This history item belongs to Megaponera Mayr, 1862

Its current taxon owner(s) is Megaponera

Megaponera in Ponerinae: Mayr, 1862: 714 [Poneridae]; Mayr, 1865: 15 [Poneridae]; Dalla Torre, 1893: 30 [Ponerinae]; Emery, 1896e: 179 [Ponerinae]. 

{tax 430105} in {tax 430052}: {ref 127190}: 714 [{unmissing Poneridae}]; {ref 127193}: 15 [{unmissing Poneridae}]; {ref 124002}: 30 [{tax 430052}]; {ref 124609}: 179 [{tax 430052}].
  • Item type: taxt
  • Created at: 2012-09-12
  • Updated at: 2023-08-30
Related records
Taxa belonging to this history item's protonym
Megaloponera Genus Unavailable misspelling
a misspelling of Megaponera Mayr, 1862
Megaponera Genus Valid
Other history items belonging to Megaponera
#242963 (selected) Megaponera in Ponerinae: Mayr, 1862: 714 [Poneridae]; Mayr, 1865: 15 [Poneridae]; Dalla Torre, 1893: 30 [Ponerinae]; Emery, 1896e: 179 [Ponerinae].
#242964 Megaponera in Pachycondylinae, Ectatommini: Ashmead, 1905c: 382.
#242965 Megaponera in Ponerinae, Ponerini: Emery, 1895l: 767; Wheeler, 1910a: 135; Emery, 1911e: 67 [subtribe Pachycondylini]; Arnold, 1915: 46; Forel, 1917: 237 [subtribe Pachycondylini]; Wheeler, 1922: 647; subsequent authors.
#311320 Megaponera in Ponerinae, Ponerini, Odontomachus genus group: Schmidt & Shattuck, 2014: 104.
#242966 Megaponera as junior synonym of Pachycondyla: Brown, 1994: 164; Bolton, 1995b: 34; Bolton, 2003: 166; MacKay & MacKay, 2010: 3.
#275288 Megaponera as genus: Mayr, 1863a: 428; Roger, 1863b: 17; Mayr, 1865: 15; Dalla Torre, 1893: 30; Mayr, 1895: 125; Emery, 1896e: 179; Ashmead, 1905c: 382; Emery, 1911e: 67; Wheeler, 1922: 766; Bolton, 1973a: 337; Hölldobler & Wilson, 1990: 11; Schmidt & Shattuck, 2014: 106.
#242967 [Megaloponera: unjustified emendation of spelling by Roger, 1863b: 17; repeated by Emery, 1877: 368; Schulz, 1906: 155; Mayr, 1907b: 9; Forel, 1911h: 274; Forel, 1917: 237.]
#311321 [Note: Megaloponera was treated as a junior synonym of Megaponera by Emery, 1911e: 67; Wheeler, 1911g: 167; Donisthorpe, 1943g: 660; Bolton, 1973a: 337, but is perhaps best regarded as an unjustified emendation of spelling.]