Ant systematics: past, present, and future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The classification of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) has progressed in waves since the first 17 species were described by Linnaeus in the 1758 edition of Systema Naturae. Since then, over 18,000 species-rank names have accumulated for the global myrmecofauna, of which ~14,260 living and ~810 fossil species are valid. Here, we provide a synopsis of ant biodiversity and review the history and classification of the family, while highlighting the massive growth of the field in the new millennium. We observe that major transformation has occurred for ant classification due to advances in DNA sequencing technologies, model-based hypothesis testing, and imaging technologies. We therefore provide a revised and illustrated list of diagnostic character states for the higher clades of Formicidae, recognizing that vastly more work is to be done. To facilitate discussion and the systematic accumulation of evolutionary knowledge for the early evolution of the ants, we suggest an informal nomenclatural system for the higher clades of ants, based on names currently in use and a set of names that have been democratically selected by the authors. To guide future work on ant systematics, we summarize currently available databases and present perspectives on regions in need of biodiversity exploration, challenges facing the field, and the future of ant taxonomy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".