Megalopta amoena
Creators: name: Santos, L. M.
name: Melo, G. A. R.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2014
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Halictidae
Megalopta
Megalopta amoena

description: Megalopta amoena (Spinola 1853)
(Figures 2F, 5D, 7C, 8B, 8F, 9B, 14D)
Halictus amoenus Spinola, 1853: 85. Holotype male, Brazil: Pará (MSNT, examined through photographs).
Megalopta idalia Smith, 1853: 84. Syntypes, Brazil: Amazonas and Pará, Santarém (BMNH, not examined).
Halictus argoides Vachal, 1904:115. Holotype male, Guyana (MNHP, not examined).
Megalopta ochrias Vachal, 1904:115. Holotype male, Brazil: Goiás, Jataí (MNHP, not examined).
Megalopta ecuadoria Friese, 1926: 127. Lectotype female, Ecuador: Guayas, Guayaquil (ZMB, examined).
Megalopta centralis Friese, 1926: 128. Lectotype male, Guatemala (ZMB, examined).
Megalopta gibbosa Friese, 1926:128. Holotype male, Ecuador: Guayas, Guayaquil, (ZMB, examined). New synonymy.
Megalopta lecointei Friese, 1926:122. Lectotype female, presently designated, Brazil: Pará, Óbidos (ZMB, examined). New synonymy.
Megalopta vigilans Cockerell, 1923:1. Holotype male, uncertain type locality (AMNH, examined through photographs). New synonymy.
Type material examined
In addition to the type material listed above, we also examined one female and one male syntypes of Megalopta lecointei in the ZMB collection. The female, with the labels ‘Obidos\ 1904\ P. Lecointe’, ‘ Brazil \ Estado\ Pará’, ‘ Megalopta ♀ \ lecointei Ducke \ n.sp.’, ‘ Megalopta \ lecointei Ducke \ n.sp.’, ‘Coll. \ Friese’ ‘Zool. Mus.\ Berlin’, ‘Type’, is here designated lectotype. The male paralectotype bears the labels ‘Obidos\ 1904\ P. Lecointe’, ‘ Brazil \ Estado do\ Pará’, ‘ Megalopta ♂ \ lecointei Ducke \ n.sp.’, ‘Coll. \ Friese’, ‘ Megalopta \ lecointei\ H. Friese 19 Ducke’ ‘Typus’.
Additional examined material
(833♀, 155♂). See Appendix 2.
Diagnosis
The female differs from those of M. chaperi, M. guimaraesi and M. mura sp. n. by posterior upper margin of metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process (Figure 5D) and by the smooth basal area of metapostnotum lacking rugulosities (Figure 2F). The male is distinguished from that of M. chaperi by the metanotum in dorsal view with sparse pilosity and by the short basal area of metapostnotum, its length at least 0.8× that of metanotum (Figure 7C); from M. guimaraesi and M. mura sp. n. by F6–F11 about as wide as basal flagellomeres (Figure 8F), central area of basal area of metapostnotum without longitudinal rugulosities (Figure 7C), S3 without longitudinal carina (Figure 8B) and S4 basally with pilosity, its apical margin slightly notched laterally (Figure 9B).
Description
(1) Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth. (2) Labral elevation sometimes with flattened surface. (3) Clypeus with surface between punctures on basal and central area smooth. (4) Central portion of supraclypeal with dense punctation, punctures separated by <1 pd. (5) Antennae reddish brown. (6) Upper frons flat, not strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus. (7) Ocellocular distance smaller than the F1 length. (8) Mesoscutum adjacent to parapsidial line densely punctured, punctures contiguous, punctation becoming sparser towards mesoscutal lip (<1 pd). (9) Scutellum with posterior margin raised in relation to anterior margin of metanotum. (10) Metanotum with integument, in oblique view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity. (11) Basal area of metapostnotum often reddish brown (sometimes metallic green), its length 0.8–1× that of metanotum, often lacking longitudinal rugulosities (Figure 2F), but rarely with weak grooves. (12) Mesepisternum with contiguous punctation. (13) Metepisternum often with dense pilosity, integument not visible through pilosity, posterior upper margin unmodified, lacking a velvety process (Figure 5D). (14) T1 with dorsal surface of disc sparsely punctured (≥ 1 pd), posterior marginal zone smooth between punctures. Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum reddish brown, F1–F11 not differing in diameter (Figure 8F); F2 about as long as F3; F6–F11, in anterior view with the anterior and posterior margins depressed, in posterior view with basal portion levelled with remaining surface. (17) Metanotum in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity (Figure 7C). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum as in the female (Figure 7C). (19) Metepisternum with dense pilosity, integument not visible through pilosity, posterior upper margin modified into a conspicuously large process covered with velvety pilosity, its diameter at least 0.75 × the tegula length. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae shorter than the summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus absent, the central and apical margin sinuous and posterolateral margin sinuous, not notched (Figure 8B). (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process triangular in lateral view; basal portion with dense short pilosity; posterolateral margin sinuous, the apical margin without a set of dense hairs (Figure 9B).
Measurements
Approximate body length: (9.2–12.9); maximum width of head: (2.7–3.6); intertegular distance: (2.7–4.3); length of forewing with the tegula: (8.2–10.4).
Comments
Several females exhibit metallic green highlights in the mesoscutum and some males have a metallic green basal area of the metapostnotum.
Distribution
BRAZIL. Acre: Acrelândia, Cruzeiro do Sul, Rio Branco. Alagoas: Ibateguara. Amapá: Ferreira Gomes, Oiapoque. Amazonas: Caruari, Japurá, Fonte Boa, Itacoatiara, Lábrea, Manaquiri, Manaus, Marãa, Novo Airão, Novo Aripuanã, Presidente Figueiredo, Santo Antônio do Iça, Tabatinga, Tefé. Bahia: Alagoinhas, Belmonte, Brejões, Lençois, Salvador, Senhor do Bonfim. Ceará: Maranguape. Distrito Federal. Espírito Santo: Conceição da Barra. Goiás: Alto Paraíso de Goiás, Jataí, Planaltina. Maranhão: Balsas, Caxias, Imperatriz. Mato Grosso: Alto Araguaia, Aripuanã, Barra dos Garças, Chapada dos Guimarães, Canarana, Juruena, Nova Mutum. Mato Grosso do Sul: Bataguaçu, Bonito. Minas Gerais: Belo Horizonte, Berizal, Bocaiúva, Buritis, Caratinga, Dionísio, Ipanema, Jaboticatubas, Marliéria, Minas Novas, Morada Nova de Minas, Paracatu, São Gonçalo do Rio Abaixo, Três Marias, Unaí, Viçosa. Pará: Acará, Alenquer, Altamira, Aveiro, Belterra, Bujaru, Capitão Poço, Maracanã, Medicilândia, Melgaço, Monte Alegre, Oriximiná, Santarém, São João de Pirabas, Tucuruí, Vigia. Paraíba: João Pessoa, Mamanguape, Maturéia. Pernanbuco: Camaragibe, Igarassu. Rio de Janeiro: Macaé, Nova Iguaçu, Rio de Janeiro. Rio Grande do Norte: Baia Formosa, Natal. Rondônia: Itapuã do Oeste, Ji-Paraná, Ouro Preto do Oeste, Porto Velho. Roraima: Amajari, Pacaraima. São Paulo: Alvinlândia, Bauru, Caraguatatuba, Luís Antônio, Miracatu, Nova Europa, Sete Barras. Sergipe: Santa Luzia do Itanhy. Tocantins: Pindorama do Tocantis. ECUADOR. Guayas: Guayaquil. GUATEMALA. GUYANA. Upper Demerara-Berbice: Linden.
NICARAGUA. Masaya: Ticuantepe. PANAMA. PERU. Loreto: Maynas.
SURINAME. Brokopondo: Brokopondo. Para: Zuid. Paramaribo: Paramaribo. Sipaliwini: Coeroeni, unknown locality. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Tunapuna / Piarco: Curepe. VENEZUELA: Miranda: Curupao (Figure 14D).
description: Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 605-608, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455