Lithurgus atratus Smith

Gonzalez, Victor H., Engel, Michael S. & Griswold, Terry L., 2013, The lithurgine bees of Australia (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae), with a note on Megachile rotundipennis, Journal of Melittology 2013 (11), pp. 1-19 : 12

Lithurgus atratus Smith

( Figs. 23–24 )

Lithurgus atratus Smith, 1853: 145 . Lectotype (new designation): NHML No. 17.a.2094; ♀, India. Lithurgus dentipes Smith, 1853: 146 . Neotype (new designation) : NHML; ♂, [ Australia?]; synonymy by inference from Lieftinck (1939).

DIAGNOSIS: This species is most similar to L. atratiformis from which it can be distinguished primarily by the smaller body size (vide supra).

COMMENTS: Lithurgus atratus was described from four females and no holotype was designated. To stabilize the name, one of these females is here designated as lectotype. The label data for this specimen are as follow: Type // BM. TYPE HYM. 17.a.2094 // atratus Type Sm [handwritten] // Lithurgus atratus Type Smith [handwritten] // Lectotype, Lithurgus atratus Smith des. V.H. Gonzalez, M.S. Engel & T. Griswold ♀.

Lithurgus dentipes was likely described from a single male from “ New Holland ” ( Australia), as there is no mention of any other specimens in Smith’s (1853) original description. Thus, such a male should be considered the holotype. Cockerell (1930: 207) indicated that he examined the holotype of this species at the NHML and commented on its resemblance with L. atratus . However, without further explanation, Michener (1965: 185) pointed out that the specimen at NHML, probably the same one examined by Cockerell, was not the true type of L. dentipes . In Smith’s 1853 publication, the marginal annotation “BM” (today NHML), next to the species description, has been interpreted by some authors as indication that the actual type was found there, but it appears that what Smith really meant was that the species merely was represented in the museum’s collection ( Baker, 1993: 11). Also, while quoting Michener’s statement in her catalogue of the bees from Australia, Cardale (1993: 240) indicated that in 1988 this specimen could not be located at NHML. Baker (1993), who studied in detail the type material of Smith, did not comment on the identity of the type of L. dentipes . Thus, as of today, the whereabouts of the type of L. dentipes are unknown and a taxonomic action is required to stabilize this name. Herein, we designate as neotype a male specimen from Smith’s collection that matches the original description of L. dentipes ( Fig. 25 ). This male is probably the same specimen examined by both Cockerell and Lieftnick. It bears three labels ( Fig. 25 ): one of them indicates that it was received by the NHML in 1899 as a gift of Mrs. Farren White; another says “ Lithurgus atratus, Sm ”, probably added by Cockerell, as we can infer from the handwriting and the comments he made on the specimen he studied ( Cockerell, 1930: 207); and a label added by Lieftnick suggesting that this specimen might be the type of L. dentipes ( Fig. 25 ). We do not know when or where this specimen was collected because there is no collection data associated with it; however, it is known that a significant portion of Smith’s exotic material was kept in White’s collection until 1899, when it was donated to the NHML ( Baker, 1993: 53). Therefore, it is likely that this specimen might have been collected in Australia (or somewhere in the region) well before 1879, the year Smith passed away. Perhaps because of the issues explained above, Michener (1965) thought of the male specimen deposited at the NHML as a false type, if this specimen was the same one examined by him. Another possibility is that Michener (1965) examined a female specimen that was erroneously labeled at some point as the type of L. dentipes (as type Hym. 17a. 2095). We might never know which was the case, but given that the male specimen matches the original description of L. dentipes , it comes from the Smith collection, and it was examined by both Cockerell and Lieftnick, we have chosen it as neotype. It is impossible to say whether this is the specimen Smith based his description upon and therefore it cannot be considered a holotype, thusly necessitating the neotype designation. The label data for this specimen are as follow: Smith coll., pres. by Mrs. Farren White, 99-303 // Lithurgus atratus Sm [handwritten] //? type of dentipes Sm which is a ♂ Lieftinck // Neotype, Lithurgus dentipes Smith des. V.H. Gonzalez, M.S. Engel & T. Griswold ♂.

Figures

Figure 25. Photomicrographs of labels and neotype male of Lithurgus dentipes Smith (= L. atratus Smith).

Figures 23–24. Photomicrographs of lectotype female of Lithurgus atratus Smith. 23. Lateral habitus. 24. Facial view.