On the morphology of Procryptocerus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Some comments and corrigenda

Abstract

In order to decipher biodiversity, we need to maintain and improve the descriptive scope by pursuing the fundamental ontology and conceptual foundations. Descriptive morphology is currently the clearest avenue to conceiving, understanding and conceptually conveying species as units of evolution and ecology (Serna and Mackay 2010; Wheeler 2008 and references therein). Morphological descriptions ought to be independent of homology as explanatory mechanisms (Vogt 2008). Although essential to providing conceptual criteria for choosing and delimiting morphological units, homology does not require morphological terms to be defined in reference to it (Vogt et al. 2010). Ant morphology and its associated terminology demands intensive studies in order to unify criteria for the basic descriptive and comparative work (Serna and Mackay 2010).

Assessing similarity: on homology, characters and the need for a semantic approach to non‐evolutionary comparative homology

“…By describing individual organisms in the form of individual interrelations patterns and applying the semantic approach, comparative homology could take a central role in contributing relevant anatomical structural kind terms with formalized definitions to cross‐species anatomy ontologies that are independent of assumptions about phylogenetic homology. The need for such a terminology has been recognized before (Vogt, , , ; Dahdul et al., ; Yoder et al., ; Vogt et al., ; Vogt et al., ; Serna et al., ; Deans et al., ; Mungall et al., ; Richter and Wirkner, ; a contrary opinion has been advocated by Franz, )…”

“…By describing individual organisms in the form of individual interrelations patterns and applying the semantic approach, comparative homology could take a central role in contributing relevant anatomical structural kind terms with formalized definitions to cross-species anatomy ontologies that are independent of assumptions about phylogenetic homology. The need for such a terminology has been recognized before (Vogt, 2008b(Vogt, , 2009(Vogt, , 2011Dahdul et al, 2010;Yoder et al, 2010;Vogt et al, 2010;Vogt et al, 2013;Serna et al, 2011;Mungall et al, 2012;Richter and Wirkner, 2014; a contrary opinion has been advocated by Franz, 2014). 13 This aspect of a non-evolutionary comparative account of homology seems to conform to some of Owen's intentions for his comparative homology concept being a solution to a practical problem he was facing, interpreting comparative homologues as namesakes.…”

A checklist of the non-leaf-cutting fungus-growing ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from Colombia, with new biogeographic records

“…Morphological terminology follows Serna and Mackay (2010), Serna et al (2011), Lattke (1997), and Delsinne et al (2019). Specimens were identified to genus level employing the taxonomic studies of Serna and Vergara-Navarro (2001), Fernández and Serna (2019) and Solomon et al (2019).…”

Additions to the taxonomy of the armadillo ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Tatuidris)

“…Male morphology nomenclature follows Fisher (2007, 2009). Wing venation follows Serna et al (2011). Measurements and indices are defined as follows: AScL.…”