Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 172

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A phylogenetic analysis of the fungus‐growing ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Attini) based on morphological characters of the larvae

SCHULTZ, TED R., MEIER, RUDOLF·1995·Systematic Entomology

Abstract

A phylogenetic hypothesis of the fungus‐growing ants (subfamily Myrmicinae, tribe Attini) is proposed, based on a cladistic analysis utilizing forty‐four morphological characters (109 states) of the prepupal worker larva. The fifty‐one attine species analysed include representatives of eleven of the twelve currently recognized attine genera, excluding only the monotypic workerless parasite Pseudoatta ; the non‐attines include two outgroups (species of the basal myrmicine genera Myrmica and Pogonomyrmex ), two myrmicine species presumed to be distantly related to the attines, and twelve species representing taxa that have been proposed by prior workers as possible sister groups of the Attini. There is strong character support for the monophyly of the Attini and for a sister‐group relationship of the Attini and the Neotropical Blepharidatta brasiliensis. The Attini are divided into two distinct lineages, an ‘apterostigmoid’ clade (containing Apterostigma and Mycocepurus) and an ‘attoid’ clade (containing all other attine genera except Myrmicocrypta). The attine genus Myrmicocrypta appears to be paraphyletic with respect to these two groups; the species M.buenzlii in particular retains many attine plesiomorphies. These results indicate that the fungus‐growing behaviour had a single evolutionary origin in the ants. They also indicate that mycelium cultivation is plesiomorphic and that yeast cultivation is derived within the Attini, overturning the long‐standing assumption that the yeast‐growing Cyphomyrmex species are the most primitive Attini. Behavioural and ecological investigations into the origin and evolution of the fungus‐growing behaviour might more profitably focus on species in the attine genus Myrmicocrypta , as well as those in the closely related non‐attine genera Blepharidatta and Wasmannia.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-3113.1995.tb00100.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 172

Metadata

Authors
SCHULTZ, T. R., & MEIER, R.
Venue
Systematic Entomology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-10
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
337-370
ISSN
  • 0307-6970 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-3113
OpenAlex
W2110520788
Cited by
172
References
0
FWCI
1.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A phylogenetic analysis of the fungus‐growing ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Attini) based on morphological characters of the larvae. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-3113.1995.tb00100.x
The paper
SCHULTZ, T. R., & MEIER, R. (1995). A phylogenetic analysis of the fungus‐growing ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Attini) based on morphological characters of the larvae. Systematic Entomology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.1995.tb00100.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.