Sima ambigua erythraea

This taxon is not in use as it is currently considered to be a junior synonym of Tetraponera ambigua.

Nomenclature

 * erythraea. Sima ambigua subsp. erythraea Emery, 1895h: 23 (w.) YEMEN.
 * [Sima ambigua susbp. erythraea Emery, 1893f: 256. Nomen nudum.]
 * Combination in S. (Tetraponera): Emery, 1921f: 27;
 * combination in Tetraponera: Wheeler, W.M. 1922a: 796.
 * Subspecies of ambigua: Stitz, 1917: 335; Emery, 1921f: 27; Wheeler, W.M. 1922a: 796; Finzi, 1940: 156.
 * Status as species: Collingwood, 1985: 242; Bolton, 1995b: 418; Collingwood & Agosti, 1996: 312 (in key); Taylor & McGavin, 2020: 15.
 * Junior synonym of ambigua: Ward, 2006: 123; Ward, 2022: 8.

Taxonomic Notes
Taylor & McGavin (2020) treat this taxon as a valid species. They found that "T. erythraea has the alitrunk profile in three shallow convexities, with quite abundant erect hairs, whereas the alitrunk on the T. ambigua type is near flat and there are few, very short, erect hairs [based on the type image on AntWeb.org at CASENT0904033]. The junior synonym of T. ambigua, rhodesiana is identical." They note that Ward (2006) states that T. ambigua has "abundant standing pilosity" and then note "that the types of T. ambigua and rhodesiana do not show abundant standing pilosity". The T. ambigua type specimen imaged by AntWeb (CASENT0904033) clearly shows several elongate hairs. As this is an older specimen it might be expected to have suffered damage since being collected and thus may not have a full complement of hairs. Relying on a single specimen (the type) to characterise an entire species may lead to incorrect conclusions as it is not possible to gauge variation within the species or detect damage to a single specimen. Until T. ambigua and all related forms can be reassessed, it seems prudent to retain T. erythraea as a junior synonym of T. ambigua.