Colletes annapurnensis Kuhlmann, 2002

Ferrari, Rafael R., Niu, Ze-Qing, Kuhlmann, Michael, Zhang, Dan & Zhu, Chao- Dong, 2021, The cellophane bees of Colletes Latreille (Hymenoptera: Colletidae) from Xizang (Tibet), China, Zootaxa 5022 (1), pp. 1-72 : 39-41

Colletes annapurnensis Kuhlmann, 2002

( Figs 24B , 25A–F )

Colletes annapurnensis Kuhlmann in Kuhlmann & Dorn 2002: 103 (holotype ♂: Nepal, Annapurna Region , Pisang-Umgebund [OÖLM]).

Colletes annapurnensis ; Niu et al. 2014b: 463 ; Ascher & Pickering 2021.

Diagnosis. The following combination of features may be used to tell females C. annapurnensis apart from those of the other Colletes species found in Xizang, except C. sanctus : bees relatively large (HW 3.5–3.6 mm), malar area as long as basal width of mandible and mesoscutal black hairs absent. However, females of the two species can be differentiated by the hind basitarsus with pale setae in C. annapurnensis (hind basitarsus with dark setae in C. sanctus ) and the metasoma with well-defined apical bands in C. annapurnensis (metasoma without apical bands in C. sanctus ). The combination of malar area 1.5× as long as basal width of mandible, paraocular area with a longitudinal former (S5 with mostly subappressed sparse setae in the latter) and the S7 with subtrapezoidal apicolateral lobes in the former (S7 with subrectangular lobes in the latter).

Material examined. Published records — CHINA, Xizang: Mainling Xian, Paiqu , 29.50 94.80, 3000 m, 20.vii.1983, YH Han, 1 ♀ . NEPAL, Annapurna Region: Pisang-Umgebund , 28.6150 84.1516, 3200 m, 15.viii.2000, P. Hartmann, 1 ♀ 1 ♂, [ RCMK] .

New records —none.

Distribution. Western China (Xizang) and western Nepal (Annapurna Region).

DNA barcode. Unavailable.

Floral hosts. Unknown.

Remarks. Colletes annapurnensis was described as being remarkably similar to C. laevigena , from which it could be differentiated by an overall (but particularly on T1) denser, shallower and relatively poorly-delimited punctation ( Kuhlmann & Dorn 2002: 103). The authors also noted that C. laevigena is somewhat slender than C. annapurnensis , nevertheless, the lack of more robust morphological differences between the two species led them to raise the possibility that the latter would be but a geographically restricted variation of the former. However, we herein report the following clear differences exhibited by their male terminalia: the gonostylus of C. annapurnensis is much shorter and broader ( Fig. 25E ) than that of C. laevigena ( Fig. 26E ); also, the apicolateral lobe of the male S7 is almost as long as broad in C. annapurnensis ( Fig. 25F ) but considerably longer than broad in C. laevigena ( Fig. 26F ). Thus, the combination of the diagnostic features listed by Kuhlmann & Dorn (2002) coupled with the ones found by us seems to leave no doubt that the two are not conspecific.

Figures

FIGURE 24. Confirmed geographic records of the Colletes species found in Xizang based on the examined material. (A) C. xuechengensis; (B) C. annapurnensis; (C) C. laevigena; (D) C. linzhiensis.

FIGURE 25. Colletes annapurnensis Kuhlmann, 2002. Female: (A) habitus, lateral view; (C) face, frontal view. Male: (B) habitus, lateral view; (D) face, frontal view; (E) genital capsule, lateral view; (F) S7, ventral view. Scale bars: (A–D) 2 mm; (E,

FIGURE 26. Colletes laevigena Noskiewicz, 1936. Female: (A) habitus, lateral view; (C) face, frontal view. Male: (B) habitus, lateral view; (D) face, frontal view; (E) genital capsule, lateral view; (F) S7, ventral view. Scale bars: (A–D) 2 mm; (E, F) 1