Glyptapis sp.

ENGEL, MICHAEL S., 2001, A Monograph Of The Baltic Amber Bees And Evolution Of The Apoidea (Hymenoptera), Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2001 (259), pp. 1-1 : 1-

Glyptapis sp. indet.

MATERIAL: One specimen. Non­type. Female, MB. I.1944 ( ZMHB) labeled: ‘‘Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Paläontologisches Museum, Inv. Nr. MB. I.1944 ’’ // ‘‘ Glyptapis sp. indet., det. M. S. Engel’’.

Glyptapis sp. indet.

MATERIAL: One specimen. Non­type. Female, Nr. 577/1 ( CHFG) labeled: ‘‘Nr. 577/ 1, Bittf. [Bitterfeld] Bernstein’’ // ‘‘ Glyptapis sp. indet., det. M. S. Engel’’.

Genus Ctenoplectrella Cockerell Ctenoplectrella Cockerell, 1909a: 314 . Type spe­

cies: Ctenoplectrella viridiceps Cockerell,

1909a, monobasic. Cockerell, 1909b: 19. Zeu­

ner and Manning, 1976: 172.

DIAGNOSIS: Among Baltic amber Megachlinae Ctenoplectrella is most similar to Glaesosmia but differs by the longer supraclypeal area, narrow gena, and more orthogonal second abscissa of Rs.

DESCRIPTION: Mandible with three teeth along apical margin, upper tooth separated from lower two teeth by a short, gently concave cutting­edge (fig. 40). Malar space short, much shorter than basal mandibular width. Clypeus flat; not extending below lower tangent of compound eyes (fig. 40). Hypostomal ridge carinate, anterior angle rounded. Subantennal sutures longer than antennal socket diameter. Compound eyes bare (fig. 40); compound eye broader than gena in lateral view; inner margins straight and slightly converging below. F1 slightly longer than F2; length of F2 approximately equal to that of F3. Posterior margin of vertex gently concave. Preoccipital area rounded. Mesoscutum and scutellum not coarsely sculptured; mesoscutal anterior border broadly rounded (fig. 45); median line moderately impressed; parapsidal lines faintly impressed and linear; tegula oval; scutellum low, weakly convex, not overhanging metanotum, anterior margin without notches; metanotum slightly inclined but generally not far off from horizontal (fig. 46); anterior and posterior borders of metepisternum converging ventrally and meeting one another at point of mesocoxal base; propodeum not strongly sculptured. Claws with inner tooth, inner tooth shorter than outer (fig. 42); arolium present (fig. 42); outer apex of mesotibia without spine; two metatibial spurs, spurs serrate. Basal vein strongly arcuate; second abscissa Rs approximately orthogonal to M (figs. 41, 43). No apparent maculations on integument.

COMMENTS: This genus has long been as­ sociated with the apine genera Ctenoplectra Kirby (In Kirby and Spence, 1826) and Ctenoplectrina Cockerell (1930b) , together forming the tribe Ctenoplectrini . Oddly, the unity of Ctenoplectrella with Ctenoplectrini seems to be simply based upon two entirely unfounded criteria, 1. the name chosen by Cockerell (1909a), which suggests some affinity between the groups ( Ctenoplectrella is a diminutive form of Ctenoplectra ); and 2. an anecdotal comment by Cockerell (1909b) who said (p. 13), ‘‘Their [ Glyptapis and Ctenoplectrella ] nearest relative in the modern fauna appears to be Ctenoplectra . ..,’’ but provided no characters to support such a relationship. Indeed, the wing venation of Ctenoplectrella shares a superficial similarity to that of some Ctenoplectrini . Unfortunately, the similarity between the two groups ends at this point (detailed above and further below). The Ctenoplectrini was originally proposed as a family by Cockerell (1930a), later moved into the Melittidae as a subfamily (Michener, 1944), resurrected as a family intermediate between short­ and longtongued bees by Michener and Greenberg (1980), only to be later recognized as a de­ rived group of Apinae where it is currently placed (Roig­Alsina and Michener, 1993; Michener, 2000a). The placement of Ctenoplectrella has generally followed that of Ctenoplectra (e.g., Zeuner and Manning, 1976; Michener and Greenberg, 1980), once again, presumably owing to the common derivation of their names and Cockerell’s comment rather than any shared characteristics. Zeuner and Manning (1976) followed Cockerell’s assertion of affinity with Ctenoplectra and placed Ctenoplectrella and Glyptapis in Ctenoplectrinae, at that time in the Melittidae (sensu Michener, 1944) . It is, unfortunately, apparent that neither of these authors had actually seen specimens of the latter two genera. For instance, Zeuner and Manning (op. cit.) characterize these groups as having the inner metatibial spur modified as in Ctenoplectra ; namely, broadened basally with numerous, elongate teeth, as well as having a pygidial plate in females. Although the holotype for Ctenoplectrella is lost (a neotype is designated below), the types of Glyptapis have survived in the Institut und Museum für Geologie und Paläontologie, Göttingen and none of these characters are present in Glyptapis (nor in the neotype of Ctenoplectrella ). Moreover, these distinctive characters are never once mentioned by Cockerell (1909b) who was quite adept and would undoubtedly have noticed these peculiar features. Zeuner and Manning (1976) do not provide descriptions for these taxa, instead referring to the original works, once again suggesting that Zeuner and Manning did not have the opportunity to see specimens of these taxa before their untimely deaths. The type of Ctenoplectrella viridiceps was certainly not available to Zeuner and Manning since it was lost during World War II. The specimen here considered as the neotype for Ctenoplectrella agrees in every respect with Cockerell’s description and, of particular importance, with his figures (especially in the shape of the pterostigma, which is quite distinctive). I am therefore confident that the Ctenoplectrella of Cockerell is the same as my own.

Ctenoplectrella differs from Ctenoplectrini (Apidae) by the flat clypeus (not bent posteriorly at the apicolateral margins), the coarsely serrate inner metatibial spur, the absence of a pygidial plate, the broadened man­ dible that is reminiscent of the Megachilinae , the presence of a true metasomal scopa, the strongly arcuate basal vein, the absence of hairs on the metapostnotum, and the absence of a metabasitibial plate, among numerous other characters.

The absence of a preepisternal groove, the shortened jugal lobe, and the fully exposed mesocoxa are all characteristic of Melittidae + long­tongued bees, while most Apidae have the lateral portions of the clypeus strongly bent posteriorly, a feature absent in Megachilidae and Melittidae (as well as Ctenoplectrella and Glyptapis ; unobservable for Glaesosmia ). Among the Megachilinae , however, Ctenoplectrella is remarkable for the slanting metanotum and the broad labrum (the latter plesiomorphic trait shared with Glyptapis ).