Red Barbed Ant

Extant: 2 valid subspecies

Formica rufibarbis Fabricius, 1793 PDF: 355 (w.) FRANCE. Palearctic. AntCat AntWiki HOL

Taxonomic history

Jurine, 1807 PDF: 273 (q.m.); Emery, 1909b PDF: 197 (q.m.).Combination in Formica (Serviformica): Forel, 1915d: 64; Ruzsky, 1915b: 13.Synonym of Formica cunicularia: Stephens, 1829b: 357; Mayr, 1863a PDF: 414.[Note: Stephens, 1829b: 357, and Mayr, 1863a PDF: 414, give Formica cunicularia as senior synonym, but Formica rufibarbis has priority.].Subspecies of Formica fusca: Forel, 1874 PDF: 54; Emery & Forel, 1879 PDF: 451; Mayr, 1886d PDF: 427; Cresson, 1887 PDF: 257; Forel, 1889 PDF: 256; Mayr, 1889 PDF: 279; Forel, 1892j PDF: 307; Lameere, 1892: 63; Emery, 1893m PDF: 196 (footnote); Forel, 1894c PDF: 403; Forel, 1895f PDF: 457; Ruzsky, 1896 PDF: 70; Saunders, 1896 PDF: 22; Forel, 1899b PDF: 128; Ruzsky, 1904b: 4; Forel, 1906b PDF: 85; Wheeler, 1908k PDF: 406; Emery, 1909b PDF: 197; Forel, 1909c PDF: 105; Bondroit, 1910 PDF: 483; Karavaiev, 1910 PDF: 269; Krausse, 1912c PDF: 165; Stitz, 1914 PDF: 93; Forel, 1915d: 64; Emery, 1916a PDF: 255; Stitz, 1917 PDF: 350; Escherich, 1917: 336 (in key); Santschi, 1919e PDF: 247; Soudek, 1922b PDF: 84; Menozzi, 1922c PDF: 331; Schkaff, 1925b PDF: 276; Gösswald, 1932 PDF: 46.Status as species: Fabricius, 1804 PDF: 402; Jurine, 1807 PDF: 273; Roger, 1863b PDF: 13; Emery, 1869b PDF: 9; André, 1874b: 185 (in key); Mayr, 1877a: 7; Emery, 1878a PDF: ix (in list); Emery, 1878: 49; Mayr, 1880 PDF: 26; André, 1881c PDF: 59; André, 1882c PDF: 182 (in key); Costa, 1884 PDF: 34; Provancher, 1887: 233 (in key); Nasonov, 1889: 19; Dalla Torre, 1893 PDF: 209; Medina, 1893 PDF: 104; Forel, 1895e PDF: 227; Emery, 1898c PDF: 126; Ruzsky, 1902a PDF: 233; Ruzsky, 1902d PDF: 11; Ruzsky, 1902e PDF: 16; Wheeler, 1902f PDF: 947; Ruzsky, 1903b PDF: 303; Ruzsky, 1903c PDF: 206; Bingham, 1903 PDF: 335; Forel, 1904c PDF: 384; Ruzsky, 1905b: 385; Wasmann, 1906 PDF: 112 (in key); Karavaiev, 1911a PDF: 16; Wheeler, 1913i PDF: 514 (redescription); Ruzsky, 1915b: 12; Forel, 1915d: 64 (in key); Donisthorpe, 1915f: 320; Karavaiev, 1916a PDF: 507; Emery, 1916a PDF: 255; Ruzsky, 1916: 5; Wheeler, 1917a PDF: 550; Bondroit, 1918 PDF: 51; Crawley, 1920b PDF: 178; Santschi, 1921a PDF: 116; Kulmatycki, 1922 PDF: 84; Kuznetsov-Ugamsky, 1923b PDF: 245; Wheeler, 1923c PDF: 4; Müller, 1923b PDF: 140; Finzi, 1923a PDF: 4; Lomnicki, 1925a PDF: 18 (in key); Emery, 1925d PDF: 249; Ruzsky, 1925a PDF: 287; Ruzsky, 1925b PDF: 44; Santschi, 1925g PDF: 353; Karavaiev, 1926e PDF: 198; Kuznetsov-Ugamsky, 1926c PDF: 97; Santschi, 1926f PDF: 289; Stärcke, 1926a PDF: 148 (in key); Donisthorpe, 1927c: 368; Karavaiev, 1927a PDF: 302; Karavaiev, 1927d: 286 (in key); Karavaiev, 1927e PDF: 346; Menozzi, 1927b PDF: 92; Lomnicki, 1928 PDF: 9; Kuznetsov-Ugamsky, 1929b PDF: 38; Wheeler, 1929g PDF: 10; Karavaiev, 1930b PDF: 148; Stitz, 1930a PDF: 238; Karavaiev, 1931c PDF: 113; Karavaiev, 1931e PDF: 216; Soudek, 1931 PDF: 17; Santschi, 1932h PDF: 5; Arnol'di, 1933a: 604 (in key); Grandi, 1935 PDF: 104; Karavaiev, 1935b PDF: 109; Karavaiev, 1936: 234 (redescription); Ruzsky, 1936 PDF: 92; Stitz, 1939: 355; Menozzi, 1939a PDF: 322 (in key); Holgersen, 1940 PDF: 186; Novák & Sadil, 1941 PDF: 107 (in key); Röszler, 1942a PDF: 59; Holgersen, 1943c PDF: 176 (in key); Holgersen, 1944a PDF: 191; Ruzsky, 1946 PDF: 69; Van Boven, 1947b PDF: 188 (in key); Arnol'di, 1948a PDF: 212 (in list); Röszler, 1950 PDF: 215; Donisthorpe, 1950e PDF: 1065; Creighton, 1950a PDF: 539; Chapman & Capco, 1951 PDF: 198; Consani & Zangheri, 1952 PDF: 45; Yarrow, 1954a PDF: 231; Ceballos, 1956: 320; Baroni Urbani, 1964a PDF: 7; Baroni Urbani, 1964c PDF: 167; Dlussky, 1965a PDF: 37 (in key); Dlussky, 1967a PDF: 73; Bernard, 1967a PDF: 297 (redescription); Collingwood & Yarrow, 1969 PDF: 90; Baroni Urbani, 1971c PDF: 240; Collingwood, 1971 PDF: 169; Dlussky & Pisarski, 1971 PDF: 163 (redescription); Banert & Pisarski, 1972 PDF: 355; Francoeur, 1973 PDF: 228; Bolton & Collingwood, 1975: 6 (in key); Pisarski, 1975: 43; Van Boven, 1977 PDF: 164; Collingwood, 1978 PDF: 94 (in key); Arnol'di & Dlussky, 1978: 553 (in key); Collingwood, 1979 PDF: 128; Dlussky, 1981b PDF: 17; Agosti & Collingwood, 1987a PDF: 59; Agosti & Collingwood, 1987b PDF: 286 (in key); Dlussky et al., 1990 PDF: 139; Arakelian, 1994 PDF: 98; Douwes, 1995: 98; Bolton, 1995b: 202; Poldi et al., 1995: 8; Espadaler, 1997g PDF: 28; Collingwood & Prince, 1998: 26 (in key); Gallé et al., 1998: 217; Collingwood & Heatwole, 2002 PDF: 14; Chang & He, 2002a PDF: 52 (in key); Czechowski et al., 2002 PDF: 84; Karaman & Karaman, 2003 PDF: 51; Csosz & Markó, 2005 PDF: 233; Karaman & Karaman, 2005 PDF: 61; Bračko, 2006 PDF: 148; Cagniant, 2006 PDF: 195; Markó et al., 2006 PDF: 68; Petrov, 2006 PDF: 70, 112 (in key); Bračko, 2007 PDF: 20; Seifert, 2007: 301; Werner & Wiezik, 2007 PDF: 144; Zryanin & Zryanina, 2007 PDF: 233; Gratiashvili & Barjadze, 2008 PDF: 134; Paknia et al., 2008 PDF: 154; Casevitz-Weulersse & Galkowski, 2009 PDF: 482; Seifert & Schultz, 2009b PDF: 260 (redescription); Lapeva-Gjonova et al., 2010 PDF: 54; Boer, 2010: 32; Csosz et al., 2011 PDF: 59; Karaman, 2011a PDF: 80; Legakis, 2011 PDF: 36; Borowiec & Salata, 2012 PDF: 496; Czechowski et al., 2012: 215; Guénard & Dunn, 2012 PDF: 32; Kiran & Karaman, 2012 PDF: 11; Borowiec, 2014 PDF: 78 (see note in bibliography); Bračko et al., 2014 PDF: 19; Bharti et al., 2016 PDF: 27; Lebas et al., 2016: 198; Radchenko, 2016: 306; Salata & Borowiec, 2018c 10.5281/zenodo.2199191 PDF: 45; Seifert, 2018: 309.Senior synonym of Formica cinereorufibarbis: Bernard, 1967a PDF: 297; Collingwood, 1978 PDF: 73; Bolton, 1995b: 203; Seifert, 2002 PDF: 266 (in text); Seifert & Schultz, 2009b PDF: 260; Karaman, 2011a PDF: 80; Radchenko, 2016: 306.Senior synonym of Formica defensor: Forel, 1894c PDF: 403; Bingham, 1903 PDF: 335; Bolton, 1995b: 203.Senior synonym of Formica fraterna: Forel, 1894c PDF: 403; Bingham, 1903 PDF: 335; Emery, 1925d PDF: 250; Karavaiev, 1936: 234; Bolton, 1995b: 203.Senior synonym of Formica nicaeensis: Roger, 1863b PDF: 13; Forel, 1874 PDF: 98 (in list); Emery & Forel, 1879 PDF: 451; Dalla Torre, 1893 PDF: 202 (footnote) ; Bolton, 1995b: 203; Radchenko, 2016: 306.Senior synonym of Formica rufibarbis piligera: Donisthorpe, 1927c: 369; Lomnicki, 1928 PDF: 9; Dlussky & Pisarski, 1971 PDF: 163; Pisarski, 1975: 43; Bolton, 1995b: 203; Czechowski et al., 2002 PDF: 84; Czechowski et al., 2012: 215; Radchenko, 2016: 306.Senior synonym of Formica stenoptera: Roger, 1863b PDF: 13; André, 1874c: 202 (in list); Forel, 1874 PDF: 98 (in list); Emery & Forel, 1879 PDF: 451; Dalla Torre, 1893 PDF: 210; Forel, 1894c PDF: 403; Donisthorpe, 1915f: 320; Emery, 1925d PDF: 250; Donisthorpe, 1927c: 368; Karavaiev, 1936: 234; Stitz, 1939: 355; Yarrow, 1954a PDF: 231; Dlussky, 1967a PDF: 73; Bolton, 1995b: 203; Radchenko, 2016: 306.

This ant has been dubbed 'the mining ant' in the past, as it nests underground or beneath stones (2). The entrance to the nest is a small hole, which may be concealed by a tussock of grass (2), nests usually extend to depths of around 30 cm below ground (5). Each mature colony can consist of 2-3 queens, and over 500 workers (5). The workers are aggressive, and attack other ant species and insects (5). The queen or queens are housed in a special chamber at the very bottom of the nest (2). In healthy colonies, winged reproductive females and males are produced each year, they fly during June and July (5), and new colonies are founded by a single queen (5). After mating, the females (now termed queens) attempt to establish a new colony. They only mate once during their lifetime, storing sufficient sperm inside their body to enable them to produce eggs for the rest of their life. Queens are the only members of the colony to reproduce; the workers feed the queen and tend to the brood. They forage alone for invertebrates, carrion, nectar and honey-dew produced by aphids (3), and can even rob prey from southern wood ant (Formica rufa) workers (2). After obtaining food, red-barbed ant workers set off in a straight line back to the nest; they do not follow scent trails like many other species of ant (2).

A UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) priority species, the red-barbed ant has a Species Action Plan that coordinates its conservation. This plan aims to maintain all current populations, and restore the species to sites within the former range by 2010 (3). This ant is also part of English Nature's Species Recovery Programme, and research and monitoring work has been conducted on this species under this programme (4). Three nests with queens were taken into captivity in 1999, and were being maintained. One of these nests was introduced into the wild, and further releases have been proposed in order to bolster the Surrey population. Supplementary feeding has also been undertaken and nests of the slave-making ant F. sanguinea have been removed from areas supporting the red-barded ant (4). Both of the Surrey sites are Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), and one is a National Nature Reserve (NNR); they therefore receive a degree of protection, and management measures have been targeted at the species (3).

The red-barbed ant is classified as Endangered in Great Britain (3). Winged reproductive females and queens are generally red or reddish-yellow in colour, with protruding yellowish hairs on the body (2). Winged reproductive females have greyish coloured wings; after mating these females are known as queens, and the wings are shed. Males are blackish in colour with darker grey wings than females; their legs are yellow with a variable amount of black on the lower portions (2). Workers (non-reproductive females) are considerably smaller than reproductive males, females and queens, and their dark brown abdomens are covered in short downy hairs, which gives them a greyish appearance (2).

The red-barbed ant requires warm conditions; indeed it is thought to be the most heat-loving member of the genus Formica (3). The habitats in which it occurs therefore need to be open in order to allow sufficient sunlight to filter through to ground level (3). In Britain, this ant nests in short lowland grasslands, heather or coastal heath with bare sandy ground and disturbed soil (4).

First discovered in Great Britain in 1896, the red-barbed ant has always been considered rare (4). Historically it has been recorded from 6 sites on the mainland, all in Surrey (4), as well as at one site on St Martins in the Scilly Isles (5). At present the species clings on at just two of the Surrey sites, at Chobham Common and Bisley (4); it was still recorded in the Scilly Isles in 1997 (3). Elsewhere it is known from Portugal, reaching east to western Siberia, and from the Middle East as far north as Fennoscandia (5).

Classified as Endangered in Great Britain (3).

This species is threatened by habitat loss resulting from building development and agricultural intensification of heathland. Scrub invasion, unsuitable heathland management, trampling, excessive disturbance of nests and severe or over-frequent heathland fires also pose risks (3). Furthermore, the slave-making ant Formica saguinea is a problem, as it steals the broods of other ant species, resulting in the death of the slave provider nest (5).

Records

(Map 70): Bulgaria ( Agosti and Collingwood 1987a , Atanassov and Dlusskij 1992 , Seifert 2008 ); Eastern Stara Planina Mts: Sliven [ Forel 1892 (as Formica fusca Rasse rufibarbis)]; Sofia Basin: Sofia ( Lapeva-Gjonova and Atanasova 2004 , Antonova 2005 , Antonova and Penev 2006 , 2008 ); surroundings of Sofia near Vladaya vill. ( Antonova and Penev 2006 , 2008 ); Vitosha Mt. [ Atanassov 1952 , Wesselinoff 1967 (as Serviformica rufibarbis )]; Plana Mt. ( Vagalinski and Lapeva-Gjonova in press ); Lozenska Planina Mt. [ Wesselinoff 1967 (as Serviformica rufibarbis ), Vassilev and Evtimov 1973 ], north of Pasarel vill. ( Antonova and Penev 2008 ); Bakadzhik-Burgas district: Aytos [ Forel 1892 (as Formica fusca Rasse rufibarbis)]; Strandzha Mt.: Balgari vill. ( Atanassov 1936 ); Krupnik-Sandanski-Petrich Valley: Petrich, along Strumeshnitsa river ( Atanassov 1964 ); Rila Mt.: Rila monastery ( Forel 1892 ); Western Rhodopi Mts: Asenovgrad [ Forel 1892( as Formica fusca Rasse rufibarbis)], Dobrostan ( Seifert and Schultz 2009 ), Dospat, Velingrad, Batak ( Lapeva-Gjonova in press (a) ); Southern Black Sea coast: Sozopol, Pomorie [ Forel 1892 (as Formica fusca Rasse rufibarbis)], Burgas ( Forel 1895 ).

Formica rufibarbis Fabricius , 1793;France . Formica fusca var. cinereorufibarbis Forel , 1874;Switzerland : Zuerich .

Type material examined: F. rufibarbis : Neotype worker labelled "FRA: 44.073° N , 7.295° E , St. Martin Vesu-bie , Cime de la Palu , 2058 m R. Schultz2002.05.14 - 108 " and " NeotypeFormica rufibarbis Fabricius 1793, des. Seifert & Schultz 2009"; SMNGoerlitz . In case of destruction or loss of the neotype specimen, a replacement neotype can be designated from a series of 6 mounted workers and 14 workers in ethanol from the same nest sample, having identical sample number, kept in SMN Goerlitz and coll. RS .

Justification of the neotype fixation: Formica rufi-barbis has been described from France (" Habitat in Gallia "). There is no specimen from Fabricius available that could be interpreted as a primary type. During a thorough search in the Fabricius collection in ZMU Copenhagen in 2006, a Formica worker labelled " rufibarbis " was found. It is without head, has a damaged mesosoma, carries no locality label but the registration label " Formica rufibarbis 402.26 Kiel " (a permanent loan from the museum in Kiel). This specimen definitely belongs to Formica trun-corum Fabricius , 1804. It cannot be considered as type of F. rufibarbis because its characters clearly disagree with the original description: It has reddish legs including tarsi instead of " pedes nigri " and a reddish brown gaster instead of " Abdomen atrum ". The missing parts of this F. truncorum specimen would also not have a " Caput nigrum ore late rufo ".

F. fusca var. cinereorufibarbis : Two worker types (the specimen with CL = 1663 was labelled as lectotype by B. Seifert in 1999) and 1 gyne paratype , all labelled " F. cinereo-rufibarbis Forel ", " Z. hôpital " and " Type ", MNH Geneve.

Material examined: 74 samples with 232 workers were subject to a numeric analysis of 18 characters (Figs. 18, 19): Austria (1 sample), Bosnia & Herzegovina (3), Bulgaria (1), Finland (4), France (3), Germany (27), Hungary (1), Kazakhstan (20), Lebanon (1), Russia (1), Sweden (4), Switzerland (6), Turkey (2). For details, see Appendix, as digital supplementary material to this article, at the journal's web pages.

Description of worker (Tab. 2, Fig. 3): Large Servi-formica species (mean CS 1.455 mm), head more elongated (CL / CW1.4 1.141), Scape moderately long SL / CS1.4 1.068; distance of lateral ocelli moderate (OceD / CS1.4 0.169), petiole rather wide (PEW / CS1.4 0.471). Clypeus with sharp median keel and fine longitudinal microcari-nulae. Frontal triangle finely transversely rippled and with 35 - 55 short pubescence hairs. Eyes with microsetae of 11 - 15 μ m maximum length. Total mean of unilateral setae numbers on different body parts predicted for a specimen with CS = 1.4 mm: pronotum 11.1, mesonotum 6.5, propodeum plus dorsolateral metapleuron 0.8, petiole scale dorsal of spiracle 3.2, flexor profile of hind tibia 2.8. Posterior margin of head normally without setae. Ventral coxaeand gaster tergites with long setae. Dorsal mesonotum in lateral aspect broadly rounded. Metanotal groove relatively deep. Propodeal dome in profile rounded, its basal profile sometimes flat or slightly concave. Dorsal crest of petiole in frontal view convex, sometimes (especially in larger specimens) with straight or weekly excavate median portion, in smaller ants sometimes bluntly angled. Petiole scale in lateral aspect rather thin, with convex anterior and more straight posterior profile. Gaster with transverse mi-croripples of small average distance (RipD 4.4 μ m) and covered by dense silvery pubescence (sqPDG 3.2). Pubescence on head, mesosoma and petiole dense. Posterior vertex, sometimes dorsal promesonotum, coxae and all appendages normally brown or dark brown, gaster always dark brown. Other body parts reddish.

Comments on taxonomy: Formica rufibarbis is safely separable by discriminant analysis from any other species of the group throughout its whole geographic range. Sometimes, less hairy specimens of F. rufibarbis could be confused with more hairy F. clara . Considering the characters CS, CL / CW1.4, SL / CS1.4, OceD / CS1.4, EYE / CS1.4, PEW / CS1.4, GHL / CS1.4, nPN1.4, nMN1.4, nPRME1.4, nPE1.4, and nHFFL1.4, a two-class DA separates 97.8% of 274 nest samples from Eurasia with p> 0.95 and the LOOCV-DA gives an error indication of 0.4%: D (12) F. clara -2.810 ± 0.861 [-6.33, -0.16] n = 200 D (12) F. rufibarbis -2.818 ± 1.297 [0.16, 6.15] n = 74

The type samples of F. rufibarbis and F. fusca var. cinereorufibarbis are allocated to the F. rufibarbis cluster with p = 1.000 and 0.999 and the type samples of F. clara Forel , 1886, F. lusatica Seifert , 1997 and F. rufibarbis sinae Emery , 1925 to the F. clara cluster with p = 1.000, 1.000 and 0.929, respectively. The case of F. rufibarbis sinae is discussed in the F. clara section and the separation of F. rufibarbis from the similarly setose Asian species F. anatolica sp. n. and F. tarimica sp. n. is shown in the section of the latter species.

74 samples with 232 workers were subject to a numeric analysis of 18 characters.Austria : Schwarzach: 14.V.1994 [ 47.320° N , 13.139° E ] .Bosnia & Herzegovina : Sutjeska N.P. (No. 004), 28.V.2003 [ 43.356° N , 18.692° E ];Sutjeska N.P. ( No. 070 ), 6.VI.2003 [ 43.351° N , 18.690° E ];Sutjeska N.P. ( No. 072 ), 6.VI.2003 [ 43.350° N , 18.690° E ].Bulgaria : Dobrostan , 10.IX.1982 [ 41.905° N , 24.925° E ].Finland : Luumaeki , 12.VII.1996 [ 60.913° N , 27.380° E ];Sandvik (2 samples, No. 33, 35), 10.VII.1996 [ 60.280° N , 22.210° E ];Stormaelo , 10.VII.1996 [ 60.250° N , 22.150° E ].France : Hospitalet , 19.IX.1998 [ 42.588° N , 1.794° E ];St. Martin Vesubie (No. 089), 13.V. 2002 [ 44.086° N , 7.247° E ];St. Martin Vesubie (No. 108, type rufibarbis), 14.V.2002 [ 44.072° N , 7.295° E ].Germany : Badra , 27.V.1987 [ 51.430° N , 10.980° E ];Burkheim , 1.V.1993 [ 48.100° N , 7.600° E ];Daenkritz (4 samples, No. -, 016, 043, 204), 20.VII.1988 / 26.V.1992 / 27.V.1992 [ 50.770° N , 12.430° E ];Glewitz , 2.V.2000 [ 54.239° N , 13.321° E ];Gruenz , 5.VI.2004 [ 53.264° N , 14.124° E ];Hauptmannsberg , 22.IV.2000 [ 53.307° N , 13.443° E ];Heilsberg , 25.VIII.1986 [ 50.776° N , 11.265° E ];Hellerau , 20.VIII.1992 [ 51.100° N , 13.730° E ];Isteiner Klotz , 4.V.1993 [ 47.670° N , 7.530° E ];Langenhessen , 28.V.1992 [ 50.770° N , 12.370° E ];Menzlin , 8.V.1999 [ 53.870° N , 13.631° E ];Niederhohndorf (2 samples, No. 081, 212), 26.V.1992 [ 50.750° N , 12.470° E ];Oberbergen , 2.V.1993 [ 48.110° N , 7.660° E ];Peenemuende , 5.V.2001 [ 54.148° N , 13.753° E ];Rohrdorf (No. g13), 9.V.1993 [ 47.740° N , 10.060° E ];Rohrdorf (No. g30), 8.V.1993 [ 47.717° N , 10.083° E ];Struck (2 samples, No. 021, 023), 5.VI.1999 [ 54.170° N , 13.693° E ];Tuebingen (2 samples, No. 013, 073), 6.V.1993 [ 48.510° N , 9.010° E ];Untergrombach , 6.V.1990 [ 49.080° N , 8.550° E ];Vogtsburg , 3.V.1993 [ 48.100° N , 7.700° E ];Waren/ Feissnecksee , 27.VII.1988 [ 53.490° N , 12.710° E ].Hungary : Aggtelek , V.1998 [ 48.467° N , 20.517° E ].Kazakhstan : Manrak (No. 040), 22.VII.2001 [ 47.628° N , 84.063° E ];Manrak (No. 045), 22.VII.2001 [ 47.636° N , 84.064° E ];Manrak , (No. 351), 23.VII.2001 [ 47.633° N , 84.067° E ];Saur (2 samples, No. 274, 341), 24.VII. 2001 [ 47.300° N , 85.617° E ];Saur (No. 064), 24.VIII.2001 [ 47.306° N , 85.545° E ];Saur (No. 068), 24.VII.2001 [ 47.294° N , 85.618° E ];Saur (No. 058), 24.VII.2001 [ 47.299° N , 85.412° E ];Saur (No. 273), 24.VII.2001 [ 47.300° N , 85.467° E ];Saur (No. 309), 23.VII.2001 [ 47.310° N , 84.460° E ];Saur (No. 318), 24.VII.2001 [ 47.300° N , 85.417° E ];Saur (No. 331), 25.VII.2001 [ 47.350° N , 85.517° E ];Tarbagatay (2 samples, No. 83, 316), 1.VIII.2001 [ 47.783° N , 81.767° E ];Tarba-gatay (No. 153), 31.VII.2001 [ 47.360° N , 83.527° E ];Tarbagatay (No. 167), 2.VIII.2001 [ 47.781° N , 81.764° E ];Tar-bagatay (No. 169), 2.VIII.2001 [ 47.782° N , 81.760° E ];Tarbagatay (No. 183), 4.VIII.2001 [ 47.075° N , 82.313° E ];Tarbagatay (No.328), 3.VIII.2001 [ 47.100° N , 82.317° E ].Lebanon : Chtoura , 5.VIII.1933 [ 33.817° N , 35.850° E ].Russia : Snezhinsk , 5.VII.1998 [ 55.933° N , 60.983° E ].Sweden : Hoegsrum , 13.VI.1992 [ 56.770° N , 16.670° E ];Kastloesa (2 samples, No. 44, 94), 12.VI.1992 [ 56.460° N , 16.480° E ];Stora Alvaret , 11.X.2000 [ 56.532° N , 16.525° E ].Switzerland : Biere , 18.V.1994 [ 43.540° N , 6.320° E ];Eglisau , 21.IV.2004 [ 47.580° N , 8.520° E ];Pfynwald (3 samples, No. g4, 72, 101), 16.V.1994 [ 46.300° N , 7.620° E ];Zuerich ( type cinereorufibarbis), before 1874 [ 47.37° N , 8.55° E , coordinates estimated].Turkey : Igdir , 21.VI.1993 [ 39.850° N , 44.090° E ];Tuzluca , 23.VI.1993 [ 40.050° N , 43.730° E ].

Distribution and biology: Inhabiting the temperate, Ponto-south-Siberian and Submediterranean zones of the West Palaearctic from the Pyrenees to West Siberia ( 76° E ) and the Southwest Siberian Saur Mountains ( 85° E ). In Fennoscandia going to 61° N , both in Sweden (Colling-wood 1979 ) and Finland, in the Alps and the Caucasus climbing up to 2100 m. In habitat selection intermediate between the moderately thermophilic F. cunicularia and the strongly thermophilic F. clara . Compared to the former more frequent on sandy and open ground with higher soil temperature, lower moisture and less developed herb layer and penetrating deeper into the urban zone. Presence, mean and maximum nest density on 81 potentially suitable, 150- m 2-test-plots on open land in Germany was 44%, 1.0 and 6.0 nests / 100 m 2 respectively. Diet, activity pattern and nest construction similar to F. cunicularia but often with larger nest populations, more aggressive, more readily attacking other ants and more effectively defending against social parasites than F. cunicularia . Cooperative transport of large prey items may occur. Alates occur in Central Europe 14 July ± 15 d [ 16 June , 3 August ], n = 13 (Seifert 2007 ).

Within the Palaearctic members of the subgenus Servifor-mica, the Formica rufibarbis group (typical example F. clara , Figs. 12 and 13) is diagnosable by the following character combination: mesosoma showing 25 to 100% reddish pigmentation; moderate to large body size (nest means of CS 1.075 - 1.731 mm); moderate eye size (nest means of EYE / CS1.4 0.274 - 0.312); posterior margin and underside of head normally without setae (nOCC and nGU may occasionally achieve 1.5 and 3.0 in F. anatolica sp. n. ), mesosoma with zero to numerous setae; petiole scale rather wide (nest means of PEW / CS1.4 0.364 - 0.523), with a convex or bluntly angulate dorsal crest; gaster ter-gites with a dense, usually silvery pubescence (sqPDG1.4 2.7 - 3.9) and with more or less dense transverse micro-ripples (RipD1.4 3.8 - 9.2), thus appearing more matt at low magnifications. Range West Europe to East China. Moderately to strongly thermophilic; avoiding the boreal zone; in the temperate climate zone only in open, sun-exposed habitats; in warmer climate zones some species also occurring in woodland. Primary habitats are open grassland, and most species invade rural or suburban areas. Monodomous colonies with single to few queens. Simple, sometimes extended soil nests, frequently under stones, rarely with a flat mound of mineral soil particles or even some organic material. Predacious and trophobiotic.

Treatment by species

Crimee (fl. Alma, l [[ male ]], 5. VI. 1899; ville de Simferopol, 2 [[ male ]], 1898. Bazenov!).

Formica rufibarbis is a European formicine ant of the Formica fusca group. In the classification by Auguste Forel, it is treated in the subgenus Serviformica. F. rufibarbis is subject to a Species Action Plan (SAP) in England, where it is known from only two locations, although it is not considered to be at risk on continental Europe.