[Note: Lasius emarginatus Olivier, 1792 and Lasius emarginatus Fabricius, 1804 are considered to be different taxa because: (i) Fabricius, 1804 does not mention Olivier in his entry for Lasius emarginatus Fabricius, 1804 (or anywhere else in his 1804 (Fabricius, 1804) publication, whereas all other previous authors are acknowledged), (ii) Fabricius, 1804 adds the information “Dom. Smidt. Mus. Dom. de Sehestedt”, which is not present in Olivier, 1792; (iii) the type localities of the Olivier, 1792 and Fabricius, 1804 taxa are very different (France and South America); (iv) Olivier, 1792 describes w.q.m. whereas Fabricius, 1804 has only q.; (v) descriptions of the queens do not match; (vi) none of Olivier’s (Olivier, 1792) 11 new species are mentioned in Fabricius, 1804.]

[Note: {prottac 164488} and {prottac 202303} are considered to be different taxa because: (i) {ref 124870} does not mention Olivier in his entry for {prottac 202303} (or anywhere else in his 1804 ({ref 124870}) publication, whereas all other previous authors are acknowledged), (ii) {ref 124870} adds the information “Dom. Smidt. Mus. Dom. de Sehestedt”, which is not present in {ref 127622}; (iii) the type localities of the {ref 127622} and {ref 124870} taxa are very different (France and South America); (iv) {ref 127622} describes w.q.m. whereas {ref 124870} has only q.; (v) descriptions of the queens do not match; (vi) none of Olivier’s ({ref 127622}) 11 new species are mentioned in {ref 124870}.]