Fulakora elongata

3.1.2. Fulakora elongata (Santschi, 1912) (Figures 7; 8; 9D, F, K; 17A; 21A) Larva. TL 3.05, CW 0.19, CL 0.18, Masuko’s TL 2.39 (N=1). Larva with meconium, at advanced development stage. Small hypognathous head. In full-face view, head slightly longer than wide; occipital and lateral margins of head convex. Mandibles strongly sclerotized and slender, having less than half the lenght of head, apical teeth directed medio-posteriorly. In profile, posterior margin of mandible concave. Labrum bilobed, with lobes about the same width as the wider region of mandible in full-face view; lobes covering mandibles dorsally. Maxillary and labial palps not visualized; galea conical and slender, bearing two well-developed apical sensilla. Antennae small, round, posteriad the mid-length of the head (Fig.8A). Body “pogonomyrmecoid” sensu Wheeler & Wheeler (1976); in profile somites slightly thickened posteriad, without any strong curve. Anus ventral (Fig.8B). Spiracles not visualized. Two types of setae on body: (i) simple, slightly thickened, minute, stiff setae, present in all somites except the head, more abundant on dorsum; (ii) simple, thick, erect, stiff setae, about three times the size of type i, densely present in all somites, sparsely distributed on the head (Fig.8). Examined material. One larva from the following collect event: BRA, MG, Viçosa, Mata da Biologia, - 20.758253 -42.86205, 31.iii.2023, Jacintho G.F, Chaul J. (ANTWEB1053725, collecting event GFJ000102) [CELC]. Karyology. 2n = 24 (16 metacentrics + 8 submetacentrics) (see 3.2 for discussion). Comments. The most conspicuous difference between the larvae of both species is the type of pilosity: F. estevae has long, thin, and slightly curved setae (Fig.6), whereas F. elongata has stiffer, shorter, and thicker setae (Fig.8). It is worth noting that F. elongata has overal denser pilosity on all surfaces compared to F. estevae. Also, F. estevae is bigger than the F. elongata larvae, however, as we don’t know exactly its developmental stage, no comparison is possible. We considered the specimens of our studied colonies to belong to F. elongata, despite some variation observed among them and the type species from Uruguay (Santschi, 1912; AntWeb, 2024). The complex taxonomic issue of this species concerning its infraspecific morphological variation requires further investigation. This is beyond the scope of this study, and involves the examination of the various types of subspecies currently synonymized under F. elongata, as well as the study of hundreds of non-type specimens from a much broader geographical range across the Neotropics than we did. Future revisionary studies must consider the larval description is attributed to the Minas Gerais population. We examined, either physically at CELC or through images (AntWeb, 2024), specimens of the Brazilian states of Minas Gerais, Paraná, and Santa Catarina, and from the neighbor countries Paraguay, Argentina, and Uruguay (AntWeb, 2024). All specimens shared the following characters: (i) small overall body size (TL 2.74–3.18), (ii) small genal teeth, (iii) vertex smooth, at most with piligerous punctures, (iii) presence of meso-metapleural suture/ line, and (iv) propodeal pale patches. In comparison to the Uruguayan type, the Minas Gerais population has longer mandibles, slightly longer and sharper genal teeth, and broader head. The types of F. lurilabes, a very similar species, differs from all examined populations of F. elongata by: lateral margins of head mildly tapering posteriorly; opaque/coriaceous vertexal area; A3 cinctus narrower than propodeal spiracle; and larger total length (Table 1; Appendix 2).