Abstract
THE systematics of almost all ant genera have been in confusion up to the present. This lack of order is caused mainly by the following: (1) Forms of trivial infraspecific nature (for example, colour) were badly described in nomenclature; (2) Relatively stable diagnostic characteristics (for example, ♀, xxxx and ♂♂, terminalia, genitalia) were frequently ignored; (3) Descriptions, based on the phenotype, were given of specimens which are not representative, either for a population (nest, colony) or for a ‘species’ (for example, one or a few workers only were used).
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Wilson, E. O., Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 113, No. 1 (1955).
Wilson, E. O., Ann. Rev. Entomol., 8, 345 (1963).
Suomalainen, E., Ann. Rev. Entomol., 7, 349 (1962).
Hauschteck, E., Rev. Suisse Zool., 68, 218 (1961); Vierteljahrsschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zurich, 107, 213 (1962).
Ledoux, A., Recherches sur le cycle Chromosomique de la Fourmi Fileuse Insectes Sociaux, 1 (1954).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
LEUTERT, W. Systematics of Ants. Nature 200, 496–497 (1963). https://doi.org/10.1038/200496b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/200496b0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.