This history item belongs to Formica rubripes Drury, 1770

Its current taxon owner(s) is Camponotus rubripes

Status as species: Roger, 1863b: 2; Mayr, 1865: 27; Forel, 1886h: 143; Emery, 1887a: 212 (footnote); Emery, 1888c: 365; Forel, 1889: 261; Emery, 1889: 510; Mayr, 1889: 278; Forel, 1890b: lxi; Saunders, 1890: 202 (misinterpretations). 

Status as species: {ref 128094}: 2; {ref 127193}: 27; {ref 125017}: 143; {ref 124535}: 212 (footnote); {ref 124542}: 365; {ref 125018}: 261; {ref 133001}: 510; {ref 127202}: 278; {ref 125020}: lxi; {ref 128455}: 202 (misinterpretations).
  • Item type: taxt
  • Created at: 2022-11-10
  • Updated at: 2022-11-10
Related records
Taxa belonging to this history item's protonym
Camponotus rubripes Species Unavailable
Formica rubripes Species Obsolete combination
an obsolete combination of Camponotus rubripes (Drury, 1770)
Other history items belonging to Formica rubripes
#306457 [Note 1: Drury, 1770, contains no reference to ants, but was nevertheless cited by Forel, 1886h: 143, as the authority for the name Camponotus rubripes Drury, 1770. In reality, Drury, 1773: 72, described, but did not name, an ant species from Sierra Leone, which he considered to be the same as Messor barbarus Linnaeus, 1767 saying: “Vide Linn. Syst. p. 962, No. 2 Form. Barbara, which I judge to be the same as this”. This misidentified material was later named Camponotus rubripes Latreille, 1802a by Latreille, 1802a: 112.]
#312661 [Note 2: Emery, 1891c: 17, recognised the confusion caused by Roger, 1863b and Forel, 1886h, and explained: “Drury n’a jamais donné le nom de rubripes à aucune fourmis; c’est Latreille qui, le premier, appela Formica rubripes un gros Camponotus d’Afrique que Drury avait rapporté à tort au Formica barbara de Linné”.]
#306458 Combination in Camponotus: Roger, 1863b: 2.
#306459 (selected) Status as species: Roger, 1863b: 2; Mayr, 1865: 27; Forel, 1886h: 143; Emery, 1887a: 212 (footnote); Emery, 1888c: 365; Forel, 1889: 261; Emery, 1889: 510; Mayr, 1889: 278; Forel, 1890b: lxi; Saunders, 1890: 202 (misinterpretations).