Megachile (Litomegachile) lippiae Cockerell, 1900

Megachile cleomis var. lippiae Cockerell, 1900: 15 .

Megachile texana var. lippiae Cockerell, 1900: 223 . Mitchell 1935a: 37.

Megachile lippiae; Pearce 2008: 51. Pearce et al. 2012: 101.

Megachile (Litomegachile) lippiae; Butler 1965: 3. Hurd 1979: 2053. Scott et al. 2011: 55. Sheffield et al. 2011: 38. Bzdyk 2012: 46. Kuhlman and Burrows 2017: 12. Sheffield and Heron 2019: 70. Engel 2020: 10.

Megachile concinna, not Smith, 1879 (misidentification); Pearce 2008: 107.

Diagnosis. The female of M. lippiae can be identified by its suberect white setae and erect black setae on T6 and apically concave T6 (viewed laterally) (Fig. 7N). The female is difficult to discern from M. coquilletti (see M. coquilletti above) (see Taxonomic Challenges). The male of M. lippiae can be identified by its narrow probasitarsus, which is not excavated ventrally, the apical margin of T6 (ventrad to the transverse carina) with submedian teeth closer to lateral teeth than to each other (Fig. 9F), the scutum with less than 25% black pubescence, and mostly white pubescence on the dorsal tergites and vertex of head. The male of M. lippiae is most similar to M. texana, which has greater than 50% black pubescence on the scutum, tergites with significant bands of black pubescence, and the vertex of head with greater than 50% black pubescence (see Taxonomic Challenges).

Notes. Megachile lippiae has been collected widely across Montana (Fig. 1R). Photographs, illustrations, full morphological descriptions, and notes on the biology of this species can be found in Sheffield et al. (2011) and Bzdyk (2012). Sheffield and Genaro (2013) briefly made a claim of validity for Megachile cleomis Cockerell. See Taxonomic Challenges above for a discussion of this issue. The voucher for the misidentified specimen (Pearce 2008) is in the MTEC identified as a male M. lippiae (MTEC 088326) (Table 2; Supp. Material 2: Erroneous Records).