1964] 
Taylor — Fossil ants 
137 
venation must be placed in the Myrmicinae or one of the other ap- 
plicable subfamilies. If the node is one-segmented and other charac- 
ters of the gaster (presence of sting, etc.) are visible, then placement 
to subfamily should be possible. 
The many qualifications made to the simple basic diagnosis, “two 
closed cubital cells, and a single closed discoidal,” allow inclusion in 
Poneropsis of virtually all known ants with these primary characters. 
I do not wish to imply that study of wing vein patterns, such as 
was pioneered by Brown and Nutting, should not be applied to ant 
fossils. These authors have shown, however, that extreme parallelism 
may take place in the details of venational reduction in the various 
ant subfamilies, with the result that amazingly similar wings may be 
produced in divergent lines. The various ranges specified in my 
diagnosis simply cover all stages in venational reduction known to 
show such parallelism in wings with two cubital cells and at least 
one closed discoidal cell. 
With the possible exception of the feature discussed in footnote 
6 of the diagnosis, no alternative condition in these venational charac- 
ters, or combination of conditions, is currently known to diagnose un- 
equivocally any ant taxon. 
Ponera and Poneropsis species described by Heer (I849, 1867). 
In 1849, Heer described nine extinct species in Ponera from the 
Miocene of Radoboj, Oeningen and Parschlung, Croatia. In his 
1867 paper four of these were referred to the newly defined form- 
genus Poneropsis , and thirteen further specific or infraspecific forms 
were also described, all in Poneropsis. 
I have been unable to justify any of the generic assignments in 
Ponera , and find that most of Heer’s species, both of Ponera and 
Poneropsis , can be assigned to Poneropsis as defined above, thus con- 
veniently disposing of them. Others, including some placed by Heer 
in Poneropsis, do not appear referable there on the basis of his figures, 
since the wing venation is too incompletely shown in the fossils or 
the wings appear to have had only a single cubital cell. 
The history and present status of Heer’s (1849) Ponera species 
is summarized in the following Table. The two species considered 
here to be “Formicidae incertae generis” were based on remains too 
incomplete to allow better allocation. 
Mayr (1867) and Popov (1932) have both referred to some of 
these species, assigning them with or without query to Ponera. Re- 
petition of Mayr’s names serves no purpose; most of them were ori- 
ginally placed in Poneropsis (by Heer) and so Mayr’s combinations 
do not constitute nomenclatural occupation in Ponera, since none of 
