Aenictus ambiguus

Nothing is known about the biology of .

Distribution
From Sikkim (Rungit Valley) west to Agra Presidency (N. W. provinces) south to Gujarat and Poona (Wilson 1964).

Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists
Oriental Region: India.

Castes
Only knowm from the male caste.



Nomenclature

 *  ambiguus. Aenictus ambiguus Shuckard, 1840b: 268 (m.) INDIA. See also: Wilson, 1964a: 444.

Worker
Wilson (1964) - Holotype: Since this species is the type species of Aenictus, a special effort has been made to locate and identify the male type. In the publication of W. Horn and I. Kahle on insect collections (1936, Ent. Beihefte in Berlin-Dahlem 3: 161-296) the collection of William Edward Schuckard is stated to have been auctioned in 1868 via J. C. Stevens from London. Mr G. E. J. Nixon (per. comm. 1963) informs me that no specimen referable to the type can be found in the British Museum, one likely repository in England. Mr Ernest Taylor, on the other hand, has located a single male labeled "Aenictus Schuck... ambiguus...Ind " on what appears to be a very old label, in the Oxford University Museum. I am indebted to Mr Taylor for the loan of this specimen. Unfortunately, Horn and Kahle did not publish a sample of Schuckard's handwriting, so that the Oxford specimen cannot be readily authenticated in this manner. However, it does fit the concept of A. ambiguus of past ant taxonomists, especially Bingham, Forel and Wheeler, and it would seem to be usefully regarded as the type specimen. Three males in the collection at the have been compared in detail to it and are available for future reference when the exact worker-male association can be made. Meanwhile, it can be confirmed that the Oxford specimen is indeed an Aenictus, and it is further possible to trace it with some confidence to the pachycerus group. Beyond this, placement is less easy. It is certainly not aratus. The Walajanagar males belonging to aratus have medium brown pedicel and gaster, only slightly lighter in shade than that of the mesosoma and head, whereas in the ambiguus type the pedicel and abdomen are dark yellow, contrasting to the medium brown mesosoma and head; the mandibles of the aratus males are shorter and broader; the median impression of the petiole is also distinctly less deep in the aratus males. If our conclusion is correct that ambiguus is a member of the pachycerus species group, and if it is the male of a species also known from the worker, there remain 8 species in the group after we have eliminated aratus: Aenictus biroi, Aenictus dentatus, Aenictus pachycerus, Aenictus philippinensis, Aenictus philiporum, Aenictus punensis, Aenictus rabori, Aenictus reyesi. All but pachycerus and punensis can be eliminated on the basis of their distribution. Of the remaining 2, punensis is the less likely, since it appears to be relatively rare and possibly also local in distribution. On the other hand, the distribution of pachycerus encompasses that of ambiguus. Both pachycerus (known only from workers) and ambiguus (known only from males) are abundant within their broadly overlapping ranges. When worker-male associations are made, ambiguus should be readily recognizable by fig. 90 and the more detailed figures of Bingham (1903), and the identification can be made definite by comparison with either the Oxford type or the closely compared specimens in the Museum of Comparative Zoology. The HW of the Oxford type, across and including the eyes, is 1.66 mm. Besides the characters implicit in fig. 90 and the distinctive coloration already mentioned, it may be important that the entire body of this specimen is covered with dense, appressed, pale yellow hairs.

Type Material
Wilson (1964) - Type locality: N. W. Prov., India.