taxonID	type	description	language	source
685DD8335F7851DF8D1D9055218AB18C.taxon	description	Figs 7, 8, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 52 A, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57	en	Esteves, Flavia A., Fisher, Brian L. (2021): Corrieopone nouragues gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Ponerinae from French Guiana (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 1074: 83-173, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1074.75551, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1074.75551
685DD8335F7851DF8D1D9055218AB18C.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis based on workers. Medium-sized, slender Neotropical ants (TL 6.5 - 7.1 mm; Fig. 37) with characters of Ponerinae (as in Fisher and Bolton 2016) and Ponerini (as in Schmidt and Shattuck 2014), in addition to the following (asterisks indicate putative autapomorphies): 1. Mandibles triangular, with distinct masticatory and basal margins; inserted at the anterolateral corners of the head (Fig. 38 A, E). 2. Mandibles edentate (Fig. 38 A, E). 3. Mandible devoid of any pit or sulcus: basolateral and dorsal pits and dorsolateral and dorsomasticatory sulci absent (Fig. 38 A-C, E). 4. * Clypeus complex: In dorsal view, clypeus projected anteromedially as a broad, truncated prominence, overhanging the basal margins of the mandibles, and overlapping the basal portion of the masticatory margins of fully closed mandibles; anterior margin of the clypeal projection approximately as wide as the distance between the lateral arches of the toruli, devoid of stout setae or additional protrusions (Figs 37 B, 38 A, E). In profile, clypeal projection with a broad anteroventral face (avf, Fig. 39 A-D), which extends ventroposteriorly (i. e., obliquely) from the clypeal dorsal face in almost 90 degrees; the ventralmost point of this anteroventral face meets the " true " clypeal ventral face (= surface of the clypeal infold in Boudinot et al. 2021; vf, Fig. 39 A-D). In anteroventral view, clypeal anteroventral face subrectangular (avf, Fig. 39 D). Median area of the clypeus bulging (Fig. 37 A, E); seen in profile, it ascends steeply from the clypeal anterior margin to the torular lobes, with posterior portion slightly convex (Fig. 38 B, D). 5. In dorsal view, torular lobes closely approximated. 6. In dorsal view, torular lobes medium- to small-sized: not concealing the lateral arches of the toruli (Fig. 38 F). Median and lateral arches of the torulus with discontinuous posterior margins (Fig. 38 D). 7. In profile, torular lobes located at the dorsalmost part of a prominence formed by the clypeal median area and the frontal carinae (Fig. 38 B). 8. Compound eyes small and located immediately anterior to the midline of the head (Fig. 38 A, B, D). 9. Ocelli absent (Fig. 38 A). 10. Labrum apically bilobed; with a long, acute cleft at the midpoint of its apical margin. Lobes broadly rounded apicolaterally and unarmed (Fig. 39 E). 11. Palpal formula: 4,4 (four maxillary, four labial palpomeres; Fig. 39 F). 12. Mesonotum rounded, dome-shaped in profile (Fig. 40 A), rounded in dorsal view (Fig. 37 A). 13. Notopleural suture distinct (Fig. 40 A, B). 14. Metanotal sulcus deeply impressed (Fig. 40 A). 15. Mesopleuron in profile divided into anepisternum and katepisternum (Fig. 40 A, B). 16. Metathoracic spiracle concealed by a spiracular lobe (Fig. 40 B). 17. Orifice of the metapleural gland round, opening posterolaterally on the metapleuron, with its ventral margin atop the posteriormost portion of the metapleural carina (Fig. 40 C, D). 18. Metapleural longitudinal flange absent (Fig. 40 C, D). 19. Propodeal dorsum devoid of a median longitudinal groove or impression. 20. Propodeum unarmed: without dorsoposterior projections (Fig. 40 A). 21. In profile, propodeal lobe round, not surpassing posteriorly the dorsoposterior-most point of the rim of the propodeal foramen (Fig. 40 C). 22. Propodeal spiracle slit-shaped (Fig. 40 C). 23. Mesosternal process bidentate; metasternal process bilobate, long (Fig. 40 F). 24. Metacoxal cavities open; cavities tightly encircled by cuticle, but cuticular annulus not fused (Fig. 40 E; see comment in the following section). 25. Calcar of strigil with a basoventral lamella (Fig. 41 A, B). 26. Probasitarsus with anterior and ventral faces densely vested with spatulate-costate setae (Fig. 41 A), except for the shorter, spatulate-bicuspid setae present on the area immediately anterior to the comb of strigil (Fig. 41 B). 27. Row of stout, spine-like setae present on the posterior face of the probasitarsal notch, parallel to the comb of strigil (Fig. 41 B). 28. Two well-developed mesotibial spurs: anterior spur simple, posterior spur serrate (Fig. 41 C, D). 29. Apparent metatibial gland cuticular patch present on the apicoposterior face of the metatibia, next to the posterior metatibial spur (Fig. 41 E). 30. Two well-developed metatibial spurs: anterior spur simple, posterior spur pectinate (Fig. 41 F). 31. Stout, spine-like setae absent from the dorsal face of mid- and hindlegs (Fig. 42 A, B). 32. Ventral faces of the second, third, and fourth tarsomeres of fore-, mid-, and hindlegs with a paired row of stout, spine-like setae skirting the midline of each segment (Fig. 42 C-E). 33. Pro-, meso-, and metapretarsi with simple claws (Fig. 42 C-F). 34. Arolia indistinct (Fig. 42 F). 35. Petiole sessile, with high, unarmed, conic, scale-like node (i. e., tergite narrow in profile and dorsal view; Figs 37 A, C, 43 A). 36. Petiolar tergite with anteroventral lateral carina (= lateral, dorsoventral carina in Ward 1990, character 29); posteroventral portion of tergite strigate (Fig. 43 A). 37. Petiolar laterotergite distinct (Fig. 43 A). 38. Proprioceptor zone on anterior disc of petiolar sternite shaped as a large circular area (Fig. 43 B). 39. Petiolar sternite without posterior spatulate projection (Fig. 43 B); articulation with helcium visible in ventral view. 40. Helcium infra-axial: positioned ventrad the midheight of the anterior face of abdominal segment III (Fig. 43 C). 41. Prora present as a lip-shaped, transverse projection on the anterior portion of the abdominal poststernite III (Fig. 43 C, D); projection not extending anteriorly to the area between the ventroposterior margins of helcial tergite (Fig. 43 D). 42. Abdominal segment IV tubular: tergite and sternite with similar lengths; tergite not arched (Fig. 43 C). 43. Presclerites of abdominal segment IV forming an even surface with postsclerites: girdling constriction absent (Fig. 43 C). 44. Stridulitrum present on abdominal pretergite IV, small (Fig. 43 E, F). 45. Pygidium devoid of stout, spine-like setae or spine-like microtrichia; dorsal face convex. 46. * Ventral face of hypopygium longitudinally concave (Fig. 44 A, B). Longitudinal carina present at midline of concavity's posterior portion, skirted laterally by stout, hook-shaped setae (Fig. 44 C, D). 47. Hypopygium posterolateral region without stout, spine-like setae or spine-like microtrichia. Comments on worker characters The enumeration below corresponds to character numbers presented above. 1. The mandibles articulate with the anterolateral corners of the head in virtually all Ponerinae and are either triangular or subtriangular in most genera (N = 29). Other mandibular shapes with little intrageneric variation are the oblique (Boloponera, Buniapone, Dinoponera, Iroponera, Plectroctena, and Promyopias), pitchfork-like (Belonopelta, Emeryopone, Thaumatomyrmex), elongate sub-oblique (Streblognathus), and scythe-shaped (Harpegnathos). The shape of the mandibles varies from triangular to elongate-triangular in Centromyrmex; from triangular to subtriangular, to oblique in Cryptopone; from subtriangular to oblique, to falcate, to bizarre forms in-between in Leptogenys and Myopias; from sub-oblique to falcate in Psalidomyrmex; and from subtriangular to oblique in Simopelta. Anochetus and Odontomachus are the only ponerines in which the mandibles insert near the midline of the anterior margin of the head. 2. The mandible of Corrieopone is completely edentate (i. e., devoid of any teeth, denticle, or projected apex). To our knowledge, this condition is virtually absent in other Ponerinae, apart from some species of Leptogenys (see Arimoto and Yamane 2018) and Platythyrea (see Fisher and Bolton 2016). 3. Ponerine may present mandibles ornamented with pits and sulci, which are relatively good diagnostic characters to genera. 3.1. The basolateral pit (= basal pit in Fisher and Bolton 2016) is a round to oblong impression on the basal portion of the lateral face of the mandible. It occurs in most Brachyponera species (excluding species from Borneo, Bali, Krakatau, and Sumatra, according to Yamane 2007), Cryptopone [except for C. guianensis and, based on its original description, C. mirabilis (Mackay & Mackay), as far as we know], and Euponera (see Schmidt and Shattuck 2014). The pit is also present in Fisheropone ambigua (Fig. 45 A, B), which disagrees with Schmidt and Shattuck (2014) and Fisher and Bolton (2016). 3.2. The dorsal pit resembles the basolateral pit, although more elongated and impressed on the dorsal face of the mandible. In Ponerinae, it is only present in Dolioponera, Euponera fossigera Mayr (see Mayr 1901), Hagensia, and Iroponera (Fig. 45 C; contrary to Schmidt and Shattuck 2014). 3.3. The dorsolateral sulcus runs obliquely along the mandible, from the basal portion of the dorsal face towards the lateral face. It is widespread among the Ponerinae and may be shallowly or deeply impressed, restricted to the basal portion of the mandible, or present along almost the entire lateral face of the mandible. The sulcus is consistently present in species of Asphinctopone, Boloponera, Buniapone, Centromyrmex, most (perhaps all) Ectomomyrmex, Feroponera, Loboponera, Myopias, Odontoponera, Paltothyreus, Phrynoponera, Plectroctena, Promyopias, Psalidomyrmex, Pseudoponera, and Streblognathus (see Suppl. material 3: Table S 3; Schmidt and Shattuck 2014; Fisher and Bolton 2016). On the other hand, the presence of this character varies among species of other genera, such as Bothroponera (present in B. crassa, absent in B. pachyderma), Dinoponera (weakly present in D. lucida; absent in D. longipes), Leptogenys (see Bolton 1975), Mesoponera (only present in M. subiridescens), Neoponera [present in N. fauveli (Emery), weakly impressed in N. apicalis, absent in N. fisheri], Platythyrea (present in P. punctata, absent in P. turneri), and Pseudoneoponera (present in P. porcata, absent in P. denticulata). Contrary to Schmidt and Shattuck (2014), the sulcus is distinct in all Rasopone species examined here (Fig. 45 D); although short and constrained to the basal region of the mandibles, it is also present in Austroponera castanea (Fig. 45 E). Among the Pachycondyla species examined, the sulcus is a shallow and short basal impression save in P. lenis, where it is absent. In Euponera sikorae (and in all other Malagasy species, according to Rakotonirina and Fisher 2013), the lateral face of the mandible bears a longitudinal sulcus that runs apicad from the lateral margin of the dorsal mandibular articulation. Whether this sulcus is present in Euponera species occurring in other bioregions remains unknown, but it is absent in at least two Afrotropical species, E. brunoi and E. sjostedti. 3.4. Plectroctena species present a sulcus that skirts the mandibular masticatory margin dorsally (Fisher and Bolton 2016), which we refer to as the dorsomasticatory sulcus. Among the specimens examined, the following taxa present mandibles devoid of any pit or sulcus, like Corrieopone: Anochetus angolensis, A. emarginatus, Belonopelta deletrix, Bothroponera cariosa, B. pachyderma, B. talpa, Cryptopone guianensis, Diacamma ceylonense, Dinoponera longipes, Emeryopone buttelreepeni, Harpegnathos saltator, Hypoponera punctatissima, Mayaponera, Megaponera analis, Mesoponera ambigua, M. australis, M. caffraria, M. elisae rotundata, M. melanaria macra, M. papuana, M. rubra, Neoponera commutata, N. fisheri, N. laevigata, N. luteola, N. verenae, N. villosa, Odontomachus bauri, Ophthalmopone berthoudi, Pachycondyla lenis, Parvaponera darwinii madecassa, Platythyrea turneri, Ponera alpha, P. pennsylvanica, Simopelta oculata, S. transversa, Thaumatomyrmex fraxini, and T. zeteki. 6. We assessed the size of the torular lobes across taxa examined according to the degree of connection between median and lateral arches of torulus (as in Keller 2011, character 08). Among material examined, the lobes are anteriorly and posteriorly continuous with the lateral torular arches in taxa whose antennal sockets are largely exposed in full-face view (Belonopelta, Leptogenys, and Ophthalmopone). On the other extreme, hypertrophied lobes are anteriorly and posteriorly discontinuous with the lateral arches of the torulus (as in Boloponera, Bothroponera sensu stricto group, Loboponera, Platythyrea punctata, Plectroctena, and Psalidomyrmex). Like Corrieopone, most ponerines present intermediate-sized torular lobes that are anteriorly continuous and posteriorly discontinuous with respective lateral arches. In this latter state, the lobes may conceal entirely or partially the lateral arches of the torulus. For the record, the torular lobes in Bothroponera sulcata species-group members (sensu Schmidt and Shattuck 2014) resemble those of Corrieopone, except for B. henryi (Donisthorpe) (see specimen CASENT 0902482) and B. zumpti Santschi (see CASENT 0922370), where the lobes are hypertrophied as in the Bothroponera sensu stricto group. 9. Ocelli are invariably present on Harpegnathos workers; it is absent in the worker caste of other Ponerinae, apart from occasional workers. 11. A count of four maxillary and four labial palpomeres is consistently present in Buniapone, Dinoponera, Hagensia, Harpegnathos, Mayaponera (note that we did not examine M. longidentata), Megaponera, Odontoponera, Ophthalmopone, Paltothyreus, Phrynoponera, Promyopias, Streblognathus (see Suppl. material 3: Table S 3; Bolton 2003; Fisher and Bolton 2016). We are hesitant to affirm that this is also the case in Neoponera, Pachycondyla, Pseudoneoponera, and Rasopone. These characters usually have been neglected in taxonomic reviews and descriptions of new species, and we did not examine every species in these genera. Yet, in every species we did examine (Neoponera aenescens, N. apicalis, N. bugabensis, N. carinulata, N. commutata, N. crenata, N. curiosa, N. dismarginata, N. fisheri, N. foetida, N. globularia, N. insignis, N. inversa, N. laevigata, N. luteola, N. moesta, N. obscuricornis, N. schoedli, N. striadinodis, N. unidentata, N. verenae, N. villosa, Pachycondyla crassinoda, P. harpax, P. impressa, P. lattkei, P. lenis, P. procidua, P. striata, Pseudoneoponera porcata, P. tridentata, Rasopone costaricensis, R. cryptergate s, R. cubitalis, R. guatemalensis, R. panamensis, R. pluviselva, and R. Rasopone politognatha), the palpal formula was 4,4. The count is also 4,4 in some species of genera with variable palpal formulae, such as Anochetus, Bothroponera, Leptogenys, Mesoponera, and Myopias (see Suppl. material 3: Table S 3; Willey and Brown 1983; Bolton 2003; Fisher and Bolton 2016). While conducting this study, we noticed that the palpal formula of some taxa was incorrectly reported or missing in the pertinent literature. Thus we correct or update the record here. Contrary to Fisher and Bolton (2016), the palpal formula in Dolioponera fustigera is 3,3 (not 2,2, as previously stated; Fig. 45 F), and 3,3 in Fisheropone ambigua (not 3,2; Fig. 45 G, H). Contrary to Bolton (2003), Keller (2011), and Fisher and Bolton (2016), the palpal formula in Loboponera obeliscata is 2,3 (not 2,2; Fig. 45 I, J); the formula in L. vigilans was correctly reported as 2,2 by these authors (verified on specimen CASENT 0003102). We also report for the first time the palpal formula in Boloponera ikemkha (2,3; Fig. 45 K, L), Cryptopone hartwigi (3,3; Fig. 46 A, B), and Simopelta transversa (2,2; Fig. 46 C). The specimen of Thaumatomyrmex atrox examined by Keller (2011) was later determined to be T. fraxini by D'Esquivel et al. (2017) - note that the specimen is not in the list of material examined by the latter authors, but some SEM images taken by Keller (2011; specimen ANTWEB 1008597) were used to illustrate the new taxon description. One detail not mentioned by D'Esquivel et al. (2017) was the palpal formula of T. fraxini, which is 3,3 (Fig. 46 D; previously reported for T. atrox by Keller 2011). Finally, although Fisher and Bolton (2016) stated that the palpal formula in Parvaponera darwinii madecassa is unknown, Brown (1963) provided the correct count, which is 4,3 (Fig. 46 E). 12 - 14. In Corrieopone, the mesonotum is dome-shaped in profile, with a round dorsal margin that is discontinuous with the outline of the pronotum (i. e., it is slightly higher than the pronotum). The promesonotum is much higher than the propodeum, and a deeply impressed metanotal sulcus separates the two. A distinct notopleural suture delimits the mesonotum from the mesopleuron. In dorsal view, the mesonotum is round. Taxa that bear some resemblance to Corrieopone in this combination of characters are: several Anochetus species (e. g., A. altisquamis Mayr, specimen CASENT 0915154; A. armstrongi McAreavey, CASENT 0902449; A. brevis Brown, CASENT 0902439), Asphinctopone, Austroponera [except A. rufonigra (Clark), CASENT 0249178], Brachyponera, Euponera sikorae, Fisheropone ambigua, Hagensia, some Hypoponera [e. g., H. foreli (Mayr), CASENT 0173714; H. herbertonensis (Forel), CASENT 0907320; H. mesoponeroides (Radchenko), CASENT 0917250], some Leptogenys (e. g., L. borivava Rakotonirina & Fisher, CASENT 0430091; L. ixta, L. peruana, L. sonora), Mayaponera, Megaponera analis (dome-shaped mesonotum in larger specimens, as CASENT 0781129), most Mesoponera (e. g., M. ambigua, M. australis, M. caffraria, M. elisae rotundata, M. melanaria, M. papuana, M. rubra, M. subiridescens), several Myopias [e. g., M. castaneicola (Donisthorpe), CASENT 0902520; M. chapmani Willey & Brown, CASENT 0902533; M. latinoda (Emery), CASENT 0270592], several Neoponera (e. g., N. apicalis, N. aenescens, N. fisheri, N. schoedli, N. villosa), some Odontomachus (e. g., O. bauri; O. laticeps Roger, CASENT 0904008; O. spissus Kempf, CASENT 0281868), Odontoponera transversa, Ophthalmopone, Rasopone rupinicola, R. cubitalis, and Streblognathus. 16. The spiracular lobe is present in most ponerine genera; it is present in Boloponera ikemkha (CASENT 0254321) and B. vicans (CASENT 0401737), contrary to Fisher and Bolton (2016). The lobe is absent in Dolioponera, Fisheropone, some Loboponera species, the Afrotropical and Malagasy Hypoponera, H. punctatissima, Simopelta oculata, S. transversa, and Thaumatomyrmex fraxini (Suppl. material 3: Table S 3; Fisher and Bolton 2016). Interestingly, while the lobe is absent in the Afrotropical Cryptopone (according to Fisher and Bolton 2016; here confirmed on C. hartwigi), it is present in the Neotropical C. gilva (ANTWEB 1008514), C. guianensis (ANTWEB 1008565), C. holmgreni (ECOFOG-IT 14 - 0276 - 07), and C. pauli (CASENT 0637806). 18. The metapleural longitudinal flange is a carina that extends along the metapleuron in profile, with its posterior end immediately dorsad the metapleural gland orifice. When well-developed, it projects laterad or ventrolaterad and may overhang the gland orifice (as defined by Keller 2011: character 62). In Simopelta species (ANTWEB 1008589), this flange is strongly projected ventrolaterad and overlaps the gland orifice. 19. The propodeal dorsum presents a well-delimited, narrow, median longitudinal groove in Psalidomyrmex (Fisher and Bolton 2016; ANTWEB 1008585). In addition, a vestigial longitudinal groove may be present on the propodeal dorsal face of specimens of the Plectroctena minor group (see Bolton and Brown 2002). The propodeal dorsum is transversely concave along its entire length, or only posteriorly, in Hagensia, Mayaponera (CASENT 0249137), several Mesoponera (CASENT 0249194), and Pseudoponera (CASENT 0923115). 20. Most ponerine genera present an unarmed propodeum. In profile, the propodeal dorsoposterior corner bears acute projections in several Anochetus species (e. g., CASENT 0902431, CASENT 0815182, CASENT 0746783), Phrynoponera (CASENT 0178230), Streblognathus (ANTWEB 1008591), some Platythyrea (CASENT 0281867, CASENT 0900569, CASENT 0903799), and Pseudoneoponera bispinosa (Smith). Also, some species of the Loboponera vigilans group (CASENT 0003111), Plectroctena Plectroctena minor group (CASENT 0915285), and P. mandibularis group (CASENT 0102947) present the lateral margin of the propodeal declivity with a lamella that is dorsally toothed; in other species of the L. vigilans group, the lateral margin of the propodeal declivity is toothed dorsally, but the lamella is absent (CASENT 0003098; see Bolton and Brown 2002). 22. In general, the shape of the propodeal spiracle is constant within genus in Ponerinae. A slit-shaped spiracle (i. e., external atrial opening> 2 x longer than wide; as in Keller 2011, character 65) is present in Asphinctopone, Austroponera, Bothroponera, Buniapone, Corrieopone, Diacamma, Dinoponera, Ectomomyrmex, Euponera, Feroponera, Fisheropone, Hagensia, Harpegnathos, Megaponera, Odontoponera, Ophthalmopone, Pachycondyla, Paltothyreus, Phrynoponera, Pseudoneoponera, and Streblognathus. A round to oval spiracle occurs in Belonopelta, Boloponera, Dolioponera, Emeryopone, Hypoponera, Iroponera, Loboponera, Mayaponera, Myopias, Odontomachus, Plectroctena, Ponera, Promyopias, Psalidomyrmex, Rasopone, Simopelta, and Thaumatomyrmex. The propodeal spiracle is round to oval in most Brachyponera species but varies from oval to slit-shaped in B. atrata and B. sennaarensis. 24. We classified the metacoxal cavities as closed or open by integrating the definition given by Keller (2011: character 69) with that in Fisher and Bolton (2016; see also Bolton 2003: character 41). If closed, the medial surface of the metacoxal acetabulum does not have a fenestra, and thus, the metacoxal cavity is not connected internally with the propodeal foramen; the annulus externally encircling the cavity is fused. If open, the internal medial surface of the cavity is fenestrate and connects with the propodeal foramen, and the annulus is unfused. In this case, the annulus may encircle the cavity with its free ends overlapping next to the propodeal foramen; or there may be a gap in the annulus. An unfused cuticular annulus tightly encircles the metacoxal cavities in most Ponerinae we dissected. This condition occurs in Phrynoponera pulchella specimens from Kenya (CASENT 0178203, CASENT 0178204, CASENT 0217125), which is in accord with Bolton and Fisher (2008 a). However, a specimen from Tanzania possesses an annular gap in both metacoxal cavities (Fig. 46 H); we are uncertain if those were natural or dissection artifacts, as unfortunately, only one specimen from that population was available to us. Metacoxal cavities also present an annular gap in Phrynoponera transversa and Platythyrea punctata. On the other hand, the annulus is fused and uninterrupted in Harpegnathos saltator, Platythyrea cribrinodis (Fig. 46 F; contrary to Fisher and Bolton 2016), and Myopias darioi (Fig. 46 G). 25. The calcar of strigil presents a basoventral lamella in most Ponerinae evaluated (as in Keller 2011, character 74). For clarification, we consider the calcar to present a small lamella in Loboponera obeliscata (Fig. 46 I) and that it is entirely pectinate in Platythyrea punctata and P. turneri (specimens ANTWEB 1008574 and ANTWEB 1008575, respectively), which is contrary to Keller (2011). The lamella is also absent in Boloponera, Brachyponera sennaarensis, Diacamma ceylonense, Dolioponera fustigera, Emeryopone buttelreepeni, Harpegnathos saltator, Hypoponera punctatissima, Leptogenys ixta, L. peruana, L. pucuna, L. sonora, L. wheeleri, Loboponera vigilans, Mesoponera ambigua, M. elisae rotundata, Myopias darioi, Platythyrea cribrinodis, Ponera alpha, P. pennsylvanica, Promyopias silvestrii, Simopelta oculata, S. transversa, Thaumatomyrmex fraxini, and T. zeteki. 27. A row of stout, spine-like setae occurs along the posterior face of probasitarsal notch, parallel to the comb of strigil, in most Ponerinae taxa examined. We adopted the definition of " row " analogous to that of a line, whose existence requires at least two points in space. Thus, the row is present if two or more spine-like setae are aligned longitudinally along the posterior face of the probasitarsal notch; less than two setae make the row absent. Among material examined, the row is absent on the posterior face of the probasitarsal notch in Dolioponera fustigera, Leptogenys, Myopias darioi, and Thaumatomyrmex fraxini. 28. Most Ponerinae taxa present two mesotibial spurs. Among taxa examined, the anterior spur is simple, and the posterior spur is serrate in Brachyponera chinensis, B. croceicornis, B. lutea, B. luteipes, B. obscurans, Dinoponera longipes, D. lucida, Hagensia havilandi marleyi, Harpegnathos saltator, Leptogenys peruana, L. pucuna, and Ophthalmopone berthoudi. For the record, only one mesotibial spur is visible under a stereomicroscope in Asphinctopone silvestrii and Fisheropone ambigua; however, SEM images reveal that a vestigial anterior spur is present in both taxa (Fig. 47 C, E); A. differens also seems to bear a minute anterior spur on the mesotibia. 29. The metatibial gland has been confirmed in Bothroponera tesseronoda (Emery), several species of Diacamma Mayr, Harpegnathos saltator, Neoponera crenata, N. marginata (Roger), Paltothyreus tarsatus, Pseudoneoponera rufipes (Jerdon), and P. tridentata (see Hoelldobler et al. 1996; Billen 2009). The gland is associated with a cuticular pore plate, which may be covered by a brush of stouter, distinctly-shaped setae (as in Diacamma and Paltothyreus tarsatus), or it may be an oblong, glabrous, distinctly colored, smooth, or distinctly sculptured cuticular patch (Hoelldobler et al. 1996). Here, we list taxa that present the latter condition, which is what is seen in Corrieopone. Among the taxa examined, the cuticular patch is present on the apicoposterior face of the metatibia in Bothroponera crassa, B. silvestrii, Brachyponera croceicornis, B. lutea, B. luteipes, B. obscurans, B. sennaarensis, Cryptopone hartwigi, Ectomomyrmex javanus, Emeryopone buttelreepeni, Euponera sikorae, E. sjostedti, Feroponera ferox, Hagensia havilandi marleyi, Mesoponera caffraria, Pseudoneoponera porcata, and P. tridentata. 30. Most Ponerinae taxa present two metatibial spurs. Here, all specimens examined present a pectinate posterior spur, and in the majority, the anterior spur is simple, as in Corrieopone (see Suppl. material 3: Table S 3). For the record, Schmidt and Shattuck (2014: 185) and Fernandes and Delabie (2019: 411) stated that Cryptopone species present one metatibial spur (excluding C. guianensis, and in the case of the latter authors, also C. pauli). Those assertions are puzzling, as several Cryptopone species have two spurs on the metatibia [e. g., C. arabica Collingwood & Agosti, C. gilva, C. holmgreni (Wheeler), C. ochracea Mayr; see Fig. 47 A; Kempf 1961 b; Bernard 1967; Collingwood and Agosti 1996]. Belonopelta deletrix has two spurs on the metatibia (Fig. 47 B), as correctly stated by Baroni Urbani (1975), but contrary to Schmidt and Shattuck (2014). Asphinctopone silvestrii presents a minute additional metatibial spur (Fig. 47 D), anterior to the much larger pectinate spur; A. differens seems to present the same. The metatibia of Fisheropone ambigua, which bears a single spur, long and pectinate, also presents a fovea where the anterior spur would be located (Fig. 47 F). 31. Taxa without stout, spine-like setae on the dorsal face of the mid- and hindlegs are Anochetus angolensis, A. emarginatus, Asphinctopone differens, As. silvestrii, Belonopelta deletrix, Boloponera ikemkha, B. vicans, Bothroponera silvestrii, Brachyponera chinensis, B. croceicornis, B. luteipes, B. obscurans, B. sennaarensis, Diacamma ceylonense, Dolioponera fustigera, Emeryopone buttelreepeni, Euponera sikorae, E. sjostedti, Hagensia havilandi marleyi, Harpegnathos saltator, Iroponera odax, Leptogenys ixta, L. peruana, L. pucuna, L. sonora, L. wheeleri, Loboponera obeliscata, L. vigilans, Mayaponera conicula, Myopias darioi, M. maligna, Neoponera bugabensis, N. carinulata, N. cavinodis, N. crenata, N. dismarginata, N. fiebrigi cf., N. fisheri, N. foetida, N. globularia, N. insignis, N. inversa, N. luteola, N. moesta, N. obscuricornis, N. striadinodis, N. unidentata, N. villosa, Odontomachus bauri, Odontoponera transversa, Ophthalmopone berthoudi, Platythyrea cribrinodis, P. punctata, P. turneri, Simopelta oculata, S. transversa, Thaumatomyrmex fraxini, and T. zeteki. Contrary to Fisher and Bolton (2016), Fisheropone ambigua presents stout, spine-like setae on the dorsal face of the mesobasitarsus (Fig. 48 A). 33. We categorized the shape of pro-, meso-, and metapretarsal claws according to the presence, location, and number of acute projections on their inner margins (modified from Keller 2011, character 82). A simple pretarsal claw is devoid of prominences (Fig. 48 B) or presents a blunt basal angle or rounded swell (Fig. 48 C), and is found in the following taxa: Anochetus angolensis, A. emarginatus, Asphinctopone differens, A. silvestrii, Austroponera castanea, Belonopelta deletrix, Boloponera ikemkha, B. vicans, Bothroponera crassa, B. silvestrii, Brachyponera chinensis, B. croceicornis, B. lutea, B. luteipes, B. obscurans, B. sennaarensis, Centromyrmex brachycola, C. decessor, C. ereptor, C. raptor, Cryptopone gilva, C. guianensis, C. hartwigi, Diacamma ceylonense, Dolioponera fustigera, Ectomomyrmex javanus, Emeryopone buttelreepeni, Euponera brunoi, E. sikorae, E. sjostedti, Feroponera ferox, Fisheropone ambigua, Hypoponera punctatissima, Iroponera odax, Loboponera obeliscata, L. vigilans, Mayaponera becculata, M. cernua, M. conicula, M. constricta, Mesoponera ambigua, M. australis, M. caffraria, M. elisae rotundata, M. melanaria macra, M. papuana, M. rubra, M. subiridescens, Myopias darioi, M. maligna, Neoponera aenescens, N. apicalis, N. bugabensis, N. cavinodis, N. crenata, N. dismarginata, N. eleonorae, N. fiebrigi cf., N. fisheri, N. foetida, N. globularia, N. insignis, N. inversa, N. laevigata, N. luteola, N. obscuricornis, N. schoedli, N. striadinodis, N. unidentata, N. verenae, N. villosa, Odontomachus bauri, Odontoponera transversa, Pachycondyla lattkei, Parvaponera darwinii madecassa, Plectroctena strigosa, Ponera alpha, P. pennsylvanica, Psalidomyrmex procerus, Pseudoneoponera porcata, Pseudoponera gilberti, P. stigma, Rasopone costaricensis, R. cryptergates, R. cubitalis, R. guatemalensis, R. panamensis, R. pluviselva, R. politognatha, Simopelta oculata, S. transversa, and Streblognathus peetersi. A claw with a basal tooth bears an acute prominence on the basal third of its inner margin (Fig. 12 B). The basal tooth overhangs the outline of the inner margin of the claw and may bear several small, acute projections (Fig. 48 D). This type of claw occurs in Bothroponera cariosa, B. pachyderma, B. talpa, Mayaponera arhuaca, M. pergandei, Megaponera analis, Neoponera carinulata, N. commutata, N. moesta, Ophthalmopone berthoudi, Pachycondyla crassinoda, P. harpax, P. impressa, P. lenis, P. procidua, P. striata, Phrynoponera pulchella, P. transversa, and Pseudoneoponera tridentata. A claw with a preapical tooth has an acute projection rising from the apical two-thirds of its inner margin (Fig. 48 E). It is present in Dinoponera longipes, D. lucida, Hagensia havilandi marleyi, Harpegnathos saltator, Paltothyreus tarsatus, Platythyrea cribrinodis, P. punctata, P. turneri, Thaumatomyrmex fraxini, and T. zeteki. Pectinate pretarsal claws are shaped like a comb and are unique to Leptogenys among Ponerinae (Fig. 48 F). Finally, we found shape variations among the claws of the fore-, mid-, and hindlegs only in Buniapone amblyops and Promyopias silvestrii. These taxa present a propretarsal claw with a long basal tooth, while their meso- and metapretarsi claws are simple (Fig. 48 G-I). This condition contradicts Bolton and Fisher (2008 b) and Fisher and Bolton (2016), who stated the claws are simple in P. silvestrii. 34. The arolium was absent or reduced to a membranous cuticular flap between the pretarsal claws of most taxa examined (Figs 12 B, 48 D-I). Exceptions were Belonopelta deletrix, Diacamma ceylonense, Harpegnathos saltator, Iroponera odax, Mayaponera, Neoponera, Parvaponera darwinii madecassa, Platythyrea cribrinodis, P. punctata, P. turneri, Rasopone guatemalensis, Simopelta oculata, S. transversa (Fig. 48 C), Thaumatomyrmex fraxini, and T. zeteki. Contrary to Schmidt and Shattuck (2014), we consider that Mayaponera constricta has indistinct arolia like all its congeners (Fig. 48 B). In this species, the arolium is reduced to a cuticular flap, although more developed than what we classified as indistinct in other taxa. However, this feature was not noticeable under our stereo microscope. 35. The petiolar node of Corrieopone lacks a spine-like or any other acute projection and is narrow in profile, with its anterior and posterior surfaces tapering to an insignificant dorsal surface. Ponerine taxa with an unarmed scale-like petiole are: several Anochetus (see CASENT 0915154); Asphinctopone (CASENT 0915481); Austroponera (FOCOL 0965); Brachyponera (CASENT 0915660); Buniapone (CASENT 0903944); some Cryptopone (ANTWEB 1008000); some Ectomomyrmex (CASENT 0907270); Euponera fossigera species group [viz.: E. brunoi, E. fossigera Mayr (SAM-HYM-C 002649 B), E. malayana (Wheeler), E. sharpi Forel, E. wroughtonii Forel, E. wroughtonii crudelis Forel, and probably also E. sakishimensis (Terayama)]; Fisheropone (CASENT 0906215); Hagensia (CASENT 0256487); several Hypoponera (CASENT 0281911); some Leptogenys (CASENT 0902609); Mayaponera (USNMENT 00442104); Mesoponera (CASENT 0249169); some Neoponera (ANTWEB 1014009); very few Odontomachus (CASENT 0281868); very few Pachycondyla (UFV-LABECOL- 000002); some Parvaponera (CASENT 0915276); some Ponera (CASENT 0235336); and Pseudoponera [CASENT 0902509; except P. pachynoda (Clark), ANTWEB 1008183]. 36. The strigation on the posteroventral portion of the petiolar tergite of Corrieopone resembles that of Asphinctopone (CASENT 0178221). 39. The spatulate projection rises from the posterior portion of the petiolar sternite and extends posteriad, overlapping either partially or entirely the remaining sternite. This definition departs from Keller (2011, character 111) in not requiring (a) the projection to extend beyond the posterior margin of the petiolar sternite and (b) close proximity between projection and remaining sternite. The reason is the character varies continuously, which invalidates both requirements. The variation comprises projections that are long and conceal the helcial sternite almost completely to partially (as in Phrynoponera pulchella, specimen ANTWEB 1008573, and Platythyrea punctata, respectively; Fig. 49 A); those that reach or almost reach the posterior margin of the petiolar sternite (as in Platythyrea turneri, Fig. 49 B); and those even shorter (as in Asphinctopone silvestrii; Fig. 49 C). In addition, projections may tightly envelop the remaining sternite (as in Phrynoponera pulchella and Platythyrea punctata, ANTWEB 1008574; Fig. 49 D); or a slight gap may be present [as in Platythyrea turneri, specimen ANTWEB 1008575, and Phrynoponera gabonensis (Andre); Fig. 49 E]; or the gap may be slightly broader (as in Rasopone jtl 030; Fig. 49 F) to much broader (as in Streblognathus peetersi; Fig. 49 G). Thus, according to our definition, the spatulate projection of the petiolar sternite is present in Austroponera, Asphinctopone, Brachyponera, Megaponera analis, Ophthalmopone, Phrynoponera, Platythyrea, Rasopone, and Streblognathus; see also Fisher and Bolton (2016) for the description of the sternite in some of these taxa. The petiolar sternite in Belonopelta deletrix, immediately anterior to its posterior margin, is projected ventrad and slightly posteriad; the same seems to happen in Thaumatomyrmex fraxini. According to the species redescription given by Mackay and Mackay (2010), Neoponera magnifica may also present the character. 40. Like Corrieopone, most ponerine genera present an infra-axial helcium (i. e., positioned ventrad the midheight of the anterior face of abdominal segment III; see Keller 2011, character 114). A few taxa examined present an axial helcium (i. e., positioned at midheight of the anterior face of abdominal segment III): Boloponera, Buniapone, Centromyrmex, Cryptopone (except C. guianensis), Dolioponera, Feroponera, Iroponera, Platythyrea, and Promyopias. 41. As far as we know, the prora is present and well-developed in most Ponerinae. It is usually indistinct in Platythyrea, but contrary to Fisher and Bolton (2016), it is well-developed in some species [as in P. lamellosa (Roger); Fig. 49 H], and weakly projected but still visible in others [as in P. pilosula (Smith); Fig. 49 I]. According to Schmidt and Shattuck (2014), the prora is absent in Iroponera, but SEM images of I. odax reveal that it is present, albeit weakly projected (Fig. 49 J). According to Fisher and Bolton (2016), the trait is absent in Dolioponera, which agrees with what we saw in most specimens. However, SEM images of specimen ANTWEB 1008521 show a weak projection on the anterior face of abdominal sternite III; we are unsure whether that detail is natural or an image artifact. We consider the prora present in Mayaponera and Rasopone, in disagreement with Longino and Branstetter (2020). The trait, although small, is distinct in the profile view of M. becculata, M. conicula, M. constricta, and R. panamensis. In the first two species and R. panamensis, the prora rises from the anterior portion of the abdominal poststernite III (see specimens CASENT 0249130, CASENT 0644252). In M. constricta, it projects from the area in between the ventral margins of the helcial tergite arch and the anterior portion of the abdominal poststernite III (Fig. 49 K) and resembles the condition seen in Dinoponera, Pachycondyla, and Streblognathus (ANTWEB 1014000, CASENT 0249148, and Fig. 49 G, respectively). In M. arhuaca, M. cernua, M. pergandei, and other Rasopone species, the prora is indistinct in the profile view of undissected specimens, for it is a minute prominence located in the area between the ventral margins of the helcial tergite (as in Brachyponera, Fig. 49 L), and may be fused entirely with it (as described for Phrynoponera by Bolton and Fisher 2008 a). 43. We considered the girdling constriction present if the surface between pre- and postsclerites of abdominal segment IV was interrupted by a shallow or deep impression on the integument. A line, if present, only constituted a constriction if the integument was depressed. Among taxa examined, the constriction is absent in Asphinctopone, Brachyponera sennaarensis (weakly impressed in other species), Corrieopone, Mesoponera (except M. caffraria), Odontomachus, Odontoponera, Simopelta, Streblognathus, and Thaumatomyrmex fraxini. 44. The stridulitrum is consistently present on abdominal pretergite IV in Austroponera, Belonopelta, Dinoponera, Harpegnathos, Megaponera, Neoponera, Odontoponera, Ophthalmopone, Streblognathus, and Thaumatomyrmex. The trait's occurrence is variable in Anochetus, Bothroponera (present in members of the Bothroponera sulcata group), Brachyponera, Hypoponera, Mayaponera (only present in M. constricta), Mesoponera, Myopias, Odontomachus, Phrynoponera (only present in P. pulchella), and Ponera (Suppl. material 3: Table S 3; see also Markl 1973; Schmidt and Shattuck 2014; Fisher and Bolton 2016). Schmidt and Shattuck (2014) state that it is universally present in Leptogenys and Platythyrea. However, Markl (1973), after a comprehensive taxa examination, affirmed that the occurrence of the trait is variable among species in both genera. Contrary to Fisher and Bolton (2016), the stridulitrum is present in Brachyponera obscurans (Fig. 50 A) and at least two Afrotropical and Malagasy species of Mesoponera (Fig. 50 B, C). For the record, it is absent in Boloponera ikemkha. In addition, the midline of the fourth abdominal pretergite is strigulate and dissimilar to the surrounding sculpture in Euponera sikorae (Fig. 50 D, E) and Mesoponera caffraria (Fig. 50 F); the ridges are set farther apart and form a narrower area in the latter species. However, whether they have a stridulatory function in those species is unclear. Finally, the stridulitrum is present in males of Mayaponera pergandei (Fig. 50 G; contrary to Mackay and Mackay 2010) but absent in the worker caste (Fig. 50 H, I). Assuming that W. P. Mackay correctly determined the two males we examined, this intercaste variation is interesting because (1) it has not been observed in ants (see Markl 1973), and (2) it suggests that this trait has a reproductive function in M. pergandei. 47. The hypopygium (abdominal sternite VII) is armed with spine-like setae that flank the sting in some Ponerinae. According to previous studies, the setae are present in Dinoponera, Ophthalmopone, Pachycondyla, Paltothyreus, some Leptogenys, and few Ponera (Schmidt and Shattuck 2014; Fisher and Bolton 2016). However, in Pachycondyla, we found that the hypopygial setae may be spine-like or aristate (Figs 10 C-F, 12 C, D; see details in the preceding subsection " Transfers between Neoponera to Pachycondyla "). Hypopygial spine-like setae occur in several Brachyponera (Fig. 51 A), Buniapone amblyops (Fig. 51 B), Mayaponera becculata (Fig. 51 C), some Mesoponera (Fig. 51 D), Myopias darioi (Fig. 51 E), M. maligna, some Neoponera (Fig. 10 A, B; see subsection " Transfers between Neoponera to Pachycondyla "), Parvaponera darwinii madecassa (Fig. 51 F), Promyopias silvestrii (Fig. 51 G), and Rasopone panamensis (Fig. 51 H; see also Suppl. material 3: Table S 3). In Thaumatomyrmex fraxini and T. zeteki, the hypopygium vestiture is composed of minute spine-like microtrichia (Fig. 51 I).	en	Esteves, Flavia A., Fisher, Brian L. (2021): Corrieopone nouragues gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Ponerinae from French Guiana (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 1074: 83-173, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1074.75551, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1074.75551
8CDBCD76EFFF5CA1A83080354D1BEF82.taxon	description	Figs 7, 8, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 52 A, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57	en	Esteves, Flavia A., Fisher, Brian L. (2021): Corrieopone nouragues gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Ponerinae from French Guiana (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 1074: 83-173, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1074.75551, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1074.75551
8CDBCD76EFFF5CA1A83080354D1BEF82.taxon	description	Worker description. Measurements (N = 4; holotype values within parentheses): HL: 1.54 - 1.57 (1.57); HW: 1.33 - 1.41 (1.41); SL: 1.59 - 1.67 (1.67); WL: 2.14 - 2.26 (2.26); TL: 6.54 - 7.10 (7.06); CI: 87 - 90 (89); SI: 119 - 120 (119). Medium-sized, slender ants (TL 6.54 - 7.1 mm) with characters as described for Corrieopone and the following: Color: reddish brown; lateral surfaces of clypeus and appendages slightly lighter; apex of gaster yellowish (Fig. 37). General vestiture: Head, mesosoma, petiole, and gaster vested with densely arranged, short, subdecumbent to suberect filiform setae, and with much sparser, longer, suberect to erect filiform setae; posterior region of abdominal segment VII with abundant longer setae (Figs 38 A, B, 40 A, 43 A, C). Dorsal face of mandible with sparse, appressed, filiform setae, grading laterad to buoyant, flexuous, longer filiform setae (Fig. 38 A, E). Legs dressed with densely arranged, short, subdecumbent to suberect filiform setae. Sculpture: Head in dorsal view mostly punctate (Fig. 8 D). Mandibles sparsely punctate, with shallow fossulae skirting the apical two-thirds of the dorsal face of the masticatory margin (Fig. 8 C). Clypeus mostly smooth; region adjacent to median area weakly costulate. Pronotum weakly punctate dorsally, grading to costulate laterally (Fig. 8 B). Mesonotum weakly punctate. Anepisternum mostly smooth to sparsely costulate (Fig. 40 B). Katepisternum costulate dorsally, grading to obliquely strigulate ventrally (Fig. 40 B). In profile, metapleuron obliquely strigulate (Fig. 40 C). Propodeum strigulate-punctate dorsally; obliquely strigulate laterally (Fig. 40 C); declivitous face strigulate laterally, mostly smooth medially (Fig. 8 F). Petiolar tergite anterior face mostly smooth; lateral face mostly smooth, sparsely costulate, or confused rugose (Figs 8 E, 43 A); posterior face mostly smooth dorsally, grading to strigate ventrally (Figs 8 F, 43 A). Gaster weakly punctate; mostly smooth (Fig. 43 C). Head: Head slightly longer than broad (CI: 87 - 90). In dorsal view, posterior margin of the head slightly concave medially (Figs 37 B, 38 A). In profile, posteroventral curve of the head without a projecting flange (Figs 37 C, 38 B). Mandibles triangular, edentate, devoid of basolateral and dorsal pits or dorsolateral and dorsomasticatory sulci (Figs 37 B, 38 A, E). Basal three-fourths of the mandibular masticatory margin skirted ventrally by two rows of long, flexuous, helicoid setae, with a row of filiform setae present in between. Mandible with a row of filiform setae running obliquely from the basolateral area of the ventral face to the apex of the lateral face; with setae increasing in length towards mandibular apex; apicalmost seta helicoid. Torular lobes closely approximated (Fig. 38 A, F); torular lateral arches visible in dorsal view (Fig. 38 F). In profile, torular lobes located at the dorsalmost part of a prominence formed by the clypeal median area and the frontal carinae (Fig. 38 B). Lateral arch of the torulus projected dorsad, with a somewhat constricted rim (Fig. 38 D, F). Twelve antennomeres (Fig. 54 A); bulbus hemispherical, notched on the lateral margin (Fig. 54 B); bulbus neck tubular (Fig. 54 C, D). Antennal scape (antennomere I) surpassing the posterior margin of the head (SI: 119 - 120); antennomeres III and IV longer than all other preapical antennomeres save the scape; antennomere III almost as long as the apicalmost antennomere (Fig. 54 A). Compound eyes present, located just anterior to the midlength of the head, surrounded by a sulcus; widest diameter of compound eyes: six or seven ommatidia (Fig. 38 A, B, D). Ocelli absent. Labrum apically bilobed, with lobes broadly rounded apicolaterally (Fig. 39 E); long, acute cleft at midpoint of apical margin. Middle of outer face of the labrum bulging transversely, with a short, median carina extending basad from the median cleft; the carina may be a weak, blunt protrusion or a somewhat developed ridge (Fig. 55 A, B). Palpal formula 4,4 (Fig. 55 C); basalmost maxillary palpomere short, bulbous. Outer face of maxillary stipes without a transverse sulcus (Fig. 55 C). Galeal comb present (Fig. 55 D). Galeal crown armed with two or three elliptic setae (Fig. 55 D); inner face without a translucid comb of setae (Fig. 55 C, D). Premental shield without a transverse sulcus (Fig. 55 C). Mesosoma: In dorsal view, mesonotum round, wider than the dorsal face of the propodeum but narrower than the pronotum (Fig. 37 A); metanotal sulcus mostly smooth, conspicuous. In profile, mesonotum dome-shaped; notopleural suture separating mesonotum from mesopleuron; promesonotum higher than propodeum; metanotal sulcus deeply impressed (Figs 37 C, 40 A). In profile, mesopleuron divided into anepisternum and katepisternum (Fig. 40 A, B). Mesometapleural suture present (Fig. 40 A-C). Metathoracic spiracle concealed by a spiracular lobe (Fig. 40 A, B). Posterolateral surface of the metapleuron devoid of a longitudinal flange (Fig. 40 A, C). Orifice of the metapleural gland round, opening posterolaterad, with ventral margin atop a carina located on the posterolateral margin of the metapleuron (= metapleural carina; Fig. 40 C, D). Propodeal dorsum devoid of a median longitudinal impression, propodeal spines absent (Fig. 40 A), propodeal posterolateral margin not carinate (Fig. 40 A, C). In profile, propodeal lobe rounded, not surpassing posteriorly the dorsoposterior-most point of the rim of the propodeal foramen (Fig. 40 C); propodeal spiracle slit-shaped (Fig. 40 A, C). Mesosternal process bidentate; metasternal process bilobate, long (Fig. 40 F). Metacoxal cavities tightly encircled by unfused annuli (Fig. 40 E). Legs: Apico-anterior portion of protibia with a brush of spatulate-costate setae, next to calcar of strigil (Fig. 41 A); apicoposterior portion of protibia devoid of stout, spine-like setae (Fig. 41 B). Basal third of the ventral margin of the calcar lamellate; lamella glabrous, devoid of any notch (Fig. 41 B). From base to apex, microtrichia on anterior face of calcar grades from tubiform to spatulate (Fig. 56 A); posterior face of calcar with lanceolate microtrichia (Fig. 41 B). Anterior and ventral faces of probasitarsus densely vested with spatulate-costate setae (Fig. 41 A), except for the area immediately anterior to the comb of strigil, which bears shorter, spatulate-bicuspid setae (Fig. 56 B). Comb of strigil skirted posteriorly by a sulcus (Fig. 56 C). Row of stout, spine-like setae on posterior face of probasitarsal notch, parallel to comb of strigil (Fig. 56 C). Counting from base to apex: anterior face of the second tarsomere of foreleg with spatulate-costate setae; ventral faces of second, third, and fourth tarsomeres with stout, spine-like setae (Fig. 42 C); fourth tarsomere cylindrical. Mesotibia with two spurs (Fig. 41 C); anterior spur simple (Fig. 56 D); posterior spur serrate, with lanceolate microtrichia on dorsal face (Fig. 41 D). Mesobasitarsus devoid of any longitudinal sulcus (Fig. 56 D); two rows of spine-like setae present along apical half of ventral face of mesobasitarsus and along entire ventral face of second, third, and fourth tarsomeres (Fig. 42 D). Metacoxal dorsum devoid of any spine-like projection. Posterior portion of metatibial apex with a glabrous, yellowish, oblong, weakly colliculate cuticular patch (Figs 41 E, 57 A, B); cuticular patch with densely arranged, minute pores (visible under magnifications above 4700 x; Fig. 57 B); pores round to slit-shaped (~ 0.29 um length; visible at 8500 x magnification); cuticle surrounding oblong cuticular patch with sparser, longer slit-shaped pores (~ 0.45 um length). Ventral face of metatibial apex with two spurs (Fig. 57 D); anterior spur simple and glabrous. Metatibial posterior spur pectinate; with lanceolate microtrichia on anterior face; with mostly glabrous posterior face, except for lanceolate microtrichia on dorsal surface (Fig. 57 C, D). Metabasitarsus devoid of any longitudinal sulcus (Fig. 57 D). Midline of the ventrobasal portion of metabasitarsus with a short, longitudinal carina armed with a row of short, spine-like setae (Fig. 57 E); the carina is followed apically by a longitudinal row of spatulate setae that extends to the midlength of the segment (Fig. 57 F); ventral face of metabasitarsus with the apical two-thirds bearing two rows of spine-like setae that skirt the midline row of spatulate setae. Dorsal faces of the mid- and hindlegs devoid of stout, spine-like setae (Fig. 42 A, B). Ventral faces of the second, third, and fourth tarsomeres with two rows of spine-like setae that skirt the midline of each segment (Fig. 42 E). Simple pretarsal claws on fore-, mid-, and hindlegs (Fig. 42 C-F). Arolium indistinct on pro-, meso-, and metapretarsi (Fig. 42 C-F). Petiole: Sessile; surmounted by a high, unarmed, conic scale-like node that is narrow in profile and in dorsal view (Figs 37 A, C, 43 A). Anteroventral portion of the tergite with a lateral carina (Fig. 43 A); spiracle orifice directed dorsolaterally; posterior face of the tergite with the ventral portion strigate; laterotergite delineated by a longitudinal suture (Fig. 43 B). Subpetiolar process keel-like, with a round anteroventral projection (Fig. 43 A), fenestra absent. Anterior disc of sternite with a round proprioceptor zone (Fig. 43 B). Sternite without a posterior spatulate projection (Fig. 43 B), articulation with the helcium visible in ventral view. Gaster: Helcium infra-axial: positioned ventrad to the midheight of the anterior face of abdominal segment III (Fig. 43 C). Prora well-developed on the anterior face of the sternite of abdominal segment III, lip-shaped (Fig. 43 C, D). Abdominal segment IV tubular: tergite and sternite with similar lengths, tergite not arched (Fig. 43 C). Presclerites of the abdominal segment IV forming an even surface with postsclerites (Fig. 43 C), no girdling constriction. Small stridulitrum present on the pretergite of the abdominal segment IV (Fig. 43 E, F). Pygidium not armed with spine-like setae, no acute cuticular projections, dorsum convex. Hypopygium as described for the genus (Fig. 44).	en	Esteves, Flavia A., Fisher, Brian L. (2021): Corrieopone nouragues gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Ponerinae from French Guiana (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 1074: 83-173, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1074.75551, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1074.75551
8CDBCD76EFFF5CA1A83080354D1BEF82.taxon	description	Queen description. Measurements (N = 1): HL: 1.65; HW: 1.54; SL: 1.74; WL: 2.51; TL: 8.48; CI: 93; SI: 113. Dealate. Color dark brown; clypeus and appendages lighter, reddish; apex of gaster yellowish (Fig. 53 A-D). Similar to the worker caste but for the darker body color and slightly larger body length (TL 8.48), larger compound eyes, presence of ocelli, and differences in the mesosoma due to the presence of wings (Fig. 53). As described for the genus.	en	Esteves, Flavia A., Fisher, Brian L. (2021): Corrieopone nouragues gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Ponerinae from French Guiana (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 1074: 83-173, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1074.75551, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1074.75551
8CDBCD76EFFF5CA1A83080354D1BEF82.taxon	etymology	Etymology. The specific epithet Corrieopone nouragues is a non-Latin noun in apposition. It honors the Nouragues (or Norak) people, a Tupi Amerindian population who once inhabited the area (Grenand 1982), and the Nouragues Natural Reserve and Research Station.	en	Esteves, Flavia A., Fisher, Brian L. (2021): Corrieopone nouragues gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Ponerinae from French Guiana (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). ZooKeys 1074: 83-173, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1074.75551, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1074.75551
