Polyrhachis cryptoceroides

Identification
A member of the Polyrhachis cryptoceroides species group.

Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists
Indo-Australian Region: Borneo, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sulawesi. Oriental Region: Laos.

Nomenclature

 *  cryptoceroides. Polyrhachis cryptoceroides Emery, 1887a: 228, pl. 3, fig. 14 (w.) INDONESIA (Sulawesi). Combination in P. (Myrmhopla): Emery, 1925b: 190. Senior synonym of mystica: Dorow, 1995: 51. See also: Kohout, 2006a: 146.
 * mystica. Polyrhachis (Aulacomyrma) mystica Karavaiev, 1927e: 41, fig. 19 (w.q.m.) INDONESIA (Java). Junior synonym of cryptoceroides: Dorow, 1995: 51.

Type Material
Polyrhachis (Aulacomyrma) mystica Karawajew, 1927.

Type locality(-ies): “Buitenzorg, 20.XII.1912 (Nr. 2323), ww, geflüg. qq und mm aus einem Nest”.

Original Karawajew label(-s): “Polyrhachis (Aulacomyrma) / mystica Kar. 2323 / Buitenzorg, Karavaev”; “Polyrhachis (Aulacomyrma) / mystica Karav. typus. / Tjiapus bei Buitenzorg, Java. 2362. / Leg. et det. V. Karavaiev” and “Tjiapus, Java, / Karav., 2362.”; “Polyrhachis (Aulacomyrma) / mystica Karav. typus. / Tjiapus bei Buitenzorg, Java. 2362. / Leg. et det. V. Karavaev” and “Polyrhachis (Aulacomyrma) / mystica Kar. 2362 / Buitenzorg Buitenzorg, Karavaiev.”.

Material: SYNTYPES, with original Karawajew number 2323: 4 w, 1 q, 1 m (newly mounted, IN 314/6/1), 208 w, 37 q, 12 m (in alcohol, IN 314/BAMS1/Karaw14–17); with original Karawajew number 2362: 11 w, 1 q (newly mounted, IN 314/6/1), 58 w, 25 larvae, 3 pupae (in alcohol, IN 314/BAMS1/Karaw37–38).

Notes. In his original description Karawajew (1927a) provided the collection number 2323 for the type series of this taxon. We found in the NMNH NASU two vials with P. mystica: one has the number 2323 (as in the original description), but in the other one bears n° 2362, while material was also marked as “typus” (see above). We compared material from both vials, as well as with the type specimens with collection number 2323 from SIZK, and confirm their conspecificity. We may only suppose that Karawajew did not provide both collection numbers when described this taxon, and we consider the specimens from both samples as syntypes.