From b3e1c2fdb21381dd9ab3e1765efb68225ba7ae64 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ggserver Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 18:02:23 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Add updates up until 2024-11-19 17:57:16 --- .../3E/0C333EE4CF85C269AD60BB1BBDA8EFAE.xml | 232 +- .../0D/27790D35FF80FF94348029E7FA580D9D.xml | 1563 -------------- .../0D/27790D35FF94FF8E34802BBEFCD009B1.xml | 138 +- .../0D/27790D35FF96FF8934802CC6FEE70D31.xml | 68 +- .../0D/27790D35FF99FF83348029F9FA540CB1.xml | 238 --- ...l => 27790D35FF99FF94348029F9FA580D9D.xml} | 1864 ++++++++++++++++- .../FC/42C1FC9ED4943FBC044BB93CEA173576.xml | 100 +- .../CB/5793CBE65C9E668A68CB68F2C44D29F5.xml | 290 +-- .../A8/623EA85DD86BFFF8FF3B0CFDFF2925A2.xml | 579 +++++ .../59/6E665959BD8D67B4B62A4C7695E5D61C.xml | 192 +- .../B8/7805B8A7AE9A2E448D5CD67E91422DDD.xml | 344 +-- .../19/959B19BD52B898CE049D287DF16C38AB.xml | 184 +- .../66/B0D5666E5425A96F9003E4068639A69E.xml | 308 +-- .../A6/B6DCA6F427FC55D2EAD8344297346757.xml | 152 +- .../A7/C778A703B72C4B47383FE9B40751808C.xml | 288 +-- .../56/CCB1569DD0398E5196428F655D9740D4.xml | 98 +- 16 files changed, 3614 insertions(+), 3024 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF80FF94348029E7FA580D9D.xml delete mode 100644 data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF99FF83348029F9FA540CB1.xml rename data/27/79/0D/{27790D35FF9AFF9934802A99FA580DBA.xml => 27790D35FF99FF94348029F9FA580D9D.xml} (50%) create mode 100644 data/62/3E/A8/623EA85DD86BFFF8FF3B0CFDFF2925A2.xml diff --git a/data/0C/33/3E/0C333EE4CF85C269AD60BB1BBDA8EFAE.xml b/data/0C/33/3E/0C333EE4CF85C269AD60BB1BBDA8EFAE.xml index e2a2ea66733..a45f1e7c057 100644 --- a/data/0C/33/3E/0C333EE4CF85C269AD60BB1BBDA8EFAE.xml +++ b/data/0C/33/3E/0C333EE4CF85C269AD60BB1BBDA8EFAE.xml @@ -1,51 +1,51 @@ - - - -Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) + + + +Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) - - -Author + + +Author -Praz, Christophe J. -https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 -University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland -christophe.praz@unine.ch +Praz, Christophe J. +https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 +University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland +christophe.praz@unine.ch -text - - -Journal of Hymenoptera Research +text + + +Journal of Hymenoptera Research - -2017 - -2017-04-28 + +2017 + +2017-04-28 - -55 + +55 - -1 -54 + +1 +54 - -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 + +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -journal article -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -1314-2607-55-1 -52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 -FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC -575138 +journal article +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 +1314-2607-55-1 +52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 +FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC +575138 Subgenus -Chalicodoma +Chalicodoma @@ -55,71 +55,71 @@ Subgenus : Females can be recognized by the combination of the convex, denticulate apical margin of the clypeus and the elongate mandible with a straight margin above the two apical teeth (Fig. 19 ) (rarely with minute tooth 3, e.g., in the - + Chalicodoma montenegrensis group). Only some species of - + Pseudomegachile have similarly elongate mandibles, for example - + Megachile ericetorum (Fig. 20 ) and - + M. lanata . The former can easily be separated from - + Chalicodoma by the different apical margin of the clypeus (Fig. 20 ) and the long ocelloccipital distance, which is markedly longer than the interocellar distance; - + M. lanata has a short clypeus with apical margin entire (as in Fig. 24 ), not denticulate. In some species of the - + Megachile cyanipennis group of - + Pseudomegachile , notably - + M. saussurei Radoszkowski, 1874, the apical margin of the mandible is nearly straight, with reduced teeth (Fig. 25 ), thus approaching the condition found in - + Chalicodoma . In such species however, the mandible is less elongate, with the outer margin strongly convex. In -M. (Pseudomegachile) incana +M. (Pseudomegachile) incana Friese, 1898, the mandible is 5 to 6 toothed (Fig. 21 ), and in old specimens the teeth may be little visible and the condition thus similar to that seen in - + Chalicodoma ; as in - + Chalicodoma , the ocelloccipital distance is shorter than the interocellar distance in - + M. incana . All species of the - + Pseudomegachile incana group can easily be diagnosed by the large body size, the light-grey metasomal vestiture without dense tergal fasciae and the comparatively broad hind basitarsus (Fig. @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ group can easily be diagnosed by the large body size, the light-grey metasomal v ). Males : Males - + Chalicodoma fall into three distinct species groups and there are few diagnostic characters common to all. In all species the mandible is comparatively elongate, 3-toothed and without inferior projection, and the preapical carina of T6 is denticulate. @@ -137,19 +137,19 @@ fall into three distinct species groups and there are few diagnostic characters Figures 24-29. Female clypeus and mandibles, front view. 24. -Megachile (Pseudomegachile) seraxensis +Megachile (Pseudomegachile) seraxensis 25 -M. (Pseudomegachile) saussurei +M. (Pseudomegachile) saussurei 26-29 Female hind basitarsus, lateral view 26 -M. (Pseudomegachile) ericetorum +M. (Pseudomegachile) ericetorum 27 -M. (Pseudomegachile) incana +M. (Pseudomegachile) incana 28 -M. (Eutricharaea) giraudi +M. (Eutricharaea) giraudi 29 -M. (Eurymella) patellimana +M. (Eurymella) patellimana . @@ -164,11 +164,11 @@ Female hind basitarsus, lateral view and Rebmann (1970) have independently divided the subgenus - + Chalicodoma into the same four groups, to which they gave subgeneric rank. I recognize three groups, not four, because - + Megachile hirsuta , unknown to both @@ -178,27 +178,27 @@ and Rebmann at that time, renders the distinction between two of their groups di 1. - + Chalicodoma montenegrensis group ( - + Euchalicodoma Tkalcu , 1969; - + Xenochalicodoma Tkalcu , 1971; - + Allomegachile Rebmann, 1970; - + Katamegachile Rebmann, 1970). @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ Rebmann, 1970). : Front coxa with large, spatulate tooth. T6 with lateral tooth (Fig. 48 ) [small in - + Megachile rufitarsis (Lepeletier, 1841)]. T7 mostly produced to large, rounded, median tooth (Figs @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ Rebmann, 1970). , 48 ) (tooth small in - + M. rufitarsis ), or trifid. Gonostylus simple, slightly broaden apically (Fig. @@ -224,34 +224,34 @@ Rebmann, 1970). ), the apically strongly convex margin of S6 (Fig. 15 ), as in - + Creightonella , and, in some species, in the lack of hairs laterally on S8, unlike other group 2 subgenera. Females : Surface of mandible mostly dull, with few shiny ridges or punctures, except in - + M. rufitarsis , in which the mandible is as in the - + Megachile parietina group. S6 with depressed apical zone, with strong preapical carina separating the elevated, basal part from the depressed apical zone, except in - + M. montenegrensis Dours, 1873 and - + M. hirsuta , both of which have dull mandibles. In - + M. montenegrensis , the vertex is slightly concave laterally, a unique feature in Palearctic - + Chalicodoma (see @@ -264,18 +264,18 @@ Dours, 1873 2. - + Allochalicodoma lefebvrei group ( - + Allochalicodoma Tkalcu , 1969; - + Heteromegachile Rebmann, 1970). @@ -289,11 +289,11 @@ Rebmann, 1970). : Surface of the mandible covered with numerous shiny ridges and punctures (Fig. 19 ), as in the - + Megachile parietina group. S6 with depressed apical zone; carina separating the elevated part from the depressed marginal area interrupted medially and only visible laterally. In addition, all females of the - + Allochalicodoma lefebvrei group have conspicuously modified vestiture on the clypeus (Fig. @@ -304,11 +304,11 @@ group have conspicuously modified vestiture on the clypeus (Fig. 1996 ). Such modified hairs are not found in the - + Chalicodoma montenegrensis group and only rarely found in the - + Megachile parietina group. @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ group. 3. - + Megachile parietina group. Males @@ -326,15 +326,15 @@ group. Males ). Females : S6 mostly not divided in two zones (weakly so in some species, such as - + Megachile nasidens Friese, 1898), without preapical carina. Hairs on clypeus mostly branched, except in some rare species [e.g. - + M. marina Friese, 1911 and - + M. palaestina ( @@ -355,62 +355,62 @@ Females of this subgenus are sculpturally uniform and frequently exhibit mimetic ). Consequently, the taxonomic status of numerous "geographic" forms within - + Chalicodoma remains unclear and a complete species list is not given here. In the West Palearctic, there are at least five species in the - + Chalicodoma montenegrensis group [ - + Megachile hirsuta , - + M. manicata Giraud, 1861, - + M. mauritaniae ( Tkalcu , 1992), - + M. montenegrensis and - + M. rufitarsis ), two to five species in the - + Megachile lefebvrei group [ - + M. heinii Kohl, 1906, known only in the female sex; and depending on the species concept adopted one to four additional, parapatric species: - + M. albocristata Smith, 1853, - + M. hungarica Mocsary , 1877, - + M. lefebvrei (Lepeletier, 1841) and - + M. roeweri (Alfken, 1927)]; and approximately 20 species in the - + Megachile parietina group, of which three are undescribed. @@ -420,7 +420,7 @@ group, of which three are undescribed. Biology. The nesting biology of - + Megachile parietina has been described in detail (reviewed in @@ -437,15 +437,15 @@ et al. 1997 ). These exposed nests are particularly hard and resistant; Kronenberg and Hefetz (1984) have demonstrated that females of - + M. sicula (Rossi, 1794) add labial gland secretions to the mud; these secretions rapidly harden and render the nest hydrophobic. Accounts of the nesting biology of the few species of the - + Megachile parietina group investigated so far indicate that the cells are build in a similar way: in - + M. pyrenaica Lepeletier, 1841, the cells are often hidden in holes in walls or under stones ( @@ -460,11 +460,11 @@ et al. 1997 , 1882 ) under the roof tiles of old barns; sometimes the nests are exposed on stones as in - + M. parietina (Le Goff, 2007); in - + M. rufescens ( @@ -472,7 +472,7 @@ et al. 1997 , 1879) the nests appear to be mostly placed on twigs ( Fabre 1882 ). - + M. sicula builds nests both on twigs and on rock surfaces ( @@ -480,7 +480,7 @@ builds nests both on twigs and on rock surfaces ( , Vereecken et al. 2010 ). Few studies have documented the nesting biology of species of the other species groups: - + M. manicata appears to nest exclusively in existing holes in rocks ( @@ -490,7 +490,7 @@ appears to nest exclusively in existing holes in rocks ( , C. Praz, unpublished data); Le Goff (2012) described one nest containing two cells made of hard mud mixed with pebbles; the nests observed were closed with hard mud. Nests of - + M. lefebvrei have been described in detail by @@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ have been described in detail by ); the biology of this species slightly deviates from the typical nesting biology seen in the subgenus. Females build 2-4 cells in holes in rocks; these cells have the general appearance of those built by - + M. parietina , thus they consist of mud mixed with "salivary secretions" ( @@ -508,38 +508,38 @@ of this species slightly deviates from the typical nesting biology seen in the s : 545), without pebbles. Once several cells are built, they are covered with a thin (1 mm), concave layer of hardened mud; this layer is located inside the hole of the rock and its outer surface is a few millimeters beneath the external surface of the rock. Subsequently, the female fills the space above the thin mud layer with a mix of pebbles and masticated plant material. According to Ferton, the masticated plant material contains salivary secretions (but no resin), and it hardens quickly. Ferton (1920) reports a nest of - + M. lefebvrei from southern France; the nest structure and the material used were similar but the nest had been built in an empty snail shell. Many species of - + Chalicodoma , including - + Megachile hirsuta , - + M. montenegrensis , - + M. manicata , - + M. parietina , and - + M. pyrenaica have a distinct or exclusive preference for -Fabaceae +Fabaceae ( Westrich 1989 , @@ -550,11 +550,11 @@ et al. 1997 , Gogala 2014 , C. Praz, unpublished data). All species of the - + Megachile lefebvrei group are likely polylectic with a preference for -Lamiaceae +Lamiaceae ( Mueller diff --git a/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF80FF94348029E7FA580D9D.xml b/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF80FF94348029E7FA580D9D.xml deleted file mode 100644 index f33340f333c..00000000000 --- a/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF80FF94348029E7FA580D9D.xml +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1563 +0,0 @@ - - - -A key to the Russian species of the genus Coenosia Meigen (Diptera, Muscidae), with the description of one new species and new synonymies - - - -Author - -Sorokina, Vera S. - -text - - -Zootaxa - - -2023 - -2023-12-18 - - -5389 - - -1 - - -79 -107 - - - - -https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5389.1.4/52487 - -journal article -10.11646/zootaxa.5389.1.4 -1175-5326 -10404495 -9BD1B8FF-28B7-4D6E-8F4A-FF1E79C30DDB - - - - - -Key to females - - - - - -The females of - -C. flavissima -, -C. kosterini - -, - -C. rhaensis - -, - -C. sibirica - -and - -C. striolata - -are not known, but the last two species are included in the key according to the characters of the males. - - - - - - - - -1. Costa extending only to, or very slightly beyond, apex of R -4+5 -.................................................. 2 - - - -- Costa extending to apex of M 1........................................................................... 3 - - - - - -2. Lower calypter not longer than upper one. Postpedicel with a spine-like dorsal tip.................. - - -connectens -(Hennig) - - - - - - -- Lower calypter much longer than upper one. Postpedicel without a spine-like dorsal tip, with a more or less rounded tip........................................................................................ - - -agromyzina -(Fallén) - - - - - - - - - -3. Hind tibia with a median anterior seta and an anterodorsal seta at almost the same level and close together ( -Fig. 9A -)....... 4 - - - -- Hind tibia without an anterior seta at middle close to the anterodorsal seta, but an anteroventral seta present............. 9 - - - - - -4. Scutum, scutellum and abdomen shining black.................................................... - - -atra -(Meigen) - - - - - -- Scutum, scutellum and abdomen not shining black........................................................... 5 - - - - - -5. Parafacial at least as broad as postpedicel; longest aristal hairs at least as long as width of postpedicel; outer vertical setae longer and stronger than postocular setulae......................................................... - - -tigrina -(Fabricius) - - - - - -- Parafacial narrower than width of postpedicel; longest aristal hairs much shorter than width of postpedicel; outer vertical setae at most as long as postocular setulae...................................................................... 7 - - - - - -7. All femora yellow, more or less darkened in apical third; abdomen with a midline and paired brown spots.... - - -strigipes -Stein - - - - - -- All femora dark, at most the tips narrowly yellow; abdomen with or without paired spots............................ 8 - - - - - -8. Longest aristal hairs barely longer than basal width of arista; abdomen at most with indistinct pattern.—European -Russia -........................................................................................... - - -attenuata -Stein - - - - - - -- Longest aristal hairs at least half as long as width of flagellomere; abdomen with paired round spots....... - - -humilis -Meigen - - - - - - - - -9. Hind tibia with strong and long preapical dorsal and posterodorsal setae close to each other ( -Fig. 9B -).................. 10 - - - -- Hind tibia without strong and long, closely approximated preapical dorsal and posterodorsal setae.................... 11 - - - - - -10. Mid and hind femora and all tibiae predominantly yellow...................................... - - -intermedia -(Fallén) - - - - - - -- Mid and hind femora and all tibiae predominantly dark but fore and mid trochanters yellow, hind trochanter sometimes darker.—European -Russia -................................................................... - - -means -Meigen - - - - - - - - -11. Head almost square in lateral view ( -Fig. 10F -); frons reddish at antenna, postpedicel black, very long, 4 times as long as wide; oral vibrissae usually yellow or golden but sometimes black...................................... - - -flaviseta -Huckett - - - - - -- With a different combination of characters................................................................ 12 - - - - -12. Lower calypter shorter than the upper one................................................................. 13 - - -- Lower calypter similar to or longer than upper one.......................................................... 16 - - - - - -13. Basal scutellar setae reduced, apical setae weak and short ( -Fig. 7B -)................................... - - -ciliata -Hennig - - - - - -- Both pairs of scutellars strong and long................................................................... 14 - - - - - -14. Larger size: -6–7.5 mm -( -Fig. 10B -). Mid and find femora completely yellow; mid femur with a strong anterior preapical seta............................................................................... - - -baicalensis -Schnabl - -(part) - - - - - -- Smaller size: -3.5–5.5 mm -. Mid and find femora completely or partially dark; mid femur without a strong anterior preapical seta............................................................................................... 15 - - - - - - -15. At least tibiae yellow ( -Fig. 10C -); palpus at least yellow on basal half; lower calypter extremely small, shorter than half length of the upper one, strip-like; legs without hairs on ventral surface; preapical anterodorsal and posterodorsal setae on hind tibia indistinct or absent....................................................................... - - -tendipes -Huckett - - - - - - -- All tibiae black, only knees yellowish; palpus black; lower calypter as broad as half length of the upper one; legs with hairs on ventral surface; preapical anterodorsal seta on hind tibia long and strong............................ - - -penicillata -Hennig - - - - - - - -16. Lower calypter subequal in length or scarcely longer than upper one............................................ 17 - - -- Lower calypter much longer than upper one............................................................... 34 - - - - -17. All femora black, at most with apices narrowly yellow....................................................... 18 - - -- At least mid and hind femora yellow on basal 1/3........................................................... 25 - - - - - -18. Antenna including both basal segments yellow or at least basal segments and base of postpedicel yellowish................................................................................................. - - -dealbata -(Zetterstedt) - - - - - -- Antenna entirely black................................................................................ 19 - - - - -19. All tibiae predominantly black, at most yellow in basal third.................................................. 20 - - -- All tibiae yellow or brownish-yellow..................................................................... 23 - - - - - -20. Mid femur with a strong distinct anterior preapical seta; scutum with 2 distinct brown narrow longitudinal vittae along dorsocentral setae; scutellum grey, sometimes like scutum with yellowish dust ( -Fig. 7E -)........... - - -subgracilis -Xue & Cui - - - - - -- Mid femur without anterior preapical seta or with indistinct short seta; scutum with brown dust between dorsocentral setae, reaching the apex of scutellum or completely brown dusted................................................... 21 - - - - - -21. Gena and parafacial broad, height of gena 2 times width of postpedicel, width of parafacial about as wide as postpedicel; mid femur usually with apical posteroventral seta (Figures in -Sorokina 2022 -).................. - -wrangelensis -Sorokina (part) - - - - -- Height of gena 1.5–1.7 times width of postpedicel, width of parafacial at middle as wide as ½ or 2/3 of width of postpedicel; mid femur without apical posteroventral seta.............................................................. 22 - - - - - -22. Scutum completely brown dusted; hind femur with a row of short anteroventral setae (Figures in -Sorokina 2022 -)................................................................................................. - -galina -Sorokina - - - - - -- Scutum with thick brown dust between -dc -which reaches the apex of scutellum; hind femur with two long anteroventral setae, which are much longer then diameter of femur in distal part and with two anteroventral setae in proximal part of femur (Figures in -Sorokina 2022 -)..................................................................... - -koni -Sorokina (part) - - - - - - - -23. Mid femur without a strong anterior preapical seta; preapical anterodorsal and posterodorsal setae on hind tibia distinct, each half as long as preapical dorsal seta. Smaller species ( -3.5–4.7 mm -) ( -Fig. 10H -).................. - - -conflicta -Huckett - -(part) - - - - - -- Mid femur with a strong anterior preapical seta; preapical anterodorsal on hind tibia much longer and stronger than posterodorsal setae. Larger species (5.0– -6.5 mm -)...................................................................... 24 - - - - - - -24. All tibiae yellow; abdomen with rounded spots; mid femur with a full row of anteroventral setae ( -Fig. 7G -)....................................................................................................... - - -oralis -Schnabl - - - - - - -- All tibiae brownish-yellow, darkened in apical 2/3–4/5; abdomen with more or less triangular spots; mid femur with 5–6 anteroventrals in basal half ( -Figs 7I -, -8F -).............................................. - - -ukokensis -Sorokina - -(part) - - - - - - -25. Mid femur in apical third without a strong anterior preapical seta.............................................. 26 - - -- Mid femur with a strong anterior preapical seta............................................................. 28 - - - - - -26. Body entirely yellow; scutum densely grey dusted, pleura yellow with grey dusted spot on anepimeron; apical tarsomeres of all legs often blackish.—Far East (Kunashir Island)................................................. - - -polina -Vikhrev - - - - - -- Al least thorax and abdomen grey, not yellow.............................................................. 27 - - - - - -27. Scutum with two distinct brown longitudinal stripes; antenna and palpus wholly dark; fore femur dark, mid and hind femora yellow or with dark dorsal streak.................................................. - - -bilineella -(Zetterstedt) - -(part) - - - - - -- Scutum brownish dusted, without dark longitudinal stripes; at least base of postpedicel yellow; palpus partly yellow or brownish; all femora yellow or fulvous............................................................... - - -demoralis -Huckett - - - - - - - -28. Fore femur mostly black, mid and hind femora black or fuscous in dorsal part at apex; antenna completely black........ 29 - - - -- All femora completely yellow, at most fore femur with dark dorsal steak; antenna at least yellow at base on ventral surface (except black in - -C. baicalensis - -)......................................................................... 31 - - - - - - -29. Fore femur darkened at most on dorsal surface, ventral surface yellow; mid and hind femora largely yellow on distal half with a dark mark at most confined to dorsal half of femur; mid femur with 1 preapical posterior seta.... - - -cingulipes -(Zetterstedt) - - - - - -- Fore femur completely black; mid and hind femora with a black apical ring; mid femur with 2 preapical posterior setae... 30 - - - - - -30. Hind tibia with a well-developed posterodorsal seta, as long as 2/3 of anterodorsal seta; gena higher than width of postpedicel ( -Fig. 9F -)............................................................................. - - -alaskensis -Huckett - - - - - - -- Hind tibia without posterodorsal seta, or with some a weak and short seta which shorter than anterodorsal seta; gena not higher than width of postpedicel.......................................................... - - -octopunctata -(Zetterstedt) - - - - - - - - -31. Antenna and palpus wholly dark; mid and hind femora with complete but sparse rows of long posteroventral setae; height of gena 1.5 times width of postpedicel ( -Fig. 10B -). Larger size: -6–7.5 mm -...................... - - -baicalensis -Schnabl - -(part) - - - - - -- Antenna and palpus partly or completely yellow; mid and hind femora with long posteroventrals only in basal half; height of gena at most as wide as width of postpedicel. Smaller size: -3–5 mm -............................................ 32 - - - - - - -32. Postpronotal lobe, abdomen and at least katepisterna yellow..................................... - - -ghilarovi -Lobanov - - - - - -- Thorax completely grey, abdomen yellow only at base....................................................... 33 - - - - - -33. Tip of antennal pedicel yellow; palpus at least broadly yellow at tip, usually almost or completely yellow; dark dorsocentral vittae weakly visible; fore femur wholly yellow............................................... - - -mollicula -(Fallén) - - - - - - -- Antennal pedicel and postpedicel usually narrowly reddish basally; palpus wholly dark or at least dark at tip; dark dorsocentral vittae conspicuous and strongly marked; fore femur yellow or with a dark dorsal steak............... - - -alpicola -(Pokorny) - - - - - - - - -34. Postpedicel with a spine-like dorsal tip ( -Fig. 9D -)........................................................... 35 - - - -- Postpedicel without a spine-like dorsal tip, rounded at tip..................................................... 38 - - - - - -35. Mid and hind femora yellow but darkened apically............................................. - - -ambulans -Meigen - - - - - -- Mid and hind femora predominantly black................................................................ 36 - - - - - -36. Height of gena 1.5–1.8 times width of postpedicel ( -Fig. 1C -); legs completely black, grey dusted like pleura; two proepisternal setae..................................................................................... - - -luxia - -sp. nov. - - - - -- Height of gena less than 1.5 times width of postpedicel, usually as high as wide of postpedicel; at least knees and base of fore and mid tibiae yellow; usually one proepisternal setae....................................................... 37 - - - - - -37. Frons uniformly silvery; abdominal spots brown, well defined................................ - - -flavimana -(Zetterstedt) - - - - - - -- Frontal vitta darker than fronto-orbital plates; abdominal spots indistinct........................................................................................... - - -pulicaria -(Zetterstedt) - - - -& - -acuminata -Strobl - - -(European -Russia -) - - - - - -38. Only one proepisternal seta (sometimes with an additional weak seta on one side)................................. 39 - - -- Two proepisternal setae............................................................................... 45 - - - - -39. All femora black, at most only narrowly yellow apically..................................................... 40 - - -- Femora completely yellow or yellow in apical third......................................................... 41 - - - - - -40. All tibiae yellow ( -Fig. 10H -); scutum grey dusted with 2 or 3 brownish vittae, scutellum grey dusted; frontal vitta brownishgrey dusted, fronto-orbital plate silvery-grey dusted; preapical anterodorsal and posterodorsal setae on hind tibia half as long as length of preapical dorsal seta........................................................ - - -conflicta -Huckett - -(part) - - - - - -- All tibiae black; scutum and scutellum completely densely brown dusted, sometimes with 3 indistinct longitudinal vittae; frontal vitta and a fronto-orbital plate velvety black in frontal view; preapical anterodorsal seta on hind tibia as long as 2/3 length of preapical dorsal seta, preapical posterodorsal absent (Figures in -Sorokina 2022 -)............... - -adriani -Sorokina - - - - - - - -41. Postpedicel shorter, ca. 2.2–2.3 times as long as wide. Mid tibia with apical posteroventral seta short, not longer than diameter of tibia where situated.............................................................. - - -incisurata -van der Wulp - - - - - -- Postpedicel longer, ca. 3.0 times as long as wide. Mid tibia with apical posteroventral seta longer or not than diameter of tibia where situated....................................................................................... 42 - - - - - -42. Lower calypter short, little longer than upper one; frontal vitta entirely dark; mid tibia with apical posteroventral seta longer than diameter of tibia where situated............................................... - - -bilineella -(Zetterstedt) - -(part) - - - - -- Lower calypter much longer than upper one; anterior margin of frontal vitta reddish-yellow or dark; mid tibia with apical posteroventral seta shorter than or as long as diameter of tibia where situated..................................... 43 - - - - - -43. All coxae yellow; abdomen without or with very indistinct dark paired spots; presutural acrostichal setae weak................................................................................................. - - -rufipalpis -Meigen - - - - - -- Mid and hind coxae partly grey; abdomen with distinct dark paired spots; presutural acrostichals well developed........ 44 - - - - - -44. Anterior margin of frontal vitta reddish-yellow; mid femur with only 1–2 weak posteroventrals in basal 2/3 and mostly with one apical posterodorsal seta; mid tibia with apical posteroventral seta much shorter than diameter of tibia where situated.................................................................................. - - -testacea -(Robineau-Desvoidy) - - - - - - -- Anterior margin of frontal vitta usually dark; mid femur with 3–4 posteroventrals in basal 2/3 and usually with 2 apical posterodorsals; mid tibia with apical posteroventral seta ca. as long as diameter of tibia where situated....................................................................................................... - - -nigridigita -Rondani - - - - - - - -45. Hind tibia with one strong or 3–4 short submedian posterodorsal seta........................................... 46 - - -- Hind tibia without a submedian posterodorsal setae......................................................... 55 - - - - - -46. Middle and hind femora black at least in distal half or entirely black; 2 pairs of strong presutural dorsocentral setae present (except 1 pair in - -C. ozerovi - -)............................................................................ 47 - - - -- Femora completely or predominantly yellow; only one pair of presutural dorsocentrals............................. 51 - - - - -47. Middle and hind femora yellow in basal part............................................................... 48 - - -- Middle and hind femora entirely black................................................................... 49 - - - - - -48. Middle and hind femora yellow in basal ½ part ( -Fig. 11E -); hind tibia usually with 1 strong posterodorsal seta..................................................................................................... - - -xuei -Cui et Li - - - - - - -- Middle and hind femora yellow in basal ¼ or 1/3 ( -Fig. 11D -); hind tibia with 3–4 short hair-like posterodorsal setae....................................................................................... - - -apukaensis -Hennig - -(part) - - - - - - - -49. One pair of strong presutural dorsocentral setae present; all tibiae black, knees yellow; abdomen without dark spots ( -Fig. 8B -)....................................................................................... - - -ozerovi -Vikhrev - - - - - -- Two pair of strong presutural dorsocentral setae present; tibiae yellow at least in basal third; abdomen with dark spots on tergites 3–5......................................................................................... 50 - - - - - -50. Scutum with 3 brown longitudinal vittae; lower calypter much longer than upper one; postpedicel 3.5 times as long as wide, nearly reaching vibrissal angle ( -Fig. 8C -).................................................... - - -nigrotincta -Hennig - - - - - - -- Scutum with 2 brown longitudinal vittae; lower calypter slightly longer than upper one; postpedicel 2.5 times as long as wide, its length about 2/3 height of face ( -Figs 7I -, -8F -)......................................... - - -ukokensis -Sorokina - -(part) - - - - - - - -51. Postpedicel yellow basally............................................................... - - -flavicornis -(Fallén) - - - - - -- Postpedicel completely black........................................................................... 52 - - - - - -52. Mid femur in distal third without long posteroventral setae.................................. - - -trilineella -(Zetterstedt) - - - - - -- Mid femur in distal third with strong posteroventrals........................................................ 53 - - - - - -53. Postpedicel long, about 5.0 times as long as wide, reaching the mouth margin; parafacial very narrow, much narrower than width of postpedicel; fore femur with brown dorsal streak; mid and hind femora darkened apically; arista short pubescent....................................................................................... - - -emiliae -Lukasheva - - - - - -- With a different combination of characters................................................................ 54 - - - - - -54. Posterodorsal seta of hind tibia as long and strong as the anterodorsal seta ( -Fig. 12B -).................. - - -lacustris -Schnabl - - - - - - -- Posterodorsal seta of hind tibia shorter than or even half as long as the anterodorsal ( -Fig. 12D -).......... - -luteipes -Ringdahl - - - - - - -55. Apical scutellar setae distinctly shorter and weaker than basal scutellar setae..................................... 56 - - -- Apical and basal scutellars subequal in length.............................................................. 57 - - - - - -56. Mid and hind femora black; mouth margin projecting slightly beyond level of profrons.................. - - -pedella -(Fallén) - - - - - - -- Mid and hind femora yellow; mouth margin not projecting beyond level of profrons............... - - -griseiventris -Ringdahl - - - - - - - - -57. Two pairs of presutural dorsocentral setae, anterior pair about 1/3–2/3 as long as posterior pair ( - -C. apukaensis -Hennig - -sometimes without distinct anterior pair)........................................................................... 58 - - - -- Only one pair of presutural dorsocentrals................................................................. 62 - - - - - -58. At least base of postpedicel yellowish; base of abdomen more or less yellow.................... - - -ruficornis -(Macquart) - - - - - -- Antenna entirely black; abdomen entirely grey............................................................. 59 - - - - - -59. At least basal third or quarter of mid and hind femora yellow; hind femur with a full row of strong posteroventrals....................................................................... - - -comita -(Huckett) - - -& -apukaensis -Hennig - -(part) - - - - -- All femora black, only narrowly yellow apically; hind femur with strong posteroventral setae only on basal half......... 60 - - - - - -60. All tibiae yellow. Larger size: 6.0–8.0 mm.......................................... - - -Macrorchis meditata -(Fallén) - - - - - - -- At least hind tibia black. Smaller size: -3.5–4.3 mm -.......................................................... 61 - - - - - - -61. Fore and mid tibiae yellow, hind tibia black; hind tarsi thickened, all segments about twice as wide as those of mid tarsus; height of gena ca. 1.3 times width of postpedicel ( -Fig. 11B -)...................................... - - -atritibia -Ringdahl - -(part) - - - - - -- All tibiae black, except yellow basal third or fourth; hind tarsi not thickened; height of gena ca. 2.3–3.0 times width of postpedicel (Figures in -Sorokina 2022 -)......................................................... - -gorodkovi -Sorokina (part) - - - - - - -62. Mid and hind femora predominantly yellow, darkened dorsally at apex.......................................... 63 - - -- Mid and hind femora predominantly black, basal half never entirely yellow...................................... 69 - - - - - -63. Anteroventral seta on hind tibia in strictly ventral position......................................... - - -pudorosa -Collin - - - - - -- Anteroventral seta on hind tibia in a normal, truly anteroventral position......................................... 64 - - - - - -64. Smaller size, the largest -3.5 mm -. Mid and hind femora completely yellow or with dark dorsal spot at apex; hind femora with posteroventral setae only in basal half.................................................................... 65 - - - - -- Larger size, more than -3.5 mm -. Mid and hind femora yellow with black rings in apical fourth; hind femora with posteroventral setae in basal 2/3..................................................................................... 66 - - - - - - -65. Mid and hind femora completely yellow, without dark dorsal spot at apex........................ - - -mandschurica -Hennig - - - - - - -- Mid and hind femora yellow with dark dorsal spot at apex......................................... - - -dubiosa -Hennig - - - - - - - - -66. Postpedicel 3.0 times as long as wide; scutum with 3 dark longitudinal vittae; presutural acrostichals in one irregular row............................................................................ - - -campestris -(Robineau-Desvoidy) - - - - - -- Postpedicel about 2.5 times as long as broad; scutum with 3 distinct or with 2 indistinct longitudinal vittae, mid vitta usually reduced; presutural acrostichals in 2 rows................................................................. 67 - - - - - -67. Frontal triangle reaching anterior margin of frons.............................................. - - -albicornis -Meigen - - - - - -- Frontal triangle not reaching anterior margin of frons........................................................ 68 - - - - - -68. Scutum with 3 distinct brown longitudinal vittae................................. - - -striolata -Hennig - - -& -sibirica -Hennig - - - - - - -- Scutum without distinct longitudinal vittae, or with 2 indistinct stripes......................... - - -lineatipes -(Zetterstedt) - - - - - - - -69. Mid femur with a strong anterior preapical seta............................................................. 70 - - -- Mid femur without a strong anterior preapical seta.......................................................... 76 - - - - -70. At least hind tibiae black.............................................................................. 71 - - -- All tibiae yellow..................................................................................... 73 - - - - - -71. Fore and mid tibiae yellow, hind tibia black; hind tarsi thickened, all tarsomeres about twice as wide as those of mid tarsus ( -Fig. 11A -)............................................................................ - - -atritibia -Ringdahl - -(part) - - - - -- All tibiae predominantly black; hind tarsi not thickened...................................................... 72 - - - - - -72. Scutum with distinct brown narrow longitudinal vittae along dorsocentral, acrostichal setae and posthumeral to intra-alar setae, with brown dust between dorsocentral setae, reaching the apex of scutellum; mid femur with a posteroventral seta in apical third (Figures in -Sorokina 2022 -)....................................................... - -wrangelensis -Sorokina (part) - - - - - -- Scutum with 3 longitudinal vittae along dorsocentral and acrostichal setae but without brown dust between dorsocentral setae, scutellum grey; mid femur without posteroventral seta in apical third. European -Russia -..... - - -femoralis -(Robineau-Desvoidy) - - - - - - - - -73. Hind femur with a complete row of posteroventral setae; frontal vitta dull black in frontal view......... - - -perpusilla -Meigen - - - - - -- Hind femur with 0–2 posteroventrals in basal half; frontal vitta grey in frontal view................................ 74 - - - - - -74. Hind femur without posteroventrals in basal half................................................ - - -paludis -Tiensuu - - - - - -- Hind femur with 2 posteroventrals in basal half............................................................ 75 - - - - - -75. Mid femur usually with 1 or 2 anteroventral setae in basal third (long and short setae); mid and hind femora usually yellow in basal third; at least tergites 3–5 with pairs of rounded spots and sometimes a vitta between them........... - - -pumila -(Fallén) - - - - - - -- Mid femur with 3 or 4 anteroventral setae in basal half or in basal 2/3; mid and hind femora mostly subshining black; abdomen without or with indistinct pairs of spots...................................................... - - -pilipyga -Ringdahl - - - - - - - - -76. Gena narrower than postpedicel; parafacial narrower than anterior ocellus....................... - - -pygmaea -(Zetterstedt) - - - - - -- Gena distinctly broader than postpedicel; parafacial broader than anterior ocellus.................................. 77 - - - - -77. All tibiae predominantly black, only basally paler........................................................... 78 - - -- At least fore and mid tibiae yellow....................................................................... 82 - - - - -78. Scutum with 2–3 brown longitudinal vittae, without brown dust between them; abdomen with distinct brown paired spots... .................................................................................................. 79 - - -- Scutum with brown narrow longitudinal vittae along dorsocentral, acrostichal setae and posthumeral to intra-alar setae; with brown dust between dorsocentral setae, reaching the apex of scutellum; abdomen without spots or with small indistinct brownish marks or spots....................................................................................... 80 - - - - - -79. Scutum with 3 distinct brown longitudinal vittae ( -Fig. 4E -); abdomen with large brown paired spots ( -Figs 4 F, H -).............................................................................................. - - -octosignata -Rondani - - - - - - -- Scutum with 2 distinct brown longitudinal vittae and with traces of a weak median vitta between them ( -Fig. 4D -); brown oval spots of abdomen smaller and less well-defined ( -Figs 4 B, C -)................................. - - -nevadensis -Lyneborg - - - - - - - - -80. Height of gena ca. 1.5–1.7 times width of postpedicel; mid femur with 1 preapical posterior seta, without preapical posteroventral seta; abdomen without spots or marks (Figures in -Sorokina 2022 -)............................... - -koni -Sorokina (part) - - - - -- Height of gena ca. 2.0–3.0 times width of postpedicel; mid femur with 1 or 2 preapical posterior setae, with or without preapical posteroventral seta; abdomen usually with dark marks, sometimes indistinct...................................... 81 - - - - - -81. Lower calypter a little longer than upper one; abdomen with brown rounded spots, sometimes indistinct (Figures in -Sorokina 2022 -)........................................................................ - -wrangelensis -Sorokina (part) - - - - - -- Lower calypter much longer than upper one; abdomen with diffuse brown marks reaching ventral surface of tergites (Figures in -Sorokina 2022 -)................................................................ - -gorodkovi -Sorokina (part) - - - - - - - -82. All tibiae completely light yellow ( -Fig. 10H -); preapical anterodorsal and posterodorsal setae on hind tibia weak but distinct, each half as long as preapical dorsal seta, this seta a little shorter than median anterodorsal seta; lower calypter a little longer than upper one.................................................................... - - -conflicta -Huckett - -(part) - - - - -- Tibiae brownish or partly darkened, not light yellow; preapical anterodorsal and dorsal on hind tibia long and strong, the dorsal about as long as median anterodorsal, without a distinct preapical posterodorsal; lower calypter much longer than upper one. .................................................................................................. 83 - - - - - -83. All trochanters greyish-brown; abdomen with rounded spots, sometimes indistinct; scutum without distinct dorsocentral vittae; hind tibia mostly brownish; postpedicel rounded at apex........................................... - - -verralli -Collin - - - - - - -- At least fore and mid trochanters yellow; abdomen usually without spots; scutum with three longitudinal vittae; hind tibia with a dark ring in basal and apical third; postpedicel pointed at apex (Figures in -Sorokina 2022 -).......... - - -tschernovi -Sorokina - - - - - - - - - \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF94FF8E34802BBEFCD009B1.xml b/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF94FF8E34802BBEFCD009B1.xml index 747211581dd..a2c8c541784 100644 --- a/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF94FF8E34802BBEFCD009B1.xml +++ b/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF94FF8E34802BBEFCD009B1.xml @@ -1,51 +1,53 @@ - - - -A key to the Russian species of the genus Coenosia Meigen (Diptera, Muscidae), with the description of one new species and new synonymies + + + +A key to the Russian species of the genus Coenosia Meigen (Diptera, Muscidae), with the description of one new species and new synonymies - - -Author + + +Author -Sorokina, Vera S. +Sorokina, Vera S. -text - - -Zootaxa +text + + +Zootaxa - -2023 - -2023-12-18 + +2023 + +2023-12-18 - -5389 + +5389 - -1 + +1 - -79 -107 + +79 +107 - -https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5389.1.4/52487 + +https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5389.1.4/52487 -journal article -10.11646/zootaxa.5389.1.4 -1175-5326 -10404495 -9BD1B8FF-28B7-4D6E-8F4A-FF1E79C30DDB +journal article +282667 +10.11646/zootaxa.5389.1.4 +88255ff3-ecac-46be-95fb-227a057ddfc5 +1175-5326 +10404495 +9BD1B8FF-28B7-4D6E-8F4A-FF1E79C30DDB - + - + Coenosia luxia sp. nov. @@ -62,7 +64,7 @@ Type material examined : - + Holotype ♂ , @@ -72,10 +74,11 @@ Magadan region , environs of -Evensk village +Evensk village , coastal meadow, sweep in grass, -61º54’N -159º12’Е, +61°54'N +159°12'E +, 1 m @@ -90,7 +93,7 @@ ) . - + Paratypes 4 ♂♂ , @@ -100,10 +103,11 @@ Magadan region , environs of -Evensk village +Evensk village , coastal meadow, sweep in grass, -61º54’N -159º12’Е, +61°54'N +159°12'E +, 1 m @@ -124,7 +128,7 @@ in ) . - + 1 ♂ 3♀♀ , @@ -134,10 +138,11 @@ in Magadan region , environs of -Evensk village +Evensk village , coastal meadow, sweep in grass, -61º54’N -159º12’Е, +61°54'N +159°12'E +, 1 m @@ -152,7 +157,7 @@ in ) . - + 1 ♀ , Russia @@ -161,10 +166,11 @@ in Magadan region , environs of -Evensk village +Evensk village , coastal meadow, sweep in grass, -61º54’N -159º12’Е, +61°54'N +159°12'E +, 1 m @@ -179,7 +185,7 @@ in ) . - + 1 ♀ , Russia @@ -188,10 +194,11 @@ in Magadan region , environs of -Evensk village +Evensk village , coastal meadow, sweep in grass, -61º54’N -159º12’Е, +61°54'N +159°12'E +, 1 m @@ -206,7 +213,7 @@ in ) . - + 1 ♂ , Russia @@ -215,10 +222,11 @@ in Magadan region , environs of -Evensk village +Evensk village , coastal meadow, sweep in grass, -61º54’N -159º12’Е, +61°54'N +159°12'E +, 1 m @@ -233,7 +241,7 @@ in ) . - + 1 ♀ , Russia @@ -242,12 +250,13 @@ in Magadan region , environs of -Evensk village +Evensk village , coastal meadow, white pan trap , -61º54’N -159º12’Е, +61°54'N +159°12'E +, 1 m @@ -262,7 +271,7 @@ in ) . - + 1 ♂ , @@ -274,10 +283,11 @@ in E Evensk village , S. -Garmanda river +Garmanda river , 61º52’N -159º23’Е, +159°23'E +, 10 m @@ -288,7 +298,7 @@ E Evensk village , leg. N. Tridrikh ( -SZMN +SZMN ) . diff --git a/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF96FF8934802CC6FEE70D31.xml b/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF96FF8934802CC6FEE70D31.xml index a063714f7e1..94ff67370f0 100644 --- a/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF96FF8934802CC6FEE70D31.xml +++ b/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF96FF8934802CC6FEE70D31.xml @@ -1,46 +1,48 @@ - - - -A key to the Russian species of the genus Coenosia Meigen (Diptera, Muscidae), with the description of one new species and new synonymies + + + +A key to the Russian species of the genus Coenosia Meigen (Diptera, Muscidae), with the description of one new species and new synonymies - - -Author + + +Author -Sorokina, Vera S. +Sorokina, Vera S. -text - - -Zootaxa +text + + +Zootaxa - -2023 - -2023-12-18 + +2023 + +2023-12-18 - -5389 + +5389 - -1 + +1 - -79 -107 + +79 +107 - -https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5389.1.4/52487 + +https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5389.1.4/52487 -journal article -10.11646/zootaxa.5389.1.4 -1175-5326 -10404495 -9BD1B8FF-28B7-4D6E-8F4A-FF1E79C30DDB +journal article +282667 +10.11646/zootaxa.5389.1.4 +88255ff3-ecac-46be-95fb-227a057ddfc5 +1175-5326 +10404495 +9BD1B8FF-28B7-4D6E-8F4A-FF1E79C30DDB - + @@ -61,7 +63,7 @@ - + Anthomyza cingulipes Zetterstedt 1849: 3320 @@ -88,7 +90,7 @@ Zetterstedt 1849: 3320 Hoplogaster morrisoni -Malloch 1924: 172 +Malloch 1924: 172 , diff --git a/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF99FF83348029F9FA540CB1.xml b/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF99FF83348029F9FA540CB1.xml deleted file mode 100644 index 0895b688e61..00000000000 --- a/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF99FF83348029F9FA540CB1.xml +++ /dev/null @@ -1,238 +0,0 @@ - - - -A key to the Russian species of the genus Coenosia Meigen (Diptera, Muscidae), with the description of one new species and new synonymies - - - -Author - -Sorokina, Vera S. - -text - - -Zootaxa - - -2023 - -2023-12-18 - - -5389 - - -1 - - -79 -107 - - - - -https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5389.1.4/52487 - -journal article -10.11646/zootaxa.5389.1.4 -1175-5326 -10404495 -9BD1B8FF-28B7-4D6E-8F4A-FF1E79C30DDB - - - - - - -Key to Russian species of - -Coenosia - - - - - - - -An identification key is provided to all the 77 species of the genus - -Coenosia - -that are known from -Russia -. It is based in part on published keys: -Hennig (1961a -, -1961b -, -1962 -), -Huckett (1965) -, -Shinonaga (2003) -, -Xue & Zhu (2006) -, -Sorokina (2009) -and - -Gregor -et al. -(2016) - -. - -Macrorchis meditata -(Fallén, 1825) - -is also included in the key because is very close to some - -Coenosia -species - -( -Sorokina 2009 -), although still considered to be a different genus. - - - -FIGURE 9. - -Coenosia -spp. -A - -. - -Coenosia tigrina - -, female, hind tibia. -B. - -Coenosia intermedia - -, female, hind tibiae. -C. - -Coenosia ozerovi - -, male, fore tarsi. -D. - -Coenosia ambulans - -, female, head. -E. - -Coenosia kosterini - -, male, lateral view. -F, G. - -Coenosia alaskensis - -. -F. -Female habitus, lateral view. -G. -Male habitus, lateral view. Bare: 1 mm. - - - - -FIGURE 10. - -Coenosia -spp. -A - -, B. - -Coenosia baikalensis - -. -A. -Male habitus, lateral view. -B. -Female habitus, lateral view. -C, D. - -Coenosia tendipes - -. -C. -Female habitus, lateral view. -D. -Male habitus, lateral view. -E, F. - -Coenosia flaviseta - -. -E. -Male, head, lateral view. -F. -Female habitus, lateral view. -G, H. - -Coenosia conflicta - -. -G. -Male habitus, lateral view. -H. -Female habitus, lateral view. Bare: 1 mm. - - - -Some species have not been studied and have therefore been included in the key on the basis of their descriptions and/or the diagnostic characteristics proposed in the keys listed above. They are: - -Coenosia acuminata -Strobl, 1898 - -, - -Coenosia campestris -(Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) - -, - -Coenosia flavissima -Hennig, 1961 - -, - -Coenosia ghilarovi -Lobanov, 1988 - -, - -Coenosia incisurata -van der Wulp, 1869 - -, - -Coenosia mandschurica -Hennig, 1961 - -, - -Coenosia polina -Vikhrev, 2009 - -, and - -Coenosia rhaensis -Hennig, 1961 - -. - - -The distribution of each species (distribution in -Russia -and general distribution) is given directly in the male key. - - - - \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF9AFF9934802A99FA580DBA.xml b/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF99FF94348029F9FA580D9D.xml similarity index 50% rename from data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF9AFF9934802A99FA580DBA.xml rename to data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF99FF94348029F9FA580D9D.xml index 47c558bfaae..acff5f16463 100644 --- a/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF9AFF9934802A99FA580DBA.xml +++ b/data/27/79/0D/27790D35FF99FF94348029F9FA580D9D.xml @@ -1,47 +1,280 @@ - - - -A key to the Russian species of the genus Coenosia Meigen (Diptera, Muscidae), with the description of one new species and new synonymies + + + +A key to the Russian species of the genus Coenosia Meigen (Diptera, Muscidae), with the description of one new species and new synonymies - - -Author + + +Author -Sorokina, Vera S. +Sorokina, Vera S. -text - - -Zootaxa +text + + +Zootaxa - -2023 - -2023-12-18 + +2023 + +2023-12-18 - -5389 + +5389 - -1 + +1 - -79 -107 + +79 +107 - -https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5389.1.4/52487 + +https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/download/zootaxa.5389.1.4/52487 -journal article -10.11646/zootaxa.5389.1.4 -1175-5326 -10404495 -9BD1B8FF-28B7-4D6E-8F4A-FF1E79C30DDB +journal article +282667 +10.11646/zootaxa.5389.1.4 +88255ff3-ecac-46be-95fb-227a057ddfc5 +1175-5326 +10404495 +9BD1B8FF-28B7-4D6E-8F4A-FF1E79C30DDB - - + + + + + +Key to Russian species of + +Coenosia + + + + + + + +An identification key is provided to all the 77 species of the genus + +Coenosia + +that are known from +Russia +. It is based in part on published keys: +Hennig (1961a +, +1961b +, +1962 +), +Huckett (1965) +, +Shinonaga (2003) +, +Xue & Zhu (2006) +, +Sorokina (2009) +and + +Gregor +et al. +(2016) + +. + +Macrorchis meditata +(Fallén, 1825) + +is also included in the key because is very close to some + +Coenosia +species + +( +Sorokina 2009 +), although still considered to be a different genus. + + + +FIGURE 9. + +Coenosia +spp. +A + +. + +Coenosia tigrina + +, female, hind tibia. +B. + +Coenosia intermedia + +, female, hind tibiae. +C. + +Coenosia ozerovi + +, male, fore tarsi. +D. + +Coenosia ambulans + +, female, head. +E. + +Coenosia kosterini + +, male, lateral view. +F, G. + +Coenosia alaskensis + +. +F. +Female habitus, lateral view. +G. +Male habitus, lateral view. Bare: 1 mm. + + + + +FIGURE 10. + +Coenosia +spp. +A + +, B. + +Coenosia baikalensis + +. +A. +Male habitus, lateral view. +B. +Female habitus, lateral view. +C, D. + +Coenosia tendipes + +. +C. +Female habitus, lateral view. +D. +Male habitus, lateral view. +E, F. + +Coenosia flaviseta + +. +E. +Male, head, lateral view. +F. +Female habitus, lateral view. +G, H. + +Coenosia conflicta + +. +G. +Male habitus, lateral view. +H. +Female habitus, lateral view. Bare: 1 mm. + + + +Some species have not been studied and have therefore been included in the key on the basis of their descriptions and/or the diagnostic characteristics proposed in the keys listed above. They are: + +Coenosia acuminata +Strobl, 1898 + +, + +Coenosia campestris +(Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) + +, + +Coenosia flavissima +Hennig, 1961 + +, + +Coenosia ghilarovi +Lobanov, 1988 + +, + +Coenosia incisurata +van der Wulp, 1869 + +, + +Coenosia mandschurica +Hennig, 1961 + +, + +Coenosia polina +Vikhrev, 2009 + +, and + +Coenosia rhaensis +Hennig, 1961 + +. + + +The distribution of each species (distribution in +Russia +and general distribution) is given directly in the male key. + + + + +FIGURE 11 +. + +Coenosia +spp. +A + +, B. + +Coenosia atritibia + +. +A. +Male habitus, lateral view. +B. +Female habitus, lateral view. +C, D. + +Coenosia apukaensis + +. +C. +Male habitus, lateral view. +D. +Female habitus, lateral view. +E, F. + +Coenosia xuei + +. +E. +Female habitus, lateral view. +F. +Male habitus, lateral view. Bare: 1 mm. + + + Key to males @@ -1791,5 +2024,1572 @@ Meigen + + +FIGURE 12 +. + +Coenosia +spp. +A + +, B. + +Coenosia lacustris + +. +A. +Male habitus, lateral view. +B. +Female habitus, lateral view. +C, D. + +Coenosia luteipes + +. +C. +Male habitus, lateral view. +D. +Female habitus, lateral view. +E. + +Coenosia sibirica + +, male abdomen, ventral view. +F. + +Coenosia lineatipes + +, male sternite 5, ventral view. +G. + +Coenosia pilipyga + +, male abdomen, lateral view. +H. + +Coenosia pumila + +, male abdomen, lateral view. Bare: 1 mm. + + + + + +Key to females + + + + + +The females of + +C. flavissima +, +C. kosterini + +, + +C. rhaensis + +, + +C. sibirica + +and + +C. striolata + +are not known, but the last two species are included in the key according to the characters of the males. + + + + + + + + +1. Costa extending only to, or very slightly beyond, apex of R +4+5 +.................................................. 2 + + + +- Costa extending to apex of M 1........................................................................... 3 + + + + + +2. Lower calypter not longer than upper one. Postpedicel with a spine-like dorsal tip.................. + + +connectens +(Hennig) + + + + + + +- Lower calypter much longer than upper one. Postpedicel without a spine-like dorsal tip, with a more or less rounded tip........................................................................................ + + +agromyzina +(Fallén) + + + + + + + + + +3. Hind tibia with a median anterior seta and an anterodorsal seta at almost the same level and close together ( +Fig. 9A +)....... 4 + + + +- Hind tibia without an anterior seta at middle close to the anterodorsal seta, but an anteroventral seta present............. 9 + + + + + +4. Scutum, scutellum and abdomen shining black.................................................... + + +atra +(Meigen) + + + + + +- Scutum, scutellum and abdomen not shining black........................................................... 5 + + + + + +5. Parafacial at least as broad as postpedicel; longest aristal hairs at least as long as width of postpedicel; outer vertical setae longer and stronger than postocular setulae......................................................... + + +tigrina +(Fabricius) + + + + + +- Parafacial narrower than width of postpedicel; longest aristal hairs much shorter than width of postpedicel; outer vertical setae at most as long as postocular setulae...................................................................... 7 + + + + + +7. All femora yellow, more or less darkened in apical third; abdomen with a midline and paired brown spots.... + + +strigipes +Stein + + + + + +- All femora dark, at most the tips narrowly yellow; abdomen with or without paired spots............................ 8 + + + + + +8. Longest aristal hairs barely longer than basal width of arista; abdomen at most with indistinct pattern.—European +Russia +........................................................................................... + + +attenuata +Stein + + + + + + +- Longest aristal hairs at least half as long as width of flagellomere; abdomen with paired round spots....... + + +humilis +Meigen + + + + + + + + +9. Hind tibia with strong and long preapical dorsal and posterodorsal setae close to each other ( +Fig. 9B +).................. 10 + + + +- Hind tibia without strong and long, closely approximated preapical dorsal and posterodorsal setae.................... 11 + + + + + +10. Mid and hind femora and all tibiae predominantly yellow...................................... + + +intermedia +(Fallén) + + + + + + +- Mid and hind femora and all tibiae predominantly dark but fore and mid trochanters yellow, hind trochanter sometimes darker.—European +Russia +................................................................... + + +means +Meigen + + + + + + + + +11. Head almost square in lateral view ( +Fig. 10F +); frons reddish at antenna, postpedicel black, very long, 4 times as long as wide; oral vibrissae usually yellow or golden but sometimes black...................................... + + +flaviseta +Huckett + + + + + +- With a different combination of characters................................................................ 12 + + + + +12. Lower calypter shorter than the upper one................................................................. 13 + + +- Lower calypter similar to or longer than upper one.......................................................... 16 + + + + + +13. Basal scutellar setae reduced, apical setae weak and short ( +Fig. 7B +)................................... + + +ciliata +Hennig + + + + + +- Both pairs of scutellars strong and long................................................................... 14 + + + + + +14. Larger size: +6–7.5 mm +( +Fig. 10B +). Mid and find femora completely yellow; mid femur with a strong anterior preapical seta............................................................................... + + +baicalensis +Schnabl + +(part) + + + + + +- Smaller size: +3.5–5.5 mm +. Mid and find femora completely or partially dark; mid femur without a strong anterior preapical seta............................................................................................... 15 + + + + + + +15. At least tibiae yellow ( +Fig. 10C +); palpus at least yellow on basal half; lower calypter extremely small, shorter than half length of the upper one, strip-like; legs without hairs on ventral surface; preapical anterodorsal and posterodorsal setae on hind tibia indistinct or absent....................................................................... + + +tendipes +Huckett + + + + + + +- All tibiae black, only knees yellowish; palpus black; lower calypter as broad as half length of the upper one; legs with hairs on ventral surface; preapical anterodorsal seta on hind tibia long and strong............................ + + +penicillata +Hennig + + + + + + + +16. Lower calypter subequal in length or scarcely longer than upper one............................................ 17 + + +- Lower calypter much longer than upper one............................................................... 34 + + + + +17. All femora black, at most with apices narrowly yellow....................................................... 18 + + +- At least mid and hind femora yellow on basal 1/3........................................................... 25 + + + + + +18. Antenna including both basal segments yellow or at least basal segments and base of postpedicel yellowish................................................................................................. + + +dealbata +(Zetterstedt) + + + + + +- Antenna entirely black................................................................................ 19 + + + + +19. All tibiae predominantly black, at most yellow in basal third.................................................. 20 + + +- All tibiae yellow or brownish-yellow..................................................................... 23 + + + + + +20. Mid femur with a strong distinct anterior preapical seta; scutum with 2 distinct brown narrow longitudinal vittae along dorsocentral setae; scutellum grey, sometimes like scutum with yellowish dust ( +Fig. 7E +)........... + + +subgracilis +Xue & Cui + + + + + +- Mid femur without anterior preapical seta or with indistinct short seta; scutum with brown dust between dorsocentral setae, reaching the apex of scutellum or completely brown dusted................................................... 21 + + + + + +21. Gena and parafacial broad, height of gena 2 times width of postpedicel, width of parafacial about as wide as postpedicel; mid femur usually with apical posteroventral seta (Figures in +Sorokina 2022 +).................. + +wrangelensis +Sorokina (part) + + + + +- Height of gena 1.5–1.7 times width of postpedicel, width of parafacial at middle as wide as ½ or 2/3 of width of postpedicel; mid femur without apical posteroventral seta.............................................................. 22 + + + + + +22. Scutum completely brown dusted; hind femur with a row of short anteroventral setae (Figures in +Sorokina 2022 +)................................................................................................. + +galina +Sorokina + + + + + +- Scutum with thick brown dust between +dc +which reaches the apex of scutellum; hind femur with two long anteroventral setae, which are much longer then diameter of femur in distal part and with two anteroventral setae in proximal part of femur (Figures in +Sorokina 2022 +)..................................................................... + +koni +Sorokina (part) + + + + + + + +23. Mid femur without a strong anterior preapical seta; preapical anterodorsal and posterodorsal setae on hind tibia distinct, each half as long as preapical dorsal seta. Smaller species ( +3.5–4.7 mm +) ( +Fig. 10H +).................. + + +conflicta +Huckett + +(part) + + + + + +- Mid femur with a strong anterior preapical seta; preapical anterodorsal on hind tibia much longer and stronger than posterodorsal setae. Larger species (5.0– +6.5 mm +)...................................................................... 24 + + + + + + +24. All tibiae yellow; abdomen with rounded spots; mid femur with a full row of anteroventral setae ( +Fig. 7G +)....................................................................................................... + + +oralis +Schnabl + + + + + + +- All tibiae brownish-yellow, darkened in apical 2/3–4/5; abdomen with more or less triangular spots; mid femur with 5–6 anteroventrals in basal half ( +Figs 7I +, +8F +).............................................. + + +ukokensis +Sorokina + +(part) + + + + + + +25. Mid femur in apical third without a strong anterior preapical seta.............................................. 26 + + +- Mid femur with a strong anterior preapical seta............................................................. 28 + + + + + +26. Body entirely yellow; scutum densely grey dusted, pleura yellow with grey dusted spot on anepimeron; apical tarsomeres of all legs often blackish.—Far East (Kunashir Island)................................................. + + +polina +Vikhrev + + + + + +- Al least thorax and abdomen grey, not yellow.............................................................. 27 + + + + + +27. Scutum with two distinct brown longitudinal stripes; antenna and palpus wholly dark; fore femur dark, mid and hind femora yellow or with dark dorsal streak.................................................. + + +bilineella +(Zetterstedt) + +(part) + + + + + +- Scutum brownish dusted, without dark longitudinal stripes; at least base of postpedicel yellow; palpus partly yellow or brownish; all femora yellow or fulvous............................................................... + + +demoralis +Huckett + + + + + + + +28. Fore femur mostly black, mid and hind femora black or fuscous in dorsal part at apex; antenna completely black........ 29 + + + +- All femora completely yellow, at most fore femur with dark dorsal steak; antenna at least yellow at base on ventral surface (except black in + +C. baicalensis + +)......................................................................... 31 + + + + + + +29. Fore femur darkened at most on dorsal surface, ventral surface yellow; mid and hind femora largely yellow on distal half with a dark mark at most confined to dorsal half of femur; mid femur with 1 preapical posterior seta.... + + +cingulipes +(Zetterstedt) + + + + + +- Fore femur completely black; mid and hind femora with a black apical ring; mid femur with 2 preapical posterior setae... 30 + + + + + +30. Hind tibia with a well-developed posterodorsal seta, as long as 2/3 of anterodorsal seta; gena higher than width of postpedicel ( +Fig. 9F +)............................................................................. + + +alaskensis +Huckett + + + + + + +- Hind tibia without posterodorsal seta, or with some a weak and short seta which shorter than anterodorsal seta; gena not higher than width of postpedicel.......................................................... + + +octopunctata +(Zetterstedt) + + + + + + + + +31. Antenna and palpus wholly dark; mid and hind femora with complete but sparse rows of long posteroventral setae; height of gena 1.5 times width of postpedicel ( +Fig. 10B +). Larger size: +6–7.5 mm +...................... + + +baicalensis +Schnabl + +(part) + + + + + +- Antenna and palpus partly or completely yellow; mid and hind femora with long posteroventrals only in basal half; height of gena at most as wide as width of postpedicel. Smaller size: +3–5 mm +............................................ 32 + + + + + + +32. Postpronotal lobe, abdomen and at least katepisterna yellow..................................... + + +ghilarovi +Lobanov + + + + + +- Thorax completely grey, abdomen yellow only at base....................................................... 33 + + + + + +33. Tip of antennal pedicel yellow; palpus at least broadly yellow at tip, usually almost or completely yellow; dark dorsocentral vittae weakly visible; fore femur wholly yellow............................................... + + +mollicula +(Fallén) + + + + + + +- Antennal pedicel and postpedicel usually narrowly reddish basally; palpus wholly dark or at least dark at tip; dark dorsocentral vittae conspicuous and strongly marked; fore femur yellow or with a dark dorsal steak............... + + +alpicola +(Pokorny) + + + + + + + + +34. Postpedicel with a spine-like dorsal tip ( +Fig. 9D +)........................................................... 35 + + + +- Postpedicel without a spine-like dorsal tip, rounded at tip..................................................... 38 + + + + + +35. Mid and hind femora yellow but darkened apically............................................. + + +ambulans +Meigen + + + + + +- Mid and hind femora predominantly black................................................................ 36 + + + + + +36. Height of gena 1.5–1.8 times width of postpedicel ( +Fig. 1C +); legs completely black, grey dusted like pleura; two proepisternal setae..................................................................................... + + +luxia + +sp. nov. + + + + +- Height of gena less than 1.5 times width of postpedicel, usually as high as wide of postpedicel; at least knees and base of fore and mid tibiae yellow; usually one proepisternal setae....................................................... 37 + + + + + +37. Frons uniformly silvery; abdominal spots brown, well defined................................ + + +flavimana +(Zetterstedt) + + + + + + +- Frontal vitta darker than fronto-orbital plates; abdominal spots indistinct........................................................................................... + + +pulicaria +(Zetterstedt) + + + +& + +acuminata +Strobl + + +(European +Russia +) + + + + + +38. Only one proepisternal seta (sometimes with an additional weak seta on one side)................................. 39 + + +- Two proepisternal setae............................................................................... 45 + + + + +39. All femora black, at most only narrowly yellow apically..................................................... 40 + + +- Femora completely yellow or yellow in apical third......................................................... 41 + + + + + +40. All tibiae yellow ( +Fig. 10H +); scutum grey dusted with 2 or 3 brownish vittae, scutellum grey dusted; frontal vitta brownishgrey dusted, fronto-orbital plate silvery-grey dusted; preapical anterodorsal and posterodorsal setae on hind tibia half as long as length of preapical dorsal seta........................................................ + + +conflicta +Huckett + +(part) + + + + + +- All tibiae black; scutum and scutellum completely densely brown dusted, sometimes with 3 indistinct longitudinal vittae; frontal vitta and a fronto-orbital plate velvety black in frontal view; preapical anterodorsal seta on hind tibia as long as 2/3 length of preapical dorsal seta, preapical posterodorsal absent (Figures in +Sorokina 2022 +)............... + +adriani +Sorokina + + + + + + + +41. Postpedicel shorter, ca. 2.2–2.3 times as long as wide. Mid tibia with apical posteroventral seta short, not longer than diameter of tibia where situated.............................................................. + + +incisurata +van der Wulp + + + + + +- Postpedicel longer, ca. 3.0 times as long as wide. Mid tibia with apical posteroventral seta longer or not than diameter of tibia where situated....................................................................................... 42 + + + + + +42. Lower calypter short, little longer than upper one; frontal vitta entirely dark; mid tibia with apical posteroventral seta longer than diameter of tibia where situated............................................... + + +bilineella +(Zetterstedt) + +(part) + + + + +- Lower calypter much longer than upper one; anterior margin of frontal vitta reddish-yellow or dark; mid tibia with apical posteroventral seta shorter than or as long as diameter of tibia where situated..................................... 43 + + + + + +43. All coxae yellow; abdomen without or with very indistinct dark paired spots; presutural acrostichal setae weak................................................................................................. + + +rufipalpis +Meigen + + + + + +- Mid and hind coxae partly grey; abdomen with distinct dark paired spots; presutural acrostichals well developed........ 44 + + + + + +44. Anterior margin of frontal vitta reddish-yellow; mid femur with only 1–2 weak posteroventrals in basal 2/3 and mostly with one apical posterodorsal seta; mid tibia with apical posteroventral seta much shorter than diameter of tibia where situated.................................................................................. + + +testacea +(Robineau-Desvoidy) + + + + + + +- Anterior margin of frontal vitta usually dark; mid femur with 3–4 posteroventrals in basal 2/3 and usually with 2 apical posterodorsals; mid tibia with apical posteroventral seta ca. as long as diameter of tibia where situated....................................................................................................... + + +nigridigita +Rondani + + + + + + + +45. Hind tibia with one strong or 3–4 short submedian posterodorsal seta........................................... 46 + + +- Hind tibia without a submedian posterodorsal setae......................................................... 55 + + + + + +46. Middle and hind femora black at least in distal half or entirely black; 2 pairs of strong presutural dorsocentral setae present (except 1 pair in + +C. ozerovi + +)............................................................................ 47 + + + +- Femora completely or predominantly yellow; only one pair of presutural dorsocentrals............................. 51 + + + + +47. Middle and hind femora yellow in basal part............................................................... 48 + + +- Middle and hind femora entirely black................................................................... 49 + + + + + +48. Middle and hind femora yellow in basal ½ part ( +Fig. 11E +); hind tibia usually with 1 strong posterodorsal seta..................................................................................................... + + +xuei +Cui et Li + + + + + + +- Middle and hind femora yellow in basal ¼ or 1/3 ( +Fig. 11D +); hind tibia with 3–4 short hair-like posterodorsal setae....................................................................................... + + +apukaensis +Hennig + +(part) + + + + + + + +49. One pair of strong presutural dorsocentral setae present; all tibiae black, knees yellow; abdomen without dark spots ( +Fig. 8B +)....................................................................................... + + +ozerovi +Vikhrev + + + + + +- Two pair of strong presutural dorsocentral setae present; tibiae yellow at least in basal third; abdomen with dark spots on tergites 3–5......................................................................................... 50 + + + + + +50. Scutum with 3 brown longitudinal vittae; lower calypter much longer than upper one; postpedicel 3.5 times as long as wide, nearly reaching vibrissal angle ( +Fig. 8C +).................................................... + + +nigrotincta +Hennig + + + + + + +- Scutum with 2 brown longitudinal vittae; lower calypter slightly longer than upper one; postpedicel 2.5 times as long as wide, its length about 2/3 height of face ( +Figs 7I +, +8F +)......................................... + + +ukokensis +Sorokina + +(part) + + + + + + + +51. Postpedicel yellow basally............................................................... + + +flavicornis +(Fallén) + + + + + +- Postpedicel completely black........................................................................... 52 + + + + + +52. Mid femur in distal third without long posteroventral setae.................................. + + +trilineella +(Zetterstedt) + + + + + +- Mid femur in distal third with strong posteroventrals........................................................ 53 + + + + + +53. Postpedicel long, about 5.0 times as long as wide, reaching the mouth margin; parafacial very narrow, much narrower than width of postpedicel; fore femur with brown dorsal streak; mid and hind femora darkened apically; arista short pubescent....................................................................................... + + +emiliae +Lukasheva + + + + + +- With a different combination of characters................................................................ 54 + + + + + +54. Posterodorsal seta of hind tibia as long and strong as the anterodorsal seta ( +Fig. 12B +).................. + + +lacustris +Schnabl + + + + + + +- Posterodorsal seta of hind tibia shorter than or even half as long as the anterodorsal ( +Fig. 12D +).......... + +luteipes +Ringdahl + + + + + + +55. Apical scutellar setae distinctly shorter and weaker than basal scutellar setae..................................... 56 + + +- Apical and basal scutellars subequal in length.............................................................. 57 + + + + + +56. Mid and hind femora black; mouth margin projecting slightly beyond level of profrons.................. + + +pedella +(Fallén) + + + + + + +- Mid and hind femora yellow; mouth margin not projecting beyond level of profrons............... + + +griseiventris +Ringdahl + + + + + + + + +57. Two pairs of presutural dorsocentral setae, anterior pair about 1/3–2/3 as long as posterior pair ( + +C. apukaensis +Hennig + +sometimes without distinct anterior pair)........................................................................... 58 + + + +- Only one pair of presutural dorsocentrals................................................................. 62 + + + + + +58. At least base of postpedicel yellowish; base of abdomen more or less yellow.................... + + +ruficornis +(Macquart) + + + + + +- Antenna entirely black; abdomen entirely grey............................................................. 59 + + + + + +59. At least basal third or quarter of mid and hind femora yellow; hind femur with a full row of strong posteroventrals....................................................................... + + +comita +(Huckett) + + +& +apukaensis +Hennig + +(part) + + + + +- All femora black, only narrowly yellow apically; hind femur with strong posteroventral setae only on basal half......... 60 + + + + + +60. All tibiae yellow. Larger size: 6.0–8.0 mm.......................................... + + +Macrorchis meditata +(Fallén) + + + + + + +- At least hind tibia black. Smaller size: +3.5–4.3 mm +.......................................................... 61 + + + + + + +61. Fore and mid tibiae yellow, hind tibia black; hind tarsi thickened, all segments about twice as wide as those of mid tarsus; height of gena ca. 1.3 times width of postpedicel ( +Fig. 11B +)...................................... + + +atritibia +Ringdahl + +(part) + + + + + +- All tibiae black, except yellow basal third or fourth; hind tarsi not thickened; height of gena ca. 2.3–3.0 times width of postpedicel (Figures in +Sorokina 2022 +)......................................................... + +gorodkovi +Sorokina (part) + + + + + + +62. Mid and hind femora predominantly yellow, darkened dorsally at apex.......................................... 63 + + +- Mid and hind femora predominantly black, basal half never entirely yellow...................................... 69 + + + + + +63. Anteroventral seta on hind tibia in strictly ventral position......................................... + + +pudorosa +Collin + + + + + +- Anteroventral seta on hind tibia in a normal, truly anteroventral position......................................... 64 + + + + + +64. Smaller size, the largest +3.5 mm +. Mid and hind femora completely yellow or with dark dorsal spot at apex; hind femora with posteroventral setae only in basal half.................................................................... 65 + + + + +- Larger size, more than +3.5 mm +. Mid and hind femora yellow with black rings in apical fourth; hind femora with posteroventral setae in basal 2/3..................................................................................... 66 + + + + + + +65. Mid and hind femora completely yellow, without dark dorsal spot at apex........................ + + +mandschurica +Hennig + + + + + + +- Mid and hind femora yellow with dark dorsal spot at apex......................................... + + +dubiosa +Hennig + + + + + + + + +66. Postpedicel 3.0 times as long as wide; scutum with 3 dark longitudinal vittae; presutural acrostichals in one irregular row............................................................................ + + +campestris +(Robineau-Desvoidy) + + + + + +- Postpedicel about 2.5 times as long as broad; scutum with 3 distinct or with 2 indistinct longitudinal vittae, mid vitta usually reduced; presutural acrostichals in 2 rows................................................................. 67 + + + + + +67. Frontal triangle reaching anterior margin of frons.............................................. + + +albicornis +Meigen + + + + + +- Frontal triangle not reaching anterior margin of frons........................................................ 68 + + + + + +68. Scutum with 3 distinct brown longitudinal vittae................................. + + +striolata +Hennig + + +& +sibirica +Hennig + + + + + + +- Scutum without distinct longitudinal vittae, or with 2 indistinct stripes......................... + + +lineatipes +(Zetterstedt) + + + + + + + +69. Mid femur with a strong anterior preapical seta............................................................. 70 + + +- Mid femur without a strong anterior preapical seta.......................................................... 76 + + + + +70. At least hind tibiae black.............................................................................. 71 + + +- All tibiae yellow..................................................................................... 73 + + + + + +71. Fore and mid tibiae yellow, hind tibia black; hind tarsi thickened, all tarsomeres about twice as wide as those of mid tarsus ( +Fig. 11A +)............................................................................ + + +atritibia +Ringdahl + +(part) + + + + +- All tibiae predominantly black; hind tarsi not thickened...................................................... 72 + + + + + +72. Scutum with distinct brown narrow longitudinal vittae along dorsocentral, acrostichal setae and posthumeral to intra-alar setae, with brown dust between dorsocentral setae, reaching the apex of scutellum; mid femur with a posteroventral seta in apical third (Figures in +Sorokina 2022 +)....................................................... + +wrangelensis +Sorokina (part) + + + + + +- Scutum with 3 longitudinal vittae along dorsocentral and acrostichal setae but without brown dust between dorsocentral setae, scutellum grey; mid femur without posteroventral seta in apical third. European +Russia +..... + + +femoralis +(Robineau-Desvoidy) + + + + + + + + +73. Hind femur with a complete row of posteroventral setae; frontal vitta dull black in frontal view......... + + +perpusilla +Meigen + + + + + +- Hind femur with 0–2 posteroventrals in basal half; frontal vitta grey in frontal view................................ 74 + + + + + +74. Hind femur without posteroventrals in basal half................................................ + + +paludis +Tiensuu + + + + + +- Hind femur with 2 posteroventrals in basal half............................................................ 75 + + + + + +75. Mid femur usually with 1 or 2 anteroventral setae in basal third (long and short setae); mid and hind femora usually yellow in basal third; at least tergites 3–5 with pairs of rounded spots and sometimes a vitta between them........... + + +pumila +(Fallén) + + + + + + +- Mid femur with 3 or 4 anteroventral setae in basal half or in basal 2/3; mid and hind femora mostly subshining black; abdomen without or with indistinct pairs of spots...................................................... + + +pilipyga +Ringdahl + + + + + + + + +76. Gena narrower than postpedicel; parafacial narrower than anterior ocellus....................... + + +pygmaea +(Zetterstedt) + + + + + +- Gena distinctly broader than postpedicel; parafacial broader than anterior ocellus.................................. 77 + + + + +77. All tibiae predominantly black, only basally paler........................................................... 78 + + +- At least fore and mid tibiae yellow....................................................................... 82 + + + + +78. Scutum with 2–3 brown longitudinal vittae, without brown dust between them; abdomen with distinct brown paired spots... .................................................................................................. 79 + + +- Scutum with brown narrow longitudinal vittae along dorsocentral, acrostichal setae and posthumeral to intra-alar setae; with brown dust between dorsocentral setae, reaching the apex of scutellum; abdomen without spots or with small indistinct brownish marks or spots....................................................................................... 80 + + + + + +79. Scutum with 3 distinct brown longitudinal vittae ( +Fig. 4E +); abdomen with large brown paired spots ( +Figs 4 F, H +).............................................................................................. + + +octosignata +Rondani + + + + + + +- Scutum with 2 distinct brown longitudinal vittae and with traces of a weak median vitta between them ( +Fig. 4D +); brown oval spots of abdomen smaller and less well-defined ( +Figs 4 B, C +)................................. + + +nevadensis +Lyneborg + + + + + + + + +80. Height of gena ca. 1.5–1.7 times width of postpedicel; mid femur with 1 preapical posterior seta, without preapical posteroventral seta; abdomen without spots or marks (Figures in +Sorokina 2022 +)............................... + +koni +Sorokina (part) + + + + +- Height of gena ca. 2.0–3.0 times width of postpedicel; mid femur with 1 or 2 preapical posterior setae, with or without preapical posteroventral seta; abdomen usually with dark marks, sometimes indistinct...................................... 81 + + + + + +81. Lower calypter a little longer than upper one; abdomen with brown rounded spots, sometimes indistinct (Figures in +Sorokina 2022 +)........................................................................ + +wrangelensis +Sorokina (part) + + + + + +- Lower calypter much longer than upper one; abdomen with diffuse brown marks reaching ventral surface of tergites (Figures in +Sorokina 2022 +)................................................................ + +gorodkovi +Sorokina (part) + + + + + + + +82. All tibiae completely light yellow ( +Fig. 10H +); preapical anterodorsal and posterodorsal setae on hind tibia weak but distinct, each half as long as preapical dorsal seta, this seta a little shorter than median anterodorsal seta; lower calypter a little longer than upper one.................................................................... + + +conflicta +Huckett + +(part) + + + + +- Tibiae brownish or partly darkened, not light yellow; preapical anterodorsal and dorsal on hind tibia long and strong, the dorsal about as long as median anterodorsal, without a distinct preapical posterodorsal; lower calypter much longer than upper one. .................................................................................................. 83 + + + + + +83. All trochanters greyish-brown; abdomen with rounded spots, sometimes indistinct; scutum without distinct dorsocentral vittae; hind tibia mostly brownish; postpedicel rounded at apex........................................... + + +verralli +Collin + + + + + + +- At least fore and mid trochanters yellow; abdomen usually without spots; scutum with three longitudinal vittae; hind tibia with a dark ring in basal and apical third; postpedicel pointed at apex (Figures in +Sorokina 2022 +).......... + + +tschernovi +Sorokina + + + + + + + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/42/C1/FC/42C1FC9ED4943FBC044BB93CEA173576.xml b/data/42/C1/FC/42C1FC9ED4943FBC044BB93CEA173576.xml index 62df0beafa8..e7c5da0fa10 100644 --- a/data/42/C1/FC/42C1FC9ED4943FBC044BB93CEA173576.xml +++ b/data/42/C1/FC/42C1FC9ED4943FBC044BB93CEA173576.xml @@ -1,58 +1,58 @@ - - - -Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) + + + +Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) - - -Author + + +Author -Praz, Christophe J. -https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 -University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland -christophe.praz@unine.ch +Praz, Christophe J. +https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 +University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland +christophe.praz@unine.ch -text - - -Journal of Hymenoptera Research +text + + +Journal of Hymenoptera Research - -2017 - -2017-04-28 + +2017 + +2017-04-28 - -55 + +55 - -1 -54 + +1 +54 - -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 + +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -journal article -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -1314-2607-55-1 -52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 -FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC -575138 +journal article +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 +1314-2607-55-1 +52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 +FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC +575138 Subgenus -Maximegachile Guiglia and Pasteels, 1961 +Maximegachile Guiglia and Pasteels, 1961 Diagnosis and description. This species-poor, group 2 subgenus is probably represented in the Palearctic by one conspicuous species that is well characterized in the key. In both sexes, - + Maximegachile consists of large, elongate bees with a typical vestiture pattern: hairs are predominantly black except snow white on the propodeum, on T1 and the basal part of T2. No other Palearctic species has such a vestiture pattern. @@ -68,15 +68,15 @@ consists of large, elongate bees with a typical vestiture pattern: hairs are pre Figures 50-53. Apex of male metasoma, dorsal view. 50 -Megachile (Anodonteutricharaea +Megachile (Anodonteutricharaea ) sp. aff. -inornata +inornata 51 -M. (Pseudomegachile) ericetorum +M. (Pseudomegachile) ericetorum 52 -M. (Pseudomegachile) saussurei +M. (Pseudomegachile) saussurei 53 -M. (Pseudomegachile) foersteri +M. (Pseudomegachile) foersteri . @@ -87,38 +87,38 @@ Apex of male metasoma, dorsal view. Two species have been mentioned for the Palearctic region and for the Arabian Peninsula: Pasteels (1979) mentions - + Megachile maxillosa Guerin-Meneville , 1845 from the Arabian Peninsula and describes - + M. esseniensis (Pasteels, 1979) from a single male collected in Southern Israel. Based on the examination of numerous specimens of - + M. maxillosa from Africa, it seems that - + M. maxillosa occurs as two distinct morphs in the male sex: a large morph (body length approximately 20 mm) with clypeus entirely glabrous and covered by coarse punctures on its disc; and a smaller morph (body length approximately 15 mm) with clypeus covered by dense vestiture at least apically and with finer punctures. A similar conclusion seems to have been reached by Eardley (2012 : 26), who mentions that the lower clypeus is "densely pubescent (naked in very large specimens)". I have seen both morphs from the Arabian Peninsula but the limited material that I have seen from Israel were of the small morph, which corresponds to the description of - + M. esseniensis . For now, I thus place - + M. esseniensis as a junior synonym of - + M. maxillosa (syn. n.), in line with the treatment of - + M. maxillosa in Africa, and consequently I recognize only one species in the Palearctic region. @@ -131,15 +131,15 @@ in Africa, and consequently I recognize only one species in the Palearctic regio Gess and Roosenschoon (2017) provide a description of the nesting biology of - + Megachile maxillosa in the United Arab Emirates. Nests of this species were found in trap nests. Entire cells were built using a mixture of sand and resin and the completed nests were closed with a plug of sand and resin. According to Gess and Gess (2003) , the same species visits plants from various families but shows a preference for the -Fabaceae +Fabaceae , notably - + Crotalaria , in South Africa and Namibia. diff --git a/data/57/93/CB/5793CBE65C9E668A68CB68F2C44D29F5.xml b/data/57/93/CB/5793CBE65C9E668A68CB68F2C44D29F5.xml index 7cdb52fe014..4a5de5966ce 100644 --- a/data/57/93/CB/5793CBE65C9E668A68CB68F2C44D29F5.xml +++ b/data/57/93/CB/5793CBE65C9E668A68CB68F2C44D29F5.xml @@ -1,114 +1,114 @@ - - - -Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) + + + +Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) - - -Author + + +Author -Praz, Christophe J. -https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 -University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland -christophe.praz@unine.ch +Praz, Christophe J. +https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 +University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland +christophe.praz@unine.ch -text - - -Journal of Hymenoptera Research +text + + +Journal of Hymenoptera Research - -2017 - -2017-04-28 + +2017 + +2017-04-28 - -55 + +55 - -1 -54 + +1 +54 - -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 + +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -journal article -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -1314-2607-55-1 -52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 -FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC -575138 +journal article +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 +1314-2607-55-1 +52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 +FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC +575138 Subgenus -Pseudomegachile +Pseudomegachile Diagnosis and description. This subgenus is morphologically diverse and in both sexes few diagnostic traits are common to the entire subgenus. The description is given for the each species group. The rather distinct - + Pseudomegachile incana group has previously been recognized as a distinct subgenus, - + Parachalicodoma , but in Trunz et al.'s phylogeny ( Trunz et al. 2016 ), this group was nested within - + Pseudomegachile , with - + Megachile foersteri being sister to a clade formed by the - + Megachile cyanipennis and the - + Pseudomegachile incana groups. Based on its morphology, the - + Megachile rhodoleucura group (not included in Trunz et al. 2016 ) appears to build a transition between the - + Pseudomegachile incana and the - + Megachile cyanipennis groups. Similarly, the Oriental group of species previously known as - + Largella (considered here to form the semivestita group) is rather distinctive, although - + M. lanata is intermediate between the semivestita group and other, regular looking - + Pseudomegachile . Thus although - + Pseudomegachile could be split into several subgenera, numerous species are intermediate and the recognition of several subgenera does not seem practical or necessary: the number of species is not particularly large in the Palearctic or in the Oriental region, and having numerous subgenera would not be of much utility. @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ could be split into several subgenera, numerous species are intermediate and the 1. - + Megachile foersteri group: Males @@ -131,11 +131,11 @@ group: Males : Large (body size above 17 mm) and robust species with metasoma entirely covered by grey to yellow-brown vestiture. Mandibular surface comparatively dull (Fig. 23 ); mandible slightly elongate (condition intermediate between that seen in the - + Megachile cyannipennis and - + Megachile ericetorum groups), with apical margin weakly 4-toothed. Apical margin of clypeus truncate, laterally with a blunt tooth (Fig. @@ -145,23 +145,23 @@ groups), with apical margin weakly 4-toothed. Apical margin of clypeus truncate, 2. - + Megachile cyanipennis group ( - + Xenomegachile Rebmann, 1970): Males : Front coxal tooth present. Mandible 4-toothed (teeth sometimes blunt or small), with quadrate inferior projection. Front tarsi slightly enlarged, brownish-yellow to yellowish-white, first segment with one dark spot on ventral surface (except in - + Megachile cyanipennis ). Preapical carina of T6 multidentate, laterally mostly without tooth (a small tooth is present in - + M. saussurei ). T7 large, well visible from above, produced to a short spine (Fig. @@ -181,13 +181,13 @@ Rebmann, 1970): 3. - + Megachile rhodoleucura group: Males : As in - + Megachile cyanipennis group, with the following differences: front coxal tooth small; mandible without inferior projection; front tarsi unmodified although first segment with dark spot on ventral surface; T7 with apical margin emarginate medially ( @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ group, with the following differences: front coxal tooth small; mandible without ). Females : As in - + Megachile cyanipennis group, but apical clypeal margin apically swollen, projected over base of labrum ( @@ -211,13 +211,13 @@ group, but apical clypeal margin apically swollen, projected over base of labrum 4. - + Pseudomegachile incana group ( - + Parachalicodoma Pasteels, 1966): @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ Pasteels, 1966): ). T7 produced to rounded or truncate spine (Fig. 43 ). S5 partly exposed in repose (in all other groups of - + Pseudomegachile , S5 is hidden under S4). @@ -237,17 +237,17 @@ Pasteels, 1966): ) or acute (Fig. 22 ); width of impunctate, premarginal area along apical margin intermediate between - + Megachile cyanipennis and - + Megachile ericetorum groups. Ocelloccipital distance shorter than interocellar distance. Hind basitarsus broad, 2.7 times as long as wide (Fig. 27 ). Scutellum not elevated medially. In one species the facial vestiture is modified as in the - + Megachile rhodoleucura group. @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ group. 4. - + Megachile ericetorum group: Males @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ group: Males ). Females : Mandible long and slender, almost as in - + Chalicodoma , weakly 4-toothed, impunctate area along apical margin narrow (Fig. @@ -279,25 +279,25 @@ group: Males 5. - + Megachile flavipes group ( - + Archimegachile Alfken, 1933): Males : As in - + Megachile ericetorum group, but front tarsal segments 1-3 or 1-4 maculated ventrally, maculations sometimes reduced to thin lines. Females : As in - + Megachile ericetorum group, with following differences: clypeus apically without median tooth, or tooth minute; ocelloccipital distance either subequal to or shorter than interocellar distance. @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ group, with following differences: clypeus apically without median tooth, or too 6. - + Megachile lanata group: Males @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ group: Males : Front coxal spine short; front tarsi unmodified. Mandible weakly 4-toothed, without inferior projection although the inferior margin is swollen medially. Preapical carina of T6 bilobed, not denticulate. T7 small, little visible. Females : Mandible as in - + Megachile ericetorum group, 4-toothed and comparatively elongate, impunctate area along apical margin narrow. Clypeus short, apical margin straight, without medial tooth. Ocelloccipital distance slightly shorter than interocellar distance. @@ -323,79 +323,79 @@ group, 4-toothed and comparatively elongate, impunctate area along apical margin Species composition. There is only one Western Palearctic species each in the - + Megachile foersteri , - + Megachile rhodoleucura , - + Megachile ericetorum and - + Megachile lanata groups ( - + Megachile foersteri , - + M. riyadhensis , - + M. ericetorum and - + M. lanata ; see above for comments on the taxonomic status of - + M. riyadhensis ); three species in the - + Pseudomegachile incana group, of which two are undescribed (Dorchin and Praz, in prep.). At least - + M. cinnamomea Alken, 1926, - + M. farinosa Smith, 1853, - + M. flavipes Spinola, 1838, - + M. sanguinipes Morawitz, 1875 and - + M. tecta Radoszkowski, 1888 are valid species of the - + Megachile flavipes group; the status of - + M. rubripes is unclear: both - + M. flavipes and - + M. rubripes are parapatric and sculpturally very similar and have been considered as two subspecies of the same species by some authors (e. g., @@ -404,27 +404,27 @@ are parapatric and sculpturally very similar and have been considered as two sub and Zanden 1994 ). At least - + M. cyannipennis , - + M. nigripes Spinola, 1838, - + M. saussurei , - + M. schnabli Radoszkowski, 1893 and - + M. seraxensis Radoszkowski, 1893 are valid species within the - + Megachile saussurei group, which includes at least three undescribed species (Dorchin and Praz, in prep). @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ group, which includes at least three undescribed species (Dorchin and Praz, in p Biology. The nesting biology of - + Megachile ericetorum has been described in detail (references in @@ -442,23 +442,23 @@ has been described in detail (references in ). Ferton (1895) provides a description of the nests, which are located in existing cavities such as existing holes in soil or clay banks, or in reed stems. The cells are arranged linearly and consist of mud; Ferton observed females gathering moist soil close to streams, a behavior not observed in bees of the subgenus - + Chalicodoma , which add secretions to dry mud to build their nests (see under that subgenus). The outside of the cell is coarse and irregular, while the inner wall is lined with a thin (up to 0.5 mm) layer of resin. The cell is closed with a plug of soil; the cell cap is not lined with resin on the inside of the cell, although resin is found on the outer surface, which constitutes the base of the nest cell. The nest closure consists of a layer of mud covered by a thin layer of resin, with sometimes an additional layer (2 mm) of mud. Rozen and Kamel (2007) described the biology of - + M. nigripes , a member of the - + Megachile saussurei group. The species nests in tunnels dug by the females in "adobe" , i. e., hard, dry, mud walls. The cells, oriented almost vertically in the oblique tunnels, are elongate and not arranged linearly. The cell walls probably consist of the excavated mud wall and the inside of the cell is uneven but appears to have been lined with dark coating that is "water retardant but not truly waterproof". The authors conclude that it may consist of "very fine soil particles bound together by partly dried nectar". The nests of species of the - + Megachile flavipes group have been briefly described several times ( @@ -470,27 +470,27 @@ group have been briefly described several times ( , Krombein 1969 ). The most precise account describes the nests of - + M. rubripes in Turkmenistan ( Ponomareva 1958 ). Nests of this species were found in reed stems. Two cells were arranged linearly and made of mud "moistened with water, apparently without using secretions (...); the dry cells instantly disintegrate on submergence in water". As in - + M. ericetorum , the outside of the cell is irregular, but the inside is smooth; in - + M. rubripes resin or secretions were apparently not used to line the inner wall. - + Megachile ericetorum is likely oligolectic on -Fabaceae +Fabaceae ( Westrich 1989 , @@ -500,57 +500,57 @@ et al. 1997 ), although according to Westrich (1989) -Lamiaceae +Lamiaceae pollen is very occasionally also used (see also Gogala 2014 ). Limited evidence based on floral records suggests that - + M. foersteri has a preference for -Carduoideae +Carduoideae ( -Asteraceae +Asteraceae ) (C. Praz, unpublished data). According to Rozen and Kamel (2007) , the main host of - + M. nigripes in Egypt is - + Trifolium alexandrinum L. I observed - + M. saussurei on - + Medicago in Uzbekistan and in Iran (see also Popov 1946 ), - + M. flavipes and the closely related - + M. rubripes only on -Fabaceae +Fabaceae . As indicated by Alqarni et al. (2012) , many unrelated species of - + Pseudomegachile have conspicuously modified facial hairs; these modified hairs are always found on the clypeus but may also be found on the supraclypeal area and the frons. In the species associated with -Fabaceae +Fabaceae listed above, the hairs on the face are plumose at least in fresh specimens, while in species with modified hairs, the hairs are short, simple and often bent downwards apically, or wavy (see Mueller @@ -559,107 +559,107 @@ listed above, the hairs on the face are plumose at least in fresh specimens, whi ). Alqarni et al. (2012) listed several species of - + Pseudomegachile with such modification; among the Palearctic species, they cite the following species. - + M. riyadhensis , which they collected exclusively on - + Blepharis ( -Acanthaceae +Acanthaceae ); I examined the pollen present in the scopa of the holotype of - + M. rhodoleucura (with identical facial vestiture as - + M. riyadhensis ; see comments above) and the pollen also belongs to -Acanthaceae +Acanthaceae . - + M. farinosa and - + M. cinnamomea (the condition is not clear in the latter species), both in the - + Megachile flavipes group also have modified facial hairs; according to my field observations, - + M. farinosa has a preference for the flowers of - + Vitex ( -Lamiaceae +Lamiaceae ), while - + M. cinnamomea is likely polylectic. In the - + Megachile saussurei group, Alqarni et al. (2012) cite - + M. transgrediens Rebmann, 1970 as having modified facial hairs; this mention likely refers to one of two undescribed species from Turkey and Iran with modified hairs ( - + M. transgrediens is probably a junior synonym of - + M. saussurei ; C. Praz, unpublished); these two undescribed species are sculpturally close to - + M. saussurei , in fact differing from the latter in the female sex mostly by the modified facial vestiture. Host plants of these two species are unknown. - + M. seraxensis also has modified facial hairs; I collected one female of this species visiting - + Blepharis . Lastly, I collected in Israel several specimens of an undescribed species of the - + Pseudomegachile incana group collecting the pollen from - + Blepharis ; this species has modified hairs on the clypeus, supraclypeal area and frons, exactly as in - + M. riyadhensis . Another closely related species from the - + Pseudomegachile incana group from Oman and the UAE has branched hairs on the clypeus; it was observed foraging on - + Crotalaria ( -Fabaceae +Fabaceae ; Sarah Gess, pers. comm., September 2016). diff --git a/data/62/3E/A8/623EA85DD86BFFF8FF3B0CFDFF2925A2.xml b/data/62/3E/A8/623EA85DD86BFFF8FF3B0CFDFF2925A2.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..7c6605cd78c --- /dev/null +++ b/data/62/3E/A8/623EA85DD86BFFF8FF3B0CFDFF2925A2.xml @@ -0,0 +1,579 @@ + + + +“ That’s Opuntia, that was! ”, again: a new combination for an old and enigmatic Opuntia s. l. (Cactaceae) + + + +Author + +Köhler, Matias +Programa de Pós-Graduação em Botânica, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. & University of Florida Herbarium (FLAS), Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, FL, USA. + + + +Author + +Font, Fabián +0000-0003-0118-7092 +Herbario Museo de Farmacobotánica “ Juan A. Domínguez ” (BAF), Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. & ffont @ ffyb. uba. ar; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0003 - 0118 - 7092 +ffont@ffyb.uba.ar + + + +Author + +Puente-Martinez, Raul +0000-0002-5870-0312 +Department of Research, Desert Botanical Garden (DBG), Phoenix, AZ, USA. & rpuente @ dbg. org; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0002 - 5870 - 0312 +rpuente@dbg.org + + + +Author + +Majure, Lucas C. +0000-0002-0369-1906 +University of Florida Herbarium (FLAS), Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, FL, USA. & lmajure @ floridamuseum. ufl. edu; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0002 - 0369 - 1906 +lmajure@floridamuseum.ufl.edu + +text + + +Phytotaxa + + +2021 + +2021-06-01 + + +505 + + +3 + + +262 +274 + + + + +http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.505.3.2 + +journal article +10.11646/phytotaxa.505.3.2 +1179-3163 +5425461 + + + + + +Salmonopuntia schickendantzii +(F.A.C.Weber)Font&M.Köhler + +, + +comb.nov. + + + + + +Bas. + +Opuntia schickendantzii +F.A.C.Weber (1898: 898) + + + +≡ + +Mortolopuntia schickendantzii +(F.A.C.Weber) +Guiggi (2015: 1) + + + +≡ + +Brasiliopuntia schickendantzii +(F.A.C.Weber) R.Puente & +Majure (2014: 25) + + + +≡ + +Austrocylindropuntia schickendantzii +(F.A.C.Weber) Backeb. (1951: 14) + + + +≡ + +Cylindropuntia schickendantzii +(F.A.C.Weber) Backeb. (1936: 122) + + + +≡ + +Salmiopuntia schickendantzii +(F. A. C. Weber) Kreuz. (1935: 41) + +, +nom. inval. + + + + + +Neotype +(designated by +Guiggi 2015 +):—Ex cult hort. Mortolensi, + +11 June 1905 + +, + +Berger +s.n + +. ( +HMGBH +, fl., image!) + + + + +Epitype +( +designated here +):— + +ARGENTINA + +. +Salta +, +Depto. Guachipas +, +Cuesta el Lajar +, 25˚40’33.4”S 65˚29’43.8”W, + +16 March 2010 + +, + +Font +660 + +( +BAF13598 +!) [FF +838 in +cult.] + +. + + + + += + +Opuntia cochabambensis +Card. (1953: 20) + + + += + +Platyopuntia conjungens +F. +Ritter (1980b: 494) + +≡ + +Opuntia conjungens +(F.Ritter) P.J.Braun & Esteves (1995: 133) + + + + + +Description: +— +Shrub +, small to large, 0.5–1.0(–1.5) m tall, erect. +Stems +dimorphic, the primary terete, up to +5 cm +in diam., lignified, indefinite growth narrowing towards the apex; secondary stems flattened, asymmetric ascending, oblanceolate to spathulate, 10–20 × +2–5 cm +. +Epidermis +ashen green, glaucous. +Areoles +densely present on the primary stem, +1–2 cm +distance between each other in diagonal; eventually subtuberculated on the secondary stems, gray to yellowish glochids. +Spines +setiform to acicular, radial, white-gray; conspicuous on the primary stem, 0–3(–5), 0.5–3.0 cm long; inconspicuous on the secondary stems, 0–3, 0.5–3.0 cm long. +Leaves +green, conic to subulates, +3–6 mm +long, deciduous, not appressed, ascending. +Pericarpel +globose, rarely obovoid to obpyriform, 1.0–1.5(–2.0) cm in diameter. +Flower bud apex +acute, shades of red (claret to scarlet); inner tepals obovate to oblanceolate, bright yellow; flower at anthesis 2–3(–4) cm in diameter. +Stamens +numerous, pale yellow filaments and anthers. +Stigma +5–6 lobed, connivent, emerald to dark green; style white. +Fruit +globose, +1.5–2.5 cm +in diameter, indehiscent, dark purple to reddish when ripe, inner pericarpel green; glochids profusely developed, areoles +2 mm +in diam. without propagules; generally fertile, up to 60–70 seeds per fruit; presence of immature, green, or sterile fruits functioning as clonal propagules just on the ground. +Seeds +elliptic to obovate, slightly curved, brownish, glabrous, 3–5 × +3 mm +. + + + + +Distribution and habitat: +— +Argentina +( +Catamarca +, +Jujuy +, +Salta +, +Tucumán +) and +Bolivia +( +Cochabamba +, +Chuquisaca +, +Tarija +). It grows between +1000–2000 m +a.s.l.; orophilic, generally growing on cliffs and hillsides, rarely seen on flat terrain. + + + + + +Specimens examined:— + + +ARGENTINA + +. + +Catamarca + +: +Depto. Ambato +, +Singuil +, + +1200 m + +, + +2 December1951 + +, + +Vervoorst +3505 + +( +LIL +) + + +. + + +Jujuy + +: +Depto. Valle Grande +, +Pueblo (Lomadas) +, + +15 November 1958 + +, + + +Villa + +& +Legname +766 + +( +LIL +). + + +Ibid. + +17 November 1958 + +, + + +Villa + +& +Legname +767 + +( +LIL +) + +; + +Depto. Santa Bárbara +, +El Fuerte +, + +22 November 1970 + +, + +Cabrera +& +Fabris +21095 + +( +LP +) + +. + + +Salta +: + +Depto. Chicoana +, +Quebrada de Escoipe +, + +February 1972 + +, + +Kiesling +136 + +( +LP +) + +. + +Depto. Guachipas +, + +10 km + +antes de +Casa de Arcos +, + +23 November 2017 + +, + +Font +740 + +( +BAF +) + +. + +Cuesta El Lajar +, + +16 March 2010 + +, + +Font +660 + +( +BAF +) + +. + +Depto. La Candelaria +, +Unquillo +, + +1200 m + +, + +November 1931 + +; + +Schreiter +6730 + +( +LIL +) + +. + + +Tucumán + +: +Depto. Tafí +, +La Hoyada +, + +1750 m + +; + +11 December 1924 + +, + +Venturi +3559 + +( +LIL +, +GH +, +NY +) + +. + +La Hoyada + +1500 m + +, + +17 December 1923 + +, + +Venturi +s.n. + +( +LIL 66441 +) + +; + +Quebrada de La Hoyada +, + +October 1930 + +, + +Schreiter +2367 + +( +LIL +) + +. + +La Hoyada +, + +1460 m + +, + +November 1932 + +, + +Schreiter +8765 + +( +LIL +) + +. + + +BOLIVIA + +. + +Cochabamba + +: + +December 1949 + +, + +Cárdenas +2549 + +( +LIL 531554 +) + +. + + + + +Notes: +— +Guiggi (2015) +designated a +neotype +based on a sheet with a flower section preserved at the HMGBH from cultivated material at La Mortola. Considering that the +neotype +is not complete, we here designate an epitype showing complete morphological features necessary for the precise identification and designation of the name of the species. + + + + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/6E/66/59/6E665959BD8D67B4B62A4C7695E5D61C.xml b/data/6E/66/59/6E665959BD8D67B4B62A4C7695E5D61C.xml index df7e7a3b1be..d1558906eeb 100644 --- a/data/6E/66/59/6E665959BD8D67B4B62A4C7695E5D61C.xml +++ b/data/6E/66/59/6E665959BD8D67B4B62A4C7695E5D61C.xml @@ -1,51 +1,51 @@ - - - -Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) + + + +Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) - - -Author + + +Author -Praz, Christophe J. -https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 -University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland -christophe.praz@unine.ch +Praz, Christophe J. +https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 +University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland +christophe.praz@unine.ch -text - - -Journal of Hymenoptera Research +text + + +Journal of Hymenoptera Research - -2017 - -2017-04-28 + +2017 + +2017-04-28 - -55 + +55 - -1 -54 + +1 +54 - -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 + +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -journal article -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -1314-2607-55-1 -52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 -FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC -575138 +journal article +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 +1314-2607-55-1 +52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 +FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC +575138 Subgenus -Megachile +Megachile @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ Subgenus Females : In females of this subgenus, the mandible always has a conspicuous, partial cutting edge in the second interspace (reduced in - + Megachile genalis , which is easy to diagnose due to the thickened buldge at the base of the mandible: @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ Subgenus ), and no visible cutting edge in the third interspace (Figs 32-34 ). The mandible is mostly 5-toothed with the distance between both upper teeth subequal to the distance between the other teeth (not clearly so in - + M. genalis ) (Figs @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ Subgenus ); in some species teeth 4 and 5 are poorly separated (Fig. 33 ). In - + M. bombycina , the mandible is elongate and 4-toothed but the partial cutting edge in the second interspace is well visible (Fig. @@ -81,43 +81,43 @@ Subgenus ). In most species, the clypeus is flat or slightly depressed preapically, and there the punctures are coarse and the interspaces wide, shiny (Fig. 32 ); this condition is not found in - + M. lapponica Thomson, 1872, in which the clypeus is densely punctured (Fig. 33 ), and in - + M. bombycina , in which the clypeus is modified, short, laterally truncate and medially produced to a blunt triangular process, and with its apical margin forming a wide, smooth and slightly concave area (Fig. 34 ). In the female sex, many species of - + Megachile s. str. are sculpturally similar to - + Anodonteutricharaea ; in the former, the scopa is mostly orange basally and rarely white, while in - + Anodonteutricharaea the scopa is mostly white to yellowish white; and - + Anodonteutricharaea can be distinguished by the presence of two unmodified setae on the pretarsal claws; in - + Megachile s. str., the basal seta is modified to a thicken process, as in - + Eutricharaea or - + Xanthosarus (as in Fig. @@ -125,45 +125,45 @@ or ). Males : Males of the subgenus - + Megachile s. str. are rather homogenous both in their sculpture and in genitalic structures, and often difficult to identify. All males of the subgenus - + Megachile s. str. lack a front coxal spine, although in some species ( - + M. ligniseca , - + M. melanopyga Costa, 1863), the front coxa forms a weak angle. The mandible is always 3-toothed, mostly with inferior projection (lacking in - + M. pilicrus and - + M. armenia Tkalcu , 1992). In most species the disc of T6 is devoid of white or light pubescence (except in - + M. pyrenaea Perez , 1890, - + M. armenia , - + M. pilicrus and - + M. melanopyga ), the preapical carina of T6 is never denticulate, although there is a lateral tooth at the lateral margin of T6 (Fig. @@ -177,15 +177,15 @@ and Figures 54-57. Genital capsule, lateral view. 54 -Megachile (Eutricharaea) apicalis +Megachile (Eutricharaea) apicalis 55 -M. (Eutricharaea +M. (Eutricharaea ) sp. aff. -naevia +naevia 56 -M. (Eutricharaea) leachella +M. (Eutricharaea) leachella 57 -M. (Eutricharaea) leucomalla +M. (Eutricharaea) leucomalla . @@ -194,64 +194,64 @@ Genital capsule, lateral view. Species composition. There are at least 14 valid species in the Western Palearctic: - + Megachile alpicola Alfken, 1924, - + M. armenia , - + M. bombycina , - + M. calloleuca , - + M. centuncularis (Linnaeus, 1758), - + M. genalis , - + M. lapponica , - + M. ligniseca , - + M. melanopyga , - + M. melanota Perez , 1895, - + M. octosignata Nylander, 1852, - + M. pilicrus , - + M. pyrenaea and - + M. versicolor . I have not been able to locate the type of - + M. dacica Mocsary @@ -262,19 +262,19 @@ and recognized this species as valid; in contrast, according to identified material in his collection (OLML), B. Tkalcu considered - + Megachile dacica as a valid subspecies of - + M. lapponica . The status of - + M. melanota is unclear, as it may represent a dark color form of - + M. octosignata . @@ -290,23 +290,23 @@ All species are leafcutters and build brood cells made of leaf fragments (e.g. , Ruhnke 2000 ); no Palearctic species appears to use petals as documented in the Nearctic - + Megachile montivaga (Michener, 2007, and references therein; Orr et al. 2015 ). The nests are mostly located in existing, above-ground cavities; some species such as - + M. centuncularis are flexible and nest both in above-ground cavities and in the soil ( Westrich 1989 , and references therein). Nests of - + M. pyrenaea and - + M. octosignata are placed under stones or in the soil ( @@ -316,13 +316,13 @@ are placed under stones or in the soil ( , Westrich 1989 ), and a nest of - + M. melanopyga was found "loose in the grass" ( Friese 1898 ). - + M. genalis exclusively nests in standing stems, favoring fresh stems, thus from plants of the same year; the female digs an opening and places the brood cells vertically above or below the entrance ( @@ -330,28 +330,28 @@ exclusively nests in standing stems, favoring fresh stems, thus from plants of t , and references therein). According to a brief account by Friese (1898) , - + M. pilicrus nests in dry stems of thistles. Most species of the subgenus - + Megachile are polylectic, often with a preference for -Fabaceae +Fabaceae and -Asteraceae +Asteraceae ( Westrich 1989 ). - + Megachile lapponica is an oligolege on - + Epilobium ( @@ -362,21 +362,21 @@ is an oligolege on et al. 2006 ), while - + M. genalis is possibly oligolectic on -Asteraceae +Asteraceae ( Westrich 1989 ); - + M. pilicrus is oligolectic on -Carduoideae +Carduoideae and its hind trochanter and femur are covered by modified, stiff hairs, as observed in some - + Eutricharaea species specialized on these plants ( diff --git a/data/78/05/B8/7805B8A7AE9A2E448D5CD67E91422DDD.xml b/data/78/05/B8/7805B8A7AE9A2E448D5CD67E91422DDD.xml index 27f5d48dcf3..0eadcdaaeff 100644 --- a/data/78/05/B8/7805B8A7AE9A2E448D5CD67E91422DDD.xml +++ b/data/78/05/B8/7805B8A7AE9A2E448D5CD67E91422DDD.xml @@ -1,306 +1,306 @@ - - - -Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) + + + +Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) - - -Author + + +Author -Praz, Christophe J. -https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 -University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland -christophe.praz@unine.ch +Praz, Christophe J. +https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 +University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland +christophe.praz@unine.ch -text - - -Journal of Hymenoptera Research +text + + +Journal of Hymenoptera Research - -2017 - -2017-04-28 + +2017 + +2017-04-28 - -55 + +55 - -1 -54 + +1 +54 - -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 + +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -journal article -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -1314-2607-55-1 -52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 -FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC -575138 +journal article +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 +1314-2607-55-1 +52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 +FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC +575138 - - - + + + Subgenus -Creightonella +Creightonella - -Diagnosis and description. - + +Diagnosis and description. + The subgenus - -Creightonella + +Creightonella is in many ways intermediate between the leafcutter and the dauber bees. -Females +Females : Females can easily be diagnosed by the shape and structure of the mandible (Fig. -16 +16 ): the mandibular surface is distinct, with numerous, elongate punctures but comparatively few long ridges, and is covered by numerous hairs. The apical margin has 5 or 6 teeth, with tooth 1 broad and larger than the other teeth, and the teeth 2-5 (-6) becoming progressively smaller. There is a conspicuous, partial cutting edge in the second interspace and a small, little visible cutting edge in the third and sometimes fourth. In spite of being a leafcutter, - -Creightonella + +Creightonella does not have the typical tapering metasoma of most other group 1 members and the hind basitarsus is slender (as in Fig. -26 +26 ). The hind claw has only one elongate seta, a unique condition in Palearctic - -Megachile + +Megachile . -Males +Males : Males of - -Creightonella + +Creightonella have a strong front coxal tooth and a rounded projection along the inferior margin of the mandible (Fig. -9 +9 ). The front tarsi are unmodified although in - -Megachile albisecta + +Megachile albisecta (Klug, 1817) they are yellowish-brown (Fig. -9 +9 ) and the second tarsal segment has a dark spot on the ventral side. The preapical carina of T6 is mostly denticulate (weakly so in - -M. arabica + +M. arabica Friese, 1901) and laterally the carina extends at right angle towards the base of the tergum. T7 is mostly triangular in dorsal view, with a strong longitudinal carina (Fig. -46 +46 ), except in - -M. doriae + +M. doriae , where T7 is truncate, but with a spine on the basal part of the disc (Fig. -47 +47 ). The apical margin of S5 is exposed in repose and the apical margin of S6 is convex and rests on the apical margin of T7 in repose (Fig. -11 +11 ). - - -Figures 30-37. + + +Figures 30-37. Female clypeus and mandibles, front view. -30 -Megachile (Anodonteutricharaea) albohirta -31 -M. (Anodonteutricharaea) thevestensis -32 -M. (Megachile) versicolor -33 -M. (Megachile) lapponica -34 -M. (Megachile) bombycina -35 -M. (Xanthosarus) lagopoda -36 -M. (Xanthosarus) nigriventris -37 -M. (Xanthosarus) willughbiella +30 +Megachile (Anodonteutricharaea) albohirta +31 +M. (Anodonteutricharaea) thevestensis +32 +M. (Megachile) versicolor +33 +M. (Megachile) lapponica +34 +M. (Megachile) bombycina +35 +M. (Xanthosarus) lagopoda +36 +M. (Xanthosarus) nigriventris +37 +M. (Xanthosarus) willughbiella . - -Species composition. - + +Species composition. + Most Palearctic species fall into a rather homogenous group of species referred to here as the - -Megachile albisecta + +Megachile albisecta group ( - -Metamegachile + +Metamegachile -Tkalcu +Tkalcu , 1967), even if the structure of T7 is rather different in - -Megachile doriae + +Megachile doriae ; there are at least four valid species in this group: - -M. albisecta + +M. albisecta , - -M. amabilis + +M. amabilis Cockerell, 1933, - -M. doriae + +M. doriae and - -M. morawitzi + +M. morawitzi Radoszkowski, 1876; a fifth is undescribed (A. Monfared and C. Praz, in prep). The status of - -M. ghigii + +M. ghigii Gribodo, 1924, described from Libya, and - -M. aurantiaca + +M. aurantiaca Rebmann, 1972 from Iran (a junior homonym of - -M. aurantiaca + +M. aurantiaca Friese, 1905) as well as of numerous Central Asian taxa related to - -M. albisecta + +M. albisecta remains unclear. On the Arabian Peninsula, additional species with Afrotropical affinities occur: -Pasteels (1979) +Pasteels (1979) placed - -M. arabica + +M. arabica in the -aurivilli +aurivilli group (see -Pasteels 1965 +Pasteels 1965 ) and - -M. felix + +M. felix (Pasteels, 1979), known only in the female sex, in the -angulata +angulata group. Mentions of - -M. sudanica + +M. sudanica Magretti, 1898 from Jordan ( -Zanden 1989 +Zanden 1989 ) possibly refer to - -M. arabica + +M. arabica , and both species may be conspecific ( -Pasteels 1965 +Pasteels 1965 : 26). In addition, I have seen a single specimen putatively from Yemen (BMNH) of an African species with a modified clypeus, possibly either - -M. bicornuta + +M. bicornuta Friese, 1903 or - -M. cornigera + +M. cornigera Friese, 1904, both in the African - -Megachile cornigera + +Megachile cornigera group. - -Biology. - + +Biology. + The nesting biology of - -Megachile albisecta + +Megachile albisecta has been described in detail ( -Ferton 1901 +Ferton 1901 ). This species nests in burrows in the ground; whether the females dig their own burrows or rent existing cavities as suggested by Ferton is not clear, although a brief description of a nest by -Grandi (1961) +Grandi (1961) mentions a nest "excavated in very hard soil" [the Oriental species - -M. frontalis + +M. frontalis (Fabricius, 1804) consistently digs its own burrows in hard, heavy soils ( -Michener and Szent-Ivany 1960 +Michener and Szent-Ivany 1960 , -Willmer and Stone 1989 +Willmer and Stone 1989 ]. Reports of nests in dead wood ( -Benoist 1940 +Benoist 1940 ) and in stems ( -Banaszak and Romasenko 2001 +Banaszak and Romasenko 2001 ) are likely identification errors. Unlike the circular leaf discs cut by - -M. frontalis + +M. frontalis (see -Michener and Szent-Ivany 1960 +Michener and Szent-Ivany 1960 : Plate 1), the leaf fragments used by - -M. albisecta + +M. albisecta are irregular; in - -M. frontalis + +M. frontalis , the leaf fragments used for the outer layer of the cells are also irregular ( -Michener and Szent-Ivany 1960 +Michener and Szent-Ivany 1960 : 31 and Plate 3; -Willmer and Stone 1989 +Willmer and Stone 1989 ). In - -M. albisecta + +M. albisecta the fragments are stuck together by masticated leaf material, and the entire cell rests on a solid plug of masticated leaf pulp mixed with pebbles. The nest plug consists of circular leaf fragments and pebbles cemented together by masticated leaf pulp. Nests of - -M. albisecta + +M. albisecta do not appear to include resin according to the description by -Ferton (1901) +Ferton (1901) , although -Ferton's +Ferton's subsequent articles ( -Ferton 1908 +Ferton 1908 : 547) suggest that resin was included in the nest. Possibly the leaf pulp is hardened with secretions but not resin. Resin was not found in the nests of - -M. frontalis + +M. frontalis ( -Michener and Szent-Ivany 1960 +Michener and Szent-Ivany 1960 ; -Willmer and Stone 1989 +Willmer and Stone 1989 ) but was reported from the nest of the African - -M. cornigera + +M. cornigera ( -Michener 1968 +Michener 1968 ). - -M. arabica + +M. arabica has been observed cutting leaf discs (H. Priesner, cited in -Alfken 1934 +Alfken 1934 ). - -M. albisecta + +M. albisecta (and possibly all species of the - -Megachile albisecta + +Megachile albisecta group) is oligolectic on -Asteraceae +Asteraceae , with a preference for -Carduoideae +Carduoideae (C. Praz, unpublished data). diff --git a/data/95/9B/19/959B19BD52B898CE049D287DF16C38AB.xml b/data/95/9B/19/959B19BD52B898CE049D287DF16C38AB.xml index 98eddf8782b..5059d03eef7 100644 --- a/data/95/9B/19/959B19BD52B898CE049D287DF16C38AB.xml +++ b/data/95/9B/19/959B19BD52B898CE049D287DF16C38AB.xml @@ -1,51 +1,51 @@ - - - -Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) + + + +Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) - - -Author + + +Author -Praz, Christophe J. -https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 -University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland -christophe.praz@unine.ch +Praz, Christophe J. +https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 +University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland +christophe.praz@unine.ch -text - - -Journal of Hymenoptera Research +text + + +Journal of Hymenoptera Research - -2017 - -2017-04-28 + +2017 + +2017-04-28 - -55 + +55 - -1 -54 + +1 +54 - -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 + +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -journal article -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -1314-2607-55-1 -52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 -FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC -575138 +journal article +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 +1314-2607-55-1 +52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 +FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC +575138 Subgenus -Xanthosarus +Xanthosarus @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ Subgenus Females : Most females of - + Xanthosarus have a typical, broad mandible (Fig. @@ -61,81 +61,81 @@ have a typical, broad mandible (Fig. ) with tooth 1 larger than other teeth, without apical brush of hairs in the grooves around the base of tooth 1. In such females there is a well-visible, continuous cutting edge in the third interspace and a partial cutting edge in the second interspace (Fig. 35 ), the third interspace is deeper than the other interspaces, and the two upper teeth close together or poorly separated, so that the mandible is not clearly 5-toothed. Such females will be easy to identify using the present key. The mandible of - + Megachile nigriventris Schenck, 1868 (Fig. 36 ) [and to some extend of - + M. willughbiella (Kirby, 1802): Fig. 37 ] is different, less robust, with the cutting edges little visible in front view; the upper tooth is broadly truncate and the condition is intermediate between the 4-toothed and the 5-toothed conditions. In all Palearctic species of - + Xanthosarus , the clypeus is finely and densely punctured, regularly convex (Figs 35-37 ) unlike the condition found in most females of - + Megachile s. str. The scopa is mostly orange-red basally, sometimes nearly entirely black ( - + M. nigriventris ) or yellow-white on sternites 2 and 3 [e.g. - + M. maritima (Kirby, 1802)], rarely entirely yellowish-white. The sterna lack the apical fringe of hairs beneath the scopa, unlike in most - + Eutricharaea or in -M. (Eurymella) patellimana +M. (Eurymella) patellimana . Males : In males of - + Xanthosarus the front coxal spine is always well developed; often there is a field of modified, short, orange bristles on the surface anteriorly to the spine, but such field may be lacking (e.g. in - + M. analis Nylander, 1852). The front tarsi are always yellow or white, from relatively narrow [e.g. - + M. analis , - + M. circumcincta (Kirby, 1802)] to conspicuously enlarged [e.g. - + M. lagopoda (Linnaeus, 1761), - + M. maritima ]; the first tarsal segment is mostly strongly concave interiorly, except in - + M. analis . The mandible is either 3-toothed ( - + M. lapogoda , - + M. maritima ) or more commonly 4-toothed; the inferior margin always has a pointed process directed posteriorly; in some large species, this process is particularly large and glabrous, except for some orange hairs apically. The disc of T6 is mostly not covered by white vestiture; the preapical carina of T6 is bilobed or weakly denticulate. The apical margin of T6 often lacks a lateral tooth (a small tooth is sometimes present, e.g. in - + M. maritima ). The apex of T7 is usually produced to a small tooth medially, although the tooth is small in some species; in other species T7 is weakly trifid. The gonostylus is variable, either simple or strongly bifid, but this character does not clearly segregate groups. @@ -145,49 +145,49 @@ Nylander, 1852). The front tarsi are always yellow or white, from relatively nar Species composition. There are at least seven species in the western Palearctic: - + Megachile analis , - + M. circumcincta , - + M. diabolica Friese, 1898, - + M. lagopoda , - + M. maritima , - + M. nigriventris and - + M. willughbiella . - + M. fulvimana Eversmann, 1852 has been mentioned from Southeastern Europe ( Banaszak and Romasenko 2001 ); this species is known to me only from Central Asia. - + M. mguildensis Benoist, 1940, from Algeria and Morocco, apparently closely related to - + M. nigriventris , may either represent a distinct species or merely a color morph of - + M. nigriventris . @@ -196,41 +196,41 @@ Benoist, 1940, from Algeria and Morocco, apparently closely related to and Zanden (1994) further cite - + M. metatarsalis Morawitz, 1894 from Turkey; this species is unknown to me. The status of - + M. fulvescens Smith, 1853 from Sicily is unclear; it is unlikely to represent a species distinct from those listed above; its description ("the pollen brush is of golden hue towards the base, becoming bright fulvous at the apex") suggests - + M. maritima . Similarly, the status of - + M. maacki Radoszkowski, 1874 remains in doubt; Scheuchl (2006) provides a description of the male and the female and differentiates this species from - + M. nigriventris . However, no lectotype has been designated. Of the possible syntypes that I could examine (ISZP), one male agrees with the original description and does not appear specifically distinct from - + M. nigriventris . Possibly, - + M. maacki represents an Eastern Palearctic, geographic form of - + M. nigriventris . - + Xanthosarus appears particularly diverse in the mountains of Central Asia and in Mongolia, where several additional species occur. @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ appears particularly diverse in the mountains of Central Asia and in Mongolia, w Biology. Most species of the sugbenus - + Xanthosarus place their brood cells made of cut leaves in underground burrows or more rarely under stones; the females appear @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ dig the burrows themselves ( , and references therein; Hartmann and Arens 1998 ). - + Megachile nigriventris digs burrows only in decaying wood ( @@ -260,11 +260,11 @@ digs burrows only in decaying wood ( , Reichholf 2002 ), while - + M. willughbiella either digs burrows in decaying wood or uses existing cavities such as vacant - + Anthophora cells ( @@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ cells ( et al. 1997 ). - + Megachile analis is unusual in that it uses thin bark fragments and not leaves for the construction of the cells ( @@ -283,11 +283,11 @@ is unusual in that it uses thin bark fragments and not leaves for the constructi , and references therein); leaf discs are also used by this species. - + Megachile nigriventris is likely oligolectic on -Fabaceae +Fabaceae ( Westrich 1989 , @@ -296,31 +296,31 @@ is likely oligolectic on et al. 1997 ) and - + M. diabolica possibly on -Campanulaceae +Campanulaceae ( Hartmann and Arens 1998 ); - + M. analis and - + M. willughbiella are polylectic but show a preference for -Fabaceae +Fabaceae and -Campanulaceae +Campanulaceae , as well as for the genus - + Epilobium by - + M. willughbiella ( @@ -332,15 +332,15 @@ et al. 1997 ). -Megachile -Megachile lagopoda +Megachile +Megachile lagopoda and -M. maritima +M. maritima are likely polylectic with a preference for -Fabaceae +Fabaceae and -Asteraceae +Asteraceae . diff --git a/data/B0/D5/66/B0D5666E5425A96F9003E4068639A69E.xml b/data/B0/D5/66/B0D5666E5425A96F9003E4068639A69E.xml index 9419e9c3a6c..ffc6e3ffb6c 100644 --- a/data/B0/D5/66/B0D5666E5425A96F9003E4068639A69E.xml +++ b/data/B0/D5/66/B0D5666E5425A96F9003E4068639A69E.xml @@ -1,51 +1,51 @@ - - - -Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) + + + +Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) - - -Author + + +Author -Praz, Christophe J. -https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 -University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland -christophe.praz@unine.ch +Praz, Christophe J. +https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 +University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland +christophe.praz@unine.ch -text - - -Journal of Hymenoptera Research +text + + +Journal of Hymenoptera Research - -2017 - -2017-04-28 + +2017 + +2017-04-28 - -55 + +55 - -1 -54 + +1 +54 - -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 + +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -journal article -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -1314-2607-55-1 -52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 -FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC -575138 +journal article +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 +1314-2607-55-1 +52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 +FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC +575138 Subgenus -Eutricharaea +Eutricharaea @@ -53,40 +53,40 @@ Females : In females the scopa is mostly white at least basally (often dark apically) and the sterna have distinct apical fasciae beneath the scopa (lacking in - + Megachile giraudi and - + M. hohmanni Tkalcu , 1993). In a few rare cases, the scopa is orange or entirely black (some populations of - + M. melanogaster , - + M. hohmanni ). The upper mandibular tooth is usually truncate (e.g. - + M. leachella Curtis, 1828), although it is sometimes acute (e.g. - + M. deceptoria ; Fig. 40 ) or conversely clearly divided into two teeth [e.g. - + M. rotundata (Fabricius, 1787); Fig. 39 ]. In some species, such as - + M. orientalis , the mandible is clearly 5-toothed (Fig. @@ -94,51 +94,51 @@ Curtis, 1828), although it is sometimes acute (e.g. ). There is no visible cutting edge in the second interspace (Figs 39-41 ), in contrast to the subgenera - + Xanthosarus , - + Megachile or - + Anodonteutricharaea (in the latter all cutting edges are often strongly reduced); even in the third interspace, the cutting edge is often small and partly hidden behind the margin in many - + Eutricharaea . Males : In the Palearctic, males of this subgenus can be recognized by the following criteria: the preapical carina of T6 is mostly denticulate (weakly so in some species such as - + M. rotundata ) and the disc of T6 covered with dense, light vestiture entirely hiding cuticula (except in some populations of - + M. giraudi ). T7 is small and little visible. The mandible is 3-toothed, always with triangular inferior projection. In contrast to the subgenera - + Anodonteutricharaea and - + Megachile and to most - + Xanthosarus and - + Eurymella , S4 does not have a hyaline rim apically (Fig. 10 ). The front tarsi may be modified or not, and the front coxal tooth is present (although minute in the - + Eutricharaea apostolica group). @@ -154,23 +154,23 @@ T5-T7 and apex of genital capsule, lateral view 49 T4-T6, dorsal view 42 -Megachile (Megachile) melanopyga +Megachile (Megachile) melanopyga 43 -M. (Pseudomegachile +M. (Pseudomegachile ) sp. aff. -incana +incana 44 -M. (Chalicodoma) parietina +M. (Chalicodoma) parietina 45 -M. (Chalicodoma) hungarica +M. (Chalicodoma) hungarica 46 -M. (Creightonella) albisecta +M. (Creightonella) albisecta 47 -M. (Creightonella) doriae +M. (Creightonella) doriae 48 -M. (Chalicodoma) manicata +M. (Chalicodoma) manicata 49 -M. (Eurymella) patellimana +M. (Eurymella) patellimana . @@ -180,13 +180,13 @@ T4-T6, dorsal view 1. - + Megachile rotundata group ( - + Neoeutricharaea Rebmann 1967). @@ -204,23 +204,23 @@ Rebmann 1967). Note. This group is particularly diverse and additional species groups may be recognized for isolated, divergent species: - + Megachile giraudi , with a particularly long interspace 3 in the female sex (Fig. 41 ) and front basitarsus modified, with a long apical projection in the male sex; - + M. orientalis , with the female mandible 5-toothed with cutting edges hidden behind the mandibular margin (Figs 2-3 ) (the male is a regular member of the - + Megachile rotundata group); and - + M. hohmanni , included in a distinct, monotypic subgenus by @@ -231,60 +231,60 @@ group); and . Another group includes species with robust, 4-toothed mandible (Fig. 40 ), with tooth one larger than the other teeth and with reduced tufts of hairs apically, approaching the condition seen in - + Eurymella ; males of this group are mostly characterized by the strongly convex and medially produced apical margin of T5. In the Palearctic, this group includes - + M. communis Morawitz, 1875, - + M. deceptoria , - + M. dohrandti Morawitz, 1880, - + M. sedilloti , - + M. jakesi Tkalcu , 1988, probably - + M. arachosiana Gonzalez, Engel and Hinojosa-Diaz , 2010 as well as at least one undescribed species. Because all these species do not have particularly distinct gonostylus, I do not recognize separate species groups for them. Of note, the - + Megachile rotundata group also occurs in Africa; Pasteels (1965) referred to it as the - + Chalicodoma malangensis group. I have examined the type material of - + M. malangensis Friese, 1904 (ZMHB); this species is a member of - + Eutricharaea and not of - + Paracella (= - + Anodonteutricharaea ) as suggested by @@ -294,13 +294,13 @@ and not of 2. - + Megachile naevia group. Males : Similar to males of the - + Megachile rotundata group, but gonostylus apically shortly bifid (Fig. @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ group, but gonostylus apically shortly bifid (Fig. ). Front tarsi modified, yellowish-white. T2 with a weak fovea laterally. Females : As in the - + Megachile rotundata group, but mandible always red. Apical margin of clypeus straight with comparatively wide impunctate area. Ocelloccipital distance shorter than diameter of lateral ocellus. T2 but not T3 with fovea laterally. @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ group, but mandible always red. Apical margin of clypeus straight with comparati 3. - + Megachile leachella group. Males @@ -324,15 +324,15 @@ group. Males : Gonostylus either bifid (Fig. 56 ) with long (e.g. - + Megachile leachella ) or short (e.g. - + M. walkeri Dalla Torre, 1896) preapical process, or simple (e.g. - + M. concinna Smith, 1879), in all cases apically with rounded emargination (Fig. @@ -347,13 +347,13 @@ hair long. Front legs not modified although front tarsi sometimes yellowish brow Note. - + Megachile ventrisi Engel, 2008, from Saudi Arabia, Yemen ( Engel and Schwarz 2011 ) and at least Kenya (C. Praz and L. Packer, unpublished) belongs to another African and Oriental group in which the male front tarsi are modified (the ventral surface of the first tarsal segment is concave) and the gonostylus simple but differently shaped, without apical emargination. This group was included in the - + Megachile leachella group (as the " @@ -361,27 +361,27 @@ group (as the " " group) by Pasteels (1965) ; it includes the African species known as - + M. frontalis Smith, 1853, which is a junior homonym of - + M. frontalis (Fabricius, 1804); " - + M. frontalis Smith" is a member of - + Eutricharaea and not of - + Paracella (= - + Anodonteutricharaea ) as suggested by @@ -391,37 +391,37 @@ and not of 4. - + Eutricharaea apostolica group. Males : As - + Megachile leachella group, with the following exceptions: gonostylus bifid apically (as in - + Megachile pilidens Alfken, 1924), but apex conspicuously slender and preapical process long. Front coxa with minute tooth (see comments above). Front tarsi yellowish-white. Females : As - + Megachile leachella group, with the following exceptions: all legs predominantly orange; terga brown; hairs on ventral side of mid and hind femora modified, short, apically thickened. - + M. walkeri (included in the - + Megachile leachella group) also has similarly modified hairs ( Engel 2008 ), but in - + M. walkeri the cuticula of T1 and T2 is orange. @@ -429,13 +429,13 @@ the cuticula of T1 and T2 is orange. 5. - + Megachile leucomalla group. Males : Male gonostylus as in - + Megachile rotundata group, but bent apex longer (Fig. @@ -449,46 +449,46 @@ group, but bent apex longer (Fig. Species composition. This is a large and taxonomically complex subgenus in need of revision. The number of unpublished synonymies is large and a list of species is not given here. There is only one species in the - + Megachile leucomalla group, - + M. leucomalla Gerstaecker , 1869. I know one Palearctic species in the - + Megachile apostolica group, - + Megachile soikai ; this species is possibly conspecific with one of the African species related to - + M. apostolica Cockerell, 1937 and listed by Gonzalez et al. (2010 : 65). In the - + Megachile naevia group, I know two species: - + M. naevia Kohl, 1906 from the Socotra Archipelago and an undescribed species from the Arabian Peninsula, North to Israel. There are more species in the - + Megachile leachella group [possibly seven; see Soltani et al. (in press) for a treatment of the taxa allied to - + M. concinna ], and a large number of species, a few of which undescribed, in the - + Megachile rotundata group, for a possible total of 29 species in the western Palearctic. @@ -497,33 +497,33 @@ group, for a possible total of 29 species in the western Palearctic. Biology. - + Megachile rotundata , a European species introduced into North America for the pollination of alfalfa, has been studied in detail (reviewed in Pitts-Singer and Cane 2011). All species of - + Eutricharaea use leaf discs to build their brood cells, although - + M. rotundata (and - + M. giraudi , see below) sometimes use petal fragments and not leaves ( Westrich 1989 , and references therein). In - + M. minutissima Radoszkowski, 1876, the cell walls are sometimes omitted when the nest is located in cavities of small diameters, so that leaf discs are only used to build the cell partitions ( Krombein 1969 ). The outer nest plug of - + M. marginata consists of a series of leaf discs covered by a layer of mud, possibly mixed with @@ -531,15 +531,15 @@ consists of a series of leaf discs covered by a layer of mud, possibly mixed wit ( Ferton 1914 ). Nests of - + Eutricharaea are mostly built in existing cavities such as stems or beetle burrows (e.g. - + M. rotundata ), under stones or in existing cavities in the ground (e.g. - + M. pilidens : @@ -548,17 +548,17 @@ are mostly built in existing cavities such as stems or beetle burrows (e.g. et al. 1997 ; - + M. marginata : Ferton, 1914; - + M. minutissima : Alqarni et al. 2014 ), or more rarely in burrows dug by the bee in sandy soil ( - + M. leachella : @@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ et al. 1997 ; note that this species may accept trap nests under artificial conditions: Holm and Skou 1972 ) or in hard soil ( - + M. deceptoria : @@ -578,7 +578,7 @@ et al. 1997 , Mazzucco and Mazzucco 2007 ). - + M. giraudi appears to nest specifically in holes in rocks and to use petals for cell construction ( @@ -588,13 +588,13 @@ appears to nest specifically in holes in rocks and to use petals for cell constr ; C. Praz and A. Mueller , unpublished). The description of nesting aggregations in the soil for - + M. leucomalla in Central Asia (Marikovsakya 1968; see also Banaszak and Romasenko 2001 ) likely refers to another species, probably - + M. communis , based on Fig. @@ -603,20 +603,20 @@ in Marikovsakya (1968). The pollen preferences of species included in the subgenus - + Eutricharaea are varied; most species are probably polylectic with a preference for -Fabaceae +Fabaceae (e.g. - + Megachile rotundata and - + M. pilidens : @@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ and et al. 2004 ; - + M. minutissima : @@ -638,77 +638,77 @@ et al. 2004 and Bansac (2004) have shown that some species have a distinct (e.g. - + M. apicalis ) or exclusive preference for -Carduoideae +Carduoideae ( - + M. marginata , - + M. melanogaster and - + M. flabellipes Perez , 1895), and in these species a modified pollen collecting device is found under the hind trochanter and femur. Soltani et al. (in press) analyzed the pollen preferences of the taxa allied to - + M. concinna ; all taxa were polylectic, although - + M. leucostoma Perez , 1907 and - + M. anatolica Rebmann, 1969 showed a preference for -Plantaginaceae +Plantaginaceae ( - + Linaria -type) and -Lamiaceae +Lamiaceae , respectively. Two species have long and conspicuous hairs on the galea, - + M. dolosa Alfken, 1936 and - + M. posti ; all known specimens of - + M. posti from Cyprus were collected on - + Noaea mucronata (Forssk.) Asch. & Schweinf. ( -Chenopodiaceae +Chenopodiaceae ) ( Mavromoustakis 1952 ). Strikingly similar hairs are found on the galea and first labial palpi of some - + Hoplitis [e.g. - + H. karakalensis (Popov 1936); A. Mueller , pers. comm., January 2016]; this pollen collecting apparatus likely constitutes an adaptation for collecting pollen from small flowers of -Chenopodiaceae +Chenopodiaceae ( Mueller diff --git a/data/B6/DC/A6/B6DCA6F427FC55D2EAD8344297346757.xml b/data/B6/DC/A6/B6DCA6F427FC55D2EAD8344297346757.xml index d6bca88d11c..88643c6874b 100644 --- a/data/B6/DC/A6/B6DCA6F427FC55D2EAD8344297346757.xml +++ b/data/B6/DC/A6/B6DCA6F427FC55D2EAD8344297346757.xml @@ -1,51 +1,51 @@ - - - -Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) + + + +Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) - - -Author + + +Author -Praz, Christophe J. -https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 -University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland -christophe.praz@unine.ch +Praz, Christophe J. +https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 +University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland +christophe.praz@unine.ch -text - - -Journal of Hymenoptera Research +text + + +Journal of Hymenoptera Research - -2017 - -2017-04-28 + +2017 + +2017-04-28 - -55 + +55 - -1 -54 + +1 +54 - -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 + +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -journal article -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -1314-2607-55-1 -52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 -FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC -575138 +journal article +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 +1314-2607-55-1 +52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 +FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC +575138 Subgenus -Anodonteutricharaea +Anodonteutricharaea @@ -54,14 +54,14 @@ Subgenus This subgenus is widely distributed in the Old World ( Trunz et al. 2016 ). Of the criteria given here, not all will apply to - + Anodonteutricharaea outside the Palearctic; characters that appear constant in this subgenus throughout its range are the elongate basal seta on the claws in the female (Fig. 7 ), which is the most salient diagnostic trait to identify the females of - + Anodonteutricharaea ; and the absence of an inferior projection on the mandible and the characteristic shape of the gonostylus in the male (Fig. @@ -69,35 +69,35 @@ the Palearctic; characters that appear constant in this subgenus throughout its ). Females : Palearctic females of - + Anodonteutricharaea agree with - + Eutricharaea in their small to medium size, mostly white or yellowish white scopa (although it is orange in - + Megachile albohirta ). The sterna do not have continuous, apical fasciae beneath the scopa. In contrast to - + Eutricharaea , the mandible is similar to that of the subgenus - + Megachile s. str. (Figs 30-31 ), with a partial cutting edge in the second interspace and no visible cutting edge in the third interspace in the Palearctic species; often in - + Anodonteutricharaea , the cutting edges are entirely recessed and invisible in front view (Fig. 31 ). Also as in - + Megachile s. str., the mandible is 5-toothed, or if 4-toothed, the upper tooth is truncate and weakly divided into two teeth, thus approaching the 5-toothed condition (Fig. @@ -111,33 +111,33 @@ s. str., the mandible is 5-toothed, or if 4-toothed, the upper tooth is truncate ). In most other group 1 subgenera, this ridge is less visible, less carinate or regularly curved. Males : Males of - + Anodonteutricharaea can be diagnosed by the absence of projection along the inferior margin of the mandible, unlike most other group 1 subgenera; the mandible is either 3- or 4-toothed. The gonostylus is distinct and diagnostic (Fig. 50 ): it is broadened apically, with numerous hairs on the external surface. In the Palearctic, the few known species are superficially similar to - + Eutricharaea in the light body vestiture, the presense of a front coxal spine (spine short in - + M. villipes ), the T6 with disc covered by dense, white tomentum and multidentate preapical carina, and the small, unmodified T7 (except in - + M. albohirta , where T7 is produced to a short median tooth). In most Palearctic species, the front tarsi are slightly enlarged, yellowish-white or yellowish-brown and have a black macula ventrally on tarsal segments 2 (most species) or 1 and 2 ( - + M. albohirta ). Palearctic - + Anodonteutricharaea are readily distinguished from - + Eutricharaea in the hyaline apical margin of S4 (Fig. @@ -149,24 +149,24 @@ in the hyaline apical margin of S4 (Fig. Figures 16-23. Female clypeus and mandibles, front view. 16 -Megachile (Creightonella) amabilis +Megachile (Creightonella) amabilis 17 -M. (Maximegachile) maxillosa +M. (Maximegachile) maxillosa ; the white line indicates the hypostomal tooth 18 -M. (Callomegachile) sculpturalis +M. (Callomegachile) sculpturalis 19 -M. (Chalicodoma) hungarica +M. (Chalicodoma) hungarica 20 -M. (Pseudomegachile) ericetorum +M. (Pseudomegachile) ericetorum 21 -M. (Pseudomegachile) incana +M. (Pseudomegachile) incana 22 -M. (Pseudomegachile +M. (Pseudomegachile ) sp. aff. -incana +incana 23 -M. (Pseudomegachile) foersteri +M. (Pseudomegachile) foersteri . @@ -175,33 +175,33 @@ Female clypeus and mandibles, front view. Species composition. The Palearctic species of - + Anodonteutricharaea form a rather homogenous group; how this group relates to the eight species groups recognized by Pasteels (1965) for the African fauna remains to be investigated. The following western Palearctic species belong to this subgenus: - + Megachile albohirta , - + M. inornata , - + M. thevestensis , and - + M. troodica . - + M. mandibularis and - + M. villipes are probably restricted to Central Asia and records of the latter from the western Palearctic ( @@ -222,41 +222,41 @@ and Zanden 1994 Very little is known on the biology of this subgenus. Ferton (1920) described nests of - + Megachile thevestensis . The cells were placed individually or in groups of two in existing cavities between rocks or in burrows in the soil; it was unclear whether the female had dug the burrow or used a preexisting burrow. All cells investigated consisted of an external, rigid layer of leaf fragments (not circularly cut as in most other group 1 subgenera) and a layer of petals inside. I have captured - + M. villipes on - + Alhagi ( -Fabaceae +Fabaceae ) in Uzbekistan, while - + M. inornata and a closely related, undescribed species appear oligolectic on -Lamiaceae +Lamiaceae . - + M. troodica also appears to have a distinct or exclusive preference for -Lamiaceae +Lamiaceae ( Mavromoustakis 1953 ), and in - + M. thevestensis and another, undescribed species from Morocco, the hairs on the median parts of the clypeus are short and simple, suggesting pollen collection from nototribic flowers such as -Lamiaceae +Lamiaceae (see comments under the subgenus - + Pseudomegachile ). diff --git a/data/C7/78/A7/C778A703B72C4B47383FE9B40751808C.xml b/data/C7/78/A7/C778A703B72C4B47383FE9B40751808C.xml index 9f44c27f82c..08df1405a31 100644 --- a/data/C7/78/A7/C778A703B72C4B47383FE9B40751808C.xml +++ b/data/C7/78/A7/C778A703B72C4B47383FE9B40751808C.xml @@ -1,256 +1,256 @@ - - - -Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) + + + +Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) - - -Author + + +Author -Praz, Christophe J. -https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 -University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland -christophe.praz@unine.ch +Praz, Christophe J. +https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 +University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland +christophe.praz@unine.ch -text - - -Journal of Hymenoptera Research +text + + +Journal of Hymenoptera Research - -2017 - -2017-04-28 + +2017 + +2017-04-28 - -55 + +55 - -1 -54 + +1 +54 - -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 + +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -journal article -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -1314-2607-55-1 -52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 -FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC -575138 +journal article +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 +1314-2607-55-1 +52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 +FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC +575138 - - - + + + Subgenus -Eurymella +Eurymella - -Diagnosis and description. - -Females + +Diagnosis and description. + +Females : The females of most - -Eurymella + +Eurymella have a distinct, robust mandible (Fig. -38 +38 ), with tooth one markedly larger than the other teeth; the -mandible +mandible is 4-toothed in Palearctic and Arabian species and divided into two plane surfaces by the outer ridge; the brushes of orange hairs in the grooves near the base of tooth one are lacking or reduced (Fig. -38 +38 ). A complete, well-visible cutting edge is present in the third interspace (Fig. -38 +38 ). Some - -Eutricharaea + +Eutricharaea ( - -Megachile deceptoria + +Megachile deceptoria -Perez +Perez , 1890 and a few related species; see under the subgenus - -Eutricharaea + +Eutricharaea ) also have a robust mandible, with tooth one comparatively large, and reduced brushes of hairs near the base of tooth one (Fig. -40 +40 ). In - -Eurymella + +Eurymella , the hind basitarsus is comparatively broad, its length approximately 2.3 times its maximal width (Fig. -29 +29 ). In - -Eutricharaea + +Eutricharaea , the hind basitarsus is usually less broad (Fig. -28 +28 ) (length approximately 2.7 times its maximal width), except in a few species such as - -M. marginata + +M. marginata . In - -Eurymella + +Eurymella the claw of the hind leg bears two thin setae (Fig. -6 +6 ); the condition is not as clear as in - -Anodonteutricharaea + +Anodonteutricharaea because the basal seta is short in - -Eurymella + +Eurymella . As in - -Eutricharaea + +Eutricharaea but unlike most other group 1 subgenera, the sterna have conspicuous apical fasciae beneath the scopa in the Palearctic species. -Males +Males : Males of - -M. patellimana + +M. patellimana Spinola, 1838, the only Palearctic species outside the Arabian Peninsula, are easy to diagnose using the criteria mentioned in the key, especially the uniquely shaped T6 (Fig. -49 +49 ) and the absence of inferior mandibular tooth (see below for the males of other species from the Arabian Peninsula). - - -Figures 38-41. + + +Figures 38-41. Female clypeus and mandibles, front view. -38 -Megachile (Eurymella) patellimana -39 -M. (Eutricharaea) rotundata -40 -M. (Eutricharaea) deceptoria -41 -M. (Eutricharaea) giraudi +38 +Megachile (Eurymella) patellimana +39 +M. (Eutricharaea) rotundata +40 +M. (Eutricharaea) deceptoria +41 +M. (Eutricharaea) giraudi . - -Species composition. - + +Species composition. + This subgenus is diverse in Africa, where it forms numerous, morphologically distinct species groups ( -Pasteels 1965 +Pasteels 1965 ); very few morphological features characterize all males of - -Eurymella + +Eurymella , while the females are more homogeneous. In the Palearctic, - -Eurymella + +Eurymella is probably represented by only one distinctive species, - -Megachile patellimana + +Megachile patellimana , included in the - -Megachile patellimana + +Megachile patellimana group ( -Pasteels 1965 +Pasteels 1965 ). -Pasteels (1979) +Pasteels (1979) mentions two species of the - -Megachile eurimera + +Megachile eurimera group (see -Pasteels 1965 +Pasteels 1965 ) from the southern parts of the Arabian Peninsula: - -M. gibboclypearis + +M. gibboclypearis Pasteels, 1979 and " -M. aff. eurimera +M. aff. eurimera Smith, 1854". - -Note. - + +Note. + Both Arabian species of the - -Megachile eurimera + +Megachile eurimera group are known only in the female sex, although the male of the widely distributed Afrotropical species - -Megachile eurimera + +Megachile eurimera is well known ( -Pasteels 1965 +Pasteels 1965 , -Eardley 2013 +Eardley 2013 ). The males of the - -Megachile eurimera + +Megachile eurimera group differ from those of the - -Megachile patellimana + +Megachile patellimana group in the pointed, inferior projection of the mandible and the simple T6 with preapical carina not produced posteriorly. In the present key, males of - -M. eurimera + +M. eurimera would run to couplet 18 ( - -Eutricharaea + +Eutricharaea and - -Xanthosarus + +Xanthosarus ); they differ from - -Eutricharaea + +Eutricharaea in the strikingly different genitalia (see -Pasteels 1965 +Pasteels 1965 : p. 83), the presence of a wide, hyaline margin apically on S4 (as in Fig. -14 +14 ), and the apical margin of T6 (beneath the preapical carina) with two teeth (as in Fig. -14 +14 ). - -Xanthosarus + +Xanthosarus is presumably absent from the Arabian Peninsula. - -Biology. - + +Biology. + Little is known on the biology of - -Eurymella + +Eurymella ; only a brief account is given by -Pasteels (1965 +Pasteels (1965 : 127) for - -Megachile semifulva + +Megachile semifulva Friese, 1922: the nests of this species are placed in burrows in the ground and consist of leaf discs. Gess and Roosenschoon (2017) described nests of - -M. patellimana + +M. patellimana in the United Arab Emirates. The nests were placed in excavated burrows in compacted sand; it was not clear whether the burrows had been dug by - -M. patellimana + +M. patellimana or were pre-existing. A female was captured carrying a cut leaf piece, while another was captured carrying a piece of tough green plastic. diff --git a/data/CC/B1/56/CCB1569DD0398E5196428F655D9740D4.xml b/data/CC/B1/56/CCB1569DD0398E5196428F655D9740D4.xml index f6a1fe2369e..81ecc6ddfe3 100644 --- a/data/CC/B1/56/CCB1569DD0398E5196428F655D9740D4.xml +++ b/data/CC/B1/56/CCB1569DD0398E5196428F655D9740D4.xml @@ -1,51 +1,51 @@ - - - -Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) + + + +Subgeneric classification and biology of the leafcutter and dauber bees (genus Megachile Latreille) of the western Palearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae) - - -Author + + +Author -Praz, Christophe J. -https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 -University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland -christophe.praz@unine.ch +Praz, Christophe J. +https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2649-3141 +University of Neuchatel, Institute of Biology, Evolutionary Entomology, Emile-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland +christophe.praz@unine.ch -text - - -Journal of Hymenoptera Research +text + + +Journal of Hymenoptera Research - -2017 - -2017-04-28 + +2017 + +2017-04-28 - -55 + +55 - -1 -54 + +1 +54 - -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 + +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -journal article -http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 -1314-2607-55-1 -52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 -FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC -575138 +journal article +http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.55.11255 +1314-2607-55-1 +52609DE318634183B137D7B377E30CD1 +FFB0FFA5F03D481DFF8A0D2EFFA3FFDC +575138 Subgenus -Callomegachile +Callomegachile @@ -54,20 +54,20 @@ Subgenus In the few species present in the Palearctic, the preoccipital carina is always well developed and constitutes a good diagnostic trait. Females : Females can be recognized by the mandible without cutting edges and by the dull mandibular surface with comparatively few punctures or ridges [the mandible is also dull in some - + Chalicodoma of the - + Chalicodoma montenegrensis group, and to some extend in -Megachile (Pseudomegachile) foersteri +Megachile (Pseudomegachile) foersteri Gerstaecker , 1869 (Fig. 23 )]. The clypeus is always modified in the species of - + Callomegachile present in the Palearctic, either broadly truncate, with truncation wide, shiny, vertical or overhanging the base of the labrum (Fig. @@ -75,15 +75,15 @@ present in the Palearctic, either broadly truncate, with truncation wide, shiny, ). Males : Males of the species present in the Palearctic always have a front coxal tooth and a quadrate projection along the inferior margin of the mandible. In many - + Callomegachile (but not in - + M. sculpturalis Smith, 1853), the first segment of the front tarsi forms a ventral concavity. The preapical carina of T6 is entire, without denticulation. The clypeus is mostly glabrous basally and with a dense fringe of hairs apically; in most other Palearctic - + Megachile , the clypeus is entirely covered by hairs. @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ Smith, 1853), the first segment of the front tarsi forms a ventral concavity. Th Species composition. - + Megachile sculpturalis , an Oriental species, has recently been introduced to western Europe ( @@ -104,19 +104,19 @@ Smith, 1853), the first segment of the front tarsi forms a ventral concavity. Th , Westrich et al. 2015 ); otherwise, only a few species of - + Callomegachile occur on the Arabian Peninsula, including - + M. simonyi Friese, 1903 and - + M. cephalotes Smith, 1853 among others. At least two further species occur on the Arabian Peninsula; they probably belong to previously described African species. As mentioned above, - + M. breviceps likely does not belong to the Palearctic fauna. @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ likely does not belong to the Palearctic fauna. Biology. Most species of the subgenus - + Callomegachile investigated so far predominantly use resin to build their nests ( @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ investigated so far predominantly use resin to build their nests ( ), although other materials (wood chips, mud or even leaf fragments) are sometimes used ( Piel 1930 ). - + Megachile sculpturalis nests in existing cavities in wood and uses resin to separate the cells; the nest plug is also built with resin but sometimes covered with a thin layer of mud ( @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ nests in existing cavities in wood and uses resin to separate the cells; the nes , Westrich et al. 2015 ). Whether mud is also used for the cell partitions is unclear. In contrast, - + M. cephalotes appears to build entire cells with mud; the cells are placed in hollow stems ( @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ appears to build entire cells with mud; the cells are placed in hollow stems ( ). Apparently, a "brown-colored detachable membranous layer" ( Gupta et al. 2004 : 58) lines the inside of the mud walls, but it is unclear what this layer refers to as it exhibits a nipple-shaped projection apically, which seems to refer to the cocoon. The floral choices of the widely polylectic species - + M. sculpturalis have been studied using pollen analyses (