Neivamyrmex fuscipennis (W. M. Wheeler, 1908)

Eciton (Acamatus) spoliator: Wheeler 1908:416-417; _. Misidentification.

"Acamatus fuscipennis Cresson" Wheeler 1908:417; fig. 12; _. Incorrectly attributed to Cresson; nomen nudum.

Eciton (Neivamyrmex) fuscipennis M. Smith 1942:578; _.

Neivamyrmex fuscipennis: Borgmeier 1953:18; Borgmeier 1955:642. Watkins 1975:85-90.

       "Wheeler (1908) received for study from the National Museum two specimens under the manuscript name "Acamatus fuscipennis Cresson." After checking the specimens with Forel's description of spoliator, Wheeler stated that they "agree so closely with the above description that I do not hesitate to assign them to Forel's species." (M. Smith 1942)
       Forel (1899) described Eciton spoliator from males from Costa Rica. And, while agreeing that the specimens examined by Wheeler were similar to E. spoliator as described by Forel, Smith (1942) stated that he had studied Costa Rican specimens that were in better accord with the original description. He correctly identified these as the true E. spoliator and asserted that "Acamatus fuscipennis Cresson" was a different species that should be credited to Wheeler. The Wheeler specimens, from "Texas (Belfrage)", were the basis for Smith's characterization. But, since Wheeler never actually described the Texas specimens, M. Smith must be considered the first describer. Watkins (1975) subsequently selected one of the specimens as the lectotype of this name.
       Borgmeier (1953, 1955) noted the similarities between his new species, Neivamyrmex macropterus, described from Mexico, and N. fuscipennis, but cited the relatively larger ocelli and wings as distinguishing features for N. macropterus. Watkins (1975) took up the matter and, after examining ". . . 53 males from 9 localities . . . was able to find only one measurement which would distinguish all males of the above two species examined." First, he pointed out that the differences in eye length and forewing length cited by Borgmeier were not reliable, nor were there any differences in the genitalia. While he finally concluded that the "distances between the lateral ocelli and the margins of the compound eyes were greater in all the species (sic!) which I judged to be N. fuscipennis, except one, the difference in these distances between many specimens of the two species could be detected only by careful, precise measurements." His final conclusion was that the ". . . two species are so closely related that none of these features will distinguish all specimens, especially those intermediate in geographical range."
       Watkins (1985) stated that in N. fuscipennis the "distance from the lateral ocellus to the compound eye was usually about one-half diameter of median ocellus" vs. "about one-fourth (or less)" in N. macropterus. We have found that when males are so positioned that the appropriate measurements of anterior ocellus and of the distance between the compound eye and the nearest lateral ocellus are uniform that the differences between the two supposed taxa disappear.

TYPE LOCALITY: USA Texas

TYPES: USNM

Range: UNITED STATES,Arizona, Kansas, New Mexico, Texas. MEXICO:

Map 22

Habitat:

Habitat: Oak Woodland

United States Records;

ARIZONA: Cochise Co.: 5 mi. W. Portal SWRS 5400' 16 July 1965 (V. Roth; LACM)*, South West Res. Sta. 5400' Chiricahua Mtns. 31 July - 2 Aug. 1964 (D. R. Davis; USNM)*, South West Res. Sta. 5400 Chiricahua Mtns. 1 Aug. 1967 (U. of A.)*, Herb Martyr Dam Chiricahua Mtns. 22 July 1964 (G. D. Butler; U. of A.)*,nr Portal (J. F. Watkins; UKNS), Santa Cruz Co.: Madera Cyn. 4880' 8 July 1963 (V. I. Vesterby; LACM)*.
KANSAS: Stevens Co.: Hugoton (F. X. Williams; UKNS)_,

TEXAS: Davis Co.: Ft. Davis Resort 5800' 22 June 1997, & 8 June-15 July 1998 (D. Marqua; LACM), Presidio Co.: 40 mi. ESE Presidio 14 May 1975 UV light (F. Werner; U. of A.), Rusk Co.: Henderson VIII-9-1993 (J. V. Robinson; TAMU),

MEXICO: Morelos 10 mi N Cuernavaca 31 July 1963 ( F. D. Parker & L. A. Stange; UCDC),