Tetragonula praeterita (Walker 1860)

Rasmussen, Claus, 2013, Stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini) of the Indian subcontinent: Diversity, taxonomy and current status of knowledge, Zootaxa 3647 (3), pp. 401-428 : 414

Tetragonula praeterita (Walker 1860)

( Figs 5 a–i)

Trigona praeterita Walker 1860: 305 –306: Lectotype (BMNH 17b.1185, worker): examined, “63 / 52”, “ Type ” (green border), “ praeterita / W.”, “ Trigona ”, “B.M. TYPE / HYM. / 17b.1185” (taxonomy). In addition “ LECTOTYPE Trigona praeterita Walker Design. JS Moure 1961 / C Rasmussen 2013”; Type locality: SRI LANKA.

Provenance: Francis Walker (1809–1874) only stated that the specimen came from Sri Lanka (then Ceylon). The label code indicates that the type specimen was purchased by the Natural History Museum in London as lot 52 in 1863. Unfortunately the register only indicates that this lot, containing 116 Hymenoptera from Sri Lanka, was presented to the museum by the Entomological Society and included the types described by Walker in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History during 1858, 1859 and 1860. The original collector or the type locality can therefore not currently be further traced.

Lectotype: Walker (1860) did not state how many specimens he saw of T. praeterita . In the case of additional type specimens, it is therefore necessary to designate a lectotype to stabilize the future use of the name. However, as Moure (1961) already referred to the above specimen as the holotype, the ICZN Article 74.6 (ICZN 1999) allows the inference by Moure (1961) as a valid lectotype designation, as the original description did not imply syntypes.

Notes on the type: The type is glued with the entire ventral side adhered to the point mount. The lower part of the face is not clearly visible. In addition, it appears that the specimen was conserved in alcohol first, as the compound eyes are deflated rendering the head width measurements smaller.

Comments: Tetragonula praeterita was first synonymized under T. iridipennis by Schwarz (1937), although Schwarz noticed that the description indicated a larger species (2.5 English lines in body length and 4 lines in wing length equals 5.3 mm and 8.4 mm, respectively). As the specimen otherwise agrees with the description and the label information, and the register is consistent with the interpretation that this specimen is a type specimen seen and described by Walker, the mistake in measurements must be attributed to the general standard and brevity of Walker’s scientific work (Evenhuis 2011). The synonymy of T. praeterita under T. iridipennis was later followed by Moure (1961) upon examination of the type and by Sakagami (1978) without examining the type.

Figures

FIGURE 5. Tetragonula praeterita (Walker): lectotype of Trigona praeterita. 5 A. Habitus, dorsal view. 5 B. Upper frontal view of head, notice from previous photo that the specimen is glued directly to the pin mount. 5 C. Habitus, left lateral view. 5 D. Genal area and lower face, including mandibles. 5 E. Habitus, right lateral view. 5 F. View towards propodeum. 5 G. Outer view of left hind leg. 5 H. Inner view of left hind leg. 5 I. Labels (“ prateria W ” is written on front and “ d) Specimen ” is written on rear of same label).