Stictoponera sinhala

Nothing is known about the biology of . This ant is Sri Lankan endemic.

Identification
Lattke and Delsinne (2016) - Clypeal lamella projecting anterad as broad triangular lobe; occipital lobes poorly developed. Pronotal dorsum punctate, with rough transverse strigae that arch anterad, becoming longitudinal on posterior pronotum and mesonotum; propodeum unarmed and transversely strigose. The above diagnosis is taken from Lattke (2004: 103) and is placed here to satisfy the provision that a description should accompany a new species epithet for it to be available (ICZN Article 13.1.1). Detailed characterizations and descriptions of this species have been published by Emery (1900), Brown (1954), and Lattke (2004), all under the name Gnamptogenys coxalis. I propose naming the Sri Lankan species as G. sinhala in honor of the Sinhalese people, the largest ethnic group native to Sri Lanka. The new name will be applied to the Nietner collected series with the G. sinhala holotype being the same specimen designated as the G. coxalis lectotype by Brown (1954: 9). So the name G. sinhala now applies to what was previously known as G. coxalis, a species endemic to Sri Lanka.

Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists
Oriental Region: Sri Lanka.

Nomenclature

 * . Gnamptogenys sinhala Lattke, in Lattke & Delsinne, 2016: 146, figs. 5-8 (w.) SRI LANKA.
 * Type-material: holotype worker.
 * Type-locality: Sri Lanka (“Ceylon”): (no further data) (Nietner).
 * Type-depository: NHMW.
 * [Note: Brown, 1954h: 8 incorrectly designated the Nietner specimen as lectotype of coxalis, which was a misidentification; designation set aside by Lattke & Delisinne, 2016: 146.]
 * Status as species: Dias, R.K.S. et al. 2020: 28.
 * Distribution: Sri Lanka.

Lattke (2004) - Roger (1860) described Ponera coxalis as a replacement name for P. rugosa, a homonym coined by F. Smith (1857) for what is now Gnamptogenys costata (=Gnamptogenys coxalis). Roger apparently based his description on a series of specimens from Sri Lanka, thinking they were the same species. Emery (1901) studied type material from Berlin and discerned characters useful for separating the two species, though he hinted at the possibility of its synonymy with Smith's P. rugosa. Brown (1954b) confirmed Emery's characters and cited more differences between G. coxalis and G. costata, though he still shared Emery's second thoughts about its distinctness from G. costata. He studied specimens in the NHMW that Roger sent to G. Mayr from Berlin and designated one of these specimens as a lectotype (Brown, 1954b). The material examined for this revision came from the NHMW bearing a determination label as “coxalis” in what apparently is Roger’s handwriting and the same collection data as the lectotype studied by Brown. The NHMW specimens also conform to Brown’s (1954b) description of G. coxalis. The discreteness of G. coxalis from G. costata is based on the following characters: G. costata has a distinct mesopleural suture; in G. costata the postpetiolar tergite is more foveolate, while in G. coxalis it is mostly strigulose; G. coxalis has a strigulose fourth abdominal tergite, not costate as in G. costata. In G. costata the propodeal declivity is concave and mostly smooth and shining, dorsally bordered by a transverse ridge between the propodeal teeth. In G. coxalis the propodeal declivity is transversely strigose and the dorsal and declivitous faces are not sharply divided by a ridge. The specimens from the ZMHB are minuten mounted, with one lacking a considerable part of the promesonotum.

Worker
See the identification section above to learn why a 2004 description is given here for a species named in 2016.

Lattke (2004) - Metrics (n = 2): HL 1.52, 1.58; HW 1.36, 1.29; ML 0.83, 0.74; SL 1.37, 1.33; ED 0.27, 0.25; WL 2.25, 2.08 mm. CI 0.90, 0.82; SI 1.01, 1.03; MI 0.67, 0.57. Head with concave posterior margin in frontal view, relatively straight posterolateral margins, and convex oculomalar margin; clypeal lamella projecting anterad as broadly triangular median lobe; frons longitudinally strigulose, strigulae diverging posterad and arching over eyes; mandibular dorsum strigose. Scape mostly smooth and shining with sparse punctae; occipital lobe poorly developed, occipital lamella dorsally convex, ventrally angular.

Pronotal dorsum with punctae over rough transverse strigae that arch anterad, becoming longitudinal on posterior pronotum and mesonotum, humeral angle well developed; promesonotal suture and metanotal groove lacking; mesopleuron foveolate, mesopleural suture not distinctly impressed, katepisternum with rugosity; metapleuron with foveolae, mostly smooth and shining anterodorsally, becoming longitudinally strigose posteroventrally; propodeum unarmed, transversely strigose. Petiole dorsally irregularly foveolate; foveolae becoming more regular laterally; subpetiolar process projects anterad as a triangular lobe in lateral view; postpetiolar tergite with longitudinal strigulae enclosing elongate depressions, sternum strigulose, with longitudinal costulae extending posterad from anterior process; tergite of fourth abdominal segment longitudinally strigulose. Fore coxae laterally with transverse strigulae; fore tarsal base opposite strigil with uniform comb of spines; metacoxal teeth usually straight, sometimes slightly curved. Dorsum of thorax and abdominal segments 1-4 with scattered erect to subdecumbent hairs. Body mostly ferruginous brown, gaster usually darker; head, mesosoma, and gaster with abundant fine inclined hairs.

Type Material
Holotype worker: Ceylon [Sri Lanka] (Nietner). This specimen here was erroneously designated by Brown (1954: 9) as the lectotype of the misidentified coxalis.

References based on Global Ant Biodiversity Informatics

 * Brown W. L., Jr. 1954. A review of the coxalis group of the ant genus Stictoponera Mayr. Breviora 34: 1-10.
 * Brown W. L., Jr. 1958. Contributions toward a reclassification of the Formicidae. II. Tribe Ectatommini (Hymenoptera). Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 118: 173-362.
 * Chapman, J. W., and Capco, S. R. 1951. Check list of the ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Asia. Monogr. Inst. Sci. Technol. Manila 1: 1-327
 * Chapman, J.W. and S.R. Capco. 1951. Check list of the ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Asia. Monographs of the Institute of Science and Technology (Manila) 1: 1- 327
 * Dias R. K. S. 2002. Current knowledge on ants of Sri Lanka. ANeT Newsletter 4: 17- 21.
 * Dias R. K. S. 2006. Current taxonomic status of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Sri Lanka. The Fauna of Sri Lanka: 43-52. Bambaradeniya, C.N.B. (Editor), 2006. Fauna of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation. The World Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka & Government of Sri Lanka. viii + 308pp.
 * Dias R. K. S., K. R. K. A. Kosgamage, and H. A. W. S. Peiris. 2012. The Taxonomy and Conservation Status of Ants (Order: Hymenoptera, Family: Formicidae) in Sri Lanka. In: The National Red List 2012 of Sri Lanka; Conservation Status of the Fauna and Flora. Weerakoon, D.K. & S. Wijesundara Eds., Ministry of Environment, Colombo, Sri Lanka. p11-19.
 * Emery C. 1911. Hymenoptera. Fam. Formicidae. Subfam. Ponerinae. Genera Insectorum 118: 1-125.
 * Forel A. 1900. Les Formicides de l'Empire des Indes et de Ceylan. Part VII. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 13: 303-332.
 * Lattke J. E. 2004. A taxonomic revision and phylogenetic analysis of the ant genus Gnamptogenys Roger in Southeast Asia and Australasia (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Ponerinae). University of California Publications in Entomology 122: 1-266.
 * Wheeler W. M. 1919. The ants of Borneo. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 63:43-147.