Euglossa (Euglossella) viridis, , Nemesio, 2007

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 : 28-30

Euglossa (Euglossella) viridis / azurea ♀♀

( Figs. 25–28 , 170 )

DESCRIPTION: ♀: Structure. Total body length 10.05 mm (9.63–1.52; n=3); labiomaxillary complex in repose reaching second metasomal sternum ( Fig. 26 ). Head length 2.80 mm (2.63–2.89; n=3); head width 4.51 mm (4.45–4.59; n=3); upper interorbital distance 2.16 mm (2.11–2.22; n=3); lower interorbital distance 2.19 mm (2.15–2.22; n=3); upper clypeal width 1.18 mm (1.15–1.19; n=3); lower clypeal width 1.94 mm (1.93–1.96; n=3); clypeal protuberance 0.62 mm (0.59–0.67; n=3); clypeal ridges, labral ridges, and labral windows as in male of E. viridis ; labrum rectangular, wider than long, length 0.90 mm (0.89–0.93; n=3), width 1.07 mm (1.07–1.08; n=3); anterior margin of labrum arched outwards with subapical carina ( Fig. 27 ); interocellar distance 0.36 mm (0.35– 0.37; n=3); ocellocular distance 0.62 mm (0.59–0.63; n=3); first flagellar article longer [0.51 mm (0.49–0.52; n=3)] than second and third flagellar articles combined [0.38 mm (0.37–0.41; n=3)]; length of malar area 0.16 mm (0.13–0.19; n=3). Mandible tridentate. Pronotal dorsolateral angle as in male of E. viridis ; intertegular distance 3.41 mm (3.41; n=3); mesoscutal length 2.66 mm (2.59–2.72; n=3); mesoscutellar length 1.25 mm (1.19–1.33; n=3); posterior margin of mesoscutellum as in male of E. viridis ( Fig. 25 ); mesotibial length 2.12 mm (2.11–2.15; n=3); mesobasitarsal length 2.00 mm (1.93–2.07; n=3), maximum width 0.64 mm (0.59–0.67; n=3); metatibia triangular (right triangle) ( Fig. 28 ); metatibial anterior margin length 3.04 mm (2.96–3.11; n=3); metatibial ventral margin length 1.99 mm (1.93–2.07; n=3); metatibial postero-dorsal margin length 3.50 mm (3.41–3.56; n=3); metabasitarsal length 1.80 mm (1.78–1.85; n=3), proximal margin width 0.85 mm (0.78–0.89; n=3). Forewing length 8.32 mm (8.15–8.52; n=3); hind wing with 20–24 (n=3) hamuli. Maximum metasomal width 4.72 mm (4.67–4.81; n=3).

Coloration. Generally as described for known male specimens of both E. viridis and E. azurea , with following remarks (vide Comments, infra): Ivory colored areas of face restricted to lateral area of clypeus, malar area, labrum, and mandibles; anterior margin of labrum brown ( Fig. 27 ).

Sculpturing. Available specimens exhibit integumental sculpturing comparable to that described for male specimens of E. viridis (vide Comments for extra details, infra).

Vestiture. Setal structure, coloration, and arrangement as described for male of E. viridis (except, of course, some features of protarsi, meso- and metatibia exclusive to male), with following remarks: Mesoscutellar tuft teardrop shaped, composed of dense, dark setae, occupying two thirds of mesoscutellum length ( Fig. 25 ). Metatibial corbicula surrounded by scattered, long, dark, sturdy setae on innermost margin of concavity ( Fig. 28 ).

MATERIAL EXAMINED (6♀♀): Brazil: 1♀, “ R.S. Base Camp; Serra Roncador; Mato Grosso, Braz.; 8/8/68, dry forest; W.D. Hamilton coll.” [all handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); viridis / azurea ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2011” ( NHML). 1♀, “ R.S. Base Camp; Mato Grosso, Brazil; 8/8/68, dry forest; W.D. Hamilton coll.” [all handwritten] // Euglossa (Euglossella) ; sp.? ♀♀ // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); viridis / azurea ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2011” ( NHML). 1♀, “Faz. Suia Missu; Serra Roncador; Mato Grosso, Braz.; 4/9/68” [all handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); viridis / azurea ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2011” ( NHML). 1♀, “Campo [some unintelligible handwritten, perhaps “onlassia”] // BRAZIL: Mato Grosso; 12°50’S., 51°47’W.; 28 iii 1968 [month and day handwritten]; O.W. Richards. // R.S. & R.G.S.; Expedition; B.M.1968 - 260 // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); viridis / azurea ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2011” ( NHML). 1♀, “BRAZIL, Mato Grosso:; Sinop, October 1976; M. Alvarenga // Euglossa (Euglossella) ; viridis ( Perty, 1833) ; det. J.S. Ascher // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); viridis / azurea ♀; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( AMNH). 1♀, “BRAZIL, Mato Grosso:; Villa Vera, 55°30’ long.; 12°46’ lat., Oct. 1973; M.Alvarenga // Euglossa (Euglossella) ; viridis ( Perty, 1833) ; det. J.S. Ascher // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); viridis / azurea ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( AMNH).

COMMENTS: Under the morphological framework we have employed, the female specimens used for the preceding description share features with males of both E. viridis and E. azurea , while at the same time having no definite way to associate them with either one. The pattern of coloration in the available females falls within the range observed for males of both of the aforementioned species, with one specimen (locality data as “R.S. Base Camp; Serra Roncador; Mato Grosso ”) having predominantly purple-bluish color. The metrics of these specimens are also within the ranges for both species, although having slightly larger measurements (notably in facial distances) than either male averages; however, this is not uncommon in other species in the group for which both sexes are known (i.e., females having larger facial and other measurements relative to the male). It is not surprising to find difficulties in distinguishing females of Euglossa from closely related species, as females have a rather conservative morphology. In general, females have an overall denser pattern of sculpturing, and that is the case for the females treated in this section, leaving no recourse to use the observed punctation differences between males of E. viridis and E. azurea . Despite their conservative morphology, these females are certainly not associated with any of the other species treated in this work and that are based solely on males, as the coloration and metrics put them distinctly close to either E. viridis or E. azurea , and outside the range of any other taxa. Moreover, the locality records of the females fall within the range for both E. viridis and E. azurea , and despite the fact that both have wide ranges no records for other species in the group are known from the specific area where these female records occur (Mato Grosso, Brazil) ( Fig. 170 ). In this respect, records of E. azurea are known from two of the same localities where the unassigned females occur ( Fig. 170 ), which could possibly imply that they are in fact females of this species. However, despite the lack of records in our study for males of E. viridis in those specific locations, the area is well within the range of the species, and as such we prefer to treat these females as unplaced to either E. viridis or E. azurea , but certainly belonging to one of them. Naturally, molecular data would be ideal for resolving such a difficulty and this certainly one of the ways in which DNA barcoding can prove useful despite its broader limitations. Given the rarity of material and that DNA is sometimes degraded in historical specimens, the use of geometric morphometrics may prove to be a more fruitful pursuit as it has the potential to resolve the placement of individual specimens in specific or even higher categories (e.g., Kandemir et al., 2011; Kotthoff et al., 2011, 2013; Wappler et al., 2012; Dewulf et al., 2014; Dehon et al., in press) and is a non-destructive technique. Certainly this remains a topic ripe for future research and it will be exciting to learn eventually how best to associate males and females for these taxa.

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 25–26. Female belonging to either Euglossa (Euglossella) viridis (Perty) or E. (E.) azurea Ducke. 25. Dorsal habitus. 26. Lateral habitus.

Figure 27–28. Female belonging to either Euglossa (Euglossella) viridis (Perty) or E. (E.) azurea Ducke. 27. Facial aspect. 28. Outer view of hind leg.