1982] 
Negret & Redford — Termite Species 
95 
Table 5. “Hardness” of outer mound and materials used in mound construction 
(In column 1, any two means not followed by the same letter are significantly 
different at p = 0.05. In columns 3 through 6, ++ = usually used; + = occasionally 
used). 
Resistance to 
Penetration (Newtons mm 3 ) Nest Construction Material 
Species 
Termite 
Mound 
Soil at 
Base 
Soil 
Regurgitated 
Soil 
Fecal 
Material Saliva 
Velocitermes 
0.11a 
0.48 
++ 
++ 
paucipilis 
(0.05) 
(0.16) 
Nasutitermes 
0.25b 
0.42 
++ 
++ ++ 
sp. 
(0.05) 
(0.15) 
Cortaritermes 
0.25b 
0.44 
++ 
++ 
silvestri 
(0.04) 
(0.18) 
Procornitermes 
0.36b 
0.42 
++ 
. ++ 
++ ++ 
araujoi 
(0.11) 
(0.14) 
Orthognat hotermes 
0.48 
— 
++ 
++ 
gibberorum * 
(0.15) 
— 
Syntermes 
0.57c 
0.42 
+ 
++ 
+ 
dims 
(0.13) 
(0.14) 
Grigiotermes 
1.25d 
0.70 
+ 
++ 
metoecus 
(0.17) 
(0.18) 
Armitermes 
4.66e 
0.36 
++ 
+ 
euamignathus 
(1.08) 
(0.10) 
Cornitermes 
15.241 
0.37 
+ 
++ 
++ 
cum u Ians 
(5.36) 
(0.16) 
* Determined for only 4 mounds so no statistics performed. 
between these means tested for significance using Hartley’s multiple 
range test. The ranking obtained from this analysis is shown in 
Table 5 with the mean values of the raw data. Velocitermes, Nasuti- 
termes, Cortavitermes and Procornitermes had the softest nests while 
Cornitermes had the hardest nest, 140 times harder than the softest, 
Velocitermes. 
The composition of material used to build mounds was deter- 
mined by direct observation of workers. Observations were made on 
at least ten mounds per species, at different times of the day and 
year. The results are presented in Table 5. Four types of material 
