Centris bucephala Friese, 1899

Vivallo, Felipe, 2020, Species of the bee genus Centris Fabricius, 1804 described by Heinrich Friese (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Zootaxa 4820 (2), pp. 231-259 : 251-252

Centris bucephala Friese, 1899

Centris bucephala Friese, 1899: 42 , 43. Junior synonym of C. langsdorfii Blanchard, 1840 ( Moure & Seabra 1960).

Type data: Friese (1899) described this species based on specimens of both sexes collected in the Brazilian states of Espírito Santo, Pará and Minas Gerais. The type series is housed at AMNH, MNHP and ZMB. The female deposited in this latter collection is here designated the lectotype. The specimen has the following data label: [green label] Minas Geraës Brasil 1897 ex. coll. Fruhstorfer [printed]\ Centris bucephala n. sp. [handwritten] det. Friese 1898 [printed]\ [red label] Type [printed]\ Coll. Friese [printed]\ white label with red lateral margins] LECTOTYPE Centris bucephala Friese, 1899 [handwritten]\ desig. Melo, 2016 [printed]\ http://coll.mfn-berlin.de/u/ 58fa40 QR code [printed] ( ZMB). Paralectotype male with the following data label: [green label] Minas Geraës Brasil 1897 ex. coll. Fruhstorfer [printed]\ Centris bucephala Fr. ♂ [handwritten] det. Friese 1898 [printed]\]\ Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Dept. Invert. Zool. No. [printed] 26438 [handwritten] ( AMNH). Paralectotype female with the following data label: [black rimmed] Museum Paris Brésil (Para) Reiche 769-36 [printed]\ Centris bucephala Friese ♀ type! [handwrit-ten] det. Friese 1898 [printed]\ Centris langsdorffi Blanch. [handwritten] R. du Buysson det. 1901 [printed]\ type? [handwritten]\ langsdorfii Blanch. [indecipherable, handwritten]\ Centris langsdorfii Lev. (MNHP) . According to the original description, the syntype from Espírito Santo is housed at HNHM but it was not found in that collection. The current condition and depository of this paralectotype are unknown.

Type locality: Brazil: Minas Gerais state (“Minas Geraës”) .

Comments: This is a relatively rare species, not always easy to find in collections. It was correctly interpreted by Moure et al. (2007).