Fossil Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the Middle Eocene Kishenehn Formation

LaPolla, John S.; Greenwalt, Dale E.

doi:10.13102/sociobiology.v62i2.163-174

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But there was no evidence of Lasius in the Ypresian and Lutetian deposits until last year, and, apart from the Priabonian ambers, the Dolichoderus quadripunctatus group is only known from the Priabonian Bembridge Marls in the Eocene (Dlussky, Perfi lieva, 2014), whereas the presence of Formica in the Lutetian deposits at Messel and Eckfeld is known only from Dlussky's remark (Dlussky, 2008) in his revision of amber Formicini. One specimen of Formica and two specimens of Lasius (from 152 determined ants) were found in Lutetian Kishenehn Formation, Montana (LaPolla, Greenwalt, 2015) together with the oldest repre-sentatives of two tropical genera (LaPolla, Greenwalt, 2015). Th e main diff erence between these faunas and those of Priabonian ambers is the dominance of Formica and Lasius in the latter.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tropical and Holarctic Ants in Late Eocene Ambers

Perkovsky¹

2016

Vestnik Zoologii

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on representative collections, the ratio of tropical and Holarctic ant species in Priabonian (Late Eocene) Baltic, Bitterfeld (Saxonian), Danish and Rovno ambers is analyzed for the first time. In surveyed representative collections of Baltic amber, the ratios of Holarctic and tropical ant species are from 1.1 to 1.5; with 10 Holarctic and 9 tropical species (out of 31) in the PIN-964 collection, and 9 and 5 species (out of 29) in the Giecewicz collection; the ratio in the representative collection of Saxonian amber is 0.9, 11 Holarctic species vs. 12 tropical species (out of 55); in the representative collection of Rovno amber it is 0.65, 15 vs. 23 species (out of 79); and in the representative collection of Danish amber it is 0.64, 7 vs. 11 species (out of 36). Hence, in representative collections of Baltic amber, Holarctic species clearly prevail not just in terms of the share of their specimens (by 9.8 to 19.6 times), but also by the number of species. In Bitterfeld amber, Holarctic species are somewhat less numerous than tropical ones, but their specimens are 6 times greater. In representative collections of Rovno and Danish ambers, the number of Holarctic species is 1.5 to 1.7 times smaller than that of tropical species, but the number of their specimens is 4.9 to 6.9 times greater. The numbers of tropical and Holarctic species represented by more than one specimen is similar in Priabonian ambers, 25 versus 22, but Holarctic species include four dominants or subdominants. The abundance of temperate elements in the Priabonian amber ant fauna along with the relatively small number of tropical elements greatly distinguishes it from the Middle European Lutetian ant faunas of Messel and Eckfeld in shale, which do not have temperate elements at all. Formica phaethusa Wheeler, Glaphyromyrmex oligocenicus Wheeler, Plagiolepis squamifera Mayr, Proceratium eocenicum Dlussky, Hypoponera atavia (Mayr), Ponera lobulifera Dlussky, Aphaenogaster mersa Wheeler, and Ennaemerus reticulatus Mayr are new records for Rovno amber, and Formica gustawi Dlussky and Gnamptogenys europaea (Mayr) for Danish amber.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tropical and Holarctic Ants in Late Eocene Ambers

Perkovsky¹

2016

Vestnik Zoologii

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, the genera, undoubtedly belonging to Myrmicinae, were found from early (Ypresian, 56.0–47.8 Ma) and middle Eocene (Bartonian-Lutetian, 47.8–40.0 Ma) deposits of North America, Europe, China, India and Australia (Wilson 1985, Poinar et al 1999, Dlussky and Rasnitsyn 2002, Hong 2002, Rust et al 2010, Aria et al 2011, Dlussky and Wedmann 2012, LaPolla et al 2013, Dlussky and Perfilieva 2014, LaPolla and Greenwalt 2015, Radchenko and Perkovsky 2016, Stilwell et al 2020). All of them belong to both modern and extinct genera, but none of these genera belongs to the tribe Myrmicini.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Myrmica Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Late Eocene European Ambers

Radchenko

2023

Annales Zoologici

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The genus Myrmica Latreille, 1804 from late Eocene European ambers is revised. The neotypes for M. longispinosa Mayr, 1868, M. rudis (Wheeler, 1915 and M. intermedia (Wheeler, 1915) are designated; four new species, Myrmica electrina sp. nov., M. dictyosa sp. nov., Myrmica damzeni sp. nov. and Myrmica saxonica sp. nov. are described; M. rudis and M. intermedia are recorded for Rovno amber for the first time. A key to identification of amber Myrmica species is compiled. Myrmica in mentioned ambers is the second species rich myrmicine genus. Only M. longispinosa can be assigned to the ritae-group; other 'ritae-like' species have either some putative plesiomorphies compared to this group, or putative apomorphy. M. electrina and M. saxonica are well distinguished from species of the ritae-group, but they are distinct from all extant Myrmica species and cannot be assigned to any modern species-groups. M. schaefersi Jessen, 2020 and M. nungesseri Jessen, 2020 from late Oligocene deposits fit well into the modern rugosa species group. In can be assumed that the putative ancestor of modern Myrmica lived in the warm forests of the early or middle Eocene, and by the late Eocene had already given rise to M. ritae-like species and other forms, and in the Oligocene species of the rugosa-group evolved.

show abstract

“…The evolutionary success of dolichoderines and formicines is considered to be directly linked to their symbiosis with homopterans (Wilson & Hőlldobler 2005; Dlussky & Rasnitsyn 2007). Two evident dominants of the myrmecofauna emerged as early as the Early Eocene of the Green River – the dolichoderine or formicine Eoformica pinguis (Scudder, 1877) (40 % of the ants) and dolichoderine Dolichoderus kohlsi Dlussky & Rasnitsyn, 2003 (25 % of the ants) (Dlussky & Rasnitsyn 2003; LaPolla & Greenwalt 2015). This means that highly social species with a large family size had appeared (Dlussky & Rasnitsyn 2007).…”

Section: The Cretaceous–paleogene (K–pg) Extinction Event and The Devmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aphid–Buchnera–Ant symbiosis; or why are aphids rare in the tropics and very rare further south?

Perkovsky¹,

Węgierek²

2016

Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Socie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At least since the Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution, the geographical distribution of aphids, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, has been strongly affected by the low thermal tolerance of their obligatory bacterial symbiont, Buchnera aphidicola, which was why the aphids switched to obligate parthenogenesis in low latitudes. Hormaphidids and greenideids penetrated into the tropics only after the Oligocene strengthening of climate seasonality, and specialisations of the tropical representatives of these families did not allow them to spread further south (in the case of cerataphidines), or only allowed in few cases (in the case of greenideids).Aphids suffered from the Mesozoic–Cenozoic boundary extinction event much more strongly than other insects. The extinction was roughly coincidental with the establishment of the tight symbiosis of aphids with formicine and dolichoderine ants, which was accompanied by the flourishing of all three groups.In the Cretaceous, all of the representatives of extant and subfamilies occupied positions that were subordinate to Armaniinae and Sphecomyrminae. Prior to large ant colonies evolving their efficient ant–aphid mutualism, the aphids remained unprotected before the growing ant predation. The origin of the aphid trophobiosis with large colonies of Formicinae and Dolichoderinae has resulted in the steep decline of aphids left beyond that ant–aphid symbiotic network. By at least the basal Eocene (unlike the Late Cretaceous), ant proportions in the entomofauna increased sharply, and evident dominants emerged. Even now, aphid milkers from small colonies (hundreds of specimens) never protect their symbionts, and homopteran-tending ants are more likely to be dominant, with large colonies of 104–105 workers.The mutualistic ant–aphid system failed to cross the tropical belt during the Cenozoic because of Buchnera's low heat tolerance. As a result, the native southern temperate aphid fauna consists now of seven genera only, five of which are Late Cretaceous relicts. Some of them had relatives in Late Cretaceous amber of the Northern Hemisphere.

show abstract

Fossil Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the Middle Eocene Kishenehn Formation

Cited by 15 publications

References 18 publications

Tropical and Holarctic Ants in Late Eocene Ambers

Tropical and Holarctic Ants in Late Eocene Ambers

Myrmica Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Late Eocene European Ambers

Aphid–Buchnera–Ant symbiosis; or why are aphids rare in the tropics and very rare further south?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About