Camponotus aegaeus Emery, 1915

Salata, Sebastian, Loss, Ana Carolina, Karaman, Celal, Kiran, Kadri & Borowiec, Lech, 2019, Review of the Camponotus kiesenwetteri group (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in the Aegean with the description of a new species, ZooKeys 899, pp. 85-107 : 85

Camponotus aegaeus Emery, 1915 Figs 17 , 18 , 23 , 24

Camponotus (Orthonotomyrmex) libanicus var. aegaea Emery, 1915: 4, figs 1, 2 (s.w.q.m.). Syntype workers, queen, Isola Rodi, Greece (Festa) (MSNG) [Syntype worker images examined, AntWeb, CASENT0905395, photos by Zach Lieberman, available on https://www.AntWeb.org]

Diagnosis.

Head, mesosoma, and gaster uniformly blackish-brown to black; metanotal groove absent; propodeum without posterior protrusion; body densely punctate, appears dull; base of scape without extension; whole body bears long, thick, pale, dense and erect setae, and short appressed microsetae; petiolar scale thin (PI> 1.50).

Distribution.

Greece: North Aegean Islands, South Aegean Islands (Dodecanese), Central Macedonia, Eastern Macedonia and Thrace; Turkey: Adana, Afyon, Antalya, Aydın, Balıkesir, Bilecik, Bursa, Çanakkale, Denizli, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, İzmir, Kırklareli, Kütahya, Manisa, Muğla, Sakarya, Uşak, and Yalova. The species was also recorded from North Macedonia ( Bračko et al. 2014) and Bulgaria ( Lapeva-Gjonova 2010).

Comments.

Almost completely blackish-brown to black body and regularly arched (in lateral view) mesosoma cluster this species with Camponotus libanicus . At first glance both species look extremely similar and the most relevant character distinguishing both taxa is the shape of petiolar scale. Camponotus aegaeus has the scale thin (PI> 1.50) with a feebly convex anterior surface, while in C. libanicus the scale is thick (PI <1.42) with a strongly convex anterior surface. Both species appear to be vicariant taxa with a more westerly distribution of C. aegaeus and more a easterly distribution of C. libanicus ( Figs 24 , 32 ). Indeed, niche modeling for both species show similar areas with high suitability, especially along the south coast of Turkey and Cyprus. However, unlike C. libanicus , C. aegaeus has not been recorded from the island. Solar radiation was the variable that contributed the most to the niche model of C. aegaeus .

Figures

Figures 17 - 22. Workers in lateral view 17, 19, 21 major 18, 20, 22 minor: 17, 18 Camponotus aegaeus Emery 19, 20 C. libanicus Andre 21, 22 C. aktaci Karaman.

Figures 23 - 30. Habitat suitability and distribution 23, 24 Camponotus aegaeus 25, 26 Camponotus aktaci 27, 28 Camponotus boghossiani 29, 30 Camponotus kiesenwettri.

Figures 31 - 34. Habitat suitability and distribution 31, 32 Camponotus libanicus 33, 34 Camponotus nitidescens 35 distribution of Camponotus schulzi 36 the Aegean with adjacent regions.