This history item belongs to Cerapachys Smith, 1857

Its current taxon owner(s) is Cerapachys

[Orapachys: incorrect subsequent spelling by Forel, 1893b: 162.] 

[{misspelling <i>Orapachys</i>}: incorrect subsequent spelling by {ref 125049}: 162.]
  • Item type: taxt
  • Created at: 2022-10-19
  • Updated at: 2022-10-19
Related records
Taxa belonging to this history item's protonym
Cerapachys Genus Valid
Cerapachys (Cerapachys) Subgenus Obsolete combination
an obsolete classification of Cerapachys Smith, 1857
Other history items belonging to Cerapachys
#240717 Cerapachys in Ponerinae: Smith, 1857a: 74 [Formicidae, Poneridae]; Dalla Torre, 1893: 17 [Ponerinae].
#240716 Cerapachys in Myrmicinae: Smith, 1861b: 47 [Myrmicidae]; Smith, 1871a: 329 [Myrmicidae].
#305996 Cerapachys in Dorylinae: Emery, 1896e: 175 [Dorylinae].
#240718 Cerapachys in Dorylinae, Cerapachyini: Emery, 1895l: 765; Emery, 1901b: 34; Smith, 1979: 1333.
#240719 Cerapachys in Ponerinae, Cerapachyini: Forel, 1893b: 162; Forel, 1900f: 331; Ashmead, 1905c: 382; Wheeler, 1910a: 137; Emery, 1911e: 8; Arnold, 1915: 11; Forel, 1917: 239; Brown, 1975: 18; Snelling, 1981: 389; Dlussky & Fedoseeva, 1988: 79; Hölldobler & Wilson, 1990: 10.
#240720 Cerapachys in Cerapachyinae, Cerapachyini: Wheeler, 1902e: 185; Wheeler, 1922: 639; Donisthorpe, 1943g: 632; Chapman & Capco, 1951: 17; Kempf, 1972b: 76; Wheeler & Wheeler, 1985b: 256; Bolton, 1990a: 67; Bolton, 1990c: 1357; Brandão, 1991: 337; Jaffe, 1993: 9; Bolton, 1994: 19; Bolton, 1995b: 24; Bolton, 2003: 34, 139, 268.
#275176 Cerapachys in Dorylinae: Brady et al., 2014: 4 (in figure); Borowiec, 2016: 90.
#305997 Cerapachys as genus: all authors.
#305998 (selected) [Orapachys: incorrect subsequent spelling by Forel, 1893b: 162.]
#305999 [Ceratopachys: unjustified emendation of spelling by Schulz, 1906: 155.]
#306000 [Note: Ceratopachys was treated as a junior synonym of Cerapachys by Wheeler, 1922: 755; Hölldobler & Wilson, 1990: 10; Bolton, 1995b: 24; Tang et al., 1995: 25; Bolton, 2003: 141; Borowiec, 2016: 15, 90, but is perhaps best regarded as an unjustified emendation of spelling.]