Camponotus crispulus Santschi 1922
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.179222 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6247331 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C2878B-FFEB-FFEC-F3D4-D076332EFECD |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Camponotus crispulus Santschi 1922 |
status |
|
Camponotus crispulus Santschi 1922 b. NEW STATUS.
Camponotus (Myrmaphaenus) blandus View in CoL var. crispula Santschi 1922b: 110 . [w syntypes examined, NHMB; Cabana, Córdoba, Argentina (Scott) ].
Camponotus (Myrmaphaenus) blandus View in CoL st. crispulus Santschi 1929b: 315 . Camponotus (Myrmaphaenus) blandus View in CoL var. crispulus Santschi. Kempf 1972: 44 .
Camponotus crispulus is locally sympatric in Paraguay with at least two other species in the C. blandus complex, most frequently the similarly-colored C. rosariensis . Both species share a similarly dense pubsence over most of the body and a common bicoloration consisting of a red head and mesosoma and a dark gaster. However, C. crispulus is structurally more compact, with shorter appendages and a relatively tall propodeum. In my experience, the easiest character to separate C. crispulus from other bicolored blandus- complex species is the unique pattern of pubescense on the gaster. While all species in the complex show some degree of medial convergence in the appressed setae on the gastric terga, in C.
crispulus this convergence is extreme, starting on the first gastric tergite (= abd. tergite 3) well ahead of the posterior margin and continuing to the apex of the gaster almost as a visible line. Because of the distinct morphological separation in sympatry between C. crispulus and other closely-related forms, I find unambiguous the elevation of C. crispulus to species.
Material from Paraguay is a close match to Santschi’s types from Córdoba, although Santschi’s material is somewhat more pubescent. F. Smith’s C. blandus holotype worker (BMNH, examined- see discussion under C. pellitus ) from Pará is clearly a different species, as that ant is more gracile than C. crispulus and lacks the distinct pubescence.
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Camponotus crispulus Santschi 1922
Wild, Alexander L. 2007 |
var. crispulus
Santschi. Kempf 1972: 44 |
crispulus
Santschi 1929: 315 |
var. crispula
Santschi 1922: 110 |