Colletes argentinus Friese, 1908

Ferrari, Rafael R., 2019, A revision of Colletes Latreille (Hymenoptera: Colletidae: Colletinae) from Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, Zootaxa 4606 (1), pp. 1-91 : 13-17

Colletes argentinus Friese, 1908

( Figs. 5 , 6 , 7 , 46A, 46C, 47A, 47C, 53A )

Colletes argentinus Friese, 1908: 10 ; Jensen-Haarup 1908: 100; Strand 1909: 228, 1910: 457; Ducke 1912: 78; Schrottky 1913: 236; Cockerell 1917a: 438; Ĵrgensen 1909: 5, 1912a: 301, 1912b: 99; Rasmussen & Ascher 2008: 25; Torretta & Poggio 2013: 160; Ferrari & Silveira 2015: 257 ; Ascher & Pickering 2018; Lando et al. 2018: 4.

Lectotype ♁ examined. Designated by Moure & Urban (2002: 19). (ZMB).

Colletes rugicollis (partim); Moure & Urban 2002: 19; Moure et al. 2007: 687; Moure et al. 2012.

Diagnosis: Colletes argentinus can be diagnosed through the combination of hypostomal carina short and flat, and T1 marginal zone convex. Colletes argentinus is most similar to C. rugicollis in that both have a protrusion below the lateral ocellus, and T1 coarsely and densely punctate. However, C. argentinus can be readily differentiated from C. rugicollis by its hypostomal carina short and flat (hypostomal carina produced as a tall, concave lamella in C. rugicollis ); and paraocular area with mostly off-white hairs (paraocular area with mostly pale-yellow hairs in C. rugicollis ). The males of the two species can also be distinguished from each other by supraclypeal area sparsely punctate in C. argentinus (supraclypeal area densely punctate in C. rugicollis ).

Redescription: FEMALE ( Figs. 5A, 5C, 5E ):

Dimensions (mm): Approximate body length 10.4–11.2; head width 3.1–3.3; head length 2.5–2.7; intertegular distance 2.8–3.1; forewing length 8.3–8.8.

Colouration: Black except distal half of mandible and tarsal claws reddish-brown. Tegula posterolaterally, tarsi (except basitarsi), hind tibial spurs, marginal zones of T1–T5, S6 mid-longitudinally and posteriorly dark-brown. Wing venation (except vein R of forewing black), mid tibial spurs pale-brown. Proximal half of tarsal claws, marginal zones of metasomal sterna pale-yellow.

Structure: Labrum medially concave; concavity not margined laterally by longitudinal ridges. Clypeus without mid-longitudinal depression. Malar area ~0.45x as long as basal depth of mandible (20:44). Hypostomal carina short and flat. F1 ~1.1x as long as its apical width (32:28). UID:LID (66:59). Frontal area with a protrusion below lateral ocellus. Vertexal area flat behind upper summit of compound eyes in lateral view. Dorsolateral angle of pronotum pointed. Mesepisternum ventrally, near ventral end of episternal groove, without protrusion surrounded by appressed hairs. Horizontal surface of metapostnotum ~0.5x as long as metanotum (29:56); metapostnotal pits well-delimited; posterior transverse carina sinuous and complete. Posteromedial surface of front coxa without spine. Posterior hind tibial spur ciliate. Hind basitarsus ~2.6x longer than broad (50:19). Outer rami of hind tarsal claws ~1.75x as long as inner rami (14:8). Marginal zone of T1 convex. Marginal zone of S6 depressed.

Pubescence: Head with off-white, plumose, erect, moderately short hairs (except mandible with pale-yellow, suberect setae); paraocular, interantennal, frontal and vertexal areas with off-white and black hairs intermixed; genal area with fuscous, long hairs towards proboscidial fossa. Mesosoma with black, plumose, erect, moderately long hairs; those hairs long on mesepisternum, very long on upper margin of lateral surface of propodeum; pronotal lobe and mesoscutum with black and off-white hairs intermixed. Legs with black hairs; trochanters and femora with plumose, erect, long hairs (except moderately long on mid trochanter); femoral and tibial scopae with branched apically only, suberect, very long hairs anteriorly; tibiae with short, suberect setae (except hind tibia with erect, moderately short setae); basitarsi with erect, moderately short setae (except posterior margins with long setae). Metasoma covered with black hairs (except T1 with off-white and fuscous plumose hairs intermixed); T2–T5 with suberect, minute setae on discs (except short on T4–T5), those setae erect, moderately short laterally; T6 with suberect, short setae throughout; S1 with plumose, erect, moderately long hairs; S2 with moderately long setae and short plumose hairs intermixed; S3–S6 with suberect, short setae on discs, S3–S5 with a line of plumose, short hairs near marginal zones.

Surface sculpture: Clypeus densely and coarsely punctate (interspaces smooth), except mid-longitudinal area largely impunctate (integument rugulose). Supraclypeal area moderately coarsely punctate; densely punctate below, largely impunctate above; interspaces imbricate. Malar area substrigulate. Paraocular area densely and moderately finely punctate (except moderately coarsely punctate towards antennal socket); interspaces rugulose throughout. Frontal area punctures crowded and coarse; interspaces smooth. Vertexal area punctures crowded and moderately fine near lateral ocellus (interspaces rugulose); moderately fine punctures intermingled with minute ones towards eye (interspaces smooth). Mesoscutum, scutellum and mesepisternum punctures crowded and coarse (except mesoscutum only densely punctate posteromedially and scutellum sparsely and moderately finely punctate anteriorly); interspaces smooth throughout. Metanotum rugose. Metepisternum with oblique carinae mid-anteriorly; rugose elsewhere. Lateral surface of propodeum with punctures crowded and moderately coarse; interspaces rugulose. Vertical surface of metapostnotum rugose above. T1 densely and coarsely punctate (except finely punctate towards marginal zone and mid-longitudinal area largely impunctate); interspaces smooth. T2–T4 moderately densely and finely punctate; interspaces smooth. T5 densely and finely punctate. S2–S5 finely punctate; S2–S3 densely punctate, S4–S5 punctures crowded; interspaces smooth throughout. S6 densely and moderately finely punctate; interspaces smooth (except imbricate anteriorly and laterally).

MALE ( Figs. 5B, 5D, 5F ). As in female, except for usual secondary sexual characteristics and as follows:

Dimensions (mm): Approximate body length 7.3–8.1; head width 2.5–2.8; head length 2.2–2.4; intertegular distance 2.0–2.3; forewing length 6.9–7.3.

Colouration: Legs dark-brown (except femora and trochanters black and outer surface of tarsi pale-brown). Ventrally reflexed lateral areas of T1–T2 mostly dark-brown. S2–S3 mid-longitudinally and posteriorly pale-brown. S6 evenly dark-brown.

Structure: Labral median concavity margined laterally by longitudinal ridges. Malar area ~0.65x as long as basal depth of mandible (26:40). F1 ~0.85x as long as its apical width (30:36). UID:LID (53:42). Vertexal area concave behind upper summit of compound eyes in lateral view. Horizontal surface of metapostnotum 0.85x as long as metanotum (34:40); metapostnotal pits poorly-delimited. Hind basitarsus ~2.7x longer than broad (43:16). Outer rami of hind tarsal claws 1.2x as long as inner rami (12:10). S7, S8 and genital capsule as in Figs. 6A, 6B, 6C , respectively.

Pubescence: Genal area with off-white hairs. Mesoscutal hairs as long as those of scutellum. Discs of T2–T5 with off-white to fuscous setae; those of S3–S5 erect and moderately short. Marginal zones of S2–S5 with off-white plumose hairs.

Surface sculpture: Supraclypeal area sparsely punctate throughout; interspaces smooth. Paraocular area evenly moderately finely punctate. Vertexal area densely and moderately coarsely punctate throughout. T1 punctures crowded mid-longitudinally. T2 moderately coarsely punctate. T3 moderately finely punctate. S2–S3 moderately densely punctate; S2 with imbricate interspaces anteriorly and laterally. S4–S5 densely punctate. S6 finely punctate

Material studied: Primary type specimen: Lectotype ♁—“ Argentina; Mendoza; 10.2 1907; Jensen”. “Col- letes; argentinus; 1907 Friese det.”. “Type” “Zool. Mus.; Berlin”. “ LECTOTYPUS; Colletes argentinus ♁; Friese, 1908; Ferrari & Silveira, 2012”. http://coll.mfn-berlin.de/u/; 58f9b2. { ZMB}.

Secondary type specimens: Paralectotypes ♁♁— ARGENTINA—Mendoza: 4♁♁, { MNHP }.

Additional specimens: ARGENTINA—Buenos Aires: Burzaco, 27/iii/1974, [C. Vardy], 1♀ 1♁, {NHMUK}. Catamarca : 20km N of Andalgalá, (-27.4912, -66.3834), 14/ii/2003, [L. Packer], 1♀, { PCYU }. Corrientes: Parque Nacional Mburucuya , (-28.0314, -58.0614), 15/iii/2010, [N. Veiga], 1♁, { PCYU }. Entre Ríos: Liebig , [Zelich], 1♁, { AMNH }. La Rioja: La Rioja , 20/viii/1916, [E. Giacomelli], 1♀ 1♁, { MACN }. Salta: Coronel Moldes , xii/1994, [Fritz], 1♀, { AMNH }. El Maray , i/1995, [Fritz], 2♁♁, { AMNH }. La Viña , iii/1992, [Fritz], 1♁, { AMNH }. Rosario de Lerma , x/1992, [Fritz], 3♁♁, { AMNH }; idem, except xi/1992, 3♁♁; idem, except xi/1993, 1♁. Sumalao , i/1993, [Fritz], 1♁, { AMNH }; idem, except xii/1994, 1♁; idem, except i/1996, 1♀. Tucumán: Tafí del Valle , 6/i/1970, [Vardy & Arguindeguy], 2♀♀ 2♁♁, { NHMUK }. BRAZIL — Espírito Santo: Santa Leopoldina , 4/iii/1964, [C. Elias], 1♀, { DZUP }. Minas Gerais: Baependi, Parque Estadual da Serra do Papagaio , 8/iv/2008, [F. Silveira], 1♀, { UFMG }; idem, except 9/iv/2008, 2♀♀; idem, except 10/iv/2008, 1♀. Belo Horizonte, COPASA/ Barreiro , 24/ix/1999, [G. Sousa], 1♀, { UFMG }; Parque das Mangabeiras , 5/xii/1996, [J. Damasceno], 1♀, { UFMG }; idem, except 9/v/1997, 1♀. Cássia, Rancho do Popi , 28/iii/1999, [E. Almeida], 6♁♁, { UFMG }. Itajubá , 2/xii/1955, [M. Arié], 1♁, { DZUP }. Juiz de Fora , 11/iii/1985, [M. Garcia], 1♀, { MEUV }. Ouro Preto , 25/i/1985, [Melo, Soares & Morato], 1♁, { MEUV }. Passos , ii/1961, [C. Elias], 1♀ 1♁, { DZUP }; idem, except iii/1961, 11♀♀ 3♁♁; idem, ex- cept iv/1961, 2♁♁; idem, except 20/xi/1961, 1♀ 1♁; idem, except 24/ii/ 1962, 10♀♀ 1♁; 1/iii/1962, 5♀♀; idem, ex- cept 9/iii/1962, 1♀; idem, except 21/iii/1962, 1♀; idem, except iv/1962, 1♀; idem, except 21/v/1962, 1♁; idem, ex- cept 1/vi/1962, 1♀; idem, except 1/xi/1962, 1♁; idem, except 12/xi/1962, 5♁♁; idem, except 24/xii/1962, 1♀ 2♁♁; idem, except 5/i/1963, 1♀ 2♁♁; idem, except 16/i/1963, 1♀ 1♁; idem, except vi/1963, 2♀♀ 1♁; idem, except 24/x/ 1963, 1♀; idem, except 4/ix/1963, 2♀♀ 1♁; idem, except 16/xii/1963, 1♁; idem, except iii/1964, 2♁♁. Patrocínio , 5/x/1965, [C. Elias], 1♁, { DZUP }. Poços de Caldas , 23/xi/1962, [C. Elias], 1♀ 5♁♁, { DZUP }. Viçosa, Universidade Federal de Viçosa , 18/xi/1986, [G. Bastos], 1♀, { MEUV }; idem, except 8/iv/1988, 1♁; idem, except 25/xi/1988, 1♁; idem, except 14/xii/1988, 1♀; idem, except 11/ii/1989, 2♀♀; idem, except 25/ii/1985, 2♀♀ 4♁♁; idem, except 4/iii/1989, 1♁; idem, except 11/iii/1989, 1♀; idem, except 18/iii/1989, 1♀; idem, except 3/xii/1989, 1♁; idem, ex- cept 24/x/1987, [J. Cure], 1♁; idem, except 11/ii/1989, [J. Cure], 1♀; idem, except 18/x/1989, [A. Soares ], 1♀ 2♁♁; idem, except 18/iii/1989, [F. Silveira], 2♁♁, { UFMG }; unspecified locality, 29/iv/1985, [G. Melo ], 1♀, { MEUV }.

Paraná: São Mateus do Sul, UN-SIX/ Petrobrás , 23/i/2011, [R. Kamke], 1♀, {LANUFSC }. Rio Grande do Sul: 29km E of Santana do Livramento , (-30.8039, -55.2609), 14/xi/2016, [Ferrari & Freitas], 3♀♀, { PCYU }. Pelo- tas, 14/v/1958, [C. Biezanko], 1♁, { NHMUK }; idem, except 1/iii/1963, 1♀, { NHMUK }. Santa Catarina: Florianópolis, 12/xi/2007, [R. Kamke], 1♀, {LANUFSC}. Nova Teutônia , 2/xii/1937, [Plaumann], 1♁, { NHMUK }. São Paulo: Campinas , 30/xii/1991, [S. Pedro], 1♀, { RPSP }. PARAGUAY—Alto Paraná: Puerto Bertoni , 2/iv/1909, [A. Bertoni], 1♀, {NHMUK}; idem, except xii/1909, 1♀ . Guairá: Reserva de Recursos Manejados Ybytyruzó , (- 25.9514, -56.2206), 24/i/2007, [E. Willis], 1♁, { PCYU }. Paraguarí: Paraguarí, 4km SE of La Colmena , (-25.8471, -56.8127), 21/i/2007, [E. Willis], 1♁, { PCYU }. URUGUAY—Tucuarembó: 40km NW of Tucuarembó , 2/ii/1963, [J. Bouseman], 2♁♁, { AMNH }; idem, except 10/ii/1963, 1♀ .

Range: ARGENTINA (Buenos Aires, Catamarca, Corrientes, Entre Ríos, La Rioja, Mendoza, Salta) , BRAZIL (Espírito Santo, Minas Gerais, Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Sṳo Paulo) , PARAGUAY (Alto Paraná, Guairá, Misiones, Paraguari), URUGUAY (Tucuarembó). See also Fig. 7 .

Biogeographical distribution: Chacoan dominion (Cerrado, Chacoan and Pampean provinces), Parana dominion (Parana Forest and Araucaria Forest provinces), and South American transition zone (Monte, Puna and Prepuna provinces) at altitudes of 0–2100m a.s.l.

DNA barcode: Available. BOLD: AAI9260 (3♀♀ and 3♁♁). Distance from the nearest neighbour ( C. rugicollis ): 2.89–4.03%.

Floral hosts: Compositae— Baccharis salicina Torr. & A. Gray (Ĵergensen 1912a, 1912b (as B. salicifolia (Ruiz & Pav.) Pers. )), B. pingraea DC. (Ĵergensen 1912b (as B. serrulata (Lam.) Pers. )). Leguminosae— Hoffmanneseggia glauca (Ĵergensen 1912b (as H. falcaria Cav. )). Solanaceae— Physalis sp. ( Friese 1921), Solanum didymum Dunal. ( Lando et al. 2018) .

Comments: Relatively common species widely distributed in southeastern South America.

Colletes argentinus was synonymized with C. rugicollis by Moure & Urban (2002), a decision that was later sustained by other taxonomic treatments of the genus ( Moure et al. 2007, 2012). However, Ferrari & Silveira (2015) examined the primary type specimens of both species (which are deposited at the ZMB) and found morphological differences—for instance, the shape of the hypostomal carina (refer to “Diagnosis” for more details, above)—that allow for easy differentiation. In the present study, barcoded specimens that had previously been identified as either C. argentinus or C. rugicollis with the key provided by Ferrari & Silveira (2015) were assigned different BINs, and later placed in different clusters in the NJ analysis, thus further supporting the revalidation of C. argentinus proposed by those authors.

Even prior to Moure & Urban’s (2002) decision to synonymize the two species, the name C. argentinus had been historically overlooked, especially regarding the Brazilian fauna. As a consequence, there is a great number of specimens from various bee repositories that have been misidentified as C. rugicollis . Therefore, some of the geographical and/or biological data that were originally attributed to C. rugicollis (see below) might, in fact, apply to C. argentinus .

Colletes argentinus , however, may be a junior synonym of C. punctatissimus Schrottky, 1902 , as pointed out before by Ferrari & Silveira (2015). Several attemps to locate the male holotype of C. punctatissimus at the MZSPwhere the specimen was indicated to be deposited ( Moure & Urban 2002; Moure et al. 2007)—did not succeed and it may be lost ( Rasmussen et al. 2009; Ferrari & Silveira 2015; Ramos et al. 2015).

Figures

FIGURE 5. Colletes argentinus Friese, 1908. Female: (A) habitus, lateral view; (C) face, frontal view; (E) habitus, dorsal view. Male: (B) habitus, lateral view; (D) face, frontal view; (F) habitus, dorsal view. Scale bars = 1mm.

FIGURE 6. Dorsal view of the male terminalia of Colletes argentinus. (A) S7; (B) S8; (C) genital capsule. Scale bars = 1mm.

FIGURE 7. Geographical distribution of Colletes argentinus (blue circles), and C. chicoi n. sp. (red stars). Scale bar approxi- mately 250km.

FIGURE 53. Frontal view of head. (A) Supraclypeal area sparsely punctate in Colletes argentinus; (B) supraclypeal area den- sely punctate in C. rugicollis. Scale bars = 1mm.