Euglossa (Euglossella) subandina Hinojosa-Díaz & Engel, 2014

Hinojosa-Díaz, Ismael A. & Engel, Michael S., 2014, Revision of the orchid bee subgenus Euglossella (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Part II: The viridis and mandibularis species groups, Journal of Melittology 36, pp. 1-108 : 41-45

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.17161/jom.v0i36.4777
publication LSID	urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C9DAC2FD-B7C7-4206-BA89-220522DD884D
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A1878F-B544-FFAB-FF54-4ECA6658FC6B
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Euglossa (Euglossella) subandina Hinojosa-Díaz & Engel
status	sp. nov.

Treatment

Euglossa (Euglossella) subandina Hinojosa-Díaz & Engel View in CoL , new species

ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:A3AE7CA8-2E65-47EC-9727-AB06F3D6F2B1

( Figs. 51–59 View Figures 51–52 View Figures 53–59 , 148 View Figures 144–154 , 158 View Figures 155–163 , 170 View Figure 170 )

DIAGNOSIS: Labiomaxillary complex in repose reaching second metasomal sternum; upper and lower interorbital distances equal (at most marginally different) ( Fig. 53 View Figures 53–59 ); malar area short (less than 0.25 mm, or noticeably shorter than diameter of mid-flagellar articles) ( Fig. 53 View Figures 53–59 ); pronotal dorsolateral angle projected as a lamella; mesotibial tufts as follows: anterior tuft rhomboid, long (maximum length exceeding mid-width of velvety area) and wide (mid-width exceeding width of contiguous section of velvety area), posterior tuft circular-ovoid ( Figs. 54 View Figures 53–59 , 148 View Figures 144–154 ); mesobasitarsal posterior keel projected in a right to slightly obtuse angle ( Fig. 56 View Figures 53–59 ); second metasomal sternum of male with two simple meso-lateral tufts; width of metasoma and head only marginally different (less than 1.05 times) ( Fig. 51 View Figures 51–52 ); head mainly cyan with few blue and green areas ( Fig. 53 View Figures 53–59 ); paraocular marks trapezoidal, lower width about two thirds of length of lower lateral part of clypeus ( Figs. 52–53 View Figures 51–52 View Figures 53–59 ); scape with ivory spot covering almost entire anterior surface ( Fig. 53 View Figures 53–59 ); mesosoma cyan with green intergradations ( Figs. 51–52 View Figures 51–52 , 57–58 View Figures 53–59 ); first to fourth metasomal terga violet-purple with cyan iridescence on lateral margins, fifth to seventh terga cyan ( Fig. 59 View Figures 53–59 ); mesoscutellum moderately punctate (punctures separated by one to two puncture diameters) ( Figs. 58 View Figures 53–59 ); punctation of central area of mesepisternum rather sparse when compared to other species (punctures separated by two to three puncture diameters) ( Fig. 57 View Figures 53–59 ); metasomal terga densely and evenly imbricate-punctate ( Fig. 59 View Figures 53–59 ); mesosomal vestiture dominated by fuscous setae ( Figs. 51–52 View Figures 51–52 , 57–58 View Figures 53–59 ); eighth metasomal sternum posterior section very narrow as a slender cylinder; gonocoxite dorsal process about as wide as long ( Fig. 158 View Figures 155–163 ); gonostylar lateral section with well-developed “secondary” lobe (convexity of posterior margin of basal sector) almost as long as adjacent ventral lobe, covered with dense setae reaching posterior margin of blades of penis valve.

DESCRIPTION: ♂: Structure. Total body length 10.81 mm (10.37–11.33; n=5); labiomaxillary complex in repose reaching posterior half of second metasomal sternum ( Fig. 52 View Figures 51–52 ). Head length 2.39 mm (2.15–2.52; n=5), width 4.51 mm (4.44–4.59; n=5); upper interorbital distance 2.06 mm (2.00–2.11; n=5); lower interorbital distance 2.06 mm (2.00–2.11; n=5); upper clypeal width 1.13 mm (1.11–1.19; n=5); lower clypeal width 1.90 mm (1.85–1.93; n=5); clypeal protuberance 0.71 mm (0.59–0.81; n=5); clypeal ridges, labral ridges, and labral windows as described for E. viridis , paramedial ridges orientation intermediate between conditions observed in E. viridis and males of E. cyanea ; labrum wider than long, length 0.98 mm (0.96–1.04; n=5), width 1.14 mm (1.11–1.19; n=5) ( Fig. 53 View Figures 53–59 ); interocellar distance 0.29 mm (0.26–0.30; n=5); ocellocular distance 0.63 mm (0.59–0.65; n=5); first flagellar article longer [0.61 mm (0.59–0.63; n=5)] than second and third flagellar articles combined [0.43 mm (0.41–0.44; n=5)]; length of malar area 0.21 mm (0.19–0.22; n=5). Mandible tridentate. Pronotal dorsolateral angle projected posterolaterally as a truncate lamella; intertegular distance 3.41 mm (3.33–3.48; n=5); mesoscutal length 2.60 mm (2.52–2.74; n=5); mesoscutellar length 1.18 mm (1.11–1.22; n=5); posterior margin of mesoscutellum truncate along most of its length (laterally rounded) ( Fig. 58 View Figures 53–59 ); mesotibial length 2.22 mm (n=5); mesobasitarsal length 2.23 mm (2.22–2.26; n=5), width 0.70 mm (0.67–0.74; n=5) (measured at proximal posterior keel), posterior keel projected in a right to slightly obtuse angle with proximal margin (between mesotibia-mesobasitarsus joint and apex of keel) appearing slightly convex (intermediate situation between E. viridis and E. azurea ) ( Fig. 56 View Figures 53–59 ); metatibia triangular (scalene triangular) ( Fig. 55 View Figures 53–59 ), maximum thickness 1.25 mm (1.22–1.26; n=5); metatibial anterior margin length 3.50 mm (3.26–3.63; n=5), ventral margin length 2.28 mm (2.22– 2.37; n=5), postero-dorsal margin length 4.53 mm (4.44–4.59; n=5); metatibial organ slit as described for E. viridis , dorsal section length 0.54 mm (0.44–0.59; n=5); metabasitarsal length 2.18 mm (2.07–2.26; n=5), mid-width 0.79 mm (0.74–0.81; n=5); metabasitarsal ventral margin truncate. Forewing length 9.04 mm (8.67–9.33; n=5); jugal comb with 14–15 (n=5) blades; hind wing with 20–23 (n=5) hamuli. Maximum metasomal width 4.62 mm (4.52–4.74; n=5); second metasomal sternum with two meso-lateral tufts separated by twice width of an individual tuft.

Coloration. As described for males of E. cyanea ( Figs. 51–59 View Figures 51–52 View Figures 53–59 ).

Sculpturing. As described for males of E. cyanea ( Figs. 51–53, 57–59 View Figures 51–52 View Figures 53–59 ).

Vestiture. As described for males of E. cyanea ( Figs. 51–53, 57–59 View Figures 51–52 View Figures 53–59 ), including features of metatibia ( Figs. 54 View Figures 53–59 , 148 View Figures 144–154 ).

Terminalia. Hidden sterna and genital capsule as described for E. viridis ( Fig. 158 View Figures 155–163 ).

♀: Unknown.

ETYMOLOGY: The specific epithet refers to the known occurrence of the species from several localities at mid-evelations on the eastern slope of the Ecuadorian Andes.

HOLOTYPE: ♂, Ecuador: “Ecuador: Zamora-; Chinchipe, Zamora; 27 IV 1989; Dressler,; Whitten & Williams // Ips dienol [label turned upside down]” ( FSCA).

PARATYPES (144♂♂): Ecuador : 105♂♂, same label data as holotype ( FSCA, two in SEMC) . 22♂♂, varying only date of collection, “ 26 IV 1989 ” ( FSCA, one in SEMC) . 5♂♂, “ECUADOR: Napo:; Hollin-Loreto Rd km 14; 1200 m 20 May 1993; Mark Whitten // p-cresol [label turned upside down]” ( FSCA, one in SEMC) . 4♂♂, “ECUADOR: Zamora-; Chinchipe, 8 km. E; Los Encuentros ; 28; IV 1989; Dressler,; Whitten & Williams // Ips dienol [label turned upside down]” ( FSCA, one in SEMC) . 3♂♂, “ECUADOR: Zamora Chinchipe; Zamora: Rio Jamboe km. 12.; 1500 m. 29 Nov. 1988; M. Whitten, N. Williams // Stanhopea anfracta ; fragrance sample [label turned upside down]” ( FSCA, one in SEMC) . 1♂, “ECUADOR: Zamora-; Chinchipe ; El Zarza; 30 IV 1989; Dressler,; Whitten & Williams // Ips dienol [label turned upside down]” ( FSCA) . 1♂, “ECUADOR: Zamora Chinchipe; Zamora: Jimenez garden; 1000 m. 2 Dec. 1988; M. Whitten, N. Williams // G. aromatica [handwritten]” ( FSCA) . 1♂, “ECUADOR: Zamora Chinchipe; Zamora: Rio Yacuambe ; 3 Dec. 1988. 1500 m.; M. Whitten, N. Williams // Peristeria sp. [label turned upside down]” ( FSCA) . 1♂, “ECUADOR: Mor.-Stgo. [Morona-Santiago]; E. Patuca; 27– 31 Aug.; 1987; Dressler, Hills,; Whitten, Williams // p-cresol [label turned upside down]” ( FSCA) . 1♂, “ECUADOR: Zamora-Ch. [Zamora-Chinchipe],; Ecuagenera, Pangüí ; Williams & Whitten // at Peristeria ; lindenii ; 3 oct. 2003 [label turned upside down]” ( FSCA) .

COMMENTS: The repeated allusions to E. cyanea in the description above attests to the morphological similarity between that species and E. subandina . Coloration, integumental sculpture, and vestiture are basically the same in both species. There is however a noticeable difference in the general habitus of both that can be appreciated in a dorsal view (cf. Figs. 38 View Figures 38–39 vs. 51). The metasoma of E. cyanea is noticeably wider when compared to the width of the head, while the metasoma is only marginally wid- er than the head in E. subandina . When measuring these, E. cyanea has a metasomal maximum width on average 7% larger than the head width, this percentage being only about 2.5% for E. subandina . We describe E. subandina as a new species based on this very distinctive feature that is seen in all specimens of this species compared with all observed individuals of E. cyanea , regardless of the locality of origin. Additionally, the allopatric distribution of the known specimens for both taxa reinforces our view that they are distinct and the status of E. subandina as a valid species within the group. Euglossa subandina is known presently from a number of localities at mid elevations on the eastern slope of the Andes of Ecuador ( Fig. 170 View Figure 170 ).