AUTHOR: Walter R. Tschinkel, Dept. of Biological Science, Florida State Univ., Tallahassee, FL 32306-3050
JOURNAL: Ecological Monographs 63: 425-457.
INTRODUCTION: The data reported in this table are the basis for most of the analyses in the above paper. A total of 89 colonies were sampled on 7 dates (SAM) throughout one year. Nine to 16 colonies were sampled on each date. All types and stages of ants in the colonies were censused (the columns labeled "Number of"), mound volume (MVOL) was measured and colonies were classified into 6 size classes (SZ CL). The collected ants were oven-dried for the computation of mean weights (columns labeled "Meat Wt.(mg) of"). Workers were sorted into 5 size classes, oven-dried and fat-extracted. The columns labeled "Worker Size Class (mm HW)" contain the following data for each worker size class: (1) headwidth dimension range, listed in parentheses following the heading identifying size class; (2) total number of workers in the sample (N); (3) total weight of that sample (Wt(mg)); (4) the total weight of fat in the sample (fat(mg)), calculated as the difference between the initial dry weight of the sample and its weight after extraction. All worker characteristics used in the paper can be calculated from these data.
NOTE: Whereas this supplement refers to "weight", the paper itself uses the term "mass". The author understands that what he measured was "weight" rather than "mass" because he used devices which did not balance one mass against another. Rather, all devices resisted the force of gravity by a counter-force (spring elasticity, magnetic field, etc), thereby measuring "weight". However, the editorial staff insisted that a hoary and incorrect editorial policy be adhered to, forcing the author to change "weight" to "mass". Once again, bureacracy prevailed over truth, though I admit the battle was fun.