Camponotus (Tanaemyrmex) tinctus ( Smith, 1858 )

Camponotus (Tanaemyrmex) tinctus ( Smith, 1858) View in CoL , nom. rev.

Formica tincta Smith, 1858: 21 View in CoL View Cited Treatment (q.)

Viehmeyer, 1916; 155 (s.w.); Karavaiev, 1929b: 237 (m.)

Combination in Camponotus : Mayr, 1862: 676.

Combination in Camponotus (Myrmoturba) : Forel, 1914: 267.

Combination in Camponotus (Tanaemyrmex) : Emery, 1925: 94.

Status as species: Mayr, 1862: 676; Mayr, 1863: 401; Roger, 1863b: 3; Mayr, 1865: 30; Mayr, 1867: 39 (redescription); Smith, 1871: 304; Dalla Torre, 1893: 254; Emery, 1896b: 371; Viehmeyer, 1916: 154; Wheeler, 1935: 40.

Junior synonym of Camponotus luteus : Bingham, 1903: 379.

Subspecies of Camponotus maculatus : Emery, 1900a: 704; Stitz, 1925: 124.

Subspecies of Camponotus irritans : Emery, 1920: 7, 17; Stitz, 1925: 124; Emery, 1925: 94; Karavaiev, 1929b: 237; Stitz, 1932: 736; Chapman & Capco, 1951: 248; Baltazar, 1966: 274; Bolton, 1995: 127.

Material examined. None available.

Material not physically examined. FOCOL2386-2387 [used in first descriptions of Camponotus tinctus workers] ( ZMHB).

Literature. Types - Viehmeyer (1916); Overbeck (1924) [both as Camponotus (Myrmoturba) tinctus var. carinifer , and C. (Myrmoturba) tinctus ].

Localities. Bukit Timah Road

Habitat/Ecology. A queen of this species was caught at a lit lamp in a garden. The ants were also found nesting in decaying or rotten branches.

Remarks. While Camponotus tinctus was first described based on a queen specimen from Myanmar, major and minor workers of the species were described later by Viehmeyer (1916) based on specimens from Singapore. Minor workers of this species can be distinguished from C. irritans using the characters detailed under Remarks for C. carinifer (see above).

Camponotus tinctus closely resembles C. carinifer , though major workers and queens may be differentiated by the following characters ( C. carinifer traits in parentheses): 1) clypeus without or with very weak and indistinct median carina, (clypeus with distinct median carina), 2) posterior head margin almost flat, weakly and broadly concave (posterior head margin deeply concave medially), 3) in anterodorsal/oblique view, rear corners of head not forming rounded lobes, only slightly projected posteriorly (rear corners of head forming rounded lobes, strongly projected posteriorly).

Given the absence of more compelling observable differences, it remains possible that C. carinifer and C. tinctus are actually ecomorphs of a morphologically variable species. In this case, DNA evidence coupled to more material coverage of the two species from other parts of Indomalaya, may be key to resolving this issue.