Camponotus keihitoi

AntWiki: The Ants --- Online
Camponotus keihitoi
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Hymenoptera
Family: Formicidae
Subfamily: Formicinae
Tribe: Camponotini
Genus: Camponotus
Species: C. keihitoi
Binomial name
Camponotus keihitoi
Forel, 1913

Camponotus keihitoi casent0910420 p 1 high.jpg

Camponotus keihitoi casent0910420 d 1 high.jpg

Specimen Labels

Synonyms

This arboreal species nests in dead twigs on standing trees (Japanese Ant Image Database). During a field survey in Uttarakhand, Dhadwal & Bharti (2023) reported the first collection of this species from India: The nest was found under the boulder. Some of the workers were also collected moving on the grass. The area is mostly surrounded by short grass and flowers with an average daily temperature of 22°C. The habitat is mostly open grassland type.

Photo Gallery

  • Camponotus keihitoi foraging worker from Tsushima Island, Japan. Photo by Minsoo Dong.


Common Name
Kusa-oo-ari
Language: Japanese

Identification

Radchenko (1997) - Closely related to Camponotus quadrinotatus, being distinguished by the absence of erect hairs on the propodeum.

Dhadwal & Bharti (2023) - Camponotus keihitoi is allied to Camponotus quadrinotatus, however, both species can be fairly distinguished by the following combination of characteristics:

  • C. keihitoi (major worker)
    • the metanotal depression is distinct
    • pilosity is absent on the mesosoma and the petiole
    • the anterior clypeal margin is transverse
  • C. quarinotatus (major worker)
    • the metanotal depression is indistinct
    • the mesosoma and the petiole are pilose
    • the clypeal margin is convex anteriorly

Keys including this Species

Distribution

Latitudinal Distribution Pattern

Latitudinal Range: 34.690083° to 30.359°.

 
North
Temperate
North
Subtropical
Tropical South
Subtropical
South
Temperate

Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists

Oriental Region: India.
Palaearctic Region: China, Japan (type locality).

Distribution based on AntMaps

AntMapLegend.png

Distribution based on AntWeb specimens

Check data from AntWeb

Countries Occupied

Number of countries occupied by this species based on AntWiki Regional Taxon Lists. In general, fewer countries occupied indicates a narrower range, while more countries indicates a more widespread species.
pChart

Estimated Abundance

Relative abundance based on number of AntMaps records per species (this species within the purple bar). Fewer records (to the left) indicates a less abundant/encountered species while more records (to the right) indicates more abundant/encountered species.
pChart

Biology

Castes

  • Liu, C. et al. 2020. Ants of the Hengduan Mountains, Figure 21, Camponotus keihitoi.
  • Dhadwal & Bharti, 2023, Fig. 10. Camponotus keihitoi, major worker (PUAC T82). A. Head in full face view. B. Body in profile view. C. Body in dorsal view.
  • Dhadwal & Bharti, 2023, Fig. 11. Camponotus keihitoi, minor worker (PUAC T85). A. Head in full face view. B. Body in profile view. C. Body in dorsal view.
  • Dhadwal & Bharti, 2023, Fig. 12. Camponotus keihitoi, gyne (PUAC T89). A. Head in full face view. B. Body in profile view. C. Body in dorsal view.
  • Dhadwal & Bharti, 2023, Fig. 13. Camponotus keihitoi, male (♂) (PUAC T90). A. Head in full face view. B. Body in profile view. C. Body in dorsal view.

Nomenclature

The following information is derived from Barry Bolton's Online Catalogue of the Ants of the World.

  • keihitoi. Camponotus fallax var. keihitoi Forel, 1913e: 663 (w.q.) JAPAN.
    • [Misspelled as keihikoi by Azuma, 1951: 89, Azuma, 1953: 5, Azuma, 1977: 116.]
    • As unavailable (infrasubspecific) name: Emery, 1925b: 118.
    • Subspecies of caryae: Azuma, 1951: 89; Chapman & Capco, 1951: 234; Azuma, 1953: 5; Onoyama, 1980: 201.
    • Status as species: Terayama & Satoh, 1990b: 532; Morisita, et al. 1991: 43; Bolton, 1995b: 106; Radchenko, 1997b: 704; Terayama, 1999b: 30 (in key); Imai, et al. 2003: 37; Guénard & Dunn, 2012: 28.
    • Senior synonym of teranishii: Terayama & Satoh, 1990b: 532; Bolton, 1995b: 106; Imai, et al. 2003: 37.
  • tokyoensis. Camponotus tokyoensis Teranishi, 1915: 137, fig. (w.) JAPAN.
    • [Junior primary homonym of Camponotus (Myrmamblys) itoi r. tokioensis Ito, 1912: 341.]
    • Replacement name: Camponotus (Myrmentoma) caryae var. teranishii Wheeler, W.M. 1928d: 118.
  • teranishii. Camponotus (Myrmentoma) caryae var. teranishii Wheeler, W.M. 1928d: 118.
    • Replacement name for Camponotus tokyoensis Teranishi, 1915: 137. [Junior primary homonym of Camponotus (Myrmamblys) itoi r. tokioensis Ito, 1912: 341.]
    • Subspecies of caryae: Chapman & Capco, 1951: 234; Onoyama, 1980: 201.
    • Junior synonym of keihitoi: Terayama & Satoh, 1990b: 532; Bolton, 1995b: 126; Imai, et al. 2003: 37.

Unless otherwise noted the text for the remainder of this section is reported from the publication that includes the original description.

Description

Worker

Major Dhadwal & Bharti (2023) - (n = 7) HL 1.56–1.70; HW 1.26–1.44; EL 0.42–0.45; SL 1.47–1.59; PW 0.96–1.05; WL 2.07–2.19; MTL 1.35– 1.68; HTL 1.59–1.84; PL 0.51–0.57; PH 0.57–0.75; GL 1.81–2.64; TL 5.95–7.10; CI 80–84; SI 110– 116; REL 26–27; PrI 72–76.

Habitus. In full-face view, head as long as broad or slightly longer than broad (CI 80–84), posterior head margin convex, occipital corners broadly rounded and lateral sides convex; clypeus broad, anterior margin transverse; mandibles subtriangular and masticatory margin with 5 teeth; antennae slender with 12 segments, scape long (SI 107–108), exceeds posterior head margin by ¼ of its length; eyes moderate in size placed laterally above the mid-length of the head. In dorsal view, mesosoma anteriorly broad (PrI 72–76) and narrow posteriorly; pronotum broader than long; pro-mesonotal suture and metanotal groove distinct; propodeum slightly impressed behind the metanotal groove; propodeum laterally compressed behind the mesonotum; propodeal declivity steep; mesosoma does not form a single convexity, convexity interrupted at propodeum being truncate; propodeal declivity concave; propodeal spiracle oval in shape, placed below the propodeal declivity; petiole anteriorly convex and posteriorly flat; tibiae cylindrical; gaster elongate and subglobose.

Sculpture. Head, mesosoma, petiole and gaster all glossy; rest of body is reticulate-rugulose; clypeus with a median keel and scattered punctures; mandibles longitudinally rugulose with sparse pits.

Pilosity and pubescence. Body coated in appressed hairs; pale yellow erect or sub-erect hairs plentiful on clypeus and mandibles; gaster covered in long hairs and hind tibia of the legs with dispersed setae underneath as well as 3–4 suberect setae close to the apical spurs.

Colouration. Body blackish; mandibles reddish brown and antennae and appendages dark brown.

Minor (n = 7) HL 1.35–1.38; HW 1.14–1.20; EL 0.36–0.39; SL 1.38–1.44; PW 0.91–0.93; WL 1.95–2.01; MTL 1.17– 1.23; HTL 1.51–1.56; PL 0.45–0.54; PH 0.54–0.57; GL 1.71–2.04; TL 5.46–5.97; CI 84–86; SI 120– 121; REL 26–28; PrI 77–79.

All characteristics are the same as of major worker except: in minor worker head is comparatively small (CI 84–86) and oval with a convex posterior margin and sub-parallel lateral margins; the anterior clypeal margin is slightly convex; scape long (SI 120–121), surpassing posterior margin of head by half of its length.

Queen

Dhadwal & Bharti (2023) - (n = 2) HL 1.59–1.72; HW 1.47–1.51; EL 0.49–0.57; SL 1.59–1.63; WL 2.54–2.66; MTL 1.41–1.43; HTL 1.80– 1.96; PL 0.57–0.65; PH 0.82–0.90; GL 2.74–2.82; TL 7.44–7.85; CI 87–92; SI 107–108; REL 30–33.

Similar to the major worker with few modifications depicting the caste and the following differences: head narrower (CI 87–92) with subparallel lateral margins and convex posterior margin; cephalic dorsum with 3 prominent ocelli; mandibles with 5 teeth; scape of antennae surpassing posterior margin of head by 1/₆ of its length (SI 107–108); scutum and scutellum minutely reticulated; dorsal surface of petiole transverse; propodeal declivity almost straight slightly convex.

Male

Dhadwal & Bharti (2023) - HL 1.02–1.11; HW 1.08–1.10; EL 0.39–0.42; SL 1.41–1.43; WL 2.01–2.13; MTL 1.33–1.35; HTL 1.72–1.74; PL 0.51–0.53; PH 0.45–0.48; GL 2.37–2.54; TL 5.91–6.31; CI 99–105; SI 130–131; REL 37–38.

Habitus. In full-face view, head as long as broad (CI 99–105), posterior margin of the head slightly concave; cephalic dorsum with 3 prominent ocelli; clypeus carinate in the middle; mandibles slender, curved strap like apical tooth acute, remainder without any teeth or denticles, when closed their tips overlap; eyes subglobose, convex, large and bulging, breaking lateral cephalic head outline; antennae 13-segmented and filiform, scape long (SI 130–131), surpassing posterior margin of head by about half of their length. Mesosoma enlarged, pronotum transverse, narrow and convex; scutum large, rounded anteriorly and transverse posteriorly; dorsally without notauli; parapsidal lines prominent and diverging anteriorly; scutellum pentagonal in shape; mesepimeron with a posterodorsal (epimeral) lobe that covers mesothoracic spiracle and forms a seemingly isolated plate; jugal lobe of hind wing present; petiole triangular, dorsal margin convex; propodeal declivity smoothly rounded; propodeal spiracle round. Pygostyles tubular, projecting outward; parameres elongated; cuspi small bent toward digiti, shorter than digiti; digiti long with short peg-like teeth bent toward parameres; penis valves projecting.

Pilosity and pubescence. Clypeus and posterior margin of head with a few thin setae, scutum and scutellum with sparse erect short setae; gaster with adpressed short hairs; pygostyles and distal part of parameres setose; hind tibia without a row of spiny bristles on ventral margins.

Colouration. Colour and sculpture as of worker caste.

References

References based on Global Ant Biodiversity Informatics

  • Chapman, J. W., and Capco, S. R. 1951. Check list of the ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Asia. Monogr. Inst. Sci. Technol. Manila 1: 1-327
  • Choi B.M., K. Ogata, and M. Terayama. 1993. Comparative studies of ant faunas of Korea and Japan. 1. Faunal comparison among islands of Southern Korean and northern Kyushu, Japan. Bull. Biogeogr. Soc. Japan 48(1): 37-49.
  • Guénard B., and R. R. Dunn. 2012. A checklist of the ants of China. Zootaxa 3558: 1-77.
  • Harada Y., S. Haruguchi, T. Iwasaki, K. Onishi, Y. Tashiro, and Sk Yamane. 2010. Ants from Japanese cherry trees, Prunus x yedoensis, in public parks in Kagoshima, southwestern Japan. Bull. Biogeogr. Soc. Japan 65: 169-179.
  • Hisamatsu M. 2004. List of Hymenoptera Recorded in Ibaraki Prefecture. Bulletin of Ibaraki Nature Museum 7: 125-164.
  • Hosoichi S., M. Yoshimura, Y. Kuboki, and K. Ogata. 2007. Ants from Yakushima Island, Kagoshima Prefecture. Ari 30: 47-54.
  • Hosoishi S. 2006. Ant fauna of Noko Island. pp99-107. In: The floristic and faunistic surveys of the Noko Island.
  • Hosoishi S., M. Yoshimura, Y. Kuboki, and K. Ogata. 2007. Ants from Yakushima Island , Kagoshima Prefecture. Ari 30: 47-54.
  • Kubota S., and M. Terayama. 1982. Ant fauna of Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan (IV) Ants of Kakio. Kanagawa-chuho (Journal of the Kanagawa Entomologists Association) 21-28.
  • Matsumura S. and Yamane Sk. 2012. Species composition and dominant species of ants in Jigenji Park, Kagoshima City, Japan. Nature of Kagoshima 38: 99–107
  • Matsumura S., and S. Yamane. 2012. Species composition and dominant species of ants in Jigenji Park, Kagoshima City, Japan. Nature of Kagoshima 38: 99-107.
  • Menozzi C. 1940. Contribution à la faune myrmécologique du Japon. Mushi. 13: 11-12.
  • Ogata. K., Touyama, Y. and Choi, B. M. 1994. Ant fauna of Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan. ARI Reports of the Myrmecologists Society (Japan) 18: 18-25
  • Park S. H., S. Hosoishi, K. Ogata, and Y. Kuboki. 2014. Clustering of ant communities and indicator species analysis using self-organizing maps. Comptes Rendus Biologies http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2014.07.003
  • Sato T., N. Tsurusaki, K. Hamaguchi, and K. Kinomura. 2010. Ant fauna of Tottori prefecture, Honshu, Japan. Bulletin of the Tottori Prefectural Museum 47: 27-44.
  • Shimazaki, A. and Miyashita, T. 2005. Variable dependence on detrital and grazing food webs by generalist predators: aerial insects and web spiders. Ecography 28: 485-495.
  • So, Ha, Seong, Jin, Park, Joon and Byung, and Kim, Jin. 2002. Comparitive Ant Faunas between Seonyudo and Seven other Islands of West Sea in Korea. Korean Journal of Entomology. 32:75-79.
  • Terayama M. 1992. Structure of ant communities in East Asia. A. Regional differences and species richness. Bulletin of the Bio-geographical Society of Japan 47: 1-31.
  • Terayama M., K. Ogata, and B.M. Choi. 1994. Distribution records of ants in 47 prefectures of Japan. Ari (report of the Myrmecologists Society of Japan) 18: 5-17.
  • Terayama M., S. Kubota, and K. Eguchi. 2014. Encyclopedia of Japanese ants. Asakura Shoten: Tokyo, 278 pp.
  • Terayama M., and S. Kubota. 2002. Ants of Tokyo, Japan. ARI 26: 1-32.
  • Yamane S. S. Fukumoto, Y. Maeda, and Y. Sato. 2017. Records of ants from Kakeroma-jima, the Amami Islands, Japan. Bull. Biogeogr. Soc. Japan 71, 131-137.
  • Yamane S., S. Ikudome, and M. Terayama. 1999. Identification guide to the Aculeata of the Nansei Islands, Japan. Sapporo: Hokkaido University Press, xii + 831 pp. pp, 138-317.
  • Yamane S., Y. Harada, and K. Eguchi. 2013. Classification and ecology of ants. Natural history of ants in Southern Kyushu. 200 pages
  • Yamane S.; Ikudome, S.; Terayama, M. 1999. Identification guide to the Aculeata of the Nansei Islands, Japan. Sapporo: Hokkaido University Press, xii + 831 pp. pp138-317.