chloroticus EMERY, 1897 var. chlorogaster var. samoensis Taxonomic updates for some confusing Micronesian species of Camponotus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Formicinae) Ronald M. Clouse Benjamin D. Blanchard Rebecca Gibson Ward C. Wheeler Milan Janda Myrmecological News 2016 23 139 152 QDM2 Emery Emery [820,1245,1513,1537] Insecta Formicidae Camponotus Animalia Hymenoptera 5 144 Arthropoda species chloroticus  ( Figs. 15 ­ 20; Tabs. 2, 3)   Camponotus maculatusssp.  chloroticus EMERY, 1897. Combination in Camponotus( Myrmoturba), as Camponotus( Myrmoturba) maculatus chlorotica var. chlorogaster: EMERY, 1914.  Camponotus( Myrmoturba) maculatus pallidus var. samoensisSANTSCHI, 1919, unavailable name. Homonym of Camponotus irritans samoensis(SMITH, 1857).  Camponotus( Myrmoturba) maculatusssp. sanctae crucisMANN, 1919. Subspecies of Camponotus irritans: EMERY 1920. Combination in Camponotus( Tanaemyrmex): EMERY 1925. Subspecies of Camponotus irritans: KARAVAIEV 1933. Raised to species: WILSON& TAYLOR 1967.   Comments:  Camponotus chloroticuswas originally de­ scribed by EMERY (1897)as a subspecies of C. macula­  Figs. 11 ­ 16: Syntypes of Camponotus kubaryistat. rev. (11 ­ 12; CASENT0904012 and CASENT091015 3, from www.AntWeb.org, photographs by Zach Lieberman), holotype of C. micronesicus sp.n.(13), specimen of C. kubaryistat. rev. collected from Peliliu Is. (14; CASENT01 73088, from www.AntWeb.org, photograph by April Nobile), and syntypes of  C. chloroticusfrom New Guinea (15) and Tonga (16). Scale bar in Fig. 13 applicable to Figures 11 ­ 16.     Pin 1  Pin 2  Pin 3  Pin 4   Caste  Major  2 Minors  Major  Major  Label 1 N. GUINEA MER. IRUPARA Agosto Otto. 1889 L. LORIA Tonga Mus. God Tonga Mus. God Tonga­Ins.  Label 2 TYPUS SYNTYPUS  Camponotus Chloroticus (Emery, 1897)  SYNTYPUS   CamponotusChloroticus(Emery, 1897) SYNTYPUS  Camponotus Chloroticus(Emery, 1897)  Label 3 Museo Civico di Genova MUSEO GENOVA coll. C. Emery (dono 1925) MUSEO GENOVA coll. C. Emery (dono 1925) MUSEO GENOVA coll. C. Emery (dono 1925)  Label 4 SYNTYPUS   Camponotus    chloroticus  (Emery, 1897)  Label 5  irritansSm.  subsp.    chloroticusEm.  Label 6  Camponotus   irritansF. Sm.  subsp.  chloroticusEmery  n. subsp.   Tab. 3: Caste and label trans­ criptions for the syntypes of  Camponotus chloroticusEM­ ERY, 1897.  Figs. 17 ­ 20: Syntype of  Camponotus chloroticusfrom New Guinea in frontal (17), lateral (18), and dorsal (19) views, and the original locality label (20).  tus, as follows:"I bought from Godeffroy Museum[Hamburg, 1861 ­ 1885] specimens of this form from the TongaIslands and New Britain, under the name C. pallidus. … For the shape of the various parts of the body, for the pubescence, the very weak sculpture and the hairs, it is very close to the C. Kubaryi, MAYR[specific epithet capitalized in original], particularly the oceanic specimens and those from New Guinea. … Maximum size is 8 mm; reddish­yellow, dirt­like color; head darker and more red, abdomen more or less blackish in its rear." We do not know which aspects of the pilosity EMERY noticed as being similar to that of Camponotus kubaryistat. rev., but the presence of standing hairs on the proximal hind femur and on the propleuron in both species is one of the few readily discernable synapomorphies of an important clade of Camponotusin the Pacific and one of the key characters used to distinguish  C. chloroticusfrom  C. micronesicus. Using this pilosity character, overall similarity in size, shape, and coloration, as well as our finding of only one such yellow Camponotusspecies in the same islands, we confirm here that the Tongan syntypesof  C. chloroticus( Figs. 15, 16) match the species in Clade IV, which extends from New Guineato Polynesia ( Fig. 2). The  Camponotus chloroticus syntypefrom Irupara, New Guinea( Figs. 17 ­ 20), is not as clearly aligned with the Tongan syntypesor modern specimens from the Polynesian, Fijian, and Melanesian clade, partially due to its mounting, which limits our view of the important pilosity characters. However, the New Guinean syntypehas distinctly shorter scapes than almost all  C. micronesicus sp.n.specimens measured, measuring just at the lower limit of the range, and producing a scape index for the New Guinea syntypethat is smaller than all  C. micronesicusspecimens measured but within the range for  C. chloroticus. The petiole length of the New Guinean syntypeis also similar to that of  C. chloroticusspecimens, and altogether we have more support for it being  C. chloroticusthan  C. micronesicus sp.n.Other options for the identity of the New Guinean syntypeinclude an undescribed from, or, if it is truly missing the hind femur and propleuron standing hairs, an oddly concolorous C. humilior(which tends to be bicolorous); C. novaehollandiaeis too large, also usually bicolorous, and, from our PCA analysis, slightly different in shape. To the original description we add a summary of our morphological observations of this species, combining syntypesand modern specimens, as follows (also see Tabs. 2, 3). Majors:EL 0.48 (range 0.40 ­ 0.51), EW 0.36 (0.25 ­ 0.40), FCL 1.14 (1.00 ­ 1.31), HL 2.22 (1.8 5 ­ 2.40), HW 2.00 (1.45 ­ 2.25), ML 2.69 (2.38 ­ 2.85), MTL 1.68 (1.44 ­ 2.10), PH0.74 (0.59 ­ 0.81), PL 0.58 (0.43 ­ 0.75), SL 1.65 (1.44 ­ 1.85); CI 90 ( 78 ­ 9 5), SI 83 (73 ­ 124). Mesosoma light yellow, gaster same color as mesosoma or slightly darker, head color usually darker than mesosoma; head tapering, vertex usually slightly concave; hind femur and propleuron with standing hairs. Minors:EL 0.42 (0.38 ­ 0.55), EW 0.33 (0.30 ­ 0.40), FCL 1.0 4 (0.90 ­ 1.40), HL 1.66 (1.55 ­ 2.10), HW 1.28 (1.18 ­  1.60), ML 2.39 (2.20 ­ 3.05), MTL 1.58 (1.31 ­ 1.95), PH 0.62 (0.50 ­ 0.75), PL 0.57 (0.50 ­ 0.70), SL 1.80 (1.45 ­ 2.45); CI 77 (74 ­ 82), SI 142 (123 ­ 154). Mesosoma usually light yellow, gaster and head usually same color as mesosoma or slightly darker; head tapering, vertex convex and occipital carina present; hind femur and propleuron with standing hairs.