Leioproctus (Leioproctus) alleynae (Rayment, 1935)
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3715.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C099D583-4AD5-48EB-8C20-8B6EDE58801D |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6509066 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/732D878C-E41D-6E47-4F98-FAF6FE1EF8E4 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Leioproctus (Leioproctus) alleynae (Rayment, 1935) |
status |
|
Leioproctus (Leioproctus) alleynae (Rayment, 1935) View in CoL
Paracolletes alleynae *Rayment 1935: 668, 1954: 46 .
Leioproctus (Leioproctus) alleynae (Rayment) View in CoL . Michener 1965: 50.
Type
Paracolletes alleynae — Victoria: holotype ♂, Croydon , 3.i.1939 ( ANIC) .
Additional material examined: 14♀, 6♂ Victoria: 16 k W Genoa; Reefton; Macedon; Box Hill, Melbourne; Parkville, Melbourne; Powelltown. South Australia: Millicent .
Months collected: December, January, February.
Floral visitations: Myrtaceae : Eucalyptus ; Pittosporaceae : Bursaria spinosa .
Description— L. alleynae can be distinguished from L. recusus by the orange hair on the scutum and scutellum (whitish in L. recusus ), the orange mid femur in L. alleynae (black in L. recusus ) and male genitalia and hidden sterna. This species is most similar to L. recusus . Both are readily distinguished from other species in the group by the orange colour of all tibiae and tarsi and the hind femora, in contrast to the black basal areas. For male S7–8 and genitalia see figs 82–84.
ANIC |
Australian National Insect Collection |
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 |
|
Genus |
Leioproctus (Leioproctus) alleynae (Rayment, 1935)
Maynard, Glynn Vivian 2013 |
Leioproctus (Leioproctus) alleynae (Rayment)
Michener, C. D. 1965: 50 |