Pseudoneoponera bispinosa

AntWiki: The Ants --- Online

Similar to P. rufipes, P. bispinosa also produces a foamy secretion from their gaster when disturbed, which is used for defense.

Pseudoneoponera bispinosa
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Hymenoptera
Family: Formicidae
Subfamily: Ponerinae
Tribe: Ponerini
Genus: Pseudoneoponera
Species: P. bispinosa
Binomial name
Pseudoneoponera bispinosa
(Smith, F., 1858)

Pachycondyla bispinosa casent0902480 p 1 high.jpg

Pachycondyla bispinosa casent0902480 d 1 high.jpg

Specimen Labels

Photo Gallery

  • Pseudoneoponera bispinosa worker, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. Photo by Yathumon M A.



Latitudinal Distribution Pattern

Latitudinal Range: 32.628611° to 23.5°.

Tropical South

Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists

Oriental Region: India (type locality), Nepal.
Palaearctic Region: China.

Distribution based on AntMaps


Distribution based on AntWeb specimens

Check data from AntWeb

Countries Occupied

Number of countries occupied by this species based on AntWiki Regional Taxon Lists. In general, fewer countries occupied indicates a narrower range, while more countries indicates a more widespread species.

Estimated Abundance

Relative abundance based on number of AntMaps records per species (this species within the purple bar). Fewer records (to the left) indicates a less abundant/encountered species while more records (to the right) indicates more abundant/encountered species.




The following information is derived from Barry Bolton's Online Catalogue of the Ants of the World.

  • bispinosa. Pachycondyla bispinosa Smith, F. 1858b: 107 (w.) (“Hab. Australia?”)
    • Type-material: holotype(?) worker.
    • [Note: presumed holotype worker is labelled “type. Sm. Coll. 79. 32”, with no locality data on the label. There is no proof that this specimen is in fact the holotype. If the “79” refers to 1879, as is usual in old BMNH accessions, that would rule out this specimen because the holotype was collected before 1858.]
    • Type-locality: Australia: “Hab. Australia?” (no further data).
    • [Note: type-locality India, after Forel, 1886d: 246, Forel, 1900d: 326, Bingham, 1903: 97.]
    • Type-depository: BMNH.
    • Combination in Ponera (Pachycondyla): Roger, 1861a: 8;
    • combination in Pachycondyla: Mayr, 1863: 439;
    • combination in Bothroponera: Emery, 1889b: 495; Bingham, 1903: 97;
    • combination in Pachycondyla (Bothroponera): Emery, 1901a: 45;
    • combination in Pseudoneoponera: Schmidt, C.A. & Shattuck, 2014: 135.
    • Junior synonym of rufipes: Forel, 1886d: 246.
    • Status as species: Roger, 1861a: 8; Roger, 1863b: 18; Mayr, 1863: 439; Emery, 1889b: 495; Dalla Torre, 1893: 35; Emery, 1895k: 459; Forel, 1900d: 326; Bingham, 1903: 97; Forel, 1906b: 91; Emery, 1911d: 76; Wheeler, W.M. 1927b: 42; Menozzi, 1939a: 328; Chapman & Capco, 1951: 49; Bolton, 1995b: 303; Zhou & Ran, 2010: 107; Guénard & Dunn, 2012: 60; Bharti, Guénard, et al. 2016: 53.
    • Distribution: China, India, Myanamar.

The following notes on F. Smith type specimens have been provided by Barry Bolton (details):

Holotype (presumed) worker in The Natural History Museum. Labelled “type. Sm. Coll. 79. 32.” No locality is given. In the original description Smith gives the type-locality as “Australia?.” There is thus no proof that this specimen is in fact the holotype. If the “79” refers to 1879, that would rule out this specimen.


Unless otherwise noted the text for the remainder of this section is reported from Bingham (1903) described as Bothroponera bispinosa.


In colour and sculpture entirely resembling B. rufipes, Jerdon, but larger, and the metanotum armed on each side at the posterior end of the basal portion with a subtriaugular flat blunt spine pointing backwards and upwards.

Length: 16-18 mm


References based on Global Ant Biodiversity Informatics

  • Basu P., N. Tak, and A. K. Sanyal. 2013. Ants (insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Bethuadahari wildlife sanctuary, Nadia, West Bengal, India. Rec. zool, Surv. India: 113(4): 17-22.
  • Bharti H., Y. P. Sharma, M. Bharti, and M. Pfeiffer. 2013. Ant species richness, endemicity and functional groups, along an elevational gradient in the Himalayas. Asian Myrmecology 5: 79-101.
  • Bharti H., Y. P. Sharma, and A. Kaur. 2009. Seasonal patterns of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Punjab Shivalik. Halteres 1(1): 36-47.
  • Chapman, J. W., and Capco, S. R. 1951. Check list of the ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Asia. Monogr. Inst. Sci. Technol. Manila 1: 1-327
  • Dad J. M., S. A. Akbar, H. Bharti, and A. A. Wachkoo. 2019. Community structure and ant species diversity across select sites ofWestern Ghats, India. Acta Ecologica Sinica 39: 219–228.
  • Emery C. 1889. Formiche di Birmania e del Tenasserim raccolte da Leonardo Fea (1885-87). Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale 27: 485-520.
  • Emery C. 1911. Hymenoptera. Fam. Formicidae. Subfam. Ponerinae. Genera Insectorum 118: 1-125.
  • Forel A. 1900. Les Formicides de l'Empire des Indes et de Ceylan. Part VII. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 13: 303-332.
  • Forel A. 1906. Les fourmis de l'Himalaya. Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 42: 79-94.
  • Guénard B., and R. R. Dunn. 2012. A checklist of the ants of China. Zootaxa 3558: 1-77.
  • Tiwari R.N., B.G. Kundu, S. Roychowdhury, S.N. Ghosh. 1999. Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae. Pp. 211-294 in: Director; Zoological Survey of India (ed.) 1999. Fauna of West Bengal. Part 8. Insecta (Trichoptera, Thysanoptera, Neuroptera, Hymenoptera and Anoplura). Calcutta: Zoological Survey of India, iv + 442 pp.
  • Xu Z., Lai Y., Li T. and Dai S. 1998. Five species of Formicidae newly recorded in China (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Southwest Forestry College 18: 245-249.