Camponotus Mayr 1861

Ward, Philip S., Blaimer, Bonnie B. & Fisher, Brian L., 2016, A revised phylogenetic classification of the ant subfamily Formicinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), with resurrection of the genera Colobopsis and Dinomyrmex, Zootaxa 4072 (3), pp. 343-357 : 349-350

Camponotus Mayr 1861

Type species: Formica ligniperda , designated by Bingham (1903: 347). For generic synonymy see Bolton (2003) and AntCat (2015).

As a result of new phylogenetic findings we institute the following genus-level changes to Camponotus .

1 Forelophilus Kutter (type species Forelophilus overbecki , by monotypy) is demoted to subgenus (stat. n.) under Camponotus , creating the following new combinations in Camponotus : overbecki , philippinensis , stefanschoedli. One of these new combinations, C. overbecki (Kutter) , becomes a secondary junior homonym, here replaced with C. javaensis (nom. n.).

2 Phasmomyrmex Stitz (type species Phasmomyrmex sericeus (= P. buchneri ), by monotypy) is demoted to subgenus (stat. rev.) under Camponotus , creating the following revived combinations (unless noted as new) in Camponotus : aberrans , buchneri , buchneri griseus (comb. n.), paradoxus (comb. n.), paradoxus cupreus (comb. n.), wolfi . One of these new combinations, C. buchneri griseus (Santschi) , becomes a secondary junior homonym, here replaced with C. buchneri camerounensis (nom. n.). The two erstwhile subgenera of Phasmomyrmex , Myrmorhachis Forel and Myrmacantha Emery , are here treated as junior synonyms (syn. n.) of Camponotus (Phasmomyrmex) .

3 The subgenera Colobopsis Mayr and Dinomyrmex Ashmead are removed from Camponotus , and treated as separate genera (see below). The Camponotus subgenus Myrmogonia Forel becomes a junior synonym of Colobopsis .

With these changes Camponotus now comprises 45 valid subgenera (including the nominate subgenus), with three losses ( Colobopsis , Dinomyrmex , Myrmogonia ; see below) and two gains ( Forelophilus , Phasmomyrmex ).

As others have commented ( Bolton 1995), many of the Camponotus subgenera are poorly defined and undoubtedly represent artificial groupings ( Brady et al. 2000; Clouse et al. 2015). Nevertheless, until a global revision of the genus is carried out, we prefer to retain the subgeneric classification—at least some of the groups are distinctive and evidently monophyletic, and thus serve to keep clusters of closely related species together.