Camponotus staryi

Every Ant Tells a Story - And Scientists Explain Their Stories Here
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Camponotus staryi
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Hymenoptera
Family: Formicidae
Subfamily: Formicinae
Tribe: Camponotini
Genus: Camponotus
Species: C. staryi
Binomial name
Camponotus staryi
Pisarski, 1971

Pashaei Rad et al. (2018) found this species in Iran in a garden under tree in a low rainfall area.


Radchenko (1997) - A member of the Camponotus lateralis species group.


Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists

Palaearctic Region: Iran, Iraq (type locality).

Distribution based on AntMaps


Distribution based on AntWeb specimens

Check data from AntWeb




The following information is derived from Barry Bolton's New General Catalogue, a catalogue of the world's ants.

  • staryi. Camponotus (Myrmentoma) staryi Pisarski, 1971b: 730, figs. 6-9 (w.) IRAQ.
    • Status as species: Bolton, 1995b: 125; Radchenko, 1996b: 1197 (in key); Radchenko, 1997b: 708; Borowiec, L. 2014: 43.

Taxonomic Notes

Seifert (2019): This taxon has been described from Northern Iraq. The holotype, a minor worker, is depicted in under CASENT0917233 and is labeled ‘Iraq Sari Rash nr Salahuddin Kurdistan 10.7.1968 leg. Stary 322’, ‘Holotyp’, ‘Camponotus staryi sp. n. det B. Pisarski’ and ‘ANTWEB CASENT0917223’. The type locality is situated at 36.409°N, 44.317°E, 980 m and thus 1250 km east of the type locality of Camponotus anatolicus Karaman & Aktac 2013 in W Anatolia. The holotype of C. staryi shows a high similarity to minor workers from the holotype nest of Camponotus anatolicus which I could examine. Considering the images in as well as Pisarski’s drawing of the holotype in the original description, the interspecific differences verbally described by Karaman & Aktac (2013) appear most doubtful. The only morphological argument for a possible heterospecificity is the wider petiole in the C. staryi holotype: PeW/CS1.25 was calculated from the images as 0.418 whereas it is 0.304–0.381 in 9 specimens of C. anatolicus (Tab. 2). I refrain here from a synonymization of the two taxa because of the very poor data basis and the rather high geographic distance of the type localities.