64 replies to this topic

[CheetoLord02]

This post is meant to serve as a PSA for antkeepers in the southwestern United States concerning the truth about the species Camponotus fragilis and their related species.

This issue was brought to my attention this spring when I was having a casual conversation about the species Camponotus fragilis with a friend of mine. I was mentioning how excited I was to move to Arizona, and in mentioning all the species I could catch, C. fragilis was brought up. He mentioned that he disliked the species, and I was dumbfounded! While visiting AZ the previous summer, I had found a colony of C. fragilis under a rock, with some queen alates. I distinctly remember the queen alates being quite large, almost reaching the size of the temperate Camponotus spp. queens that I was used to. However, to my surprise, the "Camponotus fragilis" that my friend had purchesed in California had an absolutely microscopic queen, being only 9 or 10mm, according to him. This just wasn't right, I was certain that the queen alates I had seen were at least 15mm. I had to look into it for the sake of my own sanity.

I quickly hopped on AntWeb. After a bit of looking around, I found out that the southwest US has several yellow Camponotus spp. Surely not every single queen caught in the southeast was C. fragilis, right?
My research yielded 5 species to look into further; C. absquatulator, C. festinatus, C. fragilis, C. microps, and C. vafer. In this post, I will be largely ignoring Camponotus vafer for reasons I will detail later.

My first goal was to find out the sizes of each species that I was looking at. All except C. absquatulator had a queen specimen imaged, which made my life a bit easier. After reviewing the specimens, I found that I indeed was not crazy, and C. fragilis do in fact have large queens. The species that I was finding in Arizona was indeed C. fragilis. I further confirmed this by keying out some workers under a microscope, which turned out as true C. fragilis.

 

Now, I needed to solve the issue of the tiny yellow Camponotus queens from California. I had heard from a number of Californians that their "C. fragilis" had absolutely tiny queens, only around 9-10mm. This clearly did not add up, as C. fragilis queens are nowhere near that small. Just take a look:

 

Now, I needed to figure out what species these Californians were finding. I refused to allow them to continue to be called C. fragilis, as it was giving this species a bad name. I needed to clear their record and confirm that these smaller queens were in fact a different species. Between the remaining 4 species I had, I instantly could rule out C. vafer. They are arboreal, and not present in California. This leaves C. absquatulator, C. festinatus, and C. microps.

A quick look at a C. festinatus queen specimen confirmed my fears:

She's huge too! Surely this is not what is being sold in California at all. It turns out the Camponotus festinatus-complex is pretty diverse, and now all I needed to do was find out what species they're catching over there in CA.

I next looked at C. microps. It was a near perfect match, however there was one issue. They aren't found in California at all. I actually found a queen of this species in Tucson, AZ, and she was only 9-10mm when alive. Here's a queen specimen, just to confirm:

 

This proves that these yellow Camponotus spp. can indeed get small. All that was left was to find one in California. This only left one option, C. absquatulator. Quickly all of the pieces started falling into place. They are present in California. Their AntWiki page describes them as "Similar to Camponotus festinatus but overall size smaller". Everything was coming together. However one last look at Camponotus fragilis' AntWiki page confirmed all my suspicions; 

 

"In California C. fragilis appears to be uncommon and is replaced in the lower desert of Imperial and Riverside Counties by Camponotus absquatulator"

Bingo.

 

This all but confirms it. These Californians are almost certainly not catching Camponotus fragilis at all, rather the much smaller Camponotus absquatulator. As far as I'm concerned, this is blissful ignorance. It took me all of 10 or 15 minutes to figure this out, yet these Californian sellers are more than content with selling their 9-10mm Camponotus absquatulator queens as "Camponotus fragilis". This, in my opinion, should be considered dishonestly and false advertising. It baffles me that nobody has figured this out yet. As a species, C. fragilis now has a tarnished reputation. They are known as being small and uninteresting, when promised online to be a large, interesting species. This post will hopefully serve to inform people about what is going on with the sellers from California, and maybe why your beloved Camponotus fragilis queen is so small. Normally I don't like being this harsh, but this seems like a serious problem with a simple solution that has been overlooked for years. I'm also not saying that nobody in California has real Camponotus fragilis, however it seems very common for Camponotus absquatulator to be sold with false advertising.

One thing that may get brought up is that Camponotus absquatulator has far fewer records on Antmaps.org in California than C. fragilis does. However, this is easily explained, since C. absquatulator was only described in 2006, where Camponotus fragilis were described in 1893. They've had just a bit more time to build up records and be more well-documented.
 

TL;DR: Most "Camponotus fragilis caught in California are actually Camponotus absquatulator, and are commonly being falsely listed by Californian sellers.

Edited by CheetoLord02, August 8 2020 - 6:39 PM.

[TechAnt]

Dang.

[EchoMeter4]

It'll be really funny if they can prove it's actually fragilis and you look funny

[NickAnter]

I'm pretty sure Drew did prove his were fragilis. There can be considerable queen size variation in a species. Take Camponotus vicinus, the lower elevation queens are far smaller, whilst the higher, are far larger.

[ArmansAnts]

It'll be really funny if they can prove it's actually fragilis and you look funny

Bet.

[CheetoLord02]

I'm pretty sure Drew did prove his were fragilis. There can be considerable queen size variation in a species. Take Camponotus vicinus, the lower elevation queens are far smaller, whilst the higher, are far larger.

I would like to see this proof. I do agree that queens can vary in size, but there is no way that they would be around 30% smaller and not be a different species. Not to mention that in Camponotus vicinus the high and low elevation variants are genetically different species, and simply need to be described.

[pimplebutt007]

This is very interesting but, as long as they look, grow, and have the same behaviors as fragilis I’m ok with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nanahira]

This is very interesting but, as long as they look, grow, and have the same behaviors as fragilis I’m ok with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would suck if you bought a species you were promised, but it ends up being something more common.

Edited by 500miles, August 8 2020 - 6:56 PM.

[pimplebutt007]

This is very interesting but, as long as they look, grow, and have the same behaviors as fragilis I’m ok with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would suck if you bought a species you were promised, but it ends up being something more common.

I guess that’s true


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SleepyAsianAnter]

[Antennal_Scrobe]

Interesting. I don't think there are any bad intentions on the part of the people selling the mislabeled ants; it seems like they just mistook a relatively obscure species for a better known one, not knowing that the real C. fragilis was supposed to be bigger. I actually like the idea of a small Camponotus that isn't a myrmentoma, but not everyone does, and I hope people see CheetoLord's post and learn to tell the difference so our forum can get that much more accurate. 

[Antennal_Scrobe]

Let this be a testament to the importance of the "cf."

[sirjordanncurtis]

Camponotus fragilis and Camponotus absquatulator are pretty much identical. They are identical in length and in pretty much every feature. In fact, in Snelling's key of the festinatus complex, he noted that it was pretty much impossible to tell the difference between fragilis and absquatulator. The only taxonomical difference are a few hairs on top of the head. This is an EXTREMELY minute difference. These hairs are not actually hairs, but setae, which are single-celled. So the visible difference between C. fragilis and C. absquatulator is not size, but microscopic hairs. It shouldn't matter whether you find out if your fragilis are absquatulator. They're essentially the same species, except living on different geographical regions.

Edit: Here's the key if anyone's interested: https://pdfs.semanti...2819f8693c0.pdf

You should also question how accurate your friend's measurement of fragilis are. There are basically no species of Camponotus in the subgenus tanaemyrmex in California that are under 10mm under any circumstances. Even the photo of C. microps displays a queen larger than 10mm. C. festinatus happens to be large compared to the other species in its complex. You should also remember that queens can greatly vary in size based on how much food they have consumed and how many eggs they currently have in their ovaries. From what I've measured in my fragilis colonies, queens are normally around 12-13mm when they pass the founding stage and are no longer used as repletes to store food.

Another edit: I matched up the two images of microps and fragilis so that the 2mm bars were the same length, and you can see that the fragilis sample is in fact SMALLER than the microps sample. They only looked larger because of how the images were sized.


Even if you are questioning the ants you currently have, I don't think there is really a need to do so because they pretty much behave the same way and look the exact same, except for a few tiny hairs. If it eases your hearts a little, the festinatus complex Carpenter ants that I bought from nurbs were C. fragilis, indicated by these hairs between the antennal scapes, which absquatulator lacks.

Edited by sirjordanncurtis, August 8 2020 - 7:51 PM.

[CheetoLord02]

Camponotus fragilis and Camponotus absquatulator are pretty much identical. They are identical in length and in pretty much every feature. In fact, in Snelling's key of the festinatus complex, he noted that it was pretty much impossible to tell the difference between fragilis and absquatulator. The only taxonomical difference are a few hairs on top of the head. This is an EXTREMELY minute difference. These hairs are not actually hairs, but setae, which are single-celled. So the visible difference between C. fragilis and C. absquatulator is not size, but microscopic hairs. It shouldn't matter whether you find out if your fragilis are absquatulator. They're essentially the same species, except living on different geographical regions.

 

Edit: Here's the key if anyone's interested: https://pdfs.semanti...2819f8693c0.pdf

 

You should also question how accurate your friend's measurement of fragilis are. There are basically no species of Camponotus in the subgenus tanaemyrmex in California that are under 10mm under any circumstances. Even the photo of C. microps displays a queen larger than 10mm. C. festinatus happens to be large compared to the other species in its complex. You should also remember that queens can greatly vary in size based on how much food they have consumed and how many eggs they currently have in their ovaries. From what I've measured in my fragilis colonies, queens are normally around 12-13mm when they pass the founding stage and are no longer used as repletes to store food.

 

In addition, if you look on antmaps, C. fragilis are in fact abundantly in California. 

 

Even if you are questioning the ants you currently have, I don't think there is really a need to do so because they pretty much behave the same way and look the exact same, except for a few tiny hairs. If it eases your hearts a little, the festinatus complex Carpenter ants that I bought from nurbs were C. fragilis, indicated by these hairs between the antennal scapes, which absquatulator lacks.

 

 

>Camponotus fragilis and Camponotus absquatulator are pretty much identical
If this was the truth, C. absquatulator would have been classified as a subspecies of C. fragilis prior to 2006, however they were not, and were instead a subspecies of C. festinatus. Furthermore, they are easily identified in the majors, which anybody who has ever identified a polymorphic species would know is generally the case. C. fragilis majors have hairs all up the sides of the head, where C. absquatulator majors lack these hairs.

>In addition, if you look on antmaps, C. fragilis are in fact abundantly in California. 
Clearly you did not read my entire post. I clearly explained why this is the case. "One thing that may get brought up is that Camponotus absquatulator has far fewer records on Antmaps.org in California than C. fragilis does. However, this is easily explained, since C. absquatulator was only described in 2006, where Camponotus fragilis were described in 1893. They've had just a bit more time to build up records and be more well-documented."

>Even if you are questioning the ants you currently have, I don't think there is really a need to do so because they pretty much behave the same way and look the exact same, except for a few tiny hairs. 
While I currently do not keep either species, I have sent dead specimens of the workers (majors and minors) in my area to FC user AnthonyP163, and he confirmed they were true C. fragilis, which makes sense, as I am located in central Arizona.

A few more differences to note:
 

Major workers of fragilis have hair going up the sides of the head; absquatulator does not. 

 

Both fragilis minors and absquatulator have hair between their antennae. C. fragilis tend to have shorter hairs on the face than absquatulator.

Even the paper you linked says this:

"The queens and major workers are readily distinguished from all others in the complex by the absence of erect setae behind the level of the anterior margin of the eyes. Those setae that are present are usually confined to the anterior one-half of the malar area. In minor workers the malar area is commonly devoid of erect setae or with up to 3 on each side that are situated near the base of the mandible."
 

>the festinatus complex Carpenter ants that I bought from nurbs were C. fragilis, indicated by these hairs between the antennal scapes, which absquatulator lacks.
You may want to check this again.

The only valid point brought up is the size of C. absquatulator queens mentioned, as I could not find any mention of size apart from "smaller than C. festinatus." It is probable that C. absquatulator queens are larger than I assumed, however I still doubt that C. fragilis in California are miraculously 3-4mm smaller than those in AZ, when C. absquatulator has been proven to be more common in California than the former.

Edited by CheetoLord02, August 8 2020 - 7:55 PM.

[YsTheAnt]

I think Jordan pretty much summed it up. Usually when a bunch of people agree on an ID, its not because they all want to manipulate people, its because they did more than 10-15 minutes of research into the topic and agreed on something that was backed by research and observation.

If what you are saying is true, and 15mm C. fragilis exist, then C. festinatus should be significantly larger. Please, find us an 18mm Camponotus festinatus queen before making claims about all the antkeepers in a state .

[ArmansAnts]

I think Jordan pretty much summed it up. Usually when a bunch of people agree on an ID, its not because they all want to manipulate people, its because they did more than 10-15 minutes of research into the topic and agreed on something that was backed by research and observation.

If what you are saying is true, and 15mm C. fragilis exist, then C. festinatus should be significantly larger. Please, find us an 18mm Camponotus festinatus queen before making claims about all the antkeepers in a state .

Read Cheeto's response right above yours. He corrected some incorrect things that Jordan said.

[YsTheAnt]

There were no corrections there, just misinformed assumptions. One outside ID doesn’t compare to dozens of identifications over half a decade by dozens of antkeepers.

If what Cheeto is saying is true, there should be Camponotus festinatus the size of true Camponotus subgenus queens. I’ll believe this argument when I see a queen as such, until then those queens are Camponotus fragilis in my book.

[CheetoLord02]

If what you are saying is true, and 15mm C. fragilis exist, then C. festinatus should be significantly larger. Please, find us an 18mm Camponotus festinatus queen before making claims about all the antkeepers in a state .

Simply because 15mm C. fragilis exist does not automatically mean that C. festinatus will be 3mm larger. This is a false dichotomy. The keys only mention that C. festinatus is "larger than fragilis", however they never mention how much larger. I am positive that in areas where C. fragilis queens are 14-16mm, C. festinatus will match that size. The paper linked before even shows that C. festinatus are only longer in the thorax measurement: "ML 3.85-4.20 vs. 4.51-4.92" (fragilis vs festinatus)

Furthermore, the only claims that I made regarding Californian antkeepers is that they need to pay more attention to the species that they are catching, as evidence shows that C. absquatulator is much more common in California. Even in the paper linked by Jordan, it confirms this saying "Two smaller species in this complex are found at lower elevations west of the range of C. festinatus: C. fragilis and C. absquatulator sp.n. The latter is limited to the Sonoran Desert portions of southern California"

Please do not make these posts if you have no way to back them up.

Edited by CheetoLord02, August 8 2020 - 8:17 PM.

[AnthonyP163]

There were no corrections there, just misinformed assumptions. One outside ID doesn’t compare to dozens of identifications over half a decade by dozens of antkeepers.

If what Cheeto is saying is true, there should be Camponotus festinatus the size of true Camponotus subgenus queens. I’ll believe this argument when I see a queen as such, until then those queens are Camponotus fragilis in my book.

"I’ll believe this argument when I see a queen as such, until then those queens are Camponotus fragilis in my book."

 

Your book is anecdotal. 

 

"There were no corrections there, just misinformed assumptions."

 

Like your assumption that C. festinatus must be 3mm+ larger than C. fragilis?

[YsTheAnt]

If what you are saying is true, and 15mm C. fragilis exist, then C. festinatus should be significantly larger. Please, find us an 18mm Camponotus festinatus queen before making claims about all the antkeepers in a state .

Simply because 15mm C. fragilis exist does not automatically mean that C. festinatus will be 3mm larger. This is a false dichotomy. The keys only mention that C. festinatus is "larger than fragilis", however they never mention how much larger. I am positive that in areas where C. fragilis queens are 14-16mm, C. festinatus will match that size. The paper linked before even shows that C. festinatus are only longer in the thorax measurement: "ML 3.85-4.20 vs. 4.51-4.92" (fragilis vs festinatus)
Furthermore, the only claims that I made regarding Californian antkeepers is that they need to pay more attention to the species that they are catching, as evidence shows that C. absquatulator is much more common in California. Even in the paper linked by Jordan, it confirms this saying "Two smaller species in this complex are found at lower elevations west of the range of C. festinatus: C. fragilis and C. absquatulator sp.n. The latter is limited to the Sonoran Desert portions of southern California"

Please do not make these posts if you have no way to back them up.

Well, I do.

When the species C. festinatus and C. microps were described (By Dr. Snelling), the westernmost ranges for both didn’t even extend beyond the borders of Arizona.

What you are saying is that not only is every person that ID’ed their ants as Camponotus fragilis in Southern California is wrong, but that Dr. Snelling’s descriptions of Camponotus festinatus’ size and both C. festinatus and C. microps range were false as well.

All this based upon one ID off of a key that was most likely based off of Dr. Snellings work, which you have presumed is false anyway.

If this isn’t contradictory enough to invalidate these accusations, I’m not sure what is.

Edited by YsTheAnt, August 9 2020 - 8:49 AM.