Camponotus atricolor

This taxon is not in use as it is currently considered to be a junior synonym of Camponotus piceus.

Nomenclature

 * atricolor. Formica atricolor Nylander, 1849: 36 (w.) RUSSIA.
 * Combination in Camponotus: Roger, 1863b: 1.
 * Combination in C. (Myrmentoma): Emery, 1925a: 67; Emery, 1925b: 120.
 * Junior synonym of lateralis: Mayr, 1855: 322; Nylander, 1856b: 58; Smith, F. 1858b: 12 (first entry, see below); Mayr, 1863: 399; Roger, 1863b: 1; André, 1874: 201 (in list); Forel, 1874: 97 (in list); Emery & Forel, 1879: 448.
 * Subspecies of lateralis: Forel, 1874: 40; Forel, 1892i: 306; Forel, 1894d: 41; Emery, 1896d: 373 (in list); Ruzsky, 1902d: 7; Ruzsky, 1903b: 302; Forel, 1904b: 380; Ruzsky, 1905b: 254; Forel, 1906c: 189; Forel, 1911d: 355; Emery, 1914d: 159; Wheeler, W.M. & Mann, 1916: 174; Karavaiev, 1926e: 193; Kuznetsov-Ugamsky, 1929b: 36.
 * Subspecies of piceus: Emery, 1925a: 67; Karavaiev, 1927a: 295; Karavaiev, 1927c: 277 (in key).
 * Subspecies of merula: Novák & Sadil, 1941: 109 (in key).
 * Junior synonym of merulus: Bernard, 1967: 344.
 * Status as species: Smith, F. 1858b: 12 (second entry, see above); Arnol'di & Dlussky, 1978: 552; Agosti & Collingwood, 1987b: 283 (in key); Seifert, 2007: 155 (in key); Borowiec, L. & Salata, 2012: 472; Borowiec, L. 2014: 27.
 * Senior synonym of rectus: Emery, 1896d: 373; Emery, 1925a: 70; Karavaiev, 1936: 191.
 * Junior synonym of piceus: Dalla Torre, 1893: 238; Karavaiev, 1936: 190 (redescription); Atanassov & Dlussky, 1992: 222; Bolton, 1995b: 87; Radchenko, 1997b: 706; Radchenko, 2007: 37; Legakis, 2011: 28; Radchenko, 2016: 334.

Taxonomic Notes
Marko et al. (2009) - This species has a controversial status. Atanassov and Dlusskij (1992) synonymized it with Campontous piceus due to their findings of intermediate morphs between the two species concerning the depth of the mesopropodeal furrow. A. Radchenko (pers. comm.) also supports this hypothesis on the basis of type material investigation of C. atricolor. Thus, several authors treat it as junior synonym of C. piceus (Radchenko 1997a, Bolton et al. 2006, Werner and Wiezik 2007), while other specialists consider it a valid species (Steiner et al. 2002, Gallé et al. 2005, Seifert 2007). This morph shows clear differences from C. piceus in characters other than just the depth of mesopropodeal furrow (see also Emery 1925), suggesting Camponotus crypsis. Further investigation should elucidate the taxonomic status of the ‘atricolor’ morph.