Anthophora atrocaerulea Sichel 1869

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Abstract

Anthophora atrocaerulea Sichel, 1869 (Fig. 4) Anthophora atro-caerulea Sichel in Dours, 1869: 60. Anthophora regalis Cockerell, 1946: 22, n. syn. MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Cameroon • 1♀ (holotype of Anthophora regalis); Metet; G. Schwab leg.; MCZ, MCZ:Ent:27598 (examined by photograph Fig. 5). Côte d’Ivoire • 1♀; Baoulé; 1897; H. Pobéguin leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58568. Democratic Republic of the Congo • 1♀; Congo Belge Central, Prov de Maniema, Kindu; 1917; L. Burgeon leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58569. Gabon • 1♀; Congo, Ogooué, Samkita; 1911; F. Faure leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58570 • 1♂, 3♀; Ogooué, Lambaréné; 1911; R. Ellenberger leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58571, EY58572, EY58573, EY58574 • 3♂; Ogooué, Lambaréné;1912; R. Ellenberger leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58575, EY58576, EY58577 • 1♂, 4♀; Ogooué, Lambaréné; 1913; R. Ellenberger leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58578, EY58579, EY58580, MNHN-EY-EY58581, EY58582. Celebes, recte Africa • 1♀ (lectotype by present designation, Fig. 4); MNHN-EY-EY58546. CURRENT STATUS. — Amegilla (Aframegilla) atrocaerulea (Sichel, 1869). DISTRIBUTION. — Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the Congo (Cockerell 1946, as Anthophora regalis; present work). If Amegilla atrocaerulea (inclusive of Amegilla regalis) is recognised as a junior synonym of Amegilla cincta, then more widespread across tropical West and Central Africa east to Uganda (Smith 1879; Vachal 1903a; Meade-Waldo 1914; Brooks 1988; Ascher & Pickering 2025). REMARKS The type material of Anthophora atrocaerulea has been considered lost, as is the case for most material described by Dours due to the destruction of his collection in World War One. However, in the case of Dours (1869), many of the taxa described in this work were sources from multiple collections,particularly the collection of Sichel, who is the taxon authority in this case. Anthophora atrocaerulea was explicitly cited as coming from the collections of “Sichel, Dours”, and examination of the MNHN collection was able to find a single specimen bearing labels in the handwriting of Sichel reading: “ atrocaerulea Sichel ” and “Décrite” [described].It is beneficial to reproduce the original description here: “♀ Nigra. Thoracis, capitisque pilis rufis, vel ferrugineo-nigris partim viridescentibus. Abdominis 1-4 latè metallico-caeruleo marginatis. Femoribus nigro-ferrugineo pilosis,duobus anterioribus viridescentibus. Alis fumatis. (SICHEL)” As discussed in the Material and methods,Sichel provided the description and so satisfies the criteria of availability other than the actual publication (Article 50.1.1); it is clear from the way that this description is presented that it was entirely the work of Sichel. The specimen itself meets the original description based on the partly green hairs of the head and mesosoma, the metallic blue hairbands on the apical margins of T1-4 (hairbands composed of distinctly flattened hairs, and with the hairbands broadening medially),and the legs with blackish-orangish hairs, with the first two pairs of legs also showing metallic green hairs on their outer faces. Due to this close match and the presence of handwritten Sichel labels, the specimen is considered to be a genuine syntype and is here designated as the lectotype. The type locality was given as “Célèbes” which is today the island known as Sulawesi in the Wallacean region of Indonesia, but the specimen has no legible information displayed on the other three labels which could indicate where it was caught. Ignoring the published stated locality, the specimen itself is clearly an Amegilla (Aframegilla) species due to the presence of metallic hairs on the head, mesosomal dorsum, on the margins of T1-4 (hairs distinctly flattened), and also on the outer faces of the first two pairs of legs, and the absence of pale integumental marks on the paraocular areas.No other group of Amegilla shows this colour combination including flattened metallic hairs on the metasoma, even the Amegilla (Zonamegilla). Brooks (1988: 511) placed atrocaerulea into the genus Amegilla subgenus Zonamegilla based on the description and the stated type locality;the subgenus Aframegilla does not (based on current understanding) occur outside of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. In the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary, the taxon must be considered to have been described at least in part from somewhere in Africa. Dours indicated specimens in his collection which may indeed have been from Sulawesi,but since these are lost, their identity will always remain obscure.Several Amegilla (Zonamegilla) species occur on the island (see new species descriptions below), and Dours may have confused them with atrocaerulea. The specimen described by Sichel however can therefore be recognised in the combination Amegilla (Aframegilla) atrocaerulea. The question then becomes which African species is Amegilla atrocaerulea? It becomes the third oldest Amegilla (Aframegilla) name described, after Amegilla cincta (Fabricius, 1781) and the non-metallic Amegilla nubica (Lepeletier, 1841) (the type species of the subgenus). Based on the morphology, Amegilla atrocaerulea is very close to Amegilla cincta due to 1) the intermixed metallic green hairs on the head and mesosomal dorsum, 2) the well-defined broad apical hairbands composed of flattened metallic hairs on the marginal areas of T1-4, 3) the dark paraocular areas, 4) the presence of intermixed black, orange, and metallic greens on the outer faces of the fore and mid tibiae, and 5) the predominantly dark tibial scopae with a strip of orangish hairs along the dorsal length of the hind tibiae. All of these characters are present in the holotype of Amegilla cincta (Fig. 6) with the exception that the tergal bands are emerald green, not blue. Amegilla cincta itself has not always been well-understood. Originally described as Andrena cincta from “Malabaria” by Fabricius (1781: 473) which refers to the Malabar coast in south-western India. However, Meade-Waldo (1914: 56, as Anthophora cincta) summarises that this is incorrect, highlighting the comments of Smith (1879: 123-124) who argued that specimens agreeing with the type specimen in the Banks collection have been received from Sierra Leone, and hence the bee is African, not Indian. Cockerell (1919: 118) followed this concept following examination of Meade-Waldo determined specimens. Popov (1950: 258), in recognising Amegilla as a distinct genus for the first time, placed Amegilla cincta into this genus based on the description, treating it as being described from Africa. Lieftinck (1958) provided more detail about possible syntypic specimens in the Fabricius collection in Kiel (now in NHMD, Copenhagen), and also treated cincta in the combination Amegilla cincta in line with the work of Popov. The question then becomes, if the distinction is only based on the colour of the tergal bands, is this a genuine species-level difference? It is necessary here also to consider Anthophora regalis, described from Cameroon (Fig. 5). Cockerell (1946: 22) gave minimal diagnosis: “Related to A. expleta Vachal, but that has the bands blue becoming white laterally. A. vivida Smith, type ♀, has the hind tibiae all black, but a variety has a tuft of white at apex behind; A. vivida has emerald green bands, and no band on first tergite.” Cockerell’s diagnosis is typically unhelpful, vaguely characterising Amegilla expleta (see next species entry),and incorrectly reporting that Anthophora vivida Smith,1879 (= Amegilla vivida) was described based on the female sex, when it was described from a male specimen (Smith 1879: 120). The holotype of Anthophora regalis is clearly an Amegilla (Aframegilla), and was placed there by Brooks (1988: 506), who took no further action. Based on this holotype, there are no differences from Amegilla atrocaerulea and it is here synonymised under it n. syn. It may be the case that both Amegilla atrocaerulea and Amegilla regalis are junior to Amegilla cincta given the minor colour differences and currently lack of documented structural differences, but further study is required.A conservative position is therefore adopted here, even though it is suspected that these minor colour differences are not representative of species-level differentiation.

Authors 1

1. Thomas James Wood corresponding Aachen Naturalis Biodiversity Center

   Naturalis Biodiversity Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Darwinweg 2, 2333 CR, Leiden (the Netherlands)