Euglossa (Euglossella) apiformis Schrottky

Hinojosa-Diaz, Ismael A. & Engel, Michael S., 2011, Revision of the orchid bee subgenus Euglossella (Hymenoptera, Apidae), Part I, The decorata species group, ZooKeys 140, pp. 27-69 : 36-41

Euglossa (Euglossella) apiformis Schrottky nomen revivisco Figs 17-34

Euglossa apiformis Schrottky, 1911: 39. Holotype ♀ (lost).

Neotype.

♂, labeled: "PERU: Huánuco, Llulla-; pichis [Llullapichis], Rio Pachitea; 15 II 1975 [day handwritten]; R. L. Dressler 1623 [number handwritten diagonally] // Vanillin [label upside down] // Euglossa; singularis Mocs.; det. R.L.Dressler 196". The neotype is in the Division of Entomology, University of Kansas Natural History Museum, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

Additional material.

4♂♂, 2♀♀: labeled as follows: labeled as neotype except missing identification label (1♂) FLMNH; labeled as Neotype except date "14 II 1975 [day handwritten]" (1♂) SEMC;"PERU: Huanuco, Tingo María; Carlos Atachahua E.; 7 Aug. 1989 [day handwritten] // vanillin" FLMNH(1♂); "PERU: Madre de Dios; 30 km sw Pto. Maldonado; 1 July 1983 [day and month handwritten] M. P. Frisbie // terre firma // VANILLA [handwritten]" USNM(1♂); original collection data label as top label of Neotype except date "14 II 1975 [day handwritten]", and diagonal handwritten number “1633” (1♀) FLMNH; "Achinamiza,; Peru I-5-26 [date handwritten]; F 6001 [number handwritten] // H.Bassler; Collection; Acc. 33591 // Euglossa; decorata Sm; Det. J.S. Moure 1957 [first two lines and last two digits of date handwritten]" (1♀) AMNH. 1♂ labeled as follows: "Ecuador: Zamora; 5-7III 1982; N. H. Williams // 89 [handwritten on the underside] // vanillin [underside]" FLMNH, this specimen is missing the head.

Diagnosis.

Labiomaxillary complex in repose slightly exceeding posterior tip of metasoma in the male, and posterior margin of second metasomal sternum in the female (Figs 18, 20); integument in both sexes dark brown (noticeably metasoma), with coppery-cyan hue all over (especially on clypeus), legs brown, turning dark brown on metatibia and metatarsomeres (Figs 18, 20); malar area length on average 0.25 the basal mandibular width; male mesotibial tufts appearing fused (except for a distal separation),posterior tuft teardrop shaped (Fig. 24); male metatibia scalene obtuse triangular (Fig. 25).

Description.

♂: Structure. Total body length 11.56 mm (10.74-12.74; n=5); labiomaxillary complex in repose slightly exceeding posterior tip of metasoma (Fig. 18). Head length 2.92 mm (2.73-3.11; n=5), width 4.81 mm (4.67-5.07; n=5); upper interorbital distance 2.37 mm (2.26-2.59; n=5); lower interorbital distance 2.18 mm (2.15-2.22; n=5); upper clypeal width 1.17 mm (1.11-1.19; n=5) (as measured between dorsolateral angles of clypeus); lower clypeal width 2.09 mm (2.02-2.15; n=5) (as measured at level of lower lateral parts); clypeal protuberance 0.67 mm (0.52-0.81; n=5) [following measurement method of Brooks(1988)]; clypeal ridges, labral ridges and labral windows as described for Euglossa aurantia ; labrum slightly wider than long, length 1.13 mm (1.04-1.19; n=5), width 1.16 mm (1.11-1.20; n=5); interocellar distance 0.30 mm (n=5); ocellocular distance 0.74 mm (0.67-0.78; n=5); first flagellomere as long [0.49 mm (0.44-0.52; n=5)] as second and third flagellomeres combined [0.50 mm (0.44-0.56; n=5)]; length of malar area 0.21 mm (0.19-0.22; n=5). Mandible tridentate. Pronotal lateral angle as described for Euglossa aurantia ; intertegular distance 3.48 mm (3.41-3.56; n=5); mesoscutal length 2.87 mm (2.81-2.96; n=5); mesoscutellar length 1.33 mm (1.26-1.41; n=5); posterior margin of mesoscutellum truncate (laterally rounded) (Fig. 17); mesotibial length 2.44 mm (2.37-2.59; n=5); mesobasitarsal length 2.56 mm (2.44-2.67; n=5), width 0.73 mm (0.67-0.79; n=5); posterior keel as described for Euglossa aurantia ; metatibial shapeas described for Euglossa aurantia , metatibial anterior margin length 3.56 mm (3.41-3.85; n=5), ventral margin length 2.44 mm (2.37-2.52; n=5), postero-dorsal margin length 4.52 mm (4.37-4.59; n=5), maximum metatibial thickness 1.31 mm (1.19-1.41; n=5);metatibial organ slit dorsal and outer sections well defined with a junction noticeably narrower than contiguous width of basal section; anterior margin of distal section of metatibial organ slit evenly convex, maximum width occupying about one-third of metatibial outer surface width (Fig. 25); basal section of metatibial organ slit oval-rhomboid, length 0.64 mm (0.59-0.74; n=5); metabasitarsal length 2.57 mm (2.44-2.81; n=5), mid-width 0.85 mm (0.74-0.93; n=5); metabasitarsal ventral border truncate. Forewing length 9.78 mm (9.11-10.44; n=5); jugal comb with 13-16 (n=5) blades; hind wing with 18-23 (n=5) hamuli. Maximum metasomal width 4.77 mm (4.52-4.96; n=5); second metasomal sternum integumental modifications as described for Euglossa aurantia .

Coloration. Head similarly colored as in Euglossa aurantia , but with coppery-cyan hue all over (very few green highlights) (Fig. 21). Mesosoma dark brown, slightly lighter on mesoscutellar posterior margin, coppery iridescent hue throughout mesosomal integument (Figs 17-18); legs brown, slightly lighter than in Euglossa aurantia (Figs 18, 23-25); tegulae and wings as described for Euglossa aurantia . Metasomal terga dark brown, except as follows: first metasomal tergum lighter (average brown) on ventro-lateral and anterior sections, appearing even yellow in anterolateral edges; first to sixth terga with posterior margin slightly translucent; coppery iridescence on all terga, appearing coppery-golden on posterior sections of first to sixth terga. (Figs 17-18). Sterna brown, darker laterally at area of contact with terga, posterior sections of all sterna translucent; faint coppery hue on all sterna integument.

Sculpturing. As described for Euglossa aurantia (vide supra).

Vestiture.General vestiture as described for Euglossa aurantia , except as follows: of two kinds of setae generally present all over body, minutely branched (rather simple or serrate), sturdier ones appear darker (dark brown) than plumose ones (fulvous).

Terminalia. Posterior margin of seventh metasomal sternum shallowly invaginated mesally, covered with setae; eighth sternum and genital capsule as described for subgenus. Lateral section of gonostylus with dorsal sector variable, either straight or slightly projected on a hump (Figs 33-34).

♀: Structure. Total body length 11.11-12.07 mm; labiomaxillary complex in repose reaching posterior margin of second metasomal sternum. Head length 2.96 mm; head width 4.74-4.81 mm; upper interorbital distance 2.48-2.52 mm; lower interorbital distance 2.25-2.30 mm; upper clypeal width 1.19 mm; lower clypeal width 2.15-2.19 mm; clypeal protuberance 0.67 mm; medial and paramedial clypeal ridges well developed; labrum rectangular, wider than long, length 1.04-1.11 mm, width 1.19-1.26 mm; labral ridges and windows as in male; anterior edge of labrum arched outwards; interocellar distance 0.33-0.37 mm; ocellocular distance 0.78-0.80 mm; length of first flagellar article (0.44-0.52 mm) equal to combined lengths of second and third flagellar articles (0.44-0.56 mm); length of malar area 0.15-0.17 mm. Mandible tridentate. Pronotal lateral angle as in male; intertegular distance 3.48-3.56 mm; mesoscutal length 2.59-2.89 mm; mesoscutellar length 1.30-1.41 mm; posterior border of mesoscutellum as in male (Fig. 19); mesotibial length 2.30-2.37 mm; mesobasitarsal length 2.15-2.37 mm, maximum width 0.70-0.74 mm; metatibia triangular; metatibial anterior margin length 3.19-3.41 mm; metatibial ventral margin length 1.85 mm; metatibial postero-dorsal margin length 3.78-3.93 mm. Forewing length 9.04-9.11 mm; hind wing with 20-22 hamuli. Maximum metasomal width 5.04-5.19 mm.

Coloration. In general as described for male but with a stronger coppery-cyan hue on face and metasoma. Paraocular marks absent; ivory coloration on mandible restricted to proximal one-third, antennal scape with yellow spot occupying upper half of antero-lateral surface (Fig. 22).

Sculpturing. As described for male except mesepisternum with punctures not as dense (separated by about one puncture diameter).

Vestiture. As described for male except as follows: Mesoscutum and mesoscutellar vestiture dominated by fulvous thinner setae, although dark brown kind is still present; mesoscutellar tuft rhomboid, composed of dense, fulvous and brown, erect, thick, multibranched (branches minute) setae (Fig. 19). Mesotibia with a streak of spur-like, dark brown setae on posterior and ventral edges; metatibial corbicula surrounded by long, dark brown setae. Mesial sections of all sterna nearly bare.

Comments.

Schrottky (1911) described Euglossa apiformis from an unspecified number of females presumably from Marcapata, Cuzco, Peru (Rasmussen et al. 2010). The original description ( Schrottky 1911) refers to a species in the Euglossa decorata species group with a dark brown metasoma and a bronze-green mesosoma, besides other characters common to all species of the group. Although some specimens of Euglossa decorata have a dark metasoma (see comments for Euglossa decorata ), it usually comes with a darker mesosoma altogether, and only some Euglossa decorata specimens from the eastern Amazon Basin have similar coloration to the one described by Schrottky (1911) and observed in the specimens here examined. Characters not mentioned by Schrottky (1911) that distinguish this species from Euglossa decorata (with which it shares some distributional range) include the coloration of the clypeus being more coppery than green, a labiomaxillary complex in the male extending slightly beyond the tip of the metasoma (not surpassing it in Euglossa decorata ), and a truncate posterior mesoscutellar margin (evenly convex in Euglossa decorata ). Euglossa apiformis appears as a synonym of Euglossa singularis in the euglossine checklist of Moure (1967) and Kimsey and Dressler (1986), as well as in Moure et al. (2007) and Nemésio and Rasmussen (2011). This synonymy was most likely based on the assumption that any darker looking bee resembling Euglossa decorata would correspond to Euglossa singularis but as discussed later in this work this color distinction disregarded all other morphological evidence. The set of characters here presented and the locality records located in a continuous region along the lowlands contiguous to the Andes on the Amazon Basin of Peru and Ecuador justify the validity of the species. A neotype is here designated in order to validate the status of the species as described by Schrottky (1911) since the original type materialis presumed lost ( Moure 1967, Kimsey and Dressler 1986, Moure et al. 2007, Rasmussen et al. 2009). The localities of the specimens here examined are in the same region and with similar elevations as the type locality ( Schrottky 1911, Rasmussen et al. 2009). Although the original description was based solely on female characters, and therefore the original type corresponded to a female, a male is here designated as the neotype since males carry the most distinctive specific characters in Euglossa and designation of a female would carry the potential for further confusion in the future.