This history item belongs to Anergates Forel, 1874

Its current taxon owner(s) is Anergates

Anergates in Myrmicinae, Myrmicini: Emery, 1895l: 769; Wheeler, 1910a: 139. 

{tax 429793} in {tax 429529}, {tax 429768}: {ref 124599}: 769; {ref 130044}: 139.
  • Item type: taxt
  • Created at: 2012-09-12
  • Updated at: 2012-09-12
Related records
Taxa belonging to this history item's protonym
Anergates Genus Synonym
junior synonym of current valid taxon Tetramorium Mayr, 1855
Other history items belonging to Anergates
#241989 Anergates in Myrmicinae: Forel, 1874: 67 [Myrmicidae]; Emery, 1877b: 81 [Myrmicidae]; Emery & Forel, 1879: 457 [Myrmicidae]; Dalla Torre, 1893: 64 [Myrmicinae].
#241990 Anergates in Myrmicinae, Formicoxenini: Forel, 1893b: 165.
#241991 (selected) Anergates in Myrmicinae, Myrmicini: Emery, 1895l: 769; Wheeler, 1910a: 139.
#241992 Anergates in Myrmicinae, Solenopsidini: Emery, 1914e: 41 [subtribe Anergatini]; Emery, 1916a: 167; Forel, 1917: 243; Emery, 1922c: 205 [subtribe Anergatini]; Wheeler, 1922: 663; Wheeler & Wheeler, 1985b: 257 (anachronism).
#241993 Anergates incertae sedis in Myrmicinae: Ettershank, 1966: 81.
#241994 Anergates in Myrmicinae, Tetramoriini: Bolton, 1976: 296; Smith, 1979: 1401; Dlussky & Fedoseeva, 1988: 80; Bolton, 1994: 106; Bolton, 1995b: 20; Sanetra & Buschinger, 2000: 108; Bolton, 2003: 224.
#305769 Anergates as genus: Emery, 1877b: 81; Emery & Forel, 1879: 457; Dalla Torre, 1893: 64; Forel, 1893b: 165; Emery, 1895l: 769; Wheeler, 1910a: 139; Emery, 1914e: 41; Emery, 1916a: 167; Forel, 1917: 243; Emery, 1922c: 205; Wheeler, 1922: 663; Ettershank, 1966: 81; Bolton, 1976: 296; Smith, 1979: 1401; Wheeler & Wheeler, 1985b: 257; Dlussky & Fedoseeva, 1988: 80; Hölldobler & Wilson, 1990: 12; Bolton, 1994: 106; Bolton, 1995b: 20; Sanetra & Buschinger, 2000: 108; Bolton, 2003: 63, 224.
#275387 Anergates as junior synonym of Tetramorium: Ward et al., 2015: 76.
#305770 [Note: some authors would prefer to retain Anergates as a paraphyletic genus: Seifert et al., 2016: 237. The compiler of this catalogue emphatically supports monophyly, in agreement with Ward et al., 2016: 489.]