1964] 
Taylor — Fossil ants 
139 
1. P oner a atavia Mayr, 1868: 72, figs. 66-69, female, male. Oli- 
gocene — Baltic Amber. Wheeler, 1914: 38, fig. 9- worker. 
2. Ponera brodiei , Giebel, 1856: 173. This forewing fragment, 
originally described as an ant, Formicium brodiei , by Westwood 
(1854) has been subsequently placed in the Jurassic siricoid 
family Anaxyelidae (Maa, 1949). 
3. Ponera gracilicornis Mayr, 1868: 72, worker, Baltic Amber. 
4. Ponera hendersoni Cockerell, 1906, female. Miocene-Florissant. 
5. Ponera hypolitha Cockerell, 1915: 483, plate 64, figs. 3-4, 
wing impression. Oligocene — Gurnet Bay, Isle of Wight. 
6. Ponera( ?) leptocephala Emery, 1891: 8, plate 1, figs. 3, 4, 
female. Miocene — Sicilian Amber. 
7. Ponera minuta Donisthorpe, 1920: 85, plate 5, fig. 4, male 
(?). Oligocene, Gurnet Bay, Isle of Wight. 
8. Ponera rhenana Meunier, 1917, wing impression. Oligocene 
— Bavaria. 
9. Ponera scitula Clark, 1934, listed from Tertiary, Allendale, 
Australia by Oke (1957). 
10. Ponera succinea Mayr, 1868: 72, female. Oligocene — Baltic 
Amber. 
11. Ponerai ?) umbra Popov, 1933: 17, fig. 1, female. Miocene — 
Kuban Caucasas. 
Of these species only one, P. atavia Mayr, is considered here to 
be satisfactorily referred to Ponera. P. succinea Mayr was trans- 
ferred to Euponera (Trachymesopus) — now Trachymesopus — by 
Wheeler (1914), on grounds which are entirely acceptable. P. gra- 
cilicornis Mayr is too large to be considered a Ponera (Wheeler, 
1914), but Mayr’s assignment of the species to the Ponerinae is prob- 
ably dependable — the species is considered here as “Ponerinae in- 
certae generis ”. ( ?)P. leptocephala Emery is best assigned with 
reservation to Ponera. This form is evidently close to Ponera or Hy- 
poponera , but has very long legs and antennae, and the eyes appear 
to be placed exceptionally far back on the head. It may belong to a 
distinct genus as yet undiagnosed, but it would be premature to so 
assign it on the basis of Emery’s description and figures. P. ( ?) umbra 
Popov also seems best assigned to (?) Ponera. It appears close to 
Ponera although it could equally well be a Hypoponera or a member 
of some other small genus of the tribe Ponerini. 
I propose the following new combinations in Poneropsis : 
Poneropsis hypolitha (Cockerell), and Poneropsis rhenana (Meu- 
nier), these are both wing impressions and cannot be assigned more 
satisfactorily at present. P. minuta is considered “Formicidae incertae 
