1985] 
Wilson — Dominican amber ants. 1 
3 
posterior margins curving laterally to embrace the ends of the 
scapes; paired clypeal carinae close together and projecting beyond 
the remainder of the anterior clypeal margin to form a short concav- 
ity between them; narrow, 3- or 4-toothed mandibles (apical region 
indistinct in the single specimen available); and 12-segmented 
antennae with 3-jointed clubs. 
Queen ( tentative association)". Overall similar to worker, except 
that frontal lobes extend only part way over clypeus; mandibles are 
5-toothed; and eyes and ocelli are well developed. (From Gr. eilema, 
envelope; and Gr. mvrmex, ant). 
Type species: Ilemomyrmex caecus. 
Ilemomyrmex caecus, new species 
(Figs. 1, 2) 
Diagnosis [worker). Distinguished from all other known ant 
species by the combination of traits cited above for Ilemomyrmex. 
In addition, possessing a robust alitrunk with thick, triangular 
propodeal spines; and short, thick petiole and postpetiole, the latter 
with an acute, forward-projecting ventral spine. 
Holotvpe worker. Head Width 0.51 mm. Head Length 0.58 
mm. Scape Length 0.44 mm. Head coarsely rugoreticulate and 
completely opaque, the rugae near the rims of the antennal scrobes 
parallel to one another and following the contours of the rims. 
Entire alitrunk and waist similarly rugoreticulate and opaque, but 
the gaster is nearly smooth and is feebly shining to subopaque. 
Color (which may not have remained true in the fossil state) dark 
reddish brown. 
Queen ( tentative association). Winged. Differing from worker 
as described in generic diagnosis. Head Width (across and including 
eyes) 0.52 mm, Head Length 0.54 mm. Eye Length 0.16 mm. 
Based on a single (holotype) worker and one alate queen in separ- 
ate pieces of Dominican amber; no further locality data. Both spec- 
imens have been deposited in the Museum of Comparative Zoology. 
Ilemomyrmex resembles the Old World, principally African gen- 
era Calyptomvrmex and Dicroaspis in antennal form and the pecul- 
iar shape of the frontal lobes. However, it differs from them in the 
following important respects: its mandibles are narrower, with fewer 
teeth (5 or more in Calyptomvrmex and Dicroaspis ); its antennal 
scrobe is much shallower; its subpostpetiolar process is better devel- 
oped; its head is narrower and overall less modified from the primi- 
