Trachusa integra ( Eversmann, 1852 )

Kasparek, Max, 2020, Revision of the Palaearctic Trachusa interrupta species complex (Apoidea: Anthidiini) with description of four new species, Zootaxa 4728 (1), pp. 1-48 : 22-26

Trachusa integra ( Eversmann, 1852) stat. resurr.

( Figs 20–23 )

Anthidium integrum Eversmann, 1852 (p. 83) (male, Sarepta = Volgograd).

Anthidium interruptum Friese, 1898: 126 (partim).—Friese regarded A. integrum as junior synonym of A. interruptum and all subsequent authors followed this opinion.

Type material examined: Male, ‘Sarepta’ / ‘ integrum Ever. Männch. ‘ / ‘ interruptum F.; integrum Ev. ; flavilabre Gr. ’ ( IZKP).—Sarepta was a German settlement and is today part of the city of Volgograd.

The specimen studied comes from Eversmann’s collection, whose main part was deposited at the Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg ( ZISP). Some specimens, however, including types were transferred to the Institute of Systematic and Experimental Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków ( IZKP) ( Proshchalykin et al. 2017). This part of the collection included the type specimen of A. integrum . The specimen is not labelled as type and was not recognised as such, but it bears a small disc of tinfoil which allows (additionally to Eversmann’s handwriting) unambiguously attributing it to Eversmann’s collection (see photographs of similar labels in Proshchalykin et al. 2017). No syntypes were found in ZISP ( Proshchalykin et al. 2017).

Other material examined. Males (N=89): BALKAN (1): leg. Frivaldski ( ZMB).— ALBANIA (1): Durrec , April 1917 , Karny leg. ( OLL).— BULGARIA (1): Kardzali, Balabanovo (41°34‘N, 25°22‘E), 350 m, 22.vi.2007 , M. & Z. Halada leg. ( OLL).— FRANCE (10): Cavaillon ( Southern France ), 14.vi.1989 ( DEI) ; Glanum ( Southern France ), 10.–19.vi.1989 ( DEI) ; Saint Remy de Provence ( Southern France ), 10.– 19.6.1990 ( DEI) ; Gard: Nîmes, Quissac, Sardan riv., Vidourle env., 50 m, 06.vii.2005 , J. & I. Smit leg. (cJS); Herault: Montpellier, Sauteyrar- guess, Lascours , 150 m, 03.vii.2005 , J. Smit leg. (cJS); Gard: Nimes, Quissac , riv. de Creulon, 70m, 11.vii.2005 , J. & I. Smit leg. (cJS); Aude: Carcassonne, Caunes-Minervois , 200 m, 14.07.2002 , J. & I. Smit (cJS); Nîmes (43°50‘N, 04°21‘E), 04.vii.1982 , Aspöck & Rausch leg. (cMS); Belcastel [Aveyron Department], 07.vii.1951 , H. Teunissen ( OLL); Gard: Baraques-de-Fontanès , 20.07.1959 ( OLL) .— GREECE (14): 11♂, Chalkidiki , W of Nikiti, 12.–14.vi.2013, Snízek leg. ( OLL); 2♂, Attica, S. Krüper leg. ( ZMB) ; 1♂ ‘ Graecia’ ( ZMB).— RUSSIA (1) : 1♂ ‚ ‘S. Russland’, ‘ Red. S.’ ( ZMB).— TURKEY (5): Adana prov., Seyhan Baraji coast, Karaömerli env. (37°07‘2.43‘‘N 35°20‘10.28‘‘), 80 m, 9.–10.vii.2011 , J. Straka leg. (cJS); Sultan Dağları, Yalvaç env., 05.vii.1993 , Jirousek leg. (cMS); Side , Antalya, 15.vi.1987 , K. Warncke leg. ( OLL); 20 km S of Ankara, 02.viii.1979 , K. Warncke leg. ( OLL); Nevşehir, Ürgüp , 21.vii.1971 , K. Warncke leg. ( OLL); European Turkey, Kırklareli, W Eriklice am Fluss Teke De- resi (41°45‘00‘‘N, 27°07‘51‘‘E), 130 m, 2001/27, 18.vi.2001 , H. & R. Rausch leg. ( OLL); Ankara, 19.vi.1934 , A. Seitz leg. ( SMF).— UKRAINE (55): 1♂ Crimea, Simpheropol , vi.2002 , V. Gurko leg. ( OLL); 52♂ Crimea, various locations (e.g. Karadagh ), most of the material collected in June 1968 .

Females (N=44): FRANCE (7): 1♀, Bouches-du-Rhône: Aix-en-Provence Barrage de Bimont , 380m, 20.vii.2001, J. & I. Smit leg. (cJS) ; 2♀ Vacluse Rousillon , 200 m, 14.vii.2001, J. Smit leg. (cJS) ; 1♀ Agay , 23.vi.1972, Z. Padr leg. (cMS) ; 1♀ Southern France ( ZMB) ; 1♀ Provence : Furton ( ZMB) ; 1♀ Gard: Baraquesde-Fontanès , 20.vii.1959 ( OLL) .— GREECE (16): 14♀ Chalkidiki , W of Nikiti, 12.–14.vi.2013, Snízek leg. ( OLL) ; 2♀ Attica, Krüper S. ( ZMB) .— NORTH MACEDONIA (4): 3♀ Gjevgjeli [= Petrova] ( OLL) ; 1♀ Skopje , 20.v.1958, Heusi leg. ( OLL) .— TURKEY (5): 3♀ 20 km südl. Ankara, 02.viii.1979, K. Warncke leg. ( OLL) ; 1♀ Ankara, 05.viii.1972, K. Warncke leg. ( OLL) ; 1♀ Asia Minor , 1890, coll. Friese ( ZMB) .— UKRAINE (19): 1♀ Krim, Karadag , 05.viii.1998, Filatov leg. ( SIZK) ; 9♀ [in Cyrillic ], 16.vi.1968, 19.vi.1968, 20.vi.1968, 3.viii.1996, 07.viii.2015 ( SIZK) ; 5♀ Krim, 1.viii.1973, 29.vii.2003, 15.vii.2012 and 23.vi.2012 ( SIZK) ; 3♀ Krim: Simferopol , 30.vi.2012 ( SIZK) ; 1♀ Krim: Karadagh , 1–17.vii.1999, Budaschkin leg. ( ZSM) ; 2♀ ibid., 23.07.1999, Budaschkin leg. ( ZSM) .

Description. Female. Yellow bands on T1, T1&T2 or T1–T3 interrupted; scutum with yellow anterolateral stripe; scutellum and axillae together with four yellow dots ( Fig. 21A ); pronotal lobe yellow with light brown maculation in centre (one population with brown pronotal lobe); yellow stripe on mid-femur reaching distal end; inner side of hind tibia mostly yellow (9.6% of all cases black).

Male. Pattern of yellow maculation on scutum variable (entirely absent or only narrow lateral stripe or broad anterolateral stripe); yellow tergal bands interrupted only on T1, with lateral bands separated by a wide gap ( Figs 20A , 21C ); rich pubescence of erect, reddish-brown hair on vertex and scutum ( Fig. 21C ); pronotal lobe yellow with light brown maculation in centre ( Fig. 23 ); mid-femur with yellow stripe from base to top; inner side of hind tibia yellow.

Differential Diagnosis. Both sexes have a yellow pronotal lobe with light brown maculation in the centre ( Fig. 23 ). They share this feature only with T. heinzi . Some specimens of T. anatolica and of the North African species T. maghrebensis and T. varia also sometimes have some yellow, but it is then confined to the distal (outer) part of the pronotal lobe and a central brown spot is not present. These species are additionally distinguished by other features of the colour pattern. A few females of T. integra from Greece (Attica, Chalkidiki) were found to have brown pronotal lobes. These comprise 3.5% of all specimens and no males with brown pronotal lobes were found.

In the male of T. integra , only the first tergal band is interrupted. In typical females, the first two bands are interrupted, but due to some variability ( Table 4 ), this character cannot be used for identifying females. In the male of T. integra the lateral yellow bands on T1 are widely separated, while they are contiguous or subcontiguous in T. heinzi . Male T. grandicornis with a similar tergal pattern as T. integra can be easily distinguished by their antenna lengths.

Trachusa integra has a rich pubescence of erect, reddish-brown hair on the vertex and scutum, especially in the male ( Figs 20A , 21C ). It sometimes partly obscures the underlying yellow colour pattern on the integument. The pubescence is on average longer and denser than in the other species, but the differences are not abrupt enough to use it for species definition.

Both females and males have black mid-femora with a broad yellow longitudinal stripe on the outer side that extends from the apex mostly to close to the base. While the locally distributed species T. heinzi , T. taurica , and T. grandicornis and also T. anatolica often show a similar pattern, it is rare in T. interrupta , the other widespread species, in which only 25.4% of the females and 5.8% of the males are similar. Black maculation on the inner hind tibia distinguishes T. integra from most specimens of T. heinzi , T. taurica and T. grandicornis , but this is similar to the situation in T. interrupta and T. anatolica .

In the DFA of 15 morphometric characters, the males of T. integra cluster in their own group and can clearly be separated from T. interrupta s.l., T. heinzi , T. taurica and T. grandicornis . There is little overlap, and the DFA allows to correctly classify 96.63% of all males and 96.15% of all females ( Table 4 , Fig. 14 ). The morphometric differences between T. integra and the other OUs are not biased towards size differences. Some of the average measurements of T. integra are greater, other smaller when compared to other OUs, particularly when compared with T. anatolica and T. interrupta , the other two widespread species. This is good evidence that the differences in the DFA is the result of shape differences rather than size differences.

All populations have a very similar colour patterns. In order to find out whether they are also homogenous with respect to morphometrics, a DFA was carried out on 15 morphometric parameters. 82.02% of all males (see Fig. 24 ) and 76.92% of all females could be correctly classified. As the morphometric data are widely overlapping and it was not possible to identify areas where these parameters show abrupt transition, and the differences are not supported by differences in colouration, these morphological clusters are not regarded as taxonomically relevant. Nevertheless, further material and fine-mapping of such differences may lead to different results and conclusions.

Distribution. Trachusa integra has a scattered distribution. Populations are known from southern France, the Eastern Balkan and Greece, Inner Anatolia, the Crimea (see also Fateryga et al. 2018) and South Russia ( Fig. 25 ). These populations seem to be more or less isolated from each other. Relatively large series from the Crimea, Attica and Chalkidiki indicate that the species is at least locally abundant.

Biology. A female was collected in the Ukraine visiting Jasione montana L. ( Campanulaceae ). A specimen from Albania labelled as collected as early as April (K. Karny leg; OLL) needs confirmation. Otherwise the earliest specimen is from late May in Macedonia. The main flight season is June and July and sometimes extends into early August.

Figures

FIGURE 14. Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA) for 15 morphometric parameters of six species of the Trachusa interrupta complex (the two north African species T. varia and T. maghrebensis are left out not to overload the diagram). A: females, B: males.

FIGURE 20. Trachusa integra. Male holotype from the Eversmann collection in IZKP. Note the interrupted yellow band on T1 and the uninterrupted band on T2 (A).

FIGURE 21. Trachusa integra. A. Female habitus; B. Male sterna; C. Male habitus. Note the dense reddish-brown pubescence of the male on vertex and upper scutum.

FIGURE 22. Head of Trachusa integra. A. Female; B. male.

FIGURE 23. Pronotal lobe in Trachusa integra (A) and T. anatolica sp. n. (B).

FIGURE 24. Discriminant Analysis of 15 morphometric parameters for the intraspecific comparison of populations of Trachusa integra. Only males are shown here. Despite some morphometric differences between the Operational Units (see map in Fig. 25), there is broad overlap and the differences are not regarded as taxonomically relevant.

FIGURE 25. Distribution of Trachusa integra. The dotted lines show the limits of Operational Units (OUs) of T. integra which were defined for testing population differences.