Abstract
In order to decipher biodiversity, we need to maintain and improve the descriptive scope by pursuing the fundamental ontology and conceptual foundations. Descriptive morphology is currently the clearest avenue to conceiving, understanding and conceptually conveying species as units of evolution and ecology (Serna and Mackay 2010; Wheeler 2008 and references therein). Morphological descriptions ought to be independent of homology as explanatory mechanisms (Vogt 2008). Although essential to providing conceptual criteria for choosing and delimiting morphological units, homology does not require morphological terms to be defined in reference to it (Vogt et al. 2010). Ant morphology and its associated terminology demands intensive studies in order to unify criteria for the basic descriptive and comparative work (Serna and Mackay 2010).
References
Gauld, I.D. & Bolton B. [Editors] (1988) The Hymenoptera. Oxford University Press + British Museum (Natural History). 332 pp.
Hölldobler, B. & Wilson, E.O. (1990) The Ants. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, p. 9.
Serna, F. & Mackay, W. (2010) A descriptive morphology of the ant genus Procryptocerus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Insect Science 10:111 available online: insectscience.org/10.111
Vogt, L. (2008) The future role of bio-ontologies for developing a general data standard in biology: chance and challenge for zoo-morphology. Zoomorphology, 128, 201–217. DOI 10.1007/s00435-008-0081-5.
Vogt, L., Thomas, B. & Giribet, G. (2010) The linguistic problem of morphology: structure versus homology and the standardization of morphological data. Cladistics 26, 301–325.
Wheeler, Q.D. (2008) Undisciplined thinking: morphology and Henning’s unfinished revolution. Systematic Entomology 33, 2–7.