Cataglyphis livida ( André, 1881 )

Kiran, Kadri & Karaman, Celal, 2020, Additions to the Ant Fauna of Turkey (Hymenoptera, Formicidae), Zoosystema 42 (18), pp. 285-329 : 292

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5252/zoosystema2020v42a18
publication LSID	urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A9F490C6-E406-45CC-B5D3-B949712E2DEB
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5641672
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C75687E7-FF9C-2475-FEEF-6B1DFB59A69D
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Cataglyphis livida ( André, 1881 )
status

Treatment

Cataglyphis livida ( André, 1881)

Myrmecocystus Albicans var. lividus André, 1881: 58 View in CoL .

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Turkey • 1 ☿; Adıyaman; 37°45’N, 38°16’E; 07.V.2015; S. Yıldız leg.; EMTU 15 /0042m GoogleMaps • 1 ♀, 3 ☿; Antalya ,

Manavgat, Yeniköy ; 36°50’N, 31°22’E; 01.VII.2012; C. Karaman leg.; EMTU 12 /0072c GoogleMaps • 2 ☿; Bursa, Gemlik, Narlı Vill. ; 40°28’53”N, 29°01’26”E; 350 m; 14.VIII.1998; K. Kiran leg.; EMTU K98 /0632 GoogleMaps • 2 ☿; Elazığ, Cip Dam ; 38°40’48”N, 39°03’59”E; 1006 m; 04. VI.2007; E. Çoban leg.; EMTU 07 /0063b GoogleMaps • 12 ☿; Erzincan, Yeşilçat Vill. ; 39°48’N, 39°21’E; 1384 m; 25.VII.2004; E. Çoban leg.; EMTU 04 /0377c GoogleMaps • 5 ☿; Kocaeli, Karamürsel, Tahtalı Vill. ; 40°34’39”N, 29°38’39”E; 500 m; 05.VIII.1998; K. Kiran leg.; EMTU K98 /0499 GoogleMaps • 1 ☿; Malatya, Arapgir, Aktaş Vill. ; 38°55’N, 38°27’E; 09. VI.2008; M. Yurtcan leg.; EMTU 08 /0018b GoogleMaps • 3 ☿; Muş, Varto, Tepeköy ; 39°05’N, 41°30’E; 11.VII.2010; F. Toprak leg.; EMTU 10 /0091 GoogleMaps • 8 ☿; Şanlıurfa; 37°09’12”N, 38°47’26”E; 23.VII.2011; C. Karaman leg.; EMTU 11 /0090a GoogleMaps • 1 ☿; Tunceli, Pertek, Ardıç Vill. ; 38°58’N, 39°17’E; 24.VII.2010; N. Deniz leg.; EMTU 10 /0121 GoogleMaps .

DISTRIBUTION IN TURKEY. — Bitlis, Edirne, İzmir, Siirt.

REMARKS

In the former studies, three taxa of the C. albicans group were reporter from Turkey C. livida , C. viaticoides ( André, 1881) and C. rubra (Forel, 1903) . But our studies revealed that there are only two species. One of them is uniformly bright yellow and the other is distinctly bicolored. The occurrence of C. rubra is based on Radchenko’s papers ( Radchenko 1997 a, 1998), who determined distinctly bicoloured specimens as C. rubra ( Radchenko 1997a) . His assumption was probably based on confusion related with the type labels of C. livida and C. viaticoides , which was explained by Bračko et al. (2016). After solving the mislabelling of the type specimens of C. livida and C. viaticoides , C. rubra was removed from the ant fauna of Turkey considering its North African, Central and South Middle East distribution ( Borowiec 2014).