Camponotus, Mayr, 1861

Salata, Sebastian, Demetriou, Jakovos, Georgiadis, Christos & Borowiec, Lech, 2023, Camponotus Mayr, 1861 (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Cyprus: generic synopsis and description of a new species, Asian Myrmecology (e 016007) 16, pp. 1-33 : 29-32

Key to workers (minor and major) of Cypriot species of the genus Camponotus

1. Anterior margin of clypeus rounded, not extending beyond anterior margin of gena ( Figs 3, 4 , 21, 23, 25, 27 ) ......................................................... 2.

-. Anterior margin of clypeus projected beyond anterior margin of gena, forms a plate with rightangled anterolateral corners ( Figs 10, 11 , 18, 19 , 29, 31, 33, 35 ) ................................................... 6.

2(1). At least gaster and mesosoma mostly or completely shiny, with fine microcostulae, microreticulate or sparsely alveolate .................................. 3.

-. Entire body matte, head and mesosoma coarsely sculptured, densely alveolate ( Figs 21, 22 ) ......... ................................................ C. libanicus André

3(2). Dorsum of mesosoma in lateral view forms regular arch, metanotal groove absent ( Figs 1, 2 , 24 ) ................................................................... 4.

-. Dorsum of mesosoma in lateral view with deep metanotal groove, propodeum saddle shaped ( Figs 26, 28 ) .............................................................. 5.

4(3). Head, mesosoma and femora partly reddish, reddish-brown to brown. Propodeal dorsum concave ( Figs 1, 2 )...... C. cf. vitiosus (alien species)

-. Head, mesosoma, and femora deep black. Propodeal dorsum never concave ( Figs 23, 24 ) ....... ................................................... C. gestroi Emery

5(3). Propodeal saddle low and long; mesonotal groove shallow. Transverse ripples on first gastral tergite deeper and denser, mean distance between ripples 7.1–9.5 μm ( Fig. 26 ) .... C. rebeccae Forel

-. Propodeal saddle high and short; mesonotal groove deep. Transverse ripples on first gastral tergite shallower and sparser, mean distance between ripples 9.1–13.7 μm ( Fig. 28 ).................... ............................................. C. lateralis (Olivier)

6(1). Ventral margin of hind tibiae with a row of chaetae. At least minor workers partly yellow to rusty yellow ( Figs 31-36 )................................. 7.

-. Ventral margin of hind tibiae without a row of chaetae except for apical thorn. Both minor and major workers in Cypriot populations predominantly brown to partly black ( Figs 29, 30 )........... ......................................... C. jaliensis Dalla Torre

7(6). Dorsal surface of antennal scape and hind tibia with completely appressed pubescence. Lateral face of head posterior to the eye without erect setae ( Figs 11 , 15 , 33, 35 ) ................................. 8. -. Dorsal surface of antennal scape and hind tibia with subdecumbent to suberect pubescence. Area posterolateral from eyes with erect setae ( Fig. 31 ) ............................................. C. samius Forel

8(7). Ventral surface of head with several erect setae ( Figs 9 , 13 , 36 ). Smaller species, HL in major workers up to 3.18 mm (HL 3.01 (2.67-3.18) for C. cecconii and 2.854 (2.60-3.20) for C. troodosensis ) .............................................................. 9.

-. Ventral surface of head without or at most with 1-3 very short, erect setae ( Fig. 34 ). Large species, HL in major workers up to 4.18 mm (HL 4.05 (3.7- 4.18) ........................................... C. sanctus Forel

9(8). First gastral tergite in minor, medium, and major workers uniformly dark brown to black, sometimes anterior slope slightly paler brown than posterior dorsum but never yellow ( Fig. 36 ) ....... ................................................ C. cecconii Emery

-. First gastral tergite in minor, medium, and major workers with yellow anterior slope, occasionally anterior slope reddish brown but distinctly paler than posterior dorsum ( Figs 8, 9 , 12-15 ).............. ....................................... C. troodosensis sp. nov.

Figures

Figs 3, 4. Worker of Camponotus cf. vitiosus (DBETCV001) 3 worker head and antennae (scale bar = 0.5 mm) 4 worker head sculpture.

Figs 21-28. Major workers.Camponotus libanicusAndré, 1881:21 – head, 22 – lateral. Camponotus gestroi Emery, 1878: 23 – head, 24 – lateral. Camponotus rebbecae Forel, 1913: 25 – head, 26 – lateral. Camponotus lateralis (Olivier, 1792): head – 27, lateral – 28.

Figs 10, 11. Major worker of Camponotus troodosensis sp. nov. (DBETCT001) 10 head and antennae 11 head sculpture (scale bar = 1 mm).

Figs 18, 19. Minor worker of Camponotus troodosensis sp. nov. (DBETCT003) 18 head and antennae 19 head sculpture (scale bar = 1 mm).

Figs 29-36. Major workers. Camponotus jaliensis Dalla Torre, 1893: 29 – head, 30 – lateral. Camponotus samius Forel, 1889: 31 – head, 32 – lateral. Camponotus sanctus Forel, 1904: 33 – head, 34 – lateral. Camponotus cecconii Emery, 1908: 35 – head, 36 – lateral.

Figs 1, 2. Worker of Camponotus cf. vitiosus (DBETCV001) 1 dorsal 2 lateral (scale bar = 1 mm).

Figs 14, 15. Medium worker of Camponotus troodosensis sp. nov. (DBETCT002) 14 head and antennae 15 head sculpture (scale bar = 1 mm).

Figs 8, 9. Major worker of Camponotus troodosensis sp. nov. (DBETCT001) 8 dorsal 9 lateral (scale bar = 2 mm).

Figs 12, 13. Medium worker of Camponotus troodosensis sp. nov. (DBETCT002) 12 dorsal 13 lateral (scale bar = 2 mm).