Pristomyrmex pungens is a small (one of the smaller) species of Pristomyrmex (the smallest size species describe in this blog) that as with most species of this genus quasi arboreal foraging both on the ground and in trees. According to the authoritative description this species is queenless and the major (i.e. larger) workers are egg layers.
But actually they are more like (what I called or termed as) secondary reproductives of termites (which in termites are males or females) which are common in termites but not common in ants, but there are as in this case.
Then there are ants that has what science (or rather myrmecology) is termed as gamergates (aka worker queens) where workers are all potentially queens. In these we have genera of ants such as the Harpegnathos, Diacamma, Dinoponera. In some genera and species of ants these non reproducing workers still retain the ability to reproduced when they eclosed from their pupa stage.
Most evolutionary scientists have ants as evolved from wasps and social wasps from solitary wasps. So from the solitary to the social the evolutionary pathway must be first of cooperating queens (i.e. imago female reproducing) of wasps before the reproduction function became centered on just one leaving the rest to over time turned into non reproducing workers.
Technically then gamergates aka worker queens are more actually queens and less workers. This in fact is what solitary species of wasp are — working queens — they lay eggs, hunt for food and rear the brood. Semi claustral ant queens too take on a so called 'worker' role during the colony founding stage. Even in fully claustral ants founding queens basically tend to the brood (as well as serve as quasi food repletes until the colony reaches a certain size), unlike semi claustral queens they just don't forage or hunt for food because they come with larger gaster fatten with nutrients for the founding stage of their life cycle. The whole idea of workers doubling as queens is just upside down, it is the other way around - it is queens doubling as workers.
Frankly to me all these (so called worker queens or gamergates) are more queen also acting as workers.
The difference between the gamergates (so called) and the true queens is not distinct except that the queens are mated and the so called their equivalent (so called) workers are not for some reasons such as their sex organs being destroyed or damaged. Whereas the difference between (so called true) queens and (so called true) workers is that these workers are sterile and often cannot be mated (by a male or drone).
In some ants, both unmated queens as well as (some of) the workers can and do lay eggs though in these case the eggs either done hatch or only produce males. In honey bees too this happens. So the line between workers and queens in such cases are not very definitive or distinct.
In many social animals, even advanced animals such as mammals, we have cases where only the dominion (i.e. alpha) males and females mate and produce offspring while the rest of the clans though not sterile do not and takes on a supporting (workers') role in the clan or social group.
There are cases such as in army ants where the queen to be; and in so called queenless ants (among others), which technically should be casteless ants, where egg laying member are called gamergates. With these mating commonly occur inside the nest and colony. Even these are atypical ant queens because they do not participate in nuptial swarms before establishing their colonies. In most of these cases of these (non imago as not typical of imago insects) queens, the copulation takes place within the nest by males that are introduced (or allowed) by the workers into the nest.
Then there are polygynous ants where (i.e. true, not the artificial) polygynous ants, all the queens in the nest and colony too are also mated within the nest or colony. These are sibling mating (aka incestuous copulation, allowed in animals, illegal in humans) where the drone or males of the colony mates with their siblings imago female alates (i.e. queen wannabe) of the same colony.
Now consider that in true polygynous ants, in nest (not nuptial swarming) mating takes places between (siblings) drone male ants and their imago sibling female queen ants; it should be understood that for such cases of in nest incestuous mating, there is no requirement to produce egg laying queens in the nest to undergo the a nuptial swarming so the necessity for such queens to bears wings become pointless and these wings essentially useless.
Then taking this to another level, why even have mating at all if there is no introduction of new genetic material (meaning the mating is incestuous as per human definition) to the gene pool of the species since sibling mating is basically the same thing as no mating required as no variant genetic material is introduced into colony. Fact is, many animals reproduce asexually, no mating is required (thus no males required), so contextually incestuous mating function from the context of introducing genetic variant is the same as no mating required.
Then there are also those which only produce males for certain situation (or when certain situation arises). One such is for species dispersal which from an evolution standoff may be needed as the mechanism to allow for better adaptation (aka adjustment) to different local parameters to ensure better survival. The whole purpose of sexual reproduction, if we actually understand the mechanics of evolution, is to allow for lifeform to adapt to diverse environment on the planet and is not out of some random totally gone wrong accident (aka mutation, as originally mooted but has since been twisted by science to mean totally something else) in the genetic biological process of mitosis and meiosis.
It would therefore be considered a natural progression of evolution (which has a mandated requirement to develop and enhanced organs and appendages that are needed and to do away with those that are no longer used and useful) over time to do away with the need for these imago ants to develop wings as well as the ocelli eyes.
So then Pristomyrmex pungens can from the context of evolutionary progression, be considered as among the most advanced of polygynous ants having done away with the need to release flying imago females to find new colony.
If we examine the queens of the Pristomyrmex genus and other closely related genus, we would note that the the queens of all these genera resembles the workers except that they may be slightly larger, sport wings (and the corresponding larger thorax because of the wings muscles needed) and (larger, for those which the workers still retain them or rudiments of them) compound eyes and the ocelli eyes. These genera also are monomorphic without any major worker chaste. So to conclude that these egg laying individuals in Pristomyrmex pungens are (larger) workers based on the evidence presented, is erroneous. These are not larger workers but secondary queens, queens that do not participate in nuptials to establish new colonies.
Cardiocondyla queen and worker
are around the same size
Secrostruma sp. queen (photo above) at around 6 mm (TL)
is around the same size as the worker (photo below)
And Pristomyrmex pungens is of course
not alone in this, there are other species (also species in other genus) that has developed what should be
appropriately termed "secondary" queens (i.e. reproductives, as ants do not have provisions for kings in the colony).
Monomorium sp. with secondary queens that do not sport wings with corresponding size thorax that are much smaller.
In this blog, I have recorded of another development of such "secondary" queens in a species of Monomorium (which looks very similar to
Monomorium pharaonis but is not).
You can see more of this "secondary" queens in Monomorium (which I have provisionally called Monomorium pseudopharaonis) in the
Monomorium pharaonis post.
The two sizes of workers, the larger (top) is a worker queen (egg laying individual).
Pristomyrmex pungens worker queen (second from left) and workers
Pristomyrmex pungens workers and worker queen (center among the workers carrying brood).
Pristomyrmex pungen worker queen.
Pristomyrmex pungen worker queen.
Pristomyrmex pungens, worker queen (left) and normal worker (right).
Pristomyrmex pungen worker queen.
See also:
Pristomyrmex trachylissusPristomyrmex sp(02)Pristomyrmex sp(03)
Taxonomy:
No rank: cellular organisms 131567
Superkingdom (Domain): Eukaryota 2759
No rank: Opisthokonta 33154
Kingdom: Metazoa 33208
No rank: Eumetazoa 6072
No rank (Subkingdom): Bilateria 33213
No rank (Branch): Protostomia 33317
No rank (Infrakingdom): Ecdysozoa
No rank (Superphylum): Panarthropoda 88770
Phylum: Arthropoda 6656
No rank (Subphylum): Mandibulata 197563
No rank: Pancrustacea 197562
Subphylum (Epiclass): Hexapoda 6960
Class: Insecta 50557
No rank (Subclass): Dicondylia 85512
Subclass (Infraclass): Pterygota 7496
Infraclass: Neoptera 33340
Cohort: Holometabola
Order: Hymenoptera 7399
Suborder Apocrita 7400
Infraorder: Aculeata 7434
Superfamily: Formicoidea
Family: Formicidae 36668
Subfamily: Myrmicinae 34695
Tribe: Myrmecinini 144010
Genus: Pristomyrmex 255791
Last Updated: 2020 09 16
First Published: 2020 09 16
© 2009 – 2020 Quah. All rights reserved.
