Pseudoheriades grandiceps, Peters, 1988
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.54.11290 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B68BE62E-69C4-40D9-87BE-27D604E6DD61 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/EB99B19A-3316-D499-62E2-2290A55E233B |
treatment provided by |
|
scientific name |
Pseudoheriades grandiceps |
status |
|
Pseudoheriades grandiceps View in CoL
Taxonomy.
The phylogenetic position of the genus Pseudoheriades is debated. In a molecular phylogeny of the Osmiini ( Praz et al. 2008) this genus was allied with the genus Afroheriades . Both genera were not closely related to the Osmiini but formed an isolated lineage with currently uncertain phylogenetic affinities. In contrast, in cladistic analyses of morphological characters, these two genera appeared within the Heriades -group of the Osmiini although statistical support for this placement was low. Consequently, the phylogenetic placement of the Pseudoheriades / Afroheriades lineage within the megachiline phylogeny remains unsettled (see also Litman et al. 2011).
Distribution.
Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Pakistan and India ( Ungricht et al. 2008, Dathe 2009, Ascher and Pickering 2016)
Nesting.
The only published information on nesting by Pseudoheriades appears to be a brief account of the nesting biology of Pseudoheriades moricei (Friese) ( Krombein 1969; as Heriades moricei Friese) and notes on a nest of Pseudoheriades grandiceps ( Rozen and Praz 2016).
Krombein described the construction of four nests of Pseudoheriades moricei in trap-nests positioned variously on a vine-covered summer-house, a trellis and the trunk of a casuarina tree in gardens at three sites in Egypt. The cells, of the same diameter as the borings, were in linear series. The partitions capping the cells, dividing vestibular cells, and the closure of the nest were of resin or resin mixed with tiny pebbles.
The nest of Pseudoheriades grandiceps described by Rozen and Praz is based on notes, nest fragments and cocoons pinned with adults from the UAE preserved at Logan, Utah. Their figures 64 and 65 show two adults, one a female pinned with a leaf covered nest cell and a male pinned with a petal covered nest cell from which they had emerged. It was recorded that cell partitions within the leaf covering and petal covering were constructed from resin. It was not clear whether the leaves and petals had been placed by the female Pseudoheriades grandiceps or whether, as suggested by Praz, the trap-nest had been previously occupied by a different megachilid. The use of a pre-existing cavity, and the use of resin are the only similarities with the nest from the DDCR.
The notes presented here on nesting by Pseudoheriades grandiceps in the DDCR provide the first detailed observations on nest structure for this species. The nest was constructed in a trap-nest of 9.5 mm bore, part of the bundle attached near the base of the trunk of a date palm at the Camel Farm. It consisted of a cluster of cells constructed from a mixture of sand and resin. The cells free from the walls of the boring were ovoid, approximately 6 mm in length and at the widest point 3.5 mm in width with the wall approximately 1 mm in thickness. Those constructed against the Perspex cover were incompletely constructed, the Perspex forming part of the cell wall (Fig. 17a-c View Figures 17–19 ).
That no leaves or petals formed part of the nests of either Pseudoheriades moricei described by Krombein nor that of Pseudoheriades grandiceps described in the present contribution confirms the suggestion that the leaves and petals present in the nest of Pseudoheriades grandiceps nest described by Rozen and Praz were present in the trap nest before the female Pseudoheriades grandiceps started her nesting activities and that she had constructed her cells within the walls of cells of another megachilid that had previously occupied the cavity. Furthermore that the cells, composing the nest of Pseudoheriades grandiceps here described, were in a boring of larger diameter than the cells and that the cells were not constructed in linear series but were grouped to form a cluster suggests that Pseudoheriades grandiceps may be found to nest in cavities other than straight borings.
Nesting progress. The first cell had been constructed by 27 April and by 2 May five cells had been constructed. Sometime later the boring was usurped for nesting by Megachile maxillosa (Fig. 13 View Figures 8–15 ). When the nest was inspected in early April 2016 no imagines had emerged but by May imagines had emerged from all of the cells (Figs 18 View Figures 17–19 , 19 View Figures 17–19 ).
Provision. The identity of the pollen used in provisioning was not established. In order not to damage the cells the Perspex sheet was not removed until after the imagines had emerged.
Associates.
Three specimens of Zonitoschema iranica Kasab, 1959 ( Meloidae ) from Ras al-Khaymah in the United Arab Emirates were recorded as having been reared from a nest of Pseudoheriades grandiceps ( Batelka and Bologna 2014).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
SubFamily |
Megachilinae |
Genus |