Monomorium indicum

AntWiki: The Ants --- Online
Monomorium indicum
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Hymenoptera
Family: Formicidae
Subfamily: Myrmicinae
Tribe: Solenopsidini
Genus: Monomorium
Species: M. indicum
Binomial name
Monomorium indicum
Forel, 1902

Monomorium indicum casent0172664 profile 1.jpg

Monomorium indicum casent0172664 dorsal 1.jpg

Specimen labels

Pashaei Rad et al. (2018) found this species in Iran in a garden and house while Rasheed et al. (2020) observed it on plant stems near water sources and found nests in trees and in the soil near water sources in the forest of mountainous areas of district Rawalpindi and Islamabad, Pakistan. Foraging workers were also observed in association with sap-sucking insect including aphids and mealybugs, where they were taking honey dew as food source. This ant was found in association with the aphid Aphis gossypii on Parthenium hysterophorus (Parthenium weed) and Setaria viridis (Green Foxtail) from Kamrial and on Ak plant from Charra Pani and with Aphis fabae from district Rawalpindi. Ants and aphids were present on the shoots of host plant.

At a Glance • Limited invasive  

Photo Gallery

  • Worker of Monomorium indicum. Photo by Aditya Bari.


Monomorium indicum most resembles Monomorium subopacum but can easily be differentiated on the basis of comparison of head width. Head in front distinctly broader than posteriorly in M. indicum. Whereas head as broad posteriorly as in front in M. glyciphilum (Bingham, 1903; Rasheed, Bodlah et al., 2020).


Latitudinal Distribution Pattern

Latitudinal Range: 37.76417° to 12.938775°.

Tropical South

Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists

Afrotropical Region: United Arab Emirates.
Oriental Region: India (type locality), Pakistan.
Palaearctic Region: Afghanistan, Iran.

Distribution based on AntMaps


Distribution based on AntWeb specimens

Check data from AntWeb

Countries Occupied

Number of countries occupied by this species based on AntWiki Regional Taxon Lists. In general, fewer countries occupied indicates a narrower range, while more countries indicates a more widespread species.

Estimated Abundance

Relative abundance based on number of AntMaps records per species (this species within the purple bar). Fewer records (to the left) indicates a less abundant/encountered species while more records (to the right) indicates more abundant/encountered species.


Association with Other Organisms

Explore-icon.png Explore: Show all Associate data or Search these data. See also a list of all data tables or learn how data is managed.
  • This species is a mutualist for the aphid Aphis fabae  (a trophobiont) in Pakistan (Rasheed et al., 2020).
  • This species is a mutualist for the aphid Aphis gossypii (a trophobiont) in Pakistan (Rasheed et al., 2020).
  • This species is a host for the cestode Cotugnia digonopora (a parasitoid) (Quevillon, 2018) (encounter mode secondary; indirect transmission; transmission outside nest).
  • This species is a host for the cestode Raillietina echinobothrida (a parasitoid) (Quevillon, 2018) (encounter mode secondary; indirect transmission; transmission outside nest).
  • This species is a host for the cestode Raillietina tetragona (a parasitoid) (Quevillon, 2018) (encounter mode secondary; indirect transmission; transmission outside nest).



The following information is derived from Barry Bolton's Online Catalogue of the Ants of the World.

  • indicum. Monomorium salomonis r. indicum Forel, 1902c: 213 (w.q.m.) INDIA (no state data).
    • Type-material: syntype workers, syntype queens, syntype males (numbers not stated).
    • Type-locality: India: (no further data).
    • [Note: Forel, 1903a: 688, gives no locality data, saying only “distributed through the whole of India”. Bingham, 1903: 206, records “Punjab to Madras, and Bombay to Burma. Fairly common. The commonest Monomorium in Burma”.]
    • Type-depository: MHNG.
    • Imai, et al. 1984: 7 (k.).
    • Combination in M. (Xeromyrmex): Emery, 1922e: 178.
    • Subspecies of salomonis: Forel, 1903a: 688; Forel, 1907a: 18; Emery, 1922e: 178; Santschi, 1936a: 49; Ettershank, 1966: 89.
    • Status as species: Bingham, 1903: 205; Collingwood, 1961a: 61; Pisarski, 1967: 398; Pisarski, 1970: 309; Bolton, 1987: 292; Bolton, 1995b: 263; Collingwood, Tigar & Agosti, 1997: 508; Tiwari, 1999: 53; Collingwood, et al. 2011: 435; Borowiec, L. 2014: 120 (see note in bibliography); Bharti, Guénard, et al. 2016: 39; Rasheed, et al. 2019: 432.
    • Distribution: Afghanistan, India, Myanmar, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates.



Bingham (1903): Head, thorax and pedicel ferruginous red, the legs and in many specimens the head also verging to brown; abdomen dark brown or black; head, thorax and abdomen rugulose, opaque, the head and thorax anteriorly in certain lights appearing densely and extremely finely longitudinally striate; abdomen minutely reticulate; in some specimens the 2nd and following segments are smooth, polished and shining; pilosity entirely wanting. Head broad, almost as broad as long, broader anteriorly than posteriorly, the hinder margin slightly concave; mandibles narrow, obscurely longitudinally striate, when closed partially concealed under the projecting margin of the clypeus, the latter obtusely bicarinate; antennae moderately long, the scape not quite attaining the posterior margin of the bead; eyes comparatively large and flat, placed about the middle of the side of the bead. Thorax anteriorly rounded, moderately broad, the meso- and metanotum narrow and strongly compressed, the meso-metanotal suture distinct; the thorax in profile emarginate at the suture, the basal portion of the metanotum broadening posteriorly. Pedicel: the nodes, seen from above, nearly equal, the rounded 1st node higher than the 2nd and petiolate anteriorly; abdomen oval.

Length: 2.5 - 3.5 mm

Rasheed et al. (2020): Head in full-face view distinctly longer than broad with nearly parallel sides and little broader anterior margin; median clypeal portion smooth and shining without carina, anterior clypeal margin feebly emarginated; antennae 12- segmented, terminal funicular segment large, twice longer than two preceding segments, scape short hardly crossing beyond the top of head (Fig. 4); eyes oval, small, more in length than width, placed at middle of head in oblique view. Mandibles shining and longitudinally striated. Mesosoma in profile view with a feebly convex pro-mesonotal dorsum, well developed metanotal grove (Fig. 6), propodeal spiracle small in lateral view. Petiole more in length than width, rounded posteriorly at dorsum. Postpetiole circular, attached with gaster posteriorly.

Sculpture: Head, mesosoma, petiole and post petiole strongly rugose in profile view (Fig. 1, 5). Gaster smooth and shining having erect and suberect hairs (Fig. 7). Pilosity: Cephalic surface with minute pilosity, anterior clypeal margin with short and long yellowish hairs, scape and pedicle having short pilosity. Colour: Head, antennae, mesosoma, legs, petiole and post petiole dark brownish while gaster dark brown- blackish.

Morphological Measurements (mm) & Indices (n = 5): HL 0.81- 0.82; HW 0.65- 0.66; EL 0.2- 0.22; EW 0.14- 0.15; SL 0.67-0.68; PRW 0.35- 0.36; WB 0.93- 0.95; PH 0.25-0.26; PL 0.31- 0.33; PW 0.1-0.2| CI= 80.24-80.48; OI= 30.76-33.33; SI=103.03-103.07; LPI= 78.78-80.64


Bingham (1903): Closely resembles the worker, hut larger. Head a little broader than long, plainly longitudinally striate. Thorax obscurely transversely striate, the mesonotum narrow, very gibbous anteriorly: metanotum broadening posteriorly, concave apically from side to side, the concavity more coarsely transversely striate. Pedicel: the 1st node anteriorly petiolate, cuneiform, higher, somewhat sharper above than the 2nd node, which is transverse, rounded above; abdomen long and massive, the posterior margins of the segments bright yellow. Colour entirely as in the worker; pilosity short and somewhat abundant. Wings hyaline, nervures pale yellow.

Length: 7 - 8 mm


Bingham (1903): Dark brown, almost black, the apex of the mandibles, antennae and tibiae and tarsi of the legs yellowish ferruginous; entirelv rugulose, but silky and shining in certain lights. For the rest the characters of the genus.

Length: 6 - 6.5 mm


  • 2n = 21 (India) (Imai et al., 1984).
  • 2n = 22 (India) (Imai et al., 1984).


References based on Global Ant Biodiversity Informatics

  • Bharti H. 2003.Ants and forensic entomology. ANeT Newsletter 6: 18-20.
  • Bharti H., Y. P. Sharma, M. Bharti, and M. Pfeiffer. 2013. Ant species richness, endemicity and functional groups, along an elevational gradient in the Himalayas. Asian Myrmecology 5: 79-101.
  • Bharti H., Y. P. Sharma, and A. Kaur. 2009. Seasonal patterns of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Punjab Shivalik. Halteres 1(1): 36-47.
  • Bhoje P. M., K. Shilpa, and T. V. Sathe. 2014. Diversity of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Kolhapur district of Maharashtra, India. Uttar Pradesh J. Zool. 34(1): 23-25.
  • Borowiec L. 2014. Catalogue of ants of Europe, the Mediterranean Basin and adjacent regions (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Genus (Wroclaw) 25(1-2): 1-340.
  • Brown W. L., Jr. 1959. Appendix G. Insecta collected by the expedition. Pp. 229-230 in: Field, H. 1959. An anthropological reconnaissance in West Pakistan, 1955, with appendixes on the archaeology and natural history of Baluchistan and Bahawalpur. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University 52:i-xii,1-332.
  • Chhotani O. B., and K. K. Ray. 1976. Fauna of Rajasthan, India, Hymenoptera. Records of the Zoological Survey of India 71: 13-49.
  • Ettershank G. 1966. A generic revision of the world Myrmicinae related to Solenopsis and Pheidologeton (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Aust. J. Zool. 14: 73-171.
  • Imai H. T., C. Baroni Urbani, M. Kubota, G. P. Sharma, M. H. Narasimhanna, B. C. Das, A. K. Sharma, A. Sharma, G. B. Deodikar, V. G. Vaidya, and M. R. Rajasekarasetty. 1984. Karyological survey of Indian ants. Japanese Journal of Genetics 59: 1-32.
  • Musthak Ali T. M. 1992. Ant Fauna of Karnataka-2. Newsletter of IUSSI Indian Chapter 6(1-2): 1-9.
  • Narendra A., H. Gibb, and T. M. Ali. 2011. Structure of ant assemblages in Western Ghats, India: role of habitat, disturbance and introduced species. Insect Conservation and diversity 4(2): 132-141.
  • Pajni H. R., and R. K. Suri. 1978. First report on the Formicid fauna (Hymenoptera) of Chandigarh. Res. Bull. (Science) Punjab University 29: 5-12.
  • Parui A. K., S. Chatterjee, and P. Basu. 2015. Habitat characteristics shaping ant species assemblages in a mixed deciduous forest in Eastern India. Journal of Tropical Ecology: 1-14. doi:10.1017/S0266467415000036
  • Pashaei Rad S., B. Taylor, R. Torabi, E. Aram, G. Abolfathi, R. Afshari, F. Borjali, M. Ghatei, F. Hediary, F. Jazini, V. Heidary Kiah, Z. Mahmoudi, F. Safariyan, and M. Seiri. 2018. Further records of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Iran. Zoology in the Middle East 64(2): 145-159.
  • Pisarski B. 1964. Fauna Mrowek Afganistanu. Bibliogr. k. 160-166, Nieoprawiony maszynopis pracy, Praca doktorska. Instytut Zoologiczny PAN, 1964, Bibliogr. p. 160-166
  • Rajan P. D., M. Zacharias, and T. M. Mustak Ali. 2006. Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae. Fauna of Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka). Conservation Area Series, Zool. Surv. India.i-iv,27: 153-188.
  • Rasheed M. T., I. Bodlah, A. G. Fareen, A. A. Wachkoo, X. Huang, and S. A. Akbar. 2019. A checklist of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Pakistan. Sociobiology 66(3): 426-439.
  • Sonune B. V., and R. J. Chavan. 2016. Distribution and diversity of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) around Gautala Autramghat Sanctuary, Aurangabad Maharashtra, India. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 4(2): 361-364.
  • Tak N. 1995. Studies on ants (Formicidae) of Rajasthan - 1 Jodhpur. Hexapoda 7(1): 17-28.
  • Tak N. 2000. Studies on ants (Formicidae) of Rajasthan - III. Banswara. Entomon 25:97-101.
  • Tak N. 2008. Ants of Rajasthan. Conserving Biodiversity of Rajasthan Zool. Surv. India. 149-155.
  • Tak N. 2009. Ants Formicidae of Rajasthan. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper No. 288, iv, 46 p
  • Tak N. 2009. Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae. Faunal Resources of Tal Chhapar Wildlife sanctuary. Conservation Area Series 38: 23-28.
  • Tak N. 2010. Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae. Zool. Surv. India, Fauna of Ranthambore National Park, Conservation Area Series 43: 133-144.
  • Tak N., and N. S. Rathore. 1996. Ant (Formicidae) fauna of the Thar Desert. Pp. 271-276 in: Ghosh, A. K.; Baqri, Q. H.; Prakash, I. (eds.) 1996. Faunal diversity in the Thar Desert: gaps in research. Jodhpur: Scientific Publishers, xi + 410 pp.
  • Tak N., and N. S. Rathore. 2004. Insecta: Hymenoptera. Rathore, N.S. Fauna of Desert National Park Rajasthan (proposed biosphere reserve). Conservation Area Series 19,Zool. Surv. India. 1-135. Chapter pagination: 81-84.
  • Tak N., and N. S. Rathore. 2004. Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae. State Fauna Series 8: Fauna of Gujarat. Zool. Surv. India. Pp. 161-183.
  • Tak N., and S. I. Kazmi. 2013. On some ants (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Nagaland, India. Rec. zool. Surv. India: 113(1): 169-182.
  • Tak N., and S. L. Kazmi. 2011. On a collection of Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae from Uttarakhand. Rec. zool. Surv. India : 111(2) : 39-49.
  • Tak, N. 2009. Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the Thar Desert of Rajasthan and Gujarat. in C. Sivaperuman et al. (eds.), Faunal Ecology and Conservation of the Great Indian Desert
  • Tiwari R. N. 1999. Taxonomic studies on ants of southern India (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Memoirs of the Zoological Survey of India 18(4): 1-96.
  • Tiwari, R.N. 1999. Taxonomic studies on ants of southern India (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Memoirs of the Zoological Survey of India 18(4):1-96