taxonID	type	format	identifier	references	title	description	created	creator	contributor	publisher	audience	source	license	rightsHolder	datasetID
F52B87F65E316149FF74D870FA0D1DD9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582236/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582236	Figs.5-13: (5-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (6-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral.(7-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., gyne, head; note the more trapezoid headshape.(8-aqui) Formica aquilonia, gyne, head; note the more rounded head shape.(9-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, head; note the more reticulate microsculpture of central vertex compared with Formica lugubris (Figs.14, 15), producing a matt surface appearance.(10-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, lateral aspect. (11-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, P morph, lateral; almost no setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (12-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, N morph, lateral; many setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (13-kupy) Formica kupyanskayae, gyne, head.	Figs.5-13: (5-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (6-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral.(7-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., gyne, head; note the more trapezoid headshape.(8-aqui) Formica aquilonia, gyne, head; note the more rounded head shape.(9-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, head; note the more reticulate microsculpture of central vertex compared with Formica lugubris (Figs.14, 15), producing a matt surface appearance.(10-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, lateral aspect. (11-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, P morph, lateral; almost no setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (12-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, N morph, lateral; many setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (13-kupy) Formica kupyanskayae, gyne, head.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E316149FF74D870FA0D1DD9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582239/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582239	Figs.14-20: (14-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, normal morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (15-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, Hippie morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (16-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (17-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral. (18-trun) Formica truncorum, worker, head. (19-trun) Formica truncorum, gyne, head. (20-sine) Formica sinensis, worker, lateral; note the contrast between weak pronotal and strong gular pilosity.	Figs.14-20: (14-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, normal morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (15-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, Hippie morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (16-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (17-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral. (18-trun) Formica truncorum, worker, head. (19-trun) Formica truncorum, gyne, head. (20-sine) Formica sinensis, worker, lateral; note the contrast between weak pronotal and strong gular pilosity.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E256157FC9FDD6EFF751B59.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582222/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582222	Fig. 1: Formica rufa, gyne; paramedian surface of the dorsum of first gaster tergite.	Fig. 1: Formica rufa, gyne; paramedian surface of the dorsum of first gaster tergite.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E256157FC9FDD6EFF751B59.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582253/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582253	Fig.22:Classification bythe exploratorydata analysesNC-Ward (dendrogram shown), NC-part.hclust and NC-part.kmeans and final species hypothesis formed by a controlling linear discriminant function (for details, see Material and Methods). Shown are 169 samples of workers of Formica rufa (red bars), Formica polyctena × rufa and backcrosses (green bars), and F. polyctena (black bars). White bars indicate outliers in NC- part.clust. The mean error of three analyses is 3.7% for K = 2 (presence of hybrids ignored) but 13.2% for K = 3 (presence of hybrids accepted), with 19% of the hybrid samples classified as either parental species. Accordingly, a hypothesis forma- tion based on NC-clustering alone, neglecting any accessory information, would suggest two sufficiently separable species. Twelve phenotypic characters were considered.	Fig.22:Classification bythe exploratorydata analysesNC-Ward (dendrogram shown), NC-part.hclust and NC-part.kmeans and final species hypothesis formed by a controlling linear discriminant function (for details, see Material and Methods). Shown are 169 samples of workers of Formica rufa (red bars), Formica polyctena × rufa and backcrosses (green bars), and F. polyctena (black bars). White bars indicate outliers in NC- part.clust. The mean error of three analyses is 3.7% for K = 2 (presence of hybrids ignored) but 13.2% for K = 3 (presence of hybrids accepted), with 19% of the hybrid samples classified as either parental species. Accordingly, a hypothesis forma- tion based on NC-clustering alone, neglecting any accessory information, would suggest two sufficiently separable species. Twelve phenotypic characters were considered.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E256157FC9FDD6EFF751B59.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582249/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582249	Fig.23: Lineardiscriminant analysis of 169 samples of workers of Formica rufa (white rhombs), Formica polyctena × rufa and backcrosses (black squares), and F.polyctena (white dots) considering 12 morphological characters. The missing gaps between the clusters indicate introgression and preventa clear discrimination of hybrids from parental species. Note that the frequency of hybrids in the analysis is aboutfivefold largerthan expected for random sampling all over Europe.	Fig.23: Lineardiscriminant analysis of 169 samples of workers of Formica rufa (white rhombs), Formica polyctena × rufa and backcrosses (black squares), and F.polyctena (white dots) considering 12 morphological characters. The missing gaps between the clusters indicate introgression and preventa clear discrimination of hybrids from parental species. Note that the frequency of hybrids in the analysis is aboutfivefold largerthan expected for random sampling all over Europe.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E206156FC9FD9AEFF751F39.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582228/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582228	Fig.2: Formica polyctena, gyne; paramedian surface of the dorsum of first gaster tergite. There is some trend to show stronger transverse microripples and a more dilute pubescence than Formica rufa.	Fig.2: Formica polyctena, gyne; paramedian surface of the dorsum of first gaster tergite. There is some trend to show stronger transverse microripples and a more dilute pubescence than Formica rufa.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E216156FF74DD2EFC301E78.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582255/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582255	Fig.24: Position of the type samples of Formica major NY- LANDER, 1849 (MA) and Formica constricta KARAVAJEV, 1929 (CO) in a principal component analysis considering 58 nest samples of Formica polyctena (black squares) and 27 nest samples of Formica aquilonia × polyctena or backcrosses (white dots). The F. polyctena sample deeply placed within the hybrid cluster is aberrant and cannot be a hybrid for zoogeographical reasons. Seven phenotypic characters were considered.	Fig.24: Position of the type samples of Formica major NY- LANDER, 1849 (MA) and Formica constricta KARAVAJEV, 1929 (CO) in a principal component analysis considering 58 nest samples of Formica polyctena (black squares) and 27 nest samples of Formica aquilonia × polyctena or backcrosses (white dots). The F. polyctena sample deeply placed within the hybrid cluster is aberrant and cannot be a hybrid for zoogeographical reasons. Seven phenotypic characters were considered.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E216156FF74DD2EFC301E78.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582257/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582257	Fig.25: Position of the type samples of Formica major NY- LANDER, 1849 (MA) and Formica constricta KARAVAJEV,1929 (CO) in a linear discriminant analysis considering 58 nest samples of Formica polyctena (black squares), 27 nest samples of Formica aquilonia × polyctena or backcrosses (white dots), and 75 nest samples of F. aquilonia (black rhombs). The type samples were run aswild-cards.Sixteen phenotypiccharacters were considered.	Fig.25: Position of the type samples of Formica major NY- LANDER, 1849 (MA) and Formica constricta KARAVAJEV,1929 (CO) in a linear discriminant analysis considering 58 nest samples of Formica polyctena (black squares), 27 nest samples of Formica aquilonia × polyctena or backcrosses (white dots), and 75 nest samples of F. aquilonia (black rhombs). The type samples were run aswild-cards.Sixteen phenotypiccharacters were considered.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E216158FC9FDD0EFE5B1B59.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582257/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582257	Fig.25: Position of the type samples of Formica major NY- LANDER, 1849 (MA) and Formica constricta KARAVAJEV,1929 (CO) in a linear discriminant analysis considering 58 nest samples of Formica polyctena (black squares), 27 nest samples of Formica aquilonia × polyctena or backcrosses (white dots), and 75 nest samples of F. aquilonia (black rhombs). The type samples were run aswild-cards.Sixteen phenotypiccharacters were considered.	Fig.25: Position of the type samples of Formica major NY- LANDER, 1849 (MA) and Formica constricta KARAVAJEV,1929 (CO) in a linear discriminant analysis considering 58 nest samples of Formica polyctena (black squares), 27 nest samples of Formica aquilonia × polyctena or backcrosses (white dots), and 75 nest samples of F. aquilonia (black rhombs). The type samples were run aswild-cards.Sixteen phenotypiccharacters were considered.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E216158FC9FDD0EFE5B1B59.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582255/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582255	Fig.24: Position of the type samples of Formica major NY- LANDER, 1849 (MA) and Formica constricta KARAVAJEV, 1929 (CO) in a principal component analysis considering 58 nest samples of Formica polyctena (black squares) and 27 nest samples of Formica aquilonia × polyctena or backcrosses (white dots). The F. polyctena sample deeply placed within the hybrid cluster is aberrant and cannot be a hybrid for zoogeographical reasons. Seven phenotypic characters were considered.	Fig.24: Position of the type samples of Formica major NY- LANDER, 1849 (MA) and Formica constricta KARAVAJEV, 1929 (CO) in a principal component analysis considering 58 nest samples of Formica polyctena (black squares) and 27 nest samples of Formica aquilonia × polyctena or backcrosses (white dots). The F. polyctena sample deeply placed within the hybrid cluster is aberrant and cannot be a hybrid for zoogeographical reasons. Seven phenotypic characters were considered.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E216158FC9FDD0EFE5B1B59.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582261/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582261	Fig.26:Principal componentanalysisof gynes ofFormicapolyctena (black squares, n = 33), Formicaaquilonia × polyctena or backcrosses (whitedots, n =18),andF.aquilonia (black rhombs, n = 29). Twenty-four phenotypic characters were considered.	Fig.26:Principal componentanalysisof gynes ofFormicapolyctena (black squares, n = 33), Formicaaquilonia × polyctena or backcrosses (whitedots, n =18),andF.aquilonia (black rhombs, n = 29). Twenty-four phenotypic characters were considered.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E2F6158FF5ED83FFC4A1C99.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582236/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582236	Figs.5-13: (5-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (6-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral.(7-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., gyne, head; note the more trapezoid headshape.(8-aqui) Formica aquilonia, gyne, head; note the more rounded head shape.(9-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, head; note the more reticulate microsculpture of central vertex compared with Formica lugubris (Figs.14, 15), producing a matt surface appearance.(10-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, lateral aspect. (11-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, P morph, lateral; almost no setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (12-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, N morph, lateral; many setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (13-kupy) Formica kupyanskayae, gyne, head.	Figs.5-13: (5-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (6-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral.(7-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., gyne, head; note the more trapezoid headshape.(8-aqui) Formica aquilonia, gyne, head; note the more rounded head shape.(9-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, head; note the more reticulate microsculpture of central vertex compared with Formica lugubris (Figs.14, 15), producing a matt surface appearance.(10-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, lateral aspect. (11-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, P morph, lateral; almost no setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (12-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, N morph, lateral; many setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (13-kupy) Formica kupyanskayae, gyne, head.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E2F615BFCF9DFFFFA0C1F78.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582236/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582236	Figs.5-13: (5-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (6-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral.(7-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., gyne, head; note the more trapezoid headshape.(8-aqui) Formica aquilonia, gyne, head; note the more rounded head shape.(9-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, head; note the more reticulate microsculpture of central vertex compared with Formica lugubris (Figs.14, 15), producing a matt surface appearance.(10-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, lateral aspect. (11-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, P morph, lateral; almost no setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (12-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, N morph, lateral; many setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (13-kupy) Formica kupyanskayae, gyne, head.	Figs.5-13: (5-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (6-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral.(7-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., gyne, head; note the more trapezoid headshape.(8-aqui) Formica aquilonia, gyne, head; note the more rounded head shape.(9-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, head; note the more reticulate microsculpture of central vertex compared with Formica lugubris (Figs.14, 15), producing a matt surface appearance.(10-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, lateral aspect. (11-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, P morph, lateral; almost no setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (12-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, N morph, lateral; many setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (13-kupy) Formica kupyanskayae, gyne, head.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E2F615BFCF9DFFFFA0C1F78.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582265/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582265	Fig.27: Classification by four variants of NC-clustering of 75 nest samples of workers of Formica aquilonia (grey bars) and 10 nest samples of Formica ussuriensis sp.n. (black bars). The mean error of four exploratory data analyses is 0.6%. Eight phenotypic characters were considered.	Fig.27: Classification by four variants of NC-clustering of 75 nest samples of workers of Formica aquilonia (grey bars) and 10 nest samples of Formica ussuriensis sp.n. (black bars). The mean error of four exploratory data analyses is 0.6%. Eight phenotypic characters were considered.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E2D615AFF74DE91FD301F58.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582273/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582273	Fig.29: Principal component analysis of polymorphism in 295 gynes of Formica pratensis. The P-morph with reduced setae (white dots) is clearly separated from the strongly haired N-morph (black rhombs). Eleven phenotypic characters were considered.	Fig.29: Principal component analysis of polymorphism in 295 gynes of Formica pratensis. The P-morph with reduced setae (white dots) is clearly separated from the strongly haired N-morph (black rhombs). Eleven phenotypic characters were considered.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E2A615FFF74DB4EFF751FB9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582236/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582236	Figs.5-13: (5-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (6-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral.(7-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., gyne, head; note the more trapezoid headshape.(8-aqui) Formica aquilonia, gyne, head; note the more rounded head shape.(9-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, head; note the more reticulate microsculpture of central vertex compared with Formica lugubris (Figs.14, 15), producing a matt surface appearance.(10-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, lateral aspect. (11-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, P morph, lateral; almost no setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (12-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, N morph, lateral; many setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (13-kupy) Formica kupyanskayae, gyne, head.	Figs.5-13: (5-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (6-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral.(7-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., gyne, head; note the more trapezoid headshape.(8-aqui) Formica aquilonia, gyne, head; note the more rounded head shape.(9-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, head; note the more reticulate microsculpture of central vertex compared with Formica lugubris (Figs.14, 15), producing a matt surface appearance.(10-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, lateral aspect. (11-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, P morph, lateral; almost no setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (12-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, N morph, lateral; many setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (13-kupy) Formica kupyanskayae, gyne, head.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E2A615FFF74DB4EFF751FB9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582230/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582230	Fig.4: Formica pratensis, gyne; paramedian surface of the dorsum of first gaster tergite. The strength of transverse mi- croripples is at maximum within the Formica rufa group and pubescence density comparable with Formica lugubris.	Fig.4: Formica pratensis, gyne; paramedian surface of the dorsum of first gaster tergite. The strength of transverse mi- croripples is at maximum within the Formica rufa group and pubescence density comparable with Formica lugubris.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E2A615FFF74DB4EFF751FB9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582269/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582269	Fig.28: Classification by three variants of NC-clustering of 225 nest samples of workers of Formica lugubris (black bars) and 76 nest samples of Formica pratensis (grey bars). The mean error of three analyses is 0.2%. Ten phenotypic characters were considered. The small, well separated sub-branch in the F. lugubris cluster represents Fennoscandian nest samples containing exclusively Hippie morph workers.	Fig.28: Classification by three variants of NC-clustering of 225 nest samples of workers of Formica lugubris (black bars) and 76 nest samples of Formica pratensis (grey bars). The mean error of three analyses is 0.2%. Ten phenotypic characters were considered. The small, well separated sub-branch in the F. lugubris cluster represents Fennoscandian nest samples containing exclusively Hippie morph workers.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E2A615FFF74DB4EFF751FB9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582273/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582273	Fig.29: Principal component analysis of polymorphism in 295 gynes of Formica pratensis. The P-morph with reduced setae (white dots) is clearly separated from the strongly haired N-morph (black rhombs). Eleven phenotypic characters were considered.	Fig.29: Principal component analysis of polymorphism in 295 gynes of Formica pratensis. The P-morph with reduced setae (white dots) is clearly separated from the strongly haired N-morph (black rhombs). Eleven phenotypic characters were considered.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E28615EFF5EDCDFFEFB1D58.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582236/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582236	Figs.5-13: (5-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (6-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral.(7-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., gyne, head; note the more trapezoid headshape.(8-aqui) Formica aquilonia, gyne, head; note the more rounded head shape.(9-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, head; note the more reticulate microsculpture of central vertex compared with Formica lugubris (Figs.14, 15), producing a matt surface appearance.(10-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, lateral aspect. (11-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, P morph, lateral; almost no setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (12-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, N morph, lateral; many setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (13-kupy) Formica kupyanskayae, gyne, head.	Figs.5-13: (5-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (6-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral.(7-ussu) Formica ussuriensis sp.n., gyne, head; note the more trapezoid headshape.(8-aqui) Formica aquilonia, gyne, head; note the more rounded head shape.(9-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, head; note the more reticulate microsculpture of central vertex compared with Formica lugubris (Figs.14, 15), producing a matt surface appearance.(10-prat) Formica pratensis, worker, neotype, lateral aspect. (11-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, P morph, lateral; almost no setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (12-prat) Formica pratensis, gyne, N morph, lateral; many setae on head, mesosoma, and first gaster tergite. (13-kupy) Formica kupyanskayae, gyne, head.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E28615EFF5EDCDFFEFB1D58.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582275/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582275	Fig.30: Principal component analysis of 10 nest samples of Formica kupyanskayae (white rhombs) and of 76nest samples of Formica pratensis (black dots). Ten phenotypic characters were considered.	Fig.30: Principal component analysis of 10 nest samples of Formica kupyanskayae (white rhombs) and of 76nest samples of Formica pratensis (black dots). Ten phenotypic characters were considered.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E166160FF74DECEFF751D59.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582224/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582224	Fig.3: Formica lugubris, gyne; paramedian surface of the dorsum of first gaster tergite. The transverse microsculpture is as weak as in Formica rufa, but the density of pubescence and microfoveolae is much higher.	Fig.3: Formica lugubris, gyne; paramedian surface of the dorsum of first gaster tergite. The transverse microsculpture is as weak as in Formica rufa, but the density of pubescence and microfoveolae is much higher.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E176163FF5EDE3FFC951F38.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582239/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582239	Figs.14-20: (14-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, normal morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (15-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, Hippie morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (16-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (17-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral. (18-trun) Formica truncorum, worker, head. (19-trun) Formica truncorum, gyne, head. (20-sine) Formica sinensis, worker, lateral; note the contrast between weak pronotal and strong gular pilosity.	Figs.14-20: (14-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, normal morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (15-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, Hippie morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (16-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (17-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral. (18-trun) Formica truncorum, worker, head. (19-trun) Formica truncorum, gyne, head. (20-sine) Formica sinensis, worker, lateral; note the contrast between weak pronotal and strong gular pilosity.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E176163FF5EDE3FFC951F38.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582279/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582279	Fig. 31: Nest-sample means of a linear discriminant analysis and principal component analysis of Formicalugubris complex gynes considering eight phenotypic characters; Formica helvetica sp.n. (white dots), F.lugubris morph A1 (black squares), F.lugubris morph A3 (squares with white center). The means were calculated from 28, 38, and 18 individuals foreach entity.	Fig. 31: Nest-sample means of a linear discriminant analysis and principal component analysis of Formicalugubris complex gynes considering eight phenotypic characters; Formica helvetica sp.n. (white dots), F.lugubris morph A1 (black squares), F.lugubris morph A3 (squares with white center). The means were calculated from 28, 38, and 18 individuals foreach entity.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E146162FF5EDC5FFCEC1A39.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582281/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582281	Fig.32: Nest-sample means of the first and second principal component of workers of Formica paralugubris (black dots), Formica lugubris morph A1 (squares), F. lugubris morph A3 (triangles), and Formica helvetica sp.n. (rhombs). Eleven phenotypic characters were considered.	Fig.32: Nest-sample means of the first and second principal component of workers of Formica paralugubris (black dots), Formica lugubris morph A1 (squares), F. lugubris morph A3 (triangles), and Formica helvetica sp.n. (rhombs). Eleven phenotypic characters were considered.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E146162FF5EDC5FFCEC1A39.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582283/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582283	Fig.33: Principalcomponentanalysis of gynesof Formica paralugubris (black dots), Formica lugubris morph A1 (squares), F.lugubris morph A3 (triangles), and Formica helvetica sp.n. (rhombs). Eight phenotypic characters were considered. The placement of the four entities within the plot is similar to that in workers (Fig.32).	Fig.33: Principalcomponentanalysis of gynesof Formica paralugubris (black dots), Formica lugubris morph A1 (squares), F.lugubris morph A3 (triangles), and Formica helvetica sp.n. (rhombs). Eight phenotypic characters were considered. The placement of the four entities within the plot is similar to that in workers (Fig.32).	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E126164FC9FD84EFBC41AD8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582239/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582239	Figs.14-20: (14-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, normal morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (15-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, Hippie morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (16-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (17-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral. (18-trun) Formica truncorum, worker, head. (19-trun) Formica truncorum, gyne, head. (20-sine) Formica sinensis, worker, lateral; note the contrast between weak pronotal and strong gular pilosity.	Figs.14-20: (14-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, normal morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (15-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, Hippie morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (16-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (17-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral. (18-trun) Formica truncorum, worker, head. (19-trun) Formica truncorum, gyne, head. (20-sine) Formica sinensis, worker, lateral; note the contrast between weak pronotal and strong gular pilosity.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E106166FF5EDE7FFE531B99.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582287/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582287	Fig.34: Nest-sample means of a linear discriminant analysis and principal component analysis of workers of Formica frontalis (black rhombs) and Formica truncorum (white dots).Six phenotypic characters were considered.	Fig.34: Nest-sample means of a linear discriminant analysis and principal component analysis of workers of Formica frontalis (black rhombs) and Formica truncorum (white dots).Six phenotypic characters were considered.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E116169FC9FDAF1FAA41DB8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582239/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582239	Figs.14-20: (14-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, normal morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (15-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, Hippie morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (16-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (17-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral. (18-trun) Formica truncorum, worker, head. (19-trun) Formica truncorum, gyne, head. (20-sine) Formica sinensis, worker, lateral; note the contrast between weak pronotal and strong gular pilosity.	Figs.14-20: (14-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, normal morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (15-lugu) Formica lugubris, worker, Hippie morph, head; central vertex suggestedly shiny due to weaker transverse microsculpture. (16-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, head. (17-helv) Formica helvetica sp.n., worker, holotype, lateral. (18-trun) Formica truncorum, worker, head. (19-trun) Formica truncorum, gyne, head. (20-sine) Formica sinensis, worker, lateral; note the contrast between weak pronotal and strong gular pilosity.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
F52B87F65E116169FC9FDAF1FAA41DB8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5582293/files/figure.png	http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5582293	Fig.35: Nest-sample means of the discriminant score and the first factor of principal component analysis of workers of For- mica truncorum (white dots) and of Formica sinensis (black rhombs) considering seven phenotypic characters. The posi- tions of the single type specimens of F. truncorum FABRICIUS, 1804 (abbreviation TM), Formica truncicola NYLANDER,1846 (TA), and Formica yessensis WHEELER, 1913 (YE) and of the type series of Formica approximans WHEELER, 1933 (AP), F. sinensis WHEELER, 1913 (SI), and Formica wongi WU, 1990 (WO) are indicated by arrows.	Fig.35: Nest-sample means of the discriminant score and the first factor of principal component analysis of workers of For- mica truncorum (white dots) and of Formica sinensis (black rhombs) considering seven phenotypic characters. The posi- tions of the single type specimens of F. truncorum FABRICIUS, 1804 (abbreviation TM), Formica truncicola NYLANDER,1846 (TA), and Formica yessensis WHEELER, 1913 (YE) and of the type series of Formica approximans WHEELER, 1933 (AP), F. sinensis WHEELER, 1913 (SI), and Formica wongi WU, 1990 (WO) are indicated by arrows.	2021-04-28	Seifert, Bernhard		Zenodo	biologists	Seifert, Bernhard			
