Camponotus pudorosus

A ground nesting species.

Identification
Medium-sized species in the C. festinatus complex. Major worker mandible microrugose and slightly shiny between scattered piligerous punctures; antennal scape of major with abundant long subappressed to suberect setae along dorsal and mesial surfaces; antennal scape of minor worker with dense suberect short fine setae and numerous longer suberect coarser setae; erect to suberect setae present along entire length of head margin.

Camponotus pudorosus is similar to Camponotus festinatus but somewhat smaller and, as noted by Wheeler (1914) with a shinier and less strongly sculptured head. These features were cited to distinguish C. pudorosus from what he regarded as typical Camponotus picipes from the same locality; those picipes were, in part at least, what I here understand to be C. festinatus. Additionally, C. pudorosus differs from C. festinatus in the consistently more pilose antennal scape of both worker subcastes. (Snelling 2006)

Distribution
Mexico and United States. Central Mexico north to Arizona and probably southwestern New Mexico. I have examined material from the Mexican states of Hidalgo, Jalisco and Michoacán. The only United States material that I have seen is all from Arizona: Cochise Co. (Chiricahua Mts.; Huachuca Mts.); Graham Co. (Hwy. 366, 12 mi SW junction with Hwy. 191); Pima Co. (Santa Catalina Mts.); Santa Cruz Co. (Pajarita Mts.; Santa Rita Mts.; 1.5 mi NE Ruby; 1 mi SE Peña Blanca Lake); Yavapai Co. (3 mi NW Peoples Valley). (Snelling 2006)

Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists
Nearctic Region: United States. Neotropical Region: Mexico.

Nomenclature

 * . Camponotus (Tanaemyrmex) picipes var. pudorosus Emery, 1925b: 81.
 * [First available use of Camponotus maculatus subsp. picipes var. pudorosus Wheeler, W.M. 1914b: 57 (s.w.q.m.) MEXICO (Hidalgo); unavailable (infrasubspecific) name.]
 * Subspecies of picipes: Kempf, 1972a: 69; Bolton, 1995b: 119.
 * Status as species: Snelling, R.R. 2006: 92 (redescription).

This ant was originally described by Wheeler (1914) as a variety of C. maculatus subsp. picipes (Olivier, 1792) and, thus, an unavailable quadrinomen. Emery (1925) elevated C. picipes to species level and included C. pudorosus as a subspecies of C. picipes and the name is available from that date. The original material was collected at Guerrero Mill, Hidalgo, Mexico, and was said to consist of "numerous workers, a male and a female, from nests under stones"; syntypic specimens are in MCZ and USNM. Camponotus picipes was originally described from French Guiana and has acquired seven subspecies ranging from northern South America to Mexico and the Caribbean (Kempf 1972). Unfortunately, there has never been any certainty as to the identity of C. picipes, nor has it been consistently interpreted. Mexican material that I have examined, identified as C. picipes, has included more than one species. W.P. Mackay, in his extensive, but unpublished, studies of the systematics of Neotropical Camponotus, has determined that C. pudorosus should be treated as a distinct species, separate from both C. picipes and C. festinatus. For purposes of this paper I have here followed his interpretation, although I have not examined the syntypes of C. pudorosus. (Snelling 2006)

Worker
Snelling (2006) – Major (n=12). Measurements: HL 2.10-2.40; HW 1.85-2.15; EL 0.50-0.60; HFL 2.20-2.50; SL 2.10-2.25; PW 1.25-1.40; ML 2.95-3.30. Indices: CI 87-93; HFI 109-123; OI 24-26; SI 93-102.

Major workers agree generally with the description but are smaller and the head shape in frontal view differs. EL 0.58-0.67 × OMD; ICD 0.59-0.64 × HW.

Pilosity about as described for Camponotus festinatus; side of pronotum usually with 1 to several short standing setae near ventral margin. The following numbers of long standing (decumbent to fully erect) setae present on indicated structures scape shaft (longest only, 11-21), ventral margin of profemur (9-12), pronotal disc (20-28), mesonotum (6-12), propodeum (5-6), petiole (4-8), disc of gastral tergum 1 (12-14), premarginal band of gastral tergum 1 (12-14).

Minor (n=12). Measurements: HL 1.45-1.85; HW 0.95-1.30; EL 0.40-0.50; HFL 2.00-2.45; SL 1.95-2.25; PW 0.85-1.15; ML 2.35-2.90. Indices: CI 65-73; HFI 174-216; OI 26-29; SI 121-138.

Similar to minor workers of C. festinatus but with conspicuous decumbent to suberect pilosity along entire length of scape. Also similar to minor workers of Camponotus vafer, but the mandibles are only slightly shiny and are conspicuously finely sculptured, sometimes in the medias with very fine microrugulae. EL 0.71 - 0.83 × OMD; ICD 0.62 - 0.71 × HW.

Pilosity about as described for C. festinatus. The following numbers of long standing (decumbent to fully erect) setae present on indicated structures: scape shaft (longest only, 8-15), ventral margin of profemur (8-10), pronotal disc (16-22), mesonotum (6), propodeum (6-8), petiole (6), disc of gastral tergum 1 (6-8), premarginal band of gastral tergum 1 (8-10).

Queen
Snelling (2006) - (n = 3). Measurements: HL 2.20-2.55; HW 1.85-2.25; EL 0.60-0.70; HFL 2.25-2.85; SL 2.05-2.65; PW 1.80-2.15; ML 3.95-4.85. Indices: CI 84-89; HFI 115-121; OI 28-30; SI 84-93.

Similar to queens of C. festinatus but usually smaller and with notably setose scape (about as in minor / media workers). EL 0.82 - 0.93 × OMD; ICD 0.70 - 0.73 × HW; IOD 3.50 - 4.80 and OOD 3.80 - 4.10 × OD.

Color similar to major worker.

References based on Global Ant Biodiversity Informatics

 * Cover S. P., and R. A. Johnson. 20011. Checklist of Arizona Ants. Downloaded on January 7th at http://www.asu.edu/clas/sirgtools/AZants-2011%20updatev2.pdf
 * Dattilo W. et al. 2019. MEXICO ANTS: incidence and abundance along the Nearctic-Neotropical interface. Ecology https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2944
 * Hernandez, F. Varela and G. Castano-Meneses. 2010. Checklist, Biological Notes and Distribution of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Barranca de Metztitlán Biosphere Reserve, Hidalgo, Mexico. Sociobiology 56(2):397-434
 * Johnson R. Personnal Database. Accessed on February 5th 2014 at http://www.asu.edu/clas/sirgtools/resources.htm
 * Kempf, W.W. 1972. Catalago abreviado das formigas da regiao Neotropical (Hym. Formicidae) Studia Entomologica 15(1-4).
 * Snelling R. R. 2006. Taxonomy of the Camponotus festinatus complex in the United States of America (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecologische Nachrichten 8: 83-97
 * Varela-Hernandez, F., M. Rocha-Ortega, R. W. Jones, and W. P. Mackay. 2016. Insectos: Hormigas (Formicidae) del estado de Queretaro, Mexico. Pages 397-404 in W. Jones., and V. Serrano-Cardenas, editors. Historia Natural de Queretaro. Universidad Autonoma de Queretaro, Mexico.
 * Varela-Hernandez, F., M. Rocha-Ortega, W. P. Mackay, and R. W. Jones. 2016. Lista preliminar de las hormigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) del estado de Queretaro, Mexico. Pages 429-435 in . W. Jones., and V. Serrano-Cardenas, editors. Historia Natural de Queretaro. Universidad Autonoma de Queretaro, Mexico.
 * Vásquez-Bolaños M. 2011. Lista de especies de hormigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) para México. Dugesiana 18: 95-133