Megachile (Pseudomegachile) plumigera Dorchin & Praz, 2018
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4524.3.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6E27E496-B896-49E0-8EF2-4BAA57F6B91D |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6493412 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/481E7707-FFCE-4E04-FF5A-FDCAFC17FDD9 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Megachile (Pseudomegachile) plumigera Dorchin & Praz |
status |
sp. nov. |
Megachile (Pseudomegachile) plumigera Dorchin & Praz , sp. nov.
Distribution: United Arab Emirates, Oman.
Pollen hosts: Some specimens were collected on Crotalaria aegyptiaca (Fabaceae) in the United Arab Emirates.
Nesting biology: unknown.
Diagnosis: This species is very similar in morphology to M. blepharis sp. nov. described above from the Arava desert of Israel, and differs from the third species in the group, M. incana , by essentially the same characteristics listed in the diagnosis for the former species except those mentioned below. The female is easily separable from that of M. blepharis sp. nov. by the lack of facial comb of modified unbranched hairs, instead it has ordinary semi-erect, finely branched, silvery-white hairs on the clypeus, supraclypeal area and frons ( Fig. 125 View FIGURES 125–133 ). The clypeus is relatively short, about as short as in M. incana (1.7 times broader than long, but the clypeus is normally hidden by dense hairs).
The male is very similar to that of M. blepharis sp. nov. and is difficult or impossible to separate from that species. Possibly, the posterior submedial depressions of S8 are deeper in M. plumigera ( Fig. 169 View FIGURES 159–170 ) than in M. blepharis ( Fig. 167 View FIGURES 159–170 ), and the basomedial spine and basolateral angle of the penis valve more angular ( Figs 132 View FIGURES 125–133 , 168, 170 View FIGURES 159–170 ).
Description: Female: as described for M. blepharis sp. nov. above, except the following characteristics. Body size slightly smaller, 11-12 mm. Head 1.2 times broader than long; interocellar distance 3.9 lateral ocellus diameters; compound eye about 2.7 times longer than wide in profile; all teeth of mandible comparably sharp ( Fig. 125 View FIGURES 125–133 ); clypeus relatively short, about 1.7 times broader than long, weakly convex but not distinctly elevated along midline, with small, preapical medial protuberance not obscuring truncate anterior margin in frontal view, and with comparatively long, smooth area along anterior margin, about 3 puncture diameters long, the surface concealed by dense hairs ( Fig. 125 View FIGURES 125–133 ); scape 2.7 times longer than broad; first flagellomere 1.1 times as long as broad, as broad as pedicle. Omaulus angular (more strongly so than in M. blepharis sp. nov.), obscured by dense hairs; scutellum regularly convex; hind basitarsus oval, weakly convex, about 2.46 times as long as broad (cf. Fig. 133 View FIGURES 125–133 ).
Integument color black, except reddish-amber on either underside or both sides of antennae, terminal tarsal segment, and sometimes also tarsal segement 3 or 4; tergal and sternal marginal zones reddish amber to ocherous or fulvous; tegulae mostly ocherous. Integument surface sculpture as in M. blepharis sp. nov. (above) except that the clypeus densely punctate with irregular mostly small confluent punctures with no visible interspaces and with smooth apical margin two puncture diameters long; lower gena and hypostomal area with denser punctation.
Vestiture as in M. blepharis sp. nov. (above) ( Fig. 126 View FIGURES 125–133 ), but unlike that species the face densely covered with light long branched hairs without modified unbranched hairs ( Fig. 125 View FIGURES 125–133 ).
Male: description as M. blepharis sp. nov. (above) except for the following. Body length 11–13 mm; forewing length 6.75–8 mm; interocellar distance 3.1 lateral ocellus diameters; scape broaden apically, 2.5 times as long as apically broad; first flagellomere about as long as broad, about as broad as pedicle. Preapical carina of T6 broad, irregularly dentate with 7–8 teeth largely varying in size, the longest teeth on both sides of sometimes asymmetrical emargination ( Fig. 129 View FIGURES 125–133 ); T7 produced into long, robust apicomedian spine, slightly shorter than distance from base of spine to anterior margin of external surface of T7 as seen in ventral view ( Fig. 129 View FIGURES 125–133 ); structures of S1–8 and genitalia as in M. blepharis sp. nov. (above) except: submedial depressions on posterior of disc of S8 more conspicuous ( Fig. 169 View FIGURES 159–170 ); and basomedial spine and basolateral angle of penis valve more angular compared to rounded in that species ( Fig. 170 View FIGURES 159–170 ). These characters are weak and only few specimens were available for study.
Integument and wing color, and vestiture as in female ( Figs 127, 128 View FIGURES 125–133 ), but antennal flagellum lighter reddishamber on dorsal side, orange on ventral side, and tegulae fulvous. Clypeus uniformly densely punctate with minute punctures covered with dense hairs.
Etymology: The species epithet plumigera refers to the plumose hairs found on the clypeus of the females of the new species, its main distinctive character.
Holotype: ♀, OMAN: 120 km NW Ibri Al Quabil (NW-Oman) [likely Al Qabil, 23°56′51″N 55°49′11″E], 0 2.04.1995, J. Wittmann leg. ( MSCA). GoogleMaps
Paratypes: 2♀, OMAN: J. Hawrah Mahdah [likely “Jebel Hawrah”, 24°20’N, 55°53’E according to Baker (2004), a few km SW of the town of Mahdah, approximately 24°24'23"N 55°57'47"E], 17.03.2000, Gillet leg. (coll. B. Tkalců, OLML; CPCN) GoogleMaps ; 2♀ 1♂, J. Huwarrah [likely Jebel Wahrah, 23°12'N 56°44'E, according to Baker (2004)], 24.03.2000, Gillet leg. (coll. B. Tkalců, OLML, 1♀ 1♂; SMNH, 1♀) GoogleMaps ; 1♂, Muscat, Ruwi , iii.1976, K. Guichard leg. ( BMNH) . UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: 2♂, Al Ain, Snhaiba Dunes , 24.03.2000, Gillet leg. (coll. B. Tkalců, OLML; SMNH) ; 3♀ 3♂, Dubai DDCR, dune area grazing and browsing exclusion plot 24.82096°N 55.61533°E, 2– 16.04.2016, S. Gess leg. ( AMGS, 2♀ 2♂; CPCN 1 ♀ 1♂) GoogleMaps .
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |