Revisions to the Andrena fauna of north-western Africa with a focus on Morocco (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae) Author Wood, Thomas James text European Journal of Taxonomy 2023 2023-12-21 916 1 1 85 https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2381/10463 journal article 10.5852/ejt.2023.916.2381 2118-9773 10453460 0DC587F6-9DAA-4F6E-BA2A-AD528990BA24 Andrena ( Chrysandrena ) testaceipes Saunders, 1908 Fig. 12 Andrena ( Chrysandrena ) testaceipes Saunders, 1908: 196 , ♀ ( Algeria : NHMUK). Andrena ( Chrysandrena ) colorata Alfken, 1929: 269 , ♀ ♂ ( Libya : ZMHB). Andrena ( Chrysandrena ) rubricorpora Wood, 2021: 465 , ♀ ( Tunisia : OÖLM). Syn. nov. Andrena cirtana – auctorum, nec. Lucas, 1849 . Material examined ALGERIA • ♀ , lectotype of A. testaceipes ( Fig. 12A–D ); Constantine ; 20 May 1895 ; A.E. Eaton leg.; NHMUK . LIBYA • 1 ♀ ; Wadi Kuf ; 1 Apr. 1954 ; K.M. Guichard leg.; NHMUK . MOROCCO • 5 ♂♂ , 1 ♀ ; Fès-Meknès , Ahermoumou, P 5407, immediately NW of Kassioua ; 900 m a.s.l. ; 15 May 2022 ; T.J. Wood leg.; TJWC • 1 ♀ ; SE of Asni , Oukaimeden ; 2600 m a.s.l. ; 24 Jul. 1985 ; K.M. Guichard leg.; NHMUK . TUNISIA • ♀ , holotype of A. rubricorpora ; Zaghodan Mts ; 14 May 1993 ; J. Batelka leg.; OÖLM • 1 ♀ , paratype of A. rubricorpora ; same collection data as for holotype; OÖLM . Remarks Confusion has surrounded this taxon since Warncke (1967) used A. cirtana Lucas, 1849 to apply to what he considered to be a red-marked species of Margandrena (see Warncke 1974 for subgeneric affiliation). Grünwaldt (1976) noted that the name A. cirtana cannot apply to this taxon, as the holotype is a male, and the male of A. cirtana was described as having a yellow-marked clypeus, whereas Warncke’s taxon has the clypeus black. Grünwaldt argued that A. testaceipes was therefore the priority name. Warncke (1967) designated a lectotype for A. testaceipes ( Fig. 12A–D ) which fits Saunders’ description. Importantly, this taxon does not match the criteria for the subgenus Margandrena , and instead falls in Chrysandrena due to the lack of a strong pronotal angle, and the tibial scopa is composed of strongly plumose hairs. The genital capsule of A. testaceipes was illustrated by Scheuchl (2010) , where the typical Euandrena / Chrysandrena form can be seen. This unclear phylogenetic position led to the description of A. ( Chrysandrena ) rubricorpora Wood, 2021 from Tunisia (Wood 2021), as it was not clear that A. testaceipes was actually a member of Chrysandrena . Genetic samples from Morocco clearly place A. testaceipes within Chrysandrena ; it is therefore transferred there, and A. rubricorpora is synonymised with it. Fig. 12. Andrena ( Chrysandrena ) testaceipes Saunders, 1908 , lectotype, ♀ (NHMUK). A . Label details. B . Lateral habitus. C . Face, frontal view. D . Terga, dorsal view. One issue remains, which is the status of the true A. cirtana . At the moment, its identity is unclear, as Gusenleitner & Schwarz (2002) only listed this taxon in its sensu auctorum. Location and examination of the type series in the MNHN collection is necessary, as it potentially has priority over an existing name given its early description date of 1849. No action will be taken until the type series is located. Distribution Morocco , Algeria , Tunisia , Libya , Egypt ( Gusenleitner & Schwarz 2002 ).