Myopias nops

There is no information concerning the habitat, nest site, or prey. This is obviously a cryptic-foraging form, probably living in the soil or in rotten wood. A related undescribed species has been found in Borneo. (Willey and Brown 1983)

Identification
Willey and Brown (1983) - Worker: A modest-sized, depigmented (dull yellowish) species without eyes; sculpture opaque, predominantly densely reticulate-punctulate over head, trunk, node and first gastric segment. Mandibles short and stout, with basal angle distinct, but rounded and close to submedian tooth. Median clypeal lobe distinct, short with subacute free corners and indented apical margin. Antennal scapes just reaching posterior border of head. Petiolar node thick, but tapered apicad, its sternal keel ending behind in an abrupt angle, paired bilaterally as in Ponera.

Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists
Oriental Region: Taiwan.

Nomenclature

 * . Myopias nops Willey & Brown, 1983: 279, figs. 9, 28 (w.) TAIWAN.
 * Type-material: holotype worker, 2 paratype workers.
 * [Note: all type-series specimens damaged.]
 * Type-locality: holotype Taiwan: Rarasan (= La La San?), SW Taipei, 24°44’N, 121°26’E,, 31.vii.1933 (R. Takahashi); paratypes with same data.
 * Type-depositories: MCZC (holotype); BMNH, MCZC (paratypes).
 * Status as species: Bolton, 1995b: 269; Terayama, 2009: 107; Zhou & Ran, 2010: 106; Xu & Liu, 2012: 821 (in key); Xu, Burwell & Nakamura, 2014b: 166 (in key); Probst, Guénard & Boudinot, 2015: 204 (in key).
 * Distribution: Taiwan.

Worker
holotype: TL 4.4, HL 0.85, HW 0.77 (CI 91), ML 0.42 (MI 49), MLO 0.59, SL 0.65 (SI 84), WL 1.30, petiole L 0.45, hind femur L 0.65, hind tibia L 0.64 mm.

The two paratype workers, both dismembered, hardly differ from the holotype by more than the usual error of measurement in the standard dimensions. Since the three specimens of the type series are all incomplete (one lacking head, another without gaster, various legs missing, sculpture in part obscured on holotype), the description is composite.

Head oblong with nearly parallel, weakly convex sides, greatest width a little way anterior to mid length; posterior corners rounded; posterior border straight in full-face view, or perhaps just the slightest bit concave. Median frontal sulcus broad but short, not reaching back to mid-HL. Eyes obsolete, or at least unpigmented and not distinguishable amid the sculpture in strong light at 50X. Antennae with robust scapes that just reach the posterior border of the head when held straight back; funiculus long, with an indistinctly 4-merous apical club; funicular segments II through V short, wider than long; pedicel (I) is 3-4X as long as II; VI-XI longer than wide.

Mandibles short and stout, strongly downcurved, with acute apical tooth and blunt companion tooth, followed after long gaps by two blunt teeth, of which the submedian is followed closely basad by a distinct but rounded basal angle. Labrum without a distinct median tooth, but the two lobes each bear a delicate, upturned tooth at apex. Palpal segmentation not determined. Median clypeal lobe distinct but short, CLL 0.08, CLW 0.12, with indented or concave apical margin and subacute free corners; one side deformed in holotype.

Trunk compact, with a weakly convex dorsal outline (in side view) between steeply sloping pronotal and propodeal declivities; promesonotum distinctly longer than propodeum; mesonotum weakly convex; metanotal groove strong, but only moderately impressed; propodeal dorsum feebly convex overall, but with a very shallow impression near mid length. Position of metapleural suture indicated by a vague sulcus. Propodeal declivity rather abruptly rounded off from dorsum, weakly transversely aciculate above, smooth and shining below, meeting sides of propodeum through bluntly subrectangular curves. Lengths of propodeal dorsum: mesonotum about as 5:3.

Petiolar node thick but higher and broader than long; summit anterior, dorsal face rounded, but meeting steep concave anterior face through an abrupt curve, rounding broadly caudad into posterior face, which is low, flat and smooth. Ventral keel of petiole with a large, obliquely truncate process in front and another, lower, rectangular or obtuse angle farther caudad; this last angle is paired bilaterally with a mate, and together they appear to be homologous with the similar teeth or angles diagnostic of the genus Ponera.

Gaster robust; constriction behind first segment deep, broad, scrobiculate. First segment abruptly truncate in front, the front face vertical, flat, smooth and shining; second subequal in length to first, but slightly wider than first.

Head, trunk, and anterior disc of first gastric segment densely reticulate-punctulate and opaque, with a minutely pitted overlay; sides of trunk, especially mesopleura and metapleura, and sides of node, obscurely striate-punctulate; coxae minutely striate, becoming smooth anteroventrad. Posterior disc of gastric tergum I, and most of II, densely covered with small, round punctures with smooth, shining, but very narrow inters paces, becoming wider behind; undersides of the same two gastric segments with scattered coarse punctures, the interspaces in part minutely roughened (I) or shining. In addition to the other surfaces listed above as smooth and shining may be added the gastric apex, mandibles and femora, all with scattered punctures. Antennae, tibiae, tarsi mostly finely punctulate, but more or less shining.

Pilosity reduced to a mostly pubescence-like vestiture, abundant but not very conspicuous, of appressed to subdecumbent, fine hairs; only the clypeal and paired humeral setae as long as 0.10 mm, but the specimens are badly rubbed, and probably had moderately, abundant, but still fine and short, erect and suberect pilosity, some of which can still be seen at times on scapes, legs, and dorsum of trunk, as well as gastric apex.

Color dull, light brownish yellow.

Type Material
Holotype and two paratypes workers (MCZ, ) from Taiwan: Rarasan (probably the same as the mountain now called La La Shan, 24°44'N, 121°26'E, to the southwest of rai Pei), 31 July 1933, leg. R. Takahashi.

The type series was originally three workers mounted on points on a single pin; these were heavily damaged in a laboratory accident, but the species is so interesting that we decided to describe it from the collectively adequate remains.

Etymology
The name nops is from a Greek word meaning blind.

References based on Global Ant Biodiversity Informatics

 * Guénard B., and R. R. Dunn. 2012. A checklist of the ants of China. Zootaxa 3558: 1-77.
 * Li Z.h. 2006. List of Chinese Insects. Volume 4. Sun Yat-sen University Press
 * Terayama M. 2009. A synopsis of the family Formicidae of Taiwan (Insecta: Hymenoptera). Research Bulletin of Kanto Gakuen University. Liberal Arts 17:81-266.
 * Terayama Mamoru. 2009. A synopsis of the family Formicidae of Taiwan (Insecta, Hymenoptera). The Research Bulletin of Kanto Gakuen University 17: 81-266.
 * Terayama, M. 2009. A synopsis of the family Formicidae of Taiwan (Insecta; Hymenoptera). The Research Bulletin of Kanto Gakuen University 17: 81-266.
 * Willey R. B.; W. L., Jr Brown. 1983. New species of the ant genus Myopias (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Ponerinae). Psyche (Cambridge) 90: 249-285.
 * Xu Z.-H., and X. Liu. 2011. Three new species of the ant genus Myopias (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from China with a key to the known Chinese species. Sociobiology 59: 819-834.