Camponotus boghossiani Forel, 1911

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 boghossiani Forel, 1911 Figs 11 , 12 , 27 , 28

Camponotus boghossiani Forel, 1911: 357 (s.w.). Syntype workers, Lesbos, Greece (MHNG) [syntypes personally investigated, CASENT0910435 and CASENT0910436].

= Camponotus boghossiani var. stenotica Emery, 1915: 7 (= Camponotus kiesenwetteri angustatus Forel, 1889: 261, not Camponotus angustata (Latreille, 1798)); Salata and Borowiec 2018: 7: as a synonym of C. boghossiani . Holotype worker, Samos, Greece (ZMHB) [Holotype worker images examined, AntWeb, FOCOL2488, photos by Christiana Klingenberg, available on AntWeb.org]. Note: specimen from Rethymno, Crete, Greece (MSNG), CASENT0905396 is wrongly noted as syntype of Camponotus stenoticus .

Diagnosis.

Head, mesosoma, and gaster uniformly black; metanotal groove present, shallow; propodeum without or with indistinct bulge-like protrusions; 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 thick.

Distribution.

Greece: North Aegean Islands, Crete (Heraklion), South Aegean Islands (Cyclades, Dodecanese), Peloponnese (Messinia); Turkey: Antalya, Balıkesir, Çanakkale, Denizli, Karaman, Kütahya, Muğla, and Uşak.

Comments.

Density of sculpture slightly differs within this species and populations from Peloponnese and Aegean Islands are slightly more sculptured than populations from western Turkey. Camponotus boghossiani is most similar to C. nitidescens and C. schulzi and differs from them in the stronger sculpture of the mesosoma and gaster which, at first glance, appears very dull. While in both relatives the sculpture is slightly diffused and the surface is at least partly shiny. Camponotus kiesenwetteri has a similarly sculptured body surface but differs in having the posterior margin of the propodeum more or less excavate and forming well-developed, lateral dentate protrusions while in C. boghossiani the posterior margin of the propodeum is straight, without protrusions. Isolated specimens of C. kiesenwetteri , with posterior margin of propodeum very shallowly excavate, at first glance look very similar to specimens of C. boghossiani but can be easily be separated by having an antennal scape with a distinct basal extension, while in C. boghossiani the base of the antennal scape has no extension. Precipitation of the wettest quarter was the variable that contributed the most to the distribution model. High suitable areas are indicated especially along the coast of Turkey, Cyprus and Crete.

Figures

Figures 11 - 16. Workers in lateral view 11, 13, 15 major 12, 14, 16 minor: 11, 12 Camponotus boghossiani Forel 13, 14 C. kiesenwetteri (Roger) 15, 16 C. nitidescens Forel.

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