Crematogaster gullukdagensis , Salata, Sebastian & Borowiec, Lech, 2015
Salata, Sebastian & Borowiec, Lech, 2015, Redescription of Crematogastercypria Santschi, 1930, new status, with description of two new related species from Greece and Turkey (Hymenoptera, Formicidae), ZooKeys 505, pp. 59-77: 67-71
treatment provided by
Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Formicidae
Crematogaster gullukdagensis sp. n.
Holotype worker: Collection L. Borowiec | Formicidae | LBC-TR00073 || TURKEY, Antalaya Prov. | ancient Termessos | 1018 m, 36°58/30°27 | 3 VII 2010, L. Borowiec (MNHW no. 1223); 15 paratype workers: the same data as holotype (DBET, CASC, TU no. ANTWEB1008863-ANTWEB1008878).
See diagnosis for Crematogaster erectepilosa sp. n.
Measurements: Workers (n=16): HL: 0.981 ± 0.024 (0.932-1.027); HW: 1.001 ± 0.041 (0.949-1.084); SL: 0.894 ± 0.033 (0.843-0.988); EL: 0.224 ± 0.011 (0.201-0.246); EW: 0.156 ± 0.004 (0.151-0.168); ML:1.165 ± 0.054 (1.084-1.309); PSL: 0.229 ± 0.024 (0.19-0.294); SDL: 0.06 ± 0.01 (0.044-0.086); PL: 0.464 ± 0.038 (0.424-0.576); PPL: 0.237 ± 0.025 (0.212-0.317); PH: 0.25 ± 0.024 (0.223-0.323); PPH: 0.283 ± 0.019 (0.263-0.338); PNW: 0.618 ± 0.02 (0.575-0.654); LHT: 0.806 ± 0.028 (0.749-0.86); PW: 0.362 ± 0.01 (0.344-0.38); PPW: 0.31 ± 0.015 (0.268-0.335); CI: 101.9 ± 2.0 (99.4-105.6); SI1: 90.7 ± 1.3 (88.7-93.6); SI2: 88.9 ± 1.8 (84.9-91.0); MI: 187.1 ± 4.1 (179.8-191.8); SPI: 26.3 ± 2.8 (20.2-30.4); PI1: 185.4 ± 12.9 (173.7-222.9); PI2: 58.7 ± 1.0 (57.4-60.8); PPI1: 83.9 ± 4.2 (77.8-93.8); PPI2: 50.2 ± 1.9 (43.6-52.5); HTI: 80.8 ± 1.6 (78.9-83.8); EI: 69.5 ± 3.1 (63.4-73.6); EI1: 22.9 ± 1.0 (20.2-24.5); EI2: 16.0 ± 0.3 (15.5-16.7).
Colour uniformly yellowish brown to pale brown, mesosoma not paler coloured than head and abdomen, legs and antennae the same colour as mesosoma (Figs 5, 6).
Head shape almost square, approximately as wide as long (CI: 101.9 ± 2.0), posterior margin of head in full-face view straight and laterally rounded, occipital carinae distinct (Fig. 9). Antennal scapes slightly surpassing head margin. Midline of eyes situ ated slightly above midline of head in full-face view, eyes moderately large (EI1: 22.9 ± 1.0) and protruding. Pronotum laterally rounded, with sharp lateral margins, promesonotal suture absent, mesonotum without posterior face more or less forming one plane with pronotum. Metanotal groove deep, laterally constricted; propodeal spines long, 2.7-2.9 times as long as wide at base, spiniform, in most specimens straight (Fig. 6). Dorsal face of propodeum short but distinct, convex in profile, posterior face of propodeum distinctly sloping, without transverse groove. Petiole in dorsal view cordiform, dorsum flat or slightly concave, without posterolateral tubercules or denticles, sides carinate, subpetiolar process absent. Postpetiole distinctly bilobed, with a narrow median impression, subpostpetiolar process absent.
Head surface finely and sparsely punctate, without microreticulation between punctures, shiny. Masticatory margin of mandibles with four teeth, surface of mandibles distinctly carinate. Clypeus laterally with thin carinae, in the middle smooth or with indistinct carinae. Antennal scrobes laterally with 7-9 long carinae extending to mid length of eye, also genae with carinae and area behind eyes with thin carinae. Whole surface of head appears shiny. Vestiture of head mostly with sparse, short, adjacent to suberect hairs and 4-6 long erect setae on frons and several long erect setae on underside. Antennal scapes on anterior and dorsal surface bearing suberect setae, sometimes with 2-3 longer and more erect setae, on posterior surface basally with adjacent and distally suberect setae (Figs 9, 12). Surface of scape with indistinct microreticulation, shiny. Pronotum dorsolaterally with longitudinal rugae, anterior face mostly sparsely punctate and at most with few very short rugae, posterior face only with punctuation, surface of pronotum appears more or less shiny. Whole dorsal surface of pronotum bearing mixed sparse, short adjacent to suberect and long erect setae. Sides of pronotum only in anterior half with more or less distinct thin, transverse carinae, posterior half in most specimens completely smooth. Mesonotum dorsally on sides with longitudinal and oblique rugae, centrally partly smooth, more or less shiny, with distinct median keel in most specimens running from anterior margin of mesonotum to its ½ -⅔ length, never reaching to posterior margin of mesonotum. Surface of mesonotum with very sparse, short adjacent setae. Mesopleuron on whole surface with dense, transverse carinae. Dorsal face of propodeum laterally with longitudinal carinae, in central part more or less smooth, with very sparse and short adjacent pubescence, slope of propodeum smooth and shiny, metapleuron on whole surface with dense, transverse carinae. Petiole on sides and posterior half with long erect setae, also post petiolar tubercles several erect setae. First gastral tergite with sparse, moderately long, adjacent to suberect basic pubescence and on whole surface with sparse, moderately long erect setae (Fig. 6), subsequent tergites with row of erect setae along posterior margins. Whole surface of tergites with very fine microreticulation, appears shiny. First sternite with moderately long and sparse basic pubescence and numerous long, erect setae. Legs bearing sparse, moderately long, adjacent to suberect pubescence.
Named after terra typica: Güllük Dag mountains in Antalya Province of Turkey.
SW Turkey (Fig. 20).
The ants were collected on the trunk of a small oak species and on ground around the tree. The type locality is in a montane area within the ancient Termessos city, at 1018 m a.s.l. The following ant species were recorded from the same area: Aphaenogaster festae Emery, Aphaenogaster maculifrons Kiran & Aktaç, Aphaenogaster sporadis Santschi, Camponotus aethiops (Latreille), Camponotus boghossiani Forel, Camponotus lateralis (Olivier), Camponotus samius Forel, Cataglyphis sp., Crematogaster cf. ionia , Lasius lasoides (Emery), Messor cf. structor , Pheidole pallidula (Nylander), Tetramorium anatolicum Csösz & Schulz, and Tetramorium cf. semilaeve .
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.