Andrena (Melanapis) fuscosa Erichson, 1835

Wood, Thomas James, 2023, Revisions to the Andrena fauna of north-western Africa with a focus on Morocco (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae), European Journal of Taxonomy 916 (1), pp. 1-85 : 10-11

publication ID	https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2023.916.2381
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0DC587F6-9DAA-4F6E-BA2A-AD528990BA24
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10453482
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03ADDB11-FF81-FFBC-0A50-FAC3FB69F9AD
treatment provided by	Plazi (2024-01-03 08:46:50, last updated 2024-11-29 10:52:23)
scientific name	Andrena (Melanapis) fuscosa Erichson, 1835
status

Treatment

Andrena (Melanapis) fuscosa Erichson, 1835 View in CoL

Figs 6–7 View Fig View Fig

Andrena (Melanapis) fuscosa Erichson, 1835: 103 View in CoL , ♂ ( Spain: ZMHB).

Andrena (Melanapis) rutila Spinola, 1838: 510 View in CoL , ♀ ( Egypt: MRSN, lectotype by present designation; Fig. 6A–D View Fig ).

Andrena (Melanapis) ephippium Spinola, 1838: 511 View in CoL , ♀ ( Egypt: MRSN, lectotype by present designation; Fig. 7A–D View Fig ).

Remarks

Wood (2023) presented genetic data for A. fuscosa from Spain, the locus typicus. Whilst this showed that material from Spain was closely related to sequences from Israel and northern India, specimens from Morocco were separated by around 5%. Further study is required to establish whether or not North African material represents a distinct species or simply genetic drift and separation by distance. No morphological differences are immediately apparent. In any case, recognising the next available names is important, these being Spinola’s names from Egypt ( Spinola 1838). For both taxa, a single female specimen is conserved in the MRSN collection. Both conform to the concept of A. fuscosa , though A. rutila is extensively red-marked ( Fig. 6A–D View Fig ), and A. ephippium is predominantly dark ( Fig. 7A–D View Fig ); this colour variation can be found across the range of A. fuscosa without clear geographic gradients or patterns other than that red colouration is both more frequent and covers a greater proportion of the body in hotter and drier environments. The A. ephippium specimen is damaged and is missing its head, but structurally can clearly be identified as A. fuscosa . The two specimens may automatically be holotypes, but since this is not clear from Spinola’s original descriptions, they are here designated as lectotypes.

Distribution

Palaearctic, from the Canary Islands to Central Asia and northern India ( Gusenleitner & Schwarz 2002).

References

Gusenleitner F. & Schwarz M. 2002. Weltweite Checkliste der Bienengattung Andrena mit Bemerkungen und Erganzungen zu palaarktischen Arten (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Andreninae, Andrena). Entomofauna Suppl. 10: 1 - 1280.

Spinola M. 1838. Compte rendu des Hymenopteres recueillis par M. Fischer pendant son voyage en Egypte, et communiques par M. le Docteur Waltl a Maximilien Spinola. Annales de la Societe entomologique de France 7: 437 - 546.

Wood T. J. 2023. The genus Andrena in the Iberian Peninsula: revisionary taxonomy, ecology, new species, and a key to their identification (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 96: 241 - 484. https: // doi. org / 10.3897 / jhr. 96.101873

Figures

Fig. 6. Andrena (Melanapis) fuscosa Erichson, 1835 (lectotype of A. (M.) rutila Spinola, 1838), ♀ (MRSN). A. Label details. B. Lateral habitus. C. Face, frontal view. D. Terga, dorsal view.

Fig. 7. Andrena (Melanapis) fuscosa Erichson, 1835 (lectotype of A. (M.) ephippium Spinola, 1838), ♀ (MRSN). A. Label details. B. Lateral habitus. C. Body, frontal view. D. Terga, dorsal view.

Fig. 6. Andrena (Melanapis) fuscosa Erichson, 1835 (lectotype of A. (M.) rutila Spinola, 1838), ♀ (MRSN). A. Label details. B. Lateral habitus. C. Face, frontal view. D. Terga, dorsal view.

Fig. 7. Andrena (Melanapis) fuscosa Erichson, 1835 (lectotype of A. (M.) ephippium Spinola, 1838), ♀ (MRSN). A. Label details. B. Lateral habitus. C. Body, frontal view. D. Terga, dorsal view.