Extant: 1 valid subspecies
Formica truncorum Fabricius, 1804 PDF: 403 (q.) CZECH REPUBLIC. Palearctic. AntCat AntWiki HOLTaxonomic history
Subspecies of Formica rufa: Emery & Forel, 1879 PDF: 450; Emery, 1925d PDF: 255; Santschi, 1925g PDF: 351; Karavaiev, 1927d: 282 (in key); Karavaiev, 1927e PDF: 346; Kuznetsov-Ugamsky, 1929a PDF: 21; Karavaiev, 1930b PDF: 149; Karavaiev, 1931e PDF: 217; Arnol'di, 1933a: 604 (in key); Stitz, 1934: 9; Karavaiev, 1936: 247 (redescription); Ceballos, 1956: 320.Status as species: Smith, 1858a PDF: 4; Roger, 1863b PDF: 13; Dalla Torre, 1893 PDF: 214; Bondroit, 1917a PDF: 174 (in key); Bondroit, 1918 PDF: 60; Bondroit, 1920a PDF: 146; Bondroit, 1920b PDF: 300; Betrem, 1926 PDF: 213 (in key); Stärcke, 1926a PDF: 148 (in key); Lomnicki, 1928 PDF: 8; Teranishi, 1932 PDF: 53; Teranishi, 1934b PDF: 38; Stärcke, 1935a PDF: 269; Stitz, 1939: 344; Menozzi, 1939a PDF: 321 (in key); Novák & Sadil, 1941 PDF: 105 (in key); Eidmann, 1941a PDF: 31; Eidmann, 1942a PDF: 253; Holgersen, 1942b PDF: 13; Holgersen, 1943c PDF: 176 (in key); Holgersen, 1944a PDF: 185; Röszler, 1950 PDF: 214; Azuma, 1955 PDF: 80; Betrem, 1960a PDF: 130; Betrem, 1960b: 76 (in key); Dlussky, 1965a PDF: 28; Bernard, 1967a PDF: 307 (redescription); Dlussky, 1967a PDF: 81; Kutter, 1968b: 61; Kutter, 1968c: 206; Pisarski, 1969b: 313; Dlussky & Pisarski, 1970 PDF: 89; Baroni Urbani, 1971c PDF: 223; Collingwood, 1971 PDF: 168; Dlussky & Pisarski, 1971 PDF: 174 (redescription); Banert & Pisarski, 1972 PDF: 355; Pisarski, 1975: 45; Tarbinsky, 1976 PDF: 192 (redescription); Kutter, 1977c: 274; Arnol'di & Dlussky, 1978: 554 (in key); Collingwood, 1979 PDF: 139; Kupyanskaya, 1980 PDF: 105; Onoyama, 1980a PDF: 200; Kupyanskaya, 1986b PDF: 98; Agosti & Collingwood, 1987a PDF: 60; Agosti & Collingwood, 1987b PDF: 286 (in key); Nilsson & Douwes, 1987: 82; Gösswald, 1989: 21; Kupyanskaya, 1990a: 192; Morisita et al., 1991: 34; Atanassov & Dlussky, 1992: 270; Radchenko, 1994b: 114 (in key); Douwes, 1995: 97; Bolton, 1995b: 205; Poldi et al., 1995: 8; Gallé et al., 1998: 217; Collingwood & Heatwole, 2002 PDF: 15; Czechowski et al., 2002 PDF: 76; Imai et al., 2003 PDF: 58; Karaman & Karaman, 2003 PDF: 52; Radchenko, 2005b PDF: 164; Csosz & Markó, 2005 PDF: 232; Bračko, 2006 PDF: 148; Markó et al., 2006 PDF: 68; Petrov, 2006 PDF: 112 (in key); Schultz et al., 2006 PDF: 205; Bračko, 2007 PDF: 20; Radchenko, 2007 PDF: 36; Seifert, 2007: 317; Werner & Wiezik, 2007 PDF: 144; Zryanin & Zryanina, 2007 PDF: 233; Casevitz-Weulersse & Galkowski, 2009 PDF: 483; Lapeva-Gjonova et al., 2010 PDF: 55; Boer, 2010: 27; Csosz et al., 2011 PDF: 59; Czechowski et al., 2012: 199; Guénard & Dunn, 2012 PDF: 32; Kiran & Karaman, 2012 PDF: 11; Borowiec, 2014 PDF: 79 (see note in bibliography); Bračko et al., 2014 PDF: 19; Bharti et al., 2016 PDF: 27; Lebas et al., 2016: 178; Radchenko, 2016: 289; Seifert, 2018: 330.Senior synonym of Formica truncorum menozzii: Dlussky, 1967a PDF: 81; Dlussky & Pisarski, 1971 PDF: 174; Bolton, 1995b: 205; Imai et al., 2003 PDF: 58; Radchenko, 2016: 290.Senior synonym of Formica rufa rufotruncicola: Dlussky, 1967a PDF: 81; Dlussky & Pisarski, 1971 PDF: 174; Tarbinsky, 1976 PDF: 192; Bolton, 1995b: 205; Imai et al., 2003 PDF: 58; Radchenko, 2016: 290.Senior synonym of Formica simulata: Imai et al., 2003 PDF: 58.Senior synonym of Formica truncorum staegeri: Dlussky, 1967a PDF: 81; Dlussky & Pisarski, 1971 PDF: 174; Bolton, 1995b: 205; Radchenko, 2016: 290.Synonym of Formica truncicola: Roger, 1863b PDF: 13; Emery & Forel, 1879 PDF: 450.[Note: Roger, 1863b PDF: 13, and Emery & Forel, 1879 PDF: 450, give Formica truncicola as senior synonym, but Formica truncorum has priority.].Senior synonym of Formica truncicola: Bondroit, 1918 PDF: 60; Emery, 1925d PDF: 255; Betrem, 1926 PDF: 213; Stärcke, 1926a PDF: 148; Lomnicki, 1928 PDF: 8; Arnol'di, 1933a: 603; Karavaiev, 1936: 247; Betrem, 1960a PDF: 130 (in text); Bernard, 1967a PDF: 307; Dlussky, 1967a PDF: 81; Baroni Urbani, 1971c PDF: 223; Dlussky & Pisarski, 1971 PDF: 174; Pisarski, 1975: 45; Tarbinsky, 1976 PDF: 192; Kutter, 1977c: 274; Onoyama, 1980a PDF: 200; Bolton, 1995b: 205; Gallé et al., 1998: 217; Czechowski et al., 2002 PDF: 76; Radchenko, 2007 PDF: 36; Casevitz-Weulersse & Galkowski, 2009 PDF: 483; Czechowski et al., 2012: 199; Radchenko, 2016: 289.Senior synonym of Formica truncicolopratensis: Dlussky, 1967a PDF: 81; Bernard, 1967a PDF: 307; Dlussky & Pisarski, 1971 PDF: 174; Pisarski, 1975: 45; Bolton, 1995b: 205; Czechowski et al., 2002 PDF: 76; Imai et al., 2003 PDF: 58; Czechowski et al., 2012: 199; Radchenko, 2016: 289.Material of the unavailable name Formica rufa truncicola stitzi referred here by Dlussky, 1967a PDF: 81; Dlussky & Pisarski, 1971 PDF: 174; Imai et al., 2003 PDF: 58.Formica truncorum, Fabr. Syst. Fiez. 403. 31 [[queen]].
Formica truncicola, Nylander [[queen]]?
Hab. Moravia.
Records
(Map 70): Bulgaria ( Atanassov and Dlusskij 1992 ); Danubian Plain ( Wesselinoff 1973 ); Western Predbalkan: Belogradchik ( Atanassov and Vassileva 1976 , Hubenov et al. 1998 ), Bleshnitsa ( Hubenov et al. 1998 ); Western Stara Planina Mts: Berkovitsa ( Atanassov and Vassileva 1976 ); Eastern Stara Planina Mts:under Razboyna peak ( Atanassov and Vassileva 1976 ); Osogovska Planina Mt.: Hisarlaka (Kyustendil) ( Atanassov and Vassileva 1976 ); Krupnik-Sandanski-Petrich Valley: Sandanski ( Atanassov and Vassileva 1976 , Hubenov et al. 1998 ); Sturgach Mt. ( Atanassov and Vassileva 1976 ); Western Rhodopi Mts: Eleshnitsa ( Atanassov and Vassileva 1976 ); Northern Black Sea coast: Kranevo ( Atanassov and Vassileva 1976 ).
Die Strunkameise (Formica truncorum) aus der Unterfamilie der Schuppenameisen (Formicinae) gehört zur Gattung der Waldameisen (Formica).
Kopf und Mesosoma sind rostrot bis rötlichgelb gefärbt. Auch der erste Tergit der Gaster ist ausgedehnt rostrot gefärbt, die restliche Gaster weist eine braunschwarze bis schwarze Färbung auf. Die schwarzen Flecken auf Pronotum und Mesonotum fehlen oder erscheinen nur ganz undeutlich. Auch dem Kopf fehlt die schwarze Färbung gänzlich. Das Mesosoma und die Gaster zeigen eine starke, goldgelbe Behaarung und der Kopf trägt am Hinterhaupt einen Kranz abstehender Haare. Auch an der Kopfunterseite sind abstehende Haare vorhanden. Die Länge der Arbeiterinnen beträgt 3,5 bis 9 Millimeter.[1]
Das Verbreitungsgebiet erstreckt sich über ganz Europa bis in den Nordosten Asiens. Diese Art ist in Nordeuropa recht häufig, weiter südlich allerdings nur in Gebirgslagen anzutreffen. Sie lebt an warmen Plätzen auf trockenen und sandigen Böden, es sind in Polen aber auch Siedlungen in Torfmooren bekannt. Man findet die Kolonien an südseitigen Waldrändern oder auf ausgedehnten, karg bewachsenen Lichtungen.[2]
Die Kolonien werden sozialparasitär bei Sklavenameisen (Serviformica) gegründet und die Staaten können einige Jahre monogyn bleiben. Mit der Zeit geht die Gemeinschaft durch Adoption von Jungköniginnen in eine Polygynie über. Häufig bilden sich dann auch polydome Nestgemeinschaften aus. Die Strunkameise ist bei weitem nicht so stark an ihren Standort gebunden wie andere Waldameisen und es kommt öfter zu Nestumzügen, beispielsweise bei zu viel Schatten, oder um Nahrungskonkurrenten auszuweichen. Die Nester verbleiben oft nur wenige Jahre an ihrem Standplatz.[2] Die Staaten sind eher klein und umfassen nur einige zehntausend Arbeiterinnen. Die Strunkameise hält von Oktober bis März Winterruhe und schwärmt an warmen Tagen zwischen Ende Juni und Mitte August.
Als Nahrung dienen überwiegend Insekten und Honigtau.
Die klassischen Hügelnester aus Pflanzenmaterial sind klein und unscheinbar. Sie sind auch unregelmäßiger geformt als die größeren Nester der Roten Waldameise (Formica rufa) oder der Kahlrückigen Waldameise (Formica polyctena). Meist werden die unregelmäßigen Kuppeln an der Südseite von Baumstammen angelegt, manchmal auch an größeren Grasbüscheln. Als Materialien dienen größtenteils Baumnadeln, kleine Äste und trockenes Gras.
Es werden keine Unterarten der Strunkameise (Formica truncorum) mehr unterschieden, ehemalige, nun synonymisierte Unterarten sind[3]:
Die Strunkameise (Formica truncorum) aus der Unterfamilie der Schuppenameisen (Formicinae) gehört zur Gattung der Waldameisen (Formica).
Formica truncorum is a species of wood ant from the genus Formica. It is distributed across a variety of locations worldwide, including central Europe and Japan. Workers can range from 3.5 to 9.0mm and are uniquely characterized by small hairs covering their entire bodies. Like all other ants, F. truncorum is eusocial and demonstrates many cooperative behaviors that are unique to its order. Colonies are either monogynous, with one queen, or polygynous, with many queens, and these two types of colonies differ in many characteristics.
F. truncorum is located in many places worldwide, such as northern Japan, the Jura Mountains and many regions from Italy to Norway. The colonies, which can be polygynous and often polydomous (where several nests are occupied by one colony), are spread out in regions of woodland borders, where the ants will make their nests in tree stumps.[1]
F. truncorum ants are characterized by a grey-brown gaster and bright yellow-red head and thorax. The smaller workers are normally darker in color. They can be distinguished from other species of Formica by the small erect setae covering their entire body. Workers can range in size from 3.5 to 9.0 mm.[2]
F. truncorum is a member of the insect order Hymenoptera, which contains the majority of the eusocial insects. F. truncorum demonstrates some characteristics specific to eusociality. There is cooperative rearing of young, which is thought to provide a sort of 'life insurance' for the female's brood.[3] If the female were to die during the rearing process, others would take her place to finish raising the brood. The value of this cooperation may justify the cost. Another defining characteristic of eusociality is the evolution of specific castes within the species, some of which are sterile.[3] Castes in F. truncorum include the drones, the winged male ants with the sole purpose of reproducing, the queen, who sheds her wings after the nuptial flight, and the sterile workers which can vary in size depending on specialized tasks.[4]
Eusocial behaviour is thought to have evolved as a result of kin selection within monogamous colonies. In multiply mated colonies, the relatedness between siblings is lowered, which diminishes the benefits of altruistic behaviour within the colony. Only in monogamous colonies would the relatedness between individuals in a colony remain high, which could allow the benefits of eusociality to be justified by Hamilton's rule.[3]
The kin selection that is necessary for eusociality to evolve would require a signal that allows for related members of a species to recognize each other. A study [5] has indicated that in F. truncorum this signal may be the hydrocarbon profile located on the cuticle of each ant. Further examination of these hydrocarbon chains has shown that many contain chains longer than 34 carbons, and while there is enough similarity between cuticles to recognize members of the same colony, they are still diverse enough to be distinct between colonies.[6] Ants which are genetically similar have similar hydrocarbon profiles, which could allow kin to recognize one another through this similarity. Studies have shown that there is a correlation between the cuticular hydrocarbon profile and the dispersal tendencies of particular colonies.[7]
The social divisions of the eusocial ants can allow for the creation of subsets of populations with specific duties assigned to them, which can be applied to a variety of tasks, including foraging. Foraging will usually involve the discovery of small caches of food, with some of them being persistent and reliable and others being very transient. This difference in reliability causes the foragers of F. truncorum to divide into two groups with a specific task.[8] One group will patrol the reliable sites, and the other will scan empty food sites in search of new sources of food. Upon discovering a new source, the foragers will recruit from the nest and will not recruit any foragers already outside. Not all of the recruited foragers will carry food back to the nest, suggesting that some are recruited for defense of the site.
The foraging habits of F. truncorum were also observed by placing baits near foraging areas and then observing the ability of the ants to recruit additional worker to transport the food back to the nest. This process of recruitment is done in a simple manner, where workers that have discovered food will lay a pheromone trail that connects the food to the nest, and additional workers will detect and follow the scent of this trail. Trails that are currently leading towards additional food will have pheromone trails that are more recently placed, and will also likely have a stronger scent due to multiple ants laying down pheromones, which allows the workers to quickly react to changes in the direction of the food source by following the newest and strongest trails. F. truncorum has demonstrated an interested characteristic of its foraging ability where it can successfully follow a trail in light but not in darkness.[9] This suggests a visual component in addition to the pheromone trail that is not fully understood.
Studies of F. truncorum have shown that the sex ratio varies between being female-biased or male-biased depending on how many times the queen has mated.[10] In cases where the queen is singly-mated, the relatedness between the workers remains high and the ratio is female-biased. This is thought to occur because of haplodiploidy, which causes the females to be more related to their own sisters than to any potential offspring. This increased relatedness between siblings causes the female workers to skew the sex ratio in their favor. In cases where the queen is multiply mated, this relatedness between siblings is lost, and the queen retains control of the sex ratio, which causes it to be male-biased.
On average, multiply mated queens have a 37% higher fitness than singly mated queens[11] It is proposed that singly-mated queens remain in the population because the benefits of multiple-mating may have been balanced by the costs of increased predation and risk to disease transmission. The benefits of multiple-mating also decline as it becomes more numerous in the population. Another suggested possibility is that some queens are unable to find a second mate and remain singly-mated.
It was observed in F. truncorum that when two males had their ability to sire offspring compared, one of the two would consistently create more progeny.[12] In spite of this, there was no evidence to support the idea that one male would be particularly better at creating more offspring than the other. This indicates that the female is able to store different amounts of sperm from separate males, which would then result in one male producing significantly more offspring.
The resource allocation of F. truncorum ants to the formation of new reproductives was compared between monogynous and polygynous colonies by measuring the colony's productivity and mating structure.[13] Monogynous colonies with a high productivity would have excess resources, and they invested these excess resources into the formation of more reproductives. Monogynous colonies typically had a higher ratio of sexuals per adult worker. When they had excess resources, polygynous colonies did not invest in the formation of more reproductives, indicating that the allocation of resources to the formation of reproductives is controlled by the workers.
The genetic population structure and sociogenetic organization of F. truncorum were compared between monogynous and polygynous colonies by using allele frequency differences between the populations and estimates of relatedness between different subsets of the colony population.[14] The allele frequency differences between subpopulations were significant in the polygynous colonies but not detectable between the subpopulations of the monogynous colonies. This makes sense because the polygynous colonies would be expected to have multiple reproducing females from different genetic backgrounds, which would lead to differences in the allele frequencies of the workers that made up the population. Also, the polygynous colonies usually had queens that were related to their male mates, which was not the case in the monogynous colonies, suggesting a difference in dispersal between the two types. Based on this data, polygynous colonies have limited dispersal and will usually mate within the colony, while the monogynous colonies rely on outbreeding and a higher degree of dispersal.
The propensity to disperse also varies between males and females, with the main effect of this being that females that are less prone to dispersal will be more likely to stay in the colony and switch it from monogynous to polygynous.[15] The ability of the female to leave the colony is affected by its physiological condition, where larger females with greater fat stores will preferentially disperse but smaller females are more likely to remain. Male dispersal is also determined by size, and in the case of both sexes, larger males and females are produced in monogynous colonies in accordance with their greater dispersal.
If there is a wide variation in the size of the queens produced, it is likely that monogynous colonies would not remain monogynous for any long period of time, because smaller daughters would remain and form polygynous colonies. To counteract this, queens produced in monogynous colonies must frequently be large. A study of the heritability of queen size shows that there is a significant degree of heritability in size that a daughter can receive from her mother, allowing for monogynous colonies to predictably produce larger queens that will disperse to form independent colonies.[16]
As seen by comparing the relatedness between the queens and their male mates, polygynous colonies will typically mate within the nest. This results in reproduction that is driven by a very limited dispersal where queens will bud off of the main nest to create a large, polydomous colony. While this normally leads to high relatedness between nestmates, and a high degree of genetic structuring within the colony, nests of F. truncorum in Finland were observed to behave differently from this.[17] These nests will shift sites, depending on the time of year, between a nest for the hibernating season and one for the reproductive season. By marking the nests and using microsatellites, researchers found that the relatedness between nestmates in these colonies was almost zero. This indicates the F. truncorum can form unicolonial populations were the workers migrate between genetically different nests.
Monogynous colonies and polygynous colonies have shown differences in how they react to nestmate recognition and queen adoption. Monogynous colonies discriminate against, and will not adopt, any non-nestmate female, while polygynous colonies are much more accepting.[18] Monogynous colonies are not totally enclosed, however, and maintain their single-queen status through high female dispersal and low intranidal breeding. While polygynous colonies are more likely to adopt a non-nestmate female, most of the queens still come from adopted daughters within the colony.
Formica truncorum is a species of wood ant from the genus Formica. It is distributed across a variety of locations worldwide, including central Europe and Japan. Workers can range from 3.5 to 9.0mm and are uniquely characterized by small hairs covering their entire bodies. Like all other ants, F. truncorum is eusocial and demonstrates many cooperative behaviors that are unique to its order. Colonies are either monogynous, with one queen, or polygynous, with many queens, and these two types of colonies differ in many characteristics.
Kännukuklane (Formica truncorum) on sipelglaste sugukonda kuklase perekonda kuuluv putukas.
Ta on Eestis arvatud III kaitsekategooriasse.
Kännukuklane (Formica truncorum) on sipelglaste sugukonda kuklase perekonda kuuluv putukas.
Ta on Eestis arvatud III kaitsekategooriasse.
Raudongalvė skruzdėlė (Formica truncorum) – vidutinio dydžio, apie 4–9 mm ilgio, skruzdėlė iš Formica genties [1], Formicinae pošeimio.
Galvai ir kūneliui būdinga dominuojanti rausva spalva, pilvelis tamsus. Gali parazituoti kitų rūšių skruzdėlių atžvilgiu (F. fusca) arba būti pačios kolonizuotos (F. rufa, F. polycten). Apsigyvena dažniausiai sausose saulėtose vietose, pietinėje pamiškių pusėje, nors jos kartais randamos ir užpelkėjusiuose rajonuose. Kolonijose gyvena keli tūkst. individų su keliomis motinėlėmis, todėl didelių skruzdėlynų, būdingų panašių miško skruzdėlių kolonijose, nestato. Prie kelmų, medžių kamienų paprastai įsirengia nelabai tvarkingus neilgalaikius lizdus.
Ši skruzdėlių rūšis plačiai paplitusi Šiaurės Europoje bei toliau į Azijos šiaurės rytus. Arčiau Europos pietų sutinkama dažniausiai kalnuotose vietovėse. Gyvena spygliuočių ir mišrių miškų zonose.
Šios skruzdėlės priskiriamos grupei miško skruzdėlių, tarp kurių:
Raudongalvės skruzdėlės porūšiai[2]:
Raudongalvė skruzdėlė (Formica truncorum) – vidutinio dydžio, apie 4–9 mm ilgio, skruzdėlė iš Formica genties , Formicinae pošeimio.
De stronkmier (Formica truncorum) is een mierensoort uit de onderfamilie van de schubmieren (Formicinae).[1][2] De wetenschappelijke naam van de soort is voor het eerst geldig gepubliceerd in 1804 door Fabricius.
Bronnen, noten en/of referentiesMrówka pniakowa (Formica truncorum) – gatunek mrówki z podrodziny Formicinae.
Gatunek południowopalearktyczny[2]. W Polsce gatunek ten objęty jest częściową ochroną gatunkową[3][4].
Na gniazdo wybiera martwe pnie ściętych lub ułamanych drzew. Występuje w lasach iglastych lub mieszanych. Nie buduje dużych kopców tak jak pozostałe mrówki z grupy rudych leśnych mrówek. W gnieździe znajduje się kilkadziesiąt tysięcy robotnic oraz kilka królowych. Nowe gniazda powstają przez podział istniejącego lub czasowe pasożytnictwo na innym gatunku.
Ubarwienie czerwonobrunatne, odwłok ciemny. Widoczne małe włoski na całym ciele. Robotnice mają wielkość od 4 (kasta zbieraczek) do 7 mm (kasta pozostająca w gnieździe), natomiast królowa około 8–9 mm.
Loty godowe odbywa się w lipcu i sierpniu[2].
Mrówka pniakowa (Formica truncorum) – gatunek mrówki z podrodziny Formicinae.
Gatunek południowopalearktyczny. W Polsce gatunek ten objęty jest częściową ochroną gatunkową.
Na gniazdo wybiera martwe pnie ściętych lub ułamanych drzew. Występuje w lasach iglastych lub mieszanych. Nie buduje dużych kopców tak jak pozostałe mrówki z grupy rudych leśnych mrówek. W gnieździe znajduje się kilkadziesiąt tysięcy robotnic oraz kilka królowych. Nowe gniazda powstają przez podział istniejącego lub czasowe pasożytnictwo na innym gatunku.
Ubarwienie czerwonobrunatne, odwłok ciemny. Widoczne małe włoski na całym ciele. Robotnice mają wielkość od 4 (kasta zbieraczek) do 7 mm (kasta pozostająca w gnieździe), natomiast królowa około 8–9 mm.
Loty godowe odbywa się w lipcu i sierpniu.
Robotnica
Formica truncorum é uma espécie de formiga do gênero Formica, pertencente à subfamília Formicinae.[1]
Formica truncorum é uma espécie de formiga do gênero Formica, pertencente à subfamília Formicinae.
Formica truncorum Fabricius, 1804
Красноголовый муравей[1] (лат. Formica truncorum) — вид средних по размеру муравьёв рода Formica из подсемейства Formicinae (Formicidae).
Северная Евразия: встречаются в лесных биотопах от Европы до Сибири, Средней Азии и Дальнего Востока. Монголия и северо-западный Китай[2][3].
Длина тела самок около 1 см, рабочих от 4,2 до 7,5 мм. От близких видов рода отличаются почти полностью красноватой головой. Брюшко буровато-чёрное, грудка красновато-бурая. Всё тело покрыто многочисленными прямыми отстоящими волосками. Встречается на опушках, полянах и вырубках в широколиственных лесах и остепненных участках. Муравейники напоминают гнёзда рыжих лесных муравьёв, это небольшие насыпные кучи из растительных остатков около пней и мёртвой древесины, высота гнёзд до 30 см[2][3].
Включён в Красную книгу Кемеровской области в статусе редкого вида (3-я категория, редкий вид)[4]. Включён в Красную книгу Челябинской области[1].
Красноголовый муравей (лат. Formica truncorum) — вид средних по размеру муравьёв рода Formica из подсемейства Formicinae (Formicidae).