1. Eulaema meriana (Olivier, 1789)

(Figs 4 A–4D)

Apis meriana Olivier, 1789 .

Apis dimidiata Fabricius, 1793 .

The original description of Apis meriana by Olivier (1789: 64) is as follows:

“Abeille Mérian

Apis Meriana. Nob.

Apis hirsuta, nigra, abdomine segmentorum marginibus pallidè flavis; ano rufo. Nob. Merian. Surin. pl. 48.

Cette abeille est une des plus grandes que nous connoissions. Ses antennes e sa tête sont noires. Les yeux sont bruns, e la trompe est plus longue que la moitié du corps. Le corcelet est noir e velu. L’abdomen est noir, avec le bord des quatre premiers anneaux d’un jaune pâle, e l’anus fauve. Les pattes sont noires, e los jambes postérieures sont très grosses. Les aîles supérieures sont noires, depuis la base jusque vers leur milieu; le reste est transparent. Les aîles inférieures sont obscures; leur pointe seulement est transparent.

Cette abeille se trouve à Cayenne e à Surinam: elle m’a été communiquée par M. Renaud, docteur en Médicine.”

The textual description refers to the bee currently known as Eulaema meriana or to one very similar Eulaema (Eulaema), with metasoma clothed in black and yellow setae on the first terga and in red setae on the last terga (“ano rufo”). Based on this description and on Fabricius’s (1793) description of Apis dimidiata, Moure (1960b) reached the conclusion that both species were the same, and established the synonymy of the latter under the former. The nomen Apis meriana was largely ignored for more than 170 years; the nomen Eulaema dimidiata being the only one used to refer to the bee we now call Eulaema meriana until 1960, when Moure introduced the synonymy. Nevertheless, Moure (1960b) gave no reason for establishing this synonymy. He stated that “probably the type specimen of Olivier was destroyed” (Moure 1960b: 146). As Nemésio (2009a: 163) noticed, J.S. Moure was ambivalent concerning the nature of the synonymy between El. meriana and El. dimidiata, because in his first work (Moure 1960b), he gave the impression that there were two onomatophores, one for each species (which would result in a subjective synonymy), but in his next work on this subject (Moure 2003: 34), he considered that Olivier’s (1789) and Fabricius’s (1793) descriptions were based on the same specimen (a primary objective synonymy). In his latter work, Moure insisted that the specimen was lost (Moure 2003).

Here, we intend to show both nomina were erected based on different specimens and that the nomen Apis meriana would partially refer, in fact, to the bee currently known as Eulaema polyzona (Mocsáry, 1897) (Fig. 3).

Maria Sybilla Merian made several records and illustrations on insects from Suriname and published a detailed report of her findings in 1705. On her plate 48 (here reproduced as Fig. 2) she illustrated two Coleoptera, two lepidopteran caterpillars, and one bee. This bee was specifically and explicitly indicated by Olivier (1789) as one of the specimens upon which he based his description of Apis meriana (“Abeille Mérian”, honoring M. S. Merian), even though the textual description does not entirely match the illustration. The first point to be made clear is that this indication, under the modern Code, is a valid one (if made before 1930, as happens to be the case) and could explicitly establish the onomatophore of the species. As there is a single bee illustrated [although it could be argued that Merian (1705: 48) interpreted one of the caterpillars as the larval stage of the bee—see below, Olivier (1789) was clearly referring to the bee] this specimen must be interpreted as one of the “ type specimens”. Article 73.1.4 of the Code clearly apply to this situation, stating that the “designation of an illustration of a single specimen as a holotype is to be treated as designation of the specimen illustrated; the fact that the specimen no longer exists or cannot be traced does not of itself invalidate the designation ” (our bold).

In addition, it is also clear from Olivier’s text that he saw at least one specimen of the bee we currently treat as Eulaema meriana (or a similar species), and probably this specimen was brought to him by Mr. Renaud. Olivier (1789) did not explicitly write it, but there was no type concept at that time and we argue here that this specimen should be considered as part of the type series, which would result (together with Merian’s plate) in a syntypic series. Moreover, it is uncertain if Moure (2003) was correct, speculating that Olivier (1789) and Fabricius (1793) based their description on the same specimen (although Olivier helped Fabricius with specimens; see Hope 1845). Olivier’s type specimens are the bee illustrated by Merian (1705) and the specimen brought to him by Renaud (now lost), whereas Fabricius’s type specimen is a bee originally deposited at Bosc’s Collection [Renaud’s specimens are apparently not known to be in the Bosc Collection], as explicitly indicated by Fabricius (1793: 316). This latter bee is considered lost since Moure (1960b) and, recently, a search for this specimen carried out by the curator of the Hymenopteran collection of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, where Bosc’s Collection is deposited, has been unsuccessful (Nemésio 2009a: 163). Therefore, we reiterate the remark of this specimen presently being lost.