TAXONOMIC NOTES ON THE ANT, 
CAMPONOTUS COOPERI GREGG 
By Robert E. Gregg 
Department of Biology, University of Colorado 
Several years ago I described an unusual Central Ameri- 
can ant, naming it cooperi and placing it in the genus Camp- 
onotus (Gregg, 1951). The specimen, a single alate female, 
was sent to me by Dr. W. L. Brown, for description and 
illustration, together with some comments on its affinities. 
Since the facies of the ant is astonishingly like those of 
Camponotus, and particularly because of its close similarity 
to members of the subgenus Myrmostenus, both of us con- 
cluded it belonged to these groups. It was accordingly 
placed in the genus Camponotus and as a new species in 
the above subgenus which Emery had erected in 1920 
to contain several South American species previously de- 
scribed by him. Unfortunately, all of these ants are known 
only from the female caste, no workers having as yet been 
found (Emery, 1925). 
Recently, Dr. Brown checked the type of cooperi, and it 
now develops that the ant cannot possibly be considered a 
form of Camponotus owing to the fact that the antennae 
are lO-segmented instead of having 12 articles character- 
istic of the above named genus. The description and figure 
also give 10 as the antennal joint number, so the mistake 
obviously lies in our interpretation of the relationships of 
cooperi. The slip is attributable to the amazing similarities 
in habitus (except smaller size) between the new ant and 
those in the subgenus Myrmostenus, which resemblances 
are probably to be regarded as the products of convergent 
evolution. 
Dr. Brown has offered the following statement (in litt.) 
with respect to his current view on the matter. “Although 
the proventriculus has not been dissected out for examina- 
tion, it appears very probable that this species [cooperi] 
102 
