8 replies to this topic

[ReignofRage]

Do any of you know anything about C. us-ca01, I found a couple pictures of them and have became quite interested in them. I attached two pictures of them, the photographer said the majors were ~5mm. Anything will be appreciated.

https://www.antweb.o...e=casent0005355Here's the antweb link to C. us-ca01

Attached Images

• 
• 

Edited by Reign_Of_Rage, May 3 2021 - 9:47 PM.

[ZTYguy]

I’ve heard people say they are boring but I’ve never kept them. They seem quite pretty though.

[ReignofRage]

I’ve heard people say they are boring but I’ve never kept them. They seem quite pretty though.

I think the ca01 people have kept are C. anthrax that someone assumed are C. ca01

[ZTYguy]

Ahh, ok.

[ANTdrew]

How do these still not have a species name?

[jcisopodgang]

How do these still not have a species name?

Don't quote me on this; but i think it's because it's just some hybrid and not really technically its own species. No idea, I only heard that from someone I don't remember

[ReignofRage]

 

How do these still not have a species name?

Don't quote me on this; but i think it's because it's just some hybrid and not really technically its own species. No idea, I only heard that from someone I don't remember

 

If they are a hybrid what would it be a hybrid of? Also if it was a hybrid how would it have been found spread across quite a large area (about 35 miles following the three pinned locations I have)?

[ReignofRage]

I have an update about these C. us-ca01, after contacting P. S. Ward I was told they were finally described in 2019; their name being Camponotus johnsoni (Mackay 2019). I also asked him to address people calling C. anthrax as C. us-ca01 and whether it was a hybrid or not, this is what he had to say...

 

"This species is not closely related to Camponotus anthrax, and I would say that it is very unlikely to be a hybrid because there is no other species that is particularly closely related to it. From our molecular (DNA sequence ) work we find that C. johnsoni is in a clade (a clade is a group of related species with a unique common ancestor) that includes Camponotus vicinus, C. semitestaceus, C. maritimus, C. maccooki, and C. dumetorum."

 

He also stated that little was known about them besides the biomes and locality of where they are found and also their nesting habits. Saying that foraging habits, prey, and predators were unknow as he is not in the position to make those observations due to his location. P. S. Ward mentioned that his impression is they make colony sizes of ~100 to ~200 workers, but he has never collected an entire colony to prove this.

 

https://www.antweb.o...t=allantwebantsHere is a link to a queen alate of  C. johnsoni.

Edited by Reign_Of_Rage, May 5 2021 - 2:28 PM.

[Ferox_Formicae]

I have an update about these C. us-ca01, after contacting P. S. Ward I was told they were finally described in 2019; their name being Camponotus johnsoni (Mackay 2019). I also asked him to address people calling C. anthrax as C. us-ca01 and whether it was a hybrid or not, this is what he had to say...

 

"This species is not closely related to Camponotus anthrax, and I would say that it is very unlikely to be a hybrid because there is no other species that is particularly closely related to it. From our molecular (DNA sequence ) work we find that C. johnsoni is in a clade (a clade is a group of related species with a unique common ancestor) that includes Camponotus vicinus, C. semitestaceus, C. maritimus, C. maccooki, and C. dumetorum."

 

He also stated that little was known about them besides the biomes and locality of where they are found and also their nesting habits. Saying that foraging habits, prey, and predators were unknow as he is not in the position to make those observations due to his location. P. S. Ward mentioned that his impression is they make colony sizes of ~100 to ~200 workers, but he has never collected an entire colony to prove this.

 

https://www.antweb.o...t=allantwebantsHere is a link to a queen alate of  C. johnsoni.

I seriously need to purchase Mackay's 2019 publication. Lots of taxonomic changes. Apparently, Camponotus castaneus is no longer a member of Tanaemyrmex, but is now considered to be Camponotus and related to C. americanus. Also, just a note about the authors name, as Mackay described the species as being in the genus Camponotus, and since the species has not been transferred to a new genus, the proper way of writing the authors name would be Camponotus johnsoni Mackay, no parenthesis of description date required. A good example of this is with Dorymyrmex bureni. When described by James Trager, it was placed it the now synonymized genus Conomyrma as Conomyrma bureni Trager. However, when Shattuck synonymized Conomyrma with Dorymyrmex in 1992, the name became Dorymyrmex bureni (Trager). Hope this helps!