[Note: Polyrhachis carinata Fabricius, 1804 sensu Smith, 1858a: 71, pl. 4, figs. 48, 49 (w.) South Africa, is a misidentification of Polyrhachis carinata Fabricius, 1804, not a separate taxon. Mayr, 1863a: 444 treated Polyrhachis carinatus Smith, 1858a as a valid species, which led later authors (Bolton, 1973b: 318; Bolton, 1995b: 356; Dorow, 1995: 39) to mistakenly regard it as a junior homonym of Polyrhachis carinata Fabricius, 1804. Smith himself (p. 71, in text) said of his African material, “This insect is very probably the worker of Polyrhachis militaris,” an opinion repeated by Roger, 1863b: 6. Dalla Torre, 1893: 260 referred the African material to Polyrhachis cafrorum Forel, 1879a, while Emery, 1896j: 379; Wheeler, 1922a: 261; Emery, 1925d: 200, referred it to Polyrhachis rugulosa Mayr, 1862. Bolton, 1973b: 318, and later authors, referred it to Polyrhachis schistacea Gerstäcker, 1859.]

[Note: {taxac 445511} <i>sensu</i> {ref 128685}: 71, pl. 4, figs. 48, 49 (w.) South Africa, is a misidentification of {taxac 445511}, not a separate taxon. {ref 127213}: 444 treated {taxac 445512} as a valid species, which led later authors ({ref 122836}: 318; {ref 122860}: 356; {ref 124382}: 39) to mistakenly regard it as a junior homonym of {taxac 445511}. Smith himself (p. 71, in text) said of his African material, “This insect is very probably the worker of {tax 445936},” an opinion repeated by {ref 128094}: 6. {ref 124002}: 260 referred the African material to {taxac 445503}, while {ref 124614}: 379; {ref 130148}: 261; {ref 124775}: 200, referred it to {taxac 446135}. {ref 122836}: 318, and later authors, referred it to {taxac 446153}.]