And Now For Bashing a Creationist Textbook in Order to Aggravate People & Hopefully Engender Some Sort of Controversy

Well, doesn't this stink: Blogger ate my long-belabored post on presocial chalcidoids. Hence, the last Life, et al. post for April will be...a gripe. I know: quite a deviation from the paradigm, isn't it? Insects will still be featured herein; have no fear.

The book with which I'm going to pick a bone is Exploring Creation Through Biology (second edition), by Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn F. Durnell. Now read closely: this post is not an attack on creationism; it is primarily addressed to creationists, and not created for the amusement of those of us who believe in evolution. While I heartily disagree with the views espoused in Exploring Creation Through Biology regarding anthropogenic climate change (or "global weirding"), they shall be deferred: instead, I am pointing out factual, not theoretical, errors in the text. 

In order to save time, I will copy most of my letter of complaint (with citations) sent in February 2012 to Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. (the textbook's publisher).

Dear Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.,

 I—a homeschooled 16-year-old—am writing to complain about some errors in your otherwise relatively satisfactory textbook Exploring Creation with Biology, 2^nd Edition (2005), by Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn F. Durnell. Principally, they pertain to your treatment of dinosaurs (and other prehistoric reptiles), which is slipshod in some places: for example, the names of specific genera of prehistoric animals—wherever they are mentioned (13 times)—are not italicized (nor capitalized, for that matter), which any person with so much as a passing interest in biology knows is required of the scientific names of all life forms.

Not only that, but the claim on page 505 that “biologists think that [sauropods] were swamp-dwelling” is outdated by about 35 years at the time of the book’s publication: true, it was at one time supposed that sauropods were aquatic, simply because it was thought that their great size required support from water (and also because of the location of Brachiosaurus’, Apatosaurus’, and Diplodocus’ nares at the zenith of their skulls), (Hatcher, 1901; Matthew, 1915); however, it was convincingly argued in 1951 that respiration through elevated nostrils while the remainder of the body was submerged would have been physiologically impossible for sauropods, as the pressure on the animals’ chests would have been too great (Kermack, 1951); furthermore, the allegedly graviportal construction of their limbs and feet (inferred from evidence from abundant fossilized tracks known on most continents—Bonnan, 2005; Riga & Calvo, 2009) precludes any need for bodily support from water. Granted, as Wile and Durnell ruminate on page 506, any hypothesis about dinosaur posture is highly speculative and ought to be regarded with caution. We really have no idea whether sauropods were amphibious or not, and we will never have one. Nonetheless, contrary to “biologists think that [sauropods] were swamp-dwelling”, paleontologists have consistently regarded these dinosaurs as terrestrial since at least the 1970s (“Diplodocus”—Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Another error lies in Figure 16.3’s rather poor impressions of a number of famous prehistoric reptiles, and especially in that of Tyrannosaurus. The illustration of the famed theropod clearly depicts it in an almost vertical (around 45°) posture—a restoration, although popular once upon a time for bipedal dinosaurs in general (beginning during the Civil War; Leidy, 1865), that was largely abandoned a whole generation ago when it was shown that in life such a tail-dragging gait would have probably resulted in the weakening (or even dislocation) of several joints, including the hips and the connection of the head and spinal column (Newman, 1970). Living erect bipedal animals with long tails (like kangaroos) are generally saltatorial, but a leaper the supposedly 7-ton Tyrannosaurus certainly was not. True, the authors make no claims that Fig. 16.3 accurately portrays contemporary biologists’ opinion of Tyrannosaurus’ stance (although they allege that “these are … educated guesses”): but a student not already versed in paleontology could easily take the illustrations as such, and be needlessly ridiculed later on by evolutionist peers for his/her misconception. It could be argued that this inaccuracy is really a mistake on the part of the illustrator, and not Wile and Durnell; but the statement “[Tyrannosaurus reached] heights [italicization mine] of up to 40 feet”—only true if the animal stood upright—indicates support on their part for clipart.com’s restoration.

But these oversights pale in comparison to the statement on page 499 that the order Rhynchocephalia “[includes] some dinosaurs”: I can find absolutely no reference to any dinosaurs being so classified at any point since the 1842 creation of the taxon Dinosauria (initially defined as comprising Megalosaurus, Hylaeosaurus, and Iguanodon) by Sir Richard Owen and the 1867 coinage of the Rhynchocephalia by Albert Günther (initially defined as the tuatara and its extinct kin). Granted, “Rhynchocephalia” was infamously used for many years as a wastebasket taxon, with a wide range of prehistoric reptiles being placed therein at one point or another (Fraser & Sues, 1994), but never, so far as I can determine, did these include species now regarded as dinosaurs: such a classification (if it ever existed) has certainly been completely out of vogue since the close of the nineteenth century at least. The assertion in question could be validated only if Wile and Durnell were using the term “dinosaur” very loosely—to refer to all members of any totally extinct reptile taxa—but Fig. 16.3 demonstrates that they are well aware that Plesiosaurus and Pteranodon, at least, are not dinosaurs, contrary to popular belief.

I also discovered some errors in the textbook’s coverage of insects. A hasty generalization is made on p. 388 when Wile and Durnell assert, “flies are pests, but they can actually be quite dangerous.” Disregarding its imperfect grammar, this statement is imprecise: of the 120,000 known species of true fly—which are arguably the most ecologically varied single order of insects (Grimaldi & Engel, 2005)—only a few directly act to humans’ detriment, and of those, only the ones that are vectors of disease are anything more than a nuisance.

And while this assertion regarding flies is merely erroneous due to a semantic slipup, the statement on p. 386 that “all species within [the] order Hymenoptera are … social insects” is downright false. To wit: 130,000 species of hymenopteran are described at present; but none of the 5,000 species belonging in the suborder Symphyta are eusocial, nor are any of the 70,000 species of parasitoid wasps belonging in the other suborder, Apocrita (Costa, 2006). All known ants (Formicidae) are eusocial—but only 12,500 species have been described (Fernández, 2003). The Vespidae (5,000 species) contains all known social wasps—but a good portion of its constituency is solitary (“Vespidae”—Wikipedia). Most social bees are included in the Apidae, but those species known so far to be eusocial number little more than 750 (Engel, 1999; Williams, 1998; Michener, 2000; Roubik & Hanson, 2004); a minority of species in the Halictidae (2,000 spp.) constitutes the remainder of the bee societies known to man (Michener, 2007): while all described species of bee together total nearly 20,000 (Danforth, Sipes, Fang, and Brady, 2006). With all of this data in mind, anyone with a command of arithmetic can determine that the majority of hymenopterans are solitary. No hymenopterist will tell you otherwise.

With factual errors like this, it is no wonder that a noteworthy minority of scientists heap vituperation on creationism, while the majority regards it as below their scrutiny. Until creationists seek to surpass mainstream science in all respects—including high-school textbooks—any good scientist will be justifiably inclined (if not forced outright) to discount the veracity of Genesis.

I urge you to correct the erroneous materials in Wile and Durnell’s book.  I look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience.

One could say that nitpicking is a petty pastime, and that I ought to argue a case, rather than harrumph at grammatical errors and Dr. Wile's belief that sticking large quantities of exclamation points to the ends of statements makes said statements true; and that may be so. Still, as I argued in my letter: strange as it may seem, laziness in fact-checking doesn't help the creationist cause.

Here is Apologia's response:

Hello,

Thanks for your email and for taking the time to point issues with our text.  Since no one text is free of errors, we here at Apologia strive to give our students the most up to date information and encourage our users to notify us of concerns they have with our texts.  I will add your concerns to a list of topics to discuss with the authors.

Thanks and God bless.

Rusty Hughes
Apologia Educational Ministries

Given that Exploring Creation Through Biology was last updated 8 years ago, I doubt they will correct their errors anytime soon; since it is the only high school-level creationist biology textbook out there (so far as I can tell), Dr. Wile and Durnell have a captive audience.

_____________________________________________________________

Bonnan, M. F. (2003). “The evolution of manus shape in sauropod dinosaurs: implications for functional morphology, forelimb orientation, and sauropod phylogeny.” Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 23(3): 595-613.

Costa, J. T. (2006). The Other Insect Societies. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Danforth, B. N.; Sipes, S.; Fang, J.; Brady, S. G. (2006). “The history of early bee diversification based on five genes plus morphology”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 103(41): 15,118-23

Engel, M. S. (1999). “The taxonomy of recent and fossil honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Apis)”. Journal of Hymenoptera Research, 8: 165-196.

Fernández, F. (2003). Introduction to the Ants of the Neotropical Region [in Spanish]. Bogotá, Colombia: Humboldt Institute Press. 

Fraser, N. & Sues, H. D. (eds.) (1994). “Phylogeny” in the Shadow of the Dinosaurs: Early Mesozoic Tetrapods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Grimaldi, D. A.; Engel, M. S. (2005). Evolution of the Insects. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hatcher, J. B. (1901). “Diplodocus (Marsh): its osteology, taxonomy, and probable habits, with a restoration of the skeleton.” Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, vol. 1, pp. 1-63.

Kermack, K. A. (1951). “A note on the habits of sauropods.” Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 12(4): 830-832.

Leidy, J. (1865). “Memoir on the extinct reptiles of the Cretaceous formations of the United States”. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 14: 1-135.

Michener, C. D. (2000, 2007). The Bees of the World. (1^st & 2^nd ed.) Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Newman, B. H. (1970). “Stance and gait in the flesh-eating Tyrannosaurus”. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 2: 119-123.

Riga, B. J. G.; Calvo, J. O. (2009). “A new wide-gauge sauropod track site from the Late Cretaceous of Mendoza, Neuquen Basin, Argentina”. Paleontology, 52(3): 631-640.

Roubik, D. W.; Hanson, P. E. (2004). Orchid Bees of Tropical America: Biology and Field Guide. Santo Domingo, Costa Rica: INBio.

Vespidae. (n.d.) Wikipedia—the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 22, 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespidae

Williams, B. H. (1998). “An annotated checklist of bumble bees with an analysis of patterns of description (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini)”. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum (Entomology), 67: 79-152.   

What Are "Army Ants", Anyhow?

Film still from "The Creeping Terror"; the flocculent matter might be the monster, or just some hay

Most apex predators are faster than we humans, and stronger to boot—so there is something inexplicably unsettling about a multi-kilogram carnivorous mass that could devour a human, yet can be escaped by strolling in the other direction. Our fear of slothful super-predators may inspire horror, but as a rule, such creatures are rightly unable to terrify us: and any attempt to make something that is obviously benign frightening devolves into, well, silliness. I am principally thinking of the "Z-movie" "The Creeping Terror" (1964), a film that failed in every respect cinema can, but not least in its premise: the eponymous gigantic, amorphous extraterrestrial's lethargy forces its human "victims" to actively climb into its mouth (whilst screaming in what the pitiable actors hope is a convincing manner): see the downright shabby film still above. (The Creeping Terror must be unaware of the shortage of great legs on our planet, and that it would therefore be a pity to digest the ones shown.)

Col. Duvchenko devoured by what appears to be a seething mass of Boston baked beans

It so happens that we are faced with huge, amorphous carnivores in real life: namely, colonies of army ants. Since these million-mouthed, sometimes 20-kilogram super-organisms issue forth to the hunt at roughly the same speed as molasses, their prowess is usually exaggerated in film. A case in point would be the siafu that eat a Soviet Special Forces colonel alive in "Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (2008). Disregarding whether this movie really "nuked the fridge" of its franchise, I will merely address the inaccuracies bearing on its treatment of the siafu, as Indy himself calls them; when asked to elaborate, he adds: "[They're] !@#$%^&* big ants. Run!" The usage of the word "siafu" constitutes the film's first error: the word (Swahili in origin) refers only to the driver ants of the Old World (Dorylus sp., particularly the subgenus Anomma; Savage, 1847)—but the so-called siafu of "Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" are conspicuously inhabitants of South America (New World and Old World army/driver ants are distinct, as we shall soon see).

A soldier of Dorylus (=Anomma) nigricans (note scale bar) photographed by April Nobile

Furthermore, the "Dorylus" jonesi sp. nov. look nothing like genuine Anomma: they're at least 2 inches long (driver ant workers aren't particularly outsized, as far as ants go) and—in my private opinion—resemble the members of the subfamily Formicinae: Dorylus, conversely, is the sole constituent of the Dorylinae (Bolton, 1990a; Dlussky & Wedmann, 2012). Finally (paying no heed to the fact that Dorylus and suchlike are incapable of bringing down a healthy adult human male—although unattended infants might be on the menu; Gotwald, 1984-85), the ants are provoked to attack by a Jeep being inadvertently dropped on their mound of residence. Not that their reaction wasn't justified; but real army ants do not reside in one place long enough to construct such massive formicaria.

The approximate range of army ants in North America, according to Alex Wild

Clearly, the screenwriters of "Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (like most who inhabit the First World) knew little of these ants, despite at least 182 years of we Westerners' interest in them (Lund, 1831); most people hereabouts are content to cite the lethargic super-predators as a reason they're glad they don't live in the tropics (under a false impression that these insects do not inhabit temperate regions—far from it). And so, after spending so much time discussing what army ants are not, I must spend even more time explaining what they truly are.

Snapshot by Alex Wild of major and minor workers of Eciton rapax (Ecitoninae)

Before I enumerate the ethological formula that defines "legionary behavior" or "the army ant syndrome", as myrmecologists refer to it (Gotwald, 1995), I must address the essential issue of army ant taxonomy and zoogeography, not to mention their sometimes thorny terminology. The term "army ant" strictly refers to all species belonging to three subfamilies of the Formicidae: Dorylinae (Afrotropical and Oriental ecozones*), Aenictinae (the same as Dorylinae but extending into northern Meganesia), and Ecitoninae (Brady, 2003). "Legionary ant" is usually applied only to ecitonines, which are restricted to the Americas (south to Argentina and as far north as Iowa and Virginia), whereas "driver ant" exclusively denotes a doryline. ("Legionary behavior" has been used synonymously with "army ant syndrome" on some occasions, which has probably stretched the former phrase to the breaking point.) Despite their many differences, these taxa are so often considered collectively that their trinity will be termed henceforth as AenEcDo army ants (Kronauer, 2009)—this being more convenient than the synonymous "classic army ant" (Berghoff et al., 2003) and more accurate than "true army ant" (Wilson, 1964).

Workers of Dorylus (=Rhogmus) fimbriatus attacking a grub (Scarabaeidae), photographed by Daniel Kronauer

Army ant biodiversity is considerable, with any given locality in the Neotropics* inhabited by at least 10 ecitonine species alone; every square meter of rainforest floor in the same region experiences the depredations of one army ant species or another once a day on average (O'Donnell et al., 2007). This sympatric diversity is owed to ecological partitioning (duh). Eciton, undoubtedly the best-studied of all army ant genera, is very much a huntress of the ground's surface (hence epigaeic); some Dorylus (all of them in Anomma) are in the open air at least partially (Kronauer et al., 2007a), as are those aenictines whose biology is known (Schneirla, 1965): but these are atypical. Most army ants are diminutive and hypogaeic†, making their natural history difficult to study; some may rise from their earthen habitat after heavy rains (as have the Kenyan D. fimbriatus shown above): but not frequently. Neivamyrmex (Ecitoninae) can be found throughout the southern United States in colonies hundreds of thousands strong; but their subterranean ways and nocturnal raids mean that most humans living within their range are unaware that there may very well be army ants beneath their feet.

A collected drone of Aenictogiton sp. (Aenictogitoninae), photograph by April Nobile

Retiring, hypogaeic habits limit our understanding of three further non-AenEcDo subfamilies that qualify as ants of a martial persuasion: the Leptanillinae, Leptanilloidinae, and Aenictogitoninae. No workers or queens of Aenictogiton (the sole member of its subfamily; Baroni Urbani et al., 1992) have ever been collected; that the aenictogitonines (found only in central Africa) are army ants can be inferred only from their morphology and phylogeny (Brady et al., 2006), and so remains as yet unconfirmed. Our study of the Leptanilloidinae is little better off, with Asphinctanilloides anae and Leptanilloides nomada the only species of this Neotropical* subfamily to have been observed alive (engaging in seemingly legionary behavior; Brandão et al., 1999; Donoso et al., 2006); of the Leptanillinae, only colonies of Leptanilla japonica (Masuko, 1987) have been located: and leptanillines reside throughout the subtropics of the Old World from Spain (Barandica et al., 1994) all the way to southern Japan (Baroni Urbani, 1977) and Australia (Wheeler, 1932). Lastly, two genera (and one species) of army ant are placed in taxa that are otherwise non-legionary: the inhabitant of Latin American cloud forests, Simopelta (Ponerinae) (Longino, 2009); Onychomyrmex (Amblyoponinae), found only in a corner of northeastern Queensland (Miyata et al., 2009); and the Malayan Leptogenys distinguenda (Ponerinae) (Maschwitz et al., 1989).

And now for E. burchellii's impression of Lower Egypt (Rettenmeyer, 1963)

The first criterion (first due to narrative convenience, not preeminence) that forms a diagnosis of the army ant syndrome is group predation. Ant collaboration in foraging (either for vegetable or animal victuals) is nothing uniquely legionary: but AenEcDo ants take it to an extreme. There are no loner scouts: the task of seeking prey is performed en masse in a great column—punctiliously dendritic in most army ants, with a booty cache at each trail crux; in Eciton burchellii, famously terminating in a swarming disorganized front of carnage (see schematic at left); whereas driver ants sally forth in a globular pseudopod-like mass (Raignier and van Boven, 1955). Workers cleave to the throng with an alacrity that may have untoward results, such as the infamous "spiral of death" first reported as occurring in Labidus praedator (Ecitoninae): accidental disconnection from the odor trail causes a loss of direction, with every ant following her sister's guidance in what is literally an example of the blind leading the blind; this behavior results in the huntresses' centrifugal milling, which continues until they die of exhaustion (Schneirla, 1971). Seldom going awry so spectacularly, swarm raids are an adaptation for swiftly reaping all the bounty of the rainforest that a colony can, up to and including small vertebrates in the cases of Anomma and Cheliomyrmex andicola (Ecitoninae) (O'Donnell et al., 2005)—this is true at least among those army ants with notoriously heterodox diets (Eciton, most Dorylus, L. coecus, and Leptogenys distinguenda): the latter ecitonine has even been seen to viciously attack grains of rice (Longino, 2007), and the remarkable swarm-raiding marauder ant (Pheidologeton sp.: Myrmicinae) eats plenty of fruit—but most of the AenEcDo and company are strictly specialist predators (Rettenmeyer, 1963).

Two Atta sp. workers preemptively attack an N. esenbeckii in Panama; photographed by Alex Wild

Significantly for our study of the army ant syndrome's origins, in their cases group hunting is necessitated by complete dependence upon formidably defended prey. Leptanilla japonica is an exemplar of this: these half-centimeter-long ants feed solely upon centipedes that are nearly as massive as the entire cumulative colony (Masuko, 1990); Onychomyrmex are also obligate centipede-slayers (Hölldobler & Wilson, 1990); but most specialist army ants have developed their massive raids in order to manage assaults on other eusocial insects. Dorylus (=Typhlopone) may even feed upon their congeners (Leroux, 1979), but usually invade the great fortresses of the fungus-farming termites (Termitidae: Macrotermitinae), which Typhlopone's epigaeic cousins generally avoid (Schöning & Moffett, 2007). Both Aenictus and Neivamyrmex live chiefly on other ants' brood, as do Simopelta (Mackay & Mackay, 2008); Nomamyrmex esenbeckii (Ecitoninae) dares to attack leaf-cutter ants (Myrmicinae: Attini: Atta) (Swartz, 1998). In one observed raid, the N. esenbeckii were estimated to carry off 60,568 A. cephalotes larvae and pupae (Powell & Clark, 2004). Interestingly, group predation has also been observed in some termite-hunting Pachycondyla (Ponerinae) and ant-hunting Cerapachys (Cerapachyinae): but their raids are still initiated by solitary scouts (Longhurst & Howse, 1979; Hölldobler, 1982; Leal & Olivieira, 1995).

A queen of Simopelta pergandei on the move with attendant workers; photographed (again) by Alex Wild

The next of the interrelated criteria that define the army ant syndrome is nomadism, which is a rather inaccurate term: "nomad"—already suspect, as it has anthropological origins—implies emigration for husbandry. Among ants, certain Southeast Asian mealybug-herding Dolichoderus spp. (Dolichoderinae) are the only genuine nomads (Dill et al., 2002). Most ant colonies will evacuate their nests if necessary: some even do so with little provocation. All army ants, however, migrate cyclically, with alternating sedentary and migratory phases. Many of the AenEcDo cohort (the Aenictinae and ecitonines aside from Labidus) as well as the Leptanilloidinae, Leptanilla japonica and Simopelta are phasic (Schneirla, 1971; Donoso et al., 2006; Masuko, 1987; Gotwald & Brown, 1966), with emigrations occurring on a regular basis; in E. burchellii, the colony is on the move with frequent raids (in the nomadic phase) for 14.3 days on average, and in the statary phase (with infrequent foraging) for 20.4 days (Teles da Silva, 1977); in Aenictus laeviceps, the statary phase is 8 days longer, with the nomadic one of about the same duration (Gotwald, 1978).

Cerapachys biroi workers on the march; note the horizontal position of the pupa underneath its bearer

Each night during the migration, the E. burchellii mass together in a bivouac (often between the buttressed roots of some tree), at the center of which lies the brood and queen; a more sheltered bivouac (from which raids emanate in a predetermined pattern in order to avoid covering the same ground; Franks & Fletcher, 1983)—usually within a hollow log—is formed during the statary phase (Schneirla, 1933). Not all phasic army ants operate on such a clockwork-like basis as Eciton, but all are driven by an internal stimulus (Schneirla, 1971) despite exterior factors (an experimentally overfed colony of Neivamyrmex dispensed with nomadism; Topoff et al., 1981): to be specific, the development of the brood, which is rhythmically synchronized such that at any given time all larvae or pupae are in the same stage of development. Synchronous brood development is also observed in some Cerapachys and Sphinctomyrmex spp. (Cerapachyinae) (Wilson, 1958; Buschinger et al., 1989). The nomadic phase is characterized by intensive foraging to accommodate the growing larvae; come pupation, the colony settles down and the queen commences egg-laying. In Eciton, the appearance of callow workers theoretically stimulates the colony's emigration (Schneirla, 1971; Topoff & Mirenda, 1980); but in the proto-legionary Cerapachys biroi, teneral‡ workers' effect is transient compared to that of the larvae, and this may be true of most phasic army ants (Ravary et al., 2006). C. biroi is aberrant at any rate, being parthenogenetic§ and thelytokous (queenless: all workers reproduce) (Ravary & Jaisson, 2004).

"Mine tailings" of a statary Kenyan D. wilverthi colony located by Daniel Kronauer

By contrast, some army ants (Labidus, Dorylinae, and Leptogenys distinguenda) are non-phasic and without synchronous broods. The duration of their phases is variable: particularly so in the driver ants; the statary phase of Dorylus (=Anomma) molestus may last anywhere from 3 to 111 days. Correspondingly, Dorylus settle much more permanently than do Eciton, excavating prodigious tunnel systems 3-4 meters deep for their (all 10 million or more of them; Leroux, 1982) accommodation in a matter of days. Non-phasic AenEcDo ants' nomadism hence has a much more straightforward cause than their phasic cousins': the reduction of food attendant on the presence of any army ant colony. On the basis of this simplicity, it was once assumed that the non-phasic lifestyle was the less "derived" of the two schools of nomadism (fallaciously supposing that simple=primitive) (Gotwald, 1988); but it is now hypothesized that non-phasic migration is actually a secondary adaptation resulting from more efficient foraging strategies (Kronauer, 2009). Nomadism (of the non-phasic type) has evolved independently in the Malaysian ant Euprenolepis procera (Formicinae), which feeds exclusively on sporocarps (i.e., mushrooms). The commonality between army ants and E. procera, evidently, would be specialization upon an already-ephemeral food source that is swiftly consumed: the said fungivorous ants can completely harvest a 40-gram Pleurotus mushroom in a little over three hours (Witte & Maschwitz, 2008).

Queen of Dorylus (=Anomma) molestus

Naturally, you may wonder (as many myrmecologists have) what drives the brood cycle: and thus we must turn to army ant queens, which at least among the "AenEcDo" appear to drive said cycle in reciprocal oscillations with the brood (Schneirla, 1949). Their habitus is unmistakable: blind, or nearly so; bearing a robust petiole and legs; wingless throughout adulthood; and with the abdomen disproportionately large, bearing an excess of exocrine glands (Whelden, 1963). The "dichthadiiform ergatogyne||"—as she is dubbed—is perhaps the only diagnostic trait that all legionary ants share (and all non-legionary ants lack; Hölldobler & Wilson, 1990). Queens in phasic army ants lay immense quantities of eggs during the statary phase: from a comparatively piddling 30,000 per batch in Aenictus gracilis to 100,000-300,000 in E. burchellii, abdomens profoundly bloated (physogastric) in order to accommodate her vast load of developing eggs; during the migratory phase, the queens deflate and refrain from labor. Queens of Leptanilla japonica fuel their statary pregnancies with the blood of their larvae, which is imbibed (Masuko, 1989) through a surreal faucet-like process on the larval abdomen (Wheeler & Wheeler, 1965). Non-phasic dichthadiigynes are more or less permanently physogastric (see above D. molestus queen's gratuitous length), with the result that (in driver ants at least) they can be behemoths (which is to be expected with 15,000 ovarioles): at 53 mm. long, the queen of D. wilverthi is the largest living ant. Such gigantism is necessary in order to support a mature colonial population of 22 million (Raignier & van Boven, 1955) (also the greatest of any ant), with the queen laying approximately 200,000,000 eggs throughout her lifetime.

These Ugandan Leptanilla sp. are blue. No—wait—YELLOW! ...

Additional dichthadiiform traits are adaptations for a life of vigorous exercise (muscular legs and enlarged petiole), while the exocrine array is irresistible to the workers (Hölldobler et al., 1989), causing them (in Eciton) to form a retinue surrounding their gyne, which is especially useful as protection during emigrations. But the most important dichthadiiform idiosyncrasy by far would be the permanent lack of wings, which has great reproductive and ecological repercussions on legionary ants: it means that they cannot disperse to new territories on the wing, unlike most formicids. Not only does this delimit their range to continental landmasses—Madagascar, New Caledonia, and the Greater Antilles are all large low-latitude army-ant-lacking islands that have no shortage of non-legionary ants (Corsica and Sardinia are a notable exception to this, as they are inhabited by Leptanilla; Emery, 1916)—but it also makes them vulnerable to habitat fragmentation (Berghoff et al., 2008), which does not bode well for some army ants in the Anthropocene. N. esenbeckii has probably been extirpated from the Rio Grande Valley (the northernmost tier of its natural range), depriving the region of what could be an effective biological control of those epic defoliators, leaf-cutter ants (Sánchez-Peña & Müller, 2002); and Simopelta minima was designated extinct due to deforestation at its type locality: it has since been found alive and well elsewhere (Brandão et al., 2008; for more about the issue of insects that are only seemingly rare, see "Mormotomyiids' Terrible Hairiness").

E. burchellii drone and queen caught in the act by Daniel Kronauer

The dichthadiiform syndrome's consequences in the matter of reproduction are sundry. One is that all army ants studied thus far found their colonies by fission: one portion (nearly half) remains with the senior queen, the other departs with her daughter (Gotwald, 1995). This mode of colonial reproduction is rare among ants, but it may sound familiar to any apiculturalists out there: the honeybee super-organism reproduces in much the same way. Army ants' peculiarly flightless queens also pose a challenge for their corresponding drones, which are contrastingly alate (winged): if the virginal queen cannot come to the drone, then the drone must come to her. In order to do so, the said drone must first locate a colony with callow queens, and then must penetrate such a colony in order to fulfill his duty: and thus, in a unique situation among social insects, the sterile workers play a decisive role in their reproductive sister's choice of mate (Franks & Hölldobler, 1987). The need to pass this gauntlet's muster is the adaptive driver behind army ant drones' bulky wiener-like physique—"hunky" males are likely more virile—along with the need to accommodate huge quantities of seminal vesicles (Gotwald & Burdette, 1981) and a worker-appeasing glandular complement convergent with a dichthadiigyne's (Hölldobler & Engel-Siegel, 1982); this physique causes them to be sometimes mistaken for wasps (Fabricius, 1793) and receive the colloquial name "sausage flies" (only applicable to driver ant drones). Inter-male competition is another adaptive factor at play: in E. hamatum at least, it is inevitable, as there are 1,500 males to 6 virginal gynes in a reproductive brood (Schneirla & Brown, 1952). This highly skewed sex ratio results in polyandry (queens mating with multiple drones), which appears to be the ancestral condition for the AenEcDo army ants. Among the few army ants that have more than one queen (are polygynous), both within and without the AenEcDo, monandry¶ prevails (Kronauer et al., 2007b; Kronauer & Boomsma, 2007; Kronauer et al., 2011).

Holotype of Anomalomyrma taylori, photographed by April Nobile

My usage of the phrase "ancestral condition" would imply that the AenEcDo ants share a common ancestor exclusive of other formicid subfamilies (is monophyletic). This was a given for taxonomists throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with all three subfamilies placed together in the Dorylinae (often ranked as a family—Formicidae once had a much narrower definition than it does now) (Ashmead, 1905), the Leptanillinae regarded as either that subfamily's sister-group (Wheeler, 1923) or included as dorylines themselves (Emery, 1870). Implicitly, an ancestor that was itself an army ant gave rise to the two taxa. Legionary behavior was the only convincing characteristic linking the pair: thus, the description of the non-dichthadiiform queens of the leptanilline tribe Anomalomyrmini (which suggest that anomalomyrmines are not army ants) ruled out their supposed kinship (Bolton, 1990b). Nowadays, the leptanillines are often placed as close cousins of the Amblyoponinae, which they resemble in several respects (the oddball amblyoponine Apomyrma stygia has even been classified as a leptanilline from time to time; Kugler, 1992), since queens (and workers) of some amblyoponines are known to be vampiric (Wheeler & Wheeler, 1988; Saux, Fisher & Spicer, 2004): it's even possible that leptanillines themselves are highly modified members of the Amblyoponinae (Ward, 2007). Some placed the Leptanillinae as sister-group to all remaining ants (no insignificant distinction), but the myrmecological-headline-making "ant from Mars", Martialis heureka, usurped that phylogenetic position (Rabeling et al., 2008).

Mass of Sphinctomyrmex froggatti (Cerapachyinae) spotted by Alex Wild

The AenEcDo, on the other hand, are now consistently placed in the "doryline section", along with the Cerapachyinae, Leptanilloidinae, and Aenictogitoninae (Ward, 2007); however, the dorylomorphs' exact cladistic arrangement is still in flux. Although the ant-brood-hunting cerapachyines' position has varied, it is now increasingly clear that the subfamily is paraphyletic (that is, ancestral to the remaining dorylomorphs), with the Leptanilloidinae and the AenEcDo subfamilies arising from among separate cerapachyine lineages (Brady & Ward, 2005): but the latter groups' monophyly (along with the Aenictogitoninae) remains contentious (Kronauer, 2009), if not downright dubious (Grimaldi et al., 1997). DNA sequencing has suggested that the putative clade originated in a primeval army ant 100 million years ago in Atlantica, with the subfamilies diverging as that chunk of Gondwana broke into South America and Africa (Brady, 2003): but a more recent analysis of the "molecular clock" suggested that the last common ancestor of the dorylomorphs as a whole lived 20 million years later, long after the South Atlantic opened; this would suggest that the Aenictinae, Ecitoninae, and Dorylinae each independently converged upon the army ant syndrome (Brady et al., 2006). A further enigma lies in Cerapachys sexspinus: initially classified as a doryline (as its own genus, Yunodorylus; Xu, 2000), then synonymized with Cerapachys (Bolton, 2003), placed in the Cerapachyinae as Yunodorylus (Moreau et al., 2006), or determined to be phylogenetically closer to the Aenictinae and Ecitoninae than to the Dorylinae (Brady et al., 2006).

Well, spring break beckons, and that about does it as far as Earth's native "creeping terror" is concerned. Now if this dratted computer will only let me publish...                   

 





*The Afrotropical ecozone includes southern Arabia, Madagascar and sub-Saharan Africa; the Oriental one consists of southeastern Asia from Sindh to the Moluccas and north to China and Tibet; and the Neotropical ecozone comprises South America, in addition to North America south of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt. The nomenclature is rather misleading: the "Neotropics" extend as far south as the frigid wastes of Patagonia.
†Primarily subterranean in habit and therefore often blind.
‡Just eclosed.

§Practicing conception without fertilization.  
||Or simply "dichthadiigyne" (from Dichthadia, a subgenus of Dorylus; and gyne, sociobiological jargon for what laymen call a "queen").
¶For crying out loud, don't you know an antonym when you see one?

____________________________________________________________

Ashmead, W. H. (1905). A skeleton of a new arrangement of the families, subfamilies, tribes and genera of the ants, or the superfamily Formicoidea. Canadian Entomologist, 37, 381-384.

Barandica, J. M.; López, F.; Martinez, M. D.; and Ortuno, V. M. (1994). The larvae of Leptanilla charonea and zaballosi (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 41, 147-153.


Baroni Urbani, C. (1977). Materiali per una revisione della sottofamiglia Leptanillinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Entomologica Basiliensa, 2, 427-488.

Baroni Urbani, C.; Bolton, B.; Ward, P. S. (1992). The internal phylogeny of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Systematic Entomology, 17, 301-329. Retrieved 3/20/13 from http://antcat.s3.amazonaws.com/177/6336.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJJR3DGROFMVL2FBQ&Expires=1363823511&Signature=qpo1TsNfYGjAcytSAexPD3m1Yn4%3D

Berghoff, S. M.; Gadau, J.; Winter, T.; Linsenmair, K. E. and Maschwitz, U. (2003). Sociobiology of hypogaeic army ants: characterization of two sympatric Dorylus species on Borneo and their colony conflicts. Insectes Sociaux, 50, 139-147. 


Berghoff, S. M.; Kronauer, D. J. C.; Edwards, K. J.; and Franks, N. R. (2008). Dispersal and population structure of a New World predator, the army ant Eciton burchellii. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21, 1125-1132.

Brady, S. G. (2003). Evolution of the army ant syndrome: the origin and long-term evolutionary stasis of a complex of behavioral and reproductive adaptations.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(11), 6575-6579.

Brady, S. G. and Ward, P. S. (2005). Morphological phylogeny of army ants and other dorylomorphs (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Systematic Entomology, 30, 593-618. Retrieved 3/28/13 from http://antcat.s3.amazonaws.com/5380/brady_-_ward_2005_syst_entomol-army-ants-and-dorylomorphs.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJJR3DGROFMVL2FBQ&Expires=1364524133&Signature=t2nexdlCo7iDTgYq0vUb0aPPM1o%3D

Brady, S. G.; Schultz, T. R.; Fisher, B. L.; and Ward, P. S. (2006). Evaluating alternative hypotheses for the early evolution and diversification of ants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(48), 18172–18177.

Bolton, B. (1990a). Army ants reassessed: the phylogeny and classification of the doryline section (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Journal of Natural History, 24, 1339-1364. Retrieved 3/26/13 from http://antcat.s3.amazonaws.com/263/6451.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJJR3DGROFMVL2FBQ&Expires=1364320984&Signature=M05fU7%2BpItoRNflDBbF%2B6zbzRNA%3D


Bolton, B. (1990b). The higher classification of the ant subfamily Leptanillinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Systematic Entomology, 15, 267-282.

Bolton, B. (2003). Synopsis and classification of Formicidae. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute, 71, 1-370. 

Brandão, C. R. F.; Diniz, J. L. M.; Agosti, D.; and Delabie, J. H. (1999). Revision of the Neotropical ant subfamily Leptanilloidinae. Systematic Entomology, 24, 17-36. Retrieved 3/21/13 from http://antcat.s3.amazonaws.com/3817/8086.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJJR3DGROFMVL2FBQ&Expires=1363924068&Signature=zpAXAmbvhNJApqm5RApxqDPBJ9Y%3D


Brandão, C. R. F.; Feitosa, R. M.; Schmidt, F. A.; de Castro Solar, R. R. (2008). Rediscovery of the putatively extinct ant species Simopelta minima (Brandão) (Hymenoptera, Formicidae), with a discussion on rarity and conservation status of ant species. Revista Brasilieira de Entomologia, 52(3), 480-483. Retrieved 3/26/13 from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbent/v52n3/a26v52n3.pdf

Buschinger, A.; Peeters, C.; and Crozier, R. H. (1989). Life-pattern studies on an Australian Sphinctomyrmex (Formicidae: Ponerinae: Cerapachyini): functional polygyny, brood periodicity and raiding behavior. Psyche, 96, 287-300.

Dill, M.; Williams, D. J.; and Maschwitz, U. (2002). Herdsmen Ants and their Mealybug Partners. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft.

Donoso, D. A.; Vieira, J. M.; and Wild, A. L. (2006). Three new species of Leptanilloides Mann from Andean Ecuador (Formicidae: Leptanilloidinae). Zootaxa, 1201, 47-62. 

Dlussky, G. M. and Wedmann, S. (2012). The poneromorph ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae: Amblyoponinae, Ectatomminae, Ponerinae) of Grube Messel, Germany: high biodiversity in the Eocene [electronic version]. Systematic Entomology, 10(4), 725-753. Retrieved 3/20/13 from www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/jsp/2012/00000010/00000004/art00006

Emery, C. (1870). Studi mirmecologici. Bullettino della Società Entomologica Italiana, 2, 193-201. Retrieved 3/28/13 from http://antcat.s3.amazonaws.com/1057/3731.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJJR3DGROFMVL2FBQ&Expires=1364498025&Signature=BT07QHDBfIYryUHVde7c86WXPsA%3D


Emery, C. (1916). Fauna entomologica italiana. I. Hymenoptera-Formicidae. Bullettino della Società Entomologica Italiana, 47, 79-275. 

Fabricius, J. (1793). Entomologica Systematica emendata et aucta secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, adjectis synonimis, locis observationibus, descriptionibus; tome #2. Hafniae: Christ. Gottl. Proft.

Franks, N. R. and Fletcher, C. R. (1983). Spatial patterns in army ant foraging and migration. Eciton burchelli on Barro Colorado, Panama. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 12, 261-270.

Franks, N. R. and Hölldobler, B. (1987). Sexual competition during colony reproduction in army ants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 30(3), 229-243.

Gotwald, W. H. (1978). Trophic ecology and adaptation in tropical Old World ants of the subfamily Dorylinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Biotropica, 10(3), 161-169. 

Gotwald, W. H. (1984-85). Death on the march: army ants in action. Rotunda, 17(3), 37-41.

Gotwald, W. H. (1988). On becoming an army ant. In Trager, J. C. (ed.): Advances in Myrmecology (pp. 227-235). E. J. Brill: Leiden. 

Gotwald, W. H. (1995). Army Ants: the Biology of Social Predation. Cornell University Press: Ithaca.

Gotwald, W. H. and Brown, W. L. (1966). The ant genus Simopelta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Psyche, 73, 261-277.

Gotwald, W. H. and Burdette, A. W. (1981) Morphology of the male internal reproductive system in army ants: phylogenetic implications (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 83(1), 72-92.

Grimaldi, D.; Agosti, D.; and Carpenter, J. M. (1997). New and rediscovered primitive ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Cretaceous amber from New Jersey, and their phylogenetic relationships. American Museum Novitates, 3208, 1-43.  

Hölldobler, B. (1982). Communication, raiding behavior and prey storage in Cerapachys (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Psyche, 89, 3-23.

Hölldobler, B. and Engel-Siegel, H. (1982). Tergal and sternal glands in male ants. Psyche, 89(1-2), 113-132.

Hölldobler, B.; Palmer, J. M.; Masuko, K.; and Brown, W. L. (1989). New exocrine glands in the legionary ants of the genus Leptanilla (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Leptanillinae). Zoomorphology, 108(5), 255-261.  

Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E. O. (1990). The Ants. The Belknap University Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge. 

Kronauer, D. J. C. (2009). Recent advances in army ant biology (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) [electronic version]. Myrmecological News, 12, 51-65. Retrieved 3/25/13 from http://www.myrmecologicalnews.org/cms/images/pdf/volume12/mn12_51-65_printable.pdf  

Kronauer, D. J. C. and Boomsma, J. J. (2007). Multiple queens means fewer mates. Current Biology, 17, R753-R755.   

Kronauer, D. J. C.; Schöning, C.; Vilhelmsen, L. B.; and Boomsma, J. J. (2007a). A molecular phylogeny of Dorylus army ants provides evidence for multiple evolutionary transitions in foraging niche [electronic version]. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7, 56. Retrieved 3/21/13 from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/56


Kronauer, D. J. C.; Johnson, R. A.; and Boomsma, J. J. (2007b). The evolution of multiple mating in army ants. Evolution, 61, 413-422.

Kronauer, D. J. C.; O'Donnell, S.; Boomsma, J. J.; and Pierce, N. E. (2011). Strict monandry in the ponerine army ant genus Simopelta suggests that colony size and complexity drive mating system evolution in social insects [electronic version]. Molecular Ecology, 20, 420-428. Retrieved 3/26/13 from http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/pierce/publications/pdfs/2011_Kronauer_et_al_Simopelta.pdf  

Kugler, C. (1992). Stings of ants of the Leptanillinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Retrived 3/28/13 from http://antcat.s3.amazonaws.com/1863/4654.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJJR3DGROFMVL2FBQ&Expires=1364502590&Signature=9X9dw%2Bid3018UGndwBvxY7%2FFAjg%3D

Leal, I. R. and Oliveira, P. S. (1995). Behavioral ecology of the termite-hunting ant Pachcondyla (=Termitopone) marginata: colony founding, group-raiding and migratory patterns. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 37, 373-383.

Leroux, J. M. (1979). Sur quelques modalités de disparition des colonies d'Anomma nigricans Illiger (Formicidae: Dorylinae) dans la région de lamto (Côte d'Ivoire). Insectes Sociaux, 26, 93-100.

Leroux, J. M. (1982). Ecologie des populations de dorylines Anomma nigricans dans la région de Lamto (Côte d'Ivoire). Publications du Laboratoire de Zoologie, 22, 1-158.

Longhurst, C. and Howse, P. E. (1979). Foraging, recruitment and emigration in Megaponera foetens (Fab.) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from the Nigerian Guinea Savanna. Insectes Sociaux, 26, 204-215.

Longino, J. T. (2007, June 30). Labidus coecus (Latreille 1802). Ants of Costa Rica. Retrieved 3/21/13 from http://academic.evergreen.edu/projects/ants/genera/Labidus/species/coecus/coecus.html

Longino, J. T. (2009, April 5). Overview of Simopelta. Ants of Costa Rica. Retrieved 3/20/13 from http://academic.evergreen.edu/projects/ants/AntsofCostaRica.html

Lund, A. W. (1831). Lettre sur les habitudes de quelques fourmis du Brésil, addressée à M. Audouin. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 23, 113-138.

Mackay, W. P. and Mackay, E. (2008). Revision of the ants of the genus Simopelta Mann. In Jiménez, E.; Fernández, F.; Arias, T.; and Lozano, F. (eds.): Sistemática, Biogeografía y Conservación de las Hormigas Cazadoras de Colombia (pp. 285-328). Instituto Investigación de Resursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá.



Maschwitz, U.; Steghaus-Kovac, S.; Gaube, R.; and Hänel, H. (1989). A South East Asian ponerine ant of the genus Leptogenys (Hym., Form.) with army ant life habits. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 24, 305-316.

Masuko, K. (1987). Leptanilla japonica: the first bionomic information on the enigmatic ant subfamily Leptanillinae. Proceedings of the 10th. International Congress of IUSSI, Munich (1986); 597-598.

Masuko, K. (1989). Larval hemolymph feeding in the ant Leptanilla japonica: by use of a specialized duct organ, the 'larval hemolymph tap' (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 24, 127-132.  

Masuko, K. (1990). Behavior and ecology of the enigmatic ant Leptanilla japonica Baroni Urbani (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Leptanillinae). Insectes Sociaux, 37, 31-57.

Miyata, H.; Hirata, M.; Azuma, N.; Murakami, T.; and Higashi, S. (2009). Army ant behaviour in the poneromorph hunting ant Onychomyrmex hedleyi Emery (Hymenoptera: Formicidae; Amblyoponinae) [electronic version]. Australian Journal of Entomology, 48(1), 47-52. Retrieved 3/20/13 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1440-6055.2008.00683.x/abstract

Moreau, C. S.; Bell, C. D.; Vila, R.; Archibald, S. B.; and Pierce, N. E. (2006). Phylogeny of the ants: diversification in the age of angiosperms. Science, 312, 101-104. 

O'Donnell, S.; Kaspari, M.; and Lattke, J. (2005). Extraordinary predation by the neotropical army ant Cheliomyrmex andicola: implications for the evolution of the army ant syndrome. Biotropica, 37, 706-709.

O'Donnell, S.; Lattke, J.; Powell, S.; and Kaspari, M. (2005). Army ants in four forests: geographic variation in raid rates and species composition. Journal of Animal Ecology, 76, 580-589. 

Powell, S. and Clark, E. (2004). Combat between large derived societies: a subterranean army ant established as a predator of mature leaf-cutting ant colonies. Insectes Sociaux, 51, 342-351. Retrieved 3/23/13 from http://eaton.math.rpi.edu/csums/papers/war/Combat%20between%20large%20derived%20societies-%20A%20subterranean%20army%20ant%20established%20as%20a%20predator%20of%20mature%20leaf-cutting%20ant%20colonies%20.pdf

Raignier, A. and van Boven, J. (1955). Etude taxonomique, biologique et biométrique des Dorylus du sous-genre Anomma (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Annales du Musée Royal du Congo Belge, 2, 1-359.

Ravary, F. and Jaisson, P. (2004). Absence of individual sterility in thelytokous colonies of the ant Cerapachys biroi Forel (Formicidae, Cerapachyinae). Insectes Sociaux, 51, 67-73. 

Ravary, F.; Jahyny, B.; and Jaisson, P. (2006). Brood stimulation controls the phasic reproductive cycle of the parthenogenetic ant Cerapachys biroi. Insectes Sociaux, 53, 20-26. Retrieved 3/24/13 from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225152450_Brood_stimulation_controls_the_phasic_reproductive_cycle_of_the_parthenogenetic_ant_Cerapachys_biroi


Rettenmeyer, C. W. (1963). Behavioral studies of army ants. University of Kansas Scientific Bulletin, 44, 281-465.

Sánchez-Peña, S. R. and Müller, U. G. (2002). A nocturnal raid of Nomamyrmex army ants on Atta leaf-cutting ants in Tamaulipas, Mexico. Southwestern Entomologist, 27(2), 221-223. Retrieved 3/26/13 from http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/muelleru/pubs/nocturnal_nomamyrmex.PDF

Saux, C.; Fisher, B. L.; and Spicer, G. S. (2004). Dracula ant phylogeny as inferred by nuclear 28S rDNA sequences and implications for ant systematics (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Amblyoponinae) [electronic version]. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 33, 457-468. Retrieved 3/28/13 from http://antcat.s3.amazonaws.com/4650/Saux_et_al_2004_Mol_Phylogenet_Evol.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJJR3DGROFMVL2FBQ&Expires=1364503237&Signature=img6YR9Jn08BVI0k2uPKw1eo1Rk%3D

Savage, T. S. (1847). On the habits of the "drivers" or visiting ants of West Africa. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 5(1), 1-15.

Schneirla, T. C. (1933). Studies on army ants in Panama. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 15, 267-299.

Schneirla, T. C. (1949). Problems in the environmental adaptation of some New-World species of doryline ants. Annales del Instituto de Biología, Universidad de Mexico; 20(1-2), 371-384. 

Schneirla, T. C. (1965). Cyclic functions in genera of legionary ants (subfamily Dorylinae). Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Entomology, London, 1964; 336-338.

Schneirla, T. C. (1971). Army Ants: a Study in Social Organization. W. H. Freeman: San Francisco.

Schneirla, T. C. and Brown, R. Z. (1952). Sexual broods and the production of young queens in two species of army ants. Zoologica, New York; 37(1), 5-32. 

Schöning, C. and Moffett, M. W. (2007). Driver Ants Invading a Termite Nest: Why Do the Most Catholic Predators of All Seldom Take This Abundant Prey [electronic version]? Biotropica, 39(5), 663-667. Retrieved 3/22/13 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00296.x/abstract


Swartz, M. B. (1998). Predation on an Atta cephalotes colony by an army ant, Nomamyrmex esenbeckii. Biotropica, 30, 682-684. 

Teles da Silva, M. (1977). Behavior of the army ant Eciton burchelli Westwood (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the Belém region. I. Nomadic-statary cycles. Animal Behaviour, 25, 910-923.

Topoff, H. and Mirenda, J. (1980). Army ants on the move: relation between food supply and emigration frequency. Science, 207, 1099-1100. 

Topoff, H.; Rothstein, A.; Pujdak, S.; and Dahlstrom, T. (1981). Statary Behavior in Nomadic Colonies of Army Ants: the Effect of Overfeeding. Psyche, 88, 151-162. Retrieved 3/24/13 from http://psyche.entclub.org/88/88-151.html

Wheeler, W. M. (1923). Social Life Among the Insects. Harcourt, Brace & Co.: New York.

Wheeler, W. M. (1932). An Australian Leptanilla. Psyche, 39, 53-58.

Wheeler, G. C. and Wheeler, J. (1965). The ant larvae of the subfamily Leptanillinae. Psyche, 72, 24-34.

Wheeler, G. C. and Wheeler, J. (1988). An additional use for ant larvae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Entomological News, 99(1), 23-24. 


Wilson, E. O. (1958). Observations on the behavior of the Cerapachyine ants. Insectes Sociaux, 5, 129-140.  

Wilson, E. O. (1964). The true army ants of the Indo-Australian area (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Dorylinae). Pacific Insects, 6, 427-483. 

Witte, V. and Maschwitz, U. (2008). Mushroom harvesting ants in the tropical rainforest. Naturwissenschaften, 95, 1049-1054.

Xu, Z. (2000). Two new genera of ant subfamilies Dorylinae and Ponerinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Yunnan, China. Zoological Research, 21, 297-302.