Procryptocerus paleatus

Procryptocerus paleatus is restricted to primary rainforest, where workers have been collected on low vegetation and in treefalls. At Corcovado National Park, workers were very rarely encountered on low vegetation, yet occurred in nearly every treefall or canopy sample. Procryptocerus paleatus is common in canopy fogging samples from La Selva Biological Station. (Longino and Snelling 2002)

Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists
Neotropical Region: Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Panama.

Nomenclature

 *  paleatus. Procryptocerus paleatus Emery, 1896g: 97 (w.) COSTA RICA. Longino & Snelling, 2002: 23 (q.). See also: Kempf, 1951: 53.

Worker
Longino and Snelling (2002) - (n = 1, Costa Rica): HW 1.537, HL 1.455, SL 0.800, EL 0.332, MeL 1.716, MeW 1.119, PrW 0.741, PrL 0.483, PrS 0.218, PrT 0.702, MTL 1.034, PtL 0.492, PtW 0.436, PpW 0.593, PtH 0.422, AL 1.746, AW 1.419, ASW 0.031.

Differing from Procryptocerus impressus in the following respects: clypeus somewhat differentiated from face, upper margin slightly impressed, interantennal region slightly protruding, forming a stronger bend than in P. impressus; mesonotal teeth small, squared-off posteriorly, well before propodeal suture; propodeal suture shallow, mesonotum and dorsal face of propodeum in same plane; on some workers, dorsal striae do not attain anterior pronotal border, being replaced by coarse piligerous foveae; posterior face of forefemur longitudinally rugose throughout; setae similar to P. impressus in form and distribution, but less dense, particularly on first gastral tergite; setae on disc of first gastral tergite sparse, widely spaced, not overlapping. Differing from Procryptocerus subpilosus in the relatively shorter petiole and from Procryptocerus tortuguero in the absence of erect setae on the frons. Also, unlike both P. subpilosus and P. tortuguero, the striae on the first gastral tergite extend to the posterior margin.

Queen
Longino and Snelling (2002) - (n = 1, Costa Rica, barcode INBIOCRI001282946): HW 1.400, HL 1.342, SL 0.767, EL 0.396, MeL 1.782, MeW 1.102, MTL 0.989, MFL 0.993, MFW 0.351, PtL 0.513, PtW 0.412, PpW 0.562, PtH 0.419, AL 1.628, AW 1.376, ASW 0.030.

Similar to worker in most respects; face uniformly, sparsely foveate, foveae larger than on P. impressus, interspaces subequal to fovea diameter, interspaces subopaque, with microareolate sculpture (interspaces somewhat shinier on P. impressus); interspersed rugae very weak to absent (in contrast to the workers, which have a mixture of foveae and abundant shallow rugae); pronotum foveate laterally, each fovea with stiff, flattened seta; fovea density lower on medial pronotum, but foveae still large (in contrast to impressus, which has medial foveae absent or reduced to small puncta); mesoscutum, axillae, and scutellum with a mixture of elongate foveae and longitudinal striae; relatively sparse setae on mesoscutum, axillae, and scutellum; dorsal face of propodeum longitudinally striate.

The above description is based on five queens from Costa Rica. One queen from Los Tuxtlas, Mexico, differs in being much more worker-like. The face sculpture is like the worker (with a greater abundance of rugae and a reduced development of discrete foveae), and the pronotum is uniformly closely foveate, with no decrease in fovea density medially.

Type Material
Longino and Snelling (2002) - Holotype worker: Costa Rica, Atirro, near Jimenez (examined).

Determination Clarifications
One Mexican worker (Veracruz Prov., S. Lucrecia, April 1923 [W. M. Mann], USNM), which Kempf (1951) identified as P. paleatus, is Procryptocerus scabriusculus.

References based on Global Ant Biodiversity Informatics

 * Basset Y., L. Cizek, P. Cuenoud, R. K. Didham, F. Guilhaumon, O. Missa, V. Novotny, F. Odegaards, T. Roslin, J. Schmidl et al. 2012. Arthropod diversity in a tropical forest. Science 338(6113): 1481-1484.
 * Branstetter M. G. and L. Sáenz. 2012. Las hormigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) de Guatemala. Pp. 221-268 in: Cano E. B. and J. C. Schuster. (eds.) 2012. Biodiversidad de Guatemala. Volumen 2. Guatemala: Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, iv + 328 pp
 * Dattilo W. et al. 2019. MEXICO ANTS: incidence and abundance along the Nearctic-Neotropical interface. Ecology https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2944
 * Emery C. 1896. Studi sulle formiche della fauna neotropica. XVII-XXV. Bullettino della Società Entomologica Italiana 28: 33-107.
 * Fernández, F. and S. Sendoya. 2004. Lista de las hormigas neotropicales. Biota Colombiana Volume 5, Number 1.
 * INBio Collection (via Gbif)
 * Kempf W. W. 1960. Insecta Amapaensia. - Hymenoptera: Formicidae (segunda contribuição). Studia Entomologica (n.s.)3: 385-400.
 * Kempf, W.W. 1972. Catalago abreviado das formigas da regiao Neotropical (Hym. Formicidae) Studia Entomologica 15(1-4).
 * Longino J. T. and Snelling R. R. 2002. A taxonomic revision of the Procryptocerus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Central America. Contributions in Science (Los Angeles) 495: 1-30
 * Longino J. T., J. Coddington, and R. K. Colwell. 2002. The ant fauna of a tropical rain forest: estimating species richness three different ways. Ecology 83: 689-702.
 * Longino J. et al. ADMAC project. Accessed on March 24th 2017 at https://sites.google.com/site/admacsite/
 * Maes, J.-M. and W.P. MacKay. 1993. Catalogo de las hormigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) de Nicaragua. Revista Nicaraguense de Entomologia 23.
 * Ryder Wilkie K.T., A. L. Mertl, and J. F. A. Traniello. 2010. Species Diversity and Distribution Patterns of the Ants of Amazonian Ecuador. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13146.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013146
 * Vásquez-Bolaños M. 2011. Lista de especies de hormigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) para México. Dugesiana 18: 95-133