[Note: it is apparent that Cryptopone testacea Motschoulsky, 1863 (based on a queen) and Cryptopone testacea Emery, 1893a (based on workers) are not congeneric. Wilson, 1958g: 360, stated that Cryptopone testacea Motschoulsky, 1863 is, “almost certainly not the species described by Emery as Cryptopone testacea Emery, 1893a… it is proposed that Amblyopone testacea Motschoulsky, 1863 [Cryptopone testacea Motschoulsky, 1863] be left for the time being as a nomen dubium, and the description by Emery, 1893a be accepted as the original one for Cryptopone testacea”.]

[Note: it is apparent that {taxac 513212} (based on a queen) and {taxac 436205} (based on workers) are not congeneric. {ref 130355}: 360, stated that {taxac 513212} is, “almost certainly not the species described by Emery as {taxac 436205}… it is proposed that {taxac 460119} [{taxac 513212}] be left for the time being as a <i>nomen dubium</i>, and the description by {ref 124562} be accepted as the original one for {tax 436205}”.]