1964] 
Taylor — Fossil ants 
135 
The form-genus Poneropsis Heer. 
In. his study of the fossil Hymenoptera of Oeningen and Radoboj, 
Heer (1867) proposed the use of a formicid form-genus Poneropsis , 
which was defined as follows: “. . . Die fossilen Ameisen welche drei 
Cubitalzellen in den Oberfliigeln und einen einknotigen Hinterleibs- 
stiel, aber keine Einschniirung beim zw’eiten Hinterleibssegment 
haben. Sie stimmen im Fliigelgeader und dem einknotigen Stiel mit 
Ponera iiberein, daher ich sie friiher dieser Gattung zugerechnet 
habe; in der Bildung des Hinterleibes weichen sie aber bedeutend von 
den Poneren ab, namentlich die Arten mit rundem, dickem 
Hinterleib.” Heer’s figures show that his “drei Cubitalzellen” are 
those now referred to as the first and second cubital cells, with the 
discoidal cell. 
Sixteen species were allocated to Poneropsis at its inception, in- 
cluding some previously placed in Ponera by Heer ( 1849). No better 
placement of any of them is possible on the basis of the published 
data. There appears to be much species-level synonomy among these 
forms and judging from their size most do not seem close to Ponera. 
Since the venational type specified for Poneropsis is convergently 
developed in many lines of ant evolution, this “genus” could con- 
ceivably contain wing impressions of members of almost every ant 
subfamily 3 . Moreover the convergent types cannot be separated on 
the basis of wing venation alone. Accordingly it is pointless to assign 
such wings indiscriminately to recent taxa to whch they might, at 
present, be referable. It is far better to assign them definitely to a 
parataxonomic form-genus which need not be considered in phylo- 
genetic, paleo-zoogeographic, or other studies, rather than to place 
them randomly in a true taxonomic genus, with presumed affinities 
to other taxa, extinct or living. 
It may be argued that this procedure offers little in comparison 
with a simple “Formicidae incertae generis ” allocation. This is partly 
true, but since Heer’s parataxon is available, use of it may as well be 
maintained, at least until a complete revision of fossil ants is possible. 
At that time the problem of the use of ant-wing form-genera will 
3 For example, all the following recent genera possess wing venation of 
the “ Poneropsis ” type: Gnamptogenys , Eciton, Pseudomyrmex, Messor, An- 
euretus, Dolichoderus , Hypoclinea (See figures of Brown and Nutting, 1950, 
and Wilson et.al., 1956). Extinct ants with this venation pattern include: 
Trachymesopus succinca (Mayr), Aphaenogaster mayri Carp., Pheidole ter- 
tiaria Carp., Dolichoderus antiquus Carp., lridomyrmex florissantius Carp., 
Liometopum microcephalus Carp., and members of the genera Protazteca 
and Elaeomyrmex (see Wheeler, 1914 and Carpenter, 1930). 
