Lectotype designations, taxonomic notes and new synonymies in some species of the bee genus Centris Fabricius, 1804 described by Amédée Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Author Vivallo, Felipe text Zootaxa 2019 2019-06-27 4624 1 23 40 journal article 26387 10.11646/zootaxa.4624.1.2 89eda679-d9f7-4fe6-8bb4-c245614fca89 1175-5326 3258452 AB304575-D4F0-4AC4-90DB-4B4E3AD22711 Centris thoracica Lepeletier, 1841 nomen dubium Centris thoracica Lepeletier, 1841: 158 . Type data: Syntype female whereabouts unknown. Type locality: Brazil : “de Rio Grande ”. According to Moure et al . (2007) Rio Grande do Sul state . Comments: According to the original description, the type material of C . thoracica is in MNHP , however, it was not found there. Friese (1901) had already noticed the type was not available for study when he published his monograph on Centris more than a century ago. The depository and the current condition of the types of this species remain unknown. Lepeletier (1841) mentioned that the female of this species has head and mesosoma black with black hairs, except mesoscutum, mesoscutellum (“dorsum”) and the anterior area of the wings insertion (pronotal lobe?) with yellow pubescence; metasoma and legs black with blackish hairs; spine (tibial spur?) of hind legs long, brownish; wings violaceus, not translucent. This description fits relatively well with C . bicolor , C . lutea and C . dorsata . The first species was also described by Lepeletier (1841) so probably it is not the same species. Centris dorsata differs in the conspicuous, short, yellow pubescence on distal terga, and according to Moure et al . (2007) it does not occur in Rio Grande do Sul state . Centris lutea has only a few or no yellow hairs on the pronotal lobe, being restricted to the mesoscutum and mesoscutellum. According to Silveira et al . (2002) this species has not been recorded in Southern Brazil . Michener & Lange (1958) , citing articles published by Silvestri (1903) and Pickel (1928) , indicated that C . thoracica nests in termite mounds, and according to Ihering (1904) their nests are attacked by the cleptoparasitic bee Acanthopus splendidus ( Olivier, 1789 ) ( Apidae : Ericrocidini ). This latter species has been recorded only attacking nests of species of the subgenus C . ( Ptilotopus ) Klug, 1810 ( Rocha-Filho et al ., 2009 ), whose females effectively nest in termite mounds. Considering this information, C . thoracica might belong to that subgenus. In 1913, Schrottky cited C . thoracica in Paraguay , apparently confusing this name with that of C . pectoralis Burmeister, 1876 , a junior synonym of C . obsoleta . This can be inferred by the existence of a male identified by him as Hemisia thoracica in MZUSP (data labels: 97207 [printed]\ asuncion 1910/22 06 [handwritten]\ Hemisia thoracica (Lep) ♂ [handwritten] C. Schrottky det. 19 [printed] 12 [handwritten]) that effectively corresponds to the latter species. In 2002a, Moure mentioned he found a female specimen in NHMUK identified by Smith as C . thoracica that actually corresponds to C . dorsata . However, it is not clear if Smith indeed studied the type of Lepeletier to identify that specimen. The last article citing C . thoracica was published by Moure et al . (2007) who included it in the subgenus C . ( Melacentris ) (= C . ( Melanocentris ), see Vivallo, 2018 ). Taking into account these facts, the real identity of this species and the subgenus it belongs remain unknown. Unfortunately, the species of Lepeletier (1841) currently housed at MSNT were not available to be included in this study. According to Moure et al . (2007) they are C . lineolata ( lectotype female designated by Moure, 1960a ) (= Centris similis ( Fabricius, 1804 )) , C . emarginata ( lectotype female designated by Moure & Seabra, 1960 ) and C . clypeata (valid lectotype designation published by Moure & Seabra, 1960 according to the Article 74.6 of the ICZN code). All those specimens were collected in Cayenne, French Guiana and they belonged to Serville’s collection ( Lepeletier, 1841 ). Between those three species only C . clypeata is currently considered valid and a redescription of the lectotype male can be found in Moure & Seabra (1960) . This species is poorly known and females have never been associated with the males. Therefore potential synonymies have not been possible to assess. As indicated in the treatment of each species, six type series of Lepeletier were not found during the development of this research. According to the literature (see Moure et al ., 2007 ), the primary types of C . bicolor , C . nitens , C . punctata , C . scapulata and C . testacea were supposedly deposited in MNHP , however, they were not localized, despite the search effort. Since the Lepeletier’s material deposited in MSNT was not studied, it is not possible to know if the missing types are actually in that collection, or if they are definitely lost. Fortunately, all these species, with the exception of C . thoracica , can be identified from their original descriptions avoiding potential taxonomic problems related to the identity of Lepeletier species.