Cataglyphis machmal Radchenko & Arakelian, 1991,

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-2476-FCBB-689BFDD4A3BD
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Cataglyphis machmal Radchenko & Arakelian, 1991
status

Treatment

Cataglyphis machmal Radchenko & Arakelian, 1991 *

( Fig. 2View FIG)

Cataglyphis machmal Radchenko & Arakelian, 1991: 73 .

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Turkey • 3 ☿; Aksaray, Çiftllik, Ihlara Valley ; 38°14’23”N, 34°18’22”E; 1175 m; 21.VIII.2001; K. Kiran leg.; EMTU 01 /0848bGoogleMaps • 1 ☿; Ankara, Keçiören, Bağlum ; 40°10’17.18”N, 32°50’03.82”E; 1180 m; 27. VI.2014; E. Karapazarlıoğlu leg.; EMTU 14 /0158GoogleMaps • 1♀; Balıkesir, Sındırgı, Sinandede Vill. ; 39°08’N, 28°02’E; 773 m; 09.VIII.2014; C. Karaman leg.; EMTU 07 /2026bGoogleMaps • 1 ☿; Burdur, Gölhisar ; 36°57’40”N, 29°27’53”E; 1223 m; 28. VI.2009; N. Jansson & M. Avcı leg.; EMTU 09 /1084GoogleMaps • 1 ♀; Denizli, Honaz, Cumalı Vill. ; 37°43’N, 29°30’E; 1343 m; 11.VIII.2014; C. Karaman leg.; EMTU 07 / 2192gGoogleMaps • 2 ☿; Kayseri, Yeşilhisar, Akköy Dam ; 38°20’26”N, 35°01’59”E; 1000 m; 16.VIII.2001; A. Lenoir leg.; EMTU 01 /0719aGoogleMaps • 3 ☿; Nevşehir, Avanos, Çavuşin Vill. ; 38°40’45”N, 34°50’32”E; 1100 m; 17.VIII.2001; A. Lenoir leg.; EMTU 01 /0751bGoogleMaps • 1 ☿; Göreme ; 38°38’N, 34°49’E; 13. V.2013; A. Lenoir leg.; EMTU 13 /0052GoogleMaps .

DISTRIBUTION IN TURKEY. — New for Turkey.

REMARKS

Cataglyphis machmal has been known so far as an endemic species in Armenia. Expansion of its distribution, by its present records, to North-western Turkey is an important finding. This species shows almost exactly similar taxonomic characters as C. nodus ( Brullé, 1833) . However, the long hair on the head and mesosoma in the C. nodus is extremely sparse, while in C. machmal it is very abundant. We believe that distributional range of C. machmal in Turkey covers a wider area than known. We strongly suggest re-evaluation of former records of C. nodus , because due to its similarity with C. machmal , both taxa could be misidentified.