Augochloropsis (Glyptobasia) bertonii
Creators: name: Celis, Cindy Julieth
name: Melo, Gabriel A. R.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2024
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Halictidae
Augochloropsis
Augochloropsis bertonii

description: Augochloropsis (Glyptobasia) bertonii (Schrottky, 1909)
(Figs 1A, C, D, F; 2A–C, E–F; 3; 4; 5; 6)
Augochlora bertonii Schrottky, 1909: 148. Female syntypes, Paraguay: Alto Paraná, Puerto Bertoni (whereabouts unknown).
Augochlora chloera Moure, 1940: 49. Holotype female, Brazil: São Paulo, Juquiá (DZUP, examined). New synonymy.
Diagnosis. Females of A. bertonii are distinguished from those of A. aenea sp. nov., by the combination of traits of the metapostnotum, with apical margin truncated, giving it a trapezoidal shape, strongly depressed, and entirely delimited by strong marginal carina (Figs. 1F, 3C). Additional features as pronotum with dorsolateral angle slightly notched, produced as a weak acute corner (Figs. 1A; 2C, red arrows); mesoscutum with open (1–2 PD) large punctures (Figs. 1A; 2C) (smaller and denser (<1 PD) in A. aenea sp. nov.) and a bright metallic green, blue or violet coloration (dark coppery in A. aenea sp. nov.) (Figs. 3–4) also characterize this species. Male with green or bluish violet body color (Figs. 5–6), with metapostnotum strongly depressed and S4 without lateral process (male from A. aenea sp. nov. not know).
Remarks. This species is interpreted here as exhibiting variation in body color that for a long time led it to be considered as two different species, A. bertonii and A. chloera. We concluded based on the observation of 172 specimens that it represents a polymorphic species with a bright green color morph (previously named as A. chloera) (Figs. 4–5) and a violet, with blue-green reflections, color morph (named as A. bertonii) (Figs. 3, 6). Schrottky’s (1909) Augochlora bertonii was based on female syntypes described as having a ‘cyanea’ (Latin for dark-blue) body coloration, and with a ‘violaceo–micante’ (Latin for blue-violet) metasoma, from Puerto Bertoni, in Paraguay. Moure’s (1940) Augochlora chloera was based on a female from Juquiá, São Paulo, in southeastern Brazil, with an entirely bright green coloration. Although Moure (1940) pointed out the similarity between his A. chloera and A. bertonii, he limited the differences between them only to their integumental coloration when proposing a new subgenus for this lineage, Glyptobasis, and placed these two species as the sole members of his new taxon. Since then, the two names have been used as referring to separate species in the literature (Moure & Hurd 1987; Moure 2007; Santos 2014; Celis & Cure 2017; Gonçalves et al. 2022).
Our hypothesis suggests a variation with respect to body color in A. bertonii, which ranges from violet with blue reflections to green (see Variation section), the most common morph corresponding to the violet form, 71% (n=123) of the examined material. This violet morph exhibits head and mesosoma bright dark green, with bluish-green to violet reflections, combined with a predominantly violet metasoma (Fig. 3), strongly contrasting with the entirely metallic green coloration shown by the second morph, which represents 28% (n=49) of the examined specimens (Fig. 4). We also observed that four males from Rio de Janeiro (Itatiaia), Paraná (Curitiba), Rio Grande do Sul (Canela) and Santa Catarina States (Orleans) exhibit a bright green body coloration (Fig. 5), corresponding to this second morph, with only two males from Rio de Janeiro (Itatiaia) and Bahia States (no specific location) exhibiting a blue-violet body coloration (Fig. 6).
This intraspecific polychromatism hypothesis is also reinforced by the additional morphological characters shared between both morphs: general body sculpturing, with coarse dense punctures, especially in mesoscutum; metapostnotum and vertical posterior surface of propodeum delimited by a carina and with strong depressed surface. Also, the morphological details of the male genital capsule and metasomal sterna did not exhibit differences.
Augochloropsis bertonii, was originally reported from Paraguay (Alto Paraná Department) and Brazil (Paraná State), but it can also be found in the Brazilian States of Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Rio Grande do Sul in the Atlantic Forest. New records for this species include the Bahia and Santa Catarina States. Both green and violet color morphs extend parallel throughout the entire geographic distribution of the species, from the Rio Grande do Sul to Espírito Santo States, except for the violet morph that extends further north to the Bahia State (Fig. 8). It should be noted that the violet form occurs more frequently in high areas from Atlantic Forest, while the green form prevails on the coast. However, the localities corresponding to the violet and green morphs are very close, and both morphs can be found together in several states, in particular in Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Paraná and Santa Catarina, although, we have not seen the two morphs occurring in the same locality.
Redescription (violet morph). ♀.
Measurements (based on five specimens). Head width: 2.77–2.97 (x̅ =2.90); head length: 1.49–1.75 (x̅ =1.58); clypeus width: 1.39–1.58 (x̅ =1.49); clypeus length: 0.73–0.83 (x̅ =0.75); eye notch width: 0.66–0.76 (x̅ =0.71); supraclypeal length: 0.40–0.43 (x̅ =0.42); alveolo-ocellar distance: 0.63–0.76 (x̅ =0.69); intertegular distance: 2.11– 2.41 (x̅ =2.30); T1 maximum width: 2.97–3.73 (x̅ =3.40); T2 maximum width: 3.10–3.89 (x̅ =3.60); body length: 9.40–10.80 (x̅ =9.96).
Coloration. Mandible brown. Lower paraocular area bluish violet. Frons violet, differing from the remaining greenish blue on most of face in frontal view. Supraclypeal area violet. Clypeus bluish violet with apical semicircular black spot, delimited by weak golden reflections.Genal area bluish green.Scape black.Flagellum brown.Mesoscutum, scutellum and metanotum blackish dull violet. Tegula bluish violet. Mesepisternum and metepisternum green with violet reflections. Propodeum green, violet reflections on lateral surfaces; metapostnotum and lateral angles violet. Fore wing membrane mostly hyaline, apical one-third light brown infumated; pterostigma and venation brown. Hind wing membrane mostly hyaline; apical margin iridescent. Fore, mid and hind legs brown; external surface of tibiae bluish green; tarsi brown; tibial spurs testaceous. T1–T4 mostly violet. Exposed dorsal surface of T5 and pseudopygidial area black. S1–S4 greenish. S5 and S6 brown.
Pubescence. Body mostly covered by dark pubescence dorsally and pale yellowish ventrally. Compound eye with minute hairs. Dorsal margin of mandible with pale yellow bristles. Apical margin of clypeus with row of very long (2–2.5 OD) pale yellow bristles, entire surface covered by long pale yellow bristles. Supraclypeal area with dense, long, yellow setae, intermixed with darker setae; apical third with shorter scattered setae. Lower paraocular area with long (1.5–2 OD), erect, yellow setae, intermixed with darker setae. Frons with very short (<1 OD) yellow setae. Vertex with long (1 OD) darkened setae. Lower gena with long (1.5–2.5 OD), scarce, yellow setae. Scape with short (≤1 OD) yellow setae in the basal region, shorter bristles towards the distal region. F1–F10 setose with white sensilla. Pronotal lobe mostly with white setae. Mesoscutum with short (1 OD), dense, erect, dark setae. Scutellum covered with erect, long (1.5–2 OD), dark setae, intermixed with more erect, longer (3–3.5 OD), dark bristles. Metanotum covered by white tomentose setae, intermixed with erect, long (1.5–2 OD), yellowish setae. Propodeum lateral surface covered by white tomentose setae, intermixed with longer (1.5–2 OD), white setae; posterior vertical surface with short (1–1.5 OD), erect, yellow setae; metapostnotum glabrous. Fore wing with sparse black microtrichia. External margin of coxa, trochanter and femur of fore leg with very long (2.5–4 OD) pale yellow setae, shorter setae (1.5–4 OD) on mid leg, inner margin glabrous. Tibiae and tarsi of fore and mid legs covered mostly by yellow setae, denser in the inner surfaces, external surfaces intermixed with dark bristles. Mesofemoral brush of mid leg yellow. Coxa and trochanter of hind leg with short white setae; femur and inner surface of tibia with long, plumose, white setae, forming a scopa; external surface of tibia with erect, thick, long (1–2 OD) black bristles, basitarsus with dark setae on external surface; denser yellow bristles on inner surface, mediotarsus and disitarsus entirely covered by yellow bristles. Anterior and lateral margins of T1 covered with long (1.5–2 OD) white setae; dorsal surface with scattered, shorter, white bristles. Dorsal surfaces of T2 and T3 covered mostly by long (1.5–2 OD), dense, dark bristles, intermixed with white bristles. Dorsal surface of T4 covered by white tomentose setae, intermixed with long (1.5–2 OD), dense, dark bristles very conspicuous in lateral view. Marginal zones of T1 and T2 minutely hairy; with dense white tomentose setae on T3 and T4. Exposed dorsal surface of T5 and pseudopygidial area covered by erect dark bristles. Posterior margins of T1 and T2 with inconspicuous, short (≤1 OD), uniformly distributed yellowish vibrissae. Discs of S1–S6 with long, dense, yellowish setae, weakly recurved apically.
Sculpture. Clypeus punctate,with dense coarse punctures on basal and lateral margins;integument microtessellate in between; crowded centrally. Supraclypeal area with dense coarse punctures; microreticulate in the apical third. Frons with open coarse punctures. Mesoscutum with open large punctures on disc, integument microtessellate in between; crowded large punctures on anterior and lateral margins. Tegula microtessellate on inner and posterior margin, intermixed with some sparse coarse punctures, smooth on central region. Scutellum with open large punctures. Metanotum with dense coarse punctures. Lateral angle of propodeum smooth; posterior vertical surface with sparse fine punctures. Metapostnotum with weak microreticulation over its entire surface. Dorsal surfaces and marginal zones of T1–T4 with conspicuous open minute punctures, integument smooth in between; denser and slightly coarser punctures on lateral surfaces. Discs of S2–S5 with dense fine punctures and substrigulate surfaces basally.
Structure. Vertex weakly acuminate (1 OD), posterior surface of head, immediately behind ocelli, almost vertical; with weak post-ocellar transverse ridge. Clypeus and supraclypeal area convex. Apex of clypeus strongly prolonged over apical border. Dorsal ridge of pronotum lamellated (<1 TW) and strongly sinuous; with dorsolateral angle weakly notched, produced as an inconspicuous acute corner; pronotal lobe strongly expanded beyond tegula, forming a more acute angle. Mesoscutum with anterior margin broadly rounded, weakly lobed medially. Metapostnotum medially with an elevated crest, strongly depressed, and entirely delimited by strong marginal carina; apical margin truncated, giving it a trapezoidal shape. Hind tibial spur pectinate, with 8–9 teeth, broadened at base.
Redescription (green morph). ♂.
Measurements (based on five specimens). Head width: 2.44–2.71 (x̅ =2.61); head length: 1.32–1.72 (x̅ =1.52); clypeus width: 1.09–1.25 (x̅ =1.17); clypeus length: 0.66–0.76 (x̅ =0.70); eye notch width: 0.66–0.83 (x̅ =0.73); supraclypeal length: 0.30–0.36 (x̅ =0.32); alveolo-ocellar distance: 0.63–0.69 (x̅ =0.66); intertegular distance: 1.72– 2.05 (x̅ =1.85); T1 maximum width: 2.51–2.87 (x̅ =2.77); T2 maximum width: 2.48–2.90 (x̅ =2.77); body length: 7.69–9.72 (x̅ =4.90).
Coloration. Mandible black. Lower paraocular area golden, differing from the remaining green on most of face in frontal view. Frons green. Supraclypeal area golden. Clypeus green with golden reflections on basal and lateral margins. Genal area green. Scape black with weak green reflections. Flagellum black. Mesoscutum, scutellum and metanotum green. Tegula green. Mesepisternum and metepisternum green. Propodeum green, golden reflections on lateral surfaces; metapostnotum and lateral angles green. Fore wing membrane mostly hyaline; pterostigma and venation brown. Hind wing with membrane mostly hyaline; apical margin iridescent. Fore, mid and hind legs green; tarsi black; external surface of basitarsi with green reflections; tibial spurs testaceous. T1–T4, including marginal zones, green. S1–S4 green, with golden reflections.
Pubescence. Body covered by pale whitish pubescence. Compound eye as in female. Mandible, dorsal margin with white bristles. Apical margin of clypeus with sparse, erect, long (1–2 OD), pale yellow bristles, entire surface covered by long dense white bristles. Supraclypeal area entirely covered with dense, long, white setae. Lower paraocular area and frons with long (2–2.5 OD) white setae. Vertex (1–2 OD) with long white setae. Postgena with very long (2–3 OD), dense, white setae. Scape with long (1.5–2 OD) white setae in the entire surface. F1–F11 setose with pale sensilla. Pronotal lobe with white setae. Mesoscutum with short (1–1.5 OD), dense, erect, white setae. Scutellum and metanotum covered by erect, long (2–3 OD), white setae; intermixed with more erect, longer (3–3.5 OD), white bristles. Propodeum and fore wing as in female. External margin of coxa, trochanter and femur of fore leg with very long (1.5–2 OD) white setae, shorter setae (1.5 OD) on mid leg, inner margin glabrous. Tibiae and tarsi entirely covered by whitish bristles, denser on inner surface. Coxa, trochanter, femur and tibia of hind leg covered by short, white setae, without forming a scopa; external surface of tibia and tarsus with erect, thin, long (1.5–2 OD) white bristles; denser yellowish bristles on inner margin. T1 as in female. Dorsal surfaces of T2 to T4 covered by short (1–2 OD), dense, yellow bristles, very conspicuous in lateral view. Marginal zones of T1 and T2 glabrous; with dense tomentose setae on T3. Posterior margins of T1 and T2 with conspicuously long (1 OD), uniformly distributed yellowish vibrissae. Discs of S1–S3 with short, scattered, white bristles, without forming ventral scopa.
Sculpture. Clypeus punctate, with dense large punctures on its entire surface. Supraclypeal area with dense coarse punctures; sparser coarse punctures on apical third, integument smooth in between. Frons with crowded coarse punctures. Mesoscutum and scutellum with crowded large punctures on entire surface. Tegula punctate on inner margin, smooth on central region. Metanotum with crowded coarse punctures. Lateral angle of propodeum with crowded large punctures; posterior vertical surface with dense coarse punctures. Surface of metapostnotum with inconspicuous parallel carinae restricted to lateral ends and strong reticulated in the middle. Dorsal surface of T1–T3 with conspicuous open fine punctures, integument smooth in between; denser and weakly coarser punctures on lateral surfaces. Marginal zones of T1 and T2 smooth, with open minute punctures on T3, restricted to a central longitudinal strip. Discs of S2–S3 with open fine punctures and substrigulate surfaces distally.
Structure. Head, in dorsal view, with a rounder format compared to female, without post-ocellar transverse ridge. Clypeus weakly convex. Supraclypeal area flat, with strong medial projection ending in an acute tip. Apex of clypeus not prolonged over apical border. Dorsal ridge of pronotum as in female, but with pronotal lobe not expanded, forming a more rounded structure. Mesoscutum as in female. Metapostnotum medially with an elevated crest, weakly depressed, and delimited by strong carina only along its posterior margin; apical margin rounded, giving it a semicircular shape. Hind tibial spur serrate, with many minute pointed serrations, not broadened at base.
Variation. In addition to the intraspecific color variation, morphological details were also found to vary within this species. Females: lower paraocular area and external surface of hind basitarsi usually with pale setae in the green morph, dark setae on the violet morph, however, some green morph females also with dark setae at least in lower paraocular area. Vibrissae conspicuously pale yellow to white, in this case becoming almost inconspicuous. Males: the male from Bahia has the dorsal surface of T2 and T3 covered with dark bristles, which are very conspicuous in lateral view (Fig. 2B); these bristles are pale yellow to white in the remaining males (Fig. 2A). Some features of the pronotum are also variable in males, the dorsal ridge varying from sinuous to straight, and the lateral angle strongly notched, forming an acute angle in most specimens, with the male from Santa Catarina State having an unnotched lateral angle. Metapostnotum varying from a triangular appearance with posterior margin centrally arched and with short lateral margins (Fig. 6C), a semicircular appearance with posterior margin rounded, or posterior margin truncated with trapezoidal shape. Punctures on dorsal surface of T1 varying from fine to coarse.
Biology. The species was collected on flowers of Miconia theaezans (Bonpl.) Cogn., Pleroma raddianum (DC.) Gardner (cited as Tibouchina pulchra), Euphorbia sp. (cited as Poinsettia) and Cupania sp. (cited as camboatá by Moure (1943)).
Distribution. Brazil (States of Bahia, Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Paraná, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul); Paraguay (Department of Alto Paraná) (Fig. 8).
Material examined. The female holotype of Augochlora chloera bears the following labels, “ Juquiá \ Est. S. P. \\ XII-1929 \ A. Lane ” “chloëra \ m. \ Det. J. S. Moure 1957”. Although the specimen does not have a type label, it agrees with the data presented in the original description and the second label has a broad black band on its upper margin. This black band on the labels was used by Moure to indicate that the specimen was compared with the type, but in those situations the underside of the label contains the abbreviation “C.W.T.” (meaning “compared with the type”) followed by the depositary institution and the date in which the comparison was made (GAR Melo, unpublished data). The female paratype of A. chloera was also analyzed and bears the following labels, “ Macahé \ garbe x/1909 ” “♀” “PARATYPUS” “ Augochlora \ chloëra n. sp. \ P. Moure det. 39” “ 22.957 ”.
While the syntypes of Augochlora bertonii are presumed lost (Moure & Hurd 1987; Moure 2007), Schrottky’s original description and Moure’s (1940) comments provide diagnostic characters that allow for a confident recognition of the species. We also examined two females from the MNHNP, currently housed at the DZUP, which may be part of the type series. This inference was based on the following evidence: one of those females bears the identification label “ Augochlora \ (Paraugochlorop– \ sis) \ bertonii \ ♀ Schrottky” (Fig. 2E, bottom label), which was written by Schrottky (compare with figure 7 in Rasmussen et al. (2009) containing examples of labels in Schrottky’s handwriting). The second female, in contrast, bears the following labels: “ Pto. Bertoni \ Paraguay \ Coll. Bertoni” “ MNHNP \ A. W. Bertoni \ GG. 23 \ B. Garcete rev” “671” (Fig. 2F), but no identification label. These specimens were recovered by Bolívar Garcete from the original collection of Arnoldo de Winkelried Bertoni, one of the main collections used by Schrottky as a source of biological material for his studies (Garcete-Barrett 1996; Rasmussen et al. 2009). These two females were used to prepare the re-description of A. bertonii in this work.
We also examined two males labelled by Moure as type specimens of his A. chloera. One of them, labelled as allotype, has the following labels: “ Curityba-Paraná \ IV-1941 \ Coll. Claretiano ” “ALOTIPO” “chloera ” (DZUP). The other male, from Itatiaia, has the labels: “♂” “Itatiaia 816m \ E. Rio Brasil \ 24.V.1940 \ J. F. Zikan \\ Poinsettia \ Bliil [?]” “ Augochloropsis \ chloera (M.) ♂ \ P. Moure det. 1943” “ PARATIPO ” “102.443” (MZSP). These two specimens were used by Moure (1943) to describe the male and have no validity as type specimens. Here, these males were also used in the re-description of A. bertonii. The males had their terminalia dissected.
Another 167 specimens of A. bertonii were examined: Violet morph: BRAZIL, Bahia: four females (DZUP), ‘ MARACÁS – Bahia \ BRASIL– 23/11/1964 \ Claudionor Elias’; one male (MNHN): ‘MUSEUM PARIS \ BRÉSIL \ BAHIA \ (EX. COLL.A. DAVID) \ R. OBERTHUR 1903’. Espírito Santo: 33 females (DZUP), ‘ SANTA TERESA \ ES – BRASIL \ 19–X–1964 \ C. Elias leg’; two females (DZUP), with the same data except ‘ 4/12/1966 \ C. T. & C. Elias lg’; one female (DZUP), with the same data except ‘ 4/9/1967 ’; one female (DZUP), with the same data except “ 5/2/1967 ” “Terminal in \ cladistic analysis of \ Augochloropsis \ Santos & Melo ”; two females (DZUP), with the same data except ‘ 6/11/1966 ’; one female (DZUP), with the same data except ‘ 8/11/1967 ’; one female (DZUP), with the same data except ‘21/11/966 ’; one female (DZUP), with the same data except ‘ 26/6/1967 ’; one female (DZUP), with the same data except ‘ 28/1/1967 ’; six females (DZUP), with the same data except ‘ 22/X /966 \ C. & T. Elias leg’; six females (DZUP), ‘ STA. TEREZA – ES \ BRASIL 4–X–64 \ C. Elias leg. ’; one female (DZUP), with the same data except ‘ 7-XII-64 ’; one female (DZUP), with the same data except ‘ 10-XII-64 ’; 29 females (DZUP), ‘ Sta. Teresa – ES \ Brasil 12–X–64 \ C. Elias leg’; one female (DZUP), with the same data except “ 22–V–64 ” “ Augochloropsis \ bertoni ♀\ (Schrottky, 1909) \ L. M. Santos det, 2015”; two females (DZUP), with the same data except ‘ 26–X–64 ’; three females (DZUP), ‘ FUNDÃO – BRASIL \ ES – 19/1/1966 \ C. Elias leg’; one female (DZUP), ‘ COLATINA – ES \ Brasil 25–IV–64 \ C. Elias, LEG’; one female (DZUP), ‘ DOM. MARTINS – E. STO \ BRASIL 16–28/II/66 \ C. Elias leg. ’; one female (DZUP), ‘ SANTA LEOPOLDINA \ ES – BRASIL – 9/9/66 \ C. T. & C. Elias’; two females (DZUP), ‘ S. J. Petrópolis – ES \ Brasil 12–II–64 \ C. ELIAS, – LEG’. Minas Gerais: one female (DZUP), ‘ IBIÁ – BRASIL \ MG– 10/12/1965 \ C. Elias leg.’; one female (DZUP), “ Brasil – Minas Gerais \ Poços de Caldas \ Morro do Ferro \ 12.XI.1963 \ J. Becker e O. Roppa cols” “ Glyptobasia \ bertonii ♀ (Schrottky 1909) \ Det. J. S. Moure 1995”; one female (MZSP), “ Passos \ M. Gerais - Brasil \ III.1964 \ C. T. Elias col.” “ MZUSP ” “ Augochloropsis \ (Paraugochloropsis) \ bertonii (Schrottky) \ J.R.Cure det. 1993”; one female (MZSP), with the same data except ‘ Glyptobasia \ bertonii’; one female (MZSP), “ Pouso Alegre \ M. Gerais - Brasil \ XII.1963 \ F.S. Pereira col.” “ MZUSP ” “ Augochloropsis \ (Paraugochloropsis) \ bertonii (Schrottky) \ J.R.Cure det. 1993”; one female (MZSP), “ Serra caraça \ 1880m \ MG - Brasil - XI- 961 \ Kloss, Lenko, \ Martins & Silva col.” “ Augochloropsis \ bertonii (Schr.) ”; one female (MZSP), with the same data except ‘ Augochloropsis \ chloera Moure’; one female (MZSP), with the same data except “ MZUSP ” “ Augochloropsis \ (Paraugochloropsis) \ bertonii (Schrottky) \ J.R.Cure det. 1993”; one female (MZSP), ‘S. Caraça (Engenho) \ 800m - Minas - XI- 961 \ Kloss, Lenko, \ Martins & Silva col. ’; one female (DZUP), ‘ Brasil, Minas Gerais \ Passa Quatro, Flona \ 22°23′S 44°56′W \ 09.iii.2013 \ M.G. Hermes col.’. Paraná: one female (DZUP), ‘JAGUARIAIVA – PR \ BRASIL – 21/2/1969 \ F. Giacomel leg.’. Rio de Janeiro: one female (DZUP), “ Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, \ Nova Friburgo, \ B. Sans Souci, 1000 m, 22°16′S 42°30′W, \ 13–15.xi.2005, P. Grossi” “A. (Glyptobasia) \ bertoni (Schrottky)” “GM 083”; one female (DZUP), “ Itatiaya – 700m \ E. Rio – Brazil \ 6–XI–1937 ” “ Augochloropsis \ chloera (Moure) \ P. Moure det. 1945”; one male (DZUP), “ Itatiaya – 700m \ 14–II–1933 \ Est. Biológica” “Chloëra \ m. \ Det. J. S. Moure 1957”. Santa Catarina: one female (DZUP), “ N. Teutonia S. C. \ II/ V–1948 \ Fritz Plaumann” “bertonii \ (Schr.) \ Det. J. S. Moure 1957”; one female (DZUP), ‘ Brasilien \ Nova Teutonia \27°11′S 52°23′L \ Fritz Plaumann \ 500–600m \ III 1967 ’. São Paulo: one female (DZUP), ‘RIFAINA-BRASIL \ SP – 28/10/1965 \ C. Elias leg.’ ‘bertoni’; two females (DZUP), ‘ Brasil, São Paulo, \ São Jose Barreiro, \ Serra da Bocaina, \ xi.1968, 1650m, Alvarenga & Seabra’. Bright green morph: BRAZIL, Espírito Santo: one female (DZUP), “ Parque Sooretama \ LINHARES Esp. Santo \ BRASIL V–1953 \ P. A. Teles Col.” “ Augochloropsis \ chloëra \ Moure”. Paraná: one female (DZUP), “ Brasil, Paraná \ Piraquara, 900m, \ 25°31′S 49°00′W \ 1.iii.2008, \ A. Aguiar”; one female (DZUP), with the same data except “ 2.iii.2008, G. Melo” “Terminal in \ cladistic analysis of \ Augochloropsis \ Santos & Melo”; one female (DZUP), ‘ANTONINA PR \ Brasil 21–I–1966 \ Marinoni – Azevedo’; one female (DZUP), “ Brasil, Paraná, Morretes \ Est. Exp. IAPAR \ CO, 25°30′S 48°48′W, \ 13.i.2005, J. Bertolino \ Tibouchina pulchra ” “ Augochloropsis \ sp. 2”; one female (DZUP), with the same data except ‘ 15.xii.2004 ’; one female (DZUP), with the same data except ‘ 18. i.2005 ’; one female (DZUP), ‘ Brasil, Paraná, Turvo, \ 25.0430°S 51.5395°W \ PCH Boa Vista II, FT01, \ 01.iv.2023, G. Paluski, \ Puçá’; one female (DZUP), “DZUP \ 027560” “ Brasil, Paraná, Tibagi, \ Ponto 1LT, 21.xi.2021, 24.9101°S 50.3696°W, 790m, Muniz & Barbosa, Busca ativa”; one female (DZUP), ‘ Brasil, PR, Coronel \ Domingos Soares \ Ponto 2 04.x.2019 \ Sardinha T. L. M. \ A. chloera ♀ ’; one female (DZUP), “1B9” “ Brasil, Paraná, \ Almirante Tamandaré, \ 25.iii.2007, G. A. R. de \ Paula & G. A. R. Melo ”. Rio de Janeiro: one female (DZUP), ‘ S. M. MADALENA \ 750 m Est. Rio \ Brasil VII–1960 \ M. Alvarenga leg.’; one female (DZUP), ‘FLORESTA de TIJUCA \ D. Federal BRASIL \ III.1951 \ C. A. Campos Seabra’. Rio Grande do Sul: one female (DZUP), “9275 H:238 \ F:57” “ S. F. Paula, RS, BR \ Área PUC 28 9 1993 \ leg. Isabel A. Santos ”; one female (MZSP), “São Francisco da \ Paula, RG, 900m \ W. Wilms, col.” “ Augochloropsis \ bertonii \ (Schrottky, 1909) \ det. W. Wilms, 1994” “ Augochloropsis \ chloera ♀ \ L. M. Santos det. 2015”; one female (DZUP), “ Brasilien \ Rio Grande do Sul \ Planalto \ Parque Nonoai \ 13.1.1985 \ D. Wittmann” “ Augochloropsis \ (Glyptobasia) \ chloera Moure, 41 \ Moure det 1986” “Col MCN 90.993”; one male (DZUP), “ Brasilien \ Rio Grande do Sul \ Canela \ IBDF \ 19.2.1984 \ D. Wittmann ” “ Col. MCN \ 65921” “ Augochloropsis \ glyptobasia? \ J. S. Moure det. 1984. São Paulo: one female (DZUP), “ Brasil, SP, S. L. Paraitinga, \ Pq. Est. Serra do Mar, \ 23°24′18′′S 45°15′51′′W, \ 1000m, 13.I.2011, \ V. L. G. Britto ” “Especie 25 \ 7:54 \ 24.7°C / 56% \ Santa Virginia”; one female (DZUP), with the same data except “ 21. xii.2012 ” “ Miconia theaezans, \ Santa Virginia \ número 25”; one female (DZUP), “ Brasil, São Paulo, \ S. L. Paraitinga – 15.XII.2011 \ 23°20′11′′W, 45°08′47′′S ” “Rede entomológica em flores de \ Miconia sp. \ André Rech e Vinicius Brito”; one female (MZSP), “EST. BIOL. BORACEIA \ Salesópolis, S. P. 850 m \ Rabello, col. 13–XII– 60 ” “ Augochloropsis \ chloëra ♀ \ Moure \ L. M. Santos det., 2015”; one female (MZSP), with the same data except “ 5.iv.1966 ” “ Augochloropsis \ chloera ♀ \ L. M. Santos det. 2015”; one female (MZSP), “ Est. Biol. Boracéia \ Salesópolis, SP \ Brasilien \ 20.2.1992 ” “ Augochloropsis \ chloera \ (Moure, 1940) \ det. W. Wilms, 1994” “ Augochloropsis \ chloera ♀ \ L. M. Santos det. 2015”; one female (MZSP), with the same data except ‘ 31.12.1992 ’; one female (MZSP), with the same data except ‘ 25.10.1992 ’; one female (MZSP), with the same data except ‘ 18.2.1992 ’; one female (MZSP), with the same data except ‘ 1.1.1993 ’; one female (MZSP), with the same data except ‘ 12.11.1992 ’; one female (MZSP), with the same data except ‘ 29.3.1992 ’; one female (MZSP), with the same data except ‘ 16.11.1992 ’; one female (MZSP), with the same data except ‘ 8.1.1994 ’; one female (MZSP), with the same data except ‘ 2.5.1993 ’; one female (MZSP), with the same data except ‘ 15.11.1991 ’; one female (MZSP), with the same data except ‘ 30.12.1991 ’; one female (MZSP), with the same data except ‘ 15.11.1992 ’; one male (MZSP), with the same data except “ 21.1.1993 ” “ Augochloropsis \ aff. Bertonii \ R. B. Gonçalves det.” “ Augochloropsis \ chloera ♂ \ L. M. Santos det. 2015”; one female (MZSP), “SITIO BÔA VISTA \ MUN. S. NEGRA S. P. \ 20.II.1943 \ LIMA COL.” “ Chloera ”; one female (MZSP), “ Barueri \ São Paulo - Brasil \ 13-I-1962 \ K. Lenko col.” “ Augochloropsis \ (Glyptobasia) \ chloëra \ Moure”; one female (MZSP), “SP. \ Eng. \ Lefevre. 1200m \ C. Jordão: 22.MAR.1968 \ J. Guimarães, E. Rabello, \ A. Barrobo & L. T. F.” “ Augochloropsis \ chloera ♀ \ L. M. Santos det. 2015”; one male (MZSP), with the same data except “ Augochloropsis \ chloera ♂ \ L. M. Santos det. 2015”. Santa Catarina: one female (DZUP), “ Brasil, Sta. Catarina, \ Orleans, 540 m, \ 28°07′S 49°25′W \ 17.ii.2011, B. Rosa” “ Augochloropsis sp. 3 \ det. B. B. da Rosa ”; one female (DZUP), with the same data except ‘ Augochloropsis \ chloera ♀ \ det. GAR Melo 2011’; one male (DZUP), with the same data except ‘ Augochloropsis \ chloera ♂ \ det. GAR Melo, 2011’; one female (MZSP), “ Córrego Grande \ Florianopolis, SC, Brazil \ 01.iv.2007 \ Josefina Steiner leg.” “ Augochloropsis sp. ♀ \ E. M. Oliveira det. 2008” “Schinus terebinthifolius \ Anacardiaceae \ J. Steiner det. 2007” “ Augochloropsis \ chloera ♀ \ L. M. Santos det. 2015”; one female (MZSP), “ BRASIL \ Rio vermelho \ Sta. Catarina \ xi-51 \ Dirings ” “ Augochloropsis \ chloera ♀ \ L. M. Santos det. 2015”.
description: Published as part of Celis, Cindy Julieth & Melo, Gabriel A. R., 2024, Taxonomic revision of the South American subgenus Augochloropsis (Glyptobasia) (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Halictinae), pp. 431-450 in Zootaxa 5514 (5) on pages 436-443, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5514.5.2, http://zenodo.org/record/13914763