diff --git a/data/A5/45/59/A545590DFFA02D61FF3DFD23C05AFD77.xml b/data/A5/45/59/A545590DFFA02D61FF3DFD23C05AFD77.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..b76175845c8 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/A5/45/59/A545590DFFA02D61FF3DFD23C05AFD77.xml @@ -0,0 +1,1495 @@ + + + +Temnothorax caryaluteus sp. nov. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a new ant species from the eastern United States + + + +Author + +Prebus, Matthew M. +1A6494C7-795E-455C-B66F-7F6C32F76584 +Social Insect Research Group, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, 550 E Orange St., Tempe, AZ 85281, USA. & Department of Integrative Taxonomy of Insects, Institute of Biology, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstrasse 30, 70599, Stuttgart, Germany. & KomBioTa - Center for Biodiversity and Integrative Taxonomy Research, University of Hohenheim and State Museum of Natural History, Wollgrasweg 2, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany. +mprebus@gmail.com + + + +Author + +Nguyen, Nhi +4E495A2D-6AAA-49BA-84BB-B0C2B2217008 +Social Insect Research Group, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, 550 E Orange St., Tempe, AZ 85281, USA. +nhih.ngu@gmail.com + + + +Author + +Doering, Grant Navid +D3800453-782F-4308-9F3E-6091E6FFF81E +Social Insect Research Group, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, 550 E Orange St., Tempe, AZ 85281, USA. +naviddio@gmail.com + + + +Author + +Booher, Douglas B. +7A3F478F-A5E8-484F-844E-89759F58EEF7 +USDA Forest Service Southeastern Research Station, Athens, Georgia, USA. +Douglas.Booher@usda.gov + +text + + +European Journal of Taxonomy + + +2024 + +2024-12-04 + + +970 + + +175 +202 + + + + +https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2757/12629 + +journal article +10.5852/ejt.2024.970.2757 +2118-9773 +14331009 +A24A4604-EDD9-4833-ABF9-2ECF388C4703 + + + + + +Synopsis of +Temnothorax +species of the eastern +United States +: + + + + + + +Temnothorax allardycei +(Mann, 1920) + + + + +Temnothorax ambiguus +(Emery, 1895) + + + + +Temnothorax americanus +(Emery, 1895) + + + + +Temnothorax bradleyi +(Wheeler, 1913) + + + + +Temnothorax caryaluteus + +sp. nov. + + + +Temnothorax curvispinosus +(Mayr, 1866) + + + + +Temnothorax duloticus +(Wesson, 1937) + + + + +Temnothorax longispinosus +(Roger, 1863) + + + + +Temnothorax minutissimus +(Smith, 1942) + + + + +Fig. 5. +Distribution map comparing the ranges of + +Temnothorax caryaluteus + +sp. nov. +, + +T. ambiguus +(Emery, 1895) + +, and + +T. curvispinosus +(Mayr, 1866) + +in North America. + + + + +Table 1. +Comparison of nesting microhabitats of species of + +Temnothorax +Mayr, 1861 + +from the eastern United States. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+nest microhabitat +
+ +Temnothorax +sp. + +Acorns / hickory nutsSticks / dead roots in leaf litter +Rotten +logs / dead standing +trees +Hollow plant stemsRock crevices +Formica +nests + +Nests of other + +Temnothorax + +spp. +Under rock/ directly in soilGalls +Under +bark on live trees + +Hollow +twigs on live +trees + +Branches on +live trees +
+ +T. allardycei + +(Mann, 1920) +–x–x––––––x–
+ +T. ambiguus + +(Emery, 1895) +xx–x–x–x––––
+ +T. americanus + +(Emery, 1895) +xx––––x–––––
+ +T. bradleyi + +(Wheeler, 1913) +–––––––––x––
+ +T. caryaluteus + +sp. nov. +–––––––––xxx
+ +T. curvispinosus + +(Mayr, 1866) +xxxx–––xxx––
+ +T. duloticus + +(Wesson, 1937) +xx––––x–––––
+ +T. longispinosus + +(Roger, 1863) +xxx–x––x––––
+ +T. minutissimus + +(Smith, 1942) +x–––––x–––––
+T. palustris +(Cover & Deyrup, 2004) +–––––––x––––
+T. pergandei +(Emery, 1895) +xxxxx––x––––
+T. pilagens +Seifert +et al. +, 2014 +xx––––x–––––
+ +T. schaumii + +(Roger, 1863) +––x–––––xxxx
+ +T. smithi + +(Baroni Urbani, 1978) +––x––––––x––
+T. texanus +(Wheeler, 1903) +–––––––x––––
+ +T. torrei +(Aguayo, 1931) + +–x––––––––––
+T. tuscaloosae +( +Wilson, 1951 +) +xx–––––x––––
+ + + +Temnothorax palustris +(Cover & Deyrup, 2004) + + + + +Temnothorax pergandei +(Emery, 1895) + + + + +Temnothorax pilagens + +Seifert +et al. +, 2014 + + + + + +Temnothorax schaumii +(Roger, 1863) + + + + +Temnothorax smithi +(Baroni Urbani, 1978) + + + + +Temnothorax texanus +(Wheeler, 1903) + + + + +Temnothorax torrei +(Aguayo, 1931) + + + + +Temnothorax tuscaloosae +( +Wilson, 1951 +) + + + + + + +Key to +Temnothorax species +of the eastern +United States +based on the worker caste + + + + + + + +1. Antennae with 11 segments ............................................................................................................... 2 + + +– Antennae with 12 segments ............................................................................................................. 13 + + + + + +2. Antennal scrobe present; mandible with 3-4 teeth (see +Fig. 6a +); dulotic social parasite of + +T. ambiguus + +, + +T. curvispinosus + +and + +T. longispinosus + +; widespread: +Quebec +, +Canada +south to +Georgia +, west to Kansas................................................................................................... + +T. americanus +(Emery, 1895) + + + + + +– Antennal scrobe absent; mandible variable, but usually with 5 teeth (see +Fig. 6b +); social parasite or free-living .......................................................................................................................................... 3 + + + + + +Fig. 6. +Comparison of antennal scrobe and mandibular dentition characters in full face view. +a +. + +Temnothorax americanus +(Emery, 1895) + +(☿, CASC, CASENT0104553). +b +. + +T. curvispinosus +(Mayr, 1866) + +(☿, ABS, CASENT0104032). Photographs by April Nobile. Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + + + + +3. Only apical and preapical masticatory teeth developed and acute, remainder of masticatory teeth reduced to shallow crenulae (see +Fig. 7a +).......................................................................................... 4 + + + + +– Masticatory teeth well developed, with 5 acute teeth (see +Fig. 7b +)................................................... 5 + + + + + +Fig. 7. +Comparison of mandibular dentition characters in full face view +a +. + +Temnothorax minutissimus +(Smith, 1942) + +(♀, LACM, CASENT0172598). +b +. + +T. curvispinosus +(Mayr, 1866) + +(☿, ABS, CASENT0104032). Photographs by April Nobile. Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + + + + +4. Only known from the sexual castes; queen minute: ~ +3 mm +in length ( +Fig. 8a +); obligate inquiline social parasite of + +T. curvispinosus + +; rare: +New York +south to +North Carolina +, west to +Indiana +and +Michigan +.................................................................................... + +T. minutissimus +(M.R. Smith, 1942) + + + + + +– Worker and sexual castes present ( +Fig. 8b +); queen larger:> +3 mm +in length; dulotic social parasite of + +T. ambiguus + +and + +T. longispinosus + +; rare: +Vermont +, west to +Ontario +and +Michigan +.............................................................................................. + +T. pilagens + +Seifert +et al. +, 2014 + + + + + + + +Fig. 8. +Comparison of + +Temnothorax minutissimus +(Smith, 1942) + +and + +T. pilagens + +Seifert +et al. +, 2014 + + +in profile view. +a +. + +Temnothorax minutissimus + +(♀, LACM, CASENT0172598; photograph by April Nobile). +b +. + +T. pilagens + +(☿, MMPC, CASENT0868793; photograph by Matthew Prebus). Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + + + + +5. Antennal scapes short, failing to reach the posterior margin of the head by ≥ 2 antennal scape widths when fully retracted (see +Fig. 9a–c +); arboreal species nesting in dead branches on live trees, in tree cavities, or under bark.............................................................6 ( +rugatulus +clade sensu +Prebus 2021 +) + + + + +– Antennal scapes long: if failing to reach the posterior margin of the head when fully retracted, then they do so by <2 (usually <1) antennal scape widths (see +Fig. 9d–f +); arboreal or not ..................................................................................................................8 ( + +longispinosus + +group) + + + + + +Fig. 9. +Comparison of antennal scape lengths in full face view. +a +. + +Temnothorax bradleyi +(Wheeler, 1913) + +(☿, ABS, CASENT0104011; photograph by April Nobile). +b +. + +T. schaumii +(Roger, 1863) + +(☿, ABS, CASENT0104047; photograph by April Nobile). +c +. + +T. smithi +(Baroni Urbani, 1978) + +(☿, ABS, CASENT0104053; photograph by April Nobile). +d +. + +T. caryaluteus + +sp. nov. +(holotype ☿, USNM, CASENT4011115; photograph by Matthew Prebus). +e +. + +T. duloticus +(Wesson, 1937) + +(☿, USNM, CASENT0103163; photograph by April Nobile). +f +. + +T. ambiguus +(Emery, 1895) + +(☿, MSNG, CASENT0904763; photograph by Will Ericson). Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + + + + +6. Propodeal spines long: about as long as the propodeal declivity in profile view (see +Fig. 10a +); nests in cavities under bark; widespread: +Ohio +south to +Florida +, west to +Mississippi +and +Indiana +............................................................................................... + +T. smithi +(Baroni Urbani, 1978) + + + + + +– Propodeal spines short: shorter than the propodeal declivity in profile view (see +Fig. 10b–c +); widespread; nesting under bark or in branches.................................................................................. 7 + + + + + +Fig. 10. +Comparison of + +Temnothorax + +propodeal spines in profile view; inset drawings depict propodeal spine length (dotted outlines) in comparison to length of the propodeal declivity. +a +. + +Temnothorax bradleyi +(Wheeler, 1913) + +(☿, ABS, CASENT0104011). +b +. + +T. smithi +(Baroni Urbani, 1978) + +(☿, ABS, CASENT0104053). +c +. + +T. schaumii +(Roger, 1863) + +(☿, ABS, CASENT0104047). Photographs by April Nobile, from www.antweb.org. Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + + + + +7. Head densely sculptured in full face view: covered in longitudinal rugae, with the interstices densely areolate (see +Fig. 11a +); nests in hollow cavities under bark; +North Carolina +south to +Florida +, west to +Louisiana +and +Tennessee +............................................................... + +T. bradleyi +(W.M. Wheeler, 1913) + + + + + +– Head less sculptured in full face view: mostly smooth and shining, with weak longitudinal rugulae and weak areolae around the compound eyes and radiating posteriorly from the antennal insertions (see +Fig. 11b +); nests in upper branches of mature oaks and hickories; widespread: +Maine +south to +Florida +, west to +New Mexico +and +Nebraska +.............................................. + +T. schaumii +(Roger, 1863) + + + + + + +Fig. 11. +Comparison of head integument sculpture in full face view. +a +. + +Temnothorax bradleyi +(Wheeler, 1913) + +(☿, ABS, CASENT0104011). +b +. + +T. schaumii +(Roger, 1863) + +(☿, ABS, CASENT0104047). Photographs by April Nobile, from www.antweb.org. Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + + + + +8. Subpostpetiolar process present and enlarged (see +Fig. 12a +); dulotic social parasite of + +T. ambiguus + +, + +T. curvispinosus + +, and + +T. longispinosus + +; +New York +south to +Georgia +, west to +Illinois +............................................................................................. + +T. duloticus +(L.G. Wesson, 1937) + + + + + +– Subpostpetiolar process absent or weakly developed (see +Fig. 12b–c +); free living species.............. 9 + + + + + +Fig. 12. +Comparison of subpostpetiolar processes in profile view. +a +. + +Temnothorax duloticus +(Wesson, 1937) + +(☿, SMNG, ANTWEB1008479; photograph by Roland Schultz). +b +. + +T. ambiguus +(Emery, 1895) + +(☿, UCDC, CASENT0104803; photograph by April Nobile). +c +. + +T. longispinosus +(Roger, 1863) + +(☿, USNM, CASENT0105559; photograph by Dan Kjar). Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + + + + +9. Propodeal spines shorter than, or as long as, the propodeal declivity in profile view (see +Fig. 13a–b +) ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 + + + + +– Propodeal spines much longer than the propodeal declivity in profile view (see +Fig. 13c–d +) ........ 12 + + + + + +Fig. 13. +Comparison of + +Temnothorax + +propodeal spines in profile view; inset drawings depict propodeal spine length (dotted outlines) in comparison to length of the propodeal declivity +a +. + +T. ambiguus +(Emery, 1895) + +(☿, UCDC, CASENT0104803; photograph by April Nobile). +b +. + +T. tuscaloosae +( +Wilson, 1951 +) + +(syntype ☿, MCZC; photograph by Gary Alpert). +c +. + +T. curvispinosus +(Mayr, 1866) + +(☿, ABS, CASENT0104040; photograph by April Nobile). +d +. + +T. longispinosus +(Roger, 1863) + +(☿, USNM, CASENT0105559; photograph by Dan Kjar). Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + + + + +10. Dorsum of mesosoma mostly smooth and shining (see +Fig. 14a +); workers small: ~ +2 mm +in length; head, mesosoma, and gaster with dark integument; nests in small cavities in soil, hickory nuts, or acorns; +Virginia +south to +Florida +, west to +Mississippi +and +Tennessee +................................................. ............................................................................................................. + +T. tuscaloosae +( +Wilson, 1951 +) + + + + + +– Dorsum of mesosoma sculptured (see +Fig. 14b +); workers larger:> +3 mm +in length; head, mesosoma, and gaster with light colored integument..........................................................................................11 + + + + + +Fig. 14. +Comparison of mesosoma integument sculpture in dorsal view. +a +. + +Temnothorax tuscaloosae +( +Wilson, 1951 +) + +(syntype ☿, MCZC; photograph by Gary Alpert). +b +. + +T. ambiguus +(Emery, 1895) + +(☿, UCDC, CASENT0104803; photograph by April Nobile). Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + + + + +11. Propodeal spines closely approximated at base, their union forming a U-shape with a narrow base (see +Fig. 15a +); petiolar node acute to narrowly rounded in profile view, narrower than petiole in dorsal view (see +Fig.15a +); mesosoma slightly arched in profile view (see +Fig. 15b +); nests in hollow twigs, in branches, and under bark on live trees; widespread: +Delaware +south to +Mississippi +, west to +Oklahoma +(see +Fig. 5 +)...................................................................................... + +T. caryaluteus + +sp. nov. + + + + +– Propodeal spines further apart at base, their union forming a squared-off, broad-based U-shape (see +Fig. 15c +); petiolar node broadly rounded or with a distinct dorsal face in profile view, about as broad as petiole in dorsal view (see +Fig. 15c +); mesosoma flat in profile view (see +Fig. 15d +); nests in hollow acorns, hickory nuts, and hollow twigs in the leaf litter; widespread: +Nova Scotia +south to +West Virginia +, west to +South Dakota +and +Manitoba +(see +Fig. 4 +)...................... + +T. ambiguus +(Emery, 1895) + + + + + + +Fig. 15. +Comparison of propodeal spine and mesosoma profile characters. +a–b +. + +Temnothorax caryaluteus + +sp. nov. +(holotype ☿, USNM, CASENT4011115, photographs by Matthew Prebus). +a +. Dorsal view. +b +. Profile view. +c–d +. + +T. ambiguus +(Emery, 1895) + +(☿, UCDC, CASENT0104803, photographs by April Nobile). +c +. Dorsal view. +d +. Profile view. Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + + + + +12. Integument typically light colored; head densely sculptured (see +Fig. 16a +); propodeal spines bent in profile view (see +Fig. 16b +); nests in hollow acorns, hickory nuts, and hollow twigs in the leaf litter; widespread: +New Hampshire +south to +Florida +, west to +Oklahoma +and +Iowa +(see +Fig. 5 +)................................................................................................... + +T. curvispinosus +(Mayr, 1866) + + + + + +– Integument typically dark colored; head sculpture variable, ranging from mostly smooth to densely sculptured (see +Fig. 16c +); propodeal spines straight in profile view (see +Fig. 16d +); nests in hollow acorns, hickory nuts, and hollow twigs in the leaf litter; widespread: +Quebec +, +Canada +south to Georgia, west to Arkansas and Minnesota......................................... + +T. longispinosus +(Roger, 1863) + + + + + + +Fig. 16. +Comparison of head integument sculpture and propodeal spine characters. +a–b +. + +Temnothorax curvispinosus +(Mayr, 1866) + +. +a +. Full face view (☿, NHMUK, CASENT0901789; photograph by Will Ericson). +b +. Profile view (☿, ABS, CASENT0104040; photograph by April Nobile). +c–d +. + +T. longispinosus +(Roger, 1863) + +. +c +. Full face view (☿, CASC, CASENT0914508; photograph by Dominique Monie). +d +. Profile view (☿, USNM, CASENT0105559; photograph by Dan Kjar). Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + + + + +13. Metanotal groove deeply impressed (see +Fig. 17a +); nests in stumps, logs, nutshells, or in the soil; widespread: New Jersey south to +Hidalgo +, +Mexico +, west to Arizona and Nebraska........................... ................................................................................................................. + +T. pergandei +(Emery, 1895) + + + + + +– Metanotal groove not deeply impressed (see +Fig. 17b–c +) ............................................................... 14 + + + + + + +14. Mesosoma arched (see +Fig. 17b +) ..................................................................................................... 15 + + + + +– mesosoma not arched (see +Fig. 17c +)................................................................................................ 16 + + + + + +Fig. 17. +Comparison of mesosoma profile characters in profile view. +a +. + +Temnothorax pergandei +(Emery, 1895) + +(☿, ABS, CASENT0104016; photograph by April Nobile). +b +. + +T. allardycei +(Mann, 1920) + +(☿, ABS, CASENT0104009; photograph by April Nobile). +c +. + +T. texanus +(Wheeler, 1903) + +(☿, CASC, CASENT0923379; photograph by Michele Esposito). Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + + + + +15. Dorsum of petiole with two setae (see +Fig. 18a +); head lightly sculptured (see +Fig. 18b +); nesting in leaf litter; southern +Florida +and the Caribbean ............................................. + +T. torrei +(Aguayo, 1931) + + + + + +– Dorsum of petiole with> 2 setae (see +Fig. 18c +); head densely sculptured (see +Fig. 18d +); nesting in hollow twigs, vines, and culms of sawgrass; southern +Florida +and the Caribbean ............................. .................................................................................................................. + +T. allardycei +(Mann, 1920) + + + + + + +Fig. 18. +Comparison of propodeal node setae and head integument sculpture. +a–b +. + +Temnothorax torrei +(Aguayo, 1931) + +(☿, MCZC, MCZENT00583611, photograph by Matthew Prebus). +a +. Profile view. +b +. Full face view. +c–d +. + +T. allardycei +(Mann, 1920) + +(☿, ABS, CASENT0104009; photograph by April Nobile). +c +. Profile view. +d +. Full face view. Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + + + + +16. Integument typically dark colored; postpetiole wider than long in dorsal view (see +Fig. 19a +); ground nesting; occurring in open to semi-open sites with well-drained soil; widespread: +Massachusetts +south to +Florida +, west to +New Mexico +and +Minnesota +................... + +T. texanus +(W.M. Wheeler, 1903) + + + + + +– Integument typically light colored; postpetiole about as wide as long in dorsal view (see +Fig. 19b +); ground nesting; occurs in marshes of the +Florida +panhandle .... + +T. palustris +(Cover & Deyrup, 2004) + + + + + + + + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/A5/45/59/A545590DFFA82D78FDCEFD21C1A6FBB4.xml b/data/A5/45/59/A545590DFFA82D78FDCEFD21C1A6FBB4.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..0dffc53df26 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/A5/45/59/A545590DFFA82D78FDCEFD21C1A6FBB4.xml @@ -0,0 +1,1495 @@ + + + +Temnothorax caryaluteus sp. nov. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a new ant species from the eastern United States + + + +Author + +Prebus, Matthew M. +1A6494C7-795E-455C-B66F-7F6C32F76584 +Social Insect Research Group, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, 550 E Orange St., Tempe, AZ 85281, USA. & Department of Integrative Taxonomy of Insects, Institute of Biology, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstrasse 30, 70599, Stuttgart, Germany. & KomBioTa - Center for Biodiversity and Integrative Taxonomy Research, University of Hohenheim and State Museum of Natural History, Wollgrasweg 2, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany. +mprebus@gmail.com + + + +Author + +Nguyen, Nhi +4E495A2D-6AAA-49BA-84BB-B0C2B2217008 +Social Insect Research Group, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, 550 E Orange St., Tempe, AZ 85281, USA. +nhih.ngu@gmail.com + + + +Author + +Doering, Grant Navid +D3800453-782F-4308-9F3E-6091E6FFF81E +Social Insect Research Group, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, 550 E Orange St., Tempe, AZ 85281, USA. +naviddio@gmail.com + + + +Author + +Booher, Douglas B. +7A3F478F-A5E8-484F-844E-89759F58EEF7 +USDA Forest Service Southeastern Research Station, Athens, Georgia, USA. +Douglas.Booher@usda.gov + +text + + +European Journal of Taxonomy + + +2024 + +2024-12-04 + + +970 + + +175 +202 + + + + +https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2757/12629 + +journal article +10.5852/ejt.2024.970.2757 +2118-9773 +14331009 +A24A4604-EDD9-4833-ABF9-2ECF388C4703 + + + + + + +Temnothorax caryaluteus + +sp. nov. + + + + + + +urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: +71800550-6BD3-475F-B7BC-D5C0BBF15686 + + + +Fig. 4 + + + + + +Diagnosis + + + +Among the species of the eastern +United States +, the worker of + +Temnothorax caryaluteus + +sp. nov. +is distinguishable by the following combination of characters: antennae 11-segmented; antennal scrobe absent; mandible with five masticatory teeth; antennal scape long: when fully retracted, failing to reach the posterior margin of the head by <2 times the width of the antennal scape; subpetiolar process absent or weakly developed; propodeal spines shorter than, or as long as, the propodeal declivity in profile view, varying from as long as broad to twice as long as broad at the base; dorsum of mesosoma sculptured; workers> +3 mm +in length; head, mesosoma, and gaster integument light colored (often yellowish-orange), with the posterior half of the first gastral tergite infuscated; propodeal spines closely approximated, their bases separated by roughly the length of the propodeal spine in dorsal view, their union forming a U-shape; apex of petiolar node acute to narrowly rounded in profile view, about as half as wide as the petiole in dorsal view; mesosoma slightly arched in profile view. Free-living (nonparasitic) species; nests under bark and in dead branches and twigs of live trees. + + + + + +Etymology + + + +The name + +caryaluteus + +is a portmanteau of ancient Greek +carya +(“walnut”, the genus name for hickory) and the Latin +luteus +(“yellow”). This name was proposed by Brodie Gaudie as the result of an outreach project conducted by the authors in coordination with the +United States +Forest Service, in which several elementary school classes partook in a workshop focused on the practice of taxonomy and its underlying philosophy. Names for the new species were proposed by classrooms and individuals and were subsequently voted on in a social media campaign. + + + + + +Type material examined + + + + + +Holotype + +USA +– + +Kentucky +• + +☿ +; +Whitley County +, +Williamsburg +; +36.739° N +, +84.168° W +± minute; + +320 m +a.s.l. + +; + +27 Jul. 2015 + +; +M. Deyrup +#ANTC43885; in fallen branch of + +Carya illinoiensis + +; +USNM +, +CASENT4011115 +. + + + + + +Paratypes + +USA +– + +Kentucky +• + +1 dealate +♀ +; same data as for holotype; +USNM +, +CASENT4011128 + +• + +3 ☿☿ +; same data as for holotype; +USNM +, +CASENT4011123 +to +CASENT4011125 + +• + +3 ☿☿ +; same data as for holotype; +USNM +, +CASENT4011141 +to +CASENT4011143 + +• + +2 ☿☿ +; same data as for holotype; +ABS +, +CASENT0759059 +to +CASENT0759060 + +• + +2 ☿☿ +; same data as for holotype; +ASUHIC +, +CASENT4011121 +to +CASENT4011122 + +• + +2 ☿☿ +; same data as for holotype; +CASC +, +CASENT0759057 +to +CASENT0759058 + +• + +6 ☿☿ +; same data as for holotype; +MCZC +, +CASENT4011106 +to +CASENT4011111 + +• + +2 ☿☿ +; same data as for holotype; +MEM +, +CASENT0759052 +to +CASENT0759053 + +• + +3 ☿☿ +; same data as for holotype; +UGCA +, +CASENT4011112 +to +CASENT4011114 + +• + +5 ☿☿ +; same data as for holotype; +UGCA +, +CASENT4011116 +to +CASENT4011120 + +• + +2 ☿☿ +; same data as for holotype; +UTIC +, +CASENT0759054 +to +CASENT0759055 + +• + +2 ☿☿ +; same data as for holotype; +VMNH +, +CASENT4011104 +to +CASENT4011105 + +. + + + +Non-type material examined + + + + +USA +– + +Alabama + +• 1 dealate +♀ +; +Madison County +, + +2.3 miles +SE of Gurley + +; +34.0158° N +, +86.33611° W +; + +295 m +a.s.l. + +; + +10 Jun. 2018 + +; +S.Y. Wang +#ANTC46095; by pasture; UV-light/sheet; +MEM +, +MEM238160 +. + +– + + +Arkansas + +• +1 ☿ +; +Newton County +, +Buffalo National River +, +Steel Creek +; +36.038853° N +, +93.33729° W +; + +300 m +a.s.l. + +; + +9 Oct. 2009 + +; +M. Skvarla +and +R. Fisher +#ANTC46096; +MEM +, +MEM241251 +. + +– + + +Georgia + +• +1 ☿ +; +Clarke County +, +Sandy Creek Nature Center +; +33.98683° N +, +83.38283° W +± minute; + +205 m +a.s.l. + +; + +30 Apr. 2012 + +; +D. Booher +#DBB234W; +UGCA +, +CASENT0750495 + +• + +2 ☿☿ +; +Whitfield County +, near +Pinhoti +trail crossing on access road; +34.739° N +, +85.0167° W +± + +50 m + +; + +432 m +a.s.l. + +; + +30 Mar. 2012 + +; +D. Booher +#DBBC5000; hardwood forest, chestnut oak: fork of dead branch on live tree; +UGCA +, +CASENT0749972 +to +CASENT0749973 + +• + +3 ☿☿ +; same data as for preceding; +D. Booher +#DBBC5000b; +UGCA +, +CASENT0749974 +to +CASENT0749976 + +• + +6 ☿☿ +; same data as for preceding; +UGCA +, +CASENT0749978 +to +CASENT0749983 +. + +– + + +Indiana + +• 1 dealate +♀ +; +Dubois County +, +Jasper +; +38.391442° N +, +86.931109° W +± + +5 km + +; + +150 m +a.s.l. + +; + +28 Feb. 2021 + +; +J. Ruhe +#ANTC46158; lab colony, reared from queen collected at blacklight; +MMPC +, +CASENT4010186 + +• + +1 ☿ +; same data as for preceding; +MMPC +, +CASENT4010185 + +• + +1 ☿ +; same data as for preceding; + +18 Mar. 2021 + +; +J. Ruhe +#ANTC46159; +MMPC +, +CASENT4010187 + +• + +2 ♂♂ +; +Monroe County +, +Bloomington +, +Griffey Lake Nature Preserve +; +39.205833° N +, +86.525278° W +; + +230 m +a.s.l. + +; + +10 Jun. 2024 + +; +G. Doering +#GLTca1; oak-hickory forest, under bark of downed tree; +MMPC +, +CASENT4012894 +, +CASENT4012904 + +• + +2 ☿☿ +; same data as for preceding; +MMPC +, +CASENT4012895 +, +CASENT4012897 + +• + +1 ♂ +; same data as for preceding; +USNM +, +CASENT4012896 + +• + +1 ♂ +; same data as for preceding; +ABS +, +CASENT4012898 + +• + +1 ♂ +; same data as for preceding; +UGCA +, +CASENT4012899 + +• + +1 ♂ +; same data as for preceding; +ASUHIC +, +CASENT4012900 + +• + +1 ♂ +; same data as for preceding; +CASC +, +CASENT4012901 + +• + +1 ♂ +; same data as for preceding; +MCZC +, +CASENT4012902 + +• + +1 ♂ +; same data as for preceding; +MEM +, +CASENT4012903 +. + +– + + +Kentucky + +• +1 ☿ +; +Whitley County +, +Williamsburg +; +36.743418° N +, +84.159654° W +± minute; + +300 m +a.s.l. + +; + +25 Jun. 2017 + +; +M. Deyrup +#ANTC43836; emerged from dead branch + +Carya illinoiensis + +; +ABS +, +CASENT0758863 + +• + +2 ☿☿ +; same data as for preceding; +ABS +, +CASENT4011101 +to +CASENT4011102 + +• + +1 ♀ +; same data as for preceding; +ABS +, +CASENT4011100 + +• + +1 ♀ +; same data as for preceding; +ABS +, +CASENT4011103 + +• + +1 ☿ +; same data as for preceding; +36.739° N +, +84.168° W +± minute; + +320 m +a.s.l. + +; + +27 Jul. 2015 + +; +M. Deyrup +#ANTC43883; branch of + +Carya illinoiensis + +; +ABS +, +CASENT0759047 + +• + +4 ☿☿ +; same data as for preceding; + +16 Mar. 2015 + +; +M. Deyrup +#ANTC43884; in dead branch of + +Carya illinoiensis + +; +ABS +, +CASENT0759048 +to +CASENT0759051 + +• + +9 ☿☿ +; same data as for preceding; +ABS +, +CASENT4011129 +to +CASENT4011137 + +• + +23 ☿☿ +; same data as for preceding; + +27 Jul. 2015 + +; +M. Deyrup +#ANTC43887; branch of + +Carya illinoiensis + +; +ABS +, +CASENT0759061-5 +, +CASENT4011138-55 +. + +– + + +Mississippi + +• +1 ☿ +; +DeSoto County +, +1 mile +north of +Handy Corner +; +34.978889° N +, +89.742222° W +; + +120 m +a.s.l. + +; + +18 Aug. 2005 + +; +A.B. Edwards +#ANTC46097; +Lindgren funnel trap +baited with +Typosan +and alpha-pinene; +MEM +, + +MEM +241880 + + +• + +1 ☿ +; +Lee County +, +Natchez Trace +, mile 273; +34.406111° N +, +88.6375° W +; + +125 m +a.s.l. + +; + +27 May 2003 + +; +T.L. Schiefer +and +J.A. MacGown +#ANTC46098; deciduous forest, +Lindgren funnel trap +; +MEM +, + +MEM +241875 + + +• + +1 ☿ +; +Madison County +, +Natchez Trace Parkway +; +32.654167° N +, +89.778056° W +; + +115 m +a.s.l. + +; + +10 Jul. 2002 + +; +M. Allred +and +K. Lewis +#ANTC46099; +Lindgren funnel trap +; +MEM +, + +MEM +241881 + + +• + +1 ☿ +; +Marshall County +, +Wall Doxey State Park +; +34.661389° N +, +89.465556° W +; + +110 m +a.s.l. + +; + +15 May 2006 + +; +A.B. Edwards +#ANTC46100; +Lindgren funnel trap +baited with +Typosan +; +MEM +, + +MEM +241878 + +. + +– + + +Missouri + +• +1 ☿ +; +Barry County +, +Roaring River State Park +; +36.58559° N +, +93.836411° W +± +1 km +; + +315 m +a.s.l. + +; + +27 Jun. 1995 + +; +A.L. Wild +#ANTC46161; man-modified “lawn” near parking lot; +UTIC +, +UTIC219525 + +• + +1 ☿ +; same data as for preceding; +UTIC +, +UTIC204575 +. + +– + + +Virginia + +• +1 ☿ +; +Shenandoah County +, near +Elizabeth Furnace Campground +; +38.94978102° N +, +78.299409° W +± + +3 m + +; + +210 m +a.s.l. + +; + +24 May 2015 + +; +M.M. Prebus +#MMP1896; riparian mixed hardwood forest, nest in dead standing wood; +MMPC +, +CASENT0755055 + +• + +1 ☿ +; same data as for preceding; +M.M. Prebus +#MMP1897; +MMPC +, +CASENT0755056 + +• + +1 ☿ +; same data as for preceding; +38.94893202° N +, +78.29862496° W +± + +3 m + +; + +215 m +a.s.l. + +; + +24 May 2015 + +; +M.M. Prebus +#MMP1899; riparian mixed hardwood forest, single worker in dead branch on live tree; +MMPC +, +CASENT0755063 + +. + + + + +Fig. 3. +Illustrations of characters on measured on + +Temnothorax + +gyne specimens (top) compared with gyne morphometric analysis results (bottom). +a +. Petiolar node width index (PNWI). +b +. Eye length index (EI). +c +. Apical propodeal spine distance index (SPTII). All photographs by Matthew Prebus ( + +T. ambiguus + +: INHS, CASENT0759703; + +T. curvispinosus + +: MMPC, CASENT0755051; + +T. caryaluteus + +sp. nov. +, paratype: USNM, CASENT4011128). Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + + + + +Description + + + +Worker + + +Measurements and indices (n = 38): SL = +0.345 +–0.476 +(0.428); FRS = 0.153–0.25 (0.205); CW = +0.484 +– 0.616 +(0.572); CWb = +0.442 +–0.586 +(0.532); PoOC = +0.201 +–0.267 +(0.240); CL = +0.515 +–0.642 +(0.598); EL = +0.104 +–0.156 +(0.133); EW = +0.079 +–0.113 +(0.097); MD = +0.104 +–0.186 +(0.142); WL = +0.567 +–0.757 +(0.690); SPST = +0.115 +–0.181 +(0.153); MPST = 0.17–0.241 (0.212); PEL = +0.217 +–0.288 +(0.263); NOL = 0.11–0.172 (0.146); NOH = 0.039–0.11 (0.086); PEH = +0.149 +–0.216 +(0.191); PPL = +0.129 +–0.202 +(0.163); PPH = +0.134 +–0.185 +(0.164); PW = +0.288 +–0.387 +(0.349); SBPA = 0.067–0.13 (0.101); SPTI = +0.103 +–0.174 +(0.152); PEW = +0.123 +–0.166 +(0.140); PNW = +0.052 +–0.085 +(0.070); PPW = +0.156 +–0.214 +(0.194); HFL = +0.361 +–0.514 +(0.460); HFWmax = +0.093 +–0.132 +(0.118); HFWmin = +0.037 +–0.056 +(0.046); CS = +0.489 +–0.612 +(0.565); ES = +0.093 +–0.132 +(0.115); SI = 73.7–89 (80.6); EI = 21.5–28.5 (24.9); CI = 82.6–100.2 (88.9); WLI = 120–142 (130); SBI = 14.3–22.7 (19.0); PSI = 18.6–26.1 (22.3); PWI = 122–152 (138); PLI = 123–192 (163); NI = 138–290 (177); PNWI = 41.6–58.6 (49.9); NLI = 42.6–64.2 (55.7); FI = 222–300 (258); FRSI = 30.8–46.7 (38.6); SPTII = 21.9–31.8 (28.5). + +In full face view, head subquadrate, often longer than broad (CI 82.6–100.2). Mandibles weakly, finely striate but shining and armed with five teeth: the apical-most well developed and acute, followed by a less developed preapical tooth and three equally developed smaller teeth. Anterior clypeal margin convex. Antennal scapes short: when fully retracted, failing to reach the posterior margin of the head capsule by about the two times the maximum width of the scape (SI 73.7–89). Antennae 11-segmented; antennal club of composed of three segments, with the apical-most segment about the same length as the preceding two in combination. Frontal carinae short, extending past the antennal toruli by about two times the maximum width of the antennal scape. Compound eyes weakly protruding past the lateral margins of the head capsule. Lateral margin of head very weakly convex above the compound eyes to the posterior margin of the head, slightly constricted below the compound eyes to the mandibular insertions. Posterior head margin weakly concave medially, rounding evenly into the lateral margins. +In profile view, compound eyes elongate-ovular and small (EI 21.5–28.5), with 10 ommatidia in longest row. Pronotal declivity indistinct, neck and anterior face of pronotum forming a ~120° angle. Mesosoma arched: evenly convex from where it joins the pronotal neck to propodeal spines. Promesonotal suture extending from the posterior margin of the procoxal insertion to the mesothoracic spiracle, which is moderately well developed, then continuing dorsally as a weak disruption of the integument sculpture. Metanotal groove visible as a weak disruption of the sculpture laterally from where it arises between the mid- and hind coxae to the poorly developed metathoracic spiracle, which is nearly indistinguishable against the ground sculpture, then continuing dorsally as a weak disruption of the integument sculpture. Propodeal spiracle weakly developed, directed posterolaterally, and separated from the propodeal declivity by about three spiracle diameters. Propodeal spines short (PSI 18.6–26.1), about two thirds the length of the propodeal declivity, tapering evenly from the base, slightly curved, and acute. Propodeal declivity weakly concave, forming a rounded ~100° angle with the base of the propodeal spines. Propodeal lobes rounded and weakly developed. Metapleural gland bulla small, extending from the metacoxal insertion halfway to the propodeal spiracle. Petiole short (PLI 123–192), with tubercles anterodorsally. Subpetiolar process in the form of a small, acute, triangular tooth which grades evenly into the ventral margin of the petiole posteriorly; ventral margin of petiole flat to weakly concave posterior to it. Petiolar peduncle short: comprising less than a quarter of the total petiole length. Petiolar node erect and cuneiform to slightly rounded: peduncle grading evenly into the anterior node face; anterior face forming a ~90° angle with the flat posterior face; posterior face forms a ~120° angle with the caudal cylinder. Postpetiole rounded anteriorly, anterior face rounds evenly into the dorsal face; weakly lobed ventrally. +In dorsal view, humeri developed and distinct: evenly rounded and wider than the rest of the mesosoma; mesothoracic spiracles weakly protruding past the lateral margins of the mesosoma, visible as slight angles where the pronotum meets the mesonotum. Promesonotal groove visible as a disruption in the ground sculpture. Metanotal groove visible as a disruption in the ground sculpture. Propodeal spines closely approximated basally and diverging apically, their apices separated from each other by about twice their length, the negative space between them “V”-shaped. Petiolar peduncle with spiracles weakly protruding past the lateral margins. Petiolar node, when viewed at a posterodorsal aspect, tapering evenly from the base, with the dorsal margin evenly convex; apex of node narrower than the peduncle and caudal cylinder. Postpetiole narrow (PWI 122–152) and campaniform. Anterior margin of the postpetiole evenly rounds into the lateral margins; lateral margins parallel to the rounded posterior corners; posterior margin notched. Metafemur weakly to moderately incrassate (FI 222–300). +Sculpture: median clypeal carina absent, remainder with longitudinal rugulae. Lateral clypeal lobes with additional rugulae; ground sculpture smooth. Antennal scapes weakly sculptured. Cephalic dorsum predominantly areolate, with the slightly longitudinally elongate areolae arranged into longitudinal rows by fine costulae; very fine concentric rugulae surrounding the antennal insertions. Lateral surfaces of head sculptured similarly to the dorsum, becoming smooth behind the compound eyes; fine rugose sculpture overlying the areolate sculpture between the compound eye and mandibular insertion. Ventral surface of head mostly smooth and shining. Pronotal neck and anterior face of the pronotum areolate. Lateral surface of the pronotum longitudinally rugose. Meso- and metapleurae areolate, with fine costulae overlying the ground sculpture. Smooth and shining with weak areolae between the propodeal spiracle and the propodeal spines. Dorsal surface of pronotum longitudinally rugose, becoming anastomosed anteriorly. Dorsal face of the mesonotum smooth and shining. Dorsal face of propodeum rugose. Femora shining. Petiole predominantly areolate; anterior face of petiolar node smooth and shining. Postpetiole predominantly areolate; anterior face smooth and shining. First gastral tergite and sternite smooth and shining, without spectral iridescence. +Setae: antennal scapes and funiculi with short, decumbent pilosity. Dorsum of the head, pronotum, waist segments, and gaster with moderately abundant, erect, blunt-tipped setae, the longest of which are about the width of the compound eye. The head bears ~28, mesosoma ~14, petiole 4, postpetiole ~6, and first gastral tergite ~26 setae. +Color: predominantly orange-yellow, with the posterior margin of the first gastral tergite slightly infuscated. + +Gyne + + +Measurements and indices (n = 4): SL = +0.429 +–0.455 +(0.440); FRS = +0.219 +–0.237 +(0.228); CW = +0.655 +– 0.688 +(0.671); CWb = +0.597 +–0.654 +(0.618); PoOC = +0.231 +–0.247 +(0.239); CL = +0.622 +–0.677 +(0.643); EL = +0.221 +–0.231 +(0.226); EW = +0.175 +–0.189 +(0.182); MD = +0.102 +–0.116 +(0.108); WL = +1.014 +–1.051 +(1.029); SPST = +0.136 +–0.164 +(0.149); MPST = +0.243 +–0.276 +(0.260); PEL = +0.329 +–0.358 +(0.344); NOL = 0.179–0.18 (0.180); NOH = 0.13–0.137 (0.134); PEH = +0.238 +–0.256 +(0.247); PPL = +0.179 +–0.194 +(0.189); PPH = +0.212 +–0.237 +(0.226); PW = +0.576 +–0.595 +(0.585); SBPA = 0.245–0.26 (0.253); SPTI = +0.205 +–0.211 +(0.208); PEW = +0.191 +–0.195 +(0.194); PNW = 0.1–0.114 (0.104); PPW = 0.25–0.274 (0.260); HFL = +0.531 +–0.562 +(0.545); HFWmax = +0.127 +–0.136 +(0.131); HFWmin = +0.048 +–0.058 +(0.051); CS = +0.616 +–0.666 +(0.631); ES = +0.198 +–0.210 +(0.204); SI = 69.6–73.2 (71.2); EI = 35.3–37.0 (36.5); CI = 93.4–100.0 (96.1); WLI = 161–173 (167); SBI = 39.8–41.9 (40.9); PSI = 13.2–15.6 (14.4); PWI = 128–141 (134.199); PLI = 176–185 (182); NI = 131–138 (134); PNWI = 51.3–58.8 (53.8); NLI = 50.3–54.4 (52.2); FI = 234–271 (258); FRSI = 36.2–37.7 (36.9); SPTII = 32.0–34.5 (33.7). + +In full face view, head subquadrate (CI 93.4–100.0). Mandibles weakly striate but shining and armed with five teeth: the apical-most well developed, followed by a less developed preapical tooth and three equally developed smaller teeth. Anterior clypeal margin evenly convex medially. Frontal carinae moderately long, extending past the antennal toruli by about four times the maximum width of the antennal scape. Antennal scapes short: when fully retracted, failing to reach the posterior margin of the head capsule by about three times the maximum width of the scape (SI 69.6–73.2). Antennae 11-segmented; antennal club composed of three segments, with the apical-most segment about as long as the preceding two in combination. Compound eyes protruding past the lateral margins of the head capsule. Lateral margins of head evenly convex behind the compound eyes, then parallel to each other from the mandibular insertions to below the compound eyes. Posterior head margin flat, rounding evenly into the lateral margins. +In profile view, compound eyes ovular and large (EI 35.3–37.0), with 15 ommatidia in longest row. Mesoscutum rounded evenly anteriorly, covering the dorsal surface of the pronotum, and flat dorsally. Mesoscutellum slightly lower than the mesoscutum; rounded posteriorly. Posterior margin of metanotum extending past the posterior margin of the mesoscutum. Propodeal spiracle moderately well developed, directed posterolaterally, and separated from the propodeal declivity by about three spiracle diameters. Propodeal spines stout and short (PSI 13.2–15.6), about a quarter as long as the propodeal declivity, tapering evenly from the base and blunt. Propodeal declivity weakly concave, rounding evenly into the base of the propodeal spines. Propodeal lobes rounded and very weakly developed. Metapleural gland bulla large, extending from the metacoxal insertion three quarters of the way to the propodeal spiracle. Petiole moderately long (PLI 176–185), with flanges anterodorsally. Subpetiolar process in the form of a small, acute, triangular tooth, which grades evenly into the ventral margin of the petiole posteriorly. Petiolar peduncle short: comprising about a quarter of the total petiole length. Petiolar node erect and cuneiform: peduncle transitioning evenly into the anterior node face; anterior face forming a blunt ~90° angle with the posterior face; posterior face grading evenly into the caudal cylinder. Postpetiole evenly rounded dorsally; ventral surface weakly lobed. +In dorsal view, mesoscutum covering pronotum anteriorly, but humeri visible laterally as rounded sclerites. Propodeal spines parallel to each other, their apices separated from each other by about three times their length. Petiolar peduncle with spiracles covered by a small carina. Petiolar node, when viewed at a posterodorsal aspect, tapering dorsally; dorsal margin convex. Apex of petiolar node about a third as wide as the base; narrower than the caudal cylinder. Postpetiole narrow (PWI 128–141) and subquadrate. Anterior margin of postpetiole evenly rounding into the lateral margins, which converge slightly to the rounded posterior corners; posterior margin medially notched. Metafemur weakly incrassate (FI 234–271). +Sculpture: median clypeal carina absent, remainder with longitudinal rugulae. Lateral clypeal lobes with additional carinae; ground sculpture smooth. Antennal scapes weakly sculptured. Cephalic dorsum longitudinally rugulose, with ground sculpture weakly areolate. Fine concentric costulae surrounding the antennal insertions. Lateral surfaces of head sculptured similarly to the dorsum, but with rugulae arranged into concentric whorls around the compound eyes; rugulose sculpture between the compound eye and mandibular insertion. Ventral surface of head with weak costulae. Pronotal neck areolate. Anterior face of pronotum areolate. Lateral face of pronotum rugose anteriorly. Katepisternum, and anepisternum weakly areolate, with weak longitudinal costulae. Metapleural gland bulla with costate sculpture overlying it. Lateral face of propodeum strigulate. Propodeal declivity weakly costate. Mesoscutum and mesoscutellum with weak costulae over smooth and shining ground sculpture. Dorsum of propodeum costulate. Femora smooth and shining. Petiole predominantly areolate-rugulose. Postpetiole predominantly areolate-rugulose; anterior face smooth and shining. First gastral tergite and sternite smooth and shining, without spectral iridescence. +Setae: antennal scapes and funiculi with short, decumbent pilosity. Dorsum of the head, pronotum, waist segments, and gaster with moderately abundant, blunt setae, the longest of which are about a third of the width of the compound eye. Short, sparse pubescence present on the mesosoma. +Color: predominantly orange-yellow, with the wing bases and the posterior margin of the first gastral tergite slightly infuscated. + +Male + + +Measurements and indices (n = 8): SL = +0.154 +–0.174 +(0.164); FRS = +0.092 +–0.125 +(0.115); CW = +0.545 +–0.568 +(0.553); CWb = +0.458 +–0.478 +(0.466); PoOC = +0.161 +–0.182 +(0.172); CL = 0.449–0.48 (0.465); EL = +0.227 +–0.247 +(0.235); EW = +0.195 +–0.212 +(0.202); MD = +0.036 +–0.052 +(0.044); WL = +0.973 +–1.065 +(1.012); SPST = N/A; MPST = +0.197 +–0.244 +(0.225); PEL = 0.193–0.25 (0.219); NOL = +0.153 +–0.182 +(0.164); NOH = 0.12–0.145 (0.13); PEH = 0.167–0.19 (0.176); PPL = +0.165 +–0.211 +(0.186); PPH = +0.172 +–0.196 +(0.189); PW = +0.473 +–0.537 +(0.515); SBPA = N/A; SPTI = N/A; PEW = +0.124 +–0.151 +(0.137); PNW = +0.086 +–0.143 +(0.119); PPW = 0.192–0.24 (0.212); HFL = +0.632 +–0.667 +(0.647); HFWmax = +0.073 +–0.096 +(0.087); HFWmin = +0.036 +–0.054 +(0.047); CS = +0.456 +–0.478 +(0.465); ES = 0.212–0.23 (0.219); SI = 33–38 (35.3); EI = 47.9–53.7 (50.5); CI = 98.9–102.9 (100.2); WLI = 212–233 (217); SBI = N/A; PSI = N/A; PWI = 144–166 (154); PLI = 103–136 (118); NI = 109–148 (128); PNWI = 68.7–113.5 (87.1); NLI = 68.6–80.3 (75.1); FI = 154–218 (188); FRSI = 19.9–26.8 (24.7); SPTII = N/A. + +In full face view, head globular (CI 98.9–102.9). Mandibles very weakly striate but shining and armed with five teeth: the apical-most well developed, followed by a less developed preapical tooth and three equally developed smaller teeth. Anterior clypeal margin flat medially. Frontal carinae short, extending past the antennal toruli by about two times the maximum width of the antennal scape. Antennal scapes short: when fully retracted, failing to reach the posterior margin of the head capsule by about four times the maximum width of the scape (SI 33–38). Antennae 12-segmented; antennal club composed of four segments, with the apical-most segment about as long as the preceding two in combination. Compound eyes large and protruding past the lateral margins of the head capsule. Lateral margins of head evenly convex behind the compound eyes, rounding evenly into the posterior margin, then parallel to each other from the mandibular insertions to below the compound eyes. Posterior head margin convex, rounding evenly into the lateral margins. +In profile view, compound eyes ovular and very large (EI 47.9–53.7), with 18 ommatidia in longest row. Mesoscutum rounded evenly anteriorly, covering the dorsal surface of the pronotum, and weakly convex dorsally. Mesoscutellum on the same plain as the mesoscutum; evenly convex. Posterior margin of metanotum extending past the posterior margin of the mesoscutum. Propodeal spiracle moderately well developed, directed posterolaterally, and separated from the propodeal declivity by about three spiracle diameters. Propodeal spines absent, represented by blunt angles. Propodeal declivity weakly concave. Propodeal lobes rounded and very weakly developed. Petiole short (PLI 103–136), with blunt angles anterodorsally. Subpetiolar process in the form of a very small triangular tooth, which grades evenly into the ventral margin of the petiole posteriorly. Petiolar peduncle short: comprising about a one sixth of the total petiole length. Petiolar node low and evenly rounded: peduncle transitioning evenly into the anterior node face; anterior face rounding evenly into the posterior face; posterior face grading evenly into the caudal cylinder. Postpetiole evenly rounded dorsally; ventral surface weakly lobed. + + +Fig. 4. +Castes of + +Temnothorax caryaluteus + +sp. nov. +a–c +. Holotype ☿ (USNM, CASENT4011115). +a +. Full face view. +b +. Profile view. +c +. Dorsal view. +d–f +. Paratype ♀ (USNM, CASENT4011128). +d +. Full face view. +e +. Profile view. +f +. Dorsal view. +g–i +. Non-type ♂ (USNM, CASENT4012896). +g +. Full face view. +h +. Profile view. +i +. Dorsal view. Scale bars 0.2 mm. + + +In dorsal view, mesoscutum covering pronotum anteriorly, but humeri visible laterally as rounded sclerites. Petiolar node, when viewed at a posterodorsal aspect, tapering dorsally; dorsal margin convex. Apex of petiolar node about half as wide as the base; narrower than the caudal cylinder. Postpetiole narrow (PWI 144–166) and subquadrate; slightly broader anteriorly. Anterior margin of postpetiole evenly rounding into the lateral margins, which converge slightly to the rounded posterior corners; posterior margin medially notched. Metafemur thin (FI 154–218). +Sculpture: median clypeal carina absent, remainder with faint longitudinal rugulae. Lateral clypeal lobes with weakly rugulose; ground sculpture smooth. Antennal scapes smooth. Cephalic dorsum longitudinally rugulose, with ground sculpture weakly areolate. Lateral surfaces of head sculptured similarly to the dorsum, but with rugulae arranged into concentric whorls around the compound eyes; rugulose sculpture between the compound eye and mandibular insertion. Ventral surface of head weakly rugulose. Pronotal neck weakly areolate. Anterior face of pronotum weakly areolate, mostly smooth. Lateral face of pronotum smooth anteriorly. Katepisternum and anepisternum smooth and shining. Lateral face of propodeum weakly strigulate. Propodeal declivity areolate. Mesoscutum and mesoscutellum smooth and shining. Dorsum of propodeum weakly costulate. Femora smooth and shining. Petiole weakly areolate. Postpetiole predominantly smooth and shining, weakly rugulose on posterior margin. First gastral tergite and sternite smooth and shining, without spectral iridescence. +Setae: antennal scapes and funiculi with short, decumbent pilosity. Dorsum of the head, pronotum, waist segments, and gaster with moderately abundant, tapering setae, the longest of which are about a third of the width of the compound eye. +Color: predominantly pale yellow, with the head capsule, mesoscutellum, and the posterior margin of the first gastral tergite infuscated. + + + + +Distribution and ecology + + + + +Temnothorax caryaluteus + +sp. nov. +is broadly distributed throughout the eastern +United States +, but apparently commonly misidentified as + +T. ambiguus + +, most likely due to the short propodeal spines. The geographic range of + +T. caryaluteus + +is contained completely within the range of + +T. curvispinosus + +, its closest relative (Prebus in prep.), but appears to be confined to slightly lower latitudes (see +Fig. 5 +). We were unable to find a range overlap between + +T. caryaluteus + +and + +T. ambiguus + +, although they come into close contact in +Virginia +and +West Virginia +. It is likely that in this region their ranges are stratified by elevation, with + +T. ambiguus + +inhabiting mountain tops. All nest collections of + +T. caryaluteus + +have been taken from dead wood on live trees. The known host trees are + +Carya illinoiensis +(Wangenh.) K.Koch + +and + +Quercus montana +Willd. + +, both of which are common and widespread hardwoods in the eastern +United States +. All collections have occurred below + +500 m +. + + + + + + +Notes + + + + +Temnothorax caryaluteus + +sp. nov. +will visit blacklights, but we have only a single date associated with an alate collection event: + +10 Jun. +2018 + +in Madison Co., AL by Steven Wang. Like the worker, the gyne of + +T. caryaluteus + +may be confused with that of + +T. ambiguus + +or + +T. curvispinosus + +. In agreement with +Wesson & Wesson (1940) +, we found significant differences in the distributions of Weber’s length (WL) and pronotum width (PW) in gynes (Supp. file 3), but we hesitate to use these as diagnostic characters due to the presence of microgynes in + +T. curvispinosus + +in at least some parts of its range (Prebus pers. obs.). + +Temnothorax caryaluteus + +exhibits some integument color variation across its range. Most worker specimens that we have examined are predominantly orange-yellow, with the posterior margin of the first gastral tergite slightly infuscated, but +one specimen +from the vicinity of Athens, GA is predominantly medium brown (CASENT0750495). + + +All collections of + +Temnothorax caryaluteus + +sp. nov. +to date have been made from under bark or in dead branches and twigs on live trees in the genera + +Quercus + +and + +Carya + +. This nesting preference is only shared by one other species of + +Temnothorax + +in the eastern +United States +: + +T. schaumii + +. Notably + +T. curvispinosus + +, a close relative of + +T. caryaluteus + +, is only rarely found under bark on live trees or in galls, and + +T. ambiguus + +has never been recorded from arboreal microhabitats ( +Table 1 +). Below, we include a reformulated and updated key to the workers of + +Temnothorax +species + +from the eastern +United States +. + + + + \ No newline at end of file