Andrena (Chrysandrena) testaceipes Saunders, 1908

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 : 17-18

Andrena (Chrysandrena) testaceipes Saunders, 1908

Fig. 12

Andrena (Chrysandrena) testaceipes Saunders, 1908: 196 , ♀ ( Algeria: NHMUK).

Andrena (Chrysandrena) colorata Alfken, 1929: 269 , ♀ ♂ ( Libya: ZMHB).

Andrena (Chrysandrena) rubricorpora Wood, 2021: 465 , ♀ ( Tunisia: OÖLM). Syn. nov.

Andrena cirtana – auctorum, nec. Lucas, 1849.

Material examined

ALGERIA • ♀, lectotype of A. testaceipes ( Fig. 12A–D ); Constantine; 20 May 1895; A.E. Eaton leg.; NHMUK .

LIBYA • 1 ♀; Wadi Kuf ; 1 Apr. 1954; K.M. Guichard leg.; NHMUK .

MOROCCO • 5 ♂♂, 1 ♀; Fès-Meknès , Ahermoumou , P5407, immediately NW of Kassioua; 900 m a.s.l.; 15 May 2022; T.J. Wood leg.; TJWC • 1 ♀; SE of Asni , Oukaimeden; 2600 m a.s.l.; 24 Jul. 1985; K.M. Guichard leg.; NHMUK .

TUNISIA • ♀, holotype of A. rubricorpora ; Zaghodan Mts; 14 May 1993; J. Batelka leg.; OÖLM • 1 ♀, paratype of A. rubricorpora ; same collection data as for holotype; OÖLM .

Remarks

Confusion has surrounded this taxon since Warncke (1967) used A. cirtana Lucas, 1849 to apply to what he considered to be a red-marked species of Margandrena (see Warncke 1974 for subgeneric affiliation). Grünwaldt (1976) noted that the name A. cirtana cannot apply to this taxon, as the holotype is a male, and the male of A. cirtana was described as having a yellow-marked clypeus, whereas Warncke’s taxon has the clypeus black. Grünwaldt argued that A. testaceipes was therefore the priority name. Warncke (1967) designated a lectotype for A. testaceipes ( Fig. 12A–D ) which fits Saunders’ description. Importantly, this taxon does not match the criteria for the subgenus Margandrena , and instead falls in Chrysandrena due to the lack of a strong pronotal angle, and the tibial scopa is composed of strongly plumose hairs. The genital capsule of A. testaceipes was illustrated by Scheuchl (2010), where the typical Euandrena / Chrysandrena form can be seen. This unclear phylogenetic position led to the description of A. (Chrysandrena) rubricorpora Wood, 2021 from Tunisia (Wood 2021), as it was not clear that A. testaceipes was actually a member of Chrysandrena . Genetic samples from Morocco clearly place A. testaceipes within Chrysandrena ; it is therefore transferred there, and A. rubricorpora is synonymised with it.

One issue remains, which is the status of the true A. cirtana . At the moment, its identity is unclear, as Gusenleitner & Schwarz (2002) only listed this taxon in its sensu auctorum. Location and examination of the type series in the MNHN collection is necessary, as it potentially has priority over an existing name given its early description date of 1849. No action will be taken until the type series is located.

Distribution

Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt ( Gusenleitner & Schwarz 2002).

Figures

Fig. 12. Andrena (Chrysandrena) testaceipes Saunders, 1908, lectotype, ♀ (NHMUK). A. Label details. B. Lateral habitus. C. Face, frontal view. D. Terga, dorsal view.