10 replies to this topic

[BitT]

Are Colobopsis impressa the same as Camponotus impressus? Why two scientific names? Is there no differences between Colobopsis and Camponotus Genus? And if there is what is it?

 

It's hard finding any information on this species and most journals I see the colonies die off shortly after getting a few workers. Has anyone ever had luck growing an established, healthy colony for more than a year?

[MrOdontomachus]

No...they're not. They're completely unrelated. Look up some images of either, there's a huge size discrepancy and a million other differences. Just because they have the same species name (just means 
"impressive", which both are) doesn't mean they're the same.

 

[BitT]

I'm not assuming based on the names. I ask because finding things like this https://bugguide.net/node/view/427800and https://bugguide.net...w/694687/bgpage

 

As I've said I haven't been able to find much on either species. If you have more repeatable places explaining the differences or anything about either of these species I would love links or even a book recommendation.

[Antennal_Scrobe]

They are the same. Until quite recently, Colobopsis was part of the Camponotus genus, and what we now know as Colobopsis impressa was called Camponotus impressus. The suffix change ("a" as opposed to "us") has something to do with Latin grammar.

Edited by Antennal_Scrobe, June 16 2020 - 5:01 PM.

[sirjordanncurtis]

Camponotus impressus is an outdated name for Colopbopsis impressa. 

[Antennal_Scrobe]

On a slightly unrelated note, I'm not actually sure how Colobopsis and Camponotus are distinguished scientifically, since there are some Colobopsis species without the signature cork head, and some Camponotus species that look like Colobopsis. Maybe gcsnelling or James Trager knows.

[BitT]

Ok, thank you both. It was a bit confusing since I found it weird that something had two scientific names but your explanations make much more sense.

 

Edit:

Well, I found this https://explorer.nat...bopsis_impressawhich suggests it is more likely a Subgenus. So perhaps still below the Camponotus genus?

 

Edit again:

Oh wait, still says it upgraded to full genus. So, IDK what makes it a full Genus.

Edited by BitT, June 16 2020 - 5:11 PM.

[MrOdontomachus]

Ok whoops i'm an idiot, I thought all colobopsis had those cork heads.

[Antennal_Scrobe]

Ok whoops i'm an idiot, I thought all colobopsis had those cork heads.

The vast majority do, but you can find some on Antweb that don't. Look at Colobopsis leonardi, for example.

Edited by Antennal_Scrobe, June 16 2020 - 5:51 PM.

[AntsMaryland]

They are the same. Until quite recently, Colobopsis was part of the Camponotus genus, and what we now know as Colobopsis impressa was called Camponotus impressus. The suffix change ("a" as opposed to "us") has something to do with Latin grammar.

I'm literally just commenting because I take latin...

 

Camponotus impressus, the -us ending which is masculine nominative agree with each other, so that makes sense grammatically. As for Colobosis impressa, the ending -is is third declension genitive which means "of [latin noun goes here]" to show possession which is for masculine and feminine words and impressa is most likely nominative feminine in this particular case (things get complicated after that..). So it would be unnecessary from a grammatical standpoint to change impressus to impressa because they agree with the genus name either way.My point is – I don't think it's because of latin grammar, but more just to differentiate between the two naming so they're not the exact same. Just wanted to give my two cents because I'm a bit of a latin nerd

Edited by AntsMaryland, June 16 2020 - 6:13 PM.

[MrOdontomachus]

 

They are the same. Until quite recently, Colobopsis was part of the Camponotus genus, and what we now know as Colobopsis impressa was called Camponotus impressus. The suffix change ("a" as opposed to "us") has something to do with Latin grammar.

I'm literally just commenting because I take latin...

 

Camponotus impressus, the -us ending which is masculine nominative agree with each other, so that makes sense grammatically. As for Colobosis impressa, the ending -is is third declension genitive which means "of [latin noun goes here]" to show possession which is for masculine and feminine words and impressa is most likely nominative feminine in this particular case (things get complicated after that..). So it would be unnecessary from a grammatical standpoint to change impressus to impressa because they agree with the genus name either way.My point is – I don't think it's because of latin grammar, but more just to differentiate between the two naming so they're not the exact same. Just wanted to give my two cents because I'm a bit of a latin nerd