Neopasites
View in CoL
is a Subgenus of
Biastes
Biastes
View in CoL
and
Neopasites
View in CoL
as used previously (e.g., by Michener 2007, Ascher and Pickering 2020; Fig. 2
View Fig
) each comprise five described species from the Nearctic (
Neopasites
View in CoL
) and Palearctic (
Biastes
View in CoL
). Clear diagnostic features to separate the groups using morphology proved difficult to obtain. Michener’s (2007) identification key uses size ratios of the two submarginal cells but this character fails to identify
B. truncatus
View in CoL
(and other
Melittoxena
) as
Biastes
View in CoL
( Fig. 2
View Fig
). In these species, the second submarginal cell is shorter than the first, as in
Neopasites
View in CoL
. The most decisive character used in Michener’s (2007) key is the shape, position and pubescence of the pseudopygidial area on the fifth tergum of females. This character, which is illustrated in Bossert (2019, their Fig. 7
View Fig
), allows the separation of females but is not sufficient to justify the recognition of separate genera under the requirement of natural groups ( Figs. 1
View Fig
and 2
View Fig
). Roig-Alsina (1991) indicated a possible paraphyly of
Biastes
View in CoL
in respect to
Neopasites
View in CoL
because of the pointed sting shape of
Biastes truncatus
View in CoL
. His study found the sting of other examined
Biastes
View in CoL
and
Neopasites
View in CoL
to be bifid apically, thus indicating a paraphyletic
Biastes ( Roig-Alsina 1991)
View in CoL
. It is this exact species (
B. truncatus
View in CoL
) that renders
Biastes
View in CoL
in the old sense paraphyletic in our study ( Figs. 1
View Fig
and 2
View Fig
). Interestingly, the same species was regarded as distinctly different and was transferred into a new genus
Melittoxena
in one of the earliest treatments of the group, nearly 150 yr ago (based on the above mentioned differences in wing venation; Morawitz 1873).
Melittoxena
was synonymized with
Biastes
View in CoL
shortly thereafter ( Radoszkowski 1874, Friese 1895) and gained little subsequent attention in the field. However, it was resurrected by Popov (1933), who uses
Melittoxena
as a subgenus of
Biastes
View in CoL
based on comparative studies of male genitalia and terminal sterna. Despite careful illustrations, this work was not adopted by a broad scientific community either, likely because of language barriers and limited dissemination (but see Proshchalykin and Lelej 2004).
Our integrative assessment of the relationships of
Biastes
View in CoL
reveals the recognition of
Melittoxena
as our preferred approach to solving the problem of the paraphyly of
Biastes
View in CoL
.
Melittoxena
has clear morphological features and is diagnosable in both sexes. Its close relationship to the North American taxa is supported by molecular data, as well as morphological and biological similarities. As far as we know, all North American
Biastes
View in CoL
(subg.
Neopasites
View in CoL
) are brood parasites of
Dufourea
View in CoL
, and so is
B. (Melittoxena) truncatus
View in CoL
, whereas the Old World
Biastes
View in CoL
s. str. use hosts of different genera ( Fig. 2
View Fig
; ‘
Dufourea
View in CoL
clade’).
Biastes (Melittoxena) popovi
View in CoL
, for which hosts have not yet been observed, occurs in areas in which the only rophitine bees are
Dufourea
View in CoL
as well ( Proshchalykin and Lelej 2004).
Lastly, we formally synonymize the North American subgenera
Neopasites
s. str. and
Micropasites
, which were recognized by Michener (2007) for
Neopasites
( Fig. 2
View Fig
). These two groups are both species-poor and very similar in their morphology. The main differences are the slightly larger body size of
Neopasites
and the distinctly reduced maxillary palps of
Micropasites
. Even though these differences are unambiguous, they do not suffice to support monophyly of the two species placed in the nominotypic subgenus
Neopasites
, as this group does not have any distinct apomorphic characters at the subgeneric level. The single distinguishing character of
Micropasites
is potentially a reduction of an ancestral state and could be connected to the overall reduction in body size.
Rhopalolemma
View in CoL
is the Sister Genus to
Townsendiella Members
View in CoL
of the genus
Rhopalolemma
View in CoL
are rarely collected, enigmatic bees with previously unclear phylogenetic relationships. Conflicting phylogenetic signals of immature and adult morphological features render them a seemingly transitional form between
Biastes
View in CoL
and
Townsendiella
View in CoL
. Roig-Alsina (1991) described
Rhopalolemma
View in CoL
based on a single female adult and noted a resemblance with
Townsendiella
View in CoL
, but he also found internal structures, particularly those of the sting apparatus, to be synapomorphic with
Neopasites
View in CoL
. Based on a cladistic analysis of 22 adult morphological characters, he concluded that
Rhopalolemma
View in CoL
is ‘quite divergent, yet obviously a member of [this tribe]’
Biastini
View in CoL
, i.e., of
Biastes
View in CoL
and
Neopasites
View in CoL
as used previously ( Fig. 2
View Fig
). A subsequent study significantly improved our understanding of the biology of
Rhopalolemma
View in CoL
through field observations, the description of a new species from both sexes, and detailed accounts of immature stages ( Rozen et al. 1997). Their cladistic analyses, however, revealed conflicting information regarding the phylogenetic position of the genus. While larval morphological characters support a sister group relationship to
Townsendiella
View in CoL
, adult and oocyte morphology indicate a closer relationship to
Neopasites
View in CoL
.
The molecular evidence presented herein allows us to shed light on this issue. Phylogenomics strongly supports a sister group relationship of
Rhopalolemma
View in CoL
and
Townsendiella
View in CoL
and indicates that larval similarities of these two groups are likely true synapomorphies ( Fig. 2
View Fig
). Adult morphological characters that supported
Rhopalolemma
View in CoL
+
Biastes
View in CoL
previously, such as the absence of a membranous flap on the S6 of female, the presence of a lateral keel on the same structure, and the absence of stipital combs (Roig- Alsina 1991, Rozen et al. 1997) appear plesiomorphic under this topology. However, certain presence/absence characters, such as the loss or reduction of the stipitial comb, have evolved in multiple bee groups and are likely associated with a parasitic lifestyle ( Michener 2007). The
Rhopalolemma
View in CoL
lineage diverged from the MRCA of
Biastes
View in CoL
around 43.0 mya and slightly later (39.6 mya) from
Townsendiella
View in CoL
. This long period provided ample time to acquire morphological and potential convergent change, especially since all these bees use closely related hosts, co-occur in the same habitats, and feed on the same few seasonally abundant floral resources ( Rozen et al. 1997). This applies to
Townsendiella
View in CoL
and
Neolarra
View in CoL
as well, which are the only bees of
Neolarrini
in the new sense which do not all attack Rophitinae ( Fig. 2
View Fig
). Losses and/or reductions of structures could represent adaptive features associated with changing life history traits over the past 46 million years in
Neolarrini
.
Lastly, the placement of
Townsendiella
requires a taxonomic change, since it renders
Neolarrini
in the new sense (and also the former
Biastini
) paraphyletic ( Fig. 2
View Fig
). We compared the two possible options to solve this problem: 1) Raise
Rhopalolemma
to its own tribe
Rhopalolemmini
, representing only two described species and diagnosable by few morphological characters that are largely of internal nature and hard to access. This would have allowed retention of
Townsendiellini
, another monogeneric tribe with only five species, as well as
Biastini
with
Biastes
+
Schwarzia
(now 15 described species). Alternatively, 2) unite all three lineages in a larger tribal concept that provides better diagnosability and avoids oversplitting at tribal level. The cleptoparasitic
Apidae
seem already overly subdivided, as they represent only about 7.9% of all described bee species but nevertheless comprise 27.2% of all bee tribes, several of which are monogeneric (numbers based on data from the Discover Life database, Ascher and Pickering (2020)). We therefore decided to sink the tribe
Townsendiellini
into a larger tribal framework. Evaluating alternative two further revealed a much greater suite of morphological diagnostic characters for adults, mature, and first-instar larvae, as well as eggs, when including the sister group to the former
Biastini
,
Neolarra
(see characters in Fig. 2
View Fig
). Since
Neolarra
is also the sole representative of its tribe
Neolarrini
, we argue that consolidation of these lineages into a comprehensive tribal framework better represents their phylogenetic relationships and will facilitate future research on this group.
The tribe
Neolarrini
in this new sense can be diagnosed by multiple characters that can be expected to be apomorphic or plesiomorphic ( Fig. 2
View Fig
). However, polarization of these characters cannot be sufficiently assessed without a comprehensive analysis with phylogenomic data of a much wider sampling of nomadine taxa. Several diagnostic characters are likely shared with bees of the tribe
Hexepeolini
, to which the tribe
Neolarrini
may be most closely related ( Policarová et al. 2019). In contrast, other characters seem to be shared with phylogenetically much more distantly related cleptoparasitic tribes, such as Caenoprosopidini, which also have robust pedicels and only two submarginal cells. These characters therefore almost certainly evolved convergently and may be related to parasitism or miniaturization. In the particular case of distinguishing
Neolarrini
from
Hexepeolini
, these characters have practical importance despite their likely plesiomorphic nature.