Leioproctus glendae Batley, 2016

Batley, Michael & Popic, Tony J., 2016, An Unusual New Leioproctus Species (Hymenoptera: Colletidae), Records of the Australian Museum (Rec. Aust. Mus.) 68 (6), pp. 263-268 : 264-267

Leioproctus glendae Batley n. sp.

Type specimens. Holotype ♀, Ethabuka Station , Queensland (23.738°S 138.467°E), 21 Apr 2012, M. Batley, ex Scaevola depauperata in AM (K363485) . Paratypes 2 ♂♂ Ethabuka Station , Queensland (23.714°S 138.453°E), 30 Apr and 9 May 2014, M. Batley, ex Scaevola depauperata in AM (K470078–079) .

Diagnosis

Small, moderately hairy bees with black head and mesosoma and orange-brown metasoma. Forewing with two submarginal cells, jugal lobe of the hind wing extending well beyond cu-v ( Fig. 1a ). Females possess a narrow, flattened fore basitarsus ( Fig. 4 ) and mandibles unlike any other Leioproctus species ( Fig. 3 ). Males have similar mandibles and a unique eighth metasomal sternum ( Fig. 8a ) whose apex is visible externally.

Description

Female—Head width 1.83 mm, body length 5.8 mm. Relative measurements: HW 50, HL 47, UID 33, LID 25, SL 16, CW 26, CL 16, FL 27. Head: black, except antenna, labrum, mandible and ventral margin of clypeus orange brown. Clypeus extends well below mandibular articulations giving face an elongate appearance, anterior surface projected in front of eyes, lateral edges strongly convex, epistomal suture indistinct; face with broad, shallow depression from anterior ocellus to ventral margin of clypeus. Mandible with condylar ridge and outer ridge very narrow and strongly projected from outer surface leaving a large, flat outer interspace, below each ridge is a line of long, weakly-branched setae; cap of rutellum thick and greatly elongated into a dagger-like tooth ( Fig. 3 ). Head densely punctate except in medial depression and small areas of vertex adjacent to posterior ocelli. Paraocular areas and frons, except medially, densely covered with long, white, finely-branched hair. Scape short reaching a bit over ½ way to anterior ocellus. Labrum approximately triangular, width ca 2.5× length, gently convex, polished, with horizontal carina and stiff setae on the inflexed surface below the carina. Malar space obsolete. Maxillary palpus short (ca 0.25× head width), labial palpus elongate and flattened, exceeding end of glossa (ca 0.5× head with, ratio of segments 17:13:12:10 starting from base). Mesosoma: black with legs orange-brown. Fore basitarsus greatly flattened and elongated (ca ¾ as long as tibia and twice as long as remainder of tarsus, excluding claws), bearing widely spaced long hairs ( Fig. 4a, b ); fore tibial spur modified ( Fig. 4c ); inner hind tibial spur finely serrate ( Fig. 5a ); claws cleft with inner tooth slightly smaller than outer; hind basitibial plate carinate, well-defined with open cover of minutely-branched hair; scopae formed from combination of long, plumose hair on hind trochanter and basal half of hind femur, openly spaced, weakly-branched hair on outer face of hind tibia and open, erect hair on sterna, widely-branched on S2, 3, simple on S4, 5. Pronotal collar thin, much lower than scutum; metanotum with small tubercle; subhorizontal surface of propodeum about as long as metanotum, rounding smoothly onto vertical surface. Surface polished with close, strong punctures except in propodeal triangle which is weakly transversely striate with large areolae lateromarginally. Most of mesosoma other than propodeum closely covered with moderately long, strongly-branched, white hair; scutellum and posterior half of scutum mostly bare, possibly as a result of wear. Wing venation: fore wing with two submarginal cells, first recurrent vein entering second submarginal cell; stigma broad, ca ½ as long as costal margin of marginal cell; apex of marginal cell well away from costa; jugal lobe of hind wing reaches well beyond cu-v (similar to that of male, Fig. 1a ). Metasoma orange-brown, slightly darker ventrally, terga translucent apically, strongly and densely punctate with a fine covering of long, adpressed, white, minutely-branched hair; T5,6 with dense, pale prepygidial and pygidial fimbria; pygidial plate weakly emarginate, carinate with medial area acinose ( Fig. 5c ).

Male—Head width 1.74, 1.84 mm, body length 5.5, 5.8 mm. Relative measurements: HW 50, HL 45, UID 32, LID 24, SL 11, CW 24, CL 18, FL 30 (±1 for both specimens). Head: as for female except for following: facial hair somewhat longer and extending onto clypeus and scapes; width labrum ca 4× length, apical ½ sharply deflexed, bearing stiff setae; mandible broad basally, tapering evenly to a single tooth, cap of rutellum not thick and extended; labial palpus ca 0.6× head with, ratio of segments 18:16:15:11 starting from base. Mesosoma as for female except hair a bit longer and very pale brown. Wing venation: as described for female ( Fig. 1 ). Legs: dark brown basally, mostly orange-brown distally from apices of femora, outer face of tibiae with dark brown suffusions; claws cleft, teeth of equal size; inner hind tibial spur finely serrate. Lengths of basitarsi ½ length corresponding femora; hind basitibial area small, defined by a fine carina, more easily observed with transmitted light. Metasoma orange-brown, slightly darker ventrally, terga translucent apically, strongly and densely punctate with a fine covering of long, adpressed, pale brown, minutely-branched hair. Posterior margin S6 with small medial emargination ( Fig. 8b ). Vestiture as in female except somewhat longer and denser. Terminalia: as shown in Figs 7 , 8 ; S 7 with simple, greatly reduced posterior lobes and a few simple setae; S8 has a short, bifid apical process, which is exposed externally; genital capsule has strongly hairy gonoforceps and penis valves with broad transparent wings at the apex.

Etymology. The species is named after Prof. Glenda Wardle in recognition of her contributions to desert ecology.

metasoma; apex S8 arrowed.

Remarks

Although the sexes were collected 2 years apart, both were found on the same flower at sites separated by about 3 km, each time when the areas were recovering from recent fire. Given the many morphological similarities, but especially the similar mandibles there can be little doubt that they belong to the same species. During the second collection event, flowers were examined for evidence of bud damage, but none was observed.

Figures

Figure 1. Wing venation of Leioproctus glendae Batley n. sp. male. (a) Hind wing in focus to show jugal lobe; (b) fore wing in focus.

Figure 3. Mandible of Leioproctus glendae Batley n. sp. female.

Figure 4. Female Leioproctus glendae Batley n. sp. (a) fore tarsus lateral view; (b) front view; and (c) fore tibial spur.

Figure 5. Female Leioproctus glendae Batley n. sp. (a) inner hind tibial spur; (b) propodeum; and (c) pygidial plate.

Figure 7. Terminalia of Leioproctus glendae Batley n. sp. male (a) genital capsule; (b) apex of penis valves; and (c) S7.

Figure 8. Male Leioproctus glendae Batley n. sp. (a) S8; and (b) ventral view of