Euglossa (Euglossella) cyanea Friese

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 : 34-41

Euglossa (Euglossella) cyanea Friese

( Figs. 38–50 , 147 , 157 , 170 )

Euglossa variabilis var. cyanea Friese, 1899: 135 [♂ ♀]. Lectotype ♂ (HNHM, visum).

DIAGNOSIS: Labiomaxillary complex in repose reaching second metasomal sternum in both sexes (slightly longer in male); upper and lower interorbital distances equal (marginally different) ( Figs. 42, 44 ); malar area short (less than 0.25 mm, noticeably shorter than diameter of mid-flagellar articles) ( Figs. 42, 44 ); pronotal dorsolateral angle projected as a lamella; male 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. 43–147 ); female mesoscutellar tuft ellipsoidal, composed of dense, dark setae, occupying two thirds of mesoscutellum length ( Fig. 40 ); male mesobasitarsus with posterior keel projected in a right to slightly acute angle ( Fig. 46 ); female metabasitarsus with anterior margin convex and posterior margin straight ( Fig. 47 ); second metasomal sternum of male with two simple meso-lateral tufts; metasoma wider than head (about 1.07 times or over), best appreciated in dorsal view in both sexes ( Figs. 38 , 40 ); head mainly cyan with few blue and green areas (vide Decription for female variation, infra), darker in female ( Figs. 42, 44 ); male with paraocular marks trapezoidal, lower width about two thirds of length of lower lateral part of clypeus ( Figs. 39 , 42 ); scape of male with ivory spot covering almost entire anterior surface ( Fig. 42 ), absent in female ( Fig. 44 ); mesosoma cyan with green intergradations, female generally darker (vide decription for female variation, infra) ( Figs. 38–41 , 47, 50 ); first to fourth metasomal terga violet-purple with cyan iridescence on lateral margins, fifth to seventh terga cyan, female generally darker (vide decription for female variation, infra) ( Figs. 38–41 , 49 ); mesoscutellum moderately punctate (punctures separated by one to two puncture diameters) ( Figs 40 , 50 ); punctation of central area of mesepisternum rather sparse when compared to other species (punctures separated by two to three puncture diameters) ( Fig. 48 ), marginally denser on female; metasomal terga densely and evenly imbricate-punctate ( Figs. 40 , 49 ); mesosomal vestiture dominated by fuscous setae, slightly darker than in other species (vide description for female variation, infra) ( Figs. 38–41 , 48, 50 ); eighth metasomal sternum posterior section very narrow as a slender cylinder; gonocoxite dorsal process about as wide as long ( Fig. 157 ); 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 11.95 mm (10.89–13.33; n=4); labiomaxillary complex in repose reaching posterior half of second metasomal sternum ( Figs 38–39 ). Head length 2.65 mm (2.56–2.74; n=4), width 4.86 mm (4.78–5.04; n=4); upper interorbital distance 2.19 mm (2.15–2.3; n=4); lower interorbital distance 2.22 mm (2.15–2.3; n=4); upper clypeal width 1.23 mm (1.19–1.26; n=4); lower clypeal width 2.03 mm (2–2.07; n=4); clypeal protuberance 0.75 mm (0.59–0.81; n=4); clypeal ridges, labral ridges, and labral windows as described for E. viridis , except paramedial ridges quasi-parallel to medial ridge, forming a rectangular clypeal disc (raised section between paramedial ridges); labrum wider than long, length 1.08 mm (1.06–1.11; n=4), width 1.21 mm (1.19–1.26; n=4) ( Fig. 42 ); interocellar distance 0.34 mm (0.33–0.35; n=4); ocellocular distance 0.66 mm (0.64–0.68; n=4); first flagellar article longer [0.65 mm (0.63–0.67; n=4)] than second and third flagellar articles combined [0.44 mm (n=4)]; length of malar area 0.21 mm (0.19–0.24; n=4). Mandible tridentate. Pronotal dorsolateral angle projected posterolaterally as a truncate lamella; intertegular distance 3.54 mm (3.48–3.63; n=4); mesoscutal length 2.92 mm (2.85–2.96; n=4); mesoscutellar length 1.28 mm (1.26–1.33; n=4); posterior margin of mesoscutellum truncate along most of its length (laterally rounded) ( Fig. 50 ); mesotibial length 2.47 mm (2.44–2.52; n=4); mesobasitarsal length 2.5 mm (2.44–2.59; n=4), width 0.82 mm (0.81–0.85; n=4), posterior keel projected in a right to slightly acute angle with proximal margin (between mesotibia-mesobasitarsus joint and apex of keel) appearing slightly convex ( Fig. 46 ); metatibia triangular (scalene triangular) ( Fig. 45 ), maximum thickness 1.39 mm (1.33–1.44; n=4); metatibial anterior margin length 3.83 mm (3.7–4.04; n=4), ventral margin length 2.56 mm (2.44–2.67; n=4), postero-dorsal margin length 4.90 mm (4.76–5.11; n=4); metatibial organ slit as described for E. viridis , dorsal section length 0.64 mm (0.61–0.67; n=4); metabasitarsal length 2.45 mm (2.3–2.52; n=4), mid-width 0.91 mm (0.89–0.96; n=4); metabasitarsal ventral margin truncate. Forewing length 9.81 mm (9.63–10.07; n=4); jugal comb with 13–15 (n=4) blades; hind wing with 22–26 (n=4) hamuli. Maximum metasomal width 5.21 mm (5.11–5.33; n=4); second metasomal sternum as described for E. viridis .

Coloration. Head mainly cyan (except as described below) (vide Comments, infra), vertex, and frons blue, some greenish areas above paraocular marks and on depressed antennal area; remainder of head as described for E. viridis ( Fig. 42 ). Prothorax, mesoscutum, tegula, mesoscutellum, and posterior surface of propodeum mainly metallic cyan (some specimens purple-like), with metallic green intergradations more noticeable on anterior, posterior, and lateral margins of mesoscutum ( Figs. 38–39 , 50 ); mesepisternum cyan with green intergradations ( Fig. 48 ), turning rather green on preomaular area, lateral sections of propodeum mainly green with cyan intergradations and some golden hue; legs mainly amber-brown as a base color, shiny with metallic purple-cyan iridescence (except as indicated), especially noticeable on mesobasitarsus, coxae with anterior surfaces metallic green to cyan, inner surfaces of coxae, femora, tibiae, and basitarsi as well as entire surface of all tarsomeres beyond basitarsi amber-bronze with golden hue, pretarsal claws light brown on shaft, darker at tip ( Figs. 38–39 , 45 ). First to fourth metasomal terga violet-purple with cyan iridescence on lateral margins, fifth to seventh terga metallic cyan with some green iridescence, especially on posterior part of seventh tergum ( Fig. 49 ). Sterna green or cyan with golden-bronze iridescence.

Sculpturing. Head as described for E. viridis ( Fig. 42 ). Mesoscutum and mesoscutellum as described for E. azurea ; mesepisternum punctate, punctures moderately dense, distinctively sparser than in E. viridis and also E. azurea (punctures on central surfaces of lateral part of mesepisternum separated by two to three puncture diameters, surfaces close to pronotal lobe and hypoepimeral area with punctures separated by one puncture diameter) ( Fig. 48 ). Second to fourth metasomal terga with dense punctures, sized as those on mesoscutum, not as dense mesally on posterior section (leaving from one to one and half puncture diameters between), otherwise dense (contiguous); fifth to seventh terga with punctures doubled in size compared to previous terga ( Fig. 49 ).

Vestiture. Head as described for E. viridis ( Fig. 42 ). Mesosoma as described for E. viridis , except mesoscutum and mesoscutellum with slightly denser, darker, and longer setae ( Figs. 38–39 , 50 ); legs, including features of mesotibia, as described for E. viridis ( Figs. 43, 45 , 147 ). Metasoma as described for E. viridis ( Fig. 49 ).

Terminalia. Hidden sterna and genital capsule as described for E. viridis ( Fig. 157 ).

♀: Structure. Total body length 10.95 mm (10.37–11.63; n=4); labiomaxillary complex in repose reaching second metasomal sternum ( Fig. 41 ). Head length 2.92 mm (2.74–3.15; n=4); head width 4.87 mm (4.67–5.04; n=4); upper interorbital distance 2.36 mm (2.22–2.44; n=4); lower interorbital distance 2.42 mm (2.30–2.52; n=4); upper clypeal width 1.31 mm (1.26–1.33; n=4); lower clypeal width 2.09 mm (1.96–2.22; n=4); clypeal protuberance 0.80 mm (0.67–0.89; n=4); clypeal ridges, labral ridges, and labral windows as in E. viridis ; labrum rectangular, wider than long, length 1.06 mm (1.04–1.08; n=4), width 1.25 mm (1.22–1.30; n=4); anterior margin of labrum arched outwards with subapical carina; interocellar distance 0.34 mm (0.30–0.36; n=4); ocellocular distance 0.72 mm (0.67–0.75; n=4); first flagellar article longer [0.58 mm (0.56–0.59; n=4)] than second and third flagellar articles combined [0.44 mm (0.44–0.45; n=4)]; length of malar area 0.22 mm (0.20–0.24; n=4). Mandible tridentate. Pronotal dorsolateral angle projected posterolaterally as a truncate lamella; intertegular distance 3.76 mm (3.63–3.85; n=4); mesoscutal length 2.88 mm (2.74–3.04; n=4); mesoscutellar length 1.36 mm (1.33– 1.41; n=4); posterior margin of mesoscutellum as in E. viridis ( Fig. 9 ); mesotibial length 2.42 mm (2.30–2.48; n=4); mesobasitarsal length 2.24 mm (2.15–2.37; n=4), maximum width 0.74 mm (0.70–0.78; n=4); metatibia triangular (right triangle) ( Fig. 47 ); metatibial anterior margin length 3.43 mm (3.11–3.56; n=4); metatibial ventral margin length 2.10 mm (1.93–2.30; n=4); metatibial postero-dorsal margin length 3.83 mm (3.48–4.07; n=4); metabasitarsal length 2.02 mm (1.93–2.07; n=4), proximal margin width 0.93 mm (0.85–0.96; n=4). Forewing length 9.36 mm (8.74–9.93; n=4); hind wing with 21–25 (n=4) hamuli. Maximum metasomal width 5.22 mm (4.89–5.41; n=4).

Coloration. Available females with considerable variation in integumental coloration. Peruvian females follow pattern described for males of same species (vide supra), with a darker blue coloration in some areas turning purple, and general reduction of green and golden-bronzy iridescence ( Figs. 40–41 , 44, 47 ). Bolivian females with a contrasting rather uniform dark green coloration over body, with some cyan iridescence on vertex, mesoscutum, and mesoscutellum, and some golden-bronzy iridescence on frontal facial areas, mesepisternum, legs, and metasoma (especially on fourth to seventh terga).

Sculpturing. As described for male of same species (vide supra) except as follows: Mesepisternum denser (albeit marginally); metasomal terga with smaller, denser punctures, but following same pattern (doubled in size on apical terga, fifth and beyond).

Vestiture. Mainly as in males of same species (vide supra). Green Bolivian specimens have noticeably darker setae. Mesoscutellar tuft ellipsoidal, otherwise as described for females of E. viridis / azurea . Corbicula as described for females of E. viridis / azurea .

LECTOTYPE: ♂, Bolivia: “Bolivia; S. Antonio // E. variabilis ; v. cyanea ; det. Friese 1898 [taxon name handwritten] // Coll.Mus.Hung.; Budapest [red ink] // LECTOTYPUS; Euglossa ♂; cyanea Friese ; Det.J.S. Moure 1966 [red label; taxon name and last two digits of year handwritten]” ( HNHM).

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL EXAMINED (33♂♂ 5♀♀): Bolivia: 2♂♂, “COLECÃO; CAMPOS SEABRA // yungas del Palmar; 100 m; 5 Maio 1951; Bolivia R. Zischka [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; n° 3; Det. J.S. Moure 1956 [mixed handwritten]” ( SEMC) . 1♂, as previous except identification label “ cyanea [handwritten]” ( DZUP) . 1♂, as previous except identification label “ Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanea Friese ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA) . 1♂, “ Bolivien, Yungas de; Palmar 1000 m.; 5. 5. 1950; leg. Zischka // Pollinarium // Euglossa ; viridis ; Perty 1833; det. B. Bembé 2001 // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanea Friese ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA) . 1♂, as previous except no “pollinarium” label ( CRAS) . 3♂♂, “Region Chapare; Bolivia 400 M. V-; 5-1949 Zischka // Euglossa ; cyanea Friese ; det. R.L. Dressler 1968” (two in FSCA, one in CRAS) . 1♂, as previous except identification label “ Euglossa ; cyanea Fr. ; Dressler, 1967 [handwritten]” ( SEMC) . 21♂♂, as previous except identification label “ Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanea Friese ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( SEMC) . 2♂♂, as previous except extra identification label “ Euglossa ; n° 3; Det. J.S. Moure 1957 [mixed handwritten]” ( SEMC) . 1♀, “Cristal Mayu.; Chapare, Cochab-; amba Bol. 200m.; X-20-49 LEPeña [?] // Euglossa ; n° 7; Det. J.S. Moure 1957 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; cyanea Friese ; Det. R. L. Dressler 1987” ( SEMC) . 2♀♀, “Bolivia: La Paz; Zongo Valley, Cahua ; 1,400m. 22–23.vi.1979; M. Cooper; B.M. 1979-397” ( NHML) . Peru: 1♀, “Peru; Marcapata ; 1900 [locality handwritten]// Euglossa ; cyanea ; ♀ 1900 Friese det. [mixed handwritten] // Am. Mus. Nat. Hist; Dept. Invert. Zool.; No. 28266 [number handwritten]” ( AMNH) . 1♀, “PERU: Madre de Dios; Pantiacolla Lodge, 5.5 km NW; El Mirador Trail, 500 m; Alto Madre de Dios River ; 12°39’10”S, 71°15’28”W; 26 OCT 2000, PERU1800 107; R. Brooks, ex: misc collecting // [bar code]; SM0269249 ; KUMHM-ENT // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanea Friese ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( SEMC) .

COMMENTS: The lectotype of E. cyanea was designated by Moure (1967b) in his checklist of the euglossine bees known at that time. However, Moure (1967b) cited the specimen, with the above data, as a female deposited in the Hungarian Natural History Museum in Budapest. Subsequent catalogs reporting type information for euglossines ( Kimsey & Dressler, 1986; Roubik & Hanson, 2004; Moure et al., 2007) reproduced the information given by Moure (1967b), and similarly referred to the lectotype as a female. However, the specimen bearing his lectotype label, deposited in Budapest, and bearing all of the correct label information for Friese’s type series is a male. Indeed, the specimen bears a red lectotype label handwritten by Moure (with the year noted as 1966) and also clearly indicating the sex of the specimen as a male (again, in Moure’s handwriting: refer to quotation of lectotype label data, vide supra). This confusion regarding the sex of the lectotype for E. cyanea had already been noticed by Nemésio (2009) and Nemésio & Rasmussen (2011), and there are several discrepancies as to the sex of types in Moure (1967b). One could argue whether this was, in fact, the specimen Moure had intended (perhaps mislabeling the individual in Budapest), and thereby whether this should be considered the valid lectotype for the species. Moreover, labeling in an institution does not designate a type, only the published account does so. However, to conclude in this instances that the valid lectotype is actually a Bolivian female in the Budapest collection would be in error, and Moure’s designation should remain valid but with the clear correction that an error occurred when transferring information from his notes to the manuscript of his paper. The reason for this becomes apparent when one carefully examines Friese’s entire syntype series. Friese (1899) did not indicate the total number of specimens he employed when describing E. cyanea , noting only that he had at least one male and one female, and that the part of the series from “ Bolivia ” was located in the Budapest museum while the other portion from “Cayenne” was deposited in Berlin. A study of the collection in Budapest reveals that there is only a single male present (and it does, indeed, bear Friese’s determination label and is from Bolivia), and no females or additional males are part of that series as confirmed by the curators of the HNHM. It would have been, therefore, impossible for Moure to designate a female as lectotype from material in Budapest, and the notation in his paper that it is otherwise ( Moure, 1967b) is merely an error without possible alternative interpretation. Had there been females from Bolivia among the Budapest series, then the validity of the lectotype designation could be brought into question as the published designation would technically be for one of the females and would take nomenclatorial precedence, potentially requiring relabeling of the material in Budapest to be in accord with the official designation (again, as we noted above, labeling in a collection does not validate a type designation and only the validly-published account sets the lectotype: refer also to the account of the lectotype for E. polita where a seemingly similar but factually different case of mistaken sex also exists and for which the published account must be followed, infra). As for the material from “Cayenne” (French Guiana), it is fortunate that no such specimen was selected as the lectotype as they could not possibly belong to E. cyanea and the species does not occur within the Guiana Shield region.

From a comparative perspective, E. cyanea is larger on average than most other species in the group. The species is rather characteristic in terms of its integumental sculpture and structure. Coloration of the available specimens would for the most part be distinctive, matching well with the specific epithet, if it were not for a series of green females, as described above. As stated when discussing some extremes of male color variation found in E. viridis , we emphasize that coloration should be analyzed cautiously, and that structure and integumental sculpture should take precedence as these have proven persistently to be more consistent when circumscribing taxa within Euglossa . Euglossa cyanea is more similar to E. subandina than to any other species in the group. Both species as defined here can be separated by the general size ratio of the head and metasomal width (vide Comments for E. subandina , infra). Euglossa cyanea occurs in areas of Yungas forests in Bolivia and Peru, and those from the latter represent the first official records for that country ( Fig. 170 ).

Figures

Figure 170. Collection localities for species of Euglossella Moure, viridis and mandibularis species groups [also showing localities for females attributable only to Euglossa (Euglossella) viridis (Perty)/azurea Ducke]. Locality points are based on examined specimens.

Figures 38–39. Euglossa (Euglossella) cyanea Friese, male. 38. Dorsal habitus. 39. Lateral habitus.

Figures 40–41. Euglossa (Euglossella) cyanea Friese, female. 40. Dorsal habitus. 41. Lateral habitus.

Figures 42–50. Euglossa (Euglossella) cyanea Friese. 42. Facial aspect of male. 43. Mesotibial tufts of male. 44. Facial aspect of female. 45. Outer view of male hind leg. 46. Proximal section of male mesobasitarsus. 47. Outer view of female hind leg. 48. Lateral part of mesepisternum of male. 49. Dorsal view of male metasomal terga. 50. Mesoscutellum of male lectotype.

Figures 144–154. Outer view of mesotibiae of males of species of Euglossella Moure, viridis and mandibularis species groups. 144. Euglossa (Euglossella) viridis (Perty). 145. E. (E.) azurea Ducke. 146. E. (E.) celiae, new species. 147. E. (E.) cyanea Friese. 148. E. (E.) subandina, new species. 149. E. (E.) polita Ducke. 150. E. (E.) perviridis Dressler. 151. E. (E.) cyanura Cockerell. 152. E. (E.) granti Cheesman. 153. E. (E.) mandibularis Friese. 154. E. (E.) bigibba Dressler.

Figures 155–163. Dorsal view of genital capsule of males of Euglossella Moure, viridis and mandibularis species groups. 155. Euglossa (Euglossella) azurea Ducke. 156. E. (E.) celiae, new species. 157. E. (E.) cyanea Friese. 158. E. (E.) subandina, new species. 159. E. (E.) polita Ducke. 160. E. (E.) perviridis Dressler. 161. E. (E.) cyanura Cockerell. 162. E. (E.) granti Cheesman. 163. E. (E.) bigibba Dressler.

Figures 3–9. Euglossa (Euglossella) viridis (Perty), male. 3. Facial aspect. 4. Mesotibial tufts. 5. Outer view of hind leg. 6. Lateral part of mesepisternum. 7. Mesoscutellum. 8. Proximal section of mesobasitarsus. 9. Dorsal view of metasomal terga.