Seven species new to science and one newly recorded species of the ant genus Myrmica Latreille, 1804 from China, with proposal of a new synonym (Hymenoptera, Formicidae).

Seven new species of the genus Myrmica Latreille, 1804 are described from China: Myrmica dongi sp. n., Myrmica huaii sp. n., Myrmica liui sp. n., Myrmica mifui sp. n., Myrmica oui sp. n., Myrmica wangi sp. n. and Myrmica yani sp. n. Myrmica forcipata Karawaiew, 1931 is recorded from China for the first time, while Myrmica zhengi Ma & Xu, 2011 is synonymized with Myrmica luteola Kupyanskaya, 1990. Identification keys based on worker caste are provided to the Myrmica species of China and the pachei-group species of the Old World, respectively.

Introduction

Latreille, 1804 is a large genus belonging to the family , with 200 species and 12 subspecies known worldwide to date (Bolton 2014). Although there was confusion of the concept of the genus before the start of the twentieth century (Nylander 1846a, 1846b, 1849, 1856, 1857, Curtis 1854), which led to the additions to the genus of numerous taxa that did not truly belong to (Radchenko and Elmes 2010), the works by Finzi (1926), Santschi (1931) and Arnol'di (1934) clarified the genus definition. The first revision of the genus was provided by Weber (1947, 1948, 1950), who paid most of his attention to the Nearctic species but presented a comprehensive synopsis of the Palearctic species as well. From then on, a series of revisions were devoted to the genus in the subsequent decades (Sadil 1952, Yarrow 1955, Arnol'di 1970, 1976, Kutter 1970, 1973, Francoeur 1981, 2007, Kupyanskaya 1986a, 1986b, Bolton 1988, Seifert 1988, 2003, 2011, Czekes et al. 2013). Besides the efforts described above, a more extensive revisionary project was launched by Redchenko and his colleagues. Radchenko's interest was first focused on the species of the central and eastern Palaearctic region (Radchenko 1994a−f, Radchenko et al. 1997), but soon extended to the Himalaya, south-east Asia and the whole Oriental region (Radchenko and Elmes 1998, 1999a, 1999b, Elmes and Radchenko 1998). With the cardinal revisions of more species groups (Radchenko and Elmes 2001a, 2003a, 2004, 2009a, 2009b, Radchenko et al. 2002, Radchenko et al. 2006) and regional faunistic investigations (Radchenko and Elmes 2001, 2002, 2003, 2009c, Radchenko et al. 2001, Elmes et al. 2001, Elmes et al. 2002, Radchenko et al. 2006, Radchenko et al. 2008a, 2008b, Elmes and Radchenko 2009), many new species were described from the regions with poorly known fauna (e.g. China, Korea, Vietnam, Turkey, Sicily etc.), and the taxonomy of in the Old World culminated with the publication of the monograph by Radchenko and Elmes (2010), in which a total of 147 species were recognized, including five fossil species from the European late Eocene ambers. Stappen (2014) made a systemic evaluation on work of Radchenko and Elmes (2010) with some modifications, changes. On the basis of the work of Radchenko and Elmes (2010), further research was conducted in the Himalayan region (Bharti 2012a, 2012b, Bharti and Sharma 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2013), resulting in the discovery of nine new species in total.

The first Chinese species of the genus , i.e. Mayr, 1889, was described from Xizang. Ruzsky (1915) described eight species/subspecies and added Forel, 1902 to the Xizang fauna. Further work was carried out on the fauna of China by later authors (Viehmeyer 1922, Wheeler 1928, 1929, 1930a, Donisthorpe 1929, Santschi 1937, Eidmann 1941, Wu and Wang 1995, Tang et al. 1995, Xia and Zheng 1997, Elmes and Radchenko 1998, Wei et al. 1999, Collingwood and Heatwole 2000, Wei et al. 2001b, Chang and He 2001b, Zhou 2001, Zhou and Huang 2002, Xu 2002, Radchenko et al. 2001, Huang et al. 2004, Li et al. 2005, Tie and Xu 2004, Tie and Xu 2005, Wang et al. 2005, Zhou 2005, PageBreakZhou 2006, Radchenko et al. 2008, Wang et al. 2009, Radchenko and Elmes 2009a, Radchenko and Elmes 2010, Zhou and Qian 2010, Xu et al. 2011, Zhang et al. 2011, Zhou 2013), and the sporadic results were summarized in several checklists (Wheeler 1930b, Wu 1941, Chou and Terayama 1991, Huang and Zhou 2007, Guenard and Dunn 2012). Meanwhile, nomenclatural changes were made in various revisionary works. In detail, , and were synonymized with , with , with , and with (Radchenko and Elmes 2010), with , with (Radchenko and Elmes, 2001), with (Elmes and Radchenko 1998), with (Radchenko et al. 2008), with (Collingwood 1979), Ruzsky, 1915 was replaced with (Radchenko and Elmes 2010); the following four taxa were raised to species: , , (Radchenko and Elmes 2010), (Elmes & Radchenko, 1998); (= ) was considered as incertae sedis in (Radchenko and Elmes 2010); Menozzi, 1941 was determined as nomen nudum (Bolton 1995); the records for China of (Wei et al. 2001b, Chang and He 2001b), (Wei et al. 1999, Wei et al. 2001b), (Wu and Wang 1995, Wei et al. 2001b), (Eidmann 1941, Wei et al. 2001b), (Eidmann 1941, Wu and Wang 1995, Zhou 2001, Wei et al. 2001b), (Eidmann 1941) and (Chang and He 2001b) were deemed misidentifications, so they were excluded from Chinese fauna (Radchenko and Elmes 2010). In terms of all taxonomic decisions above-mentioned, 46 species are recognized from China so far and was considered an unidentifiable taxon recently (Radchenko and Elmes 2010). However, there are at least 104 species found in the surrounding regions of China which may be recorded in China in the near future, indicating that the diversity of in China is extremely high. The fauna of China is still poorly known, and many more species certainly remain to be found.

In this paper, seven new and one newly recorded species are described from China. Ma & Xu, 2011 is considered as a junior synonym of Kupyanskaya, 1990, leading to an increase of the known Chinese species to 54.

Materials and methods

This study is based on the specimens deposited in the Insect Collection of Guangxi Normal University, Guilin, China. Digital images of the specimens were taken with a Nikon AZ100 microscope. All measurements are in millimeters. Standard measurements and indices are mostly defined by Radchenko and Elmes (2010):

HL .

length of the head in full face view, measured in a straight line from the middle of anterior clypeal margin to the middle of posterior margin

HW .

maximum width of the head in full face view behind the eyes

FW .

minimum distance of frons between the frontal carinae

FLW .

maximum distance between the outer borders of the frontal lobes

SL .

maximum straight length of the antennal scape in profile view

PW .

maximum width of pronotum in dorsal view

ML .

length of mesosoma in profile, measured from the point at which the pronotum meets the cervical shield to the posterior basal angle of the metapleuron

PL .

maximum length of petiole in dorsal view

PH .

maximum height of petiole in profile view

ESL .

straight length of propodeal spine in profile view, from its tip to the deepest point of the propodeal constriction at the base of the spine

CI

HL/HW

ESLI

ESL/HW

FI

FW/HW

FLI

FLW/FW

SI1

SL/HL

SI2

SL/HW

Taxonomic checklist of species in China

A list of species of ants currently known from China is presented, according to the literatures and our collections. For each species the distributed places of China and the citations are mentioned. The list is arranged alphabetically.

Distribution. Guangxi (Radchenko et al. 2001, Chen and Zhou 2007) and Hubei (Lyu and Cho 2003).

Distribution. Gansu (Chang and He 2001a), Inner Mongolia (Collingwood and Heatwole 2002), Qinghai (Tie and Xu 2004), Xinjiang (Collingwood and Heatwole 2002).

Distribution. Taiwan (Wheeler 1930, Huang and Zhou 2007).

Distribution. Qinghai (Radchenko and Elmes 2010), Xinjiang (Huang and Zhou 2007), Xizang (Xu et al. 2011, Zhang et al. 2011).

Distribution. Hunan (Radchenko et al. 2008), Sichuan (Radchenko et al. 2008) and Yunnan (Radchenko et al. 2008).

Distribution. Ningxia (Tie and Xu 2004) and Qinghai (Chang and He 2001b, Huang and Zhou 2007).

Distribution. Xizang.

Distribution. Guangdong (Huang and Zhou 2007), Guangxi (Radchenko et al. 2001), Henan (Li et al. 2005), Shaanxi (Radchenko and Elmes 2010) and Yunnan (Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

Distribution. Liaoning (Radchenko and Elmes 2010), Heilongjiang (Radchenko and Elmes 2010), Jilin (Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

= Wu & Wang, 1995

Distribution. Gansu (Chen 2008), Henan (Huang and Zhou 2007), Hubei (Wang and Zhao 2009), Shaanxi (Tie and Xu 2004, Wei et al. 2001a), Shandong (Wei et al. 2001b).

Distribution. Ningxia.

Distribution. Yunnan (Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

Distribution. Sichuan (Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

Distribution. Shaanxi.

Distribution. North east part of China (Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

Distribution. North east part of China (Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

= Ruzsky, 1915

= Ruzsky, 1915

= Ruzsky, 1915

Distribution. Xizang (Huang and Zhou 2007).

= Viehmeyer, 1922

= Viehmeyer, 1922

Distribution. Sichuan (Huang and Zhou 2007, Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

Distribution. Inner Mongolia.

= Ma & Xu, 2011, syn. n.

Distribution. Shaanxi (Ma and Xu 2011).

Distribution. Shaanxi.

Distribution. Taiwan (Huang and Zhou 2007).

Distribution. Sichuan (Radchenko et al. 2008).

Distribution. Shaanxi (Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

Distribution. Guizhou.

Distribution. Sichuan (Radchenko et al. 2008).

Distribution. Shaanxi (Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

Distribution. Yunnan (Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

Distribution. Sichuan (Radchenko et al. 2008).

Distribution. Yunnan (Radchenko et al. 2008).

= Wheeler W.M., 1929

Distribution. Taiwan (Hua 2006, Huang and Zhou 2007).

Distribution. Sichuan (Radchenko et al. 2008).

Distribution. Gansu (Chen 2008), Ningxia (Tie and Xu 2004, Xin et al. 2011), Qinghai (Chang and He 2001b), Shaanxi (Tie and Xu 2004), Shaanxi (Wei et al. 2001b), Xinjiang (Wu et al. 2004), Xizang (Xu et al. 2011, Zhang et al. 2011).

Distribution. Gansu (Collingwood 1962), Heilongjiang (Wei et al. 2001b; Yasumatsu 1941), Henan (Li et al. 2005), Hunan (Huang and Zhou 2007, Huang et al. 2005), Jilin (Wei et al. 2001b), Ningxia (Ma et al. 2008, Xin et al. 2011), Shaanxi (Liu et al. 1999).

Distribution. Xinjiang (Huang and Zhou 2007, Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

Distribution. Xizang (Huang and Zhou 2007).

Distribution. Xinjiang (Xia and Zheng 1997).

Distribution. Sichuan (Collingwood 1962), Xinjiang (Wu et al. 2004).

Distribution. Shaanxi (Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

Distribution. Sichuan (Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

Distribution. Shaanxi (Radchenko et al. 2006), Shaanxi (Radchenko et al. 2001), Yunnan (Radchenko et al. 2001) and Taiwan (Huang and Zhou 2007, Radchenko et al. 2001).

Distribution. Guangxi (Radchenko et al. 2001, Chen and Zhou 2007) and Henan (Li et al. 2005).

Distribution. Sichuan (Radchenko et al. 2008).

Distribution. Xinjiang (Xia and Zheng 1997).

Distribution. Gansu (Chang and He 2001b), Inner Mongolia (Wei et al. 2001b), Ningxia (Tie and Xu 2004, Xin et al. 2011), Qinghai (Tie and Xu 2004).

Distribution. Shaanxi (Wei et al. 2001b).

Distribution. Xizang (Huang and Zhou 2007).

Distribution. Heilongjiang (Radchenko and Elmes 2010), Jilin (Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

Distribution. Hubei (Wang et al. 2005).

Distribution. Xinjiang (Xia and Zheng 1997).

Distribution. Shaanxi.

Distribution. Shaanxi (Radchenko et al. 2008).

Distribution. Guizhou.

Distribution. Yunnan (Radchenko and Elmes 2010).

Unidentifiable names and

Distribution. China: Xizang (Huang and Zhou 2007).

Doubtful species whose presence in China could not be verified.

Distribution. Xizang (Tie and Xu 2004).

Distribution. Shaanxi (Tie and Xu 2004), Sichuan (Alonso et al. 2009), Yunnan (Radchenko 2004).

Distribution. Gansu (Chang and He 2001b), Ningxia (Chang and He 2001b, Tie and Xu 2004), Shaanxi (Tie and Xu 2004) and Xinjiang (Wu et al. 2004).

Distribution. Gansu (Chen 2008), Hebei (Wei et al. 2001b), Heilongjiang (Wei et al. 2001b), Hubei (Hua 2006), Hunan (Huang and Zhou 2007, Huang et al. 2005), Inner Mongolia (Wei et al. 2001b), Jilin (Wei et al. 2001b), Ningxia (Wang 2009), Shaanxi (Tie and Xu 2004), Sichuan (Wei et al. 2001b), Xizang (Xu et al. 2011, Zhang et al. 2011).

Distribution. Beijing (Wei et al. 2001b), Gansu (Chen 2008), Hebei (Hua 2006), Heilongjiang (Wei et al. 2001b), Henan (Li et al. 2005), Inner Mongolia (Wei et al. 2001b), Jilin (Wei et al. 2001b), Liaoning (Wei et al. 2001b), Ningxia (Tie and Xu 2004, Xin et al. 2011), Qinghai (Zhang and Zheng 2002), Shaanxi (Tie and Xu 2004), Shaanxi (Wei et al. 2001b), Sichuan (Zhang and Zheng 2002).

Distribution. Anhui (Wei et al. 2001b), Guangxi (Huang and Zhou 2007), Hebei (Wei et al. 2001b), Henan (Li et al. 2005), Hubei (Huang and Zhou 2007), Hunan (Wei et al. 2001, Huang et al. 2005), Shaanxi (Tie and Xu 2004), Sichuang (Zhang et al. 2011, Liu et al. 2011), Yunnan (Yang et al. 2004, Xu 2002), Zhejiang (Wei et al. 2001b) and Taiwan (Huang and Zhou 2007).

Distribution. China: Fujian (Huang and Zhou 2007), Xizang (Huang and Zhou 2007), Taiwan (Huang and Zhou 2007).

Distribution. Xizang (Donisthorpe 1929).

Distribution. Xizang (Xu et al. 2011, Zhang et al. 2011).

Distribution. Shaanxi (Tie and Xu 2005).

Distribution. Ningxia (Chang and He 2001b, Tie and Xu 2004) and Qinghai (Chang and He 2001b, Huang and Zhou 2007).

Taxonomy

Kupyanskaya, 1990

Figures 1–4

Figures 1–4.

Ma & Xu, 2011 = Kupyanskaya, 1990. worker (paratype) (G060078). 1 head in full-face view 2 body in profile view 3 spurs of hind tibiae 4 body in dorsal view.

Kupyanskaya, 1990: 103, Figs

Ma & Xu, 2011: 795, figs 1−5 (w.m.) CHINA.

Material examined.

: paratypes, 4 workers: Foping Nature Reserve (33°42'N, 107°48'E), Shaanxi Province, China. 23.vii.2006, leg. Libin Ma, No. G060078; 3 workers: Qin Ling, Shaanxi Province, China. 27.vii.2006, leg. Zhao Tan, No. G060158; 1 worker, identification and presentation by Alexander G. Radchenko, but lack of collecting information.

Differential diagnosis.

As Radchenko and Elmes (2010) noted, this species is very easy to distinguish from all other species due to its unique features, i.e. strongly reduced and simple non-pectinate spurs on the middle and hind tibiae, and somewhat developed ventral petiolar and postpetiolar processes. Moreover, the workers show another feature that very rarely occurs in species: the base of the first gastral tergite is distinctly longitudinally striated. Ma and Xu (2011) described from Shaanxi perhaps without reading the papers by Kupyanskaya (1990) and Radchenko et al. (2003a, 2010). These three important references are also not cited by Ma & Xu, so that they missed the key features. After a careful comparison of the five workers paratype and one queen paratype of with the original morphological descriptions and the identified specimens of by Prof. Alexander G. Radchenko (Museum and Institute of Zoology Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland), we found no differences between them; therefore, we propose as a junior synonym of .

Karavajev, 1931

Figures 5–7

Figures 5–7.

Karavajev, 1931. Worker (No. G090211). 5 body in profile view 6 head in full-face view 7 body in dorsal view.

Karavajev, 1931: 105, fig. 2 (w.) RUSSIA;

5 workers, Xiaowutai Mountain, Hebei province, China, 39°00'25"N, 113°35'46"E, 1751m, 21.vi.2009, leg. Shanyi Zhou, No. G090211.

This species is similar to , but differs from the latter by the distinct, though not large, vertical lobe at the scape bend. This species was previously known only from south and east Siberia, Mongolia, but absent in the Russian far east. Herein this species is recorded from China for the first time.

sp. n.

http://zoobank.org/6B0F6901-D0FD-4CF4-8D7A-0DC06960C419

Figures 8–13

Figures 8–13.

sp. n. 8−10: worker (No. G090156); 11−13: queen (No. G090149). 8, 11 body in profile view 9, 12 head in full−face view 10, 13 body in dorsal view.

Type material.

Holotype worker. Sejila Mountain, Linzhi County, Xizang Autonomous Region, 29°40'00"N, 94°23'08"E, 4200m, 14.vi.2009, leg. Shuang Zhao, No. G090156. Paratypes. 1 worker, 11.vi.2009, No. G090156; 1 worker, 14.vi.2009, No. G090137; 1 worker, 15.vi.2009, No. G090141; 1 queen, 17.vi.2009, No. G090149; the locality and collector the same as holotype.

Measurements and descriptions.

Holotype worker (Figs 8–10). HL 1.40, HW 1.25, FW 0.50, FLW 0.53, SL 1.15, PW 0.87, ML 1.75, PL 0.50, PH 0.45, ESL 0.40, CI 1.12, FI 0.40, FLI 1.06, SI1 0.82, SI2 0.92, ESLI 0.32. Paratype workers (n = 3). HL 1.30−1.41, HW 1.10−1.25, FW 0.48−0.50 FLW 0.50−0.53, SL 1.10−1.12, PW 0.82−0.90, ML 1.70−1.79, PL 0.42−0.51, PH 0.42−0.58, ESL 0.37−0.45, CI 1.13−1.17, FI 0.35−0.36, FLI 1.04−1.06, SI1 0.80−0.87, SI2 0.89−0.94, ESLI 0.27−0.34.

Paratype queen (Figs 11–13). HL1.25, HW 1.18, FW 0.53, FLW 0.55, SL 1.17, PW 0.95, ML 1.88, PL 0.5, PH 0.20, ESL 0.20, CI 1.06, FI 0.45, FLI 1.04, SI1 0.93, SI2 0.99, ESLI 0.17.

Holotype worker. Head longer than broad, with very weakly convex sides, almost straight posterior margin and rounded posterior corners; anterior clypeal margin rounded, slightly prominent, not notched medially. Frontal carinae curved outwards to merge with the rugae that surround antennal sockets. Frons wide, frontal lobes not extended. Antennal scape relatively long (SI2 = 0.92), slightly shorter than head width, gradually though distinctly curved at the base, without any trace of lobe or carina.

Mesosoma robust, promesonotum in profile view slightly convex, promesonotal suture in dorsal view indistinct. Metanotal groove distinct, wide, but shallow. Propodeal lobes rounded. Propodeal spines relatively short, straight, sharp, directly backwards at an angle of less than 45º. Petiole high, with very short peduncle; petiolar node in profile view cylindric, anterior surface concave, dorsum of node slightly convex, with a distinct broad dorsal plate, posterior surface steep. Postpetiole subglobular, with anterior and dorsal surfaces forming a regular arch. Spurs of middle and hind tibiae well-developed and pectinate. Frons with dense, fine, slightly sinuous, longitudinal rugae, number of rugae between frontal carinae level with the eyes ca. 20, posterior part of the head and its sides with fine reticulation, spaces between rugae sparsely superficially punctate, appearing more or less shiny and never dull. Clypeus with longitudinal rugae, spaces between them shiny. Frontal triangle smooth and shiny. Pronotal dorsum with reticulation, lateral sides longitudinally rugose-punctate. Mesonotal and propodeal dorsum with < 20 moderately coarse transverse sinuous rugae. Lower parts of mesopleura and lateral sides of propedeum with longitudinal rugae. Spaces between rugae on mesosoma with fine punctures, but appearing quite shiny. Petiole and postpetiole dull, densely punctate.

Head without subdecumbent pilosity at lateral margins, posterior margin with erect to suberect long hairs, genae with a few long hairs; dorsum of mesosoma with long hairs; petiole with 5−6 long hairs and a few short hairs. Antennal scapes and tibiae with subdecumbent hairs. Body colored blackish-brown, appendages somewhat lighter.

Paratype workers. With similar morphological characters as holotype, but in some individuals, color reddish-brown to yellowish-brown; petiole only with 3 long hairs.

Paratype queen. Queen generally similar to workers in the shape and sculpture of the head, frontal lobes, propodeal spines (which are more blunt at the apex), petiole and postpetiole. Mesosoma long and low, coarsely sculptured; anterior half of scutum with sinuous longitudinal rugae and reticulations; posterior half of scutum, scutellum and propodeal dorsum with coarse, slightly sinuous longitudinal rugae; pronotum with coarse irregular rugae and reticulations; mesopleura and lower part of propodeum with longitudinal rugose. Petiolar node and postpetiole dull, more coarsely rugose than in the worker, ground sculptures developed.

Males. Unknown.

Habitat.

Found foraging on the ground of alpine meadow at the altitudes of 3437m. Nesting site unknown.

Etymology.

The specific epithet is the last name of a famous Chinese artist in the Ming Dynasty, Qichang Dong.

This species belongs to the group. The worker of this group is easily distinguished from other species by a combination of the following characters: mesosoma dorsum at least partly with transverse rugosity; scape gradually though distinctly curved at the base, not angled, with no trace of lobe or carina. Anterior clypeal margin rounded or slightly prominent with no medial notch; petiole with a relatively short peduncle. Radchenko and Elmes (2001) once believed that this group was only found in Himalaya. However, following the recent examination of the of China (Radchenko and Elmes 2009), they found out that the group was much more diverse than previously expected. Before this study, this group contains 15 species. Radchenko and Elmes (2009) have made a good taxonomic revision and provided a key to the group based on workers. In this study, four new species of this group are described. Because the -group is a sizeable species group and the sole function of a key is to allow taxa to be identified, a revised key is necessary for this group of species of the Old World. Accordingly, this key is given at the end of this paper, and distinguishing morphological characters between each species in the group is obvious. It is easy to find that sp. n. is very similar to Radchenko & Elmes, but differs from the latter by anterior surface of the petiole concave, dorsum of node with a distinct dorsal plate, slightly convex, posterior surface steep. Only the mesonotal dorsum with a fine transverse rugae, number of rugae on this area < 20, number of rugae between frontal carinae level the eyes ≤ 20.

This species is also closely related to sp. n., but differs from the latter by petiole with a stronger triangular ventral process; propleuron with rugose; mesonotal and propodeal dorsum with about 20 moderately coarse transverse sinuous rugae.

http://zoobank.org/6AFDE2BC-646A-4E51-8AEB-FC39BEA32692

Figures 14–16

Figures 14–16.

sp. n. worker (No. G100237). 14 body in profile view 15 head in full-face view 16 body in dorsal view.

Holotype worker. Helanshan, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China, 38°52'29"N, 105°53'42"E, 2597m. 8.vii.2010, leg. Zhilin Chen, No. G100237. Paratypes. 5 workers, data as per holotype.

Holotype worker. HL 1.13, HW 0.93, FW 0.40, FLW 0.50, SL 0.88, PW 0.65, ML 1.38, PL 0.38, PH 0.38, ESL 0.18, CI 1.21, FI 0.43, FLI 1.25, SI1 0.78, SI2 0.94, ESLI 0.19. Paratype workers (n = 6). HL 1.10−1.15, HW 0.91−0.94, FW 0.35−0.41, FLW 0.45−0.50, SL 0.85−0.90, PW 0.60−0.71, ML 1.33−1.40, PL 0.32−0.42, PH 0.33−0.41, ESL 0.13−0.17, CI 1.18−1.22, FI 0.31−0.34, FLI 1.28−1.33, SI1 0.77−0.82, SI2 0.90−0.96, ESLI 0.18−0.21.

Holotype worker. Head longer than broad, with weakly convex sides and posterior margin, and broadly rounded posterior corners; anterior clypeal margin broadly rounded, shallowly notched medially. Frontal carinae very feebly curved, merging with PageBreakthe rugae that extend to the margin of the head. Frons wide, frontal lobes much extended. Antennal scape long (SI2 0.94), slightly shorter than head width, gradually though distinctly curved at the base, with ridge on the inner margin.

Mesosoma in profile view weakly convex; promesonotal suture in dorsal view visible, metanotal groove very weak or absent. Propodeal lobes rounded. Propodeal spines short, blunt, directly backward and downward. Petiole with anterior surface concave, meeting the dorsal one to form a blunt angle, dorsum of node somewhat convex and steeply sloping backward, without dorsal plate. Postpetiole shorter than high, with convex dorsum. Spurs on middle and hind tibiae well-developed and pectinate.

Head with coarse longitudinal rugae on the whole dorsum, number of rugae between frontal carinae level with the eyes < 20. Posterior part and lateral sides of the head coarsely reticulated. Clypeus with coarse longitudinal rugae. Frontal triangle with a few longitudinal rugae, space between rugae shiny.

Dorsum and sides of mesosoma with less sinuous longitudinal rugae, space between rugae smooth and shiny. Petiole and postpetiole with short rugae, and densely punctate.

Head with abundant, long, suberect hairs at lateral margins; dorsum of mesosoma with longer hairs, petiole with 6−8 long and some shorter hairs. Antennal scape and tibiae with subdecumbent hairs. Head and gaster colored dark brown, mesosoma reddish-brown, appendages lighter.

Paratype workers. As holotype.

Queens and males. Unknown.

This species nests in the soil in alpine meadow, at elevation 2573m.

The specific epithet is the Chinese name Gongquan Liu, who was a famous Chinese calligrapher in the Tang Dynasty.

This species belongs to the species group, which is one of the three most diverse species group of the Old World, containing 22 species (Radchenko and Elmes 2010). Radchenko and Elmes (2010) divided this group into five species complex, based on worker characters. This species shares features of -complex of this group by mesosoma with less coarse sinuous longitudinal rugosity, propodeal spines shorter (ESLI ≤ 0.35), petiole of various shape, but never with well developed flattened dorsal plate. The -complex includes 5 species: , , , and . sp. n. is similar to , but the latter propodeal spines that curved inward when viwed from above. sp. n. is very similar to , but differs from the latter by dorsum of petiole somewhat convex and steeply sloping backward, without dorsal plate; on the other hand, the latter possesses unique morphological feature: mesonotum and propodeum are strongly conwtricted laterally, so that dorsal surface of them is narrow and form a sharp fidges, merging with the outer bases of propodeal spines. sp. n. also semblables to , but differs from the latter by dorsum of petiole without dorsal plate. This species is also similar to Ruzsky, but differs from the latter by antennal scape with ridge at the base of the inner margin; propodeal spines thin, short, only 1/2 times longer than the distance between them, somewhat narrow at the base, backward and curved downward; petiole without dorsal plate. This species resembles to , but well differs from the latter by frontal carinae merges with the rugae that extend to the margin of the head, petiole without dorsal plate.

This species also is similar to Nylander of the -complex, but differs from the latter by sides of petiolar node with punctures and short rugae less coarse than those on the mesosoma. Metanotal groove very weak or absent. Anterior surface of petiole concave, meeting the dorsal one through a rounded angle, dorsum of node somewhat convex and steeply sloping backward.

http://zoobank.org/CA7198CA-28D5-451F-87B9-541A7024CF33

Figures 17–19

Figures 17–19.

sp. n. worker (No. G120347). 17 body in profile view 18 head in full-face view 19 body in dorsal view.

Holotype worker. Huangbaiyuan, Shaanxi Prov., China, 33°59'48"N, 107°17'42"E, 1927m. 8. vi. 2012, No. G120347, leg. Chaotai Wei, Paratypes. 1 worker, 2. vi. 2012, No. G1200339; 1 worker, 27. vi. 2012, No. G090467. Locality and collector the same as holotype.

Holotype worker. HL 1.50, HW 1.25, FW 0.55, FLW 0.58, SL 1.25, PW 0.85, ML 1.90, PL 0.55, PH 0.43, ESL 0.45, CI 1.20, FI 0.44, FLI 1.05, SI1 0.83, SI2 1.00, ESLI 0.36. Paratype workers (n = 3). HL 1.48−1.55, HW 1.21−1.29, FI 0.50−0.55, FLW 0.50−0.57, SL 1.20−1.31, PW 0.80−0.83, ML 1.86−1.91, PL 0.50−1.57, PH 0.41−0.44, ESL 0.41−0.45, CI 1.20−1.23, FI 0.41−0.44, FLI 1.00−1.09, SI1 0.80−0.83, SI2 0.97−1.02, ESLI 0.35−0.37.

Holotype worker. Head longer than broad, with weakly convex sides and posterior margin, and narrowly rounded posterior corners; anterior clypeal margin relatively narrowly rounded, but not prominent and not notched medially. Frontal carinae very feebly curved, merging with the rugae that surround antennal sockets. Frons wide, frontal lobes not extended. Antennal scape relatively long (SI2 = 1.00), equal to head width, gradually curved at the base, without any trace of lobe or carina.

Mesosoma robust, promesonotum in profile view distinctly convex, promesonotal suture in dorsal view indistinct. Metanotal groove distinct, deep and abrupt. Propodeal lobes rounded. Propodeal spines straight, thin, acute, directly backward at an angle of approximately 30º. Petiole with distinct peduncle, anterior surface slightly concave, and dorsum of node broadly rounded, with a distinct dorsal plate. Postpetiole subPageBreakglobular, with anterior and dorsal surfaces forming a regular arch. Spurs of middle and hind tibiae well-developed and pectinate. Frons with dense, fine, slightly sinuous longitudinal rugae, number of rugae between frontal carinae level with the eyes > 25, posterior part and lateral sides of the head with fine reticulation, space between rugae dull, densely and coarsely punctate. Clypeus with longitudinal rugae, spaces between them shiny, frontal triangle smooth and shiny.

Pronotal dorsum reticulate, lateral sides reticulate-punctate. Mesonotal and propodeal dorsum each with more than ten moderately coarse sinuous transverse rugae. Lower parts of mesopleura and sides of propedeum with longitudinal rugae. Space between rugae on mesosoma with fine punctures, though appearing quite shiny. Petiole and postpetiole dull, densely punctate and reticulated. Anterior third of first gastral tergite with fine superficial hexagonal sculpture, the rest of the tergite smooth and shiny.

Head with short subdecumbent hairs at lateral margins above the eyes, posterior part of the head without additional long hairs, genae with a few long hairs; dorsum of mesosoma with long hairs; petiole with 4−6 long and a few short hairs. Antennal scape and tibiae with decumbent hairs. Gaster with short suberect hairs. Head and gaster blackish-brown, mesosoma yellowish-brown, appendages somewhat lighter.

Paratype workers. As holotype, but gaster with less short suberect hairs; petiole and postpetiole middle densely punctuate and the longitudinal rugae of frons more rough than holotype.

Queens and males. Unknown.

Found foraging on the ground in coniferous forest at an altitude of 1927 m. Nesting site unknown.

The specific epithet is the Chinese name Su Huai, who was a famous Chinese calligrapher in the Tang Dynasty.

This species belongs to the group. It is easy to find that this species is very similar to and , but differs from the latters two by basal third of first gastral tergite with fine superficial hexagonal sculpture; posterior margin without any erect to suberect long hairs; dorsum of petiolar node with a distinct broad dorsal plate. Main discriminative morphological characters with other species of the -group is showed in the key of -group species.

http://zoobank.org/B65D6044-B6A6-4049-95E1-9B7B65A5FFC5

Figures 20–22

Figures 20–22.

sp. n. worker (No. G970018). 20 body in profile view 21 head in full-face view 22 body in dorsal view.

Type materials.

Holotype worker. Taibai Mt., Shaanxi Prov., China, 33°59'57"N, 107°47'17"E, 3020m. 20.viii.1997, leg. Cong Wei, No. G970018; Paratypes. 3 workers, as holotype.

Holotype worker. HL 1.55, HW 1.38, FW 0.60, FLW 0.63, SL 1.28, PW 0.90, ML 1.95, PL 0.50, PH 0.48, ESL 0.48, CI 1.12, FI 0.43, FLI 1.05, SI1 0.82, SI2 0.92, ESLI 0.35. Paratype workers (n=2). HL 1.54−1.58, PageBreakHW 1.37−1.40, FW 0.60−0.62, FLW 0.61−0.63, SL 1.25−1.26, PW 0.90−0.92, ML 1.91−1.94, PL 0.50−1.52, PH 0.50−0.51, ESL 0.46−0.49, CI 1.13−1.14, FI 0.42−0.44, FLI 1.04−1.05, SI1 0.80−0.81, SI2 0.90−0.93, ESLI 0.33−0.35.

Holotype worker. Head longer than broad, with very weakly convex sides and almost straight posterior margin, and rounded posterior corners; anterior clypeal margin rounded, slightly prominent, not notched medially. Frontal carinae very feebly curved, merging with the rugae that extend to the posterior third dorsum of head. Frons wide, frontal lobes not extended. Antennal scape relatively long, gradually though distinctly curved at the base, without any trace of lobe or carina.

Mesosoma relatively robust, promesonotum in profile view convex, promesonotal suture in dorsal view well-developed. Metanotal groove distinct, very deep. Propodeal lobes triangular apically. Propodeal spines moderately long, straight, sharp, directly backward at an angle of about 45º. Petiole high, with very short peduncle, its anterior surface slightly concave, dorsum of node with a distinct dorsal plate, slightly convex, posterior surface steep, so that petiolar node appears sharply cylindroid (seen in profile). Postpetiole subglobular, its anterior and dorsal surfaces forming a regular arch. Spurs of middle and hind tibiae well-developed and pectinate.

Head with very dense, fine, almost straight, slightly posteriorly diverging longitudinal rugae on the whole dorsum, number of rugae between frontal carinae level with PageBreakthe eyes < 25. Posterior part and lateral sides of the head with reticulation, surface between reticulation densely superficially punctate, appearing more or less shiny and not dull. Clypeus with longitudinal rugae, surface between them shiny. Frontal triangle smooth and shiny.

Pronotal dorsum reticulated, lateral sides reticulate-punctate; mesonotal dorsum with 8−10 coarse sinuous transverse rugae; dorsum of propodeum with several finer transverse rugae; lower parts of mesopleura and sides of propodeum with fine longitudinal rugae. Space between rugae on mesosoma smooth and shiny. Petiole high, and with a strongly triangular ventral process. Petiole and postpetiole with short irregular rugae, densely though not coarsely punctate, appearing dull.

Margins of head with long suberect hairs; dorsum of mesosoma with longer hairs, petiole with 6−8 long hairs. Antennal scape and tibiae with subdecumbent hairs. Body colored blackish-brown, appendages somewhat lighter.

Paratype workers. as holotype.

Queens and males. Unknown.

Found in mountain meadows at an altitude of 3020 m. Nesting site unknown.

The specific epithet is the name of a famous calligrapher in the Northern Song Dynasty.

This species belongs to the group. It is easy to find that this species is very similar to , but differs from the latter by number of rugae between frontal carinae level with the eyes ≤ 25; mesonotal and propodeal dorsum fine transverse rugae < 20. This species also very resemles to sp. n., but differs from the latter by petiole with a finer triangular ventral process; propleuron only with densely punctuated; mesonotal and propodeal dorsum with 8−10 coarse sinuous transverse rugae. Main discriminative morphological characters with other species of the -group is showed in the key of -group species.

http://zoobank.org/D6CD7B14-D6CF-4F48-A611-749B390D3E7E

Figures 23–25

Figures 23–25.

sp. n. worker (No. G100231). 23 body in profile view 24 head in full-face view 25 body in dorsal view.

Holotype worker. Kuankuoshui, Guizhou Prov., China, 28°14'24"N, 107°12'00"E, 1202m. 16.viii.2010, leg. Duoduo Ye, No. G100231. Paratypes. 4 workers, data as holotype.

Holotype worker. HL 1.50, HW 1.32, FW 0.53, FLW 0.55, SL 1.60, PW 1.00, ML 2.25, PL 0.63, PH 0.40, ESL 0.68, CI 1.14, FI 0.40, FLI 1.04, SI1 1.07, SI2 1.21, ESLI 0.51. Paratype workers (n = 2). HL 1.44−1.50, HW 1.28−1.33, FI 0.40−0.43, FLI 1.04−1.06, SL 1.56−1.59, PW 1.00−1.08, ML 2.10−2.17, PL 0.63−0.67, PH 0.40−0.45, ESL 0.63−0.64, CI 1.10−1.18, FW 0.50−0.59, FLW 0.50−0.56, SI1 1.02−1.08, SI2 0.77−0.80, ESLI 0.50−0.55.

Holotype worker. Head longer than broad, with very feebly convex sides, nearly straight posterior margin and broadly rounded posterior corners. Anterior clypeal margin very feebly convex, notched medially. Frontal carinae curved, merging with the rugae that extend to the posterior third dorsum of head. Frons wide, frontal lobes not extended, but raised vertically (i.e. perpendicular to the surface of the head). Antennal scape relatively long (SI2 1.21), longer than head width, gradually though distinctly curved at the base, without any trace of lobe or carina.

Mesosoma relatively short (compared to related species), promesonotal dorsum in profile view finely convex, promesonotal suture in dorsal view indistinct; mesonotum abruptly curved down to propodeum to form distinct, deep and wide metanotal groove. Propodeal lobes projecting to form short and blunt triangle. Propodeal spines relatively long, widened at the base, directly backward and downward. Petiole relatively long and narrow, with strongly concave of anterior surface, dorsum of node feebly convex, with distinct dorsal plate; postpetiole as shown in figures, slightly shorter than high.

Head with fine, almost straight, posteriorly diverging longitudinal rugae on the whole dorsum, eight rugae between frontal carinae level with the eyes. Posterior part and sides of the head without reticulations, spaces between rugae densely punctate, PageBreakdull. Clypeus with longitudinal rugae, surface between rugae shiny. Frontal triangle smooth and shiny.

Dorsum of mesosoma with coarse reticulation, lateral sides with coarse sinuous longitudinal rugae. Lower part of mesopleuron and sides of propodeum with coarse longitudinal rugae. In dorsal view, dorsum of propodeal behind the metanotal groove with a distinct U-shaped coarse rugae (seen in Fig. 25). Petiole and postpetiole at most with very fine sculptures or short irregular rugae and dense, though not coarse, punctures and dull.

Head posterior margin with long suberect hairs; mesosoma dorsum with longer hairs, petiole with 6−8 long hairs. Antennal scape with suberect hairs. Tibiae with subdecumbent hairs. Head, gaster and petiole and postpetiole brownish-red, dorsum of head with some dark patches. Mesosoma black to blackish-brown.

Paratype workers. As holotype, but in one individual, petiole only with 4 long hairs.

Queens and males. Unknown.

This species nests under litter layer and soil layer in the broadleaf forests, at elevation 1202m.

The specific epithet is the last name of a famous Chinese artist in the Tang Dynasty, Yanxun Ou.

This species belongs to the -complex of the species group that includes , , , . The workers of this species complex seems to be intermediate between the -complex and boltoni-complex, but differs from the latter two by head dorsum and mesosoma rugose, petiole and postpetiole finely striated and punctuated, space of head dorsum between rugae punctuated. In terms of geography, sp. n. and may be occupying similar niches, but former differs from the latter by mesonotum abruptly curving down to the propodeum to form a distinct, deep and wide metanotal groove; in dorsal view, the dorsum of propodeum behind the metanotal groove bears a distinct U−shaped coarse ruga; first gastral tergite with clear superficial hexagonal microsculpture; body large (HW=1.38), dorsum of head with some dark patches. Given these obvious morphological differences, we are certain that sp. n. is not a variety of but an independent science species.

http://zoobank.org/256A0E94-3A7C-4528-B4AE-2DBA33986625

Figures 26–28

Figures 26–28.

sp. n. worker (No. G120127). 26 body in profile view 27 head in full-face view 28 body in dorsal view.

Holotype worker. Huangbaiyuan, Shaanxi Prov., China, 34°10'36"N, 107°11'03"E, 1567m. 1.vi.2012, leg. Chaotai Wei, No. G120127. Paratypes. 5 workers, data as holotype.

Holotype worker. HL 1.62, HW 1.42, FW 0.55, FLW 0.58, SL 1.67, PW 1.05, ML 2.25, PL 0.63, PH 0.43, ESL 0.75, CI 1.14, FI 0.39, FLI 1.05, SI1 1.03, SI2 1.18, ESLI 0.53. Paratype workers (n = 5). HL 1.60−1.67, HW 1.33−1.41, FW 0.54−0.56, FLW 0.57−0.60, SL 1.56−1.64, PW 1.00−1.11, PageBreakML 2.19−2.23, PL 0.59−0.64, PH 0.40−0.44, ESL 0.70−0.77, CI 1.13−1.17, FI 0.38−0.41, FLI 1.02−1.08, SI1 1.00−1.04, SI2 1.17−1.20, ESLI 0.51−0.54.

Holotype worker. Head longer than broad, with very feebly convex sides, nearly straight posterior margin and broadly rounded posterior corners. Anterior clypeal margin very feebly convex, notched medially. Frontal carinae very feebly curved, merging with the rugae that extend to the posterior third dorsum of head. Frons wide, frontal lobes not extended, but raised vertically (i.e. perpendicular to the surface of the head). Antennal scape relatively long (SI2 = 1.18), longer than head width, gradually though distinctly curved at the base, without any trace of lobe or carina.

Promesonotal dorsum in profile view convex, promesonotal suture in dorsal view indistinct; mesonotum abruptly curved down to propodeum to form distinct, deep and wide metanotal groove. Propodeal lobes projecting to form short blunt triangle. Propodeal spines relatively long, widened at the base, directly backward and slightly downward. Petiole relatively short and wide, with anterior surface strongly concave, dorsum of node feebly convex; postpetiole somewhat shorter than high (Fig. 26).

Head with fine, almost straight, posteriorly diverging longitudinal rugae on the whole dorsum extending back to posterior margin, eight rugae between frontal carinae PageBreaklevel with the eyes. Posterior part of the head with reticulations, space between rugae finely superficially micro−punctate. Clypeus with longitudinal rugae, space between them shiny. Frontal triangle smooth and shiny.

Dorsum of mesosoma with coarse reticulation, lateral sides with coarse sinuous longitudinal rugae. Petiole with coarse, short, sinuous longitudinal rugae, postpetiole with less coarse longitudinal, slightly sinuous rugae. Space on body between rugae smooth and shiny.

Posterior margin of head with up to two long suberect hairs; mesosoma dorsum with longer hairs, petiole with 1−6 long hairs. Antennal scape with suberect hairs. Tibiae with subdecumbent hairs. Head, gaster and petiole and postpetiole brownish-red, mesosoma black to blackish-brown.

Paratype workers. As holotype.

Queens and males. Unknown.

This species nests inside decayed wood in the broadleaf and coniferous forests, at elevation 1667m.

The specific epithet is the last name of a famous Chinese artist in the Eastern Jin Dynasty, Xizhi Wang.

sp. n. belongs to the -complex of the species group. This species group includes 5 species: , sp. n., , , . So far, only two species ( and sp. n.) of the species group were found from Shaanxi Province, which is the highest latitude distribution areas of this species group in the Old world. We investigated the two paratypes workers of Radchenko, Zhou & Elmes found that two species are very similar to each other, but sp. n. differs from the by the nearly straight posterior margin and broadly rounded posterior corners, frontal carinae extend back to posterior margin, posterior part of the head without reticulation; only posterior margins with 0−2 long suberect hairs; propodeal lobes projecting to form short and blunt triangle; petiole with coarse, short, sinuous longitudinal rugae, petiole and postpetiole with fewer punctures, appears shiny. On the other hand, This species is also similar to sp. n., but differs from the latter by the surface between rugae on the head with fewer punctures and appearing shiny. In dorsal view, dorsum of propodeum behind the metanotal groove with irregular coarse rugae. Petiole and postpetiole with coarse, short, sinuous longitudinal rugae, with fewer punctures, appearing shiny. We considered that these morphological differences is very obvious, which could be easily aparted from the other species of the genus .

http://zoobank.org/1B9C924D-1F59-43E5-8D4A-609E2A46481E

Figures 29–34

Figures 29–34.

sp. n. 29−31 Worker (G020318) 32−34 Queen (G020318). 29, 32 body in profile view 30, 33 head in full-face view 31, 34 body in dorsal view.

Holotype worker. Fanjingshan Nature Reserve, Guizhou Prov., China, 27°54'26" N, 108°38'44"E, 1667m. 30.v.2002, leg. Shanyi Zhou, No. G020318. Paratypes. 3 workers and 1 queen, data as holotype.

Holotype worker (Figs 29–31). HL 1.53, HW 1.18, FW 0.53, FLW 0.55, SL 1.50, PW 0.85, ML 2.08, PL 0.55, PH 0.25, ESL 0.33, CI 1.30, FI 0.45, FLI 1.04, SI1 0.98, SI2 1.27, ESLI 0.28. Paratype workers (n = 15). HL 1.48−1.52, HW 1.17−1.23, FW 0.52−0.54, FLW 0.53−0.57, SL 1.38−1.43, PW 0.81−1.86, ML 2.11−2.14, PL 0.53−0.59, PH 0.21−0.27, ESL 0.30−0.37, CI 1.28−1.31, FI 0.43−0.46, FLI 1.02−1.06, SI1 0.98−1.03, SI2 1.25−1.27, ESLI 0.27−0.29. Paratype Queen (Figs 32–34). HL 1.63, HW 1.33, FW 0.60, FLW 0.63, SL 1.50, PW 1.13, ML 2.50, PL 0.68, PH 0.53, ESL 0.25, CI 1.26, FI 0.45, FLI 1.05, SI1 0.92, SI2 1.27, ESLI 0.19.

Holotype worker. Head longer than broad, with weakly convex sides and posterior margin, and narrowly rounded posterior corners; anterior clypeal margin narrowly rounded, not notched medially. Frontal carinae very feebly curved, merging with the rugae that extend to the posterior half dorsum of head. Frons wide, frontal lobes not extended. Antennal scape relatively long (SI2 1.27), gradually curved at the base, without any trace of lobe or carina.

Promesonotum in profile view slightly convex, promesonotal suture in dorsal view indistinct. Metanotal groove distinct, deep and abrupt. Propodeal lobes rounded. Propodeal spines quite short, straight, thin, acute, directly backward at an angle of about 30º. Petiole with distinct, but short peduncle, anterior surface slightly convex, meeting the dorsal one to form a blunt, narrowly rounded angle, dorsal surface short, gradually sloping posteriorly, without dorsal plate. Postpetiole subglobular, anterior and dorsal surfaces forming a feeble arch. Spurs of middle and hind tibiae well-developed and pectinate. Frons with dense, fine, slightly sinuous longitudinal rugae, number of rugae between frontal carinae level with the eyes is >20; posterior third dorsum of head densely punctate; posterior part of the head densely micropunctate and dull. Clypeus almost smooth, at most with some fine longitudinal rugae, space between rugae shiny. Frontal triangle smooth and shiny.

Mesosoma with fine transverse rugae in the whole of dorsum, space between rugae with micropunctures and dull. Posterior of petiole with fine short rugae, the rest of petiole and postpetiole densely punctate, appearing dull.

Head with abundant long hairs at margins, genae with a few long hairs; dorsum of mesosoma with long hairs; petiole with 4−6 long hairs and a few short hairs. Antennal scape and tibiae with subdecumbent hairs. Body colored yellowish brown, appendages somewhat lighter.

Paratype workers. With similar morphological characters as holotype, but in one individual, dorsum of mesonotum and front part of pronotum of transverse rugae is abscure.

Paratype queen. Queen generally similar to workers by the shape and sculptures of head (except posterior dorsum of head with fine transverse rugae), frontal lobes, propodeal spines and petiole and postpetiole. Anterior half of scutum with sinuous longitudinal rugae and reticulation; scutum with coarse longitudinal rugae, scutellum concentrically rugulose, propodeal dorsum with transverse rugae; lateral of mesosoma PageBreakwith slightly less coarse longitudinal rugae. Petiolar node and postpetiole with some irregular rugae, space between rugae densely punctate, appearing dull.

Males. Unknown.

This species nests inside decayed wood in the broadleaf and coniferous forests, at elevation 1667m.

The specific epithet is the last name of a famous Chinese artist in the Tang Dynasty, Zhenqing Yan.

sp. n. is a remarkable new species, belonging to the group. So far, only three species (, and ) are recorded from the Himalayas which possess the key character of the whole mesosoma of dorsum bearing transverse rugae. sp. n. differs from the and by having a distinctly elongated head, with narrowly rounded posterior corners; posterior third of head dorsally without longitudinal rugae and reticulation, but densely punctate; petiole with distinct, short peduncle, its anterior surface slightly convex, meeting the dorsal one to form a blunt, narrowly rounded angle; dorsal surface short, gradually sloping posteriorly; body colored yellowish brown. It differs from by the distinctly elongated head, with narrowly rounded posterior corners; posterior third of head dorsally without longitudinal rugae, but densely punctate; propleuron with densely micropunctures and dull; dorsum of propodeum with fine transverse rugae; anterior surface of petiole slightly convex, meeting the dorsal one to form a blunt, narrowly rounded angle.

Key to species found in China based on the worker caste

*The key is modified from Radchenko and Elmes (2010). Any doubtful species are excluded here; is also excluded from the key because the worker caste is not well-known.

1	Lateral portion of clypeus raised into a sharp ridge in front of the antennal insertions, so that the antennal sockets are distinctly separated from the clypeal surface (similar to that of Tetramorium) (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: fig. 80, A)	2
−	Lateral portion of clypeus not raised into a sharp ridge in front of the antennal insertions, so that the antennal sockets lay on the same level with the clypeal surface (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: fig. 134, A)	3
2	Antennal scape at the bend having the same width as at its mid−length; the base of the scape having a longitudinal groove and lateral ridges (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 80, A–E)	Myrmica excelsa Kupyanskaya
−	Antennal scape at the bend distinctly narrower than at its mid−length; the base of the scape without longitudinal groove and lateral ridges (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 290, A–E)	Myrmica transsibirica Radchenko
3	Frontal carinae curved outward to merge with the rugae that surround the antennal socket (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 161, A; 213, A). Antennal scape very smoothly curved at the base, not angled and without any trace of lobe or carina (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 161, B; 213, B)	4
−	Frontal carinae merging with the rugae that extend to the posterior margin, not curved outward to merge with the rugae that surround the antennal socket (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: fig. 134, A). Antennal scape strongly curved or gradually curved at the base, with or without a lobe, ridge or carina (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: fig. 5, B; 22, B; 66, B; 123, B; 128, B; 134, B–E; 195, B; 239, B–C; 273, B–C; 325, B–C)	18
4	First gastral tergite finely but distinctly longitudinally striated. Spurs on tibiae of the middle and the hind legs reduced, simple (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 161, A–E)	Myrmica luteola Kupyanskaya
–	First gastral tergite smooth and shiny. Spurs on tibiae of the middle and the hind legs well-developed and pectinate	5
5	Mesonotal dorsum partly with transverse rugae (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 250, C–D; 324, C–D)	6
−	Mesonotal dorsum with various sculpture, but never with transverse rugae (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 58, C–D; 211, C–D)	11
6	Lateral margins of head either without pilosity or with short (≤0.03mm) decumbent hairs; if any long erect to suberect hairs present, then restricted to the posterior margin and genae (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 201, A; 250, A; 277, A)	7
−	Lateral and posterior margins of head with numerous long (≥0.07mm) erect to suberect hairs (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 198, A; 314, A; 324, A)	9
7	Propodeal spines long, ESLI > 0.45, sides of pronotum with longitudinal rugae (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 277, A–E)	Myrmica taibaiensis Wei, Zhou & Liu
−	Propodeal spines shorter, ESLI < 0.41, sides of pronotum finely and densely punctate	8
8	Basal third of the first gastral tergite with superficial hexagonal fine sculpture. Posterior margin without any erect to suberect long hairs; dorsum of petiolar node with a distinct broad dorsal plate (figs 17–19).	Myrmica huaii sp. n.
−	First gastral tergite smooth and shiny; posterior margin with abundant short erect to suberect long hairs; dorsum of node quite narrowly rounded (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 290, A–E)	Myrmica schulzi Radchenko & Elmes
9	Head distinctly elongate, CI >1.20, suboval, with barely marked posterior corners (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 102, A–E)	Myrmica heterorhytida Radchenko & Elmes
−	Head slightly longer than broad, CI <1.15, nearly square, with distinctly marked posterior corners (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: fig. 198, A).	10
10	Anterior surface of the petiole almost straight, dorsum of node broadly rounded. Mesonotal and propodeal dorsum with finer transverse rugae, number of rugae on this area >25, number of rugae between frontal carinae level the eyes >30. Gaster with very fine superficial microsculpture (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 198, A–E)	Myrmica pleiorhytida Radchenko & Elmes
−	Anterior surface of the petiole concave, dorsum of node with a distinct dorsal plate, slightly convex, posterior surface steep. Only mesonotal dorsum with fine transverse rugae, number of rugae on this area < 20, number of rugae between frontal carinae level the eyes ≤ 20. Gaster smooth and shiny (Figs 8–13)	Myrmica dongi sp. n.
11	One of the largest known Myrmica species, HW >1.60, AL >2.50. Very hairy, number of standing hairs on petiolar node > 20 (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 167, A–E)	Myrmica mirabilis Elmes & Radchenko
−	Smaller species, HW < 1.25, AL < 2.30 mm. Less hairy, number of standing hairs on petiolar node < 15 (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 58, C–D).	12
12	Masticatory margin of the mandible with 11−13 teeth (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 58, A–E)	Myrmica curiosa Radchenko & Elmes
−	Masticatory margin of the mandible with ≤ 9 teeth	13
13	Petiolar node with rounded dorsum, completely without a dorsal plate, node of the petiole and the postpetiole smooth, at most very finely striated. Pronotal dorsum with sinuous longitudinal rugae, never with coarse reticulation (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 213, C–D)	14
−	Petiolar node with a dorsal plate developed to various extents (except for Myrmica arisana), node of the petiole and the postpetiole with coarse sculpture and rugae; pronotal dorsum with coarse reticulation (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 25, C–D; 137, C–D; 218, C–D)	16
14	Petiole and postpetiole almost smooth, with few punctures (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 213, A–E)	Myrmica rubra (Linnaeus)
−	Petiole and postpetiole with rugae or dense punctures	15
15	Antennal scape longer (SI2 > 0.93), with more abundant suberect hairs (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 31, A–E)	Myrmica bactriana Ruzsky
−	Antennal scape shorter (SI2 < 0.91), with less abundant subdecumbent hairs (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 229, A–E)	Myrmica ruzskyana Radchenko & Elmes
16	Petiolar node with rounded dorsum, completely without a dorsal plate, node of petiole smooth, at most very finely striated (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 25, A–E)	Myrmica arisana Wheeler
−	Petiolar node with a dorsal plate, node of petiole with quite coarse striated	17
17	Petiolar node with a distinct, sharply flattened dorsal plate, and having quite coarse, short sinuous longitudinal rugae on the lateral parts (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 218, A–E)	Myrmica ruginodis Nylander
−	Dorsum of the petiolar node slightly convex, dorsal plate not sharply flattened, lateral surfaces with finer short longitudinal rugae (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 137, A–E)	Myrmica kotokui Forel
18	Dorsum of the mesosoma entirely or partially with transverse rugae (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 186, C–D; 324, C–D)	19
−	Dorsum of the mesosoma with various sculptures, but never with transverse rugae (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 270, C–D; 303, C–D)	27
19	Dorsum of the mesosoma entirely with fine transverse rugae (figs 29–34)	Myrmica yani sp. n.
−	Dorsum of the mesosoma partially with transverse rugae	20
20	Lateral and posterior margins of the head with numerous long erect to suberect hairs	21
−	Lateral margins of the head either without pilosity or with short decumbent hairs; if any long erect to suberect hairs present, then restricted to the posterior margin and genae	24
21	Mesonotal and propodeal dorsum with finer transverse rugae, number of rugae on this area ≥ 25 (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 324, A–E)	Myrmica yunnanensis Radchenko & Elmes
−	Mesonotal and propodeal dorsum with relatively coarser transverse rugae, number of rugae on this area ≤ 20	22
22	Head slightly longer than broad, CI < 1.15, nearly square, with distinctly marked posterior corners. Petiole with a stronger triangular ventral process (figs 20–22)	Myrmica mifui sp. n.
−	Head distinctly elongate, CI > 1.20, suboval, with barely marked posterior corners. Petiole ventral process normal	23
23	Petiole low, PI1 1.68, its node with elongate flattened dorsum. Body color reddish brown (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 314, A–E)	Myrmica weii Radchenko & Zhou
−	Petiole higher, PI1 < 1.55, its node with a short, slightly convex, gradually sloping posteriorly dorsum. Body color blackish brown (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 169, A–E)	Myrmica multiplex Radchenko & Elmes
24	Basal third of first gastral tergite densely punctate and longitudinally ruguloso−striated; this Basal third of first gastral tergite densely punctate and longitudinally rugulose-striate; this sculpture gradually petering out posteriorly, the rest of the surface of first tergite with well visible superficial hexagonal microsculpture (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 250, A–E)	Myrmica sculptiventris Radchenko & Elmes
−	Whole surface of first gastral tergite smooth	25
25	Head dorsum posterior to the eyes with reticulation, rest of head dorsum with longitudinal rugosity (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 201, A–E)	Myrmica polyglypta Radchenko & Rigato
−	Head dorsum posterior to the eyes with longitudinal rugosity; reticulation, if present, restricted to temples and/or posterior part of occiput	26
26	Rugosity on the head dorsum partly reduced. Frons level with the eyes with < 15 fine, slightly sinuous longitudinal rugae, only some of them running unbroken to the posterior margin. Propodeal dorsum with transverse rugosity. Scape longer than head width (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 193, A–E)	Myrmica phalacra Radchenko & Elmes
−	Rugosity on the head dorsum not reduced. The frons level with the eyes with > 20 longitudinal rugae that run unbroken to the posterior margin; surface between rugae very finely superficially punctate but appearing more or less shiny. Propodeal dorsum with short, slightly sinuous longitudinal rugae. Scape shorter than head width (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 106, A–E)	Myrmica hlavaci Radchenko & Elmes
27	Antennal scape strongly angled at the base, with horizontal lobe, or a vertical lobe (that can be inclined anteriorly), or denticles	28
−	Antennal scape gradually curved or angled at the base, never with a vertical, or inclined lobe, or denticles	37
28	Antennal scape strongly angled at the base, with horizontal lobe	29
−	Antennal scape strongly angled at the base, with a vertical lobe (that can be inclined anteriorly), or with denticles	31
29	Hairy species, petiole with more than 10 (usually with 12−20) long, thin and often curved hairs. Dorsum of the mesosoma entirely with longitudinal, slightly sinuous rugae, without reticulation; dorsum of the postpetiole with partly reduced sculptures. Anterior clypeal margin shallowly but distinctly notched medially. Spurs on the middle and the hind tibiae at least partly reduced and usually not pectinate (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 303, A–E).	Myrmica vandeli Bondroit
−	Less hairy species, petiole with less than 10 (usually not more than 8) long, straight, thick hairs. Dorsum of the mesosoma with strong sinuous longitudinal rugae and often with reticulation; dorsum of the postpetiole with coarse sculptures. Anterior clypeal margin not notched medially. Spurs on the middle and the hind tibiae as a rule well-developed and pectinate.	30
30	Frontal lobes less expanded, mean FLI 1.31. Antennal scape at the base with narrow horizontal ridge or at most with very small carina. Propodeal spines short (mean ESLI 0.31), not widened at the base, thin, often needle−like; metanotal groove weak or completely absent; petiolar node without dorsal plate, usually rounded, with posterior surface gradually declines to the postpetiole; sides of mesosoma with relatively coarse, regular, almost straight longitudinal rugae. Body color rather dark, brownish-red. Tibiae and tarsi with short subdecumbent hairs (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 270, A–E)	Myrmica stangeana Ruzsky
−	Frontal lobes more expanded, mean FLI > 1.40. Antennal scape at the base with more developed, but never massive, horizontal carina or lobe. Propodeal spines longer (means ESLI > 0.35), usually widened at the base (more thorn-like), never needle-like; metanotal groove well-developed, often deep; petiolar node with various shape; sides of mesosoma with less coarse sinuous longitudinal rugae. Body color lighter, usually ochreous or yellowish-red. Tibiae and tarsi with various hairs (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 324, A–E)	Myrmica scabrinodis Nylander
31	Propodeal spines thick and blunt, directed backward and upwards, and strongly curved inward; petiole with very short peduncle, anterior surface steep, meeting the dorsal one through an acute angle, so that the petiolar node appearing sharply angled in profile (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 86, A–E)	Myrmica forcipata Karawajew (new Chinese record)
−	Propodeal spines thin and sharp apically, not curved inward; petiole with various shapes (seen in profile), but if sharply angled, then the minimum distance between the frontal carina narrower (FI < 0.32 vs > 0.35 in Myrmica forcipata)	32
32	Lobe of the antennal scape forming shield−like dorsal plate along the basal surface of the scape	33
−	Lobe of the antennal scape not forming shield−like dorsal plate along the basal surface of the scape	36
33	Dorsum of head with sinuous longitudinal rugae, never with reticulation. Petiolar node and postpetiole densely punctuated (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 258, A–E)	Myrmica sinoschencki Radchenko & Elmes
−	Dorsum of head with reticulation at the posterior part. Petiolar node and postpetiole finely superficially punctate	34
34	Frontal carinae strongly curved, minimum distance between the frontal carinae narrower, FI < 0.26. Metanotal groove deep (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 242, A–E).	Myrmica schencki Viereck
−	Frontal carinae less curved, minimum distance between the frontal carinae wider, FI > 0.29. Metanotal groove shallow	35
35	Mesosoma with almost straight longitudinal rugae. Frontal lobes less extended, FLI 1.36−1.52, mean 1.41. Propodeal spines short, ESLI 0.18−0.30, mean 0.24. Body color usually dark reddish brown (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 60, A–E)	Myrmica deplanata Emery
−	Mesosoma with sinuous longitudinal rugae or reticulation. Frontal lobes more extended, FLI 1.50−1.67, mean 1.60. Propodeal spines longer, ESLI 0.27−0.34, mean 0.31. Mesosoma yellowish−brown, head reddish brown, gaster dark brown (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 134, A–E)	Myrmica koreana Elmes, Radchenko & Kim
36	Antennal scape with small denticles or an even ridge at the base. Petiole in profile with an almost straight, steep anterior face, node with a posteriorly-inclined dorsal plate, appearing subtriangular (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 236, A–E).	Myrmica saposhnikovi Ruzsky
−	Antennal scape with small but distinct lobe at the base. Petiole in profile with concave anterior face, node with a flattened or somewhat convex dorsal plate (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 75, A–E)	Myrmica eidmanni Menozzi
37	Propodeal spines long, ESLI > 0.45. Propodeal lobes pointed or blunt apically, but never rounded	38
−	Propodeal spines shorter, ESLI < 0.40. Propodeal lobes rounded apically	48
38	Surface between rugae on the head and the dorsal surface of the petiole and postpetiole shiny and smooth or at most very superficially micropunctate; head, mesosoma, petiole and postpetiole usually with similar coarse rugae	39
−	Surface between rugae on the petiole and postpetiole dull, always distinctly and often coarsely punctate; surface of head usually with similar punctures (except for Myrmica angulata), rugae on dorsum of the head often noticeably finer than that on the mesosoma	44
39	Dorsum of head entirely with almost straight, subparallel rugae, completely lacking reticulation, more than 6 rugae between frontal carinae level with the eyes	40
−	Dorsum of head with distinctly sinuous rugae and reticulation, if reticulation not developed, less than 6 rugae between frontal carinae level with the eyes.	41
40	Seen at magnification x l00, fine sculpture on surface of the head completely invisible. Pronotum with longitudinal rugae. Head yellow, strongly contrasting with the darker mesosoma (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 211, A–E).	Myrmica ritae Emery
−	Seen at magnification × 100, surface of head weakly micropunctate. Pronotum coarsely reticulate. Head brownish red, not strongly contrasting with mesosoma (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 189, A–E)	Myrmica pararitae Radchenko & Elmes
41	Posterior dorsal surface of the head (from above in the level of the eyes) with coarse reticulations	42
−	Posterior dorsal surface of the head with sinuous rugae; coarse reticulations, if present, then also restricted to the posterior part	43
42	Frons between frontal carinae level with the eyes with only 4 coarse rugae. Petiolar node, postpetiole, and sides of mesosoma with coarse reticulation (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 257, A–E)	Myrmica sinensis Radchenko, Zhou & Elmes
−	Frons between frontal carinae level with the eyes with ≥ 6 coarse rugae. Petiolar node, postpetiole and sides of mesosoma with coarse rugae (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 301, A–E)	Myrmica urbanii Radchenko & Elmes
43	Frons between frontal carinae level with the eyes with 4 very coarse rugae (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 202, A–E)	Myrmica pulchella Santschi
−	Frons between frontal carinae level with the eyes with ≥ 6 fine rugae (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 251, A–E)	Myrmica serica Wheeler
44	Petiole and postpetiole with fine sculptures, distinctly contrasting with much coarser sculptures on the mesosoma	45
−	Petiole and postpetiole with coarser sculptures, similar to those on the mesosoma	46
45	Frontal carina extending back to behind the eyes, posterior part of the head with reticulation; posterior and lateral margins of head with long hairs; propodeal lobes projecting apically, forming long and pointed triangles; petiole and postpetiole dull, with dense punctures (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 69, A–E)	Myrmica draco Radchenko, Zhou & Elmes
−	Frontal carina extending back to the posterior margin of the head, occiput without reticulation; only posterior margins of head with 0−2 long suberect hairs; propodeal lobes projecting apically, forming short and blunt triangles; petiole and postpetiole shiny, with fewer punctures (figs 26–28)	Myrmica wangi sp. n.
46	Dorsum of propodeum behind the metanotal groove with a distinct U−shaped coarse rugae; first gastral tergite with clear superficial hexagonal microsculpture (figs 23–25)	Myrmica oui sp. n.
−	Dorsum of propodeum behind the metanotal groove without an U−shaped coarse rugae; Gaster smooth and shiny	47
47	Dorsal surface of the head between rugae not punctate (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 20, A–E).	Myrmica angulata Radchenko, Zhou & Elmes
−	Dorsal surface of the head between rugae dull and punctate (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 200, A–E)	Myrmica poldii Radchenko & Rigato
48	Antennal scape distinctly angled at the base. Propodeal spines directed backward and upwards, and distinctly curved inward. Anterior surface of petiole steep, meeting the dorsal one through a sharp acute angle, dorsal plate flat, well-developed, strongly inclined backward (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 22, A–E)	Myrmica angulinodis Ruzsky
−	Antennal scape gradually curved at the base or at most very slightly angled. Propodeal spines not curved inward. Anterior surface of petiole meeting the dorsal one at most through a slightly rounded or obtuse angle, never sharp acute angle	49
49	Antennal scape always with ridge on the inner margin at the base	50
−	Antennal scape at most very slightly angled at the base, usually without a ridge on the inner margin	51
50	Sides of petiolar node with coarse rugae very similar to those on the mesosoma. Metanotal groove distinct, often deep. Petiole with short peduncle, anterior surface almost straight, meeting the dorsal one through a right or somewhat obtuse angle; dorsal plate well-developed, flattened, not inclined posteriorly (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 273, A–E)	Myrmica sulcinodis Nylander
−	Sides of petiolar node with punctures and short rugae less coarse than those on the mesosoma. Metanotal groove very weak or absent. Anterior surface of petiole concave, meeting the dorsal one through a rounded angle, dorsum of node somewhat convex and steeply sloping backward (figs 14–16)	Myrmica liui sp. n.
51	Smaller species: HW < 1.00, AL < 1.60. Frontal carinae strongly curved at their anterior third, frontal lobes strongly extended, wide and nearly square, FLI > 1.20 (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 284, A–E)	Myrmica tibetana Mayr
−	Bigger species: HW > 1.15, AL > 1.90. Frontal carinae feebly curved along the whole length, frontal lobes not extended, relatively narrow, FLI < 1.15	52
52	Dorsum of head with very dense, but not coarse longitudinal rugae and reticulation, surface between rugae dull and densely punctate (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 145, A–E)	Myrmica kurokii Forel
−	Dorsum of head with not so dense rugae, never with reticulation, surface between rugae somewhat shiny and more sparsely punctuated (Radchenko and Elmes 2010: figs 143, A–E).	Myrmica kozlovi Ruzsky

1	Basal third of first gastral tergite densely punctated and longitudinally ruguloso-striated	Myrmica sculptiventris Radchenko & Elmes
−	Whole surface of first gastral tergite smooth	2
2	Whole mesosoma dorsum with straight transversal rugae	3
−	Only part of mesosoma dorsum with straight transversal rugae	5
3	Head distinctly elongate, suboval, with narrowly rounded posterior corners; posterior third of head dorsally without longitudinal rugae and reticulation, but densely punctuate	Myrmica yani sp. n.
−	Head slightly longer than broad, subsquare, with distinctly marked posterior corners; whole head dorsally with longitudinal rugae	4
4	Lateral and posterior margins of the head with long numerous suberect to erect hairs. Colour lighter, head dorsum dark reddish brown, mesosoma and gaster brownish red	Myrmica villosa Radchenko & Elmes
−	Lateral margins of head with short decumbent hairs, long suberect hairs present only on the posterior margin and genae. Colour darker, whole body dark reddish brown	Myrmica pachei Forel
5	Lateral and posterior margins of head with long numerous suberect to erect hairs	6
−	Lateral margins of head either glabrous or with short decumbent hairs; if long erect to suberect hairs occur, they are restricted to the posterior margin and genae	12
6	Head slightly longer than broad (CI < 1.15), subsquare, with distinctly marked posterior corners	7
−	Head distinctly elongate (CI > 1.20), suboval, with barely marked posterior corners	9
7	Number of rugae between frontal carinae level with the eyes >30; mesonotal and propodeal dorsum with > 35 fine transverse rugae	Myrmica pleiorhytida Radchenko & Elmes
−	Number of rugae between frontal carinae level with the eyes ≤ 25; mesonotal and propodeal dorsum fine transverse rugae < 20.	8
8	Petiole with a stronger triangular ventral process; propleuron with rugose; mesonotal and propodeal dorsum with about 20 moderately coarse transverse sinuous rugae	Myrmica dongi sp. n.
−	Petiole with a normal triangular ventral process; propleuron only with densely punctuated; mesonotal and propodeal dorsum with 8−10 coarse sinuous transverse rugae	Myrmica mifui sp. n.
9	Mesonotal and propodeal dorsum with ≤20 coarser transverse rugae	10
−	Mesonotal and propodeal dorsum with ≥ 25 finer transverse rugae	11
10	Petiole low, PI1 1.68, its node with elongate flattened dorsum	Myrmica weii Radchenko & Zhou
−	Petiole higher, PI1 < 1.55, its node with short, slightly convex, gradually sloping posteriorly dorsal surface	Myrmica multiplex Radchenko & Elmes
11	Frontal carinae merge with the rugae that extend back to the posterior head margin. Surface of head dorsum between rugae appears shiny	Myrmica yunnanensis Radchenko & Elmes
−	Frontal curved outwards to merge with the rugae that surround antennal sockets. Surface of the head dorsum between rugae appears dull, coarsely and densely punctuated	Myrmica heterorhytida Radchenko & Elmes
12	Propodeal spines long (ESLI > 0.45), massive, widened at the base and often downcurved on their distal third	Myrmica taibaiensis Wei, Zhou & Liu
−	Propodeal spine shorter (ESLI < 0.40), slender and straight	13
13	Head dorsum densely punctate, dull	14
−	Head dorsum not punctate, shiny	17
14	Head distinctly elongate (CI > 1.20), suboval, with barely marked posterior corners; dorsum of head posterior to eyes with reticulation, rest of head dorsum with longitudinal rugosity	Myrmica polyglypta Radchenko & Rigato
−	Head slightly longer than broad (CI < 1.15), subsquare, with distinctly marked posterior corners; only occiput and temples with fine reticulation	15
15	Basal third of first gastral tergite with fine superficial hexagonal sculpture; posterior margin without any erect to suberect long hairs; dorsum of petiolar node with a distinct broad dorsal plate	Myrmica huaii sp. n.
−	Whole gastral tergite smooth and shiny; posterior margin with erect to suberect long hairs; dorsum of petiolar node without a distinct broad dorsal plate	16
16	Lateral margins of head posterior to eyes with abundant short decumbent hairs; Mesonotal and propodeal dorsum with > 25 moderately thin (not coarse) transverse sinuous rugae; Petiole with relatively short but distinct peduncle, its anterior surface concave, dorsum of node quite narrowly rounded	Myrmica schulzi Radchenko & Elmes
−	Lateral margins of head posterior to the eyes without short decumbent hairs; Mesonotal and propodeal dorsum with < 20 quite coarse transverse sinuous rugae; petiole low, with distinct peduncle, its anterior surface concave, dorsum of node widely rounded.	Myrmica phalacra Radchenko & Elmes
17	Propodeal dorsum with fine longitudinal striations	Myrmica elmesi Bharti & Sharma
−	Propodeal dorsum with transverse rugae.	18
18	Propodeal dorsum with transverse rugosity, mesonotal dorsum with short, broken irregular rugae and reticulation	Myrmica varisculpta Radchenko & Rigato
−	Propodeal dorsum with sinuous longitudinal rugae, mesonotal dorsum with transverse rugosity.	Myrmica hlavaci Radchenko & Elmes