Crematogaster baduvi Forel 1912
Creators: name: Hosoishi, Shingo
name: Ogata, Kazuo
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2016
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Formicidae
Crematogaster
Crematogaster baduvi

description: CREMATOGASTER BADUVI FOREL, 1912b
(FIG. 96)
Crematogaster baduvi Forel, 1912b: 106;
one syntype worker, Nusa Kambangan, Java, Indonesia (MHNG, examined).
Crematogaster baduvi; Forel, 1913: 77 [Description of queen].
Crematogaster baduvi [sic]; Crawley, 1924: 394.
Crematogaster baduvi; Menozzi, 1935: 104 [Description of male].
Crematogaster baduvi; Emery, 1922: 131 [Combination in C. (Orthocrema)].
Crematogaster baduvi; Blaimer, 2012c: 55 [Combination in C. (Orthocrema)].
Worker measurements (n = 17): HW 0.47–0.57; HL 0.48– 0.59; CI 92–100; SL 0.47–0.58; SI 98–108; EL 0.11– 0.14; PW 0.26–0.35; WL 0.60–0.72; PSL 0.15–0.21; PtL 0.23–0.28; PtW 0.15–0.20; PtH 0.13–0.16; PpL 0.13– 0.16; PpW 0.16–0.20; PtHI 54–67; PtWI 65–83; PpWI 113–146; WI 90–107.
KEY TO SPECIES BASED ON THE WORKER CASTE (EXCEPT FOR C. GAVAPIGA MENOZZI, C. JAVANICA MENOZZI, AND C. UDO FOREL THAT WERE NOT EXAMINED)
1. Propodeal spines directed laterally (Fig. 31). Postpetiolar dorsum highly convex in lateral view; postpetiole dis- tinctly higher than petiole in lateral view (Fig. 36) (C. baduvi group) ....................................................... 2
– Propodeal spines directed posteriorly (Fig. 30). Postpetiolar dorsum not highly convex in lateral view; postpetiole as high as petiole in lateral view (Fig. 37)............................................................................................5
2. Transverse distance between tips of propodeal spines distinctly longer than head width in dorsal view (Fig. 53). Mesosoma densely sculptured (Borneo) .............................................................. C. macracantha Creighton
– Transverse distance between tips of propodeal spines shorter than head width in dorsal view (Fig. 54). Mesosoma generally smooth and shining ............................................................................................................ 3
3. Propodeal spines curved upward at tip (Fig. 55) (Sulawesi) ............................................... C. storki, sp. nov.
– Propodeal spines not curved upward at tip (Fig. 56)...............................................................................4
4. Head smaller (HW 0.43–0.47; HL 0.46–0.49). Scape relatively long (SI 113–118). Propodeal dorsum smooth. Propodeal spines long (PSL 0.20–0.22). Lateral surface of petiole weakly sculptured (Borneo)........... C. brunensis, sp. nov.
– Head larger (HW 0.47–0.57; HL 0.48–0.59). Scape relatively short (SI 98–108). Propodeal dorsum striated with feeble rugulae. Propodeal spines relatively shorter (PSL 0.15–0.21). Lateral surface of petiole sculptured (W. Ma- laysia, Borneo, Java, Sumatra) ....................................................................................... C. baduvi Forel
5. Metanotal groove not covered by lamellate ridges dorsolaterally (Fig. 28) (Sulawesi) ........ C. moatensis, sp. nov.
– Metanotal groove covered by lamellate ridges dorsolaterally (Fig. 29)........................................................6
6. Posterior portions of mesonotal dorsum forming short triangle-shaped process (Fig. 23). Standing pilosity long and abundant on head, mesosoma, petiole, postpetiole and remains of the gaster (Fig. 57) (C. binghamii group). ................................................................................................................................................... 7
– Posterior portions of mesonotal dorsum not forming short triangle-shaped process (Fig. 22). Standing pilosity short and sparse (Fig. 58)..........................................................................................................................9
7. Propodeal spines developed, distinctly longer than diameter of propodeal spiracles (Fig. 59) (S. Thailand, W. Ma- laysia, Borneo, Java, Sumatra).................................................................................. C. longipilosa Forel
– Propodeal spines undeveloped, or weakly developed, as long as or shorter than diameter of propodeal spiracles (Figs 60, 61)....................................................................................................................................8
8. Propodeal spines undeveloped or weakly developed, shorter than diameter of propodeal spiracles (PSL 0–0.03) (Fig. 60) (Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Vietnam) ................................................. C. binghamii Forel
– Propodeal spines slightly more developed, as long as diameter of propodeal spiracles (PSL 0.04–0.07) (Fig. 61) (Philippines)........................................................................................................ C. brevispina, sp. nov.
9. Relatively short scape (SI 70–91). Mesosoma sculptured (Fig. 62). Subpetiolar process developed acutely (Fig. 64).
Subpostpetiolar process developed acutely (Fig. 64) (C. biroi group).........................................................10
– Relatively long scape (SI 81–100). Mesosoma essentially smooth and shining (Fig. 63). Subpetiolar process de- veloped (Fig. 65). Subpostpetiolar process not developed as process; the venter convex (Fig. 65) (C. quadriruga group).......................................................................................................................................... 18
10. Compound eyes reduced, with less than 15 ommatidia (Figs 66, 67) ........................................................11
– Compound eyes not reduced, with more than 20 ommatidia (Fig. 68).......................................................12
11. Number of ommatidia approximately 5–6 (Fig. 66) (Borneo).................. C. masukoi Hosoishi, Yaname & Ogata
– Number of ommatidia approximately 12–15 (Fig. 67) (N. Vietnam)................................... C. ocellata, sp. nov.
12. Dorsal surface of head sculptured (Fig. 69) ......................................................................................... 13
– Dorsal surface of head generally smooth and shining (Fig. 70) ............................................................... 14
13. Head, mesosoma, petiole and postpetiole strongly sculptured reticulately. Propodeal spiracles apart from metapleural gland bulla (Fig. 71). Petiole squared, but without angulate anterolateral corners (Fig. 73) (Thailand, W. Malay- sia, Borneo)......................................................................................................... C. reticulata Hosoishi
– Head, mesosoma, petiole and postpetiole weakly sculptured reticulately. Propodeal spiracles touching metapleural gland bulla (as in Figure 72). Petiole squared with angulate anterolateral corners (Fig. 74) (Taiwan) ............... ........................................................................................................................... C. schimmeri Forel
14. Dorsal surface of head generally smooth, but feebly sculptured at surrounding portion of compound eyes (Fig. 75).
Area in front of occipital carinae sculptured (Fig. 77) (India, Sri Lanka) ................................... C. biroi Mayr
– Dorsal surface of head smooth, without sculptured area in front of occipital carinae (Fig. 76)......................15
15. Head, mesosoma, petiole and postpetiole with erect setae: setae tapering distally (Fig. 78)..........................16
– Head, mesosoma, petiole and postpetiole with erect setae; setae stout and not tapering distally (Fig. 79) ...... 17
16. Propodeal spines slender (Fig. 80). Petiole tapering posteriorly in dorsal view (Fig. 82). Subpostpetiolar process angulate (Fig. 80) (China, Korea, Japan) ....................................................................... C. osakensis Forel
– Propodeal spines thick (Fig. 81). Petiole with subparallel sides in dorsal view (Fig. 83). Subpostpetiolar process developed acutely (Fig. 81) (Vietnam)............................................................................... C. vieti, sp. nov.
17. Scape with suberect to decumbent setae (Fig. 84). Erect setae on anterior mesonotal ridge as long as on posterior mesonotal ridge (Fig. 86). Fourth abdominal tergite with erect setae abundantly (c.> 20) (Philippines)............. ....................................................................................................................... C. luzonensis, sp. nov.
– Scape with appressed setae (Fig. 85). Erect setae on anterior mesonotal ridge longer than on posterior mesonotal ridge (Fig. 87). Fourth abdominal tergite with erect setae sparsely (c. 4–6) (W. Malaysia, Borneo, Sumatra, Sulawesi). .................................................................................................................................. C. fritzi Emery
18. Compound eyes reduced, with c. 6 ommatidia (Fig. 88) (W. Malaysia, Borneo, Sumatra) ............ C. myops Forel
– Compound eyes not reduced, with more than 20 ommatidia (Fig. 89).......................................................19
19. Propodeal spiracles large and touching metapleural gland bulla (Fig. 90) ................................................ 20.
– Propodeal spiracles relatively small and apart from metapleural gland bulla (Fig. 91)................................23
20. Lamellate ridge superficially covering metanotal groove in some specimens, but metanotal groove deep, U-shaped in lateral view (Fig. 92). Propodeal spines long and stout (Fig. 92) (PSL 0.09–0.1) (Sulawesi).......................... ......................................................................................................................... C. celebensis, sp. nov.
– Lamellate ridge superficially covering metanotal groove in some specimens, but metanotal groove not so deep, V-shaped in lateral view (Fig. 93). Propodeal spines relatively short to long (Fig. 93) (PSL 0.05–0.11) ........... 21
21. Propodeal spines relatively short (PSL 0.05–0.08) and stout (Fig. 90) (S. Thailand, W. Malaysia, Borneo, Java, Sumatra, Krakatau)............................................................................................... C. bandarensis Forel
– Propodeal spines relatively long (PSL 0.08–0.11) and slender (Fig. 93).....................................................22
22. Scape with suberect setae only. Body color yellow (Philippines)............................... C. philippinensis, sp. nov.
– Scape with suberect setae mixed with two to three longer setae. Body bicolored, with head and gaster brown, and mesosoma, petiole and postpetiole yelow (Borneo, Sumatra) ........................... C. sundalandensis, sp. nov.
23. Longitudinal rugulae on clypeus not reaching area between frontal carinae. Body bicolored, with head, mesosoma, petiole, postpetiole and first gastral tergite yellow, and remains of gaster brown in typical form, but rarely whole body yellowish. Petiole with subparallel sides in dorsal view (Fig. 94) (Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Sumatra)..... ..................................................................................................................... C. quadriruga, stat. nov.
– Longitudinal rugulae on clypeus extending to posterior clypeal margin. Body color yellow. Petiole tapering ante- riorly in dorsal view (Fig. 95) (Japan)........................................................................ C. suehiro Terayama
General description of worker: Workers monomorphic.
Head round in full-face view. Mandibles with four teeth arranged at an equal distance, apical and subapical teeth large, basal two teeth smaller. Anterior clypeal margin convex in medial portion. Compound eyes distinctly projecting beyond lateral margins of head in full-face view. Scapes exceeding posterolateral corners of head.
Pronotal collar with concave anterior margin in dorsal view, slightly lower than pronotum in lateral view. Pronotal dorsum without distinct ridges laterally. Mesonotal dorsum with lateral ridges that extend posteriad to tips of propodeal spines; anterior ridges usually as high as posterior ridges. Pronotum and mesonotum in lateral view forming evenly arched, continuous dorsal outline. Metanotal groove in dorsal view transverse, almost straight in median portion, forming shallow concavity that is laterally margined by ridges. Propodeal spiracles oval, situated at posterolateral corners of propodeum, apart from metapleural gland bullae. Propodeal spines developed, longer than diameter of propodeal spiracles, in dorsal view strongly divergent.
Petiole in dorsal view with subparallel sides and narrow short peduncle anteriorly, distinctly longer than wide. Posterior portion of petiole with short process that is slightly higher than posterior margin of petiole disc in lateral view. Subpetiolar process weakly developed as angulate tubercle. Postpetiole in lateral view with strongly convex dorsum, distinctly higher than petiole, in dorsal view as wide as petiole, globular, not bilobed. Venter of postpetiole convex but without distinct process.
Integument essentially smooth and shining. Dorsal surface of head smooth and shining. Mandibles with feeble rugulae and smooth interspaces. Clypeus smooth and shining without distinct longitudinal rugulae, but short rugulae present anteriorly in some specimens. Dorsal and lateral surfaces of pronotum smooth and shining; anterolateral shoulders of pronotum with rugulae. Mesopleura generally sculptured, but sometimes smooth except for their marginal areas in some specimens. Dorsal surface of propodeum generally smooth and shining, but with rugulae dorsolateral areas. Dorsal surface of petiole smooth and shining. Lateral surface of petiole sculptured. Dorsal and lateral surfaces of postpetiole smooth and shining.
Standing pilosity sparse. Dorsal face of head with long erect and short appressed setae sparsely. Clypeus with two pairs of long setae in anterior portion, one directed upward and the other downward. Anterior clypeal margin with one pair of long setae medially and some pairs of short setae laterally. Scapes with appressed setae. Mesosoma with two pairs of long erect and stout setae (ps1PN and psaMN) that are much longer than other erect setae. Posterolateral tubercles of petiole posteriorly with one pair of long setae. Postpetiole with one pair of long setae on disc posteriorly. Fourth abdominal tergite with erect setae sparsely, but no decumbent to appressed setae.
Body red-brown. Apical two flagellar segments yellow, contracting with other flagellar segments that are blackish.
Comments: In the worker this species can be distinguished from all other members of the C. baduvi group by the smooth and shining surfaces of mesosoma, propodeal dorsum (with rugulae), and the very long propodeal spines that are divergent and straight toward tip. This species is similar to C. brunensis, but can be distinguished from it by the larger head (HW 0.47– 0.57, HL 0.48–0.59 vs. 0.43–0.47 and 0.46–0.49 in the latter), shorter scape (SI 98–108 vs. 113–118) and shorter propodeal spines (PSL 0.15–0.21 vs. 0.20–0.22).
Specimens from Brunei have the anterior mesonotal ridges higher than posterior mesonotal ridges in lateral view.
Distribution and biology: This species is known from Malaysia (Peninsula), Brunei and Indonesia (Krakatau, Sumatra, Java) (Fig. 49). Specimens from Endau Rompin National Park, W. Malaysia and Brunei were collect- ed by fogging method.
Material examined: BRUNEI: nine workers, Bukit Sulang, nr. Lamunin, B. M. 1982–388 (fogging), 20.viii – 10.ix.1982 (N.E. Stork); INDONESIA: three workers, Rakata Is. (10 m), Krakatau Isls. (06°09’S 105°28’E), 11.x.2000, (K. Ogata); one worker, Rakata Is. (20 m), Krakatau Isls. (06°09’S 105°28’E), 11.x.2000, (K. Ogata); three workers, Rakata Is. (20 m), Krakatau Isls. (06°09’S 105°28’E), 11.x.2000, (S. Matsui); one worker, Maninjau, W. Sumatra, 7–9.viii.1985, (S. & Sk. Yamane) (Muko Muko 470 m alt.) (Sumatra Nature Study, SNS Col.); three workers, Jasinga, nr Bogor, W. Java, 5.xi.1985, (Sk. Yamane). MALAYSIA: one worker, St. 1, Endau Rompin National Park, 6.vii.2003, (H. Kojima et al) (fogging).
description: Published as part of Hosoishi, Shingo & Ogata, Kazuo, 2016, Systematics and biogeography of the ant genus Crematogaster Lund subgenus Orthocrema Santschi in Asia (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), pp. 547-606 in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 176 (3) on pages 566-575, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12330, http://zenodo.org/record/5358180