Andrena (Notandrena) albohirta Saunders, 1908

Fig. 13

Andrena (Notandrena) albohirta Saunders, 1908: 198, ♂ (Algeria: NHMUK).

Andrena (Notandrena) decaocta Warncke, 1967: 196 (unnecessary replacement name for A. albohirta)

Andrena (Notandrena) eddaensis Gusenleitner, 1998: 110, ♀ ♂ (Tunisia: OÖLM). Syn. nov.

Material examined

ALGERIA • 1 ♂, syntype of A. albohirta (Fig. 13A–D); Biskra; 10 Feb. 1894; A.E. Eaton leg.; NHMUK .

MOROCCO • 1 ♀; E of Tagmout; 26 Mar. 1986; K. Warncke leg.; OÖLM .

TUNISIA • ♀, holotype of A. eddaensis; Toseur; 15 Apr. 1981; M. Schwarz leg.; OÖLM • 75 ♂♂, 5 ♀♀, paratypes of A. eddaensis; 10 km S of Ben Gardane; 17 Feb. 1992; K. Warncke leg.; OÖLM • 1 ♀; Hammamet; 5–19 May 1998; M. Hradský leg.; OÖLM • 4 ♂♂; S of Kebili [Qibilī], Blidette village; 25 Mar. 2006; J. Batelka leg.; OÖLM • 1 ♀; Tozeur; 4–7 Apr. 1985; P. v. Ooijen leg.; RMNH .

Remarks

Warncke (1967) proposed the replacement name A. decaocta for A. albohirta (Fig. 13A–D), arguing that it was a junior secondary homonym of Cilissa albihirta Ashmead, 1890, which is a synonym of Andrena frigida Smith, 1853 (Gusenleitner & Schwarz 2002). However, this is unnecessary, as there is a one-letter difference between the two names (ICZN 1999; Article 57.6) and this difference does not meet the exceptional criteria established by Article 58 (Variant spellings of species-group names deemed to be identical). Importantly, Warncke noted that he did not know the corresponding female. He placed the species in the subgenus Graecandrena (Warncke 1968, misspelt as A. decaocto). Confusingly, he did not list this species in his North African revision (Warncke 1974). Its identity has thus remained obscure in the writings of Warncke.

Gusenleitner (1998) described A. eddaensis from Tunisia (type photographs on https://www.zobodat. at/belege.php), comparing it to A. decaocta, noting that the subgeneric placement of the latter taxon was unclear. Gusenleitner & Schwarz (2002) later moved A. decaocta to the subgenus Carandrena (= Notandrena). Examination of A. eddaensis material shows that it is conspecific with A. albohirta, as males are identical. In the differential diagnosis, Gusenleitner (1998) separated A. eddaensis from A. decaocta based primarily on female characters. However, the female of A. albohirta was never formally described. Gusenleitner (1998) stated that the female foveae are broader in A. eddaensis and the hind legs of the female A. albohirta are yellow with comparatively looser scopal hairs. It is not clear whether Gusenleitner was comparing female A. eddaensis to females of a different species. Based on male morphology, A. eddaensis is clearly a junior synonym of A. albohirta, which is revalidated as the correct name for this species.

Distribution

Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia (Gusenleitner & Schwarz 2002, as A. eddaensis).