Ponera chiponensis

Nothing is known about the biology of .

Identification
Terayama (1996) - This new species resembles Ponera japonica, Ponera incerta, or Ponera swezeyi by the 5-segmented antennal club and size of body (HW 0.32-0.50 mm in workers), but can be distinguished by the shape of petiole and the absence of mesonotal-propodeal suture on the dorsum of alitrunk.

Leong et al. (2019) - Worker. This species is characterized by a short antennal scape; a petiolar node in lateral view thick and trapezoid, with a slightly convex posterior margin; a subpetiolar process with large fenestra and large teeth; and its third abdominal tergum as long as broad. Ponera chiponensis presents similarities with Ponera baka, Ponera xantha, and Ponera swezeyi, but the body size of Ponera chiponensis (HW: 0.39–0.43 mm) is larger than Ponera baka (HW: ca. 0.33 mm), Ponera xantha (HW: ca. 0.35 mm), and Ponera swezeyi (HW: 0.32–0.34 mm). The posterior margin of the petiolar node is convex in Ponera chiponensis, but straight in Ponera baka, Ponera xantha, and Ponera swezeyi.

Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists
Oriental Region: Taiwan.

Nomenclature

 *  chiponensis. Ponera chiponensis Terayama, 1986: 593, figs. 6-10 (w.q.) TAIWAN.

Worker


Holotype. HL 0.53 mm; HW 0.40 mm; SL 0.35 mm; C180; S184; WL 0.73 mm; PW 0.73 mm; PH 0.31 mm; PNL 0.18 mm; DPW 0.25 mm; TL ca. 2.0 mm.

Head subrectangular, with weakly convex sides and slightly concave occipital border. Mandibles with 3 developed teeth occupying approximately apical 2/5 of masticatory border; remaining border with a series of 5 small regular denticles. Clypeus slightly produced in the middle, with very weak median tooth. Eyes extremely small, composed of single facet, situated about 0.8 x the distance from lateral occipital border to midpoint of anterior genal border. Antennae 12-segmented, remarkably short and thick; scape not reaching median occipital border; antennal club 5-segmented, ratio of length from the base about 3: 5: 6: 6: 14, apical segment 1. 75 x as long as broad.

Dorsal outline of alitrunk horizontal; mesonotum weakly convex; posterolateral corners of propodeum not markedly pronounced, forming blunt angles; declivitous face of propodeum barely straight to feebly concave. Mesonotal-propodeal suture not incised on the dorsum of alitrunk. Petiolar node in profile, thick, rectangular; anterior border straight, dorsal border horizontal, posterior border very weakly angulated near the middle; dorsal face, viewed from above, trapezoidal as in Fig. 8, posterior border concaved. Fenestra of subpetiolar process large, oval; posterolateral teeth well developed.

Head, scapes, and gaster closely punctated; alitrunk less density punctated than head; 2nd gastric tergite somewhat less punctated than 1st gastric tergite. Posterior 1/2 of dorsal face of propodeum and dorsal face of petiolar node smooth and shining with a few scattered punctures. Mandibles smooth and shining. Pubescence moderately abundant, distributed evenly over the entire body. Erect or suberect pilosity present on antennal scapes, head, dorsum of alitrunk, and gaster.

Color brown to light brown; mandibles, antennae, legs, subpetiolar process, and tip of gaster yellowish.

Paratypes. Five paratype workers from the same series as holotype with following dimentions and indices: HL 0.51-0.53 mm; HW 0.40-0.42 mm; CI 78-79; SI 83-88; WL 0.70-0.74 mm; A W 0.30-0.31 mm; PH 0.30-0.33 mm; PNL 0.18-0.20 mm; DPW 0.25 mm.

Leong et al. (2019) - (n=6): HL 0.50–0.56; HW 0.39–0.43; SL 0.32–0.37; A06L 0.02; A07L 0.02; A08L 0.04; A09L 0.06; A10L 0.07; PrW 0.32–0.33; WL 0.64–0.71; PeH 0.30–0.34; PeNL 0.18–0.22; PeW 0.26–0.29; ATL 0.39–0.40; ATW 0.40–0.41; CI 77–78, SI 81–86, PeI 81–86, LPeI 61–67, DPeI 128–148, ATI 93–98.

Head. In full-face view, head rectangular and distinctly longer than broad (CI: 77–78), with almost straight posterior margin, slightly convex lateral margins, and broadly rounded posterolateral corners. Eye small; composed of a total of 3–4 indistinct facets. Anterior clypeal margin with blunt medial tooth. Masticatory margin of mandible with a series of about seven indistinct denticles, and three large teeth on the apical part. Antennal scape, when laid backward, with a remaining distance of about 10% of the scape length to the posterolateral corner; average ratio of the length of antennomeres 7/6:8/6:9/6:10/6 = 1.06: 1.88: 2.69: 3.39 (n=6).

Mesosoma. Mesosomal dorsum in lateral view almost straight. Pronotum in dorsal view with acutely convex anterior margin and moderately convex lateral margins. Metanotal groove distinctly and finely incised. Lateral mesopleural suture in lateral view weakly incised. Propodeal dorsum in dorsal view broad, with straight lateral margins. Propodeal corner in lateral view angular; propodeal dorsum and declivity forming approximatively a 125 degree angle.

Metasoma. Petiolar node in dorsal view trapezoidal and remarkably thick, with almost straight anterior margin, slightly convex posterior margin, and slightly convex lateral margins. Petiolar node in lateral view remarkably thick and trapezoid, with straight anterior margin, moderately convex posterior margin, and slightly convex dorsal margin; posterodorsal corner as high as anterodorsal corner. Subpetiolar process large with very big and circular fenestra, anteroventral corner blunt, ventral margin concave, and posteroventral corner concave with a pair of developed and acute teeth. Third abdominal tergum slightly broader than long (ATI: 93–98), with straight anterior margin and almost straight lateral margins.

Sculpture. Head densely punctate. Mandible sparsely punctate. Pronotum and mesonotum evenly punctate. Mesopleuron, metapleuron evenly striate. Propodeal dorsum sparsely punctate. Propodeum in lateral view with evenly striate lower portion and evenly punctate upper portion. Propodeal declivity smooth and shining. Lateral face of petiole evenly punctate, posterior face smooth, dorsum sparsely punctate. The third and fourth abdominal segments densely punctate, other segments smooth and shining with few punctures.

Pubescence. Head, antennae, mesosoma, petiole, and gaster with evenly distributed short hairs; mesopleuron, metapleuron, propodeum and lateral face of petiole with scattered hairs. Dorsal and ventral faces of head, anterior margin of clypeus, sides of mandibles, dorsum of petiolar node and gaster with many long erect hairs. Subpetiolar process with a few long erect hairs.

Color. Body color dark brown. Mandible, clypeus, antennae, legs, and apex of gaster yellowish orange.

Queen
Paratypes. HL 0.54-0.56 mm; HW 0.43-0.45 mm; SL 0.36-0.38 mm; CI 80; SI 81; WL 0.83-0.88 mm; A W 0.36-0.40 mm; PH 0.33-0.35 mm; PNL 0.20-0.21 mm; DPW 0.28-0.31 mm; TL ca. 2.4 mm. (Two females were measured.)

Head subrectangular as in Fig. 9, with almost subparallel sides and slightly concave occipital border. Antennal club 5-segmented. Maximum diameter of compound eye 0.10 mm. Mesosoma and petiole as in Fig. 10. Pilosity and coloration as in worker.

Leong et al. (2019) - (n=1): HL 0.53; HW 0.42; SL 0.36; A06L 0.02; A07L 0.02; A08L 0.04; A09L 0.06; A10L 0.08; PrW 0.37; WL 0.81; PeH 0.35; PeNL 0.21; PeW 0.29; ATL 0.41; ATW 0.43; CI 78, SI 86, PeI 86, LPeI 67, DPeI 148, ATI 98.

Type Material
Holotype. Worker, 22. VII. 1982, Chihpen, Taitung City, Taiwan, M. Terayama leg.

Paratypes. One female, 8 workers, from the same nest as holotype; 1 worker, 23. VII. 1982, same locality, M. Terayama leg.; 3 workers, 24. VII. 1982, same locality, M. Terayama leg.; 1 female, 10. VIII. 1980, same locality, M. Terayama leg.

Type depository. The holotype and some paratypes will be deposited in the National Science Museum, Tokyo, and the other paratypes in the National Institute of Agro-Environmental Science, Japan, and the Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute.

Leong et al. (2019): Type material examined: TAIWAN. Paratypes, 2 workers, Taitung City, Chihpen, 22 VII 1982, M Terayama leg (: LCM_MT-Ponera-17). 1 worker, Taitung city, Chihpen, 24 VII 1982, M Terayama leg (: LCM_MTPonera-18). 1 dealate queen, Taitung city, Chihpen, 24 VII 1982, M Terayama leg.

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.
 * Hu C.-H. 2006. Indigenized conservation and biodiversity maintenance on Orchid Island. PhD Thesis, graduate school of the University of Minnesota. 150 pages.
 * Leong C. M., B. Guénard, S. F. Shiao, & C. C. Lin. 2019. Taxonomic revision of the genus Ponera Latreille, 1804 (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Taiwan and Japan, with a key to East Asian species. Zootaxa 4594: 1-86.
 * Li Z.h. 2006. List of Chinese Insects. Volume 4. Sun Yat-sen University Press
 * Terayama M. 1986. Two new ants of the genus Ponera (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from Taiwan. Kontyû 54: 591-595.
 * 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, M. 2009. A synopsis of the family Formicidae of Taiwan (Insecta; Hymenoptera). The Research Bulletin of Kanto Gakuen University 17: 81-266.
 * Xu Z. H., B. L. Yang, and G. Hu. 1999. Formicidae ant communities in fragments of montane rain forest in Xishuangbanna, China. Zoological Research 20(4): 288-293.
 * Xu Z. 2001. Four new species of the ant genus Ponera Latreille (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Yunnan, China. Entomotaxonomia 23(3): 217-226