Temporal range: 37.2–0 Ma
|Alliance:||Ponera genus group|
|Formica coarctata, now Ponera coarctata|
5 fossil species
(Species Checklist, Species by Country)
|Relationships among genera of the ant subfamily Ponerinae (extant taxa only, except Dolioponera, Feroponera and Iroponera) based on Schmidt & Shattuck (2014) and Longino & Branstetter (2020).|
Species of Ponera form small nests with less than 100 workers in protected places on the ground. The most common nesting sites are in the soil with or without coverings, in cracks or between rocks, in rotten wood, or under bark or moss on rotten logs. They forage cryptically in leaf litter on the ground and are often collected using Berlese funnels.
- 1 Identification
- 2 Distribution
- 3 Biology
- 4 Castes
- 5 Morphology
- 6 Nomenclature
- 7 References
The mandibles are triangular and with numerous small teeth along their inner margins. The forward sections of the frontal lobes and antennal sockets are very close together and are separated by at most a very narrow rearward extension of the clypeus. The node of the petiole has distinct front, top and rear faces. The underside of the petiole (subpetiolar process) with a translucent thin spot near the front and a sharp angle or pair of small teeth near the rear. The tibiae of the hind legs each have a single large, comb-like (pectinate) spur at their tips (best viewed from the front).
Ponera belongs to a set of very similar genera which includes Cryptopone, Hypoponera and Pachycondyla. Because these genera have the same overall body shape they are often confused. Ponera is unique, however, in having the lower surface of the petiole elaborate, with a thin, circular spot near the front and a sharp angle or small pair of spines towards the rear.
Schmidt and Shattuck (2014) - Workers of Ponera are superficially similar to those of several other ponerine genera, including Hypoponera, Cryptopone, Euponera and Pseudoponera, but Ponera differs from these genera in having an anterior fenestra in the subpetiolar process. A few species of Hypoponera apparently also have a fenestra, but they lack the paired posterior teeth on the subpetiolar process that are typical of Ponera, and Hypoponera has only a single maxillary palp segment while Ponera has two. Some Belonopelta and Emeryopone also have an anterior fenestra in the subpetiolar process, but these genera have narrow mandibles with long attenuated teeth, while Ponera has typical triangular mandibles with only short teeth.
Keys including this Genus
- Key to African and Malagasy Genera of Ponerinae
- Key to Australian Genera of Ponerinae
- Key to Eurasian and Australian Genera of Ponerinae
- Key to Neotropical Ponerinae genera
- Key to New World Genera of Ponerinae
- Key to North American Genera of Ponerinae (Fisher and Cover)
- Key to North American Genera of Ponerinae (Schmidt and Shattuck)
- Key to Vietnamese Ponerinae Genera
Keys to Species in this Genus
- Key to Australian Ponera Species
- Key to US Ponera species
- Key to Ponera of China
- Key to Ponera species
- Key to West Palaearctic Ponera
- Key to Ponera of India
- Key to Ponera of Japan
- Key to Ponera of East Asia
Occurs in the eastern Palearctic and Indo-Australian region from Russia’s Primorsky Krai, Japan, and China to New Guinea. Only five species are known to occur outside that area: three in Europe and two in North America. (Dlussky 2009)
Schmidt and Shattuck (2014) - The species diversity of Ponera is highest in eastern and southeastern Asia and Melanesia, with only a few species reaching Australia and points east. Like the distantly related but convergent genus Hypoponera, Ponera seems better adapted to inhabiting temperate regions of the world than most ponerines, as an endemic cluster of Ponera species occurs in Europe and North America. A few species are readily spread by human activity (Taylor, 1967; Bolton & Fisher, 2011). Two undescribed Ponera species are known from the Malagasy region (Antweb, 2008; but see Bolton & Fisher, 2011), and an undescribed species which may be a Ponera is known from Costa Rica (Longino, 2013).
Distribution and Richness based on AntMaps
Species by Region
Number of species within biogeographic regions, along with the total number of species for each region.
|Afrotropical Region||Australasian Region||Indo-Australian Region||Malagasy Region||Nearctic Region||Neotropical Region||Oriental Region||Palaearctic Region|
Fossils are known from: Baltic amber (Bartonian, Middle to Late Eocene), Bitterfeld amber (Bartonian, Middle to Late Eocene), Rott, Westphalia, Germany (Late Oligocene), Rovno amber (Priabonian, Late Eocene), Sicilian amber, Italy (Late/Upper Miocene).
Taylor (1967) - Ponera are small cryptobiotic ants, nesting in rotting logs in forested areas, or under stones in nonforested situations. In the tropical areas specimens are rarely encountered away from rain forest. In temperate areas, however, species may occur in relatively lightly forested areas. This appears to be the case with Ponera japonica, Ponera pennsylvanica and especially with Ponera coarctata. The Australian Ponera leae is essentially limited to rain forest in the northern parts of its range, but further south it may be found in dry, lightly forested areas. Foraging is probably cryptobiotic, though some New Guinea species have been taken straying on the ground surface.
Little information is available concerning feeding. However, most species are probably insectivorous. I have conducted feeding experiments with some of the New Guinea and Samoan species, including Ponera xenagos, Ponera elegantula, Ponera tenuis, Ponera incerta and Ponera woodwardi. These were unsuccessful with the larger species, except elegantula, which accepted moderately large (8-12 mm) campodeid and japygid Diplura. Tenuis and incerta accepted smaller (4-6 mm) campodeids, isotomid and sminthurid Collembola, and small newly hatched spiders (2 mm long). Negative feeding response was obtained with eggs and larvae of various ants, small crushed insects of various orders, and small myriapods. Stray workers were never observed carrying prey, and distinct middens of insect or other remains were not located near nests.
Colonies usually contain about 30 workers. Larvae and pupae are not segregated in most cases, but occasionally aggregations of pupae were observed. These may have included the total brood of the colonies involved. Larvae are attached to the floor or walls of the nest galleries by the glutinous abdominal tubercles described above, and the ants move them high up on the walls or ceilings of artificial nests, if they are flooded. Details of nuptial behavior of pennsylvanica were given by Wheeler (1900), and Haskins & Enzmann (1938). The flights appear to be of a pattern typical for ants, with the alates meeting in the air and mating there or on the ground. Colony foundation is non-claustral and independent in pennsylvanica (Kannowski 1959); judging from my observations this is typical for the genus.
Schmidt and Shattuck (2014) - Ponera are among the smallest of all ponerines and are thus well adapted to a cryptobiotic lifestyle. Nests are constructed in rotting wood or under rocks, and colonies are small, usually with around 30 workers, but colonies with up to 60 workers have been reported in Ponera pennsylvanica (Wheeler, 1900a) and an average colony size of 60 workers and a maximum observed colony size of 135 workers was reported for Ponera coarctata (Liebig et al., 1985). Like Hypoponera, Ponera larvae have specialized sticky tubercles with which workers attach them to nest surfaces, moving them higher to avoid flooding. Ponera are probably generalist arthropod predators, though few direct observations of their food preferences have been observed. In cafeteria-style feeding experiments, various Ponera species in New Guinea accepted diplurans, collembolans, and spiders, but rejected various other prey. Workers are rarely seen foraging on the ground surface, but are collected from leaf litter, moss, rotting wood, and other confined microhabitats. Workers are sluggish and feign death when disturbed (Wilson, 1957; Pratt et al., 1994). Colony foundation is semi-claustral (Taylor, 1967).
Pratt et al. (1994) studied the division of labor in colonies of P. pennsylvanica. Most colonies exhibited typical age-related polyethism, with younger workers focusing on brood care and older workers on foraging. Most colonies were monogynous, but some had multiple queens (though the reproductive division of labor among them was unknown). Both winged and ergatoid queens occur in this species (ergatoids have also been reported in P. coarctata: Wheeler, 1900a). P. pennsylvanica is unusual among ponerines in that it mates in large swarms of reproductives away from the nest (Haskins, 1970; Peeters, 1991a). Pratt et al. (1994) observed that foraging in this species is generally performed by solitary workers, but groups of workers will sometimes cooperate to retrieve large prey. Tandem running was used during nest emigrations (this has also been reported for Ponera coarctata: N Carlin, pers. comm. in Hölldobler & Wilson, 1990). See Wheeler (1900a), Kannowski (1959), and Mackay & Anderson (1991) for additional details of the habits of P. pennsylvanica. Johnson (1987) reported on the distribution and ecology of Ponera exotica.
Liebig et al. (1995) observed queen size polymorphism in Ponera coarctata, a close relative of P. pennsylvanica, and Liebig et al. (1997) found that workers in orphaned colonies of P. coarctata form dominance hierarchies through aggressive interactions, and that they exchange liquids via trophallaxis as a form of social appeasement (among ponerines, trophallaxis is otherwise only known from some Hypoponera).
Association with Other Organisms
All Associate Records for Genus
|Taxon||Relationship||Associate Type||Associate Taxon||Associate Relationship||Locality||Source||Notes|
|Ponera coarctata||host||diapriid wasp||Synacra brevipennis||parasite||Nixon, 1957|
|Ponera coarctata||xenobiont||ant||Myrmecina graminicola||xenobiont||Hungary||Kanizsai et al., 2013||Pine forest. Under stone.|
|Ponera pennsylvanica||xenobiont||ant||Myrmecina americana||xenobiont||United States||Kanizsai et al., 2013; Wheeler, 1901|
|Poneracantha bispinosa||host||phorid fly||Apocephalus asyndetus||parasite||Costa Rica||phorid.net; Brown & Fenner, 1998||attacked|
|Poneracantha bispinosa||host||phorid fly||Apocephalus sp. 21||parasitoid||Quevillon, 2018||encounter mode primary; direct transmission; transmission outside nest|
All Flight Records for Genus
|Ponera coarctata||Aug • Sep||antkeeping.info|
|Ponera pennsylvanica||Mar • Apr • May||antkeeping.info|
Life History Traits
- Queen type: winged or dealate; ergatoid (Peeters, 1997)
- Mean colony size: 30-60 (Greer et al., 2021)
- Compound colony type: not parasitic (Greer et al., 2021)
- Nest site: hypogaeic (Greer et al., 2021)
- Diet class: predator (Greer et al., 2021)
- Foraging stratum: subterranean/leaf litter (Greer et al., 2021)
- Foraging behaviour: cooperative (Greer et al., 2021)
• Antennal segment count: 12 • Antennal club: gradual, 4, 5 • Palp formula: 2,2 • Total dental count: 7-13 • Spur formula: 1 pectinate, 1 pectinate; 1 barbulate, 1 pectinate • Eyes: 2-10 ommatidia • Pronotal Spines: absent • Mesonotal Spines: absent • Propodeal Spines: absent • Petiolar Spines: absent • Caste: none or weak • Sting: present • Metaplural Gland: present • Cocoon: polymorphic
Morphological Notes: Ponera tudigong is the only known Ponera species with four mandibular teeth, all other species having either three (most of Ponera species), five (Ponera pentodontos), or seven (Ponera taylori) (Pierce et al., 2019).
• Antennal segment count 13 • Antennal club 0, gradual • Palp formula 5,3; 5,2; 2,2 • Total dental count 1 • Spur formula 1 pectinate, 1 pectinate
- n = 6, 2n = 12 (Indonesia) (Imai et al., 1985; Mariano et al., 2015).
- n = 6, 2n = 12, karyotype = 5M + 1A (Japan) (Imai, 1969; Mariano et al., 2015).
All Karyotype Records for Genus
|Ponera||6||12||Indonesia||Imai et al., 1985; Mariano et al., 2015|
|Ponera||6||12||5M + 1A||Japan||Imai, 1969; Mariano et al., 2015|
|Ponera japonica||6||12||Malaysia||Imai et al., 1983; Mariano et al., 2015|
|Ponera pennsylvanica||6||12||USA||Hauschteck-Jungen & Jungen, 1983; Mariano et al., 2015|
|Ponera scabra||7||Japan||Imai et al., 1988a|
|Ponera scabra||8||Japan||Imai et al., 1988a|
|Ponera scabra||3||Japan||Crozier, 1975; Imai et al., 1988a|
|Ponera scabra||4||Japan||Crozier, 1975; Imai et al., 1988a|
|Ponera scabra||4||8||2M+6SM (2M + 2A)||Japan||Imai & Kubota, 1972; Crozier, 1975; Mariano et al., 2015||Mariano et al., 2015 list 2n=7|
|Poneracantha triangularis||24||18m + 6sm||Brazil||Teixeira et al., 2019|
|Poneracantha triangularis||10||20||French Guiana||Mariano et al. 2015|
The following information is derived from Barry Bolton's Online Catalogue of the Ants of the World.
- PONERA [Ponerinae: Ponerini]
- Ponera Latreille, 1804: 179. Type-species: Formica coarctata, by subsequent designation of Westwood, 1840a: 83 (see discussion in Taylor, 1967a: 6).
- Ponera senior synonym of Pseudocryptopone, Selenopone: Wilson, 1957: 356.
- Ponera senior synonym of Pteroponera: Brown, in Bolton, 1994: 164.
- PSEUDOCRYPTOPONE [junior synonym of Ponera]
- Pseudocryptopone Wheeler, W.M. 1933g: 12. Type-species: Cryptopone tenuis, by original designation.
- Pseudocryptopone junior synonym of Ponera: Wilson, 1957: 356.
- PTEROPONERA [junior synonym of Ponera]
- Pteroponera Bernard, 1950a: 3. Type-species: Pteroponera sysphinctoides, by monotypy.
- Pteroponera junior synonym of Ponera: Brown, in Bolton, 1994: 164.
- SELENOPONE [junior synonym of Ponera]
- Selenopone Wheeler, W.M. 1933g: 19. Type-species: Ponera selenophora, by original designation.
- Selenopone junior synonym of Ponera: Wilson, 1957: 356.
The following is from Taylor (1967)
Small to medium size ponerine ants; head width ranging about 0.3-0.85 mm. Head longer than broad, roughly rectangular in frontal view, sometimes prismatic behind. Mandibles triangular, with 3 enlarged apical teeth followed by a series of small to minute, more or less regular denticles; several of these occasionally enlarged. No basal mandibular pit or groove. Palpal formula: Maxillary 2: Labial 2. Clypeus simple, often produced anteriorly, or with a raised tumosity or distinct tooth on the middle of its anterodorsal face. Eyes small, with 1 - 15, usually very indistinct, facets ; situated about 0.75-0.90X the distance from lateral occipital border to midpoint of anterior genal border. Scapes seldom exceeding median occipital border, their apices usually approximately contiguous with it, or failing to reach it by up to twice their maximum thickness. Funiculus incrassate, apical segment subequal in length to the two preceding together; an indistinct to distinct 4- or 5-segmented club often present. Mesosoma elongate, sides more or less parallel, dorsal profile usually flat. Posterolateral edges of propodeum sometimes marginate, forming angles of about 70°-90° when viewed from above. Mesometanotal and lateral mesonotal sutures may be absent. Mesepisternum not divided by a horizontal suture. Middle and posterior tibiae each with a single pectinate apical spur; middle tarsi lacking setose bristles on their outer surfaces. Petiolar node massive; relatively thick in side view, usually tapering only slightly dorsally; seen from above, its anterior face more or less semi-circular, the posterior one transverse, weakly concave to feebly convex. Dorsal and posterior faces of node forming a single arched surface, or with junction between them obtusely marginate. Edge between anterolateral, and posterodorsal faces of node rounded or marginate. Subpetiolar process highly characteristic: usually shallow; with a rounded or bluntly angled anteroventral corner, and a more or less distinctly angular posteroventral one. Latter composed of 2 separate, small to large, right-angled to acute teeth, situated side by side, and sometimes inclined posterolaterally. Anteriorly, subpetiolar process with a more or less distinct circular or oval thin-spot, or fenestra, visible in transmitted light.
General features as shown in figs. 1 -2. Basically similar to worker, with the usual characters of full sexuality-well developed compound eyes, ocelli, complete mesosomal structure, and wings. Identical to conspecific workers in mandibular, palpal, clypeal, and antennal structure. Petiolar node in side view usually thinner; subpetiolar process similar, usually slightly more shallow. Wing venation as in figs. 5-8, 2 closed cubital cells, single closed discoidal and radial cells. Venation usually of “coarctata type" (fig. 5), with 2nd abscissa of the radial sector+median vein (Rs+M.2) arising proximal to anterior base of mediocubital crossvein (m•cu). Two unrelated species, Ponera chapmani and Ponera swezeyi (figs. 6, 8) have Rs+M.2 arising distally to m-cu. Anal lobes absent on hindwing; middle and posterior tarsal spurs as in worker.
(figs. 9-14). All known specimens are winged; ergatoids are apparently not developed. Mandibles vestigial, with a single apical tooth. Maxillary palpi 2-5-segmented, labial palpi 2-segmented. Parapsidal furrows distinct, notauli absent. Wing venation as in conspecific queens, anal lobe absent from hindwing. Cerci present; pygidium with a strong sclerotized terminal spine (fig. 10). Subgenital plate broad, bluntly pointed. Genital capsule as in figs. 13 - 14. Gonoforceps with a peculiar sclerotized posterodorsal process which is usually low, with a thickened marginal ridge; or it may be narrowly digitate and inclined mesally. This structure is apparently unique to Ponera. Tarsal spurs as in queen castes.
Yoshimura and Fisher (2007) Malagsy region - Males winged. Antennal scrobe absent. Mandible reduced in size. Basal cavity of mandible extending to its front face, visible in full-face view. Notauli absent. Mesepimeron without epimeral lobe. Each dorsolateral corner of petiole in anterior view lacking distinct projection. Dorsal margin petiole, in anterior view, without narrowly rounded or pointed apex. Apical margin of abdominal tergum VIII strongly projecting into sharp spine. Jugal lobe of hind wing absent. Middle and hind tibiae with single spur. Claws simple, never multidentate or pectinate.
Larva: This stage has been described and illustrated in detail for Ponera pennsylvanica by G. C. & J. Wheeler (1952: 631, pl. V, figs 18-21, 28-32). There is apparently nothing unusual in the general body shape or cephalic structure. The body bears about 150 papilliform tubercles, each surmounted by a strong spine. Such structures are present in many larval Ponerini. The exceptional character, apparently allowing generic diagnosis of Ponera larvae, is the presence of 3 or 4 pairs of peculiar mushroom or doorknob shaped glutinous tubercles, on the dorsa of abdominal segments III-V or III-VI. Their number and arrangement is characteristic of Ponera, although similar organs are present in other genera of tribe Ponerini (see discussion below under Hypoponera).
Pupae: Enclosed in cocoons in all known cases except Ponera tenuis, which lacks cocoons in all castes; this exceptional condition is very rare in ponerine ants.
- Arnold, G. 1915. A monograph of the Formicidae of South Africa. Part I. Ponerinae, Dorylinae. Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 14: 1-159 (page 77, Ponera in Ponerinae, Ponerini)
- Ashmead, W. H. 1905c. A skeleton of a new arrangement of the families, subfamilies, tribes and genera of the ants, or the superfamily Formicoidea. Can. Entomol. 37: 381-384 (page 382, Ponera in Ponerinae, Ponerini)
- Barden, P. 2017. Fossil ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): ancient diversity and the rise of modern lineages. Myrmecological News 24: 1-30.
- Bolton, B. 1994. Identification guide to the ant genera of the world. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 222 pp. (page 164, Ponera senior synonym of Pteroponera)
- Bolton, B. 2003. Synopsis and Classification of Formicidae. Mem. Am. Entomol. Inst. 71: 370pp (page 170, Ponera in Ponerinae, Ponerini)
- Boudinot, B.E., Richter, A.K., Hammel, J.U., Szwedo, J., Bojarski, B., Perrichot, V. 2022. Genomic-phenomic reciprocal illumination: Desyopone hereon gen. et sp. nov., an exceptional Aneuretine-like fossil ant from Ethiopian amber (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Ponerinae). Insects 13(9), 796 (doi:10.3390/insects13090796).
- Burchill, A.T., Moreau, C.S. 2016. Colony size evolution in ants: macroevolutionary trends. Insectes Sociaux 63, 291–298 (doi:10.1007/s00040-016-0465-3).
- Camacho, G.P., Franco, W., Branstetter, M.G., Pie, M.R., Longino, J.T., Schultz, T.R., Feitosa, R.M. 2022. UCE phylogenomics resolves major relationships among Ectaheteromorph ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Ectatomminae, Heteroponerinae): A new classification for the subfamilies and the description of a new genus. Insect Systematics and Diversity 6(1): 5; 1–20 (doi:10.1093/isd/ixab026).
- Cantone S. 2018. Winged Ants, The queen. Dichotomous key to genera of winged female ants in the World. The Wings of Ants: morphological and systematic relationships (self-published).
- Dalla Torre, K. W. von. 1893. Catalogus Hymenopterorum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus. Vol. 7. Formicidae (Heterogyna). Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 289 pp. (page 37, Ponera in Ponerinae)
- Dlussky, G. M. 2009. The ant subfamilies Ponerinae, Cerapachyinae, and Pseudomyrmecinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in the late Eocene ambers of Europe. Paleontological Journal 43:1043-1086.
- Emery, C. 1895l. Die Gattung Dorylus Fab. und die systematische Eintheilung der Formiciden. Zool. Jahrb. Abt. Syst. Geogr. Biol. Tiere 8: 685-778 (page 767, Ponera in Ponerinae, Ponerini)
- Emery, C. 1911e. Hymenoptera. Fam. Formicidae. Subfam. Ponerinae. Genera Insectorum 118: 1-125 (page 88, Ponera in Ponerinae, Ponerini [subtribe Ponerini)
- Emery, C.; Forel, A. 1879. Catalogue des Formicides d'Europe. Mitt. Schweiz. Entomol. Ges. 5: 441-481 (page 455, Ponera in Ponerinae [Poneridae])
- Esteves, F.A., Fisher, B.L. 2021. Corrieopone nouragues gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Ponerinae from French Guiana (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 1074, 83–173 (doi:10.3897/zookeys.1074.75551).
- Fernandez, F., Guerrero, R.J., Sánchez-Restrepo, A.F. 2021. Sistemática y diversidad de las hormigas neotropicales. Revista Colombiana de Entomología 47, 1–20 (doi:10.25100/socolen.v47i1.11082).
- Forel, A. 1899b. Formicidae. [part]. Biol. Cent.-Am. Hym. 3: 1-24 (page 15, Ponera in Ponerinae, Ponerini)
- Forel, A. 1917. Cadre synoptique actuel de la faune universelle des fourmis. Bull. Soc. Vaudoise Sci. Nat. 51: 229-253 (page 238, Ponera in Ponerinae, Ponerini)
- Greer, J. A., Moreau, C. S. 2021. Phylogenetic analysis and trait evolution of ant cocoons. Insect Systematics & Evolution 53(1), 60–77 (doi:10.1163/1876312x-bja10008).
- Kreider, J.J., Chen, T.W., Hartke, T.R., Buchori, D., Hidayat, P., Nazarreta, R., Scheu, S., Drescher, J. 2021. Rainforest conversion to monocultures favors generalist ants with large colonies. Ecosphere 12 (doi:10.1002/ecs2.3717).
- Latreille, P. A. 1804. Tableau méthodique des insectes. Pp. 129-200 in: Société de Naturalistes et d'Agriculteurs. Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle. Tome 24. Paris: Déterville, 84 + 85 + 238 + 18 + 34 pp. (page 179, Ponera as genus)
- Latreille, P. A. 1804. Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle. Paris Vol. 24.
- Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau, A. 1835 . Histoire naturelle des insectes. Hyménoptères. Tome I. Paris: Roret, 547 pp. (page 188, Ponera in Ponerites)
- Mariano, C.S.F., Santos, I.S., Silva, J.G., Costa, M.A., Pompolo, S.G. 2015. Citogenética e evolução do cariótipo em formigas poneromorfas. In: Delabie, J.H.C., Feitosa, R.M., Serrao, J.E., Mariano, C.S.F., Majer, J.D. (eds) As formigas poneromorfas do Brasil, 1st edn. Ilhéus, Brasil, pp 102–125 (doi:10.7476/9788574554419.0010).
- Mayr, G. 1855. Formicina austriaca. Beschreibung der bisher im österreichischen Kaiserstaate aufgefundenen Ameisen, nebst Hinzufügung jener in Deutschland, in der Schweiz und in Italien vorkommenden Arten. Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ver. Wien 5: 273-478 (page 386, Ponera in Ponerinae [Poneridae])
- Mayr, G. 1861. Die europäischen Formiciden. Nach der analytischen Methode bearbeitet. Wien: C. Gerolds Sohn, 80 pp. (page 54, Ponera in Ponerinae [Poneridae])
- Mayr, G. 1862. Myrmecologische Studien. Verh. K-K. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 12: 649-776 (page 713, Ponera in Ponerinae [Poneridae])
- Mayr, G. 1865. Formicidae. In: Reise der Österreichischen Fregatte "Novara" um die Erde in den Jahren 1857, 1858, 1859. Zoologischer Theil. Bd. II. Abt. 1. Wien: K. Gerold's Sohn, 119 pp. (page 13, Ponera in Ponerinae [Poneridae])
- Peeters, C. 1997. Morphologically “primitive” ants: comparative review of social characters, and the importance of queen-worker dimorphism. Pages 372-391 In: Choe, J. & B. Crespi (eds) The Evolution of Social Behavior in Insects and Arachnids. Cambridge University Press. (doi:10.1017/CBO9780511721953.019).
- Pierce, M.P., Leong, C.-M., Guénard, B. 2019. A new species and new record of the cryptobiotic ant genus Ponera Latreille, 1804 (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from Hong Kong. ZooKeys 867: 9–21 (DOI 10.3897/zookeys.867.36139).
- Schmidt, C.A. & Shattuck, S.O. 2014. The higher classification of the ant subfamily Ponerinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), with a review of ponerine ecology and behavior. Zootaxa 3817, 1–242 (doi:10.11646/zootaxa.3817.1.1).
- Smith, F. 1857a. Catalogue of the hymenopterous insects collected at Sarawak, Borneo; Mount Ophir, Malacca; and at Singapore, by A. R. Wallace. [part]. J. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. Zool. 2: 42-88 (page 65, Ponera in Ponerinae [Poneridae])
- Smith, F. 1858b. Catalogue of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum. Part VI. Formicidae. London: British Museum, 216 pp. (page 83, Ponera in Poneridae)
- Smith, F. 1871a. A catalogue of the Aculeate Hymenoptera and Ichneumonidae of India and the Eastern Archipelago. With introductory remarks by A. R. Wallace. [part]. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. Zool. 11: 285-348 (page 320, Ponera in Poneridae)
- Taylor, R. W. 1967a. A monographic revision of the ant genus Ponera Latreille (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Pac. Insects Monogr. 13: 1-112 (page 1, Revision of genus)
- Westwood, J. O. 1840b. Observations on the genus Typhlopone, with descriptions of several exotic species of ants. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 6: 81-89 (page 83, Type-species: Formica coarctata, by subsequent designation)
- Wheeler, W. M. 1910b. Ants: their structure, development and behavior. New York: Columbia University Press, xxv + 663 pp. (page 135, Ponera in Ponerinae, Ponerini)
- Wheeler, W. M. 1922i. Ants of the American Museum Congo expedition. A contribution to the myrmecology of Africa. VII. Keys to the genera and subgenera of ants. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 45: 631-710 (page 650, Ponera in Ponerinae, Ponerini)
- Wheeler, W.M. 1915i. The ants of the Baltic Amber. Schriften der Physikalisch-Ökonomischen Gesellschaft zu Königsberg 55: 1-142. (page 38, Ponera in Ponerinae, Ponerini)
- Wilson, E. O. 1957b. The tenuis and selenophora groups of the ant genus Ponera (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 116: 355-386 (page 356, Ponera senior synonym of Pseudocryptopone and Selenopone)
- Wilson, E. O. 1958. Studies on the ant fauna of Melanesia, III: Rhytidoponera in western Melanesia and the Moluccas; IV: The tribe Ponerini. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 119: 300–371.
- Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls
- Articles using diversity taxobox
- Baltic amber fossil
- Bitterfeld amber fossil
- Rott, Germany fossil
- Rovno amber fossil
- Sicilian amber fossil
- Genus with Associate
- Genus with Flight Month
- Genus with Karyotype
- Extant genus
- Ponerinae genera
- Ponerini genera