Megalopta Smith, 1853

Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, Journal of Natural History 49 (11), pp. 575-674 : 578-597

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4333944

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A26E87DD-1953-2965-75B9-FA52FC16FCC9

treatment provided by

Carolina

scientific name

Megalopta Smith, 1853
status

 

Megalopta Smith, 1853 View in CoL

Megalopta Smith, 1853: 83 View in CoL . Type species: Megalopta idalia Smith, 1853 .

Megalopta (Megaloptella) Schrottky, 1906: 312 . Type species: Halictus ochrias Vachal, 1904 .

Tmetocoelia Moure, 1943: 481 . Type species: Megalopta sulciventris Friese, 1926 View in CoL .

Megalopta (Noctoraptor) Engel et al. 1997: 12 . Type species: Megalopta byroni Engel et al. 1997 View in CoL .

Diagnosis

Megalopta differs from other augochlorines, including Xenochlora , by the large ocelli and the closely packed series of hamuli in the hind wing ( Engel 2000; Michener 2007), as well as in the morphology of the male S3–S5 ( Santos and Melo 2013). Megalopta and Xenochlora differ from most augochlorines for their non-metallic, pale brown metasoma. A pale metasoma is present in Megaloptidia Cockerell, Megommation Moure , and some species of Megaloptina Eickwort , but these genera have a very slender proboscis, with the prementum 10 to over 20× as long as broad, and except for Megaloptina , also a serrate inner metatibial spur, while in Megalopta and Xenochlora the proboscis is not so slender, with the prementum about 4–8× as long as broad, and the inner metatibial spur is pectinate.

Three main lineages are recognized in the genus, the first one formed by the cleptoparasitic species, corresponding to the subgenus Noctoraptor , and treated here as the byrony group, the second one formed by the species in which the males have a conspicuous large process covered with velvety pilosity in the posterior upper margin of the metepisternum, and the last lineage comprises those species lacking a welldeveloped metepisternal process (Santos and Melo, unpublished data). The species of the second and third lineages can be further subdivided in four species groups: aegis, amoena, yanomami and sodalis. A subgeneric classification is not adopted here because the available name Megaloptella applies only to the amoena species group and Tmetocoelia has been shown to form a paraphyletic assemblage (Santos and Melo, unpublished data).

Identification key to the species of Megalopta View in CoL from Brazil

This key includes species that occur in other South American countries ( Bolivia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Nicaragua, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela) and in Central America.

Females

1. Posterior upper margin of metepisternum modified into a conspicuously large process covered with velvety pilosity ( Figure 1A, B View Figure 1 ) ......................... 2

– Posterior upper margin of metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process ( Figure 1C View Figure 1 ) .................................................................................... 8

2 (1). Posterior margin of basal area of metapostnotum arcuate, gradually curved toward the metanotum laterally, the longitudinal rugulosities sometimes numerous and present laterally ( Figure 1D View Figure 1 ); upper frons conspicuously convex, strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus ( Figure 1E View Figure 1 )… aegis group .................................................................................................. 3

– Posterior margin of basal area of metapostnotum straight, abruptly bending laterally toward the metanotum, the longitudinal rugulosities restricted to mid portion, absent laterally ( Figure 1F View Figure 1 ); upper frons flat, not strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus ( Figure 2A View Figure 2 )... amoena group (in part) ............................................................................................. 6

3 (2). Basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulosities weakly impressed medially and more developed laterally, the integument often reddish brown on basal half and metallic green on apical half ( Figure 2B View Figure 2 ) .............................................................................. M. nitidicollis View in CoL

– Basal area of metapostnotum with weak longitudinal rugulosities along its entire surface ( Figures 1D View Figure 1 , 2C, D View Figure 2 ) ............................................................. 4

4 (3). Basal area of metapostnotum orangish, without metallic reflections, surface entirely finely rugulose, stronger rugulosities rectilinear and long along entire surface ( Figure 2C View Figure 2 ) ................................................................. M. aeneicollis View in CoL

– Basal area of metapostnotum reddish brown or metallic green, the longitudinal rugulosities imbricated laterally ( Figures 1D View Figure 1 , 2D View Figure 2 ) ........................ 5

5 (4). Metanotum with dense short plumose pilosity, present on entire surface and obscuring the integument in oblique view ( Figure 2D View Figure 2 ); basal area of metapostnotum with the integument entirely reddish brown, sometimes with green highlights laterally ( Figure 2D View Figure 2 ) .............................................. M. aegis View in CoL

– Metanotum sometimes with pilosity short and plumose, present only in two-thirds of disc, not obscuring the integument in oblique view ( Figure 1D View Figure 1 ); basal area of metapostnotum with the integument metallic green with strongly imbricated longitudinal rugulosities ( Figure 1D View Figure 1 ) ...... ............................................................................................ M. sulciventris View in CoL

6 (2). Basal area of metapostnotum very short, about one-third as long as metanotum ( Figure 2E View Figure 2 ) ........................................................................ M. chaperi View in CoL

– Basal area of metapostnotum longer, about as long as or only slightly shorter than metanotum ( Figures 1F View Figure 1 , 3A View Figure 3 ) ............................................................. 7

7 (6). Basal area of metapostnotum uniformly metallic green ( Figure 1F View Figure 1 ); mesoscutum, adjacent to parapsidial line, densely punctured (<1 pd), punctation sparser in direction to mesoscutal lip (≥ 1 pd) ( Figure 3B View Figure 3 ); scutellum with posterior margin levelled to anterior margin of metanotum ( Figure 3C View Figure 3 ) ...... ................................................................................................ M. guimaraesi

– Basal area of metapostnotum often reddish brown medially and metallic green laterally ( Figure 3A View Figure 3 ); mesoscutum, adjacent to parapsidial line, with very dense contiguous punctation, in direction to mesoscutal lip punctures separated by <1 pd ( Figure 3D View Figure 3 ); scutellum with posterior margin raised in relation to anterior margin of metanotum ( Figure 3E View Figure 3 ) .... ............................................................................................... M. mura sp. n.

8 (1). Basal area of metapostnotum smooth laterally ( Figures 2F View Figure 2 , 3F View Figure 3 , 4A ‒ C View Figure 4 ) ... 9

– Basal area of metapostnotum microreticulated laterally ( Figure 4D, E View Figure 4 )... sodalis group ............................................................................................. 13

9 (8). Mandible simple and lacking supplementary teeth; ocellocular distance longer than F1 length ( Figure 4F View Figure 4 ); scopa absent; basitibial plate with undefined margins ( Figure 5A View Figure 5 ) ......................................... M. xavante sp. n.

– Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth; ocellocular distance shorter than F1 length ( Figure 5B View Figure 5 ); scopa present; basitibial plate with defined margin ( Figure 5C View Figure 5 ) ...................................................................... 10

10 (9). Basal area of metapostnotum without longitudinal rugulae ( Figure 2F View Figure 2 ); metepisternum usually with dense pilosity obscuring at the least upper half of sclerite ( Figure 5D View Figure 5 ) ................................................................. M. amoena View in CoL

– Basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulae ( Figure 4A ‒ C View Figure 4 ); metepisternum with sparse pilosity, integument not obscured by pubescence ( Figure 1C View Figure 1 )… yanomami group ................................................................ 11

11 (10). Basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulosities restricted to mid portion, external rugulosities strongly impressed and forming semicircles, integument often dark green ( Figure 4A View Figure 4 ); metanotum with contiguous punctation ( Figure 5E View Figure 5 ); T1 densely punctured (<1 pd) ....... M. yanomami sp. n.

– Basal area of metapostnotum without defined external sulcus delimiting the longitudinal rugulosities, integument light green ( Figure 4B View Figure 4 ); metanotum often densely punctured (<1 pd) ( Figure 5F View Figure 5 ); T1 with sparse punctation (≥ 1 pd) ................................................................................. M. piraha sp. n.

12 (8). Basal area of metapostnotum with mid depression restricted to anterior half, not extending to posterior margin ( Figure 4C View Figure 4 ) ............ M. munduruku sp. n.

– Basal area of metapostnotum with mid depression extending to posterior margin ...................................................................................................... 13

13 (12). Head and thorax mostly dark brown, lacking metallic reflections ( Figure 4D View Figure 4 ) ............................................................................... M. cuprea View in CoL

– Head and thorax metallic green ( Figure 4E View Figure 4 ) ................................. M. sodalis View in CoL

Males

1. Posterior upper margin of metepisternum modified into a conspicuously large process covered with velvety pilosity ( Figure 6A View Figure 6 ) ............................. 2

– Posterior upper margin of metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process ( Figure 6B View Figure 6 ) ..................................................................................... 9

2 (1). Posterior margin of basal area of metapostnotum arcuate, gradually curved toward the metanotum laterally, longitudinal rugulosities sometimes numerous and present laterally ( Figure 6C ‒ F View Figure 6 ); pilosity of metepisternum sparse, not obscuring the integument; diameter of velvety metepisternal process about 0.5× the tegula length ( Figure 6A View Figure 6 ); 1st and 2nd tarsomere of foreleg with longest simple setae longer than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres; longitudinal sulcus of S3 strongly impressed ( Figure 7A View Figure 7 )... aegis group .................................................................................................. 3

– Posterior margin of basal area of metapostnotum straight, abruptly bending laterally toward the metanotum, the longitudinal rugulosities restricted to mid portion, absent laterally ( Figure 7B, E View Figure 7 ); pilosity of metepisternum dense, obscuring the integument; diameter of velvety metepisternal process about 0.75× tegula length ( Figure 7F View Figure 7 ); 1st and 2nd tarsomere of foreleg with longest simple setae smaller than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres; S3 lacking a longitudinal sulcus or sulcus only weakly indicated ( Figure 8A ‒ C View Figure 8 )… amoena group .................................................................. 6

3 (2). Glabrous basal portion of F6–F11 raised in relation to remainder of flagellomere surface ( Figure 8D View Figure 8 ); pilosity of metanotum restricted to two-thirds of disc, not obscuring the integument in oblique view ( Figure 6C View Figure 6 ); basal area of metapostnotum entirely metallic green or sometimes reddish brown medially ( Figure 6C View Figure 6 ) ............................................................................. M. sulciventris View in CoL

– Glabrous basal portion of F6–F11 levelled to remainder of flagellomere surface ( Figure 8E View Figure 8 ); metanotum often with very dense pilosity covering entire disc and obscuring the integument in oblique view ( Figure 6D, F View Figure 6 ); basal area of metapostnotum reddish brown, orangish or reddish brown with metallic green, never entirely metallic green ( Figure 6D, F View Figure 6 ) ................................... 4

4 (3). Surface of basal area of metapostnotum entirely finely rugulose, its posterior margin slightly raised but not forming a carina ( Figure 6D View Figure 6 ) ......... ............................................................................................. M. aeneicollis View in CoL

– Surface of basal area of metapostnotum variable, its posterior margin forming a carina ( Figure 6E, F View Figure 6 ) ........................................................................ 5

5 (4). Basal area of metapostnotum with strongly impressed longitudinal rugulosities along its entire surface, lateral portions with only short rugulosities ( Figure 6E View Figure 6 ) ...................................................................................... M. aegis View in CoL

– Basal area of metapostnotum lacking longitudinal rugulosities or only with a few weak rugulosities in its mid portion ( Figure 6F View Figure 6 ) ............. M. nitidicollis View in CoL

6 (2). Metanotum with dense pilosity; mid portion of basal area of metapostnotum very short, about one-third as long as metanotum ( Figure 7B View Figure 7 ) ........... ...................................................................................................... M. chaperi View in CoL

– Metanotum with sparse pilosity; mid portion of basal area of metapostnotum short, about one half as long as metanotum ( Figure 7D, E View Figure 7 ) ..................... 7

7 (6). F6–F11 about as wide as remaining flagellomeres ( Figure 8F View Figure 8 ); basal area of metapostnotum often lacking longitudinal rugulosities, only rarely with a few weak rugulosities in its mid portion ( Figure 7C View Figure 7 ); S3 mostly flat, lacking a mid longitudinal sulcus ( Figure 8B View Figure 8 ); S4 with pilosity basally, its apical margin slightly notched laterally ( Figure 9B View Figure 9 ) ............................. M. amoena View in CoL

– F6–F11 wider than remaining flagellomeres ( Figure 9A View Figure 9 ); basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulosities in mid portion ( Figure 7D, E View Figure 7 ); S3 with a weakly impressed longitudinal sulcus ( Figure 8C View Figure 8 ); S4 lacking pilosity basally, its apical margin strongly notched laterally ( Figure 8C View Figure 8 ) .. 8

8 (7). Mesoscutum, adjacent to parapsidial line, sparsely punctured (≥ 1 pd) ........ ................................................................................................ M. guimaraesi

– Mesoscutum, adjacent to parapsidial line, densely punctured (<1 pd) ........ ............................................................................................... M. mura sp. n.

9 (1). Inner orbit of eye only slightly angled; ocellocular distance longer than F1 length ( Figures 9C ‒ F View Figure 9 , 10A View Figure 10 ); F2 about two-thirds of F 3 in length; dorsal surface of flagellomeres flat ( Figure 10B View Figure 10 )… byroni group ........................ 10

– Inner orbit of eye strongly angled ( Figure 10C View Figure 10 ); ocellocular distance shorter than F1 length; F2 about as long as F3; dorsal surface of flagellomeres strongly depressed ( Figure 10D View Figure 10 ) ............................................................... 15

10 (9). Protruding process of S4 short, triangular shaped in lateral view ( Figure 10E View Figure 10 ); basal area of metapostnotum without longitudinal rugulosities ................................................................................................ 11

– Protruding process of S4 digitiform ( Figure 11B View Figure 11 ); basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulosities, or if rugulosities absent then the integument mostly dark brown to black ( Figures 11C ‒ F View Figure 11 ) .................................................................................... 12

11 (10). Head and mesosoma metallic green with coppery tints, metasoma reddish brown ( Figures 9C View Figure 9 , 10F View Figure 10 ) M. guarani sp. n.

– Head and mesosoma dark brown with metallic green reflections, metasoma dark brown with purple tints ( Figure 11A View Figure 11 ) ..................... M. karitiana sp. n.

12 (10). Mesosoma homogeneously metallic green ( Figure 11C View Figure 11 ) ........................... ................................................................................. M. mapinguari sp. n.

– Mesosoma dark brown to black with metallic green tints on mesoscutum, scutellum, metanotum and basal area of metapostnotum ( Figure 12A ‒ C View Figure 12 ) ................................................................................... 13

13 (12). Integument mostly brown with metallic green tints ( Figure 12A View Figure 12 ) ................. ........................................................................................... M. xavante sp. n.

– Integument mostly dark brown to black ( Figure 12B, C View Figure 12 ) ........................ 14

14 (13). Basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulosities longer on mid portion, becoming shorter laterally ( Figure 11E View Figure 11 ) ...................... M. atlantica

– Basal area of metapostnotum smooth, without longitudinal rugulosities ( Figure 11F View Figure 11 ) ............................................................................. M. purpurata View in CoL

15 (9). Mid portion of basal area of metapostnotum flattened, longitudinal rugulosities absent or only a few present ( Figure 12D, E View Figure 12 ) ............................... 16

– Mid portion of basal area of metapostnotum weakly concave, numerous longitudinal rugulosities present ( Figures 12F View Figure 12 , 13A, B View Figure 13 ) ........................... 17

16 (15). Scape uniformly enlarged ( Figure 13C View Figure 13 ); flagellomeres with depressed and glabrous area ( Figure 13D View Figure 13 ); basal area of metapostnotum dark green, longitudinal rugulosities strongly impressed and enclosed laterally by two sulci ( Figure 12D View Figure 12 ) ................................................................. M. yanomami sp. n.

– Scape gradually enlarging toward the apex ( Figure 13E View Figure 13 ); flagellomeres without depressed and glabrous area ( Figure 10D View Figure 10 ); basal area of metapostnotum light green, longitudinal rugulosities not enclosed by two lateral sulci ( Figure 12E View Figure 12 ) ......................................................................... M. piraha sp. n.

17 (15). Basal area of metapostnotum with shorter and weakly impressed longitudinal rugulosities ( Figure 12F View Figure 12 ) ........................................ M. munduruku sp. n.

– Basal area of metapostnotum with longer and strongly impressed longitudinal rugulosities .......................................................................................... 18

18 (17). Integument mostly dark brown to black ( Figure 13A, F View Figure 13 ) ............. M. cuprea View in CoL – Integument mostly metallic green ( Figure 13B View Figure 13 ) ............................ M. sodalis View in CoL

The aegis species group

Diagnosis

The aegis species group includes M. aegis , M. aeneicollis , M. nitidicollis and M. sulciventris . Its species can be identified by the following characters: posterior margin of basal area of metapostnotum arcuate, gradually curved toward the metanotum laterally, the longitudinal rugulosities sometimes numerous and present laterally ( Figure 1D View Figure 1 ); upper frons conspicuously convex, strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus ( Figure 1E View Figure 1 ); male with glabrous basal portion of F6–F11 expanded ( Figure 8D, E View Figure 8 ); posterior upper margin of metepisternum modified into a conspicuously large process covered with velvety pilosity in both sexes, its diameter at least 0.5× the tegula length ( Figure 1A View Figure 1 ); basal area of metapostnotum laterally with rugulose surface, the posterior margin arcuate, gradually curved towards the anterior margin laterally ( Figure 1D View Figure 1 , 2B ‒ D View Figure 2 , 6C ‒ 6F View Figure 6 ); 1st and 2nd tarsomere of foreleg with longest simple setae longer than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres and T1 with contiguous punctation.

Megalopta aeneicollis , M. nitidicollis and M. sulciventris inhabit the Amazon Basin ( Figure 14A ‒ C View Figure 14 ), while M. aegis occurs in the savannahs of central Brazil (cerrado) and in the Atlantic Forest of eastern Brazil ( Figure 14A View Figure 14 ).

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Hymenoptera

Family

Halictidae

Loc

Megalopta Smith, 1853

Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R. 2014
2014
Loc

Megalopta (Noctoraptor)

Engel MS & Brooks RW & Yanega D 1997: 12
1997
Loc

Tmetocoelia

Moure JS 1943: 481
1943
Loc

Megalopta (Megaloptella)

Schrottky C 1906: 312
1906
Loc

Megalopta

Smith F 1853: 83
1853
GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF