, 4*, 27*]
polydomous, ca. 1000
P. fervens 1.13–1.44 0.52–0.63 polygynous [5-7] – yes [10, 11] yes [12] D2
unicolonial [7, 8] [9]
P. flavens 0.68–0.83 0.34–0.45 – – – 2000+[4] no yes [13] D2
P. indica 1.32–1.74 0.50–0.65 polygynous [28] polydomous [14] dependent [14] 500–1000 no yes [15] D2
P. megacephala 1.10–1.54 0.50–0.61 polygynous [16] unicolonial [17] dependent [17] 10,000+ (?) yes yes [11, 18] E
P. navigans 0.84–0.88 0.40–0.45 monogynous monodomous [3*] dependent [3*] 600+[3*] no – D2
polygynous (?) dependent (?)
P. noda 1.58–1.82 0.57–0.66 – 3000 [28] no yes [20] D2
[19, 28] [19]
monodomous
P. obscurithorax 1.47–1.70 0.60–0.67 monogynous [21] – ~10,000 [21] no – D2
[21, 22]
P. parva 0.85–0.92 0.39–0.50 – – – – yes [23] yes [15] D2
P. proxima 0.95–1.05 0.46 – monodomous [24] – – yes [25] – D2
P. punctatissima 0.86–1.06 0.44–0.50 – – – – yes [2] yes [2] C0
P. rugosula 0.88 0.45 – – – – yes [25, 26] yes [25] D2
P. vigilans 1.30 0.55 – – – – yes [25] – D2
5
The least invasive of these are likely the three Australian species (P. proxima, P. rugosula,
P. vigilans) that have established persistent populations in New Zealand, but have not
been reported from elsewhere (although P. vigilans is reported as introduced in Western
Australia). Only P. rugosula has been listed in examined interception records, and that
was a single New Zealand record from Australia (Ward et al. 2006). Pheidole parva, P.
fervens and P. indica are all from the Indomalayan bioregion and have managed to estab-
lish reproducing outdoor populations beyond their native range. Although the propagule
pressure of these species is relatively strong, as evidenced by their frequent interception at
ports of entry (Table 3), the introduced populations of all three tend to be small and rela-
tively localized. Pheidole obscurithorax and the P. flavens-complex (including P. flavens
and P. navigans) are both Neotropical lineages that have established persistent and ac-
tively spreading populations in the southern United States. The former is documented as
causing a greater ecological impact, but the latter is more widespread and appears to have
greater propagule pressure, as evidenced by high numbers of interception records and
establishment of at least temporary populations in California and several Pacific Islands.
Pheidole megacephala is the only species assigned to category ‘E’ (fully invasive spe-
cies, with individuals dispersing, surviving and reproducing at multiple sites across a
greater or lesser spectrum of habitats and extent of occurrence). The vast majority of
introduced Pheidole specimen and occurrence records are attributed to P. megacephala.
It is the most geographically widespread species in the entire genus and its impact on
native ecosystems and agriculture are extensively documented.
Characteristics of introduced Pheidole

General characteristics and characters associated with invasion success
All Pheidole species treated here have a dimorphic worker caste. Their colonies typically
have hundreds to thousands of workers. They are all generalist foragers that feed on
some combination of dead arthropods, living arthropods, seeds and human foodstuffs.
The aforementioned characteristics are shared by nearly all of their congeners, however,
and cannot be considered promoters of invasion success among Pheidole. There is a
suite of biological characters that are broadly associated with introduced populations
of invasive ants, including unicoloniality and omnivory (Holway et al. 2002). Unico-
loniality – defined as the ability to form expansive and polygynous (multiple queened)
supercolonies – has only been observed in P. megacephala (Table 1). Only three other
species (P. fervens, P. indica and P. noda) are reported to be at least facultatively polygy-
nous. Four species besides P. megacephala are reported to exhibit polydomous popula-
tions (P. anastasii, P. bilimeki, P. fervens and P. indica).
One interesting pattern deserving further study is the propensity of introduced
Pheidole to use vegetation for either foraging or nesting (Table 1). Pheidole species,
in general, are most strongly associated with the ground, and exploitation of the veg-
etative or arboreal strata is relatively uncommon. One potential reason that foraging
Table 3. Specimen and literature records of Pheidole species intercepted at international ports of entry.
The original determinations for specimens included here are available on Antweb.org. [1] Antweb.org
(Available from http://www.antweb.org. Accessed 20 March 2015); [2] Boer and Vierbergen 2008; [3]
Boer 2015; [4] Ward et al. 2006; [5] Wheeler 1934.
Unique Native Bioregion of Record

Species Taxonomic notes
collections bioregion interception source
P. bilimeki Mayr 4 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. cf. bilimeki 3 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. dossena Wilson 1 Neotropical Holarctic [2]
P. fervens Smith, F. 235 Indomalaya Australasia [4]
P. fervens Smith, F. 5 Indomalaya Nearctic [1]
P. fervens Smith, F. Indomalaya Indoaustralia [5]
P. fervens Smith, F. Indomalaya Holarctic [3]
P. fervida Smith, F. 2 Indomalaya Nearctic [1]
P. flavens Roger 2 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. flavens-complex 6 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. harrisonfordi Wilson Neotropical Holarctic [3]
P. hyatti Emery Nearctic Indoaustralia [5]
P. indica Mayr 1 Indomalaya Australasia [4]
P. indica Mayr 8 Indomalaya Nearctic [1]
P. indica Mayr Indomalaya Holarctic [3]
P. laticornis Wilson Neotropical Holarctic [3]
P. megacephala (Fabricius) 890 Afrotropical Indoaustralia [5]
P. megacephala (Fabricius) 11 Afrotropical Nearctic [1]
P. noda Smith, F. 2 Indomalaya Australasia [1]
P. noda Smith, F. 2 Indomalaya Nearctic [1]
P. noda Smith, F. Indomalaya Indoaustralia [5]
P. nr. colpigaleata 1 Indomalaya Nearctic [1]
P. nr. mantilla 2 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. nr. marcidula 1 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. oceanica Mayr <5 Australasian Australasia [4]
P. pallidula (Nylander) 2 Holarctic Nearctic [1]
P. pallidula (Nylander) Holarctic Holarctic [3]
P. parva Mayr 1 Indomalaya Nearctic [1]
P. cf. parva 1 Indomalaya Nearctic [1]
P. perpusilla Emery 2 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. cf. pubiventris 1 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. punctatissima Mayr Neotropical Holarctic [3]
P. cf. punctatissima 12 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. cf. punctatissima Neotropical Indoaustralia [5]
P. punctulata Mayr 1 Afrotropical Nearctic [1]
P. radoszkowskii Mayr Neotropical Holarctic [3]
P. rugosula Forel 1 Australasia Australasia [4]
P. sexspinosa Mayr 1 Australasian Australasia [4]
Unique Native Bioregion of Record

Species Taxonomic notes
collections bioregion interception source
P. sp. mg126 nr. longispinosa 1 Afrotropical Nearctic [1]
P. sp. POE fallax group-a fallax group 1 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. sp. POE pilifera group-a pilifera group 1 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. sp. POE dilligens group-a dilligens group Wilson 1 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. sp. POE-F megacephala group 1 Afrotropical Nearctic [1]
P. sp. POE-G megacephala group 1 Afrotropical Nearctic [1]
P. sp. POE-H flavens group Wilson 1 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. sp. POE-I flavens group Wilson 1 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. spec. 1 Holarctic [3]
P. spec. 2 Holarctic [3]
P. subarmata Mayr Neotropical Holarctic [3]
P. susannae Forel 2-5 Neotropical Holarctic [2]
P. susannae Forel 1 Neotropical Nearctic [1]
P. umbonata <5 Indoaustralia Australasia [4]
and nesting in vegetation is overrepresented among the introduced species is that, if

quarantine interception records are any indicator, human-mediated dispersal events
are predominately associated with commercial trade of plants or plant material (Suarez
et al. 2005; Ward et al. 2006). Furthermore, none of the introduced Pheidole species
are strictly arboreal, and their capacity for occurring on vegetation reflects the type of
broad habitat tolerances required for successful establishment.
Taxonomic patterns
Although referring to each of the included lineages as a discrete biological species is
convenient, there are at least some instances – including the P. flavens species complex
and P. megacephala complex – that defy such neat classification. A disproportionate
number of synonyms and infraspecific names in the genus Pheidole belong to the line-
ages treated here, and this pattern holds true across the Formicidae. We offer several
explanations for this pattern. The first is attributed to nomenclatural artifact. Taxono-
mists unfamiliar with distant faunas and working outside of a global context often de-
scribed introduced populations as new species. The second explanation for the myriad
names associated with invasive species reflects a truly biological pattern: invasive popu-
lations tend to be derived from geographically widespread and morphologically variable
lineages. Geographically widespread species have greater propagule pressure because
they are broadly exposed to opportunities for human-mediated dispersal (Theoharides
and Dukes 2007). The taxonomic work undertaken during this study suggests the phe-
notypic diversity of many of these introduced lineages is only a thumbnail of a much
broader morphological spectrum observed across their respective native ranges.
Morphological patterns
The 14 Pheidole species treated here do not adhere to a particular morphotype, espe-
cially when phylogenetic relationship is corrected for. Although none of the species oc-
cupy the extreme ends of the genera’s size spectrum, they do range from small to large.
None of these species exhibit aberrant or specialized morphology, such as spinescence.
(Although not treated in this review, the P. sexspinosa complex is a spinescent lineage
that is considered a tramp ant around the Pacific and has likely increased its range with
the help of human-mediated transport.)
Phylogenetic patterns
Invasive Pheidole species are not evenly dispersed across the phylogeny (Economo et
al. 2015). Rather, a few lineages tend to be responsible for spawning successful invad-
ers. In particular, the punctatissima clade, flavens clade, fervens clade have each given
rise to multiple introduced species (Table 1). The most parsimonious explanation for
this pattern is that at least some promoters of invasion success are plesiomorphic traits
inherited from common ancestors. More generally, all of the known clades to which
invasive Pheidole belong can broadly be considered tramp groups composed of spe-
cies that exhibit relatively wide geographic ranges, few habitat constraints, and high
infraspecific variability.
Biogeographical patterns
Strong biogeographical patterns among introduced Pheidole are difficult to find.
One pattern shared by all introduced Pheidole is that they invariably occupy low
elevation habitat. This is not surprising, as connectivity is much greater between
lower elevation sites (e.g. coastlines and shipping ports) than among higher eleva-
tion sites (e.g. montane forests). The invasive Pheidole invariably come from tropi-
cal and subtropical lineages, but this pattern broadly reflects the richness patterns
across the entire genus (Economo et al. 2015). The Neotropical, Afrotropical and
Indomalayan regions have all produced Pheidole lineages that have invaded other
bioregions. Australia is nominally home to three invasive Pheidole species, but the
introduced populations of all three are restricted to the island of New Zealand (in
addition to Lord Howe Island in one instance) and are not likely capable of invading
another continental system. Although the common recipient of non-native Pheidole
introductions, and ant introduction in general (McGlynn 1999), Oceania is the only
tropical bioregion from which a successful invader has not evolved. Pheidole sexspi-
nosa Mayr and possibly P. oceanica Mayr are native to Oceania and widely consid-
ered tramp species, but thus far there is no evidence that either has ever successfully
established outside the Pacific.
Methods
Taxon selection
The taxa treated here represent all Pheidole species known to have been introduced
outside of their native biogeographic region. These taxa span the spectrum from species
that have become naturalized across the globe (such as the highly invasive P. megaceph-
ala) to species known only to have established temporary indoor populations beyond
their native region (such as P. noda). We do not include species that are repeatedly in-
tercepted by quarantine but are never recorded as establishing non-native populations.
The species included here represent the vast majority of published Pheidole quarantine
interceptions records (Table 3), and have proven the most capable among their conge-
ners of establishing beyond their native range.
In addition to the quarantine intercepts, there are many synanthropic tramp spe-
cies of Pheidole that are likely expanding across their native bioregion with the inad-
vertent assistance of human exploration and commerce. This is particularly true in
Oceania, where species such as P. oceanica, P. umbonata Mayr and P. sexspinosa are
widespread across the entire region. However, we were unable to confirm any records
of their introduction outside of Oceania. While excluded from our current study, we
advise readers to be aware of these and similarly widespread species. Their expansive
ranges increase the propagule pressure for anthropogenic dispersal, and their high tol-
erance for habitat disturbance pre-adapts them for establishing beach-head popula-
tions outside their native ranges.
Occurrence and specimen records

Our biogeographic data are taken from the Global Ant Biodiversity Informatics (GABI)
project, a database consolidating literature, museum, and biodiversity database records
on ant species distributions (Suppl. material 1). Each literature record for an occurrence
outside the putative native range was examined by reviewing the primary reference and
evaluating it for veracity and accuracy. Specimen records included in the GABI database
were similarly evaluated. Literature records considered to be derivative (e.g. checklists
referring to a previously published record) and records from online checklists were ex-
cluded unless the primary reference or specimen record was confirmed. A confirmed lit-
erature record in the context of this study means only that the valid name or a synonym
was verified as appearing in the text, and does not imply that the species identification
was accurate. We verified a total of 14,162 occurrence records.
Locality references of literature records were converted to coordinates where
possible. First, all variables that described the location of a record were merged
into a single string that contained all descriptive information about a location.
Unique values were extracted from these strings resulting in a total of 3,803 unique
locations. Locations that referred to large areas such countries or states (n=221)
were removed from these 3,803 locations. All of the remaining unique locations
were then converted to coordinates using the Bing geocoding API (Microsoft 2015).
From these unique locations 1,265 were geocoded with a tolerable precision (+/- 10
km) for a global distribution study. These geocoded locations were manually checked
for inconsistencies. Of the remaining 2,538 locations the coordinates given in the
database were assigned as the correct coordinates when available (n=1,349). This
resulted in a total of 968 locations that lacked coordinates. These records contained
problematic locality names and were geocoded manually by correcting the locality
name and using the GEOLocate web application (Rios and Bart 2010). Of these
968 records 83 were incorrect and could not be geocoded, and 210 did not refer to
a point location (country or state).
Illustrations
Original specimen images taken by the authors were taken using the Auto-Montage
software package (Syncroscopy) in combination with a JVC KY-F7U digital camera
mounted on a Leica MZ16 dissecting scope, and the software package Helicon Focus
in combination with a Leica DFC450 digital camera mounted on a Leica M205C
dissecting scope. Vector artwork used to illustrate character states referred to in the
taxonomic key and species diagnoses were made in Adobe Illustrator by tracing
specimen photographs. All specimen images are available from Antweb.org and can
be searched for using the specimen identifier. All vector illustrations are available from
the ‘Introduced Pheidole taxonomic characters’ media gallery on Antkey.org (http://
antkey.org/en/gallery?f[0]=im_field_smg_galleries%3A33508).
List of abbreviations of museum collections

The abbreviations follow Evenhuis (2009) and are used in the text in place of the full
museum collection name. Type material from these collections examined by the au-
thors is noted in the species accounts.
ANIC Australian National Insect Collection (Canberra, Australia)

BMNH The Natural History Museum (London, United Kingdom)
CASC California Academy of Sciences (San Francisco, California, USA)
MCSN Museo Civico di Storia Naturale “Giacomo Doria” (Genoa, Italy)
MCZC Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA)
MHNG Natural History Museum of Geneva (Geneva, Switzerland)
MNHN Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris, France)
NHMB Naturhistorisches Museum (Basel, Switzerland)
NHMW Naturhistorisches Museum Wien (Vienna, Austria)
USNM United States National Museum of Natural History (Washington D.C., USA)
Measurements
Measurements reported here include those taken and reported by various research-
ers. Original measurements taken by the authors were made with a stereo microscope
at 40× magnification using a dual-axis stage micrometer wired to digital readouts.
Morphometric measurements were recorded in thousandths of millimetres, but are
reported here to the nearest hundredth as a range from minimum to maximum across
all measured specimens. Specimens for measurements were chosen to reflect potential
morphological variation across the full geographic range. The number of specimens
from which measurements were taken for a given caste is referred to by n. Measure-
ments for Neotropical Pheidole include data supplied by John Longino. Measurements
for Old World Pheidole include values reported in previously published studies (Eguchi
2001a; 2004b; 2008; Eguchi et al. 2007; Fischer and Fisher 2013).
EL Eye Length (mm): Maximum diameter of eye measured in profile view.

HL Head Length (mm): Maximum distance from the midpoint of the ante-
rior clypeal margin to the midpoint of the posterior margin of the head,
measured in full-face view; in majors, measured from midpoint of tangent
between anteriormost position of clypeus to midpoint of tangent between
posteriormost projection of the vertex.
HW Head Width (mm): Measured at widest point of the head, in full-face view
behind eye level.
SL Scape Length (mm): Maximum scape length, excluding basal condyle and
neck.
CI Cephalic Index: HW / HL × 100.
SI Scape Index: SL / HW × 100.
Identification keys to introduced species of Pheidole

Readers are warned that there are hundreds of native Pheidole species that are not treated
in the following keys. The keys are most useful for diagnosing Pheidole specimens inter-
cepted at quarantine facilities, collected from regions with depauperate native Pheidole di-
versity (such as small islands), and in highly disturbed habitats such as urban areas. Even
in urban areas, however, there remains considerable likelihood that native Pheidole species
occur that are not treated here, and readers are cautioned to use these keys judiciously.
Lucid3 Key
An interactive and fully illustrated Lucid3 key that includes all Pheidole species treated
in this study is available from the website Antkey.org (Sarnat and Suarez 2012) at the
following URL: http://antkey.org/en/content/key. To use this key for introduced Phei-
dole identification, users are advised to first filter by the genus Pheidole, then proceed
by using the ‘best’ and ‘next best’ functions. Users are referred to documentation and
video tutorials on the webpage for additional instructions and best practices.
Major workers only
1 Postpetiole swollen relative to petiole; either with a posterodorsal and anter-

oventral bulge (Fig. 1) or with a single dorsal bulge (Fig. 2).........................2
– Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3)........................................3
2 Postpetiole with a posterodorsal (Fig. 1a) and anteroventral (Fig. 1b) bulge.
Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4), lacking a distinct
mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Head heart-shaped (Fig. 6);
dorsal surface smooth, glossy and entirely lacking strong rugoreticulate sculp-
ture........................................................................................... megacephala
– Postpetiole forming a high dorsally bulging dome that is tallest at midpoint
(Fig. 2a); ventral margin flat to very weakly convex (Fig. 2b). Promesonotum
in profile with two convexities (Fig. 5), the large anterior dome in addition
to a distinct prominence on the posterior slope. Head subquadrate (Fig. 7);
dorsal surface covered in strong longitudinal rugae that form a reticulated
network laterally and posteriorly (Fig. 8)...............................................noda
3 Promesonotum in profile with two convexities (Fig. 5), the large anterior
dome in addition to a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope.
Relatively large species with long limbs (HW major > 1.10 mm, HW minor
> 0.50 mm). Head with strong rugoreticulate sculpture at least on posterolat-
eral lobes (Fig. 8).........................................................................................4
– Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4), lacking a distinct
mound or prominence on the posterior slope (sometimes with a weak pro-
tuberance or inconspicuous mound). Size and relative limb length variable.
Posterolateral lobes variably sculptured including glossy (Fig. 9), rugose (Fig.
10) and punctate (Fig. 11); if strongly rugoreticulate on posterolateral lobes
then small species (HW < 1.00 mm)............................................................6
4 Head almost entirely covered by network of intersecting rugae (Fig. 12a),
lacking long, well-organized and parallel longitudinal rugae on the frons (Fig.
12b). Frontal carinae indistinct, quickly becoming integrated into dense ru-
goreticulum that covers the entire face. Antennal scrobes entirely lacking.
Antennal insertions surrounded by deeply excavated pits (Fig. 12c). Head
sometimes a lighter reddish brown than the mesosoma............obscurithorax
– Head rugoreticulate on posterolateral lobes and laterad of frontal carinae
(Fig. 13a), but frons dominated by long, well-organized and parallel longitu-
dinal rugae (Fig. 13b). Antennal scrobes indistinct to moderately impressed,
but frontal carinae always forming a border capable of accepting the antennal
scape (Fig. 13c). Antennal insertions not surrounded by deeply excavated
pits. Head usually a similar shade as the mesosoma......................................5
5 Frontal carinae relatively longer, extend 4/5 distance of head before terminating
(Fig. 14). Promesonotal prominence flatter, less pronounced (Fig. 63a). Propodeal
spine weaker, narrower at base, weakly downcurved at apex (Fig. 63b)........fervens
– Frontal carinae relatively shorter, extend 3/4 distance of head before terminat-
ing (Fig. 15). Promesonotal prominence rounder, more pronounced (Fig. 64a).
Propodeal spine stouter, broader at base, relatively straight (Fig. 64b)....... indica
6 Posterolateral lobes lacking sculpture (including foveolate ground sculpture,
carinae and rugae) posterior to maximum extent of antennal scapes in repose
(Fig. 9). Head glossy, lacking foveolate ground sculpture. Promesonotal dor-
sum glossy, lacking foveolate ground sculpture or striae (Fig. 23)................7
– Posterolateral lobes with foveolate ground sculpture (Fig. 11), carinae (Fig.
12) or rugae (Fig. 12) distinctly present posterior to maximum extent of an-
tennal scape (if absent then remainder of face is strongly foveolate). Prome-
sonotal dorsum with foveolate ground sculpture, striae or both...................8
7 Petiolar node strongly punctate (Fig. 16). Metapleuron with moderate rugulae
and some weak punctation (Fig. 16). Hypostomal bridge with a small median
tooth in addition to a pair of larger inner teeth (Fig. 18)....................proxima
– Petiolar node mostly glossy (Fig. 17), not covered by punctate sculpture.
Metapleuron almost completely glossy with strongly reduced carinulae and
lacking punctation (Fig. 17). Hypostomal bridge with two well-developed
inner teeth but lacking a median tooth (Fig. 19)............................... vigilans
8 Promesonotal dorsum glossy with thin but distinct subparallel striae running
oblique to the longitudinal midline (Fig. 20). Head with distinct parallel ru-
gae extending from frontal lobes posterior to apices of frontal carinae. Shorter
lengths of rugae present across entire posterior region of head and extending
to posterior margin in full-face view (Fig. 24).................................. rugosula
– Promesonotal dorsum with various sculpture patterns including transversely
striate (Fig. 21), longitudinally striate to rugoreticulate (Fig. 22), and lacking
striae (Fig. 23); but never with subparallel striae running oblique to the longi-
tudinal midline. Head variously sculptured, but if sculpture reaches posterior
head margin in full-face view it is either strongly rugoreticulate (Fig. 26) or
foveolate (Fig. 11)........................................................................................9
9 Posterolateral lobes, including posterior head margin, strongly rugoreticulate
(Fig. 26). Promesonotum in dorsal view strongly transverse with strongly
projecting shoulders (Fig. 28). Promesonotal dorsum rugoreticulate with dis-
tinct long longitudinal striae in addition to shorter sections of transverse and
intersecting striae (Fig. 22).................................................................. parva
– Posterolateral lobes variously sculptured, but posterior head margin always
free of distinct rugae (Fig. 25) or rugoreticulum (Fig. 27). Promesonotum
in dorsal view less transverse with weakly projecting shoulders in dorsal view
(Fig. 29). Promesonotal dorsum variously sculptured (including transversely
striate (Fig. 21), foveolate or both), but never rugoreticulate with distinct
long longitudinal striae..............................................................................10
10 Gaster with entire first tergite glossy (Fig. 32). Postpetiole relatively narrow (Fig.
30); distinctly less than 2× petiolar width in dorsal view. Promesonotal dorsum
usually with distinct transverse striae (Fig. 21), but sometimes lacking distinct
striae. Posterolateral lobes variably sculptured. (P. flavens-complex)................ 11
– Gaster with at least anterior 1/3 of first tergite matte (Fig. 33). Postpetiole rel-
atively broad; distinctly more than 2× petiolar width in dorsal view (Fig. 31).
Promesonotal dorsum usually foveolate and never with distinct transverse
striae. Head often entirely foveolate (Fig. 11), but portions of posterolateral
lobes can be glossy. Posterolateral lobes never with distinct rugae..............12
11 Antennal scrobe distinct, narrow and shallow, but capable of receiving the entire
antennal scape in repose (Fig. 71a); bordered by strong, unbroken frontal carina
mesially (Fig. 71b); depression marked by a continuous smooth surface entirely
(or nearly entirely) uninterrupted by rugulae. The rugulae of the frons extend to
approximately an eye’s length distance from the posterior head margin. Prome-
sonotal dorsum with distinct transverse striae (Fig. 21).........................navigans
– Antennal scrobe broad, ill-defined, incapable of receiving the entire antennal
scape in repose (Fig. 72a); bordered by relatively weak and interrupted fron-
tal carina mesially (Fig. 72b); depression opaque and strongly punctate. The
rugulae of the frons of variable length but never reach posterior head margin.
Promesonotal dorsum variable, but if transverse striae are present they rarely
reach across entire surface...................................................................flavens
12 Head bicolored, the yellowish posterior two-thirds contrasting with the dark-
er brown anterior third and rest of body (Fig. 34)................... punctatissima
– Head uniform in color (Fig. 35), from yellow to reddish brown; same color
as associated minor workers.......................................................................13
13 Color usually yellow. Head width sometimes wider (HW 0.74–1.16 mm). Pre-
fers understory habitat. Typically nests arboreally in live plant cavities, under
bark, and in dead sticks and branches on or above forest floor............anastasii
– Color usually red brown. Head width sometimes narrower (HW 0.71–1.07
mm). Prefers open, disturbed habitat. Generalist nest microhabitats, includ-
ing under stones and dead wood...................................................... bilimeki
Minor workers only
1 Head predominantly glossy (Fig. 36), lacking punctation and or rugae above
eye level.......................................................................................................2
– Head conspicuously punctate (Fig. 37) and/or rugose (Fig. 38) above eye level... 8
2 Postpetiole swollen relative to petiole; either with a posterodorsal and anter-
oventral bulge (Fig. 1) or with a single dorsal bulge (Fig. 2).........................3
– Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3)........................................4
3 Postpetiole with a posterodorsal (Fig. 1a) and anteroventral (Fig. 1b) bulge. An-
tennal scapes surpass posterior head margin by approximately same length as eye
(Fig. 40). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome, lacking a distinct

mound or prominence on the posterior slope (Fig. 42).................. megacephala
– Postpetiole forming a high dorsally bulging dome that is tallest at midpoint;
ventral margin flat to very weakly convex (Fig. 2). Antennal scapes surpass
posterior head margin by approximately twice the eye length (Fig. 39). Prome-
sonotum in profile with two convexities, the large anterior dome (Fig. 44a) in
addition to a distinct prominence on the posterior slope (Fig. 44b)........ noda
4 Promesonotum in profile with two convexities, the large anterior dome (Fig.
43a) in addition to a distinct prominence on the posterior slope (Fig. 43b). An-
tennal scapes relatively long, surpassing posterior head margin by a distance equal
(Fig. 40) to or greater than (Fig. 39) eye length. Posterior head margin strongly
convex (Fig. 44) to weakly convex (Fig. 45) in full-face view. Color variable......5
– Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct
mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Antennal scapes relatively short
(Fig. 41), either failing to surpass posterior head margin, or surpassing it by less
than the distance of eye length. Posterior head margin weakly convex (Fig. 45)
to weakly concave (Fig. 46) in full-face view. Color yellow to brown............. 7
5 Posterior margin strongly convex in full-face view such that the head outline
forms a single unbroken curve from eye to eye (Fig. 44). Petiole and postpe-
tiole strongly sculptured laterally (Fig. 47). Antennal scapes extremely long,
surpassing posterior head margin by more than 2× eye length (Fig. 39).........
................................................................................................obscurithorax
– Posterior head margin weakly convex to flat in full-face view (Fig. 45). Petiole
and postpetiole glossy to very weakly sculptured laterally (Fig. 48). Antennal
scapes long, but not surpassing the posterior head margin by more than 2×
eye length....................................................................................................6
6 Promesonotal prominence more flat (Fig. 49a). Metanotal depression deeper
(Fig. 49b). Eye relatively small, eye length distinctly less than length of anten-
nal segment 10 (Fig. 65).....................................................................fervens
– Promesonotal prominence more convex (Fig. 50a). Metanotal depression
shallower (Fig. 50b). Eye relatively large, eye length subequal to length of
antennal segment 10 (Fig. 66).............................................................indica
7 Antennal scapes surpass posterior head margin by approximate distance of eye
length (Fig. 40). Mesopleuron entirely glossy (Fig. 51a). Propodeal spines weak-
ly produced and dentiform (Fig. 51b). Petiole almost entirely glossy......vigilans
– Antennal scapes reach but do not surpass posterior head margin (Fig. 41).
Mesopleuron entirely punctate (Fig. 52a). Propodeal spines moderately pro-
duced and spiniform (Fig. 52b). Petiole distinctly sculptured except for apical
portion of node................................................................................ proxima
8 Head with well-defined, long segments of rugae running longitudinally from
below the eyes to the posterior head margin (Fig. 38). Frontal carinae distinct
and reaching towards the posterior head margin, although they may occasion-
ally be interrupted (Fig. 38). Punctate ground sculpture present on lateral
surfaces of head and just mesad of the frontal carinae, but median portion of
head with a large glossy section (Fig. 38). (Native to Australia)..........rugosula
– Head, including the area mesad of the frontal carinae, entirely covered by re-
ticulated network of punctures, giving it a dull appearance (Fig. 37); if rugae
are present they are generally short segments and mostly restricted to posterior
portion of head. Frontal carinae not distinct posterior to eye level.................9
9 Gaster with at least anterior 1/3 of first tergite matte (Fig. 33). Hairs on
mesosoma stout, stiff, of equal length and arranged in pairs (Fig. 53). Anten-
nal scapes lack standing hairs (Fig. 55); scapes surpass posterior head margin
by a distance equal to or greater than eye (Fig. 40)....................................10
– Gaster with entire first tergite glossy (Fig. 32). Hairs on mesosoma fine, flexu-
ous, of unequal length and not arranged in pairs (Fig. 54). Antennal scapes with
erect to suberect hairs (Fig. 56); scapes reach posterior head margin but do not
surpass it by a distance equal to or greater than eye length (Fig. 41).............. 12
10 Posterior head margin more broad (Fig. 57). Antennal scapes relatively short
(SI 95–108). Color usually brown but occasionally yellow............... bilimeki
– Posterior head margin more narrow (Fig. 58). Antennal scapes relatively
longer (SI 103–125). Color variable..........................................................11
11 Color usually clear yellow orange (gray brown in one population on Carib-
bean coast of Panama). Typically nesting in live plant cavities in wet forest
understory...................................................................................... anastasii
– Color red brown to nearly black. Typically nesting in open, disturbed habi-
tats.......................................................................................... punctatissima
12 Posterior portion of head with many short to medium length segments of
striae distinctly interlaced among punctate ground sculpture (Fig. 59). An-
tennal scapes do not surpass posterior head margin (Fig. 41)............... parva
– Posterior portion of head lacking many short to medium length segments of
striae distinctly interlaced among punctate ground sculpture (Fig. 60). An-
tennal scapes often, but not always, surpass posterior head margin; if they do
it is usually by a distance less than eye length........................flavens complex
Combined major and minor workers
1 Major + minor Postpetiole swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 1, Fig. 2)...........2

– Major + minor Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3)...............3
2 Major + minor Postpetiole with a posterodorsal (Fig. 1a) and anteroventral
(Fig. 1b) bulge. Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4,
major; Fig. 42 minor), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the poste-
rior slope. Major Head heart-shaped (Fig. 6); posterodorsal surface smooth,
glossy and entirely lacking strong rugoreticulate sculpture (Fig. 9). Minor
Antennal scapes surpass posterior head margin by approximately same length
as eye (Fig. 40).......................................................................... megacephala
– Major + minor Postpetiole forming a high dorsally bulging dome that is

tallest at midpoint (Fig. 2a); ventral margin flat to very weakly convex (Fig.
2b). Promesonotum in profile with two convexities, the large anterior dome
in addition to a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope (Fig. 5,
major; Fig. 43, minor). Major Head subquadrate (Fig. 7); dorsal surface cov-
ered in strong longitudinal rugae that form a reticulated network laterally and
posteriorly (Fig. 8). Minor Antennal scapes surpass posterior head margin by
approximately twice eye length (Fig. 39)................................................noda
3 Major + minor Promesonotum in profile with two convexities, the large an-
terior dome in addition to a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior
slope (Fig. 5, major; Fig. 43, minor). Relatively large species with long limbs
(HW major > 1.10 mm, HW minor > 0.50 mm). Major Head with strong
rugoreticulate sculpture at least on posterolateral lobes (Fig. 8). Minor Head
glossy (Fig. 36); sculpture restricted to at most a few arcuate carinae between
eye and antennal insertion. Antennal scapes with erect hairs (Fig. 56); scapes
surpass posterior head margin by at least a distance equal to or greater than
eye length (Fig. 39)......................................................................................4
– Major + minor Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4),
lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope (sometimes
with a weak protuberance or inconspicuous mound). Size and relative limb
length variable. Major Head with variable sculpture patterns including glossy
(Fig. 36), punctate (Fig. 37) and rugose (Fig. 38); if strongly rugoreticulate
on posterolateral lobes then small species (HW < 1.00 mm). Minor Head
variable in sculpture. Antennal scapes with (Fig. 56) or without (Fig. 55) erect
hairs; scapes never surpassing posterior head margin by a distance equal to or
greater than eye length.................................................................................6
4 Major Head almost entirely covered by network of intersecting rugae (Fig.
12a), lacking long, well-organized and parallel longitudinal rugae on the frons
(Fig. 12b). Frontal carinae indistinct, quickly becoming integrated into dense
rugoreticulum that covers the entire face. Antennal scrobes entirely lacking.
Antennal insertions surrounded by deeply excavated pits (Fig. 12c). Head
often a lighter reddish brown than the mesosoma. Minor Posterior head mar-
gin strongly convex in full-face view such that the head outline forms a single
unbroken curve from eye to eye (Fig. 44). Petiole and postpetiole strongly
sculptured laterally (Fig. 47). Antennal scapes extremely long, surpassing pos-
terior head margin by more than 2× eye length (37)................obscurithorax
– Major Head rugoreticulate on posterolateral lobes and laterad of frontal
carinae (Fig. 13a), but frons dominated by long, well-organized and paral-
lel longitudinal rugae (Fig. 13b). Antennal scrobes indistinct to moderately
impressed, but frontal carinae always forming a border capable of accepting
the antennal scape (Fig. 13c). Antennal insertions not surrounded by deeply
excavated pits. Head usually a similar shade as the mesosoma. Minor Pos-
terior head margin weakly convex to flat in full-face view (Fig. 45). Petiole
and postpetiole glossy to very weakly sculptured laterally (Fig. 48). Antennal
scapes long, but not surpassing the posterior head margin by more than 2×
eye length....................................................................................................5
5 Major Frontal carinae relatively longer, extend 4/5 distance of head before
terminating (Fig. 14). Promesonotal prominence flatter, less pronounced
(Fig. 63a). Propodeal spine weaker, narrower at base, weakly downcurved
at apex (Fig. 63b). Minor Promesonotal prominence more flat (Fig. 49a).
Metanotal depression deeper (Fig. 49b). Eye relatively small, eye length dis-
tinctly less than length of antennal segment 10 (Fig. 65).....................fervens
– Major Frontal carinae relatively shorter, extend 3/4 distance of head before
terminating (Fig. 15). Promesonotal prominence rounder, more pronounced
(Fig. 64a). Propodeal spine stouter, broader at base, relatively straight (Fig.
64b). Minor Promesonotal prominence more convex (Fig. 50a). Metanotal
depression shallower (Fig. 50b). Eye relatively large, eye length subequal to
length of antennal segment 10 (Fig. 66)...............................................indica
6 Major Posterolateral lobes lacking sculpture (including foveolate ground
sculpture, carinae and rugae) posterior to maximum extent of antennal scapes
in repose. Head glossy, lacking foveolate ground sculpture. Promesonotal
dorsum glossy, lacking foveolate ground sculpture or striae (Fig. 23). Mi-
nor Head predominantly glossy, lacking punctation and or rugae above eye
level. Promesonotal dorsum also glossy without punctate ground sculpture or
striae............................................................................................................7
– Major Posterolateral lobes with foveolate ground sculpture (Fig. 11), carinae
or rugae (Fig. 12) distinctly present posterior to maximum extent of antennal
scape (if absent then remainder of face is strongly foveolate). Promesonotal
dorsum with foveolate ground sculpture, striae or both. Minor Head above
eye level with punctate ground sculpture (Fig. 37), rugae (Fig. 38) or both.
Promesonotal dorsum with foveolate ground sculpture, distinct striae or both
but never glossy...........................................................................................8
7 Major Petiolar node strongly punctate (Fig. 16). Metapleuron with moderate
rugulae and some weak punctation (Fig. 16). Hypostomal bridge with a small
median tooth in addition to a pair of larger inner teeth (Fig. 18). Smaller (HW
< 1.0 mm). Minor Antennal scapes reach but do not surpass posterior head
margin (Fig. 41). Mesopleuron entirely punctate (Fig. 52a). Propodeal spines
moderately produced and spiniform (Fig. 52b). Petiole distinctly sculptured ex-
cept for apical portion of node. Smaller (HW < 0.48 mm)................... proxima
– Major Petiolar node mostly glossy (Fig. 17), not covered by punctate sculp-
ture. Metapleuron almost completely glossy with strongly reduced carinulae
and lacking punctation (Fig. 17). Hypostomal bridge with two well-devel-
oped inner teeth but lacking a median tooth (Fig. 19). Larger (HW > 1.2
mm). Minor Antennal scapes surpass posterior head margin by approximate
distance of eye length (Fig. 40). Mesopleuron entirely glossy (Fig. 51a). Pro-
podeal spines weakly produced and dentiform (Fig. 51b). Petiole almost en-
tirely glossy. Larger (HW > 0.52 mm)............................................... vigilans
8 Major Promesonotal dorsum glossy with thin but distinct subparallel striae
running oblique to the longitudinal midline (Fig. 20). Head with distinct
parallel rugae extending from frontal lobes posterior to apices of frontal cari-
nae. Shorter lengths of rugae present across entire posterior region of head
and extending to posterior margin in full-face view (Fig. 24). Minor Head
with well-defined, long segments of rugae running longitudinally from below
the eyes to the posterior head margin (Fig. 38). Frontal carinae distinct and
reaching towards the posterior head margin, although they may occasionally
be interrupted (Fig. 38). Punctate ground sculpture present on lateral surfaces
of head and just mesad of the frontal carinae, but median portion of head
with a large glossy section (Fig. 38).................................................. rugosula
– Major Promesonotal dorsum with various sculpture patterns including trans-
versely striate (Fig. 21), longitudinally striate to rugoreticulate (Fig. 22), and
lacking striae (Fig. 23); but never with subparallel striae running oblique to
the longitudinal midline. Head variously sculptured, but if sculpture reaches
posterior head margin in full-face view it is either strongly rugoreticulate (Fig.
26) or foveolate (Fig. 11). Minor Head, including the area mesad of the
frontal carinae, entirely covered by reticulated network of punctures, giving it
a dull appearance (Fig. 37); if rugae are present they are generally short seg-
ments and mostly restricted to posterior portion of head. Frontal carinae not
distinct posterior to eye level........................................................................9
9 Major Posterolateral lobes, including posterior head margin, covered in ru-
goreticulum (Fig. 26). Promesonotum in dorsal view transverse with strongly
projecting shoulders (Fig. 28). Promesonotal dorsum rugoreticulate with dis-
tinct long longitudinal striae in addition to shorter sections of transverse and
intersecting striae (Fig. 22). Minor Posterior portion of head with many short
to medium length segments of striae distinctly interlaced among punctate
ground sculpture (Fig. 59). Antennal scapes with many erect hairs (Fig. 56);
scapes do not surpass posterior head margin (Fig. 41).......................... parva
– Major Posterolateral lobes variously sculptured, but posterior head margin
always free of distinct rugae (Fig. 25) or rugoreticulum (Fig. 27). Promesono-
tum in dorsal less transverse with weakly projecting shoulders in dorsal view
(Fig. 29). Promesonotal dorsum variously sculptured (including transversely
striate (Fig. 21), foveolate or both), but never rugoreticulate with distinct
long longitudinal striae. Minor Posterior portion of head lacking many short
to medium length segments of striae distinctly interlaced among punctate
ground sculpture (Fig. 60). Antennal scapes with (Fig. 56) or without (Fig.
55) many erect hairs. Scapes often, but not always, surpass posterior head
margin; if they do it is usually by a distance less than eye length................10
10 Major + minor Gaster with entire first tergite glossy (Fig. 32). Major Post-
petiole relatively narrow; distinctly less than 2× petiolar width in dorsal view
(Fig. 30). Posterolateral lobes variably sculptured. Minor Hairs on mesosoma

fine, flexuous, of unequal length and not arranged in pairs (Fig. 54). Antennal
scapes with many erect to suberect hairs (Fig. 56), especially on the anterior
margin. Postpetiole narrow in dorsal view, only slightly broader than petiole
(Fig. 61). (P. flavens-complex)....................................................................11
– Major + minor Gaster with at least anterior 1/3 of first tergite matte (Fig. 33).
Major Postpetiole relatively broad; distinctly more than 2× petiolar width in
dorsal view (Fig. 31). Promesonotal dorsum usually foveolate and never with
distinct transverse striae. Head often entirely foveolate (Fig. 11), but portions of
posterolateral lobes can be glossy. Posterolateral lobes never with distinct rugae.
Minor Hairs on mesosoma stout, stiff, of equal length and arranged in pairs
(Fig. 53). Antennal scapes lack many erect to suberect hairs (Fig. 55). Postpeti-
ole broad in dorsal view, distinctly broader than petiole (Fig. 62).................. 12
11 Antennal scrobe distinct and narrow, shallow but capable of receiving the en-
tire antennal scape in repose (Fig. 71a); bordered by strong, unbroken frontal
carina mesially (Fig. 71b); depression marked by a continuous smooth surface
entirely (or nearly entirely) uninterrupted by rugulae. The rugulae of the frons
extend to approximately an eye’s length distance from the posterior head mar-
gin. Promesonotal dorsum with distinct transverse striae (Fig. 21)...................
.......................................................................................................... navigans
– Antennal scrobe broad, ill-defined, incapable of receiving the entire antennal
scape in repose (Fig. 72a); bordered by relatively weak and interrupted fron-
tal carina mesially (Fig. 72b); depression opaque and strongly punctate. The
rugulae of the frons of variable length but never reach posterior head margin.
Promesonotal dorsum variable, but if transverse striae are present they rarely
reach across entire surface...................................................................flavens
12 Major Head bicolored with the yellowish posterior two-thirds contrasting
with the darker brown anterior third and rest of body (Fig. 33). Minor Pos-
terior head margin relatively narrow (Fig. 58). Antennal scapes relatively long
(SI 103–125). Color red brown to nearly black....................... punctatissima
– Major Head uniform in color, from yellow to reddish brown; same color as
associated minor workers (Fig. 35). Minor Posterior head margin relatively nar-
row or broad. Antennal scapes variable length. Color brown or yellow..........13
13 Major + minor Prefers understory habitat. Typically nests arboreally in live
plant cavities, under bark, and in dead sticks and branches on or above forest
floor. Major Color usually yellow. Head width sometimes wider (HW 0.74–
1.16 mm). Minor Posterior head margin more narrow (Fig. 58). Antennal
scapes relatively longer (SI 103–125). Color brown or yellow........... anastasii
– Major + minor Prefers open, disturbed habitat. Generalist nest microhabi-
tats, including under stones and dead wood. Major Color usually red brown.
Head width sometimes narrower (HW 0.71–1.07 mm). Minor Posterior
head margin more broad (Fig. 57). Antennal scapes relatively short (SI 95–
108). Color usually brown but occasionally yellow.......................... bilimeki
Figures 1–19.
Figures 20–38.
Figures 39–56.
Figures 57–72.
Table 4. Illustrated glossary of morphological characters used to diagnose introduced Pheidole species.
Numbers refer to Figs 1–72. Larger versions of the illustrations are presented in preceding plates. Figures
are referred to in the taxonomic keys and species diagnoses.
N Ilustration Description
1 Postpetiole swollen relative to petiole. Postpetiole with a posterodorsal bulge (a) and
anteroventral bulge (b) (major and minor worker). Diagnostic character of P. mega-
cephala among introduced Pheidole
2 Postpetiole forming a high dorsally bulging dome that is tallest at midpoint (a); ventral
margin flat to very weakly convex (b) (major and minor worker). Diagnostic character
of P. noda among introduced Pheidole
3 Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (major and minor worker). Separates all
introduced Pheidole species from P. megacephala and P. noda
4 Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome, lacking a distinct mound or promi-

nence on the posterior slope (major worker)
5 Promesonotum in profile with two convexities, the large anterior dome in addition to
a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope (major worker)
6 Head heart-shaped (major worker). Diagnostic character of P. megacephala among

introduced Pheidole
7 Head subquadrate (major worker)
8 Cephalic dorsum with strong rugoreticulate sculpture, at least on posterolateral lobes

(major worker)
9 Posterolateral lobes lacking sculpture (including foveolate ground sculpture, carinae

and rugae) posterior to maximum extent of antennal scapes in repose (major worker)
10 Posterolateral lobes rugose or rugulose (major worker)
11 Posterolateral lobes punctate or foveolate (major worker)

12 Head almost entirely covered by network of intersecting rugae (a), lacking long, well-
organized and parallel longitudinal rugae on the frons (b). Frontal carinae indistinct,
quickly becoming integrated into dense rugoreticulum that covers the entire face. An-
tennal scrobes entirely lacking. Antennal insertions surrounded by deeply excavated pits
(c). Diagnostic characters of P. obscurithorax major workers among introduced Pheidole
13 Head rugoreticulate on posterolateral lobes and laterad of frontal carinae (a), but
frons dominated by long, well-organized and parallel longitudinal rugae (b). Antennal
scrobes indistinct to moderately impressed, but frontal carinae always forming a border
capable of accepting the antennal scape (c). Antennal insertions not surrounded by
deeply excavated pits. Illustration applies to P. indica and P. fervens
14 Frontal carinae relatively longer, extend 4/5 distance of head before terminating (ma-
jor worker). Diagnostic character separating P. fervens from P. indica
15 Frontal carinae relatively shorter, extend 3/4 distance of head before terminating (ma-
jor worker). Diagnostic character separating P. indica from P. fervens
16 Petiolar node strongly punctate and metapleuron with moderate rugulae and some
weak punctation (major worker). Diagnostic character separating P. proxima from P.
vigilans
17 Petiolar node mostly glossy, metapleuron almost completely glossy with strongly re-
duced carinulae and lacking punctation (major worker). Diagnostic character separat-
ing P. vigilans from P. proxima
18 Hypostomal bridge with a small median tooth in addition to a pair of larger inner teeth
(major worker). Diagnostic character separating P. proxima from P. vigilans
19 Hypostomal bridge with two well-developed inner teeth but lacking a median tooth
(major worker) Diagnostic character separating P. vigilans from P. proxima
20 Promesonotal dorsum glossy with thin but distinct subparallel striae running oblique
to the longitudinal midline (major worker). Diagnostic character separating P. rugosula
from other introduced Pheidole
21 Promesonotal dorsum with distinct transverse striae (major worker). Character present
among some species of the P. flavens complex, including P. navigans
22 Promesonotal dorsum rugoreticulate with distinct long longitudinal striae in addition
to shorter sections of transverse and intersecting striae (major worker). Illustration
refers to P. parva
23 Promesonotal dorsum glossy, lacking foveolate ground sculpture or striae (major
worker). Character useful for separating P. vigilans and P. proxima from P. rugosula.
24 Head with distinct parallel rugae extend from frontal lobes posterior to apices of fron-
tal carinae. Shorter lengths of rugae present across entire posterior region of head and
extending to posterior margin in full-face view (major worker). Diagnostic character
useful for separating P. rugosula from other introduced Pheidole, especially those intro-
duced in New Zealand
25 Posterolateral lobes variously sculptured, but posterior head margin always free of dis-
tinct rugae or rugoreticulum (major worker). Illustration refers to P. flavens, P. navi-
gans and other members of the P. flavens complex
26 Posterolateral lobes, including posterior head margin, strongly rugoreticulate (major
worker). Illustration refers to P. parva and character is useful for separating that species
from those of the P. flavens complex and the P. punctatissima clade
27 Posterolateral lobes variously sculptured, but posterior head margin always free of ru-
goreticulum (major worker)
28 Promesonotum in dorsal view strongly transverse with strongly projecting shoulders

(major worker). Illustration refers to P. parva and character is useful for separating that
species from those of the P. flavens complex and the P. punctatissima clade
29 Promesonotum in dorsal view less transverse with weakly projecting shoulders in dor-
sal view (major worker)
30 Postpetiole relatively narrow, distinctly less than 2× petiolar width in dorsal view (ma-
jor worker). Character useful for separating members of the P. flavens complex, includ-
ing P. flavens and P. navigans, from those of the P. punctatissima clade
31 Postpetiole relatively broad, distinctly more than 2× petiolar width in dorsal view (ma-
jor worker). Character useful for separating members of the P. punctatissima clade
from those of the P. flavens complex, including P. flavens and P. navigans
32 Gaster with entire first tergite glossy (major and minor worker). Character useful for
separating members of the P. flavens complex, including P. flavens and P. navigans,
from those of the P. punctatissima clade
33 Gaster with at least anterior 1/3 of first tergite matte (major and minor worker). Char-
acter useful for separating members of the P. punctatissima clade from those of the P.
flavens complex, including P. flavens and P. navigans
34 Head bicolored with the yellowish posterior two-thirds contrasting with the darker
brown anterior third and rest of body (major worker). Diagnostic character for separat-
ing P. punctatissima from all other introduced Pheidole
35 Head uniform in color (major worker). Character used to separate P. anastasii and P.
bilimeki from P. punctatissima
36 Head predominantly glossy, lacking punctation and or rugae above eye level (minor
worker). Character used to separate P. indica, P. fervens, P. obscurithorax, P. proxima
and P. vigilans from all other introduced Pheidole.
37 Head, including the area mesad of the frontal carinae, entirely covered by reticulated
network of punctures, giving it a dull appearance; if rugae are present they are gener-
ally short segments and mostly restricted to posterior portion of head (minor worker).
Character used to separate P. anastasii, P. bilimeki, P. flavens, P. navigans and P. parva
from all other introduced Pheidole
38 Head with well-defined, long segments of rugae running longitudinally from below
the eyes to the posterior head margin. Frontal carinae distinct and reaching towards
the posterior head margin, although they may occasionally be interrupted. Punctate
ground sculpture present on lateral surfaces of head and just mesad of the frontal
carinae, but median portion of head with a large glossy section. Diagnostic characters
separating P. rugosula from all other introduced Pheidole
39 Antennal scapes extremely long, surpassing posterior head margin by more than 2×
eye length (minor worker). Diagnostic character separating P. obscurithorax from P.
fervens and P. indica
40 Antennal scapes surpass posterior head margin by approximately same length as eye
(minor worker)
41 Antennal scapes relatively short, either failing to surpass posterior head margin, or
surpassing it by less than the distance of eye length (minor worker)
42 Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome, lacking a distinct mound or promi-

nence on the posterior slope (minor worker)
43 Promesonotum in profile with two convexities, the large anterior dome (a) in addition
to a distinct prominence on the posterior slope (b) (minor worker)
44 Posterior margin strongly convex in full-face view such that the head outline forms a
single unbroken curve from eye to eye (minor worker). Diagnostic character for sepa-
rating P. obscurithorax from P. fervens and P. indica
45 Posterior head margin weakly convex to flat in full-face view (minor worker). Diagnos-
tic character for separating P. fervens and P. indica from P. obscurithorax
46 Posterior head margin weakly concave in full-face view (minor worker)
47 Petiole and postpetiole strongly sculptured laterally. Diagnostic character for separat-
ing P. obscurithorax from P. fervens and P. indica
48 Petiole and postpetiole glossy to very weakly sculptured laterally (minor worker). Di-
agnostic character for separating P. fervens and P. indica from P. obscurithorax
49 Promesonotal prominence relatively flat (a); metanotal depression relatively deep (b)
(minor worker). Diagnostic character for separating P. fervens from P. indica
50 Promesonotal prominence relatively convex (a); metanotal depression relatively shal-
low (minor worker). Diagnostic character for separating P. indica from P. fervens
51 Mesopleuron entirely glossy (a); propodeal spines weakly produced and dentiform (b)
(minor worker). Diagnostic character for separating P. vigilans from P. proxima
52 Mesopleuron entirely punctate (a); propodeal spines moderately produced and spini-
form (b) (minor worker). Diagnostic character for separating P. proxima from P. vigi-
lans
53 Hairs on mesosoma stout, stiff, of equal length and arranged in pairs (minor worker).
Diagnostic character for separating P. anastasii, P. bilimeki and P. punctatissima from
P. flavens, P. navigans and P. parva
54 Hairs on mesosoma fine, flexuous, of unequal length and not arranged in pairs (minor
worker). Diagnostic character for separating P. flavens, P. navigans and P. parva from
P. anastasii, P. bilimeki and P. punctatissima
55 Antennal scapes lack standing hairs (minor worker). Diagnostic character for separat-
ing P. anastasii, P. bilimeki and P. punctatissima from P. flavens, P. navigans and P.
parva
56 Antennal scapes with erect to suberect hairs (minor worker). Diagnostic character for
separating P. flavens, P. navigans and P. parva from P. anastasii, P. bilimeki and P.
punctatissima
57 Posterior head margin relatively broad (minor worker). Diagnostic character for sepa-
rating P. bilimeki from P. anastasii and P. punctatissima
58 Posterior head margin more narrow (minor worker). Diagnostic character for separat-
ing P. anastasii and P. punctatissima from P. bilimeki
59 Posterior portion of head with many short to medium length segments of striae dis-
tinctly interlaced among punctate ground sculpture (minor worker). Diagnostic char-
acter for separating P. parva from P. flavens and P. navigans
60 Posterior portion of head lacking many short to medium length segments of striae
distinctly interlaced among punctate ground sculpture (minor worker). Diagnostic
character for separating P. flavens and P. navigans from P. parva
61 Postpetiole narrow in dorsal view, only slightly broader than petiole (minor worker).
Diagnostic character for separating P. flavens and P. navigans and from P. anastasii, P.
bilimeki and P. punctatissima
62 Postpetiole broad in dorsal view, distinctly broader than petiole (minor worker). Di-
agnostic character for separating P. anastasii, P. bilimeki and P. punctatissima from P.
flavens and P. navigans
63 Promesonotal prominence relatively flat (a); propodeal spine relatively weak, narrow
at base, weakly downcurved at apex (b) (major worker). Diagnostic character for sepa-
rating P. fervens from P. indica
64 Promesonotal prominence convex and pronounced (a); propodeal spine relatively

stout, broad at base, straight (b) (major worker). Diagnostic character for separating
P. indica from P. fervens
65 Eye relatively small, eye length distinctly less than length of antennal segment 10 (mi-
nor worker). Diagnostic character for separating P. fervens from P. indica
66 Eye relatively large, eye length subequal to length of antennal segment 10 (minor
worker). Diagnostic character for separating P. indica from P. fervens
67 The carinae between eye and mandible are branching and reticulated (major worker).
Diagnostic character for separating P. fervens from P. oceanica
68 The carinae between eye and mandible are parallel and not reticulated (major worker).
Diagnostic character for separating P. oceanica from P. fervens
69 The length of propodeal spine equal to or less than the diameter of propodeal spiracle
(minor worker). Diagnostic character for separating P. fervens from P. oceanica
70 The length of propodeal spine greater than the diameter of propodeal spiracle (minor
worker). Diagnostic character for separating P. oceanica from P. fervens
71 Antennal scrobe distinct and narrow, shallow but capable of receiving the entire an-
tennal scape in repose (a); bordered by strong, unbroken frontal carina mesially (b);
depression marked by a continuous smooth surface entirely (or nearly entirely) unin-
terrupted by rugulae (major worker). Diagnostic character for separating P. navigans
from P. flavens
72 Antennal scrobe broad, ill-defined, incapable of receiving the entire antennal scape
in repose (a); bordered by relatively weak and interrupted frontal carina mesially (b);
depression opaque and strongly punctate. Diagnostic character for separating P. flavens
from P. navigans
Species accounts
Pheidole anastasii Emery
Figs 74, 88a
anastasii. Pheidole anastasii Emery 1896: 76 (s.w.) COSTA RICA, Jiménez, [MCSN].
Queen described Forel 1901: 78. Junior synonym of bilimeki Mayr: Wilson 2003:
378. Revived status: Longino and Cox 2009: 40. Nec M.R. Smith 1933, Naves
1985, Boer and Vierbergen 2008.
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Color usually dull yellow to dull brownish
yellow. Major HW 0.83–1.05, HL 0.90–1.11, SL 0.49–0.62, CI 88–98, SI 50–61
(n=43, Longino pers. comm.). Head uniform in color (Fig. 35); subquadrate (Fig. 7);
often entirely punctate (Fig. 11), but portions of posterolateral lobes can be glossy.
Posterolateral lobes never with distinct rugae. Promesonotum in profile forming a
single dome (Fig. 4). Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Postpetiole
relatively broad; distinctly more than 2× petiolar width in dorsal view (Fig. 31). First
gastral tergite with anterior third to entire surface matte. Minor HW 0.38–0.50, HL
0.44–0.59, SL 0.44–0.58, CI 82–90, SI 106–120 (n=49, Longino pers. comm.).
Head dull, entirely covered by reticulated network of punctures (Fig. 37). Posterior
head margin relatively narrow and rounded (Fig. 58). Antennal scapes lack standing
hairs (Fig. 55); scapes surpass posterior head margin by a distance equal to or greater
than eye (Fig. 40). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking
a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Hairs on mesosoma stout,
stiff, of equal length and arranged in pairs (Fig. 53). Postpetiole narrow in dorsal
view, only slightly broader than petiole. Gaster with at least anterior 1/3 of first ter-
gite matte (Fig. 33).
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Pheidole anastasii, P. bilimeki and P.
punctatissima all belong to the P. punctatissima clade (Economo et al. 2015). These
ants are all relatively small species characterized by densely punctate ground sculpture
that gives them a dull, matte appearance. Among species treated here, the P. punctatis-
sima clade species are most easily confused with those of the closely related P. flavens
complex. Major and minor workers are most reliably diagnosed from those of the P.
flavens complex by the relatively broad postpetiole (Fig. 31, major; Fig. 62, minor)
and the matte anterior portion of the gaster (Fig. 33) in addition to other characters
listed in the key. The minor workers can also be confused with those of Asian native P.
parva, but can be distinguished by the more uniform and stout mesosomal hairs (Fig.
53), and by the antennal scapes which lack erect hairs (Fig. 55) and tend to surpass the
posterior head margin by a distance equal to or greater than eye (Fig. 40). In the Neo-
tropics, there are many native species that closely resemble P. anastasii (Wilson 2003),
and identification of the minor worker subcaste is especially challenging.
Among introduced members of the clade, the major workers of P. punctatissima

are immediately distinguished from those of both P. anastasii and P. bilimeki by the
bicolored head (Fig. 33). The minor workers of P. punctatissima tend to have narrower
posterior head margins and longer antennal scapes than those of P. anastasii and P.
bilimeki. Separating P. anastasii from P. bilimeki is particularly difficult. They are most
reliably distinguished by ecological characteristics, with the former preferring to nest
arboreally and the latter preferring to nest under stones or in dead wood. The morpho-
logical characters separating these two species are highly variable, but the major work-
ers of P. anastasii tend more often towards yellow (versus tending towards brown in P.
bilimeki) and can have relatively wider heads (HW 0.74–1.16 mm vs. 0.71–1.07 mm).
The minor workers of P. anastasii tend to have more narrow heads posteriorly then P.
bilimeki (Fig. 58 vs. Fig. 57) and relatively longer scapes (SI 103–125 vs. 95–108). See
Longino and Cox (2009) for additional details.
Adding to the already confusing taxonomy separating P. anastasii and P. bilimeki
is the widespread application of the name P. floridana Emery to populations across the
southern United States. The first record of P. floridana from Florida was the type series
described by Emery from Coconut Grove (Miami area) in 1895. Smith (1930) re-
corded P. floridana in his original list of Florida ants, and added P. anastasii three years
later (1933), stating only “This species [P. anastasii], which was originally described
from Costa Rica, is recorded here for Florida on the basis of information secured from
Dr. Wheeler…I have seen the same species in greenhouses in the District of Columbia,
New Jersey, and Illinois.” The previous year (1932) Wheeler, who had received type
material of P. floridana from Emery (Wheeler 1908c), included P. floridana and P.
anastasii in his own list of Florida ants.
Naves (1985) in his study of Florida Pheidole, also recognized both species and
distinguished P. anastasii from P. floridana by the matte base of the gaster in the
former and the glossy gaster in the latter. Indeed, the type specimens of P. floridana
from Coconut Grove are consistent with this characterization (CASENT0904424,
CASENT0904425). Naves wrote that the Miami area was the only place where he
was able to locate P. floridana. Pheidole anastasii, in contrast, was reported by Naves as
widely distributed across the state.
Deyrup et al. (1988), lamenting the taxonomic confusion surrounding P. floridana,
P. flavens and P. anastasii in Florida, stated, “Traditionally (Creighton 1950; Smith
1979) the name P. floridana has been applied to a widespread upland species that has
a distinctive matte area on the base of the first gastral tergite and very evenly rugose
head…This is the species we report from the Keys [Florida].” Subsequent reviews of
Florida ants have thus excluded P. anastasii from their lists (Deyrup 2003; Deyrup et
al. 2000; Moreau et al. 2014). Wilson (2003) followed Deyrup in treating all outdoor
populations from the United States as P. floridana, but conceded that his concept of
P. floridana could represent a northern geographic variant of P. bilimeki or an endemic
species modified by intergradation with a P. bilimeki immigrant population.
With respect to all outdoor North American records, we follow Wheeler (1932),
Smith (1933), and Naves (1985) in treating the localized glossy-gaster P. floridana
as distinct from the widespread matte-gaster species referred to as P. anastasii by the
aforementioned authors. However, the relatively short scapes and posteriorly broad
heads of the minor workers, together with the habitat and nesting preferences of the
matte-gaster species suggests the name P. bilimeki Mayr more accurately applies to this
widespread taxon than does P. anastasii Emery. The issue is discussed in further detail
under the P. bilimeki section.
Biology. Pheidole anastasii, named by Emery on behalf of Sig. Anastasio Alfaro,
is a Neotropical species that is occasionally found indoors beyond its native range.
Although at least some arboreal colonies appear to be polydomous, P. anastasii is a
low-impact adventive that has thus far shown little capacity for becoming a signifi-
cant invader. The biology of P. anastasii, especially across its native range in Costa
Rica and in comparison to P. bilimeki was reviewed by Longino and Cox (2009).
The species was noted as being among the most abundant ants in the low arboreal
forest understory of La Selva Biological Station (Costa Rica). Although tolerant of
disturbance, P. anastasii requires some vegetation cover and does not occur in open
areas. All collections reviewed by Longino and Cox were from wet forest habitats.
Most were from below 500 m elevation, but several ranged to a maximum of 1200
m. The propensity for the species to be inadvertently transported to greenhouses
across the world is predicted by its arboreal foraging and nesting habits. Longino
and Cox (2009) observed the species nests in almost any kind of cavity or sheltered
space, including live stems, and that workers often build galleries and tunnels with
carton or earthen construction. The species was reported to occur in lowland second
growth, evergreen forest, coffee plantation, limestone, ravine, mixed hardwood-pine
forest, wet forest, on karst, and cloud forest. It was also reported to nest in dead
sticks and branches on or above the forest floor, under bark flaps on tree trunks,
beneath epiphytes and under stones.
Distribution. Pheidole anastasii is a Neotropical native that ranges from Mexico to
southern Central America or northern South America. We consider many of the outdoor
records of P. anastasii from the southern United States to refer instead to P. bilimeki
(see discussion above). There are, however confirmed records of the species from heated
indoor locations – especially greenhouses. In North America there are records from hot-
houses in Washington D.C. and New York (Longino and Cox 2009), and also from
Massachusetts. In Europe, the Netherlands occurrences reported as P. anastasii by Boer
and Vierbergen (2008) refer to P. bilimeki (Boer, pers. comm.). The records from Den-
mark and Norway might also refer to P. bilimeki, but until specimens can be examined
we follow the authors’ use of P. anastasii (Birkemoe and Aak 2008; Lomholdt 1986).
Risk statement. Pheidole anastasii is a synanthropic species with a high tolerance
for habitat disturbance. It is occasionally found in human habitations and in green-
houses. There is little indication that is causes significant impact to agricultural systems
or native ecosystems. The species is a quarantine risk, and is thought to be transported
with fresh plant material.
Pheidole bilimeki Mayr

Figs 75, 88b
bilimeki. Pheidole bilimeki Mayr 1870b: 985 (s.) MEXICO (Bilimek) [NHMW].
Lectotype (s.) designated: Wilson 2003: 378. Nec Donisthorpe 1946, Wittenborn
and Jeschke 2011.
deplanata. Pheidole floridana var. deplanata Pergande 1896: 883 (s.w.) MEXICO, Tepic
(Eisen and Vaslit) [USNM]. Junior synonym of bilimeki Wilson 2003: 378.
antoniensis. Pheidole floridana var. antoniensis Forel 1901b: 364 (s.w.) COLOMBIA,
San Antonio, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (Forel) [MHNG]. Junior synonym of
bilimeki: Wilson 2003: 378.
annectens. Pheidole punctatissima subsp. annectens Wheeler, W.M. 1905: 93 (s.) BA-
HAMAS, Mangrove Key, Andros Island (Wheeler) [MCZC]. Junior synonym of
bilimeki: Wilson 2003: 378.
insulana. Pheidole punctatissima subsp. insulana Wheeler, W.M. 1905: 93 (s.w.) BA-
HAMAS Southern Bight, Andros Islands; BAHAMAS, Blue Hills, New Provi-
dence Island (Wheeler) [MCZC]. Junior synonym of bilimeki: Wilson 2003: 378.
venezuelana. Pheidole anastasii var. venezuelana Forel 1905b: 159 (s.m.) VENEZUE-
LA, Caracas (Meinert) [MHNG]. Junior synonym of bilimeki: Wilson 2003: 378.
johnsoni. Pheidole anastasii var. johnsoni Wheeler, W.M. 1907: 272 (s.w.m.) HONDU-
RAS, Manatee (Johnson) [MCZC]. Junior synonym of bilimeki: Wilson 2003: 378.
ares. Pheidole floridana subsp. ares Forel 1908: 57 (s.w.m.) COSTA RICA, Cote du
Tablazo, 1500 m; COSTA RICA, San Juan de Tobozi, 1400 m (Biolley) [MHNG].
Junior synonym of bilimeki: Wilson 2003: 378.
lauta. Pheidole lauta Wheeler, W.M. 1908c: 470 (s.w.q.m.) U.S.A. Subspecies of flori-
dana: Creighton 1950: 179. Junior synonym of floridana: Gregg 1959: 21. See also
Wilson 2003: 424. n. syn.
cellarum. Pheidole anastasii var. cellarum Forel 1908: 55 (s.w.) greenhouses in Zu-
rich (SWITZERLAND), Kew (GREAT BRITAIN), Dresden (GERMANY)
[MHNG]. Description of queen (as P. anastasii, based on material from Gua-
temala intercepted at Hamburg; material labeled incorrectly as cellarum types in
Forel collection): Forel 1901a: 78. Description of queen in key: Forel 1915: 34.
Junior synonym of bilimeki: Wilson 2003: 378.
rectiluma. Pheidole rectiluma Wilson 2003: 493 (s.w.) NICARAGUA, Hotel Selva Ne-
gra, 139 km north of Matagalpa, 1200 m (Kugler & Hahn). Junior synonym of
bilimeki: Longino 2009: 16.
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Color usually red brown, rarely yellow
brown. Major HW 0.75–1.04, HL 0.79–1.13, SL 0.44–0.57, CI 87–97, SI 50–65
(n=39, Longino pers. comm.). Head uniform in color (Fig. 35); subquadrate (Fig. 7);
often entirely punctate (Fig. 11), but portions of posterolateral lobes can be glossy.
Posterolateral lobes never with distinct rugulae. Promesonotum in profile forming a
single dome (Fig. 4). Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Postpetiole
relatively broad; distinctly more than 2× petiolar width in dorsal view (Fig. 31). First
gastral tergite with anterior third to entire surface matte. Minor HW 0.42–0.52, HL
0.47–0.59, SL 0.40–0.54, CI 83–93, SI 88–108 (n=38, Longino pers. comm.). Head,
including the area mesad of the frontal carinae, entirely covered by reticulated network
of punctures, giving it a dull appearance (Fig. 37). Posterior head margin relatively
broad and flat (Fig. 57). Antennal scapes lack standing hairs (Fig. 55); surpass posterior
head margin by a distance equal to or greater than eye (Fig. 40). Promesonotum in
profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on
the posterior slope. Hairs on mesosoma stout, stiff, of equal length and arranged in
pairs (Fig. 53). Postpetiole narrow in dorsal view, only slightly broader than petiole.
Gaster with at least anterior 1/3 of first tergite matte (Fig. 33).
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Pheidole bilimeki is a member of the
Neotropical P. punctatissima clade, together with P. anastasii and P. punctatissima
(Economo et al. 2015). Among species treated here, it is easily confused with the
aforementioned and members of the P. flavens complex. Minor workers can also be
confused with those of P. parva. See section under P. anastasii for identification notes.
In the southeastern United States, P. bilimeki is often confused with P. floridana Em-
ery, which is discussed in more detail below. In the Neotropics, there are many native
species that closely resemble P. bilimeki (Wilson 2003).
We propose the synonymy of P. lauta Wheeler to be transferred from P. floridana
to P. bilimeki. In his original description Wheeler (1908c) wrote, “…the worker has
the base of the gaster opaque whereas this is shining in the specimen of floridana
given me by Prof. Emery.” The description and the photographs we have examined
of the type specimens all agree with the concept of P. bilimeki used here and in
Longino and Cox (2009).
Should P. floridana therefore be synonymized under P. bilimeki? Wilson (2003)
offered that the former might represent the northernmost population of the latter, and
recent phylogenetic analyses (Economo et al. 2015; Moreau 2008) show these two as
sibling taxa. Based on the results of her analysis, Moreau (2008) found that her samples
of P. bilimeki (Costa Rica, RA0162) and putative P. floridana (Florida, RA0331) were
each other’s closest relatives, and that this pair was sister to P. anastasii (Costa Rica). The
result is also supported by Economo et al. (2015), which found a shallow divergence
separating P. bilimeki from putative P. floridana, especially compared to the deep diver-
gence separating these sister taxa from P. anastasii. Moreau (2008) concluded that in
order for P. anastasii to be a valid member of P. bilimeki, as proposed by Wilson (2003),
P. floridana would also have to be accepted as a synonym of P. bilimeki.
We suggest that this conundrum stems from the common misapplication of the
name P. floridana (a shiny gaster species) to collections of what are in fact the North
American population of P. bilimeki (a matte gaster species). Naves (1985) came to a
similar conclusion in his revision of the Pheidole of Florida, “P. floridana seems to be
confined to southeast Florida in the Miami area. This is the only place where I was able
to locate this species. Due to its close relationship to P. anastasii the latter has been
misidentified as P. floridana many times, thus, mistakenly extending the supposed
range of P. floridana. P. anastasii is actually the species widely distributed in Florida,

while floridana is absent or at least must be rare in most of the state.”
One explanation for the confusing phylogenetic results is that RA0331 actually
refers to P. bilimeki Mayr, and that true members of P. floridana Emery from the
Miami area were not included in the aforementioned phylogenetic analyses. The sam-
ples of RA0331 were collected in central Florida from Polk County, well outside the
Miami area from which the P. floridana Emery is known (Naves 1985). Deyrup, who
collected and identified the specimens of RA0331, has previously (2003; 1988; 1989)
applied the name P. floridana to matte gaster specimens that earlier authors (Naves
1985; Smith 1933; Wheeler 1932) would have considered P. anastasii Emery, and that
we consider P. bilimeki Mayr.
To properly ascertain the taxonomic status of P. floridana Mayr we suggest a future
phylogenetic analysis that includes specimens matching the type material of P. floridana,
preferably from the Miami area. If there is evidence supporting the conspecificity of sam-
ples matching our concept of P. bilimeki, then the validity of P. floridana Emery must be
revaluated. If, rather, the P. floridana samples are heterospecific with respect to P. bilimeki,
then there are at least two hypotheses that could explain this result. One is that P. floridana
is endemic to Florida. The second, perhaps more compelling albeit ironic explanation,
would propose the Miami population of P. floridana is conspecific with a Neotropical
species inadvertently introduced to Florida. Miami is a major shipping port and was the
gateway for many introduced ants over the past two centuries (Deyrup et al. 2000).
Biology. The taxonomic confusion surrounding whether published accounts refer
to our proposed concept of P. bilimeki, or instead to either P. floridana or P. anastasii,
makes it difficult to ascertain the natural history of the species. The following account
given by Longino and Cox (2009), however, refers definitively to P. bilimeki. They
report that P. bilimeki is a common species in open, recently or frequently disturbed
habitats. In Costa Rica it occurs in lowland dry forest, lowland wet forest, and mon-
tane habitats to about 1500 m elevation. It is a common ant of roadsides, nesting
under stones or in dead fence posts. It is a frequent pest ant in houses and is a common
ant at baits in second growth dry forest vegetation in seasonally dry Guanacaste Prov-
ince. It can also be abundant and dominant in large disturbances deep within primary
forest reserves. We tentatively treat the account given by Wilson (2003) for P. flori-
dana as referring to the North American population of P. bilimeki. That account stated
that winged reproductives have been found in nests during September and October,
and that the species occurs in a variety of woodland habitats, nests in soil, litter, and
rotten wood, and in both xeric and mesic situations. It also noted the observation of
Stefan Cover that colonies are monogynous, may contain 1000 or more ants, and are
sometimes polydomous. Cover observed that the species is omnivorous, but does not
appear to harvest seeds (but see Naves 1985). Naves (1985) discussed the biology of P.
bilimeki (as P. anastasii) in Florida. He found the species most often nesting under the
bark at the base of pines or along the roots, but occasionally found it nesting in the soil.
The colonies he observed supported over 600 workers with a 5:1 ratio of minors to ma-
jors. Mature colonies were monogynous, although in laboratory conditions colonies
that lost their original queen would accept other conspecific queens. Several colonies
were discovered with two or three founding females, but laboratory experiments found
that one would kill the others before the rearing of the first brood. Naves also recorded
that the species feeds on seeds, fruits, and scavenges on small dead arthropods and is
predaceous on small live arthropods.
Distribution. Pheidole bilimeki is a Neotropical native that ranges from northern
South America to southern North America and across the Caribbean. The records
included here from the southern United States have previously been treated as P. ana-
stasii and P. floridana (see discussion). Pheidole bilimeki was not reported from Florida
until 1932 (Wheeler). While it is possible that the penetration of P. bilimeki into the
southern United States represents a recent dispersal event, even one that has been
anthropogenically facilitated, there are several reasons for considering P. bilimeki as
native to the region. Firstly, the range of North American populations appear contigu-
ous with those of Mexico and the Caribbean, and gene flow among them is probable.
Secondly, populations from Florida are known to host two parasites, a mermithid that
parasitizes workers, and a hymenopteran parasite species of the genus Orasema (Naves
1985). Pheidole bilimeki has been recorded from greenhouses in Illinois and Ohio in
North America. The species has also been found indoors and greenhouses across Eu-
rope, including the Netherlands (Boer and Vierbergen 2008), Germany (Forel 1908),
Great Britain (Forel 1908), Ireland (Stelfox 1927), and Switzerland (Forel 1908). The
only occurrence of P. bilimeki in Jamaica is reported by Wilson (2003). Although the
species might occur there, it is also possible that Wilson was referring to P. jamaicensis
Wheeler. The single Mauritius occurrence is of a single minor worker examined by
Donisthorpe (1946), but this specimen more likely refers to the superficially similar
P. parva which is widespread across the island and its neighbors in the Indian Ocean.
Risk statement. Pheidole bilimeki is a synanthropic species with a high tolerance
for habitat disturbance. It is occasionally found indoors, especially in greenhouses.
There is little indication that is causes significant impact to agricultural systems or na-
tive ecosystems.
Pheidole fervens F. Smith

Figs 76, 88c
fervens. Pheidole fervens Smith, F. 1858: 176 (s.) SINGAPORE (BMNH). Lectotype
(s.) (CASENT0901520) designated: Fischer and Fisher 2013: 322.
pungens. Solenopsis pungens Smith 1861: 48. INDONESIA, Menado, Sulawesi (A.R.
Wallace). Combination in Pheidologeton: Donisthorpe 1932: 469; in Pheidole:
Bolton 1995: 328. Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens; lectotype (s.) designated:
Eguchi 2004b: 198.
javana. Pheidole javana Mayr, 1867: 66 (s.w.) INDONESIA, Batavia [Jakarta], Java.
Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens: Wilson and Taylor 1967: 45. Lectotype (s.)
designated: Eguchi 2004b.
cavannae. Pheidole cavannae Emery 1887: 464 (footnote) (s.) NEW CALEDONIA.
Subspecies of Pheidole oceanica: Emery 1914: 401. Junior synonym of Pheidole
fervens: Wilson and Taylor 1967: 45.
dharmsalana. Pheidole javana var. dharmsalana Forel 1902c: 184, 198 (s.) INDIA,
Dharmsala (Sage). [Also described as new by Forel 1902: 546]. Subspecies of Phei-
dole fervens: Bolton 1995: 320. Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens; lectotype (s.)
designated: Eguchi 2004b: 198.
amia. Pheidole amia Forel 1912: 60 (s.w.) TAIWAN, Takao [Kaohsiung]. Junior syno-
nym of Pheidole fervens; lectotype designated: Eguchi 2004b: 197.
dolenda. Pheidole javana var. dolenda Forel 1912: 60 (s.w.) TAIWAN, Akau. Subspecies
of Pheidole fervens: Bolton 1995: 320. Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens; lecto-
type designated: Eguchi 2004b: 198.
nigriscapa. Pheidole oceanica subsp. nigriscapa Santschi, 1928: 48 (s.w.) SAMOA, Apia,
Upolu (H. Swale). Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens: Wilson and Taylor 1967: 45.
tahitiana. Pheidole oceanica subsp. nigriscapa var. tahitiana Santschi [in Cheesman and
Crawley 1928]: 516. FRENCH POLYNESIA, Tahiti. Unavailable name; material
referred to Pheidole fervens by Wilson and Taylor 1967: 45.
desucta. Pheidole javana var. desucta Wheeler, W.M. 1929: 2 (s.w.q.) CHINA, Back Li-
ang. Subspecies of Pheidole fervens: Bolton 1995: 320. Junior synonym of Pheidole
fervens: Eguchi 2001a: 53. Lectotype designated: Eguchi 2004b.
soror. Pheidole javana var. soror Santschi 1937: 369 (s.w.) TAIWAN, Hokuto. Subspe-
cies of Pheidole fervens: Bolton 1995: 330. Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens;
lectotype designated: Eguchi 2004b: 198.
azumai. Pheidole nodus st. azumai Santschi 1941: 274 (s.w.) JAPAN, Tennooji, Osaka.
Junior synonym of Pheidole fervens; lectotype designated: Eguchi 2004b: 198.
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Color yellowish brown to dark brown. Ma-
jor HW 1.13–1.44, HL 1.13–1.56, SL 0.80–0.95, CI 92–100, SI 61–71 (n=15, Egu-
chi 2001a; 2008; Fischer and Fisher 2013). Head square to subquadrate (Fig. 7); ru-
goreticulate on posterolateral lobes and laterad of frontal carinae (Fig. 13a), but frons
dominated by long, well-organized and parallel longitudinal rugae (Fig. 13b). Anten-
nal scrobes indistinct to moderately impressed, but frontal carinae always forming a
border capable of accepting the antennal scape (Fig. 13c). Frontal carinae relatively
longer, extend 4/5 distance of head before terminating (Fig. 14). Promesonotum in
profile with two convexities (Fig. 5), the large anterior dome in addition to a dis-
tinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Postpetiole not swollen relative to
petiole (Fig. 3). Minor HW 0.52–0.63, HL 0.66–0.73, SL 0.77–0.87, CI 79–88, SI
133–154 (n=16, Eguchi 2001a; 2008; Fischer and Fisher 2013). Head predominantly
glossy (Fig. 36), lacking punctation or rugulae above eye level. Posterior head margin
weakly convex to flat in full-face view (Fig. 45). Antennal scapes long (e.g. Fig. 39),
but not surpassing the posterior head margin by more than 2× eye length. Promesono-
tum in profile with two convexities, the large anterior dome (Fig. 43a) in addition to
a distinct prominence on the posterior slope (Fig. 43b). Promesonotal prominence
relatively flat (Fig. 49a). Metanotal depression relatively deep (Fig. 49b). Petiole and
postpetiole glossy to very weakly sculptured laterally (Fig. 48). Postpetiole not swollen
relative to petiole (Fig. 3).
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Pheidole fervens is a medium to large
sized species with long limbs. It belongs to the P. fervens clade along with its Aus-
tralasian congeners P. cariniceps, P. hospes, P. impressiceps, and P. oceanica (Economo
et al. 2015). The major workers have strong cephalic rugulae that become reticulated
towards the posterior of the head and the minor workers have completely glossy heads
with very long antennal scapes. Majors and minors of the species can be separated from
those of P. megacephala and P. noda by the postpetiole which is not swollen compared
to the petiole (Fig. 3), and the promesonotum which has the large anterior dome in ad-
dition to a distinct prominence on the posterior slope (Fig. 5, major; Fig. 43, minor).
The minors of P. fervens can also be separated from those of P. megacephala by their
larger size and longer antennal scapes (Fig. 39). The majors are easily distinguished
from P. megacephala by the very sculptured head (Fig. 13).
Among species treated here, P. fervens is most easily confused with its close relative,
P. indica, and the characters used to separate these two are subtle. For both subcastes,
the promesonotal prominence is flatter in P. fervens (Fig. 49a, minor; Fig. 63a, major)
compared to that of P. indica (Fig. 50a, minor; Fig. 64a, major). The eyes of P. fervens
minors (Fig. 65) are relatively smaller than those of P. indica minors (Fig. 66), espe-
cially in comparison to antennal segment 10. The propodeal spines of P. fervens are
weaker, narrower, and more downcurved in majors of P. fervens (Fig. 63b) compared
to those of P. indica (Fig. 64b). Readers are referred to Eguchi (2004b; 2008) for char-
acters used to separate P. fervens and P. indica from their Asian congeners.
In the Pacific Island region P. fervens is often confused with the nearly identical
P. oceanica, which is native to that region. The carinae between eye and mandible are
branching and reticulated in the majors of P. fervens (Fig. 67), versus parallel and not
reticulated in those of P. oceanica (Fig. 68). This character was erroneously reversed
in the key provided in Sarnat and Economo (2012). The minors are more difficult
to separate, but in P. fervens the length of propodeal spine is equal to or less than the
diameter of propodeal spiracle (Fig. 69), whereas in P. oceanica it is greater (Fig. 70).
Biology. For such a ubiquitous species across its native and introduced range, very
little is known about the biology of Pheidole fervens. It is a synanthropic species with
a high tolerance for disturbance (Eguchi 2004b; Fischer and Fisher 2013; Martínez
1996), but can also thrive under some degree of canopy cover (Morrison 1996; Sar-
nat and Economo 2012). In Fiji, where it is likely a recent colonizer, it was collected
most frequently in human dominated landscapes between 0–800 m, although several
collections were also made from primary forest at low elevations. In Hawaii, where
it is definitely an introduced species, it is more abundant locally in wet regions than
P. megacephala (Gruner et al. 2003) and occurs in the hot lowlands only below 900
m (Reimer 1994). In the Philippines, P. fervens is found in irrigated lowlands (rice
fields) where it is characterized as dominant species capable of displacing S. geminata
in the dry season (Way et al. 1998). In Japan it occurs in open land grading to forest
edge (Harada et al. 2009; Ogata 1981). Pheidole fervens recruits in large numbers to
bait and forages both on the ground and on vegetation (Sarnat and Economo 2012).
Baiting experiments on Pacific Islands found that P. fervens can act as a numerically
and behaviorally dominant species capable of excluding other invasive ant species (in-
cluding Anoplolepis gracilipes, Nylanderia bourbonica, and Tetramorium bicarinatum)
from baits (Morrison 1996). Although foragers can be slow to discover food resources,
once found they can recruit in large numbers and displace competing species (Mor-
rison 1996). Experiments in China suggest that P. fervens can provide some degree of
biotic resistance to the Red Imported Fire Ant (Solenopsis invicta) by acting in groups
to dismember the limbs of individual fire ants (Chen et al. 2011). Martínez (1996)
suggested the California population of P. fervens was polydomous, and Passera (1994)
suggested the Hawaii population is unicolonial and polygynous, but detailed colony-
level studies of the species are required to verify these claims. Wittenborn and Jeschke
(2011) attributed their assertion that P. fervens practices dependent colony founding
to Harris et al. (2005a), but we were unable to find any reference to colony foundation
in that report and cannot substantiate their evidence.
Distribution. We consider Pheidole fervens as native to a broad expanse of the
Indo-Malay region spanning from India east to the Philippines and south to the is-
lands west of New Guinea. This is a broad and admittedly arbitrary boundary, but a
more precise circumscription of the native range requires a population-level analysis
outside the scope of the present study. In particular, it is difficult to ascertain the
extent of its range into the Pacific Island region prior to the Anthropocene. The
only known occurrence of P. fervens from New Guinea was a single record from the
westernmost part of the island (Emery 1887b). East of New Guinea, however, the
species is established on nearly all islands of the Pacific, including those which were
uninhabited by any ant prior to human arrival. Although it is quite possible that P.
fervens reached some of these islands without human assistance – especially those
between Taiwan and mainland Japan – we treat these as introduced populations.
And although established on Mauritius, the species is rarely encountered there and is
currently known from only two localities (Fischer and Fisher 2013). The only record
of introduction in North America is a California population that established nests in
cracks of roads and along the sides of buildings in a two-block area of downtown Los
Angeles (Martínez 1996). Pheidole fervens has been collected from greenhouses in the
Netherlands (Boer and Vierbergen 2008), and is frequently intercepted by quarantine
inspections (Ward et al. 2006).
Risk statement. Pheidole fervens can be a dominant species where it is locally abun-
dant. Although few studies have measured the effect of P. fervens on native ecosystems,
we predict that it could negatively impact native arthropods. We were unable to find
documentation on the effect of P. fervens on agricultural systems, but it can be among
the most abundant ant species in irrigated lowland crop systems such as rice fields.
Pheidole fervens can also be an indoor nuisance species (Wilson and Taylor 1967), but
is not a risk for structural damage. According to New Zealand records, the species is
among the most commonly intercepted ants in that country (Ward et al. 2006). Sixty-
nine percent of the interceptions were in freight from Fiji (> 92% from the Pacific
Islands). Interceptions were mostly in fresh produce (69%) and cut flowers (8%). Phei-
dole fervens was also intercepted multiple times in air passengers’ luggage and shipping
containers. The species could become more globally widespread in the future.
Pheidole flavens Roger

Figs 77, Fig. 88d
flavens. Pheidole flavens Roger 1863a: 198 (s.w.q.) CUBA. Wheeler, W.M. 1905: 92
(m.). Neotype designated: Barrajagua, Las Villas, CUBA (E.O. Wilson): Wilson
2003: 419.
tuberculata. Pheidole exigua var. tuberculata Mayr 1887: 585 (s.) St. Catharina, BRA-
ZIL. Subspecies of flavens: Emery 1894: 157. Junior synonym of flavens: Wilson
2003: 419.
vincentensis. Pheidole flavens var. vincentensis Forel 1893a: 411 (s.w.q.m.) SAINT
VINCENT. Junior synonym of flavens: Wilson 2003: 419.
gracilior. Pheidole flavens r. gracilior Forel 1901a: 78 (s.w.q.) GERMANY (intercepted
in quarantine, from West Indies). Junior synonym of flavens: Wilson 2003: 419.
haytiana. Pheidole flavens var. haytiana Forel 1907: 6 (w.) HAITI, Port-au-Prince (Kei-
tel). Wheeler, W.M. & Mann, 1914: 24 (s.q.m.). Junior synonym of flavens: Wil-
son 2003: 419.
spei. Pheidole flavens st. spei Santschi 1930: 77 (s.w.) CUBA, Pinar del Rio, Punta Esperanza,
4.i.2030, 7 s., 10 w. (Bierig). Junior synonym of flavens: Wilson 2003: 419.
aechmeae. Pheidole floridana subsp. aechmeae Wheeler, W.M. 1934: 166 (s.w.) MEXICO,
Camaron near Mirador, Vera Cruz, in Aechmea bracteata, No. 472 (Skwarra). Junior
synonym of flavens: Wilson 2003: 419.
greggi. Pheidole greggi Naves, 1985: 62, figs. 21, 45, 57 (s.w.) U.S.A., Miami, Florida,
19.xii.1945 (W.F. Buren). Junior synonym of flavens: Wilson 2003: 419.
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. See notes under P. flavens-complex. Neotype

major: HW 0.72, HL 0.74, SL 0.42, CI 103, SI 58. Paraneotype minor: HW 0.34,
HL 0.42, SL 0.34, CI 124. SI 100. Non-type measurements, major: HW 0.68–0.83,
HL 0.74–0.88, SL 0.39–0.42, CI 87–97, SI 52–59. Non-type measurements, minor:
HW 0.34–0.45, HL 0.39–0.49, SL 0.34–0.42, CI 81–93, SI 89–104.
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Pheidole flavens belongs to the P. fla-
vens-complex along with a putatively large number of other nominal taxa. However,
the P. flavens group as conceived by Wilson (2003) is now known to be polyphyletic
(Economo et al. 2015; Moreau 2008). Readers are referred to the P. flavens-complex
for additional discussion of identification, taxonomy and systematics. The taxonomy
of P. flavens and its close relatives remains in a state of confusion. It is beyond the scope
of the present study to resolve this issue, but we contribute the following discussion as
a step towards that goal.
Pheidole flavens was originally described by Roger from Cuba, but the type ma-
terial is considered to be lost. Wilson (2003) designated a neotype from Cuba and
synonymized a total of eight nominal taxa with P. flavens. Of these, P. greggi Naves
(Florida) and perhaps P. flavens st. spei Santschi (Mexico) are most similar to the
Cuban neotype. They, together with the types of P. moerens subsp. creola, are the
only specimens examined thus far that have clearly reticulated rugulae posterior to
the scrobes of major workers. Naves’ (1985: fig. 55) concept of P. flavens Roger, at
least as evidenced by his figures and descriptions, more closely matches our concept
P. navigans, a species that is spreading across the southeastern United States. The
syntype major of Pheidole flavens var. vincentensis Forel differs substantially from the
neotype in that the head is completely glossy between the rugulae, which are them-
selves entirely longitudinal and do not extend far beyond the maximum extent of the
antennal scapes in repose. These characters make it at least superficially more similar
to P. moerens and P. navigans. Pheidole flavens r. gracilior and P. navigans were both
described by Forel from workers intercepted at a Hamburg quarantine facility, which
is testament to the dispersive ability of this complex. The syntype major of the latter
species and that of P. floridana subsp. aechmeae Wheeler, also described from Mexico,
are quite similar. Pheidole exigua var. tuberculata Mayr has the strongly convex head
and promesonotal dome of P. exigua Mayr, and also exhibits tuberculate angles on
the mesonotal declivity. Type specimens of P. flavens var. haytiana Forel were not
examined for this study.
The only material from outside Central America and the Caribbean that we were
able to confirm as matching the Wilson’s neotype was from Florida. The Florida popu-
lations referred to here as P. flavens and P. navigans are almost certainly heterospecific.
We suspect that Nearctic records of P. flavens outside of Florida such as those reported
from Louisiana (Colby and Prowell 2006; Dash and Hooper-Bùi 2008) refer to either
P. bilimeki or the species we are treating as P. navigans in the southeastern USA.
Biology. The biology of Pheidole flavens, as currently conceived, was reviewed by
Wilson (2003) with contributing observations by Jack Longino. The species prefers
rotting wood, but also nest beneath the bark of trees, in dead knots on tree trunks, in
sod on rocks, in the soil beneath stones, and in epiphyte masses. In the Caribbean it is
recorded from forests and thickets from sea level to 900 m, and in Costa Rica it occurs
in both wet and dry forests below 1000 m. The nest galleries are diffuse and irregular.
Mature colonies are large containing up to thousands of workers. Workers collect
small arthropods and will recruit to sugar baits.
Distribution. Pheidole flavens is among the most widespread and abundant species
of its genus in the New World, although this range might be representative of multiple
cryptic species. As currently conceived, however, we consider P. flavens native from
southern Mexico east through the Caribbean and south to Uruguay and northern
Argentina. It is difficult to know whether the disjunction separating the western and
eastern regions of South America is accurate or a sampling artifact. The Florida popula-
tion is believed to have derived from an accidental introduction by commerce (Deyrup
et al. 2000; Wilson 2003).
Risk statement. Pheidole flavens (or at least it’s very close relatives) are easily trans-
ported long distances, and are known to hitchhike with fresh plant material (Wilson
2003). However, the species is not known to cause significant impact to agricultural
systems or native ecosystems, and is not considered a house pest (Hedges 1998; Klotz
et al. 1995).
Pheidole flavens-complex
Fig. 88e
The P. flavens-complex is defined here to include P. flavens Roger, P. moerens Wheeler,
P. navigans Forel, and their respective junior synonyms. A clear understanding of the
phylogenetic relationship among the aforementioned taxa that are invading regions
beyond the Neotropics remains a challenge for future studies (Sarnat et al. 2014).
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Color variable. Major Head subquadrate

(Fig. 7). Longitudinal carinae extend from anterior frons margin a variable distance
beyond frontal carinae, but never reach posterior head margin (Fig. 25). Rugae of
posterolateral lobes variable from mostly absent, to predominantly longitudinal, to
distinctly reticulated. Posterior head margin always free of distinct rugae (Fig. 25) or
rugoreticulum (Fig. 27). Microsculpture of posterolateral lobes variable from glossy
to moderately punctate. Hypostoma with stout median and submedian teeth (Fig.
19). Promesonotal dorsum usually with distinct transverse striae (Fig. 21), but some-
times lacking distinct striae. Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4),
lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Promesonotum not
strongly transverse with strongly projecting sides in dorsal view (Fig. 29). Postpetiole
not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Postpetiole relatively narrow in dorsal view;
distinctly less than 2× petiolar width. Gaster with entire first tergite glossy (Fig. 32).
Minor Head covered in punctate microsculpture, giving it a dull appearance. Posterior
portion of head lacking many short to medium length segments of striae distinctly
interlaced among punctate ground sculpture (Fig. 60). Antennal scapes often, but not
always, surpass posterior head margin; if they do it is usually by a distance less than
eye length. Antennal scapes with standing hairs present (Fig. 56). Promesonotum in
profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on
the posterior slope. Hairs on mesosoma fine and flexuous, not arranged in pairs (Fig.
54). Pronotal humeri not angular. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3).
Postpetiole relatively narrow (Fig. 30); distinctly less than 2× petiolar width in dorsal
view. Gaster with entire first tergite glossy (Fig. 32).
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Members of the P. flavens-complex
are small species ranging from yellowish to dark reddish brown. The head and meso-
soma of the minor workers are covered by densely punctate ground sculpture. The
head of the major worker tends to be shinier with the posterior margin always free of
sculpture. Among the species treated here, those of the flavens complex are most easily
confused with those of the closely related and often sympatric P. punctatissima clade
(P. anastasii, P. bilimeki, P. punctatissima). The postpetiole is narrower in the P. flavens
complex (Fig. 30, major; Fig. 61, minor) relative to those of the P. punctatissima clade
(Fig. 31, major; Fig. 62, minor). The gaster is completely glossy in both subcastes of
the P. flavens complex (Fig. 32), while at least the basal portion of the first gastral ter-
gite is matte in those of the P. punctatissima clade. In the P. flavens complex the minors
have finer hairs of variable lengths on the mesosoma (Fig. 54) and the antennal scapes
have many erect to suberect hairs (Fig. 56). In contrast the P. punctatissima clade have
thicker mesosoma hairs of equal length (Fig. 53) and lack erect antennal scape hairs
(Fig. 55). The minors of the P. flavens complex are very difficult to distinguish from
those of Pheidole parva. They can be separated by the lack of interlacing striae on the
posterior head margin (Fig. 60, P. flavens complex vs. Fig. 59, P. parva). See key for
additional characters.
The P. flavens group as defined by Wilson (2003) is now known to be polyphyletic
(Moreau 2008), and unpublished data analyzed by the authors suggests that the P.
flavens complex as defined by Wilson also lacks monophyly. Pheidole exigua is mor-
phologically quite similar to the aforementioned taxa, and future attempts to define
the flavens complex clade should include it in analyses, along with P. glomericeps and
possibly other species not initially considered by Wilson.
The most recent phylogeny of Pheidole includes eight taxa that form a well-sup-
ported P. flavens clade (Economo et al. 2015). The clade consists of taxa that have been
determined by various ant taxonomists as P. moerens, P. flavens, P. glomericeps; several
morphospecies including Pheidole sp. JTL-177 and a P. flavens-complex taxon recently
established on Vanuatu (Sarnat et al. 2014); and also the species we refer to as P. navigans
Forel. Although these taxa represent only a fragment of the diversity attributed to the
P. flavens complex, the analysis demonstrates the taxonomic confusion of the clade. For
example, the P. moerens sample from the Dominican Republic is most closely related to
the taxa recently discovered on Vanuatu in the South Pacific. There is strong support for
these taxa being more closely related to Pheidole JTL-177 (Venezuela) and two taxa from
Central America determined as P. flavens (collection codes PSW16014 and JTL4928)
then to P. navigans from Alabama (collection code PSW15833) and Venezuela (collec-
tion code PSW16167). The Alabama and Venezuela P. navigans are actually most closely
related to a taxon determined as P. glomericeps (collection code Wa-D-01-2-16).
Pheidole indica Mayr

Figs 73, 78, 88f
indica. Pheidole indica Mayr 1879: 679 (s.w.q.) INDIA, Calcutta [NHMW, paralec-
totype s.w., examined]. Forel 1902b: 199 (m.); Imai et al. 1984: 6 (k.). Lectotype
designated Eguchi 2004b: 199 (s.).
Note. Material of the unavailable name Pheidole javana r. jubilans var. formosae
Forel 1912: 60 referred to Pheidole indica: Eguchi 2004b: 199.
striativentris. Pheidole striativentris Mayr 1879: 678 (s.) INDIA: Calcutta. Forel 1902b:
195 (w.q.). Junior synonym of indica: Eguchi 2004b: 199.
teneriffana. Pheidole teneriffana Forel 1893b: 465 (s.w.) SPAIN, Canary Is. (s.) Laguna,
Tenerife (M. Medina); (q.) Las Palmas, Canarías (Cabrera y Díaz). [Also described
as new by Forel 1894a: 160.] Queen described: Santschi 1908: 521. Male de-
scribed: Gómez and Espadaler 2006: 229. n. syn.
voeltzkowii. Pheidole voeltzkowii Forel 1894b: 227 (s.w.m.) MADAGASCAR. Queen
described: Forel 1897: 207. Junior synonym of teneriffana: Fischer and Fisher
2013: 340. n. syn.
himalayana. Pheidole indica r. himalayana Forel 1902b: 185 (s.), 199 (w.) INDIA.
[Also described as new by Forel 1902a: 546.] Raised to species: Bingham 1903:
265. Subspecies of indica: Emery 1921: 91; Menozzi 1939: 298; Pisarski 1967:
385. Junior synonym of indica: Eguchi 2004b: 198.
rotschana. Pheidole indica r. rotschana Forel 1902b: 185 (s.), 199 (w.m.) INDIA: Poo-
na, Orissa, Trevandrum and Thana. Lectotype designated Eguchi 2004b: 199 (s.)
INDIA: Poona. Imai et al. 1984: 6 (k.). [Also described as new by Forel 1902a:
546.] Raised to species: Bingham 1903: 264. Subspecies of indica: Forel 1909b:
394; Forel 1911a: 222. Junior synonym of indica: Eguchi 2004b: 199.
taina. Pheidole teneriffana subsp. taina Aguayo 1932: 219 (s.) CUBA, Holguín,
viii.1930 (C.G. Aguayo). Junior synonym of teneriffana: Wilson 2003: 640. See
also: Baroni Urbani 1968: 438; Snelling, R.R. 1992: 121. n. syn.
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Light to dark reddish brown. Major HW

1.32–1.74, HL 1.31–1.76, SL 0.73–0.91, CI 94–117, SI 47–62 (n=22). Head sub-
quadrate (Fig. 7); rugoreticulate on posterolateral lobes and laterad of frontal carinae
(Fig. 13a), but frons dominated by long, well-organized and parallel longitudinal ru-
gae (Fig. 13b). Frontal carinae extend 3/4 distance of head before terminating (Fig.
15). Antennal scrobes indistinct to moderately impressed, but frontal carinae always
forming a border capable of accepting the antennal scape (Fig. 13c). Hypostoma with
weakly produced median tooth and submedian teeth. Promesonotum in profile with
two convexities (Fig. 5), the large anterior dome in addition to a distinct mound or
prominence on the posterior slope. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3).
Minor HW 0.50–0.65, HL 0.60–0.74, SL 0.64–0.81, CI 72–90, SI 120–149 (n=20).
Head predominantly glossy (Fig. 36), lacking punctation and or rugae above eye level.
Posterior head margin weakly convex to flat in full-face view (Fig. 45). Antennal scapes
long (e.g. Fig. 39), but not surpassing the posterior head margin by more than 2× eye
length. Promesonotum in profile with two convexities, the large anterior dome (Fig.
43a) in addition to a distinct prominence on the posterior slope (Fig. 43b). Prome-
sonotal prominence relatively convex (Fig. 50a). Metanotal depression relatively shal-
low (Fig. 50b). Petiole and postpetiole glossy to very weakly sculptured laterally (Fig.
48). Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3).
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Pheidole indica is a medium to large
reddish brown species with relatively long limbs. It belongs to the P. fervens clade along
Introduced Pheidole of the world
Figure 73. Relative morphometric measurements of P. indica paralectotypes, specimens previously determined as P. indica, and specimens previously determined
as P. teneriffana. All values are in mm. A Head length vs. head width, major workers. B Head length vs. head width, minor workers. C Scape length vs. head width,
major workers D Scape length vs. head width, minor workers.
47
with its Australasian congeners P. cariniceps, P. fervens, P. hospes, P. impressiceps, and P.

oceanica (Economo et al. 2015, unpublished data). The major and minor workers are
distinguished from those of P. megacephala by the lack of a swollen postpetiole (Fig. 3).
The majors are also easily separated from those of P. megacephala by the strongly sculp-
tured head (Fig. 13). The minors can be confused with those of P. megacephala because
both have glossy heads. However, the minors of P. fervens can be separated from those
of P. megacephala by the relatively longer antennal scapes (Fig. 39 vs. Fig. 40) and the
presence of a promesonotal prominence (Fig. 43 vs. Fig. 42). Pheidole indica is broadly
sympatric with P. noda and P. fervens. It is easily separated from the former by the lack
of a swollen postpetiole (Fig. 3 vs. Fig. 2). Separation from P. fervens is quite difficult,
and readers are referred to corresponding section under that species for distinguishing
characters. Readers are referred to Eguchi (2004b; 2008) for characters used to sepa-
rate P. indica and P. fervens from their Asian congeners.
Pheidole indica was originally described from India. Eguchi (2004b) synonymized
several other Asian congeners under P. indica and discussed taxonomic differences
used to distinguish it from P. fervens and other morphologically similar species. We
synonymize P. teneriffana under P. indica based on morphological analysis of the type
specimens and genetic analysis of previously determined specimens (unpublished
data). Forel, in his original description of P. teneriffana, noted the similarity between
it and P. striativentris [= indica].
The biogeographical origin of P. teneriffana has been a minor mystery of the past
century, as revealed by the recent review of the species by Wetterer (2011). There
appeared to be general consensus that P. teneriffana was native to at least some
portion of North Africa, Arabia, the Middle East or the Mediterranean. Santschi
(1918), suggested the upper Nile area (South Sudan). Wilson (2003) suggested
North Africa and potentially the Canary Islands. Collingwood et al. (2004) suggest-
ed it was native throughout northern Africa and observed it to be, “spreading over
a wide front in the Middle East, Arabia and the Mediterranean countries.” Wet-
terer (2011) found the distribution of P. teneriffana enigmatic, “Curiously, most
Old World records of P. teneriffana are subtropical, but all New World records are
tropical, except one from California…If P. teneriffana is truly native across North
Africa, it is remarkable how few records I found from any North African country
other than Egypt.”
Biology. In Asia P. indica is known to nest in soil or under stones in open and
dry habitats (Eguchi 2004b). It is among the most widespread Pheidole species in
Asia. In the Caribbean Wetterer (2011) found P. indica [as P. teneriffana] almost
exclusively on beaches and at highly disturbed urban sites, particularly in waterfront
areas. In northern Africa, Santschi (1908) noted the tramp-like distribution of what
he treated as P. teneriffana, “This species, described by Forel on samples from the
Canary Islands, was sent to me from Cairo. I discovered it most recently in Sousse
[Tunisia], in the park, near the port. As it does not exist in the interior, I think it
is one species cosmopolitan tendencies. It nests in the ground and under stones.”
Santschi (1934) later reported the species from Alexandria, Egypt, and noted that P.
teneriffana was rarely reported far from seaports. Collingwood et al. (1997) reported
that in the United Arab Emirates, P. indica [as P. teneriffana] was populous in irri-
gated gardens and along the coast where it appeared to be spreading rapidly, possibly
to the detriment of local species. The species has also been reported from urban areas
of the Balearic Islands where it is common in the gardens and trees and on sidewalks
near the harbor (Gómez and Espadaler 2006). Fischer and Fisher (2013) reported P.
indica [as P. teneriffana] from the Malagasy region. It was collected on the Comoros,
Mauritius, the Seychelles, and from coastal towns in Madagascar, usually from under
stones, ground nests, or foraging on the ground or lower vegetation in urban or gar-
den habitats at elevations below 300 m. It was also found on Mayotte in native littoral
and secondary forest below 10 m.
Perhaps the most detailed study of P. indica in the New World comes from the
account of Martínez (1992) who reported a vigorous population, represented by a
putatively single polydomous colony spanning several hectares, that was discovered
in Long Beach, California in 1989. Martínez (1992) reportedly observed 23 insemi-
nated queens from a single colony that was changing nest sites (although no details are
given for how he knew the queens were inseminated). He described the colony nests
as low mounds on the soil, along curbs or sidewalks, at the edges of lawns, in cracks in
pavement, and at the bases of trees. New colonies were started by budding. Workers
foraged night and day unless temperature exceeded 26 °C, taking seeds and scaveng-
ing dead or dying insects. They were observed feeding on sweet or greasy foods, but
were not seen tending aphids. Martínez (1992) observed the species attacking native
ants, including Pogonomyrmex californicus (Buckley). More remarkably, he reportedly
observed P. indica destroying colonies and taking over nest sites of Linepithema humile.
Despite the purported success of these battles, P. indica must have lost the larger war
against L. humile, as the eventual extirpation of the Californian population was attrib-
uted to the Argentine ant (Gulmahamad 1999).
Distribution. We treat all occurrence records from the regions of Indomalaya
west of the Korean Peninsula as native. The Korean and Japanese populations are
considered introduced (Choi and Bang 1993; Choi et al. 1993a; Choi et al. 1993b;
Terayama 1992), and additional portions of the range in Asia might also have resulted
from anthropogenic transport. Pheidole indica has been introduced to scattered locali-
ties across the globe, although the vast majority of these records were attributed to its
junior synonym, P. teneriffana. Introduced populations have been reported from the
Mediterranean, northern Africa, the Malagasy region, Western Australia, Peru, the
Caribbean, and southern California.
Risk statement. Pheidole indica is not considered to be a major pest to either
agriculture or native ecosystems. Although the species is tolerant of disturbed and ur-
ban areas, we found no reports of it infesting structures. Few studies have measured
the effect of P. indica on ecosystem health, but we predict that it could negatively
impact native arthropods. The species is continuing to spread across the globe and
further studies are required to test its ecological and agricultural impact outside its
native range.
Pheidole megacephala (Fabricius)

Figs 79, 88g
edax. Formica edax Forskål 1775: 84 (w.) EGYPT. Junior synonym of megacephala:
Emery 1892: 160; Dalla Torre 1892: 90. [If synonymy correct then edax is the
senior name; however, under Art. 23.9 of ICZN (1999) edax is a nomen oblitum.]
megacephala. Formica megacephala Fabricius, 1793: 361 (s.) MAURITIUS ‘Ile de France’
[presumed lost]. Neotype (s.) designated: MAURITIUS, Camizard Mt., Bambous,
20.3328 S, 57.723 E, 375 m, rainforest, ex rotten log, collection code BLF12051,
27.v.2005 (B.L. Fisher et al.) (CASC: CASENT0104990): (Fischer and Fisher 2013):
332. Latreille 1802: 232 (q.); Mayr 1861: 70 (s.w.q.m.); Wheeler, G.C. & Wheeler,
J. 1953: 75 (l.). Combination in Pheidole: Roger 1863b: 30. [P. megalocephala Schulz
1906: 155; unjustified emendation.] Current subspecies: nominal plus costauriensis,
duplex, ilgi, impressifrons, melancholica, nkomoana, rotundata, speculifrons, talpa.
Note: Pheidole megacephala Smith, F. 1860: 112 is a junior synonym of Carebara
diversus (Jerdon): Emery 1893: 206.
trinodis. Myrmica trinodis Losana 1834: 327, pl. 36, fig. 6 (w.) ITALY, Piedmont. Jun-
ior synonym of megacephala: Roger 1863b: 30.
pusilla. Oecophthora pusilla Heer 1852: 15, pl. 1, figs. 1-4 (s.w.q.m.) PORTUGAL,
Madeira I. Combination in Pheidole: Smith, F. 1858: 173. Subspecies of megaceph-
ala: Emery 1915b: 235. Senior synonym of janus: Mayr 1886: 360; of laevigata
Smith: Roger 1859: 259; Emery 1915b: 235; of laevigata Mayr: Mayr 1870b: 981
(footnote). Junior synonym of megacephala: Wheeler, W.M. 1922b: 812.
laevigata. Myrmica (?) laevigata Smith 1855: 130, pl. 9, figs. 7, 8 (w.) GREAT BRITAIN,
Battersea. Junior synonym of Pheidole pusilla: Roger 1859: 259; of Pheidole pallidula:
Smith 1858: 282; of Pheidole megacephala: Roger 1863: 30; of Pheidole pusilla: Em-
ery 1915: 235.
agilis. Myrmica agilis Smith, F. 1857: 71 (w.) MALAYSIA, Malacca. Combination in
Pheidole: Donisthorpe 1932: 449. Junior synonym of megacephala: Eguchi 2008: 56.
janus. Pheidole janus Smith, F. 1858: 175, pl. 9, figs. 13-17 (s.w.) SRI LANKA. Junior
synonym of pusilla: Mayr 1886: 360.
testacea. Atta testacea Smith, F. 1858: 168 (s.w.) BRAZIL. Combination in Pheidole:
Mayr 1886: 360. Junior synonym of megacephala: Brown 1981: 530.
perniciosa. Oecophthora perniciosa Gerstäcker 1859: 263 (w.) MOZAMBIQUE. [Also
described as new by Gerstäcker 1862: 516.] Combination in Pheidole: Roger
1863b: 31. Junior synonym of megacephala: Emery 1915b: 235.
suspiciosa. Myrmica suspiciosa Smith, F. 1859: 148 (w.) INDONESIA, Aru I. (A.R.
Wallace). Junior synonym of megacephala: Donisthorpe 1932: 455.
laevigata. Pheidole laevigata Mayr 1862: 747 (s.) BRAZIL. Unresolved junior second-
ary homonym of Pheidole laevigata Smith, F. Junior synonym of Pheidole pusilla:
Mayr 1870: 981 (footnote).
scabrior. Pheidole megacephala var. scabrior Forel 1891: 178 (s.w.) MADAGASCAR.
Junior synonym of megacephala: Fischer and Fisher 2013: 333.
picata. Pheidole megacephala var. picata Forel 1891: 178 (s.w.) MADAGASCAR. Sub-
species of megacephala: Forel 1895: 49; of punctulata: Forel 1897: 186; Forel 1905:
163; Santschi 1910: 370. Raised to species: Emery 1915b: 245; Wheeler, W.M.
1922a: 1019. Junior synonym of megacephala: Fischer and Fisher 2013: 333.
gietleni. Pheidole punctulata r. gietleni Forel 1905b: 164 (s.w.) MADAGASCAR. Sub-
species of picata: Emery 1915b: 245. Junior synonym of megacephala: Fischer and
Fisher 2013: 333.
bernhardae. Pheidole picata var. bernhardae Emery 1915b: 245 (s.w.) MADAGASCAR.
[First available use of Pheidole punctulata r. spinosa var. bernhardae Forel, 1905: 164;
unavailable name.] Junior synonym of megacephala: Fischer and Fisher 2013: 333.
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Light brown to dark brown. Major HW

1.10–1.54, HL 1.04–1.59, SL 0.59–0.76, CI 97–106, SI 47–58 (n=19, Fischer and
Fisher 2013). Head heart-shaped (Fig. 6); posterior 1/3 of dorsal surface smooth,
glossy and entirely lacking rugoreticulate sculpture. Hypostoma lacking distinct
median and submedian teeth. Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig.
4), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Postpetiole with a
posterodorsal (Fig. 1a) and anteroventral (Fig. 1b) bulge. Minor HW 0.50–0.61, HL
0.57–0.68, SL 0.61–0.72, CI 86–92, SI 114–122 (n=20, Fischer and Fisher 2013).
Head predominantly glossy (Fig. 36), lacking punctation and or rugae above eye level.
Antennal scapes surpass posterior head margin by approximately same length as eye
(Fig. 40). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct
mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Postpetiole with a posterodorsal (Fig.
1a) and anteroventral (Fig. 1b) bulge.
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Pheidole megacephala is a medium
sized species of variable color that is most easily recognized outside of its native range
by the heart-shaped head and bulging postpetiole. It belongs to a diverse and taxo-
nomically confusing clade of morphologically similar taxa centered in the Afrotropical
and Malagasy regions. Both major and minor workers are distinguished from all other
introduced Pheidole by the swollen shape of the postpetiole (Fig. 1). Pheidole noda also
has a swollen postpetiole, but whereas the postpetiole of P. megacephala is character-
ized by a posterodorsal and anteroventral bulge, that of P. noda is formed as a high
dorsally bulging dome that is tallest at its midpoint.
Pheidole megacephala has often been confused for P. pallidula Nylander in Eu-
rope, especially in the Mediterranean region. The introduced populations of P.
megacephala can be distinguished from P. pallidula by the following characters.
For both major and minor workers the postpetiole of P. megacephala has a pos-
terodorsal (Fig. 1a) and anteroventral (Fig. 1b) bulge, while that of Pallidula is
not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). The propodeal spines of both subcastes are
distinct in P. megacephala but are strongly reduced in P. pallidula. Additionally, the
major worker of P. megacephala has a heart shaped head that broadens significantly
posterior to eye-level (Fig. 6) while the head of Pallidula is more rectangular (more
approximate to Fig. 7).
Accurate identification within the Afrotropics is more problematic. While for Mad-
agascar previously described subspecies have been synonymized with P. megacephala
(Fischer and Fisher 2013), the taxonomy of the megacephala group in Africa remains
rather chaotic with a number of unrevised subspecies, most of which remain insuffi-
ciently characterized. In a taxonomic overview of the group, Emery (1915) studied type
and non-type material of P. megacephala-related species, yet for several subspecies he was
not able to define clear species limits from the multitude of different, yet highly similar,
phenotypes. We suspect that some of those names are probably due to intraspecific vari-
ation within P. megacephala and P. punctulata Mayr. Other, morphologically unique
taxa like P. megacephala nkomoana Forel are clearly valid biological species. However,
without a comprehensive taxonomic treatment supported by a robust phylogeny, the
following species characterizations may be subject to future taxonomic changes.
Within the megacephala group, minor workers are difficult to separate morpho-
logically and thus have only limited use for species identification, but the majors tend
to be more distinct in their morphologies and can be separated by differences in head
and body shape and sculpture, and in size and pilosity, although the limits are often
unclear and characters are sometimes distributed along a continuum rather than being
separated into distinct, clear-cut states.
Major workers of P. megacephala melancholica Santschi are characterized by pres-
ence of weak punctures on the majority of the head, including the sides in lateral
view, promesonotum with punctures and irregular transverse rugulae, and moderately
abundant short and stout standing hairs on head and body, whereas major workers of
P. megacephala entirely lack punctures on the posterior 1/3 of the head, have a mostly
smooth and glossy promesonotum, and often possess longer, more flexuous standing
hairs, which often branch at the tips. Pheidole megacephala nkomoana majors are chara
cterized by a weakly defined antennal scrobe and relatively long frontal carinae that
reach about ¾ towards the posterior head margin, two well-defined submedian hypos-
tomal teeth, a weak prominence on the promesonotal dome, and very long, flexuous
standing hairs on the dorsal promesonotum. Also the spines tend to be shorter than
in P. megacephala, in length almost equal to the diameter of the propodeal spiracle.
Both subspecies have been described from and collected in western African forests.
Another closely related species to P. megacephala is P. punctulata. It is very widespread
in sub-Saharan Africa and usually found in dry forests and grassland habitats. Mor-
phologically close to P. megacephala, its major workers can be distinguished by their
often enlarged and strongly heart-shaped heads, the presence of a softly or superficially
punctuated sculpture on parts of the head dorsum, promesonotum, postpetiole and
gaster, and relatively uniform, short and stout, erect hairs covering the body. Minor
workers tend to be slightly larger and more robust than in megacephala, often with a
few oblique carinae present between the eyes and the mandibles and reaching the pos-
terior eye level, the hairs similar as in major workers and usually more abundant than
in P. megacephala.
Morphologically very similar to P. punctulata are P. megacephala ilgi Forel, mega-
cephala impressifrons Wasmann, and megacephala rotundata Forel. Like P. punctulata,
they are usually found in drier forest and grassland habitats and their workers seem to
be highly polymorphic, which means that in addition to normal major workers, colo-
nies are capable of producing so-called supermajors. These supermajors possess a very
strongly heart-shaped head, which can be disproportionately big compared to the size
of the mandibles and the rest of their bodies. As Emery (1915) stated for P. megacephala
rotundata, on first glace they look quite distinct from P. punctulata, but at closer exami-
nation of series with different major worker sizes it seems impossible to define species
limits. From our own observations it seems likely that these subspecies are a result of
sampling bias and phenotypic variation within P. punctulata, rather than historic speci-
ation events (Fischer et al., in preparation). Incomplete sampling can also be a problem
when only smaller major and minor workers are collected, which are often very similar
to those of P. megacephala, with very similar head sculpture and general morphology.
In the Malagasy region, P. megacephala can be confused with three other species:
Pheidole punctulata spinosa Forel, which, on average, has longer spines, a slightly higher
propodeum and a more extensively smooth and glossy posterior portion of the head in
the larger major workers. Pheidole megatron, which was described from the Comoros
and is possibly present in the Northwest of Madagascar as well, is characterized by
major workers with a less heart-shaped, and slightly more rectangular head shape, and
sometimes sculpture and rugulae present on the posterior head portion (see Fischer
and Fisher 2013). Finally, P. decepticon, described from Mayotte and distributed over
several of the smaller Southwest Indian ocean islands, is characterized by possessing
a denser, more prominent and longer pilosity as well as slightly smaller, less rounded
ventral bulges on the postpetiole in both minor and major workers (see Fischer and
Fisher 2013). It is however possible that P. decepticon is a geographic variation of and
conspecific with P. punctulata spinosa.
Biology. Pheidole megacephala is listed among the top five invasive ants (Lowe
et al. 2000). Although this species prefers humid and disturbed habitats where it is
usually found in very high abundances (Burwell et al. 2012; Hoffmann et al. 1999;
Wilson 2003), it can generally be found in a large variety of landscapes, from coastal
habitats to human settlements and plantations in lower elevations, degraded dry for-
est, to mid-elevation rainforest or even montane forest – in Papua New Guinea up to
2150 meters altitude (Fischer and Fisher 2013). The distribution range and activity
of P. megacephala appears to be somewhat limited by susceptibility to desiccation and
higher temperatures. Thus, colonies are often found in more humid microhabitats, and
workers tend to forage inside the leaf-litter and at night, or even build covered trails
(Greenslade 1972, personal observations). However, some studies reported that on
smaller islands or after successful introduction in a new area, P. megacephala expanded
its range and invaded into the forest interiors where it attacked and displaced other
introduced and natively occurring ant species (Burwell et al. 2012; Hoffmann 1998).
In a citrus orchard in Tanzania for example, P. megacephala was able to partly displace
highly territorial and competitive Oecophylla weaver ants (Seguni et al. 2011). Phei-
dole megacephala is an especially common and abundant nuisance and pest on islands,
which are generally more strongly impacted by invasions of alien species.
Part of the success of P. megacephala as a pantropic pest species is its generalist

behavior. Like many other Pheidole species its diet is broadly omnivorous with a large
proportion of its food probably acquired by scavenging on the ground. Pheidole mega-
cephala is also a good predator with an efficient nest mate recruitment that enables
the species to dominate baits and to retrieve prey too large for single workers to carry
(Dejean et al. 2008; Dejean et al. 2007). Devastating effects on the abundance and di-
versity of native invertebrates, in northern Australia for example, are well documented
(Hoffmann 1998; Hoffmann et al. 1999; Hoffmann and Parr 2008). Pheidole mega-
cephala has also been documented to negatively impact agricultural systems. Workers
tend plant and crop-damaging scale insects for honeydew (Campbell 1994; Gaigher et
al. 2011; González Hernández et al. 1999; Greenslade 1972; Petty and Tustin 1993;
Reimer et al. 1993), protect plants with extrafloral nectaries from phytophagous insects
and possibly collect seeds (Hoffmann 1998). A recent study experimentally evaluating
the performance in interference competition found that P. megacephala ranked lowest
among seven of the world’s worst most destructive invasive ant species (Bertelsmeier et
al. 2015). The authors, citing Dejean et al. (2008) suggested that P. megacephala does
not dominate invaded ant communities through direct physical interactions (interfer-
ence competition) but by raiding their colonies.
Nesting sites are variable and can occur in any crack and crevice that is large
enough for them to enter, including soil, inside rotting logs, under rocks, in houses or
in tree bark. As in several other invasive ant species, colonies are polygynous, and de-
pendently founded via budding, with nests in large areas often forming supercolonies
(Hoffmann 1998) that aggressively fight other ants or outcompete them by depleting
their prey and other resources (Dejean et al. 2008; Fournier et al. 2009; Hoffmann et
al. 1999; Vanderwoude et al. 2000).
Distribution. Pheidole megacephala is a cosmopolitan species that has established
across the globe as a household and agricultural pest throughout the tropics. Wetterer
(2012) provided a detailed review of the worldwide spread of P. megacephala, and cites
Wheeler’s statement (Wheeler 1922a) that it is most likely of Afrotropical or Malagasy
origin, the only two regions with a diversity of related species (“subspecies and varie-
ties”). Theoretically it is possible that a common ancestor of P. megacephala and the
Malagasy endemics P. punctulata spinosa, P. megatron and P. decepticon arrived on the
islands in prehistoric times, diversified there, and that P. megacephala was later trans-
ported to all other regions including Africa only after the arrival of humans. But the
distribution of P. megacephala on Madagascar strongly resembles the distributions of
other invasive species on the island – e.g. those of Monomorium floricola, M. pharaonis,
Tapinoma melanocephalum, Technomyrmex albipes, Trichomyrmex destructor. While P.
punctulata spinosa has established a broad distribution range across the island’s variable
habitats and elevations, P. megacephala, like the other invasives, is found mostly along
the coast, in low elevation and disturbed habitats or near human settlements.
Similar to Wheeler’s observation, our argument for the “out-of-Africa” hypothesis
is an overall much higher complexity in different morphotypes and species-level diver-
sity in African megacephala group taxa and the presence of both, very closely, but also
more distantly related taxa (e.g Pheidole aurivillii Mayr). For these reasons and for the
purposes of this study, we consider all records from Africa to represent the native range
of Pheidole megacephala. However, a further resolution will require a comprehensive
phylogeographic study of the species and its allied taxa, especially from the poorly
studied and sampled African region.
Populations of P. megacephala recorded from the southwestern extent of the Ara-
bian Peninsula are treated as native as this region is commonly considered as belong-
ing to the Afrotropics. However, recent studies on generic distributions of global ant
diversity that find little support for including any portion of the Arabian Peninsula in
the Afrotropics (unpublished data). Until robust phylogeographic data is available for
P. megacephala, this decision must be considered tentative and open to future revision.
We do agree with Wetterer’s (2012) conclusions that records of P. megacephala
from Mediterranean Europe northward are either temporary indoor records or misi-
dentifications of P. pallidula. Outside of Africa, the Malagasy region and the range of
P. pallidula (western Palearctic), P. megacephala is easily recognized as it does not co-
occur with species of similar morphology. We therefore consider all records reviewed
from outside the aforementioned regions as confirmed unless otherwise stated.
Dubious records. The following records are considered dubious mostly because
there is reason to believe they represent misidentifications of P. pallidula. However, it
is possible that some of the following literature records were based on accurate iden-
tifications, but that P. megacephala was since extirpated from the referenced localities.
This latter possibility is plausible especially for the Mediterranean region where L.
humile has established a stronghold. For example, (Heer 1852) described Oecophthora
pusilla (=P. megacephala) as ubiquitous on the island of Madeira, “In the town of
Funchal there is probably not a single house that does not harbor millions of the tiny
creatures…” Less than a century later Wheeler (Wheeler 1927b) reported, “Now it is
an interesting fact that the Argentine ant, soon after its arrival in Madeira, completely
replaced the Pheidole as a house ant.” Similar instances of well-established populations
of introduced ant species becoming locally extirpated have been documented (Moreau
et al. 2014; Wetterer 2006).
ALGERIA: The material referred to by André (1883) P. megacephala is distinguished
by that author from P. pallidula only by the difference in size of the propodeal spine, and
was otherwise observed to be identical. Considering the other characters separating these
two species discussed earlier, we tentatively consider this record to be a misidentification
of P. pallidula. CROATIA: The material listed from this country (Petrov and Colling-
wood 1992; Petrov and Legakis 1996) is considered to refer to P. pallidula according to
Bračko (2006). EGYPT: Egypt is the type locality of the nomen oblitum Formica edax
Forskål. Emery (1892) wrote that edax is undoubtedly a small Pheidole, and possibly
refers to P. megacephala. Dalla Torre (1892) was also uncertain as to which species (or
even genus) the name edax referred to. Given the uncertainty of these two authors, the
occurrence of P. pallidula in Egypt and the unconfirmed single literature record of Bakr
et al. (2007), it is difficult to know when P. megacephala was first reported from Egypt.
FRANCE: Bignell (1901) reported the ant species listed in his study of Corsica were
identified by Saunders, who is known to have confused P. pallidula for P. megacephala.

As P. pallidula was not listed in the publication, we consider the record to either be a
misidentification of that species or from an extirpated population. GREECE: The only
primary references to an outdoor occurrence we could confirm are Collingwood (1993)
and Borowiec and Salata (2012). The former authors reported P. megacephala was found
only once during their study of five Greek islands on the threshold of a small hotel
in Pigadhia on Karpathos. The second study reported finding the species on a road in
Crete. The record from Macedonia in (Karaman 2011) is from material identified by
Petrov. We tentatively follow (Bračko 2006) as treating this as a misidentification of P.
pallidula. ITALY: Piedmont is the type locality for Myrmica trinodis Losana which was
synonymized with megacephala by Roger in 1863. Losana also lists a M. megacephala
Latrielle in the same publication. Latrielle never described any species by the name mega-
cephala, however. Losana might have instead been referring to Messor megacephala Leech
(= Messor barbarous Mayr). Regardless, the original description of M. trinodis states that
the species was collected from outdoor gardens. There is some reason to suspect this
name might refer instead to P. pallidula, as the only verifiable occurrences of megacephala
in Italy since are for specimens collected from plant nurseries, greenhouses and cargo
hangars used for holding imported plants, fruits and vegetables (Jucker et al. 2008; Li-
monta and Colombo 2003). MOROCCO: Saunders (1888) appears to be the only
primary reference for P. megacephala occurring in Morocco, but it is likely that the au-
thor was referring to misidentified material of P. pallidula (Wetterer 2012). This view is
further evidenced by Cagniant and Espadaler (1993) who were unable to find the species
in their survey. SPAIN: We consider the following records from the Balearic Islands and
Gibraltar to refer to P. pallidula (Saunders 1888; Saunders 1904; Walker 1889). USA:
The specimens reported in Fischer and Fisher (2013) from Arizona were from a quaran-
tine collection intercepted from Florida, and there is no reason to believe the species has
ever established in Arizona. Wetterer (2012) cited a specimen record of P. megacephala
from Catalina Island (California). If the identification proves accurate, it is the only
known record from that island and the population has since been extirpated (perhaps
by L. humile). However, a population (CASENT0248690) has been discovered recently
in southern California (Orange Co.). Although P. megacephala is listed in the Missouri
Ants web page (2015), we cannot verify the entry with any specimen or literature record.
Risk statement. Pheidole megacephala is known as a major agricultural and ecolog-
ical pest species (Williams 1994) and its widespread pantropic distribution and often
very close association with humans make it a high-risk invasive species with a serious
potential for ecological, agricultural and economic damage. In Ward et al. (2006) it
has been the most intercepted exotic ant species (890 out of 4355 interception records
between 1955 and 2005) arriving with trade products in New Zealand. Many aspects
of its biology indicate that it is highly adaptable and thus able to survive outside of
its preferred habitat, by finding suitable microhabitats for nesting and by killing or
outcompeting native species. Although mutualistic relationships with scale insects and
other crop pests are dominant in agricultural systems with introduced P. megacephala,
positive side-effects on plant fitness have been observed as well (Bach 1991).
Pheidole navigans Forel, stat. rev., stat. n.

Figs 80, 88h
navigans. Pheidole flavens r. navigans Forel 1901a: 79 (s.w.) GERMANY (intercept-

ed in quarantine from Veracruz, Mexico) [MHNG, examined photographs of
CASENT0908269 (s.), CASENT0908270 (w). Junior synonym of flavens: Wil-
son 2003: 419. stat. rev., stat. n.
Pheidole moerens (nec Forel): M.R. Smith 1967, Wojcik 1975, Glancey 1976, Naves
1985, Deyrup 1988, Deyrup 2000, Dash 2008, MacGown 2010, Guénard 2012.
[We propose the preceding authors misapplied the name P. moerens Forel to mate-
rial considered here as referring to P. navigans Forel. Pheidole moerens remains a
valid name].
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Color reddish brown. Major HW 0.84–

0.88, HL 0.88–0.91, SL 0.46–0.48, CI 95–99, SI 53–56 (n=4). Head subquadrate
(Fig. 7). Longitudinal carinae of the frons extend to approximately an eye’s length
distance from the posterior head margin (Fig. 25). Rugae of posterolateral lobes pre-
dominantly longitudinal. Posterior head margin always free of distinct rugae (Fig. 25)
or rugoreticulum (Fig. 27). Microsculpture of posterolateral lobes glossy to weakly
punctate. Antennal scrobe distinct and narrow, shallow but capable of receiving the
entire antennal scape in repose (Fig. 71a); bordered by strong, unbroken frontal
carina mesially (Fig. 71b); depression marked by a continuous smooth surface en-
tirely (or nearly entirely) uninterrupted by rugulae. Hypostoma with stout median
and submedian teeth. Promesonotal dorsum with distinct transverse striae (Fig. 21).
Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4), lacking a distinct mound
or prominence on the posterior slope. Promesonotum not strongly transverse with
strongly projecting sides in dorsal view (Fig. 29). Postpetiole not swollen relative
to petiole (Fig. 3). Postpetiole relatively narrow in dorsal view; distinctly less than
2× petiolar width (Fig. 30). Gaster with entire first tergite glossy (Fig. 32). Minor
HW 0.40–0.45, HL 0.45–0.50, SL 0.40–0.44, CI 86–92, SI 96–102 (n=8). Head
covered in punctate microsculpture, giving it a dull appearance (Fig. 37). Antennal
scapes reach or weakly surpass posterior head margin; if they do it is usually by a
distance less than eye length. Antennal scapes with standing hairs present (Fig. 56).
Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound
or prominence on the posterior slope. Hairs on mesosoma fine and flexuous, not
arranged in pairs. Pronotal humeri not angular. Postpetiole not swollen relative to
petiole (Fig. 3). Postpetiole relatively narrow (Fig. 30); distinctly less than 2× petiolar
width in dorsal view. Gaster with entire first tergite glossy (Fig. 32).
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Pheidole navigans is a small, short-
limbed, reddish brown species that belongs to the P. flavens complex. See discussion
under corresponding section of P. flavens complex for how to distinguish this species
from introduced Pheidole outside the complex. Within the complex, minor work-
ers are impossible to distinguish based on known characters. Major workers can be
separated from those of P. flavens by the combination of predominantly longitudinal

rugae on the posterolateral lobes, the more distinct and narrow antennal scrobe bor-
dered mesially by strong, unbroken frontal carina, and the more continuously glossy
scrobe depression.
Although the type locality of Pheidole navigans is Germany, the species was origi-
nally described by Forel from specimens intercepted during quarantine inspection of
orchids originating from Veracruz, Mexico. We revive this name from synonymy and
elevate it to species rank so that it can be applied to a putative species that has recently
established in the southeastern United States and Hawaii. This ant has most often
been referred to as P. moerens since it was first reported from Alabama nearly fifty years
ago by M.R. Smith (1967). However, the examination of type specimen photographs
(MCZ-ENT00009137) suggests that these introduced populations are heterospecific
with P. moerens Wheeler.
Whether the introduced populations are actually conspecific with P. navigans
Forel will require a thorough revision of this taxonomically vexing species complex.
Of all the type material we have examined, however, that of P. navigans bears the clos-
est resemblance in gross morphology. Thus we propose P. navigans Forel be used in
place of P. moerens for referring to the aforementioned introduced populations. Future
systematic study of this species should also examine P. floridana subsp. aechmeae (cur-
rently synonymized under P. flavens, but also recorded from Veracruz, Mexico) and
P. flavens var. mediorubra Santschi (described from Loreto, Argentina and currently
treated as a synonym of P. alacris Santschi).
The major workers of Pheidole navigans differ from those of P. moerens in the fol-
lowing respects. They exhibit a distinct and narrow antennal scrobe capable of receiv-
ing the entire antennal scape in repose. The scrobe is bordered by a strong, unbroken
frontal carina mesially, and the depression is marked by a continuous smooth surface
entirely (or nearly entirely) uninterrupted by rugulae. The rugulae of the frons extend
to approximately an eye’s length distance from the posterior head margin. The anterior
portion of the promesonotum is crossed by long and distinct transverse striae.
The examined major workers of P. navigans from Alabama (CASENT0106664)
and Venezuela (CASENT0248831), along with those from Florida and Hawaii, and
a specimen imaged from Paraguay (CASENT0178020), share a notably consistent
morphology for being spread across such as wide range. The characteristics shared
among these majors include the following. Frontal carinae strongly produced, forming
the mesad border of a shallow but well-demarcated antennal scrobe capable of ac-
commodating the entire scape in repose. Antennal scrobe weakly foveolate. Cephalic
carinulae mostly longitudinal with very little reticulation posterior to the eye. Cephalic
carinulae extending up to, but not beyond the medial excision (‘V’) of the posterior
head margin. Promesonotal dome with a relatively low profile, mesonotal declivity
short and relatively gradual. In dorsal view, promesonotum weakly punctate, anterior
portion with distinct transverse carinulae. Although we tentatively treat the specimen
from California (CASENT0005742) as P. navigans, it differs morphologically from
the aforementioned specimens and bears closer resemblance to P. exigua var. tubercu-
lata Mayr (currently synonymized under P. flavens).
The similarity of these northern hemisphere specimens to the one from Paraguay
raises the possibility that these putatively conspecific populations originated in South
America. Indeed, the Paraguay specimen was collected in the Reserva Natural del
Bosque Mbaracayú near the Río Paraná – a region infamous for serving as a cradle of
ant invasion (Suarez and Tsutsui 2008).
Biology. In Florida, Naves (1985) reported Pheidole navigans (as P. moerens) nest-
ing under boards, at base of oak trees and fence posts, along roots, under palm leaves,
inside wall crevices, and rarely in the ground. The chambers are built with small soil or
debris particles and have small openings. Most nuptial flights occur in July. The spe-
cies was found to practice dependent nest founding, but became monogynous before
the first brood was reared. Mature colonies can support over 100 majors and over 500
workers. They feed on seeds and scavenge and prey on small dead or live arthropods,
and forage very close to the nesting sites. Deyrup (2000) also provided observations of
this species (as P. moerens) from Florida, adding that it occurs in both disturbed areas
and mesic or moist woods, also nests in hollow twigs, nuts and in leaf litter, and is oc-
casionally arboreal.
Distribution. The precise native range of P. navigans is unknown, but it is
certainly of Neotropical origin. The record of the species from the Paraná region
of South America suggests it could be South America. We tentatively treat both
known South American records (Paraguay and Venezuela) as native, and the Mexi-
can record as introduced, but other scenarios are equally possible. Pheidole navigans
was first reported as introduced in the United States by M.R. Smith (1967) under
the name P. moerens. The name P. moerens has since been applied to North Ameri-
can records from Alabama (Glancey et al. 1976; Smith 1967), California (Garrison
1996; Martínez 1997), Florida (Deyrup et al. 1988; Deyrup et al. 2000; Wojcik
et al. 1975), Louisiana (Dash and Hooper-Bùi 2008), Mississippi (MacGown and
Hill 2010), North Carolina (Guénard et al. 2012) and Texas (Wilson 2003). We
tentatively treat all of these records as P. navigans, but the California and Texas
records could also belong to another species in the flavens complex. In the Pacific,
P. navigans is established in Hawaii (Gruner et al. 2003). We cannot confirm
whether the P. moerens records from Cocos Island (Solomon and Mikheyev 2005)
or the indoor records from a butterfly house in the northwestern United States
(collection code KRW26Feb99) refers to P. navigans or another member of the
flavens complex.
Risk statement. The species most often referred to as P. moerens in the southeast-
ern United States, and treated here as P. navigans, has been expanding its range since it
was first reported in Alabama in 1967. However, this species is not considered a major
pest and is only occasionally reported to enter houses (Deyrup et al. 2000). In Louisi-
ana P. navigans is considered a pest (Dash and Hooper-Bùi 2008). Pheidole navigans
could become more regionally and possibly globally widespread in the future.
Pheidole noda F. Smith

Figs 81, 88i
noda. Pheidole nodus Smith, F. 1874: 407 (s.) JAPAN, Hyogo. Forel 1900: 268 (w.);
Wheeler, W.M. 1906: 309 (q.); Ogata 1982: 196 (m.); Wheeler, G.C. & Wheeler,
J. 1953: 75 (l.).
rhombinoda. Pheidole rhombinoda Mayr 1879: 678 (s.) INDIA, Calcutta [NHMW].
Bingham 1903: 251 (q.). Subspecies of noda: Wheeler, W.M. 1929: 3; Santschi,
1937: 371. Junior synonym of noda: Yasumatsu 1962: 96. [Misspelled as rhom-
boida by Santschi 1925: 83.]
micantiventris. Pheidole rhombinoda var. micantiventris Mayr 1897: 427 (s.) SRI LANKA.
Junior synonym of noda: Yasumatsu 1962: 96.
taprobanae. Pheidole rhombinoda var. taprobanae Forel 1902c: 178 (s.), 195 (w.) SRI
LANKA (Yerbury) [MHNG]. [Unresolved junior primary homonym of taproba-
nae Smith, F. 1858: 175.] [Also described as new by Forel 1902b: 544.] Subspecies
of rhombinoda: Forel 1913b: 662; of noda: Santschi 1937: 371. Junior synonym of
noda, lectotype designated: Eguchi 2008: 59.
treubi. Pheidole treubi Forel 1905a: 19 (s.q.) INDONESIA, Bogor [Buitenzorg], Java
[MHNG]. Junior synonym of noda, lectotype (s.) designated: Eguchi 2001b: 18.
stella. Pheidole rhombinoda subsp. stella Forel 1911c: 380 (s.) INDIA, Sikkim, Hima-
laya, 1200 m [MHNG]. Subspecies of noda: Wheeler, W.M. 1929f: 3. Junior syn-
onym of noda, lectotype (s.) designated: Eguchi 2008: 59.
formosensis. Pheidole rhombinoda var. formosensis Forel 1913a: 193 (s.w.q.m.) TAI-
WAN, Kankau, [MHNG] (H. Sauter). Subspecies of noda: Santschi 1937: 370.
Junior synonym of noda: Eguchi 2008: 59.
praevexata. Pheidole nodus var. praevexata Wheeler W.M. 1929: 3 (s.w.q.) JAPAN,
Okayama (H. Sauter). Junior synonym of noda: Yasumatsu 1962: 96.
Pheidole nodus st. rhombinoda var. gratiosa Santschi 1937: 371, unavailable name. Mate-
rial referable to this form: Eguchi 2008: 59.
flebilis. Pheidole nodus var. flebilis Santschi 1937: 370 (s.w.) TAIWAN, Hori [NHMB].
Junior synonym of noda: Eguchi 2008: 59.
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Medium to dark reddish brown. Major HW

1.58–1.82, HL 1.69–1.91, SL 1.00–1.12, CI 93–98, SI 56–65 (n=5, Eguchi 2008).
Head subquadrate (Fig. 7). Head rugoreticulate on posterolateral lobes and laterad of
frontal carinae (Fig. 13a), but frons dominated by long, well-organized and parallel
longitudinal rugae (Fig. 13b). Antennal scrobes indistinct to moderately impressed,
but frontal carinae always forming a border capable of accepting the antennal scape
(Fig. 13c). Promesonotum in profile with two convexities (Fig. 5), the large anterior
dome in addition to a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Postpeti-
ole forming a high dorsally bulging dome that is tallest at midpoint (Fig. 2a); ventral
margin flat to very weakly convex (Fig. 2b). Minor HW 0.57–0.66, HL 0.71–0.82, SL
0.91–1.07, CI 80–82, SI 157–162 (n=5, Eguchi 2008). Head predominantly glossy
(Fig. 36), lacking punctation and or rugae above eye level. Posterior head margin
strongly convex (Fig. 44). Antennal scapes long (e.g. Fig. 39), but not surpassing the
posterior head margin by more than 2× eye length. Promesonotum in profile with two
convexities, the large anterior dome (Fig. 43a) in addition to a distinct prominence on
the posterior slope (Fig. 43b). Petiole and postpetiole glossy to very weakly sculptured
laterally (Fig. 48). Postpetiole forming a high dorsally bulging dome that is tallest at
midpoint; ventral margin flat to very weakly convex (Fig. 2).
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Pheidole noda is a large, long-limbed,
dark colored species most easily recognized by its distinctly enlarged dome-like post-
petiole. The species belongs to a clade of large-bodied species that has diversified across
Indomalaya (Economo et al. 2015). Although both P. noda and P. megacephala are
considered to have an enlarged postpetiole, they are very different in shape. That of the
former is dome-like (Fig. 2) and that of the latter has an anteroventral bulge in addi-
tion to the posterodorsal bulge (Fig. 1). The majors of P. noda are easily separated from
those of P. megacephala by the strongly sculptured face (Fig. 8 vs. Fig. 9). The minors
both have glossy faces, but those of P. noda are larger with relatively longer antennal
scapes (Fig. 39 vs. Fig. 40). Pheidole noda is occasionally confused with other Asian
tramp Pheidole, including P. fervens and P. indica, but both major and minor work-
ers are easily separated from these by the enlarged postpetiole. Readers are referred to
Eguchi (2008) for characters used to separate P. noda from its other Asian congeners.
Biology. Despite being a relatively common species across its native range, little is
known about the biology of P. noda. The species is apparently easy to keep in labora-
tory settings, and Yamamoto et al. (2009) reported that they kept a colony with five
dealated queens, suggesting dependent colony foundation or polygyny. The authors
also noted that in Japan it nests in the ground but also forages in vegetation. Pheidole
noda was the most frequent visitor to extrafloral nectaries of Mallotus japonicus in an
experiment conducted in Japan (Yamawo et al. 2012). Eguchi (2008) observed that P.
noda occurs from open lands to relatively developed forests, and nests in the soil, under
shelters on the ground, and in rotting logs. Eguchi (2004a) noted that the species takes
seeds of sesame and amaranth put on the ground, and majors serve as repletes. During
a recent survey in Yunnan, China, the species was found to occur in rubber tree planta-
tions and rainforest between 550and 1219 m (Liu et al. 2015).
Distribution. Pheidole noda is considered native across mainland Asia, occurring
from western India east to Japan. Forel (1903) reported the species from the Andaman
Islands but it was not recovered during a more recent survey of the islands (Mohanraj
et al. 2010). There is geographic disjunction between the mainland Asia population
and the populations from the southern islands of Indonesia. The majors of the Indone-
sian taxon, originally described as Pheidole treubi Forel, were considered a distinct pop-
ulation by (Eguchi 2001b), but conspecific with P. noda. Although not included on
the map, if verified, the records from the Russian Far East (Kupianskaia 1990) would
be the most northern extent of the native range. The dispersive capacity of P. noda is
demonstrated by its colonization of Volcano Island (Nishino-shima Island), which is
22 ha in size and located 1,000 km south of mainland Japan. The island erupted in
1973, virtually eradicating all life. Pheidole noda was the only ant species discovered
during the 1983 survey, and was one of only two discovered during the 2004 survey
(the other being Tetramorium bicarinatum).
The only confirmed record of P. noda occurring outside of its putative native range
is from a glasshouse in Italy (Limonta and Colombo 2003), where it was found togeth-
er with P. megacephala and Tetramorium bicarinatum on nursery plants imported from
Asia. The species was also found on plant material imported from Asia and intercepted
at quarantine facilities in Washington and Hawaii.
Risk statement. Pheidole noda is not considered an agricultural, ecological or
structural pest species, although it is often associated with disturbed habitats. The spe-
cies is also not known to have established outdoors beyond its native range. However,
perhaps because it can be easily maintained in artificial nests, colonies with laying
queens listed as Pheidole noda and Pheidole cf. noda are available for sale from busi-
nesses advertising on the internet. The shipment of this species outside its native range
to hobbyists increases its chances of accidental release into non-native habitats.
Pheidole obscurithorax Naves

Figs 82, 88j
obscurithorax. Pheidole fallax subsp. obscurithorax Naves 1985: 61 (s.w.) ARGENTINA,

Alta Gracia, Córdoba (Bruch). [First available use of Pheidole fallax st. arenicola var.
obscurithorax Santschi 1923: 58; unavailable name.] Raised to species; lectotype
(s.) (CASENT0913311, NHMB) designated: Wilson 2003: 331.
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Medium reddish brown to dark brown.

Major HW 1.47–1.70, HL 1.49–1.84, SL 0.98–103, CI 92–99, SI 58–70 (n=3).
Head subquadrate (Fig. 7); almost entirely covered by a network of intersecting
rugae (Fig. 12a), lacking long, well-organized and parallel longitudinal rugae on the
frons (Fig. 12b). Frontal carinae indistinct, quickly becoming integrated into dense
rugoreticulum that covers the entire face. Antennal scrobes entirely lacking. Antennal
insertions surrounded by deeply excavated pits (Fig. 12c). Head often a lighter reddish
brown than the mesosoma. Promesonotum in profile with two convexities (Fig. 5), the
large anterior dome in addition to a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior
slope. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Minor HW 0.60–0.67, HL
0.78–0.85, SL 0.94–1.08, CI 76-82, SI 152–173 (n=5). Head predominantly glossy
(Fig. 36), lacking punctation and or rugae above eye level. Posterior margin strongly
convex in full-face view such that the head outline forms a single unbroken curve from
eye to eye (Fig. 44). Antennal scapes extremely long, surpassing posterior head margin
by more than 2× eye length (Fig. 39). Promesonotum in profile with two convexities,
the large anterior dome (Fig. 43a) in addition to a distinct prominence on the posterior
slope (Fig. 43b). Mesopleuron mostly sculptured. Postpetiole not swollen relative to
petiole (Fig. 3). Petiole and postpetiole strongly sculptured laterally (Fig. 47).
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Pheidole obscurithorax is a member of

the New World (and polyphyletic, see Moreau 2008) P. fallax species group defined
by Wilson (2003). It is a large dark species over 6 mm in body length. The species is
easily distinguished from P. megacephala by the much larger body size and relatively
reduced postpetiole, in addition to the strongly sculptured head of the major worker
(Fig. 12), and the much longer antennal scapes of the minor. It is separated from other
New World species treated here, including those of the P. punctatissima clade and P.
flavens complex, by the much larger size, prominence on the posterior slope of the
promesonotum (Fig. 5, major; Fig. 50, minor), densely rugoreticulate face of the ma-
jor (Fig. 12), and smooth head and long antennal scapes of the minor. The Old World
species P. fervens, P. indica, and P. noda all have majors with strongly sculptured head
and minors with smooth heads, and the reader is referred to the key for characters used
to separate these from P. obscurithorax.
Biology. In its introduced range of the southeastern United States, P. obscuritho-
rax is characterized by its large size, large nest mounds, very active foraging and fast
recruitment to bait such as cookie crumbs (King and Tschinkel 2007). It nests in
soil in open areas, where it produces conspicuous nests, each generally with a single
large opening often covered by a leaf or other collected material (Storz and Tschinkel
2004). The species is an omnivorous scavenger of dead arthropods (possibly including
dead fire ants), and less frequently of plant material such as flower petals (Storz and
Tschinkel 2004). Studies in its introduced range found evidence that P. obscurithorax
is monogynous and is spreading by natural dispersal of winged females in addition to
human-mediated long-distance dispersal (King and Tschinkel 2007). The species was
most often found associated with disturbed habitats such as lawns and roadsides, but
there are also records of it occurring in natural areas such as hardwood forests (Wilson
2003). However, its steady expansion across the southeastern United States and co-
occurrence with S. invicta suggest it is an important species to monitor.
Distribution. Pheidole obscurithorax is presumed native to the South American
region of Argentina, Paraguay and southern Brazil that includes the Paraguay, La Pla-
ta and Parana Rivers. This flood-prone area is the cradle of many other well-known
invasive ants including fire ants (Solenopsis invicta Buren and S. richteri Forel), the
Argentine ant (Linepithema humile), and many lesser-known species that were anthro-
pogenically introduced (King and Tschinkel 2007; Storz and Tschinkel 2004; Suarez
and Tsutsui 2008; Wilson 2003). Most of these species, including P. obscurithorax,
were first introduced to North America via the Mobile, Alabama shipping port path-
way. Pheidole obscurithorax was introduced to Mobile, Alabama around 1950 (Naves
1985) and subsequently expanded its range to include Florida, Georgia, Mississippi
and Texas (Storz and Tschinkel 2004; Wilson 2003). Additional occurence records,
including the first record for Bolivia, were published (Wetterer et al. 2015) just as this
manuscript was going to press, and were not included in the present study.
Risk statement. Pheidole obscurithorax is not currently considered a pest in its in-
troduced range, as it does not sting and is not known to infest dwellings or structures
(King and Tschinkel 2007). However, the species is an aggressive predator (Deyrup et
al. 2000) and may have the potential to become a pest or to negatively impact native
species if its populations continue to grow and spread. Pheidole obscurithorax is thought
to spread across the southeastern United States by mated queens (not colony frag-
ments) that are being transported in substrates such as potted plants. It is possible that
P. obscurithorax could become more widespread regionally and globally in the future.
Pheidole parva Mayr

Fig. 83, Fig. 88K
parva. Pheidole parva Mayr 1865: 98, pl. 4, fig. 28 (s.w.) SRI LANKA [NHMW].
Bingham 1903: 245 (q.).
decanica. Pheidole parva var. decanica Forel 1902c: 175 (s.), 192 (w.q.m.) INDIA,
Cochin (Rothney) [MHNG]. [Also described as new by Forel 1902b: 542.] Junior
synonym of parva; lectotype designated: Eguchi, Yamane & Zhou 2007: 261.
sauteri. Pheidole sauteri Wheeler, W.M. 1909: 334 (s.w.) TAIWAN, Kaoshung (H. Sau-
ter) [MCZC cotype 20671] Junior synonym of parva: Eguchi, Yamane & Zhou
2007: 262.
mala. Pheidole rinae var. mala Forel 1911b: 205 (s.w.) INDONESIA, Semarang, Java
(Jacobson) [MHNG]. Lectotype (s.) designated: Eguchi 2001a: 39. Junior syno-
nym of parva: Eguchi, Yamane & Zhou 2007: 262.
tipuna. Pheidole rinae r. tipuna Forel 1912: 68 (s.w.) TAIWAN, Takao (H. Sauter)
[MHNG]. Junior synonym of parva; lectotype (s.) designated: Eguchi, Yamane &
Zhou 2007: 262.
bugi. Pheidole bugi Wheeler, W.M. 1919: 66 (s.w.) MALAYSIA, Sarawak, Borneo (R.
Thaxter) [MCZC cotype-8947]. Lectotype (s.) designated: Eguchi 2001a: 37. Jun-
ior synonym of parva: Eguchi, Yamane & Zhou 2007: 262.
farquharensis. Pheidole flavens var. farquharensis Forel 1907: 91 (w.) SEYCHELLES,
Farquhar Atoll, v–xii.1905 (J.S. Gardiner) [BMNH]. Junior synonym of parva:
Fischer and Fisher 2013: 340.
tarda. Pheidole (Pheidole) tardus Donisthorpe 1947: 285 (q.) MAURITIUS, Rose Hill,
07.v.1946 (R. Mamet) [BMNH]. Junior synonym of parva: Fischer and Fisher
2013: 341.
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Yellowish brown to dark brown. Major

HW 0.85–0.92, HL 0.96–1.07, SL 0.41–0.45, CI 85–92, SI 45–51 (n=11, Eguchi
et al. 2007). Head subquadrate (Fig. 7). Posterolateral lobes, including posterior
head margin, covered in rugoreticulum (Fig. 26). Antennal scrobes indistinct to
moderately impressed, but frontal carinae always forming a border capable of accept-
ing the antennal scape (Fig. 13c). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome
(Fig. 4), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Promesono-
tum in dorsal view transverse with strongly projecting shoulders (Fig. 28). Prome-
sonotal dorsum rugoreticulate with distinct long longitudinal striae in addition to
shorter sections of transverse and intersecting striae (Fig. 22). Postpetiole not swol-
len relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Minor HW 0.39–0.50, HL 0.43–0.54, SL 0.38–0.46,
CI 88–94, SI 84–102 (n=17, Eguchi et al. 2007). Posterior portion of head with
many short to medium length segments of striae distinctly interlaced among punc-
tate ground sculpture (Fig. 59). Antennal scapes with erect to suberect hairs (Fig.
56); scapes do not surpass posterior head margin (Fig. 41). Promesonotum in profile
forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the
posterior slope. Pronotal humeri angular (Fig. 28). Hairs on mesosoma fine, flexu-
ous, of unequal length and not arranged in pairs (Fig. 54). Postpetiole not swollen
relative to petiole (Fig. 3); postpetiole narrow in dorsal view, only slightly broader
than petiole (Fig. 61).
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Pheidole parva is a very small and in-
conspicuous species that is thus far reported only from Asia, a few localities in Arabia,
and the islands of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. It belongs to an Old World
clade scattered across Indomalaya and into Oceania, and was treated as part of the P.
rinae complex by Eguchi et al. (2007). The minor workers are completely covered in
punctate sculpture and are difficult to differentiate from those of the Neotropical P.
flavens complex. The similarity is so close that an introduced population of P. parva
from the Seychelles was described by Forel, on the basis of the minor worker, as Phei-
dole flavens var. farquharensis. The similarity is entirely convergent, as these lineages are
distantly related. Pheidole parva minors can be separated from those of the P. flavens
complex most reliably by the interrupted striae that are interlaced among the punctate
ground sculpture of the posterior head (Fig. 59 vs. Fig. 60). This character can also be
viewed in the dorsal view. Pheidole parva minors can be separated from those of the
P. punctatissima clade treated here by the glossy gaster (Fig. 32 vs. Fig. 33) and finer
mesosomal hairs of unequal length (Fig. 54 vs. Fig. 53). The major workers are char-
acterized by a defined and moderately depressed antennal scrobe and a thick network
of reticulated rugulae on the posterior lobes. This pattern is most similar to that of the
broadly sympatric P. fervens and P. indica, but P. parva is much smaller than those
species (HW < 0.95 mm vs HW > 1.10 mm) and lacks the distinct prominence on
the posterior slope of the promesonotal dorsum (Fig. 4 vs. Fig. 5). The majors of P.
parva can be separated from those of the P. flavens and P. punctatissima group species
treated here by the much stronger and more reticulated carinae which reach the pos-
terior margin (Fig. 26 vs. Fig. 25 and Fig. 27) in addition to other characters given in
the key. Readers are referred to Eguchi (2008; 2007) for characters separating P. parva
from its Asian congeners.
Biology. Little is known about the biology of P. parva, but it does appear to be
expanding its range and is worth monitoring in the future as it exhibits a high toler-
ance for disturbance. Eguchi (2008) observed that the species seems to inhabit open
lands and forest edges, and has probably expanded its range in some part as the result
of human commerce. Pheidole parva was one of the most commonly collected ants in a
myrmecological study of agricultural fields in Vietnam and Okinawa (Anh et al. 2010;
Suwabe et al. 2009). A recent study of 18 structure invading pest ants of healthcare
facilities in Singapore found P. parva the most frequently encountered species (Man
and Lee 2012). Pheidole parva and Pheidole megacephala were the two most common
ant species encountered and together accounted for over 50% of the total collection
(25.9% and 25.2%, respectively). In Mauritius and the Seychelles P. parva can be lo-
cally abundant and can be found in soil and leaf litter, under stones or root mats, in
rotten logs, foraging on or nesting in the ground, as well as in lower vegetation and
even under the bark of live trees (Fischer and Fisher 2013). It was collected there in
parks, gardens, mangrove, coastal scrub, degraded dry forest, littoral and mixed forest,
and rainforest, in elevations between 1–445 m. It was collected inland on the Arabian
Peninsula from date tree orchards, banana plantations and under potted plants be-
tween 675–735 m elevation (Fischer and Fisher 2013).
Distribution. Pheidole parva is considered here as native to the Indo-Malay re-
gion. The species is recorded from the Asian mainland from India east to China. We
consider the records from Indonesia, Borneo, the Philippines and Taiwan to be native,
but much of this distribution could represent a more recent anthropogenic expansion.
We consider the records from the Okinawa and Kagoshima prefectures of Japan to be
introduced along with the records from Palau to represent introduced populations, but
it is difficult to know whether the species arrived in these islands before, with or after
the arrival of humans. The species is introduced in the Seychelles, Mauritius, Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (Fischer and Fisher 2013). Pheidole parva was
also collected from hothouses in Austria and Germany.
Risk statement. Pheidole parva is not currently considered to be a significant pest
species, and no impacts on agricultural systems or native ecosystems have been docu-
mented as of yet. The species is known to invade structures, however, and its prevalence
in Singapore health care facilities (Man and Lee 2012) suggests it could become a more
widespread nuisance pest in the future. Live colonies have been reported from various
ships (Fischer and Fisher 2013) and should be screened for during quarantine inspections.
Pheidole proxima Mayr

Fig. 84, 88L
proxima. Pheidole proxima Mayr 1876: 104 (s.w.) AUSTRALIA, Peak Downs,
Queensland [NHMW, examined]. Current subspecies: nominal plus bombalensis,
transversa.
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Reddish brown. Major HW 0.95–1.05, HL

1.04–1.21, SL 0.44–0.50, CI 87–92, SI 42–52 (n=4). Head subquadrate (Fig. 7). Pos-
terolateral lobes lacking sculpture (including foveolate ground sculpture, carinae and
rugae) posterior to maximum extent of antennal scapes in repose (Fig. 9). Head glossy,
lacking foveolate ground sculpture. Hypostomal bridge with a small median tooth in
addition to a pair of larger inner teeth (Fig. 18). Promesonotum in profile forming a
single dome (Fig. 4), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope.
Promesonotal dorsum glossy, lacking foveolate ground sculpture or striae. Pronotal

striae in dorsal view mostly absent (Fig. 23). Metapleuron with moderate rugulae and
some weak punctation (Fig. 16). Petiolar node strongly punctate (Fig. 16). Postpetiole
not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Minor HW 0.46, HL 0.52, SL 0.40, CI 90, SI
86 (n=1). Head predominantly glossy (Fig. 36), lacking punctation and or rugae above
eye level. Posterior head margin weakly convex (Fig. 45) to weakly concave (Fig. 46) in
full-face view. Antennal scapes reach but do not surpass posterior head margin (Fig. 41).
Mesopleuron entirely punctate (Fig. 52a). Promesonotum in profile forming a single
dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Propo-
deal spines moderately produced and spiniform (Fig. 52b). Petiole distinctly sculptured
except for apical portion of node. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3).
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Pheidole proxima is a relatively small,
brownish yellow, short-limbed species with a strongly shining integument. The phy-
logenetic placement of P. proxima is unknown, but it almost certainly clusters within
an Old World clade that has radiated across Australia and New Guinea. The species is
slightly smaller than P. megacephala, but both have workers with almost entirely glossy
faces. The postpetiole of P. proxima is not swollen relative to the petiole (Fig. 3), as it is
in P. megacephala (Fig. 1). The head of the major is subquadrate (Fig. 7), while that of
P. megacephala is more heart-shaped (Fig. 6). The antennal scapes of the minor do not
surpass the posterior head margin (Fig. 41), as they do in P. megacephala (Fig. 40). The
other two Pheidole species established in New Zealand are P. rugosula and P. vigilans.
The glossy face of P. proxima easily separates both worker castes of from those of P.
rugosula. In addition to being significantly smaller (major HW < 1.0 mm, minor HW
< 0.48 mm) than P. vigilans (major HW > 1.2 mm, minor HW > 0.52 mm), the major
of P. proxima is more sculptured (Fig. 16 vs. Fig. 17), and the hypostomal bridge has
a distinct median tooth (Fig. 18 vs. Fig. 19). The minors of P. proxima are separated
from those of P. vigilans by the shorter scapes (Fig. 41 vs. Fig. 40), more sculptured
mesopleuron (Fig. 52a vs. Fig. 51a), and more robust propodeal spines (Fig. 52b vs.
Fig. 51b). Additional taxonomy of these species is discussed in (Berry et al. 1997).
Comparison of the Pheidole proxima Mayr type series and images of the two sub-
species suggests that all three taxa are heterospecific. There is some reason to believe,
however, that the name P. proxima Mayr does not apply perfectly to the species recently
introduced to New Zealand. The specimens examined from New Zealand conflict with
Mayr’s original description and type specimens on several points. The pronotal dorsum
of the type major worker is transversely rugose whereas that of the New Zealand speci-
mens are completely glossy. Although we were unable to examine minors from the type
series, Mayr described the head of the minor worker as coriaceous and striate-rugose with
scapes that barely exceed the posterior margin. In contrast the minor workers from New
Zealand have heads that are completely glossy and scapes that do not exceed the poste-
rior head margin. Forel, in his description of P. proxima subsp. bombalenis, describes the
minor worker as identical to P. proxima Mayr with the exception of having longer pro-
podeal spines. The specimen images of the P. bombalensis syntype minor show a strongly
sculptured face, similar to the pattern described by Mayr. The major workers from the
type series are larger than the New Zealand specimen we measured (HW 1.03–1.05 mm
vs. HW 0.95 mm), have relatively narrower heads (CI 87–89 vs. CI 92), and relatively
shorter antennal scapes (SI 42–46 vs. SI 52). While a more exhaustive survey of Aus-
tralia’s Pheidole may reveal the New Zealand population to be more closely related to
another species from that fauna, we follow Berry et al. (1997) in using P. proxima Mayr.
Biology. The only natural history published for P. proxima was recorded by Green
and Gunawardana (2006) from their work with the New Zealand incursion. They
reported that P. proxima produced large nests recognizable by tiny conical mounds of
sandy or grainy material above the ground near the entrance. The size of the mounds
varies with soil type, with mounds as small as 5 mm high by 200–300 mm in diameter.
They are tolerant to disturbance and capable of invading structures. The minor and
major workers are both active foragers and were observed recruiting to both sweet and
savory baits in high numbers.
Distribution. Pheidole proxima Mayr is native to Queensland, Australia. The
sparse records of the species are scattered from Cape York at the northernmost tip of
the continent down to the Gold Coast. The species is introduced to New Zealand and
was first detected during a 2004 survey of the Port of Napier following an incursion
of Solenopsis invicta (Green and Gunawardana 2006). The species is now widespread
across the North Island from the Napier-Hastings area to Auckland.
Risk statement. Pheidole proxima is at most considered a nuisance species in New
Zealand on account of its ability to infest structures. However, very little is known
about the species, including its impact on agricultural systems and native ecosystems.
There is little reason to believe that it will become globally or regionally widespread.
Pheidole punctatissima Mayr

Figs 85, 88M
punctatissima. Pheidole punctatissima Mayr 1870a: 400 (s.w.) MEXICO (E. Norton )
[NHMW]. Description of queen: Forel 1908: 52. Lectotype (major worker,
CASENT0601256) designated: Longino and Cox 2009: 41. See also: Wilson 2003: 618.
napaea. Pheidole punctatissima subsp. napaea Wheeler, W.M. 1934: 165 (s.w.) MEX-
ICO, Mirador, Veracruz (E. Skwarra). Junior synonym of punctatissima: Brown
1981: 525.
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Body reddish brown to nearly black. Major
HW 0.86–1.06, HL 0.94–1.13, SL 0.56–0.63, CI 92–97, SI 57–68 (n=9, Longino
pers. comm.). Head bicolored with the yellowish posterior two-thirds contrasting with
the darker brown anterior third and rest of body (Fig. 34). Head subquadrate (Fig. 7);
often entirely foveolate (Fig. 11), but portions of posterolateral lobes can be glossy.
Posterolateral lobes never with distinct rugae. Promesonotum in profile forming a
Promesonotal dorsum usually foveolate and never with distinct transverse striae.
Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Postpetiole relatively broad; distinctly
more than 2× petiolar width in dorsal view (Fig. 31). Gaster with at least anterior 1/3
of first tergite matte (Fig. 33). Minor HW 0.44–0.50, HL 0.54–0.59. SL 0.55–0.58,
CI 79–85, SI 114–125 (n=14, Longino pers. comm.). Head, including the area mesad
of the frontal carinae, entirely covered by reticulated network of punctures (Fig. 37).
Posterior head margin relatively narrow (Fig. 58). Antennal scapes lack standing hairs
(Fig. 55); scapes surpass posterior head margin by a distance equal to or greater than eye
(Fig. 40); scapes relatively long (SI 103–125). Promesonotum in profile forming a single
dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Hairs
on mesosoma stout, stiff, of equal length and arranged in pairs (Fig. 53). Postpetiole not
swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Postpetiole broad in dorsal view, distinctly broader
than petiole (Fig. 62). Gaster with at least anterior 1/3 of first tergite matte (Fig. 33).
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Pheidole punctatissima is a small spe-
cies with entirely punctate minor workers that are usually dark red brown to nearly
black. The major workers are easily recognizable by the distinct bicolored head which
is dark anteriorly and yellowish white posteriorly. Pheidole punctatissima is a member
of the Neotropical P. punctatissima clade, together with P. anastasii and P. bilimeki
(Economo et al. 2015). Among species treated here, it is easily confused with the afore-
mentioned and with members of the P. flavens complex. Minor workers can also be
confused with those of P. parva. Within the P. punctatissima clade, the major workers
of P. punctatissima are immediately distinguished from those of both P. anastasii and
P. bilimeki by their bicolored heads (Fig. 33). The minor workers of P. punctatissima
tend to have relatively narrower posterior head margins and longer antennal scapes
than those of P. anastasii and P. bilimeki, but separation can be difficult. See section
under P. anastasii for identification notes.
Biology. Pheidole punctatissima is a weedy species that tends to be arboreal and prefers
open, disturbed habitat (Longino and Cox 2009). It is most commonly found nesting
in dead wood on the ground or in dead tree branches. Wilson (2003) reported winged
reproductives were found in nests during April and July. Specimen records retrieved from
Antweb.org indicate the species was collected from 10–2500 m elevation (570 m aver-
age). Pheidole punctatissima has also managed to establish indoors in several European
countries. Colonies were found in Denmark infesting a hospital and in Norway inhabit-
ing private homes and a nursing home (Birkemoe and Aak 2008). Birkemoe and Aak
(2008) speculated that the species was inadvertently imported along with nursery plants.
Distribution. Pheidole punctatissima is considered here as broadly native to the
Neotropics from southern Mexico to northern South America. We tentatively treat the
Caribbean records as native but these might represent more recent human-mediated
dispersal events. The records from southern Brazil, reported at least in part from 10
different urban centers (Lutinski et al. 2013), have not been verified with specimen ex-
amination. Should the records refer to P. punctatissima Mayr and not one of its many
morphologically similar congeners we would consider this to be an introduced popula-
tion. Indoor colonies were found in Denmark and Norway (Birkemoe and Aak 2008).
Risk statement. Pheidole punctatissima is considered a nuisance pest that can infest
structures both in its native and introduced ranges (Longino and Cox 2009). The presence
of this species in hospitals and nursing homes suggest it could be a potential nuisance.
Pheidole rugosula Forel

Figs 86, 88N
rugosula. Pheidole variabilis var. rugosula Forel 1902a: 423 (s.w.) AUSTRALIA, Bong-
Bong, N.S.W. (Froggatt). Raised to species Berry et al. 1997: 29.
Note: The elevation to species rank proposed by Berry et al. (1997) had been here-
tofore overlooked by Bolton (2014).
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Yellowish brown. Major HW 0.88, HL 0.94,

SL 0.45, CI 94, SI 51 (n=1). Head subquadrate (Fig. 7); with distinct parallel rugae
extending from frontal lobes posterior to apices of frontal carinae. Shorter lengths of
rugae present across entire posterior region of head and extending to posterior margin
in full-face view (Fig. 24). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4),
lacking a distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Promesonotal dorsum
glossy with thin but distinct subparallel striae running oblique to the longitudinal
midline (Fig. 20). Pronotal striae in dorsal view mostly oblique (Fig. 20). Postpetiole
not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Minor HW 0.45, HL 0.48, SL 0.41, CI 95, SI
91 (n=1). Head with well-defined, long segments of rugae running longitudinally from
below the eyes to the posterior head margin (Fig. 38). Frontal carinae distinct and
reaching towards the posterior head margin, although they may occasionally be inter-
rupted (Fig. 38). Punctate ground sculpture present on lateral surfaces of head and just
mesad of the frontal carinae, but median portion of head with a large glossy section
(Fig. 38). Antennal scapes reach but do not surpass posterior head margin (Fig. 41).
Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 42), lacking a distinct mound or
prominence on the posterior slope. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3).
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Pheidole rugosula is a small, brownish
yellow, short-limbed species with moderate head sculpturing that most likely belongs
to the Australian-New Guinea clade that includes close relatives of P. variabilis Mayr.
The head sculpturing of both the major (Fig. 10) and the minor (Fig. 38) is distinct
among all other Pheidole species treated here. These characters easily separate P. ru-
gosula from P. megacephala (Fig. 24, Fig. 36). These same characters, together with a
more sculptured promesonotal dorsum (Fig. 20, major) and stout propodeal spines,
can be used to separate P. rugosula from its two other congeners that are established in
New Zealand, P. proxima and P. vigilans (which is also much larger, major HW > 1.20
mm). There is a bewildering diversity of native Australian (and to a lesser extent New
Guinea) Pheidole that approach the morphology of P. rugosula. Additional characters
for identifying New Zealand Pheidole species are provided in Berry et al. (1997). A sig-
nificant revision of the P. variabilis group is required before P. rugosula can be reliably
separated from these species.
Biology. In New Zealand, P. rugosula is strongly associated with human distur-
bance and is the most commonly encountered of the four Pheidole species established
in New Zealand (Berry et al. 1997). It has been recorded frequently from gardens,
orchards, structures and urban areas. The species was reported nesting in compost, in
the soil of vegetable gardens, in the soil of lawns, and near rubbish baskets (Berry et al.
1997; Harris et al. 2005b). It has also been recorded as scavenging dead arthropods,
human food waste, nuts and seeds, and is often found associated with rotting fruit
(Berry et al. 1997; Harris et al. 2005b). Other collection records suggest P. rugosula
will forage arboreally. Berry et al. (1997) also mention that label data suggests the spe-
cies was collected several times attacking ootheca of mantids, including those of the
native mantid Orthodera novaezealandiae (Colenso).
Distribution. Pheidole rugosula is believed to be native to the New South Wales
region of Australia. The only country where the species has established is New Zealand
(Berry et al. 1997). Berry et al. (1997) published museum records of P. rugosula from
New Zealand. The first known occurrence of P. rugosula in New Zealand is from Taka-
puna, where it was collected in 1958 and it had reached Auckland by 1963. Since then
it has been found across the Auckland and Waikato regions.
Risk statement. Pheidole rugosula is considered to be a nuisance pest around urban
areas in New Zealand (Harris et al. 2005b), where foragers are attracted to pet food
left out and to windfall fruit. Although it occurs in native habitats in New Zealand, its
impacts are unknown. Collection data indicating a P. rugosula attack of native mantids
suggest it could have some negative impact on native biodiversity, however.
Pheidole vigilans (F. Smith)

Figs 87, 88O
vigilans. Atta vigilans Smith, F. 1858: 166 (w.) AUSTRALIA, Melbourne [BMNH,
MCZC]. Combination in Aphaenogaster: Dalla Torre 1893:108; in Pheidole: Em-
ery 1915a: 69.
dolichocephala. Pheidole dolichocephala André 1896: 262 (s.) AUSTRALIA, Western
Australia [MNHN]. Junior synonym of vigilans: Brown 1971: 13.
parallela. Pheidole ampla var. parallela Forel 1902a: 435 (s.w.m.) AUSTRALIA, N.S.W.
(Froggatt) [ANIC]. Junior synonym of vigilans: Brown 1971: 13.
yarrensis. Pheidole ampla var. yarrensis Forel 1902a: 434 (s.w.q.) AUSTRALIA, Yarra dis-
tricts, Victoria (Froggatt) [MHNG]. Junior synonym of vigilans: Brown 1971: 13.
norfolkensis. Pheidole ampla subsp. norfolkensis Wheeler, W.M. 1927: 134, fig. 3 (s.w.)
AUSTRALIA, Norfolk Island (A.M. Lea) [MCZC]. Donisthorpe 1941: 91 (q.m.).
Junior synonym of vigilans: Brown 1971: 13.
Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Smooth yellowish to reddish brown. Major

HW 1.30, HL 1.43, SL 0.68, CI 91, SI 52. Head subquadrate (Fig. 7); glossy, lacking
foveolate ground sculpture. Posterolateral lobes lacking sculpture (including foveolate
ground sculpture, carinae and rugae) posterior to maximum extent of antennal scapes
in repose (Fig. 9). Hypostomal bridge with two well-developed inner teeth but lack-
ing a median tooth (Fig. 19). Promesonotal dorsum glossy, lacking foveolate ground
sculpture or striae. Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome (Fig. 4), lacking a
distinct mound or prominence on the posterior slope. Metapleuron almost completely
glossy with strongly reduced carinulae and lacking punctation (Fig. 17). Petiolar node
mostly glossy (Fig. 17), not covered by punctate sculpture. Postpetiole not swollen
relative to petiole (Fig. 3). Minor HW 0.55, HL 0.58, SI 0.55, CI 95, SI 101. Head
predominantly glossy (Fig. 36), lacking punctation and or rugae above eye level. An-
tennal scapes surpass posterior head margin by approximate distance of eye length
(Fig. 40). Mesopleuron entirely glossy (Fig. 51a). Promesonotum in profile forming a
Propodeal spines weakly produced and dentiform (Fig. 51b). Petiole almost entirely
glossy. Postpetiole not swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 3).
Identification, taxonomy and systematics. Pheidole vigilans is a large, light color-
ed, glossy species native to Australia and introduced in New Zealand. The species be-
longs to an Old World clade centered in Australia. The glossy head of the majors and
minors give it a superficial appearance to P. megacephala, but it is substantially larger
than that species. Additionally, the postpetiole of P. proxima is not swollen relative
to the petiole (Fig. 3) as in P. megacephala (Fig. 1), and the head of the major is sub-
quadrate (Fig. 7), while that of P. megacephala is more heart-shaped (Fig. 6). Readers
are referred to the section under P. proxima and P. rugosula for a discussion of how to
differentiate it from the other Pheidole species established in New Zealand. Additional
taxonomy of these species is discussed in (Berry et al. 1997). Within Australia, there
are many taxa similar to P. vigilans and its close relative P. ampla Forel. However, a
revision of that fauna is required before it can be reliably diagnosed there.
Biology. Records show it has established in urban areas and been found with fruit,
in gardens, indoors and nesting in failing pasture (Berry et al. 1997).
Distribution. Pheidole vigilans is considered endemic to the south eastern corner
of Australia (Brown 1971). Heterick et al. (2013) reported P. vigilans as introduced
to Perth in Western Australia. The species was first collected outside of Australia in
Kerikeri, New Zealand in 1956, and remains the least frequently collected Pheidole
species in New Zealand (Berry et al. 1997; Cumber 1959). Although Pheidole ampla
subsp. norfolkensis Wheeler was originally described as endemic to the Norfolk Islands,
Brown (1971) later proposed that the species was introduced to those islands.
Risk statement. Pheidole vigilans is not considered a pest in New Zealand, but it has
been collected from urban areas and may be a minor garden nuisance (Harris et al. 2005c).
Dubious and erroneous records of introduced Pheidole species

The following species were reported by McGlynn (1999) as introduced in Hawaii
based on Nishida (1996a): Pheidole barbata W.M. Wheeler, P. fervida F. Smith, P.
hyatti Emery, P. punctatissima, and P. noda. These records refer to quarantine intercep-
tions (Wheeler 1934b), and it is doubtful that any of the aforementioned species ever
established in Hawaii. We propose that P. barbata, and P. hyatti be removed from
future lists of tramp ants. The URL referred to in Nishida (1996a) is obsolete, but the
data is available at Nishida (1996b).
Pheidole fervida is also reported by McGlynn (1999) as introduced in Tahiti based

on putative specimens at the LACM. These records are unverified, however, and it is
possible that the Tahiti specimens actually refer to P. fervens. While P. fervida, as it
is currently recognized (e.g. Eguchi 2008) is reported as occurring widely across Asia
(Guenard and Dunn 2012), we do not consider any of these records to represent
recent introductions outside of its native range. However, the species does exhibit
synanthropic habits and may yet prove itself as an important tramp ant.
Pheidole guineensis Fabricius is a West African species that has likely never estab-
lished outside of its native range. The species most often misidentified in museum col-
lections and in the literature as P. guineensis is Tetramorium bicarinatum (Nylander).
Between 1862 (Mayr 1862; Roger 1862) and 1977 (Bolton 1977) The latter species
was universally and mistakenly referred to as Tetramorium guineensis Fabricius. Read-
ers are referred to Bolton (1977) for a thorough explanation of the taxonomic history.
Pheidole micula Wheeler is a species native to the southwestern United States (Moody
and Francke 1982; Wheeler and Wheeler 1973; Wilson 2003). Ward (2005) unintention-
ally reported the species as introduced in California (pers. comm. December 17, 2013).
Pheidole umbonata Mayr is reported by McGlynn (1999) as introduced to Polyne-
sia and possibly New Caledonia. Although this synanthropic species is widely distrib-
uted across Oceania, and is very tolerant of disturbed habitats (Sarnat and Economo
2012), we consider P. umbonata to be native throughout the Pacific. Morphological
(Wilson and Taylor 1967) and molecular (unpublished) variation throughout the Pa-
cific populations suggest that the species is not a recent introduction to any of the
Polynesian, Micronesia or Melanesian countries where it is found. The New Caledonia
record reported by Emery (1914) was determined by Wilson and Taylor (1967) as re-
ferring to a different species. Although we are unaware of any confirmed records from
New Caledonia, it is quite possible the species does occur there.
Plates
Figure 74. Pheidole anastasii Mayr. Major worker, CASENT0613680: A full-face view B lateral view
C dorsal view. Minor worker, CASENT0619900: D full-face view E profile view F dorsal view. From
Antweb.org, photograph by Jeremy Pillow.
Figure 75. Pheidole bilimeki Mayr. Major worker, CASENT0173659: A full-face view B lateral view
Antweb.org, photographs by April Nobile.
Figure 76. Pheidole fervens F. Smith. Major worker, CASENT0171099: A full-face view B lateral view
Antweb.org, photographs by Eli Sarnat.
Figure 77. Pheidole flavens Roger. Major worker, CASENT0104398: A full-face view B lateral view
Figure 78. Pheidole indica Mayr. Major worker, CASENT0264427: A full-face view B lateral view
Antweb.org, photographs by Estella Ortega.
Figure 79. Pheidole megacephala (Fabricius). Major worker, CASENT0171036: A full-face view B lateral
view C dorsal view. Minor worker, CASENT0171092: D full-face view E profile view F dorsal view. From
Antweb.org, photographs by Eli Sarnat.
Figure 80. Pheidole navigans Forel. Major worker, BPBMENT2006029775: A full-face view B lateral
view C dorsal view. Minor worker, BPBMENT2006029771: D full-face view E profile view F dorsal
view. From Antweb.org, photographs by Eli Sarnat.
Figure 81. Pheidole noda F. Smith. Major worker, CASENT0282545: A full-face view B lateral view
Antweb.org, photographs by Masako Ogasawara.
Figure 82. Pheidole obscurithorax Naves. Major worker, CASENT0178041: A full-face view B lateral
view C dorsal view. Minor worker, CASENT0104420: D full-face view E profile view F dorsal view.
From Antweb.org, photographs by April Nobile.
Figure 83. Pheidole parva Mayr. Major worker, CASENT0160280: A full-face view B lateral view
Antweb.org, photographs by Estella Ortega.
Figure 84. Pheidole proxima Mayr. Major worker, CASENT0172362: A full-face view B lateral view
Figure 85. Pheidole punctatissima Mayr. Major worker, CASENT0619681: A full-face view B lateral
view C dorsal view. Minor worker, CASENT0619442: D full-face view E profile view F dorsal view.
From Antweb.org, photograph by Jeremy Pillow.
Figure 86. Pheidole rugosula Forel. Major worker, CASENT0717051: A full-face view B lateral view
Figure 87. Pheidole vigilans F. Smith. Major worker, CASENT0717430: A full-face view B lateral view
Pheidole anastasii A
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Pheidole bilimeki B
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Pheidole fervens C
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Figure 88. Geographic distribution of introduced Pheidole species. A P. anastasii Emery B P. bilimeki
Mayr C P. fervens F. Smith .Circle symbols represent georeferenced localities. Shaded polygons rep-
resent administrative units from which the respective species have been recorded as occurring. Larger
countries are subdivided into states or provinces for increased geographic resolution. Blue = putative
native occurrence records. Red = putative introduced occurrence records. Yellow = records for indoor
occurrences (heated buildings, greenhouses, etc.) in regions where the species is incapable of year-round
outdoor survival.
Pheidole flavens D
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Pheidole flavens-complex E
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Pheidole indica F
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Figure 88. Continued. Geographic distribution of introduced Pheidole species. D P. flavens Roger E
P. flavens-complex (excluding determined records of P. flavens Roger and P. navigans Forel) F P. indica
Mayr. Circle symbols represent georeferenced localities. Shaded polygons represent administrative units
from which the respective species have been recorded as occurring. Larger countries are subdivided into
states or provinces for increased geographic resolution. Blue = putative native occurrence records. Red =
putative introduced occurrence records. Yellow = records for indoor occurrences (heated buildings, green-
houses, etc.) in regions where the species is incapable of year-round outdoor survival.
Pheidole megacephala G
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Pheidole navigans H
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Pheidole noda I
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Figure 88. Continued. Geographic distribution of introduced Pheidole species. G P. megacephala

(Fabricius) H P. navigans Forel I P. noda F. Smith. Circle symbols represent georeferenced localities.
Shaded polygons represent administrative units from which the respective species have been recorded
as occurring. Larger countries are subdivided into states or provinces for increased geographic resolu-
tion. Blue = putative native occurrence records. Red = putative introduced occurrence records. Yellow
= records for indoor occurrences (heated buildings, greenhouses, etc.) in regions where the species is
incapable of year-round outdoor survival.
Pheidole obscurithorax J
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Pheidole parva K
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Pheidole proxima L
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Figure 88. Continued. Geographic distribution of introduced Pheidole species. J P. obscurithorax Naves
K P. parva Mayr L P. proxima Mayr. Circle symbols represent georeferenced localities. Shaded polygons
represent administrative units from which the respective species have been recorded as occurring. Larger
countries are subdivided into states or provinces for increased geographic resolution. Blue = putative
native occurrence records. Red = putative introduced occurrence records. Yellow = records for indoor
occurrences (heated buildings, greenhouses, etc.) in regions where the species is incapable of year-round
outdoor survival.
Pheidole punctatissima M
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Pheidole rugosula N
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Pheidole vigilans O
Native
Introduced
Indoor Introduced
Figure 88. Continued. Geographic distribution of introduced Pheidole species. M P. punctatissima Mayr N
P. rugosula Forel O P. vigilans (F. Smith).Circle symbols represent georeferenced localities. Shaded polygons
represent administrative units from which the respective species have been recorded as occurring. Larger
countries are subdivided into states or provinces for increased geographic resolution. Blue = putative native
occurrence records. Red = putative introduced occurrence records. Yellow = records for indoor occurrences
(heated buildings, greenhouses, etc.) in regions where the species is incapable of year-round outdoor survival.
Acknowledgments
We thank Keith Arakaki, Disna Gunawardana, Neil Evenhuis, Paul Krushelnycky,

Christian Rabeling, Ted Schultz, and Phil Ward for lending specimens, and Jack
Longino for providing measurements of Neotropical taxa. We thank the two anony-
mous referees for their detailed reviews and for improving the quality of this manu-
script. This work was supported by USDA APHIS Identification Technology Program
(13-8130-1439-CA), subsidy funding to OIST, and NSF (DEB-1145989).
References
Aguayo CG (1932) Notes on West Indian ants. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Soci-
ety 27: 215–227.
André E (1883) Les fourmis. Imprimerie A. Lahure, Paris, 345 pp.
André E (1896) Fourmis nouvelles d’Asie et d’Australie. Revue d’Entomologie (Caen) 15: 251–265.
Anh LN, Ogata K, Hosoishi S (2010) Ants of agricultural fields in Vietnam (Hymenoptera:
Formicinae). Bulletin of the Institute of Tropical Agriculture Kyushu University 33: 1–1.
Missouri Ants. http://www.antweb.org/taxonomicPage.do?rank=genus&project=missouriants
&images=true [accessed 14 January 2015]
Bakr RFA, Fadl HH, Badawy RM, Sharaf MR (2007) Myrmecophile insects associated with some
ant species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Egypt. Proceedings of the 2nd International Con-
ference of the Entomological Society of Egypt, Cairo, Egypt, 8–11 December, 2: 205–233.
Baroni Urbani C (1968) Studi sulla mirmecofauna d’Italia. IV. La fauna mirmecologica delle
isole Maltesi ed il suo significato ecologico e biogeografico. Annali del Museo Civico di
Storia Naturale “Giacomo Doria” 77: 408–559.
Berry JA, Green OR, Shattuck SO (1997) Species of Pheidole Westwood (Hymenoptera: For-
micidae) established in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 24: 25–33. doi:
10.1080/03014223.1997.9518103
Bertelsmeier C, Avril A, Blight O, Confais A, Diez L, Jourdan H, Orivel J, Saint Germès N,
Courchamp F (2015) Different behavioural strategies among seven highly invasive ant spe-
cies. Biological Invasions, 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10530-015-0892-5
Bignell GC (1901) Corsican Ants, etc. Entomologists’ Monthly Magazine 37: 8.
Bingham CT (1903) The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Hymenoptera,
Vol. II. Ants and Cuckoo-wasps. Taylor and Francis, London, 506 pp.
Birkemoe T, Aak A (2008) Indoor infestations of two imported ant species (Pheidole anastasii
Mayr, 1870 and Pheidole punctatissima Emery, 1896) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in Nor-
way. Norwegian Journal of Entomology 55: 45–47.
Blackburn TM, Pyšek P, Bacher S, Carlton JT, Duncan RP, Jarošík V, Wilson JRU, Richard-
son DM (2011) A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends in Ecology
& Evolution 26: 333–339. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.023
Boer P (2015) Species list of the Netherlands. http://nlmieren.nl/websitepages/specieslist.html
[accessed 20 March 2015]
Boer P, Vierbergen B (2008) Exotic ants in The Netherlands (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).

Entomologische Berichten (Amsterdam) 68: 121–129.
Bolton B (1977) The ant tribe Tetramoriini (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). The genus Tetramo-
rium Mayr in the Oriental and Indo-Australian regions, and in Australia. Bulletin of the
British Museum (Natural History) Entomology 36: 67–151.
Bolton B (1995) A new general catalogue of the ants of the world. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, 504 pp.
Bolton B (2014) An online catalog of the ants of the world. http://antcat.org [accessed 2015-03-14]
Borowiec L, Salata S (2012) Ants of Greece – additions and corrections (Hymenoptera: For-
micidae). Zenodo 24: 335–401
Bračko G (2006) Review of the ant fauna (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Croatia. Acta Ento-
mologica Slovenica 14: 131–156.
Brown WL Jr (1971) The identity and synonymy of Pheidole vigilans, a common ant of south-
eastern Australia (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of the Australian Entomological
Society 10: 13–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-6055.1971.tb00003.x
Brown WL Jr (1981) Preliminary contributions toward a revision of the ant genus Pheidole
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Part I. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 54: 523–530.
Buckley SB (1866) Descriptions of new species of North American Formicidae. Proceedings of
the Entomological Society of Philadelphia 6: 152–172.
Buren WF (1972) Revisionary studies on the taxonomy of the imported fire ants. Journal of the
Georgia Entomological Society 7: 1–26.
Burwell CJ, Nakamura A, McDougall A, Neldner VJ (2012) Invasive African big-headed ants,
Pheidole megacephala, on coral cays of the southern Great Barrier Reef: distribution and impacts
on other ants. Journal of Insect Conservation 16: 777–789. doi: 10.1007/s10841-012-9463-6
Cagniant H, Espadaler X (1993) Liste des espèces de fourmis du Maroc. Actes des Colloques
Insectes Sociaux 8: 89–93.
Campbell CAM (1994) Homoptera associated with the ants Crematogaster clariventris, Pheidole
megacephala and Tetramorium aculeatum (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on cocoa in Ghana.
Bulletin of Entomological Research 84: 313–318. doi: 10.1017/S0007485300032429
Cheesman LE, Crawley WC (1928) A contribution towards the insect fauna of French Oce-
ania – Part III. Formicidae. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 2: 514–525. doi:
10.1080/00222932808672914
Chen Y-C, Kafle L, Shih C-J (2011) Interspecific competition between Solenopsis invicta and
two native ant species, Pheidole fervens and Monomorium chinense. Journal of Economic
Entomology 104: 614–621. doi: 10.1603/EC10240
Choi BM, Bang JR (1993) Studies on the distribution of ants (Formicidae) in Korea (12). The
analysis of ant communities in 23 islands. Chongju Sabom Taehakkyo Nonmunjip [Jour-
nal of Chongju National University of Education] 30: 317–330. [In Korean]
Choi BM, Kim CH, Bang JR (1993a) Studies on the distribution of ants (Formicidae) in
Korea (13). A checklist of ants from each province (Do), with taxonomic notes. Chongju
Sabom Taehakkyo Nonmunjip [Journal of Chongju National University of Education]
30: 331–380. [In Korean]
Choi BM, Ogata K, Terayama M (1993b) Comparative studies of ant faunas of Korea and
Japan. I. Faunal comparison among islands of southern Korea and northern Kyushu,
Japan. Bulletin of the Biogeographical Society of Japan 48: 37–49.
Colby D, Prowell D (2006) Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in wet longleaf pine savannas in
Louisiana. Florida Entomologist 89: 266–269. doi: 10.1653/0015-4040(2006)89[266:AH-
FIWL]2.0.CO;2
Collingwood CA (1993) A comparative study of the ant fauna of five Greek islands. Biologia
Gallo-Hellenica 20: 191–197.
Collingwood CA, Pohl H, Güsten R, Wranik W, van Harten A (2004) The ants (Insecta: Hy-
menoptera: Formicidae) of the Socotra archipelago. Fauna of Saudi Arabia 20: 473–495.
Collingwood CA, Tigar BJ, Agosti D (1997) Introduced ants in the United Arab Emirates.
Journal of Arid Environments 37: 505–512. doi: 10.1006/jare.1997.0309
Creighton WS (1950) The ants of North America. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative
Zoology at Harvard College 104: 1–585.
Cumber RA (1959) Distributional and biological notes on sixteen North Island species of
Formicidae (Hymenoptera). New Zealand Entomologist 2: 10–14. doi: 10.1080/0077
9962.1959.9722774
Dalla Torre KWv (1892) Hymenopterologische Notizen. Wiener Entomologische Zeitung
11: 89–93.
Dalla Torre KWv (1893) Catalogus Hymenopterorum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et
synonymicus. Vol. 7. Formicidae (Heterogyna). W. Engelmann, Leipzig, 289 pp.
Dash ST, Hooper-Bùi LM (2008) Species diversity of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in
Louisiana. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 101: 1056–1066. doi:
10.1603/0013-8746-101.6.1056
Dejean A, Moreau CS, Kenne M, Leponce M (2008) The raiding success of Pheidole mega-
cephala on other ants in both its native and introduced ranges. Comptes Rendus Biologies
331: 631–635. doi: 10.1016/j.crvi.2008.05.004
Dejean A, Moreau CS, Uzac P, Le Breton J, Kenne M (2007) The predatory behavior of Pheidole
megacephala. Comptes Rendus Biologies 330: 701–709. doi: 10.1016/j.crvi.2007.06.005
Deyrup M (2003) An updated list of Florida ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Florida Ento-
mologist 86: 43–48. doi: 10.1653/0015-4040(2003)086[0043:AULOFA]2.0.CO;2
Deyrup M, Carlin N, Trager J, Umphrey G (1988) A review of the ants of the Florida Keys.
Florida Entomologist 71: 163–176. doi: 10.2307/3495364
Deyrup M, Davis L, Cover S (2000) Exotic ants in Florida. Transactions of the American En-
tomological Society (Philadelphia) 126: 293–326.
Deyrup M, Johnson C, Wheeler GC, Wheeler J (1989) A preliminary list of the ants of Florida.
Florida Entomologist 72: 91–101. doi: 10.2307/3494972
Donisthorpe H (1932) On the identity of Smith’s types of Formicidae (Hymenoptera) collected
by Alfred Russell Wallace in the Malay Archipelago, with descriptions of two new species.
Annals and Magazine of Natural History 10: 441–476. doi: 10.1080/00222933208673595
Donisthorpe H (1941) The ants of Norfolk Island. Entomologists’ Monthly Magazine 77:
90–93.
Donisthorpe H (1946) The ants (Hym. Formicidae) of Mauritius. Annals and Magazine of
Natural History 13: 25–35. doi: 10.1080/00222934608654518
Donisthorpe H (1947 (1946)) New species of ants from China and Mauritius. Annals and
Magazine of Natural History (11) 13: 283–286.
Economo EP, Klimov P, Sarnat EM, Guénard B, Weiser MD, Lecroq B, Knowles LL (2015)
Global phylogenetic structure of the hyperdiverse ant genus Pheidole reveals the repeated
evolution of macroecological patterns. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences 282.
Economo EP, Sarnat EM (2012) Revisiting the ants of Melanesia and the taxon cycle: histori-
cal and human-mediated invasions of a tropical archipelago. The American Naturalist 180:
E1–E16. doi: 10.1086/665996
Eguchi K (2001a) A revision of the Bornean species of the ant genus Pheidole (Insects: Hyme-
noptera: Formicidae: Myrmicinae). Tropics Monograph Series 2: 1–154.
Eguchi K (2001b) A taxonomic study on Asian Pheidole (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): New
synonymy, rank changes, lectotype designations and redescriptions. Insecta Koreana 18:
1–35.
Eguchi K (2004a) A survey on seed predation by omnivorous ants in the warm-temperate zone
of Japan (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Formicidae). New Entomologist 53: 7–18.
Eguchi K (2004b) Taxonomic revision of two wide-ranging Asian ants, Pheidole fervens and P.
indica (Insects: Hymenoptera), and related species. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Muse-
ums in Wien Serie B Botanik und Zoologie 105(B): 189–209.
Eguchi K (2008) A revision of Northern Vietnamese species of the ant genus Pheidole (Insecta:
Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Myrmicinae). Zootaxa 1902: 1–118.
Eguchi K, Yamane S, Zhou SY (2007) Taxonomic revision of the Pheidole rinae Emery com-
plex. Sociobiology 50: 257–284.
Emery C (1887a) Catalogo delle formiche esistenti nelle collezioni del Museo Civico di Geno-
va. Parte terza. Formiche della regione Indo-Malese e dell’Australia (continuazione e fine).
[part]. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale 25: 449–464.
Emery C (1887b) Catalogo delle formiche esistenti nelle collezioni del Museo Civico di Gen-
ova. Parte terza. Formiche della regione Indo-Malese e dell’Australia. [part c]. Annali del
Museo Civico di Storia Naturale 24: 256–258.
Emery C (1892) Note sinonimiche sulle formiche. Bullettino della Societa Entomologica Itali-
ana 23: 159–167.
Emery C (1893) Formicides de l’Archipel Malais. Revue Suisse de Zoologie 1: 187–229. doi:
10.5962/bhl.part.3745
Emery C (1894) Studi sulle formiche della fauna neotropica. VI-XVI. Bullettino della Societa
Entomologica Italiana 26: 137–241.
Emery C (1895) Beiträge zur Kenntniss der nordamerikanischen Ameisenfauna. (Schluss).
Zoologische Jahrbücher, Abteilung für Systematik, Geographie und Biologie der Tiere 8:
257–360.
Emery C (1896) Studi sulle formiche della fauna neotropica. XVII-XXV. Bullettino della Soci-
eta Entomologica Italiana 28: 33–107.
Emery C (1914) Les fourmis de la Nouvelle-Calédonie et des îles Loyalty. In: Sarasin F, Roux J
(Eds) Nova Caledonia A, Zoologie. C.W. Kreidels Verlag, Wiesbaden, 393–437.
Emery C (1915a) Definizione del genere Aphaenogaster e partizione di esso in sottogeneri. Para-
pheidole e Novomessor nn. gg. Rendiconti delle Sessioni della Reale Accademia delle Scienze
dell’Istituto di Bologna Classe di Scienze Fisische (NS) 19: 67–75.
Emery C (1915b) Les Pheidole du groupe megacephala (Formicidae). Revue de Zoologie Afric-
aine (Bruxelles) 4: 223–250.
Emery C (1921) Hymenoptera. Fam. Formicidae. Subfam. Myrmicinae. [part]. Louis Desmet-
Verteneuil, Brussels, 94 pp.
Evenhuis NL (2009) The insect and spider collections of the world website. http://hbs.bishop-
museum.org/codens [accessed March 4, 2013]
Fischer G, Fisher BL (2013) A revision of Pheidole Westwood (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in
the islands of the Southwest Indian Ocean and designation of a neotype for the invasive
Pheidole megacephala. Zootaxa 3683: 301–356. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3683.4.1
Fischer G, Hita Garcia F, Peters MK (2012) Taxonomy of the ant genus Pheidole Westwood
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the Afrotropical zoogeographic region: definition of species
groups and systematic revision of the Pheidole pulchella group. Zootaxa 3232: 1–43.
Forel A (1891) Les Formicides. In: Grandidier A (Ed.) Histoire physique, naturelle, et poli-
tique de Madagascar Histoire naturelle des Hyménoptères Deuxième partie. Hachette et
Cie, Paris, 280 pp.
Forel A (1893a) Formicides de l’Antille St. Vincent, récoltées par Mons. H. H. Smith. Transac-
tions of the Entomological Society of London 1893: 333–418.
Forel A (1893b) Nouvelles fourmis d’Australie et des Canaries. Annales de la Société Ento-
mologique de Belgique 37: 454–466.
Forel A (1894a) Abessinische und andere afrikanische Ameisen, gesammelt von Herrn Inge-
nieur Alfred Ilg, von Herrn Dr. Liengme, von Herrn Pfarrer Missionar P. Berthoud, Herrn
Dr. Arth. Müller etc. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gessellschaft or
Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique Suisse 9: 64–100.
Forel A (1894b) Algunas hormigas de Canarias recogidas por el Sr. Cabrera y Diaz. Anales de
la Sociedad Española de Historia Natural (Actas) (2)2[=22]: 159–162.
Forel A (1894c) Quelques fourmis de Madagascar (récoltées par M. le Dr. Voltzkow); de Nou-
velle Zélande (récoltées par M. W. W. Smith); de Nouvelle Calédonie (récoltées par M.
Sommer); de Queensland (Australie) (récoltées par M. Wiederkehr); et de Perth (Australie
occidentale) (récoltées par M. Chase). Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique
38: 226–237.
Forel A (1895) Nouvelles fourmis d’Australie, récoltées à The Ridge, Mackay, Queensland, par
M. Gilbert Turner. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique 39: 417–428.
Forel A (1897) Ameisen aus Nossi-Bé, Majunga, Juan de Nova (Madagaskar), den Aldabra-
Inseln und Sansibar, gesammelt von Herrn Dr. A. Voeltzkow aus Berlin. Mit einem An-
hang über die von Herrn Privatdocenten Dr. A. Brauer in Marburg auf den Seychellen und
von Herrn Perrot auf Ste. Marie (Madagaskar) gesammelten Ameisen. Abhandlungen der
Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft 21: 185–208.
Forel A (1900) Fourmis du Japon. Nids en toile. Strongylognathus Huberi et voisins. Fourmil-
ière triple. Cyphomyrmex Wheeleri. Fourmis importées. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen
Entomologischen Gessellschaft or Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique Suisse 10: 267–287.
Forel A (1901a) Formiciden des Naturhistorischen Museums zu Hamburg. Neue Calypto-
myrmex-, Dacryon-, Podomyrma- und Echinopla-Arten. Mitteilungen aus dem Naturhis-
torischen Museum in Hamburg 18: 43–82.
Forel A (1901b) Variétés myrmécologiques. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique
45: 334–382.
Forel A (1902a) Fourmis nouvelles d’Australie. Revue Suisse de Zoologie 10: 405–548. doi:
10.5962/bhl.part.13793
Forel A (1902b) Les Formicides de l’Empire des Indes et de Ceylan. Part IX. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 14: 520–546.
Forel A (1902c) Myrmicinae nouveaux de l’Inde et de Ceylan. Revue Suisse de Zoologie 10:
165–249. doi: 10.5962/bhl.part.13792
Forel A (1903) Les fourmis des îles Andamans et Nicobares. Rapports de cette faune avec ses
voisines. Revue Suisse de Zoologie 11: 399–411.
Forel A (1905a) Ameisen aus Java. Gesammelt von Prof. Karl Kraepelin 1904. Mitteilungen
aus dem Naturhistorischen Museum in Hamburg 22: 1–26.
Forel A (1905b) Miscellanea myrmécologiques II (1905). Annales de la Société Entomologique
de Belgique 49: 155–185.
Forel A (1907a) Ameisen von Madagaskar, den Comoren und Ostafrika. In: Voeltzkow A
(Ed.) Reise in Ostafrika in den Jahren 1903–1905 Mitteln der Hermann und Elise geb
Heckman Wentzel-Stiftung ausgeführt von Professor Dr Alfred Voeltzkow. E. Schweizer-
bartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung (E. Nägele), Stuttgart, 75–92.
Forel A (1907b) Formiciden aus dem Naturhistorischen Museum in Hamburg. II. Teil. Neue-
ingänge seit 1900. Mitteilungen aus dem Naturhistorischen Museum in Hamburg 24: 1–20.
Forel A (1907c) The Percy Sladen Trust Expedition to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under
the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner, M.A. VI. Fourmis des Seychelles, Amirantes,
Farquhar et Chagos. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London Zoology (2) 12:
91–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1907.tb00512.x
Forel A (1908) Fourmis de Costa-Rica récoltées par M. Paul Biolley. Bulletin de la Société
Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 44: 35–72.
Forel A (1909a) Ameisen aus Guatemala usw., Paraguay und Argentinien (Hym.). Deutsche
Entomologische Zeitschrift 1909: 239–269. doi: 10.1002/mmnd.48019090209
Forel A (1909b) Études myrmécologiques en 1909. Fourmis de Barbarie et de Ceylan. Nidifica-
tion des Polyrhachis. Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 45: 369–407.
Forel A (1911a) Ameisen aus Ceylon, gesammelt von Prof. K. Escherich (einige von Prof. E.
Bugnion). In: Escherich K (Ed.) Termitenleben auf Ceylon. Gustav Fischer, Jena, 215–228.
Forel A (1911b) Ameisen aus Java beobachtet und gesammelt von Herrn Edward Jacobson. II.
Theil. Notes from the Leyden Museum 33: 193–218.
Forel A (1911c) Fourmis nouvelles ou intéressantes. Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sci-
ences Naturelles 47: 331–400.
Forel A (1912) H. Sauter’s Formosa-Ausbeute. Formicidae (Hym.). Entomologische Mit-

teilungen 1: 45–61.
Forel A (1913a) H. Sauter’s Formosa-Ausbeute: Formicidae II. Archiv für Naturgeschichte,
Berlin A 79: 183–202.
Forel A (1913b) Quelques fourmis des Indes, du Japon et d’Afrique. Revue Suisse de Zoologie
21: 659–673. doi: 10.5962/bhl.part.37159
Forel A (1915) Fauna insectorum helvetiae. Hymenoptera. Formicidae. Die Ameisen der Sch-
weiz. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gessellschaft or Bulletin de la
Societe Entomologique Suisse 12(7/8): 1–77.
Forel A (1916) Fourmis du Congo et d’autres provenances récoltées par MM. Hermann Kohl,
Luja, Mayné, etc. Revue Suisse de Zoologie 24: 397–460. doi: 10.5962/bhl.part.4645
Forskål P (1775) Descriptiones animalium, avium, amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum, ver-
mium; quae in itinere orientali observavit Petrus Forskål. Post mortum auctoris edidit
Carsten Niebuhr. Moeller, Hauniae [= Copenhagen], 164 pp.
Fournier D, De Biseau JC, Aron S (2009) Genetics, behaviour and chemical recognition of the
invading ant Pheidole megacephala. Molecular Ecology 18: 186–199. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
294X.2008.04018.x
Gaigher R, Samways MJ, Henwood J, Jolliffe K (2011) Impact of a mutualism between an in-
vasive ant and honeydew-producing insects on a functionally important tree on a tropical
island. Biological Invasions 13: 1717–1721. doi: 10.1007/s10530-010-9934-1
Garrison RW (1996) New agricultural pests for southern California. Two new ants, Pheidole
fervens (figure 2) and Pheidole moerens (figs 1, 3). Los Angles County, Agricultural Com-
missioner’s Office, not-numbered, 2 pp.
Gerstäcker A (1859) [Untitled. Introduced by: “Hr. Peters berichtete über sein Reisewerk,
von dem die Insecten bis zum 64., die Botanik bis zum 34. Bogen gedruckt sind und
theilte den Schluss der Diagnosen der von Hrn. Dr. Gerstäcker bearbeiteten Hymenop-
teren mit.”]. Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie Wissenschaften zu
Berlin 1858: 261–264.
Gerstäcker A (1862) Hymenoptera Hautflügler. In: Peters WCH. Naturwissenschaftliche
Reise nach Mossambique auf Befehl seiner Majestät des Königs Friedrich Wilhelm IV
in den Jahren 1842 bis 1848 ausgeführt. G. Reimer, Berlin, 439–526. doi: 10.5962/bhl.
title.67715
Glancey BM, Wojcik DP, Craig CH, Mitchell JA (1976) Ants of Mobile County, AL, as
monitored by bait transects. Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society 11: 191–197.
Gómez K, Espadaler X (2006) Exotic ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the Balearic Islands.
Myrmecologische Nachrichten 8: 225–233.
González Hernández H, Johnson MW, Reimer NJ (1999) Impact of Pheidole megacephala (F.)
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on the biological control of Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell)
(Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Biological Control 15: 145–152. doi: 10.1006/bcon.1999.0714
Gotzek D, Brady SG, Kallal RJ, LaPolla JS (2012) The importance of using multiple approach-
es for identifying emerging invasive species: the case of the Rasberry Crazy Ant in the
United States. PLoS ONE 7(9): e45314. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045314
Green OR, Gunawardana D (2006) Establishment and spread of another exotic ant Pheidole
proxima Mayr (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in New Zealand. The Weta 26: 7–11.
Greenslade PJM (1972) Comparative ecology of four tropical ant species. Insectes Sociaux 19:
195–212. doi: 10.1007/BF02226626
Gregg RE (1959) Key to the species of Pheidole (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the United
States. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 66: 7–48.
Gruner DS, Heu RA, Chun ME (2003) Two ant species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) new to
the Hawaiian Islands. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 74: 35–40.
Guénard B, McCaffrey KA, Lucky A, Dunn RR (2012) Ants of North Carolina: an updated
list (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Zootaxa 3552: 1–36.
Gulmahamad H (1999) Extirapation of one exotic ant species by another in southern Califor-
nia. Pan-Pacific Entomologist 75: 227–229.
Harada Y, Matsumoto Y, Maeda S, Oyama A, Yamane S (2009) Comparison of ant fauna
among different habitats of Yaku-shima Island, southern Japan. Bulletin of the Biogeo-
graphical Society of Japan 64: 125–134.
Harris R, Abbott K, Barton K, Berry J, Don W, Gunawardana D, Lester P, Rees J, Stanley
M, Sutherland A, Toft R (2005a) Invasive ant pest risk assessment project for Biosecurity
New Zealand: Pheidole fervens. Series of unpublished Landcare Research contract reports
to Biosecurity New Zealand. BAH/35/2004–1.
M, Sutherland A, Toft R (2005b) Invasive ant pest risk assessment project for Biosecurity
New Zealand: Pheidole rugosula. Series of unpublished Landcare Research contract reports
M, Sutherland A, Toft R (2005c) Invasive ant pest risk assessment project for Biosecurity
New Zealand: Pheidole vigilans. Series of unpublished Landcare Research contract reports
Hedges SA (1998) Field guide for the management of structure-infesting ants. G.I.E. Inc.,
Publishers, Cleveland, OH, 304 pp.
Heer O (1852) Ueber die Haus-Ameise Madeiras. Zürcherische Jugend, Naturforschende Ge-
sellschaft 54: 1–24, taf.
Heterick BE, Lythe M, Smithyman C (2013) Urbanisation factors impacting on ant (Hyme-
noptera: Formicidae) biodiversity in the Perth metropolitan area, Western Australia: Two
case studies. Urban Ecosystems 16: 145–173. doi: 10.1007/s11252-012-0257-0
Hoffmann BD (1998) The Big-headed Ant Pheidole megacephala: A new threat to monsoonal
northwestern Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 4: 250–255.
Hoffmann BD, Andersen AN, Hill GJE (1999) Impact of an introduced ant on native rain
forest invertebrates: Pheidole megacephala in monsoonal Australia. Oecologia (Berlin) 120:
595–604. doi: 10.1007/pl00008824
Hoffmann BD, Parr C (2008) An invasion revisited: the African big-headed ant (Pheidole
megacephala) in northern Australia. Biological Invasions 10: 1171–1181. doi: 10.1007/
s10530-007-9194-x
Holway DA, Lach L, Suarez AV, Ysutsui ND, Case TJ (2002) The causes and consequences
of ant invasions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 181–233. doi: 10.1146/
annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150444
Imai HT, Baroni Urbani C, Kubota M, Sharma GP, Narasimhanna MH, Das BC, Sharma
AK, Sharma A, Deodikar GB, Vaidya VG, Rajasekarasetty MR (1984) Karyological survey
of Indian ants. Japan Journal of Genetics 59: 1–32. doi: 10.1266/jjg.59.1
Jucker C, Rigato F, Regalin R (2008) Exotic ant records from Italy (Hymenoptera, Formici-
dae). Bollettino di Zoologia Agraria e di Bachicoltura 40: 99–107.
Karaman MG (2011) Zoogeography, diversity and altitudinal distribution of ants (Hymenop-
tera: Formicidae) in the Mediterranean and the oro-Mediterranean parts of Montenegro.
North-Western Journal of Zoology 7: 26–34.
King JR, Tschinkel WR (2007) Range expansion and local population increase of the exotic ant,
Pheidole obscurithorax, in the southeastern United States (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Flor-
ida Entomologist 90: 435–439. doi: 10.1653/0015-4040(2007)90[435:REALPI]2.0.CO;2
Klotz JH, Mangold JR, Vail KM, Davis LR Jr., Patterson RS (1995) A survey of the urban
pest ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of peninsular Florida. Florida Entomologist 78:
109–118. doi: 10.2307/3495674
Kupianskaia AN (1990) Murav’i (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) Dal’nego Vostoka SSSR. Vladi-
vostok, 258 pp.
Lach L, Hooper-Bùi LM (2009) Consequences of ant invasions. In: Lach L, Parr C, Abbott
K (Eds) Ant Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 261–286. doi: 10.1093/acprof:o
so/9780199544639.003.0015
Latreille PA (1802) Histoire naturelle des fourmis, et recueil de mémoires et d’observations sur
les abeilles, les araignées, les faucheurs, et autres insectes. De l’impr. de Crapelet (chez T.
Barrois), Paris, 445 pp.
Le Roux J, Wieczorek AM (2009) Molecular systematics and population genetics of biological
invasions: towards a better understanding of invasive species management. Annals of Ap-
plied Biology 154: 1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.2008.00280.x
Limonta L, Colombo M (2003) Record of Pheidole megacephala (F.), Pheidole nodus Smith
and Tetramorium bicarinatum Nylander (Hymenoptera Formicidae), tropical species, in
nursery imported plants. Bollettino di Zoologia Agraria e di Bachicoltura 35: 287–289.
Liu C, Guénard B, Hita Garcia F, Yamane S, Blanchard B, Yang D-R, Economo E (2015)
New records of ant species from Yunnan, China. ZooKeys 477: 17–78. doi: 10.3897/
zookeys.477.8775
Lomholdt O (1986) Myren Pheidole anastasii Emery, 1896 i Botanisk Have, Kobenhavn (Hy-
menoptera, Formicidae). Entomologiske Meddelelser 53: 58.
Longino JT (2009) Additions to the taxonomy of New World Pheidole (Hymenoptera: Formi-
cidae). Zootaxa 2181: 1–90.
Longino JT, Cox DJ (2009) Pheidole bilimeki reconsidered (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).
Zootaxa 1985: 34–42.
Losana M (1834) Saggio sopra le formiche indigene del Piemonte. Memoire della Reale Ac-
cademia delle Scienze di Torino 37: 307–333.
Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M (2000) 100 of the world’s worst invasive spe-
cies. Aliens 12: 1–12.
Lutinski JA, Lopes BC, Barros de Morais AB (2013) Urban ant diversity (Hymenoptera: For-
micidae) in ten cities of southern Brazil. Biota Neotropica, Campinas 13: 332–342. doi:
10.1590/S1676-06032013000300033
MacGown JA, Hill JG (2010) A new apecies of Pyramica Roger (Hymenoptera: For-
micidae) from Mississippi, U.S.A. Florida Entomologist 93: 571–576. doi:
10.1653/024.093.0415
Man LS, Lee CY (2012) Structure-invading pest ants in healthcare facilities in Singapore.
Sociobiology 59: 241–249.
Martínez MJ (1992) A new ant introduction for North America: Pheidole teneriffana (Forel)
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 68: 153–154.
Martínez MJ (1996) The first North American record for the ant Pheidole fervens Fr. Smith
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 72: 171–172.
Martínez MJ (1997) The first record of the ant Pheidole moerens Wheeler from the western
United States (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 73: 46.
Mayr G (1861) Die europäischen Formiciden. Nach der analytischen Methode bearbeitet. C.
Gerolds Sohn, Wien, 80 pp. doi: 10.5962/bhl.title.14089
Mayr G (1862) Myrmecologische Studien. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Königlichen
Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 12: 649–776.
Mayr G (1865) Formicidae. Reise der Österreichischen Fregatte “Novara” um die Erde in
den Jahren 1857, 1858, 1859. Zoologischer Theil. Bd. II. Abt. 1. K. Gerold’s Sohn,
Wien, 119 pp.
Mayr G (1866) Myrmecologische Beiträge. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften in Wien Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse Abteilung I 53: 484–517.
Mayr G (1867) Adnotationes in monographiam formicidarum Indo-Neerlandicarum. Tijd-
schrift voor Entomologie 10: 33–118.
Mayr G (1868) Formicidae novae Americanae collectae a Prof. P. de Strobel. Annuario della
Società dei Naturalisti e Matematici, Modena 3: 161–178.
Mayr G (1870a) Formicidae novogranadenses. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften in Wien Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse Abteilung I 61: 370–417.
Mayr G (1870b) Neue Formiciden. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Zoologisch-
Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 20: 939–996.
Mayr G (1876) Die australischen Formiciden. Journal des Museum Godeffroy 12: 56–115.
Mayr G (1879) Beiträge zur Ameisen-Fauna Asiens. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Königli-
chen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 28: 645–686.
Mayr G (1886) Notizen über die Formiciden-Sammlung des British Museum in London.
Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien
36: 353–368.
Mayr G (1887) Südamerikanische Formiciden. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Königlichen
Zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wein 37: 511–632.
Mayr G (1897) Formiciden aus Ceylon und Singapur. Természetrajzi Füzetek 20: 420–436.
McGlynn TP (1999) The worldwide transfer of ants: geographical distribution and ecological
invasions. Journal of Biogeography 26: 535–548. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.1999.00310.x
Menozzi C (1939) Formiche dell’Himalaya e del Karakorum raccolte dalla Spedizione italiana
comandata da S. A. R. il Duca di Spoleto (1929). Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze
Naturali e del Museo Civile di Storia Naturale, Milano 78: 285–345.
Microsoft (2015) Bing Geocoding API. Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington.
Mohanraj P, Ali M, Veenakumari K (2010) Formicidae of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands
(Indian Ocean: Bay Of Bengal). Journal of Insect Science (Online) 10: 172.
Moody JV, Francke OF (1982) The ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) of western Texas. Part 1:
Subfamily Myrmicinae. Graduate Studies Texas Tech University 27: 1–80.
Moreau CS (2008) Unraveling the evolutionary history of the hyperdiverse ant genus Pheidole
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 48: 224–239. doi:
10.1016/j.ympev.2008.02.020
Moreau CS, Deyrup MA, Davis LR Jr. (2014) Ants of the Florida keys: species accounts, bioge-
ography, and conservation (hymenoptera: formicidae). Journal of Insect Science (Online)
14: e295. doi: 10.1093/jisesa/ieu157
Morrison LW (1996) Community organization in a recently assembled fauna: the case of Poly-
nesian ants. Oecologia (Berlin) 107: 243–256. doi: 10.1007/BF00327909
Naves MA (1985) A monograph of the genus Pheidole in Florida, USA (Hymenoptera: Formi-
cidae). Insecta Mundi 1: 53–90.
Nishida GM (1996a) Hawaiian terrestrial arthropod checklist. Online database. Bishop Mu-
seum, Honolulu. Updated periodically. Version: 23 September 1995. http://www.bishop.
hawaii.org/bishop/HBS/arthrosearch.html
Nishida GM (1996b) Specimen Data for Hawaiian Insect Species in the Bishop Museum
Collection. Bishop Museum, Hawaii Biological Survey. Honolulu, Hawaii. http://www.
bishopmuseum.org/research/natsci/ento/entodbhome.html
Nylander W (1846) Additamentum adnotationum in monographiam formicarum borealium
Europae. Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae 2: 1041–1062.
Nylander W (1849) Additamentum alterum adnotationum in monographiam formicarum bo-
realium. Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae 3: 25–48.
Ogata K (1981) Taxonomy and biology of the genus Pheidole of Japan. Konchu to Shizen
(Nature and Insects) 16(1): 17–22. [In Japanese]
Ogata K (1982) Taxonomic study of the ant genus Pheidole Westwood of Japan, with a descrip-
tion of a new species (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Kontyû, Tokyo 50: 189–197.
Passera L (1994) Characteristics of tramp species. In: Williams DF (Ed.) Exotic ants: Biology,
impact, and control of introduced species. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 332 pp., 23–43.
Pergande T (1896) Mexican Formicidae. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences
5: 858–896.
Petrov IZ, Collingwood CA (1992) Survey of the myrmecofauna (Formicidae, Hymenoptera) of
Yugoslavia. Archives of Biological Sciences (Belgrade) = Arhiv Bioloskih Nauka 44: 79–91.
Petrov IZ, Legakis A (1996) Contribution to the myrmecofauna (Formicidae, Hymenoptera)
of Greece. Archives of Biological Sciences (Belgrade) = Arhiv Bioloskih Nauka 48: 31–32.
Petty G, Tustin H (1993) Ant (Pheidole megacephala F.) – mealybug (Dysmicoccus brevipes
Ckll.) relationships in pineapples in South Africa. Acta horticulturae 334: 387–395. doi:
10.17660/ActaHortic.1993.334.41
Pisarski B (1967) Fourmis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) d’Afghanistan récoltées par M. Dr. K.
Lindberg. Annales Zoologici (Warszawa) 24: 375–425.
Reimer NJ (1994) Distribution and impact of alien ants in vulnerable Hawaiian ecosystems.
In: Williams DF (Ed.) Exotic ants Biology, impact, and control of introduced species.
Westview Press, Boulder, 11–22.
Reimer NJ, Cope ML, Yasuda G (1993) Interference of Pheidole megacephala (Hymenoptera:
Formicidae) with biological control of Coccus viridis (Homoptera: Coccidae) in coffee.
Environmental Entomology 22: 483–488. doi: 10.1093/ee/22.2.483
Ricklefs RE, Bermingham E (2002) The concept of the taxon cycle in biogeography. Global
Ecology and Biogeography 11: 353–361. doi: 10.1046/j.1466-822x.2002.00300.x
Rios NE, Bart HL (2010) GEOLocate (Version 3.22). Tulane University Museum of Natural
History Belle Chasse. http://www.museum.tulane.edu/geolocate
Roger J (1859) Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Ameisenfauna der Mittelmeerländer. I. Berliner
Entomologische Zeitschrift 3: 225–259. doi: 10.1002/mmnd.18590030209
Roger J (1862) Synonymische Bemerkungen. 1. Ueber Formiciden von J. Roger in Rauden.
Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift 6: 283–297.
Roger J (1863a) Die neu aufgeführten Gattungen und Arten meines Formiciden-Verzeichnisses
nebst Ergänzung einiger früher gegebenen Beschreibungen. Berliner Entomologische
Zeitschrift 7: 131–214. doi: 10.1002/mmnd.18630070116
Roger J (1863b) Verzeichniss der Formiciden-Gattungen und Arten. Berliner Entomologische
Zeitschrift 7 [Beilage (Suppl)]: 1–65.
Santschi F (1908) Nouvelles fourmis de l’Afrique du Nord (Égypte, Canaries, Tunisie). An-
nales de la Société Entomologique de France 77: 517–534.
Santschi F (1910 (1909)) Formicides nouveaux ou peu connus du Congo français. Annales de
la Société Entomologique de France 78: 349–400.
Santschi F (1912) Fourmis d’Afrique et de Madagascar. Annales de la Société Entomologique
de Belgique 56: 150–167.
Santschi F (1918) Cinq notes myrmécologiques. Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences
Naturelles 52: 63–64.
Santschi F (1923) Pheidole et quelques autres fourmis néotropiques. Annales de la Société En-
tomologique de Belgique 63: 45–69.
Santschi F (1925) Contribution à la faune myrmécologique de la Chine. Bulletin de la Société
Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 56: 81–96.
Santschi F (1928a) Formicidae (Fourmis). Insects of Samoa 5: 41–58.
Santschi F (1928b) [Untitled. Introduced by: “The following species has been named by Dr.
F. Santschi. 3. Pheidole oceanica subsp. nigriscapa, var. tahitiana, sp.”]. In: Cheesman LE,
Crawley WC (1928) A contribution towards the insect fauna of French Oceania – Part III.
Formicidae, (10)2: 516.
Santschi F (1930) Quelques fourmis de Cuba et du Brésil. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique
d’Egypte 14: 75–83.
Santschi F (1933) Fourmis de la République Argentine en particulier du territoire de Misiones.

Anales de la Sociedad Cientifica Argentina (Buenos Aires) 116: 105–124.
Santschi F (1937) Fourmis du Japon et de Formose. Bulletin et Annales de la Société Ento-
mologique de Belgique (Bruxelles) 77: 361–388.
Santschi F (1941) Quelques fourmis japonaises inédites. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen En-
tomologischen Gessellschaft or Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique Suisse 18: 273–279.
Sarnat E (2011) Ant identification in cyberspace: tools, applications, and challenges. American
Entomologist 57: 227–230. doi: 10.1093/ae/57.4.227
Sarnat EM (2008) A taxonomic revision of the Pheidole roosevelti-group (Hymenoptera: Formi-
cidae) in Fiji. Zootaxa 1767: 1–36.
Sarnat EM, Economo EP (2012) Ants of Fiji. University of California Publications in Ento-
mology 132: 1–398.
Sarnat EM, Rabeling C, Economo EP, Wilson EO (2014) First record of a species from the
New World Pheidole flavens-complex (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) introduced to the
southwestern Pacific. Bioinvasions Records 3: 301–307. doi: 10.3391/bir.2014.3.4.13
Sarnat EM, Suarez AV (2012) Antkey. University of Illinois and Identification Technology
Program, CPHST, PPQ, APHIS, USDA. http://Antkey.org
Saunders E (1888) On a Collection of Ants from Gibraltar and Tangier. Entomologists’
Monthly Magazine 25: 17.
Saunders E (1904) XXII. Hymenoptera Aculeata from Majorca (1901) and Spain (1901–2).
Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 52: 591–666. doi: 10.1111/
j.1365-2311.1904.tb02756.x
Schulz WA (1906) Spolia hymenopterologica. Junfermannsche Buchhandlung, Paderborn,
355 pp. doi: 10.5962/bhl.title.59757
Seguni ZSK, Way MJ, Van Mele P (2011) The effect of ground vegetation management on
competition between the ants Oecophylla longinoda and Pheidole megacephala and implica-
tions for conservation biological control. Crop Protection 30: 713–717. doi: 10.1016/j.
cropro.2011.01.006
Smith DR (1979) Superfamily Formicoidea. In: Krombein KV, Hurd PD Jr., Smith DR,
Burks BD (Eds) Catalog of Hymenoptera in America north of Mexico Volume 2 Apocrita
(Aculeata). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 1199–2209, 1323–1467.
Smith F (1855) Essay on the genera and species of British Formicidae. [concl.]. Transactions
of the Entomological Society of London 3: 113–135. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.1855.
tb02666.x
Smith F (1857) Catalogue of the hymenopterous insects collected at Sarawak, Borneo;
Mount Ophir, Malacca; and at Singapore, by A. R. Wallace. [part]. Journal and Pro-
ceedings of the Linnean Society of London Zoology 2: 42–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-
3642.1857.tb01759.x
Smith F (1858a) Catalogue of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum.
Part VI. Formicidae. British Museum, London, 216 pp.
Smith F (1858b) Revision of an essay on the British Formicidae published in the Transactions
of the Society. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 4: 274–284. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2311.1858.tb01826.x
Smith F (1859) Catalogue of hymenopterous insects collected by Mr. A. R. Wallace at the

islands of Aru and Key. [part]. Journal and Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London
Zoology 3: 132–158. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1859.tb00077.x
Smith F (1860) Catalogue of hymenopterous insects collected by Mr. A. R. Wallace in the
islands of Bachian, Kaisaa, Amboyna, Gilolo, and at Dory in New Guinea. Journal and
Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London Zoology 5(17b) (suppl. to vol. 4): 93–143.
Smith F (1861) Catalogue of hymenopterous insects collected by Mr. A. R. Wallace in the
islands of Ceram, Celebes, Ternate, and Gilolo. [part]. Journal and Proceedings of the
Linnean Society of London Zoology 6: 36–50.
Smith F (1874) Descriptions of new species of Tenthredinidae, Ichneumonidae, Chrysididae,
Formicidae, &c. of Japan. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 1874:
373–409. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.1874.tb00867.x
Smith MR (1930) A list of Florida ants. Florida Entomologist 14: 1–6. doi: 10.2307/3492195
Smith MR (1933) Additional species of Florida ants, with remarks. Florida Entomologist 17:
21–26. doi: 10.2307/3492695
Smith MR (1967) Family Formicidae. In: Krombein KV, Burks BD (Eds) Hymenoptera of
America north of Mexico Synoptic catalog Second supplement. US Dep. Agric. Agric.
Monogr. 2 (suppl. 2): 343–374.
Snelling RR (1992) A newly adventive ant of the genus Pheidole in southern California
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences
91: 121–125.
Solomon SE, Mikheyev AS (2005) The ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) fauna of Cocos Island,
Costa Rica. Florida Entomologist 88: 415–423. doi: 10.1653/0015-4040(2005)88[415:TA
HFFO]2.0.CO;2
Stelfox AW (1927) A list of Hymenoptera Aculeata (Sensu lato) of Ireland. Proceedings of the
Royal Irish Academy Section B 37: 201–355.
Storz SR, Tschinkel WR (2004) Distribution, spread, and ecological associations of the intro-
duced ant Pheidole obscurithorax in the Souteastern United States. Journal of Insect Science
(Online) 4(12): 11.
Suarez AV, Holway DA, Ward PS (2005) The role of opportunity in the unintentional intro-
duction of nonnative ants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 102: 17032–17035. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506119102
Suarez AV, McGlynn TP, Tsutsui ND (2009) Biogeographic and taxonomic patterns of in-
troduced ants. In: Lach L, Parr C, Abbott K (Eds) Ant Ecology. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, UK, 233–245. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544639.003.0013
Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND (2008) The evolutionary consequences of biological invasions. Mo-
lecular Ecology 17: 351–360. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03456.x
Suwabe M, Ohnishi H, Kikuchi T, Kawara K, Tsuji K (2009) Difference in seasonal activity
pattern between non-native and native ants in subtropical forest of Okinawa Island, Japan.
Ecological Research 24: 637–643. doi: 10.1007/s11284-008-0534-9
Terayama M (1992) Structure of ant communities in east Asia. 1. Regional differences and
species richness. Bulletin of the Biogeographical Society of Japan 47: 1–31. [In Japanese]
Terayama M, Kubota S, Eguchi K (2014) Encyclopedia of Japanese ants. Asakura Shoten,
Tokyo, 278 pp.
Theoharides KA, Dukes JS (2007) Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting non-
indigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytologist 176: 256–273.
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02207.x
Vanderwoude C, Lobry de Bruyn LA, House APN (2000) Response of an open-forest ant
community to invasion by the introduced ant, Pheidole megacephala. Austral Ecology 25:
253–259. doi: 10.1046/j.1442-9993.2000.01021.x
Vermeij GJ (1996) An agenda for invasion biology. Biological Conservation 78: 3–9. doi:
10.1016/0006-3207(96)00013-4
Walker JJ (1889) Notes on ants’-nest beetles at Gibraltar and Tangier; with especial reference
to the Histeridae. Entomologists’ Monthly Magazine 25: 374–378.
Ward DF, Beggs JR, Clout MN, Harris RJ, O’Connor S (2006) The diversity and origin of
exotic ants arriving in New Zealand via human-mediated dispersal. Diversity and Distri-
butions 12: 601–609. doi: 10.1111/j.1366-9516.2006.00270.x
Ward PS (2005) A synoptic review of the ants of California (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).
Zootaxa 936: 1–68.
Wasmann E (1905) Berichtigungen zu Note I dieses Bandes. Notes from the Leyden Museum
25: 110.
Way MJ, Islam Z, Heong KL, Joshi RC (1998) Ants in tropical irrigated rice: distribution
and abundance, especially of Solenopsis geminata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Bulletin of
Entomological Research 88: 467–476. doi: 10.1017/S0007485300042218
Wetterer JK (2006) The vanished plague ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of 19th century
Bermuda. Myrmecologische Nachrichten 8: 219–224.
Wetterer JK (2011) Worldwide spread of Pheidole teneriffana (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).
Florida Entomological Society 94: 843–847. doi: 10.1653/024.094.0417
Wetterer JK (2012) Worldwide spread of the African big-headed ant, Pheidole megacephala
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News 17: 51–62.
Wetterer JK, MacGown JA, Calcaterra LA (2015) Geographic spread of Pheidole obscurithorax
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Transactions American Entomological Society 141: 222–
231. http://authors.entomology-aes.org/article/public/30.pdf
Wheeler GC, Wheeler J (1953) The ant larvae of the myrmicine Tribe Pheidolini (Hymenop-
tera, Formicidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 55: 49–84.
Wheeler GC, Wheeler J (1973) Ants of Deep Canyon. University of California, Riverside, 162 pp.
Wheeler WM (1905) The ants of the Bahamas, with a list of the known West Indian species.
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 21: 79–135, plate VII.
Wheeler WM (1906) The ants of Japan. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History
22: 301–328.
Wheeler WM (1907) A collection of ants from British Honduras. Bulletin of the American
Museum of Natural History 23: 271–277.
Wheeler WM (1908a) The ants of Jamaica. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural His-
tory 24: 159–163.
Wheeler WM (1908b) The ants of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Bulletin of the American
Museum of Natural History 24: 117–158.
Wheeler WM (1908c) The ants of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. (Part I.). Bulletin of the
American Museum of Natural History 24: 399–485.
Wheeler WM (1909) Ants of Formosa and the Philippines. Bulletin of the American Museum
of Natural History 26: 333–345.
Wheeler WM (1915) Some additions to the North American ant-fauna. Bulletin of the Ameri-
can Museum of Natural History 34: 389–421.
Wheeler WM (1919) The ants of Borneo. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at
Harvard College 63: 43–147.
Wheeler WM (1922a) Ants of the American Museum Congo expedition. A contribution to the
myrmecology of Africa. IX. A synonymic list of the ants of the Malagasy region. Bulletin
of the American Museum of Natural History 45: 1005–1055.
Wheeler WM (1922b) Ants of the American Museum Congo expedition. A contribution to the
myrmecology of Africa. VIII. A synonymic list of the ants of the Ethiopian region. Bulletin
of the American Museum of Natural History 45: 711–1004.
Wheeler WM (1927a) The ants of Lord Howe Island and Norfolk Island. Proceedings of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences 62: 121–153. doi: 10.2307/25130110
Wheeler WM (1927b) The ants of the Canary Islands. Proceedings of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences 62: 93–120. doi: 10.2307/25130107
Wheeler WM (1929) Some ants from China and Manchuria. American Museum Novitates
361: 1–11.
Wheeler WM (1932) A list of the ants of Florida with descriptions of new forms. Journal of the
New York Entomological Society 40: 1–17.
Wheeler WM (1934a) Neotropical ants collected by Dr. Elisabeth Skwarra and others. Bulletin
of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College 77: 157–240.
Wheeler WM (1934b) Revised list of Hawaiian ants. Occasional Papers of the Bernice Pauhahi
Bishop Museum 10: 1–21.
Wilson EO (2003) Pheidole of the New World: A dominant, hyperdiverse ant genus. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, 794 pp.
Wilson EO, Taylor RW (1967) The ants of Polynesia (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Pacific
Insects Monograph 14: 1–109.
Wittenborn D, Jeschke J (2011) Characteristics of exotic ants in North America. NeoBiota 10:
47–64. doi: 10.3897/neobiota.10.1047
Wojcik DP, Banks WA, Buren WF (1975) First report of Pheidole moerens in Florida (Hyme-
noptera: Formicidae). United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative Economic
Insect Report 25: 906.
Yamamoto A, Ishihara S, Ito F (2009) Fragmentation or transportation: Mode of large-prey
retrieval in arboreal and ground nesting ants. Journal of Insect Behavior 22: 1–11. doi:
10.1007/s10905-008-9126-3
Yamane S, Ikudome S, Terayama M (1999) Identification Guide to the Aculeata of the Nansei
Islands, Japan. Hokkaido University Press, Sapporo, 831 pp. [In Japanese]
Yamawo A, Suzuki N, Tagawa J, Hada Y (2012) Leaf ageing promotes the shift in defence
tactics in Mallotus japonicus from direct to indirect defence. Journal of Ecology 100: 802–
809. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01934.x
Yasumatsu K (1962) Notes on synonymies of five ants widely spread in the Orient (Hym.:
Formicidae). Mushi 36: 93–97.
Supplementary material 1
Biogeographic data
Authors: Eli M. Sarnat, Georg Fischer, Benoit Guénard, Evan P. Economo
Data type: specimens data
Explanation note: Occurrence data used for analyses and generation of distribution
maps (Figure 88) sorted by GABI number. GABI number refers to unique code
assigned to each individual record of the Global Ant Biodiversity Informatics. ‘Ac-
cession number’ refers to specific accession codes for each individual record within
the database. If the record refers to specimen data, the unique specimen identifier
code is included in the Accession number field. ‘Bentity2’ refers to the geographic
unit used to map species distribution (Guénard et al., in prep.). The Precision field
provides a rough estimate of the geocoded location accuracy. Manual: location
was manually geocoded after correcting the locality (old names, changing borders,
wrongly translated). Source: coordinates are taken from the original data (the pub-
lished coordinates). All other values are derived through geocoding the locations
with the Bing geocode API. These values give an estimate of the accuracy which
can include anything from an exact address to a small island. The more precise this
value describes a location the more likely it is for a location to be accurately geo-
coded. An ‘address’ is for example likely to be more accurate than a ‘bay’.
Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License
(http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License
(ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and
use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the
original source and author(s) are credited.

Introduced Pheidole of The World: Taxonomy, Biology and Distribution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduced Pheidole of The World: Taxonomy, Biology and Distribution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduced Pheidole of The World: Taxonomy, Biology and Distribution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A peer-reviewed open-access journal

ZooKeys 543: 1–109 (2015)

Introduced Pheidole of the world:

Eli M. Sarnat1, Georg Fischer2, Benoit Guénard3, Evan P. Economo2,4

Corresponding author: Eli M. Sarnat (e.sarnat@gmail.com)

Academic editor: B. Fisher | Received 20 May 2015 | Accepted 1 October 2015 | Published 9 December 2015

Species Clade/Group Native bioregion Source

Size of major Size of minor Colony Forages on or nests

Introduced Pheidole of the world

Characteristics of introduced Pheidole

Unique Native Bioregion of Record

Unique Native Bioregion of Record

and nesting in vegetation is overrepresented among the introduced species is that, if

Occurrence and specimen records

List of abbreviations of museum collections

ANIC Australian National Insect Collection (Canberra, Australia)

EL Eye Length (mm): Maximum diameter of eye measured in profile view.

Identification keys to introduced species of Pheidole

Major workers only

1 Postpetiole swollen relative to petiole; either with a posterodorsal and anter-

Minor workers only

(Fig. 40). Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome, lacking a distinct

Combined major and minor workers

1 Major + minor Postpetiole swollen relative to petiole (Fig. 1, Fig. 2)...........2

– Major + minor Postpetiole forming a high dorsally bulging dome that is

(Fig. 30). Posterolateral lobes variably sculptured. Minor Hairs on mesosoma

4 Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome, lacking a distinct mound or promi-

6 Head heart-shaped (major worker). Diagnostic character of P. megacephala among

7 Head subquadrate (major worker)

8 Cephalic dorsum with strong rugoreticulate sculpture, at least on posterolateral lobes

9 Posterolateral lobes lacking sculpture (including foveolate ground sculpture, carinae

10 Posterolateral lobes rugose or rugulose (major worker)

11 Posterolateral lobes punctate or foveolate (major worker)

28 Promesonotum in dorsal view strongly transverse with strongly projecting shoulders

42 Promesonotum in profile forming a single dome, lacking a distinct mound or promi-

46 Posterior head margin weakly concave in full-face view (minor worker)

64 Promesonotal prominence convex and pronounced (a); propodeal spine relatively

Among introduced members of the clade, the major workers of P. punctatissima

Pheidole bilimeki Mayr

range of P. floridana. P. anastasii is actually the species widely distributed in Florida,

Pheidole fervens F. Smith

Pheidole flavens Roger

Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. See notes under P. flavens-complex. Neotype

Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Color variable. Major Head subquadrate

Pheidole indica Mayr

Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Light to dark reddish brown. Major HW

with its Australasian congeners P. cariniceps, P. fervens, P. hospes, P. impressiceps, and P.

Pheidole megacephala (Fabricius)

Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Light brown to dark brown. Major HW

Part of the success of P. megacephala as a pantropic pest species is its generalist

identified by Saunders, who is known to have confused P. pallidula for P. megacephala.

Pheidole navigans Forel, stat. rev., stat. n.

navigans. Pheidole flavens r. navigans Forel 1901a: 79 (s.w.) GERMANY (intercept-

Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Color reddish brown. Major HW 0.84–

separated from those of P. flavens by the combination of predominantly longitudinal

Pheidole noda F. Smith

Diagnosis among introduced Pheidole. Medium to dark reddish brown. Major HW

Pheidole obscurithorax Naves

obscurithorax. Pheidole fallax subsp. obscurithorax Naves 1985: 61 (s.w.) ARGENTINA,