Cataglyphis turcomanica

Pashaei Rad et al. (2018) found this species in Iran on parkland ground in a moderate rainfall area.

Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists
Palaearctic Region: Iran, Turkmenistan.

Nomenclature

 *  turcomanica. Cataglyphis bicolor var. turcomanica Crawley, 1920b: 177 (w.) UZBEKISTAN, RUSSIA (Daghestan).
 * [First available use of Myrmecocystus viaticus subsp. desertorum var. turcomanica Emery, 1898c: 147 (w.) UZBEKISTAN, RUSSIA (Daghestan); unavailable (infrasubspecific) name (Bolton, 1995b: 137).]
 * [Misspelled as turkemanicus by Kolossov, 1932: 118.]
 * Combination in Cataglyphis: Emery, 1925b: 266.
 * As unavailable (infrasubspecific) name: Forel, 1904b: 382; Ruzsky, 1905b: 432; Emery, 1906d: 58; Emery, 1908g: 217; Karavaiev, 1910b: 39; Karavaiev, 1912b: 591; Kuznetsov-Ugamsky, 1923: 247; Ruzsky, 1923: 2; Emery, 1925b: 266; Santschi, 1929b: 49; Weber, 1943c: 343 (in list); Gratiashvili & Barjadze, 2008: 132 (error).
 * Subspecies of setipes: Arnol'di, 1964: 1804; Pisarski, 1967: 418; Pisarski, 1970: 324; Tarbinsky, 1976: 199 (redescription).
 * Synonym of longipedem: Kolossov, 1932: 118; Agosti, 1990b: 1490.
 * [Note: Kolossov, and Agosti, give turcomanica as senior synonym, but longipedem has priority.]
 * Junior synonym of setipes: Dlussky, Soyunov & Zabelin, 1990: 155; Radchenko, 1997c: 435.
 * Status as species: Pashaei Rad et al., 2018: 5.

Taxonomic Notes
Pashaei Rad et al. (2018): Type location Turkmenistan (as Myrmecocystus viaticus, F. subsp. desertorum For. var. turcomanica, Emery, 1898; name as Cataglyphis bicolor F., var. turcomanica Em. by Crawley, 1920b). Agosti (1990) listed this as Cataglyphis turcomanica (Emery). No type images. Drawings by Santschi (1929).

Note that Bolton (in his unpublished An online catalogue of the ants of the world, 15 Feb. 2020) does not recognise the species status proposed by Pashaei Rad et al. (2018), noting that "the entries in this publication are omitted from the catalogue as it contains numerous nomenclatural errors; it also ignores previous taxonomic decisions, and entirely fails to apply ICZN rules that govern the availability of names in the species-group." Additionally, it should be noted that Pashaei Rad et al. (2018) provide no evidence to support their treatment of this name as representing a distinct species.