Extant: 2 valid subspecies
Formica rufibarbis Fabricius, 1793 PDF: 355 (w.) FRANCE. Palearctic. AntCat AntWiki HOLTaxonomic 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.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 ).
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 ).
Crimee (fl. Alma, l [[ male ]], 5. VI. 1899; ville de Simferopol, 2 [[ male ]], 1898. Bazenov!).
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
Die Rotbärtige Sklavenameise (Formica rufibarbis) aus der Unterfamilie der Schuppenameisen (Formicinae) gehört zur Gattung der Waldameisen (Formica) und dort zur Untergattung der Sklavenameisen (Serviformica). Ihr Verbreitungsgebiet reicht von Europa bis Mittelasien.
Die Arbeiterinnen messen 4,5–7 mm, die Königinnen 9–11 mm und die Männchen 9–10 mm. Die Gaster und der Kopf sind mattschwarz bis bräunlich, der Thorax ist rötlich mit unterschiedlich starker Rotfärbung. Die Farbe kann von schwarzrötlich bis leuchtend rot variieren. Diese Art kann man leicht mit Formica cunicularia, Formica clara und Formica pratensis verwechseln.
Die verwandte Grauschwarze Sklavenameise (Formica fusca) ist vollständig schwarz gefärbt, die Blutrote Raubameise (Formica sanguinea) hat einen rötlichen Kopf. Beide sind daher leicht von der Rotbärtigen Sklavenameise zu unterscheiden. Die Rote Waldameise (Formica rufa) und die Kahlrückige Waldameise (Formica polyctena) besiedeln einen anderen Lebensraum.
Für eine genauere Unterscheidung der Arbeiterinnen von Formica rufibarbis, Formica cunicularia und Formica clara ist vor allem das Zählen der Haare (Setae) an bestimmten Körperteilen wichtig. Formica rufibarbis weist eine höhere Zahl an Haaren auf als ähnliche Arten. Wenig behaarte Exemplare können höchstens mit stärker behaarten Formica clara verwechselt werden. Zur Übersicht im Folgenden eine Tabelle. Stehen zwei verschiedene Angaben vor und nach einem Querstrich, bezieht sich der Wert vor dem Querstrich auf Seifert (2007)[1] und der Wert nach dem Querstrich auf Seifert & Schulz (2009)[2]:
Die Rotbärtige Sklavenameise ist westpaläarktisch verbreitet. Ihr Verbreitungsgebiet reicht von der Iberischen Halbinsel im Westen bis nach Westsibirien (76° E) und in die Gebirge Mittelasiens (85° E) im Osten. In Fennoskandinavien kommt sie nördlich bis 61° N vor. In den Alpen ist sie bis in eine Höhe von 2000 m zu finden. Sie ist in ganz Deutschland von der planaren Höhenstufe bis zur submontanen Höhenstufe weit verbreitet.[1] Auch in der Schweiz und in Österreich kommt die Art vor.
Formica rufibarbis bevorzugt kurzgrasige, thermophile Graslandhabitate, häufig mit Sandboden oder sandhaltigem Boden. Auch ruderale Trockenfluren, Wegränder, Bahndämme, Gärten und andere Habitate werden besiedelt. Im Gegensatz zur nah verwandten Art Formica cunicularia kommt sie im Durchschnitt häufiger auf Sandböden und in phytomasseärmeren (weniger Krautschicht) Lebensräumen mit höheren Bodentemperaturen vor. Formica rufibarbis dringt auch weiter in die urbane Zone ein als F. cunicularia. Die ebenfalls nah verwandte Formica clara dagegen ist noch thermophiler als F. rufibarbis und lebt häufig auf noch xerothermeren Sand- und Kalktrockenrasen.
In Deutschland ist Formica rufibarbis auf etwa 44 % der potentiell geeigneten Offenlandhabitate anzutreffen und kommt dabei mit 1–6 Nestern/100 m² vor.[1]
Die Nester dieser Ameise sind unterirdisch und meist einfache Erdnester ohne Nesthügel. Um die zahlreichen Nesteingänge finden sich jedoch kleine Anhäufungen von Sand oder Erde. Kolonien bestehen grundsätzlich nur aus einem einzelnen Nest. Die Nestgründung erfolgt claustral durch eine einzelne Königin, aber auch in Pleometrose. Die Nester sind tendenziell größer als die von Formica cunicularia und beinhalten meist etwa 1000–3000 Arbeiterinnen. Sie sind außerdem stärker polygyn als die der nur schwach polygynen F. cunicularia. In den Nestern leben die Raupen verschiedener Bläulings-Arten, wie z. B. die des Hauhechel-Bläulings (Polyommatus icarus) oder Polyommatus celin.
Die nicht sehr territoriale Art ist aggressiver als Formica cunicularia und greift auch andere Ameisen schneller an. Vor allem bei Angriffen auf das Nest zeigt sie sich aggressiv. Sie kann sich auch besser gegen Sozialparasiten verteidigen als Formica cunicularia. Dennoch ist sie eine Hilfsameise für andere Arten, wie z. B. die Blutrote Raubameise (Formica sanguinea) oder die Amazonenameise (Polyergus rufescens). Außerdem kann Formica rufibarbis gut klettern und auch senkrechte Glaswände erklimmen.
Formica rufibarbis ernährt sich größtenteils zoophag, also von Insekten und Spinnentieren, zu einem geringen Teil auch vom Honigtau der Wurzel- und Blattläuse. Größere Beutetiere können von mehreren Arbeiterinnen transportiert werden.
Die Geschlechtstiere schwärmen zwischen Mitte Juni und Anfang August. Im Labor konnten Königinnen ein Alter von bis zu 14 Jahren erreichen.[1]
Formica rufibarbis bildet zusammen mit Formica cunicularia, Formica clara, Formica glabridorsis, Formica tianshanica, Formica persica, Formica orangea, Formica tarimica und Formica anatolica die Formica-rufibarbis-Gruppe innerhalb der Sklavenameisen. Nur drei dieser Arten sind in Europa zu finden, die übrigen leben in West- und Zentralasien.[2]
Folgende Namen sind jüngere Synonyme für Formica rufibarbis:
Die Rotbärtige Sklavenameise (Formica rufibarbis) aus der Unterfamilie der Schuppenameisen (Formicinae) gehört zur Gattung der Waldameisen (Formica) und dort zur Untergattung der Sklavenameisen (Serviformica). Ihr Verbreitungsgebiet reicht von Europa bis Mittelasien.
Formica rufibarbis es una formiga del genre Formica, bicolora, de talha mejana o granda (4,5 fins a 7 mm)[1] Lo cap e lo còrs son negres dau temps que lo torax es en granda partida roge. Aquesta color atanben se tròba a leis maissas, lo clipùe e lo petiòl. Aquesta formiga a de pèls fòrça longs e demòra generalament dins de prats ont i arriba fòrça solelh. Se tròba dins tot lo territòri europèu (mai que mai dins lo nòrd) e pòt bastir de colònias ambé plusors nius restacats entre eles sus divèrsas ectaras.
Formica rufibarbis es una formiga del genre Formica, bicolora, de talha mejana o granda (4,5 fins a 7 mm) Lo cap e lo còrs son negres dau temps que lo torax es en granda partida roge. Aquesta color atanben se tròba a leis maissas, lo clipùe e lo petiòl. Aquesta formiga a de pèls fòrça longs e demòra generalament dins de prats ont i arriba fòrça solelh. Se tròba dins tot lo territòri europèu (mai que mai dins lo nòrd) e pòt bastir de colònias ambé plusors nius restacats entre eles sus divèrsas ectaras.
Referéncias a, b, c et d Edouard DELLA SANTA, Bulletin du C.E.E.P. (Conservatoire Etudes des Ecosystèmes de Provence/Alpes du Sud), Volume 16 (1995), p. 32
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.
The name Formica rufibarbis was first given to this ant by Lord Avebury in Britain in his 1881 work Ants, Bees and Wasps although the species had been earlier misidentified as F. cunicularia by Frederick Smith in 1851.
The Red-barbed Ant is readily identified by its relatively large size and distinctive coloration of a blackish head and thorax, contrasting with a light reddish thorax. Small dark workers do occur and may be mistaken for F. fusca, although there is always a degree of colouration between thorax and abdomen.[1] Workers can also be confused with F. cunicularia which does not have hairs on the thorax.[2]
Colonies usually contain one to three queens, although the occurrence of gynaecoid workers has also been recorded. Queens found colonies in the same manner as other ants from the Formica fusca group. Eggs are first laid early in the new year, and colonies reach a maximum size of around 500 workers. Alates emerge in late June to early July.
It is locally common throughout continental Europe, and ranges from Portugal to Western Siberia. it nests in short, lowland grass and heather or maritime heath overlying loose or sandy soils.[3]
In Britain, the species has always been scarce, confined to heaths in Surrey and the Isles of Scilly, where it is sometimes known as the "St Martin's Ant". In the 1927 edition of British Ants: their life histories and classification, Donisthorpe gives its distribution as being confined to Ripley, Chobham, Reigate and Weybridge. In 2004 there were only four nests in Surrey. It was once found in Cornwall at Whitsand Bay but has not been recorded since 1907. In the Isles of Scilly it is found on the islands of Great Ganilly, Nornour, St Martin's and Teän.[2] As of 2015, F. rufibarbis is now confined to one known colony on mainland Britain, nesting on the edge of a Heath, the location is kept a closely guarded secret due to the risk posed by curious members of the public. However the nest is also at risk from F. sanguinea, a slavemaker ant, which currently nests only a few hundred meters away.
F. rufibarbis nests completely within the ground, usually in sandy banks, and nest chambers situated about a foot beneath the surface are accessible only from a single entrance. This makes the locating of colonies very difficult, so it is possible that the small numbers of recorded colonies constitute an under-representation. Workers forage singly and Donisthorpe observed: "The workers are very audacious and will even endeavour to rob F. rufa of its prey – holding on and pulling – and the moment the rufa lets go, to get a better grip, or to attack the rufibarbis, the latter swiftly decamps with the prize." Workers also possess a remarkable sense of sight, and will proceed to their nest entrance in a dead straight line even if major obstacles are placed to disrupt their path. Donisthorpe describes this phenomenon thus: "On July 12, 1913, having observed several rufibarbis workers running about on a path near a sandy bank at Weybridge, I endeavoured to find their nest, and commenced to pull up handfuls of herbage on the top of the bank, which I let fall on the slope. I then saw a worker approaching with a fly in its jaws and start to mount the bank, and as the scattered herbage was directly in its way, I feared the ant might be diverted from its nest, but when it reached the obstacle it never hesitated for a moment, but running straight over it in a direct line, entered its nest on the top of the bank, which I was thus enabled to find."
Like other Serviformica, this species is subject to raids by dulotic species such as Formica sanguinea and Polyergus rufescens where their ranges coalesce. In Britain this only takes place at Chobham in the case of the former (the latter does not occur in the country).
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.
Formica rufibarbis est une espèce de fourmis du genre Formica, bicolore, de taille moyenne à grande (4,5 à 7 mm)[1]. La tête et le gastre sont noirs tandis que le thorax est en grande partie rougeâtre[1]. Cette dernière couleur se retrouve aussi sur les mandibules, le clypéus et le pétiole[1]. Cette fourmi, à la pilosité bien développée, vit généralement dans les pelouses ensoleillées[1]. Elle est présente sur l'ensemble du territoire européen (principalement dans les zones nordiques), elle peut construire des colonies avec plusieurs nids reliés entre eux sur plusieurs hectares.
Formica rufibarbis est une espèce de fourmis du genre Formica, bicolore, de taille moyenne à grande (4,5 à 7 mm). La tête et le gastre sont noirs tandis que le thorax est en grande partie rougeâtre. Cette dernière couleur se retrouve aussi sur les mandibules, le clypéus et le pétiole. Cette fourmi, à la pilosité bien développée, vit généralement dans les pelouses ensoleillées. Elle est présente sur l'ensemble du territoire européen (principalement dans les zones nordiques), elle peut construire des colonies avec plusieurs nids reliés entre eux sur plusieurs hectares.
De rode baardmier (Formica rufibarbis) is een mierensoort uit de onderfamilie van de schubmieren (Formicinae).[1][2] De wetenschappelijke naam van de soort is voor het eerst geldig gepubliceerd in 1793 door Fabricius.
Bronnen, noten en/of referenties
Multimedia w Wikimedia Commons Pierwomrówka krasnolica (Formica rufibarbis) – gatunek mrówki z podrodziny Formicinae.
Pierwomrówka krasnolica jest terytorialnym gatunkiem o ubarwieniu podobnym do mrówki rudnicy: odwłok ciemny, tułów czerwony. Robotnice mają wielkość od 6 do 8 mm. Królowa 11–12 mm.
Jest mrówką termofilną budującą gniazda w miejscach dobrze nasłonecznionych wykopanych w ziemi lub pod kamieniem. W gnieździe może znajdować się kilkaset robotnic i jedna królowa.
Loty godowe odbywa pod koniec czerwca i w lipcu[2].
Gatunek eurosyberyjski, w Polsce lokalny[2].
U pierwomrówki krasnolicej wyodrębniono 4 podgatunki:
Królowa
Pierwomrówka krasnolica (Formica rufibarbis) – gatunek mrówki z podrodziny Formicinae.
Pierwomrówka krasnolica jest terytorialnym gatunkiem o ubarwieniu podobnym do mrówki rudnicy: odwłok ciemny, tułów czerwony. Robotnice mają wielkość od 6 do 8 mm. Królowa 11–12 mm.
Jest mrówką termofilną budującą gniazda w miejscach dobrze nasłonecznionych wykopanych w ziemi lub pod kamieniem. W gnieździe może znajdować się kilkaset robotnic i jedna królowa.
Loty godowe odbywa pod koniec czerwca i w lipcu.
Gatunek eurosyberyjski, w Polsce lokalny.
Formica rufibarbis é uma espécie de formiga do gênero Formica, pertencente à subfamília Formicinae.[1] Conhecida por Formiga-das-mandíbulas-vermelhas.[2]
É uma espécie social: reside em colónias em que todos os indivíduos são filhos da mesma mãe, a rainha. As obreiras distinguem-se pela ausência de asas.[3]
Formica rufibarbis é uma espécie de formiga do gênero Formica, pertencente à subfamília Formicinae. Conhecida por Formiga-das-mandíbulas-vermelhas.
Formica rufibarbis Fabricius, 1793
Краснощёкий муравей[1][2] (лат. Formica rufibarbis) — вид средних по размеру муравьёв подрода Serviformica рода Formica (Формика) из подсемейства Формицины (Formicinae). От близкого вида Formica cunicularia отличается большим количеством отстоящих волосков на груди (более 3 пар). Служит объектом для рабовладельческих рейдов амазонок Polyergus rufescens и Formica sanguinea.
Характерен для западной Палеарктики (от Португалии до Западной Сибири).
Данный вид относится к подроду Serviformica, включающему самых примитивных представителей рода Formica.
Внесён в Красную книгу Великобритании, хотя на континентальной Европе это обычный вид. Включён в Красную книгу Челябинской области[2].
Краснощёкий муравей (лат. Formica rufibarbis) — вид средних по размеру муравьёв подрода Serviformica рода Formica (Формика) из подсемейства Формицины (Formicinae). От близкого вида Formica cunicularia отличается большим количеством отстоящих волосков на груди (более 3 пар). Служит объектом для рабовладельческих рейдов амазонок Polyergus rufescens и Formica sanguinea.
