Cataglyphis livida ( André, 1881 )

Kiran, Kadri & Karaman, Celal, 2020, Additions to the Ant Fauna of Turkey (Hymenoptera, Formicidae), Zoosystema 42 (18), pp. 285-329: 292

publication ID	http://doi.org/ 10.5252/zoosystema2020v42a18
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A9F490C6-E406-45CC-B5D3-B949712E2DEB
persistent identifier	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/C75687E7-FF9C-2475-FEEF-6B1DFB59A69D
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Cataglyphis livida ( André, 1881 )
status

Treatment

Cataglyphis livida ( André, 1881)

Myrmecocystus Albicans var. lividus André, 1881: 58 .

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Turkey • 1 ☿; Adıyaman; 37°45’N, 38°16’E; 07.V.2015; S. Yıldız leg.; EMTU 15 /0042mGoogleMaps • 1 ♀, 3 ☿; Antalya ,

Manavgat, Yeniköy ; 36°50’N, 31°22’E; 01.VII.2012; C. Karaman leg.; EMTU 12 /0072cGoogleMaps • 2 ☿; Bursa, Gemlik, Narlı Vill. ; 40°28’53”N, 29°01’26”E; 350 m; 14.VIII.1998; K. Kiran leg.; EMTU K98 /0632GoogleMaps • 2 ☿; Elazığ, Cip Dam ; 38°40’48”N, 39°03’59”E; 1006 m; 04. VI.2007; E. Çoban leg.; EMTU 07 /0063bGoogleMaps • 12 ☿; Erzincan, Yeşilçat Vill. ; 39°48’N, 39°21’E; 1384 m; 25.VII.2004; E. Çoban leg.; EMTU 04 /0377cGoogleMaps • 5 ☿; Kocaeli, Karamürsel, Tahtalı Vill. ; 40°34’39”N, 29°38’39”E; 500 m; 05.VIII.1998; K. Kiran leg.; EMTU K98 /0499GoogleMaps • 1 ☿; Malatya, Arapgir, Aktaş Vill. ; 38°55’N, 38°27’E; 09. VI.2008; M. Yurtcan leg.; EMTU 08 /0018bGoogleMaps • 3 ☿; Muş, Varto, Tepeköy ; 39°05’N, 41°30’E; 11.VII.2010; F. Toprak leg.; EMTU 10 /0091GoogleMaps • 8 ☿; Şanlıurfa; 37°09’12”N, 38°47’26”E; 23.VII.2011; C. Karaman leg.; EMTU 11 /0090aGoogleMaps • 1 ☿; Tunceli, Pertek, Ardıç Vill. ; 38°58’N, 39°17’E; 24.VII.2010; N. Deniz leg.; EMTU 10 /0121GoogleMaps .

DISTRIBUTION IN TURKEY. — Bitlis, Edirne, İzmir, Siirt.

REMARKS

In the former studies, three taxa of the C. albicans group were reporter from Turkey C. livida , C. viaticoides ( André, 1881) and C. rubra (Forel, 1903) . But our studies revealed that there are only two species. One of them is uniformly bright yellow and the other is distinctly bicolored. The occurrence of C. rubra is based on Radchenko’s papers ( Radchenko 1997 a, 1998), who determined distinctly bicoloured specimens as C. rubra ( Radchenko 1997a) . His assumption was probably based on confusion related with the type labels of C. livida and C. viaticoides , which was explained by Bračko et al. (2016). After solving the mislabelling of the type specimens of C. livida and C. viaticoides , C. rubra was removed from the ant fauna of Turkey considering its North African, Central and South Middle East distribution ( Borowiec 2014).