Camponotus maccooki

Distribution
Western United States. Oregan, Washington, California.

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

Biology
This ant is a host for Cremastocheilus planatus.

Nomenclature

 * . Camponotus sylvaticus r. maccooki Forel, 1879a: 69 (w.q.m.) MEXICO (no state data).
 * [Type-locality MEXICO (Guadalupe I.), after Forel, 1885a: 347, “l’île mexicaine de Guadelupe située à 200 milles de la côte occidentale de la Basse-Californie”).
 * Wheeler, W.M. 1910d: 306 (s.).
 * Combination in C. (Myrmoturba): Wheeler, 1917a: 560;
 * combination in C. (Camponotus): Emery, 1925b: 75;
 * combination in C. (Tanaemyrmex): Creighton, 1950a: 377.
 * As unavailable (infrasubspecific) name: Emery, 1896d: 371 (in list); Santschi, 1911d: 7.
 * Subspecies of sylvaticus: Forel, 1885a: 347; Mayr, 1886d: 422; Cresson, 1887: 255.
 * Subspecies of rubripes: Forel, 1886f: 143.
 * Subspecies of maculatus: Emery, in Dalla Torre, 1893: 241 (footnote); Emery, 1893i: 672; Forel, 1899c: 134; Wheeler, W.M. 1906d: 345; Wheeler, W.M. 1910d: 306 (redescription); Forel, 1914c: 619; Wheeler, W.M. 1917a: 560; Cole, 1937b: 139.
 * Subspecies of sansabeanus: Emery, 1920b: 232 (footnote); Emery, 1925b: 75; Smith, M.R. 1951a: 841.
 * Status as species: Dalla Torre, 1893: 241; Wheeler, W.M. 1910g: 571; Essig, 1926: 868; Creighton, 1950a: 377; Smith, M.R. 1958c: 144; Cole, 1966: 19 (in key); Snelling, R.R. 1970: 396; Bolton, 1995b: 109.

Worker
Wheeler (1910) – Major Length, 10-13 ,mm.; head, 3.2 x 3 mm.; scape, 2.7 mm.; hind tibia, 3.6 mm.

In structure closely resembling Camponotus vicinus, but the antennal scapes are more thickened at their tips, and their bases are not only flattened but dilated to form a small but distinct, rounded lobe on the outer side. Mandibles 5- to 6-toothed. Base and declivity of epinotum subequal. Middle and hind tibim elliptical in cross-section, not sulcate.

Sculpture of body as in the var. nitidiventris (unavailable name), the sides of the head covered with punctures or small foveolae as in that form.

Pilosity as in vicinus, but pubescence much less developed, being as short and inconspicuous as in nitidiventris. There are no hairs on the cheeks. Middle and hind tibiae with bristly flexor surfaces.

Head, cheeks, clypeus, mandibles and antennae deep reddish brown or ferruginous; front and vertex black, mouthparts yellowish. Thorax, legs, petiole and gaster sordid light brown or brownish yellow, the gaster usually more or less dark brown at the tip and often transversely banded with fuscous on the more anterior segments, rarely black throughout.

Minor Length, 6-8 mm.

Resembling the worker major in sculpture, pilosity and color, but the head is more shining. The lobular dilation at the base of the antennal scape is small but perceptible.

Queen
Wheeler (1910) – Length, 12-14 mm.

Resembling the female of nitidiventris in sculpture and pilosity; color like that of the major worker, but the mesonotum, scutellum and metanotum are dark brown, the pronotum more or less infuscated. In some specimens the whole gaster is brownish yellow and lighter than the pleurae and legs; in others it is dark brown at the tip and obscurely transversely banded with brown more anteriorly. Wings suffused with brownish yellow; veins yellow, stigma brownish.

Male
Wheeler (1910) – Length, 9 mm.

Very similar to the male of vicinus and its varieties. The antennal scapes are flattened, dilated and lobulate at the base.

References based on Global Ant Biodiversity Informatics

 * Dattilo W. et al. 2019. MEXICO ANTS: incidence and abundance along the Nearctic-Neotropical interface. Ecology https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2944
 * Johnson, R.A. and P.S. Ward. 2002. Biogeography and endemism of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Baja California, Mexico: a first overview. Journal of Biogeography 29:10091026/
 * La Rivers I. 1968. A first listing of the ants of Nevada. Biological Society of Nevada, Occasional Papers 17: 1-12.
 * Mallis A. 1941. A list of the ants of California with notes on their habits and distribution. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 40: 61-100.
 * O'Keefe S. T., J. L. Cook, T. Dudek, D. F. Wunneburger, M. D. Guzman, R. N. Coulson, and S. B. Vinson. 2000. The Distribution of Texas Ants. The Southwestern Entomologist 22: 1-92.
 * Smith M. R. 1935. A list of the ants of Oklahoma (Hymen.: Formicidae) (continued from page 241). Entomological News 46: 261-264.
 * Smith M. R. 1936. A list of the ants of Texas. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 44: 155-170.
 * Snelling R. R. 1970. Studies on California ants, 5. Revisionary notes on some species of Camponotus, subgenus Tanaemyrmex (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 72: 390-397.
 * Vasquez-Bolanos M. 2011. Checklist of the ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Mexico. Dugesiana 18(1): 95-133.
 * Vásquez-Bolaños M. 2011. Lista de especies de hormigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) para México. Dugesiana 18: 95-133
 * Wenner A. M. 1959. The ants of Bidwell Park, Chico, California. American Midland Naturalist 62: 174-183
 * Wheeler W. M. 1910. The North American ants of the genus Camponotus Mayr. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 20: 295-354.
 * Young J., and D. E. Howell. 1964. Ants of Oklahoma. Miscellaneous Publication. Oklahoma Agricultural Experimental Station 71: 1-42.