Myrmica pinetorum

A forest dweller associated with the eastern deciduous forest biome, these ants form small nests with fewer than 50 workers.

Identification
A member of the punctiventris group. Francoeur (2007) - M. pinetorum closely resembles Myrmica punctiventris but averages smaller in size, with larger frontal lobes, shorter scapes and spines, more delicate body sculpture. According to material examined, the presence of propodeal spines in males is observed in the northern part of the species range.

Distribution
Eastern North America, from southern Canada south probably to the US Gulf states.

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

Habitat
Coniferous, mixed and rather open deciduous woods, from dry to more humid conditions.

Biology
Based on collection data M. pinetorum inhabits not only coniferous forest, but also mixed and rather open deciduous woods, from dry to more humid conditions. In Pennsylvania I found this ant in a stand of Populus with Acer and Betula trees. Colonies are small and their nests in different types of soil: sandy, earthy or rocky, under denuded surface or under leaf litter, lichens, mosses and rocks. Dennis (1938) reported a nest in a cavity in dead wood. Wesson and Wesson (1940) observed carton turrets as nest entrances. (Francoeur 2007)

Nomenclature

 *  pinetorum. Myrmica punctiventris subsp. pinetorum Wheeler, W.M. 1905f: 384 (w.q.) U.S.A. Weber, 1950b: 217 (m.). Raised to species: Creighton, 1950a: 102. See also: Francoeur, 2007: 156.

Worker
Francoeur (2007) - Head in full face view subrectangular with convex sides; preoccipital (posterior) margin straight, corners largely rounded. Eyes convex and suboval, located slightly anteriorly of the mid point of the head sides. Anterior margin of clypeus angulo-convex; lateral wings thin and flat, with 1-3 short rugae. In dorsal view frontal lamellae laterally developed over the antennal articulation, triangular in shape with a rounded angle; posterior margin distinctly arrower and ending as a carinae merging width; in profile base evenly bent, dorsoventrally flattened with feeble dorsal concavity; in dorsal view shaft width regular along its axis. Funicular segments 3-5 as wide as long, remaining segments longer than broad; apical club of 4 segments.

Mesosoma, in profile, with mesometasternal external margin horizontally aligned, promesonotum very feebly convex, almost straight in larger specimens, distinctly higher than propodeum, both joining through an angle at the mesopropodeal furrow which remains shallow. In dorsal view promesonotum typically pear-like, posterior end of mesonotum narrower and anguloconvex. Strigil of protibia with a basal tooth; meso and metatibiae with delicate spurs, finely and pectinate on distal half. Propodeal lobes small, with a posterodorsal angle. Propodeal spines straight and acuminate, rather short and thin with a narrow base, shorter than the distance separating their tips, projecting backwards and upwards at 45°, usually parallel; sometimes a very feeble curve after the base. Petiole short, about as high as long but narrower; peduncle hidden by propodeal lobes; node seen in profile with anterior face slightly concave, forming a right angle with the dorsal surface which is rather flattened, followed by another angle with the concave posterior face, inclined down to the posterior margin. Postpetiole shorter than high and wide, height and width about equal; node profile typically with very short anterior and posterior vertical surfaces, united by a large convex one; sternal process strongly convex and globular, making 1/3 of the postpetiole height.

Mandibles striate with piligerous punctures. Frons and clypeus with parallel, acute and thin carinae, widely separated by subopaque, faintly microsculptured surface; reminder of head with reticulations. Mesosoma generally striatorugulose; rugulae thicker on pleurae and somewhat sinuous on promesonotum. Antennal fossae with parallel and convex carinae. Petiole and postpetiole rugose. Gaster smooth and shining; first segment with large round punctures. Long erect hairs moderately abundant on body; suberect on scapes. Gastric dorsum without distinct pubescence. General body color light to dark reddish brown; gaster darker; appendages lighter or more yellowish.

Queen
Francoeur (2007) - Basically similar to worker in shape of head, characters of sculpture, color and pilosity of body except the following. Head with three ocelli. Usual distinct mesosomal development of a queen and body size larger. Sculpture coarser on mesonotum, petiole and postpetiole. Mesopleurae with more delicate rugulae; transverse groove narrow and deeply impressed. Surface between spines smooth and shining; sometimes vestigial shagreening on lateral borders. Wings feebly tinted; submarginal cell of anterior wings partly subdivided posteriorly.

Male
Francoeur (2007) - Smaller than queen. In full face view head slightly longer than broad, narrower before eyes, with shallow elongated antennal fossae, posterior half evenly rounded. Mandibles elongate, blade subtriangular; masticatory margin with three apical teeth followed by 2-3 teeth or denticles. Clypeus convex, anterior margin angulate, finely lamellar mesially. Malar space short. Frontal triangle shallow and weakly delimited. Frontal lobes poorly developed, but distinct as thin carinae with straight lateral margins that diverge posteriorly, originating from toruli. Antennae 13-merous; scapes very short, shorter than or equal to combined length of next 2 segments; in profile scape base with a very faint dorsal flattening; length of second funicular segment equal to next two; funicular club of 5 segments. Eyes large and globular. Ocelli small, the antero-median 0.06-0.07 mm in diameter; distance between the posterior ocelli equal to 4-5 x diameter of anterior ocellus.

In lateral view, mesosoma rather long; mesonotum high. Mayrian furrows not impressed, weakened or absent posteriorly. Spurs of meso- and metatibia weakly pectinate. Metapleural lamellae small. Wings as in queen, but usually darker. Propodeum with two small, dentiform spines or two more or less developed protuberences marked by carinae, surface between them smooth and shining; spiracles round and well marked. In profile petiole rather short, with an anterior peduncle mostly hidden by propodeal lobes; ventral margin straight or very weakly concave with an anterior denticle; node with an anterior face concave, summit convex with longitudinal rugulae running to posterior margin. Postpetiole shorter than high and wide, about as large as wide; anterior and dorsal surfaces of dorsum forming a convex slope with summit ending posteriorly by a short declivity; sternum longer than high, ventral margin convex.

Head sculpture very fine, mainly shagreened; faint and short rugulae present on front and malar space, anastomosed on temples, surface punctulate. Mandibles faintly sculptured. Clypeus very faintly microsculptured, with or without short rugulae. Frontal triangle punctulate. Front with few rugulae, some reaching the ocellar triangle. Antenna with suberect to subdecumbent fine hairs longer than the width of segments, but shorter on funicular club. Pronotum densely shagreened; anterior and lateral areas of mesoscutum smooth and shining, Mayrian furrow as a thin line from which originate short rugulae, the medial ones longest. Meso- and metapleurae with parallel rugulae obliquely oriented; transverse grooves feebly impressed. Propodeal protuberences or spines with a row of fine erect hairs. Body pilosity moderately abundant, delicate, erect to decumbent. Lateral sides of petiole and postpetiole faintly sculptured, median area of dorsum smooth and shining. Gaster smooth and shining with some appressed hairs; first segment with large rounded, piliferous punctures. Body color black to blackish brown; appendages lighter.

Type Material
Francoeur (2007) - Lakehurst, New Jersey, USA; lectotype worker, here designated, in ; paralectotype workers and queens in,. M. punctiventris var. isfahani: Mt. Mitchell, Tyson, North Carolina, USA; lectotype worker, here designated, in ; paralectotype workers and queens in.

The syntype series (typus and cotypus) of Forel’s isfahani in includes specimens of both M. pinetorum and M. punctiventris collected by him on Mt. Mitchell, Tyson, North Carolina, at different altitudes, and also workers of M. punctiventris from Virginia. The workers and alate queens labeled as typus belong to M. pinetorum; all others are workers of M. punctiventris. The “typus” series is here selected as lectotype and paralectotypes, and this secures the synonymy of isfahani under M. pinetorum.

References based on Global Ant Biodiversity Informatics

 * Belcher A. K., M. R. Berenbaum, and A. V. Suarez. 2016. Urbana House Ants 2.0.: revisiting M. R. Smith's 1926 survey of house-infesting ants in central Illinois after 87 years. American Entomologist 62(3): 182-193.
 * Campbell K. U., and T. O. Crist. 2017. Ant species assembly in constructed grasslands isstructured at patch and landscape levels. Insect Conservation and Diversity doi: 10.1111/icad.12215
 * Carroll T. M. 2011. The ants of Indiana (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Master's Thesis Purdue university, 385 pages.
 * Clark A. T., J. J. Rykken, and B. D. Farrell. 2011. The Effects of Biogeography on Ant Diversity and Activity on the Boston Harbor Islands, Massachusetts, U.S.A. PloS One 6(11): 1-13.
 * Coovert G. A. 2005. The Ants of Ohio (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Ohio Biological Survey, Inc. 15(2): 1-207.
 * Coovert, G.A. 2005. The Ants of Ohio (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Ohio Biological Survey Bulletin New Series Volume 15(2):1-196
 * Del Toro, I. 2010. PERSONAL COMMUNICATION. MUSEUM RECORDS COLLATED BY ISRAEL DEL TORO
 * Forster J.A. 2005. The Ants (hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Alabama. Master of Science, Auburn University. 242 pages.
 * Francoeur A. 2007. The Myrmica punctiventris and M. crassirugis species groups in the Nearctic region. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 80: 153-185.
 * Frye J. A., T. Frye, and T. W. Suman. 2014. The ant fauna of inland sand dune communities in Worcester County, Maryland. Northeastern Naturalist, 21(3): 446-471.
 * General D.M. & Thompson L.C. 2008. New Distributional Records of Ants in Arkansas for 2008. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science. 63: 182-184
 * Guénard B., K. A. Mccaffrey, A. Lucky, and R. R. Dunn. 2012. Ants of North Carolina: an updated list (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Zootaxa 3552: 1-36.
 * Hill, J.G. 2006. Ants collected at Okatibbee Lake, Lauderdale County, Mississippi
 * Ipser R. M. 2004. Native and exotic ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Georgia: Ecological Relationships with implications for development of biologically-based management strategies. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, University of Georgia. 165 pages.
 * Ipser, R.M., M.A. Brinkman, W.A. Gardner and H.B. Peeler. 2004. A Survey of Ground-Dwelling Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Georgia. The Florida Entomologist 87(3) 253-260.
 * Ivanov K. 2019. The ants of Ohio (Hymenoptera, Formicidae): an updated checklist. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 70: 65–87.
 * Ivanov K., L. Hightower, S. T. Dash, and J. B. Keiper. 2019. 150 years in the making: first comprehensive list of the ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Virginia, USA. Zootaxa 4554 (2): 532–560.
 * Lynch J. F. 1988. An annotated checklist and key to the species of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the Chesapeake Bay region. The Maryland Naturalist 31: 61-106
 * MacGown J. A., J. G. Hill, R. L. Brown, T. L. Schiefer, J. G. Lewis. 2012. Ant diversity at Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in Oktibbeha, Noxubee, and Winston Counties, Mississippi. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bulletin 1197: 1-30
 * MacGown, J.A and J.A. Forster. 2005. A preliminary list of the ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Alabama, U.S.A. Entomological News 116(2):61-74
 * MacGown, J.A. and JV.G. Hill. Ants of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Tennessee and North Carolina).
 * MacGown, J.A., J.G. Hill, R.L. Brown and T.L. 2009. Ant Diversity at Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in Oktibbeha, Noxubee, and Winston Counties, Mississippi Report #2009-01. Schiefer. 2009.
 * Menke S. B., E. Gaulke, A. Hamel, and N. Vachter. 2015. The effects of restoration age and prescribed burns on grassland ant community structure. Environmental Entomology http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvv110
 * Menke S. B., and N. Vachter. 2014. A comparison of the effectiveness of pitfall traps and winkler litter samples for characterization of terrestrial ant (Formicidae) communities in temperate savannas. The Great Lakes Entomologist 47(3-4): 149-165.
 * Shik, J., A. Francoeur and C. Buddle. 2005. The effect of human activity on ant species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) richness at the Mont St. Hilaire Biosphere Reserve, Quebec. Canadian Field-Naturalist 119(1): 38-42.
 * Smith M. R. 1935. A list of the ants of Oklahoma (Hymen.: Formicidae). Entomological News 46: 235-241.
 * Talbot M. 1976. A list of the ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the Edwin S. George Reserve, Livingston County, Michigan. Great Lakes Entomologist 8: 245-246.
 * Toennisson T. A., N. J. Sanders, W. E. Klingeman, and K. M. Vail. 2011. Influences on the Structure of Suburban Ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Communities and the Abundance of Tapinoma sessile. Environ. Entomol. 40(6): 1397-1404.
 * Verble R. M., and S. P. Yanoviak. 2013. Short-Term Effects of Prescribed Burning on Ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Assemblages in Ozark Forests. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 106(2): 198-203.
 * Wang C., J. Strazanac and L. Butler. 2000. Abundance, diversity and activity of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in oak-dominated mixed Appalachian forests treated with microbial pesticides. Environmental Entomology. 29: 579-586
 * Wheeler G. C., J. N. Wheeler, and P. B. Kannowski. 1994. Checklist of the ants of Michigan (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). The Great Lakes Entomologist 26(4): 297-310
 * Wheeler G. C., and J. Wheeler J. 1989. A checklist of the ants of Oklahoma. Prairie Naturalist 21: 203-210.
 * Wheeler, G.C., J. Wheeler and P.B. Kannowski. 1994. CHECKLIST OF THE ANTS OF MICHIGAN (HYMENOPTERA: FORMICIDAE). Great Lakes Entomologist 26:1:297-310
 * Young J., and D. E. Howell. 1964. Ants of Oklahoma. Miscellaneous Publication. Oklahoma Agricultural Experimental Station 71: 1-42.
 * Young, J. and D.E. Howell. 1964. Ants of Oklahoma. Miscellaneous Publications of Oklahoma State University MP-71