Colletes petropolitanus Dalla Torre 1896
Creators: name: Ferrari, Rafael R.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2019
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Colletidae
Colletes
Colletes petropolitanus

description: Colletes petropolitanus Dalla Torre, 1896
(Figs. 14, 36, 37, 46B, 46D, 48B, 54B)
Colletes senilis Smith, 1879: 3 (junior homonym of Colletes senilis Eversmanm, 1852); Cockerell 1912: 565.
Lectotype ♀ examined. Designated by Moure & Urban (2002: 17). (NHMUK).
Colletes petropolitanus Dalla Torre, 1896: 43 (new name for Colletes senilis Smith (not Eversmann)); Schrottky 1902: 346, 1907: 6; Ducke 1910a: 80, 1910b: 44; Cockerell 1917a: 438; Moure 1942: 296, 1948: 313, 1949: 437; Roig-Alsina 1991: 259; Cure et al. 1992: 230; Moure & Urban 2002: 17; Silveira et al. 2002: 155; Steiner et al. 2006: 7, 2010: 23; Moure et al. 2007: 686; Silva et al. 2007: 90; Westerkamp et al. 2007: 281; Carvalho & Oliveira 2010: 48; Gonzalez et al. 2012: 2929; Moure et al. 2012; Rasmussen 2012: 21; Ferrari & Silveira 2015: 266; Luz et al. 2016: 522; Lima & Silvestre 2017: 11; Ascher & Pickering 2018.
Colletes catulus Vachal, 1904: 26; Friese 1910: 649, 1912: 367; Schrottky 1913: 236; Rasmussen 2012: 21. Synonymy proposed by Moure (1949: 437).
Holotype ♁ examined. (MNHP).
Colletes inflatus Vachal, 1909: 49; Cockerell 1913: 185; Rasmussen 2012: 31. Synonymy proposed by Moure (1949: 437).
Lectotype ♀ examined. (MNHP). [hereby designated]
Colletes speculiventris Cockerell, 1917a: 438. Synonymy proposed by Moure (1949: 437).
Lectotype ♁ lost. Designated by Moure & Urban (2002: 17). (USNM).
Diagnosis: The female of C. petropolitanus can be easily recognized by ventral surface of mesosoma completely obscured by remarkably dense pubescence, and posterior hind tibial spur pectinate. The male can be diagnosed through the combination of clypeal mid-longitudinal area not depressed, and malar area very short (~0.4x as long as basal depth of mandible). Colletes petropolitanus is most similar to C. altimontanus, and in both species the mesosoma is covered with off-white and black hairs intermixed, the tegula is dark-brown and the forewing has a hyaline membrane and dark-brown venation. However, the two species can be differentiated from each other by labrum with mid concavity not margined laterally by longitudinal ridges in C. petropolitanus (labral concavity margined laterally by longitudinal ridges in C. altimontanus); clypeus without mid-longitudinal depression in C. petropolitanus (clypeus with mid-longitudinally depression in C. altimontanus); and T2–T5 discs without appressed plumose hairs in C. petropolitanus (T2–T5 discs with appressed plumose hairs in C. altimontanus).
Redescription: FEMALE (Figs. 36A, 36C, 36E):
Dimensions (mm): Approximate body length 8.2–9.0; head width 2.6–2.9; head length 2.2–2.4; intertegular distance 2.2–2.6; forewing length 6.2–6.6.
Colouration: Black except distal half of mandible and tarsal claws reddish-brown. Wing venation (except proximal veins of forewing dark-brown), stigma, tibial spurs pale-brown. Tegula, anterior surface of front and mid tibiae, dorsal surface of tarsi (except distal mediotarsi and distitarsi pale-brown), marginal zones of T1–T5, ventrally reflexed lateral area of T1, S6 (except pale-brown posteromedially) dark-brown. Proximal half of tarsal claws, marginal zones of metasomal sterna pale-yellow.
Structure: Labrum medially concave; concavity not margined laterally by longitudinal ridges. Clypeal midlongitudinal area not depressed. Malar area ~0.4x as long as basal depth of mandible (21:57). Hypostomal carina short and flat. F1 ~1.3x as long as its apical width (27:26). UID:LID (52:48). Frontal area without protrusion below lateral ocellus. Vertexal area concave behind upper summit of eye in postero-lateral view. Dorsolateral angle of pronotum pointed. Mesepisternum ventrally, near ventral end of episternal groove, without protrusion surrounded by appressed hairs. Horizontal surface of metapostnotum ~0.8x as long as metanotum (30:36); metapostnotal pits well-delimited; posterior transverse carina fairly straight and complete. Posteromedial surface of front coxa with small spine. Posterior hind tibial spur pectinate. Hind basitarsus 3.4x longer than broad (51:15). Outer rami of hind tarsal claws ~ 2x as long as inner rami (9:5). Marginal zone of T1 flat. Marginal zone of S6 not depressed.
Pubescence: Head with pale-yellow, plumose, erect, moderately short hairs (except mandible and clypeal disc and subapical pit with suberect setae); paraocular and genal areas with appressed pubescence near eye; paraocular and frontal areas with pale-yellow and fuscous hairs intermixed; genal (towards proboscidial area) and vertexal ar- eas with long hairs. Mesosoma with plumose, erect, moderately long, off-white and black hairs intermixed (except mesoscutum and scutellum with moderately short hairs); mesoscutum posteriorly and metanotum with nearly only off-white hairs; scutellum with only black hairs; ventral mesosoma with very long, remarkably dense pubescence; upper margin of lateral surface of propodeum with black, very long hairs. Legs with fuscous setae (except trochanters and femora with pale-yellow, plumose, long hairs on ventral surface); tibiae and with suberect, minute setae (except hind tibia with erect, moderately short setae on dorsal and posterior surface); femoral and tibial scopae with branched apically only, suberect, very long hairs anteriorly; basitarsi with suberect, short setae (except mid and hind basitarsi with erect, long setae on posterior margin). Metasomal terga with fuscous, suberect setae (except T1 with pale-yellow, plumose, erect, long hairs); T2–T6 discs with short setae (except those setae minute on T2–T3); T3–T5 also with erect, moderately short setae laterally; T1–T5 with pale-yellow, plumose, appressed, short hairs on marginal zones. Metasomal sterna with pale-yellow hairs (except S6 with fuscous setae posteriorly); S1 with plumose, erect, moderately long hairs; S2 with erect, short, branched apically only hairs (except posterolateral area with plumose, suberect, moderately long hairs); S3–S5 with suberect, minute setae (those setae moderately long posterolaterally); S2–S5 with a line of branched, moderately short hairs near marginal zones; S6 with erect, short setae (except setae moderately long posteriorly).
Surface sculpture: Clypeus coarsely punctate; punctures ill-defined and coalescent; interspaces smooth (except rugulose near lower margin). Supraclypeal area densely and moderately coarsely punctate; interspaces rugulose. Malar area substrigulate. Paraocular area densely and moderately finely punctate (except punctures crowded towards clypeus); interspaces smooth (except rugulose near antennal socket). Frontal area punctures crowded and moderately coarse, interspaces smooth (except rugulose towards antennal socket). Vertexal area densely and finely punctate near lateral ocellus; minutely punctate near eye; interspaces smooth throughout. Mesoscutum and mesepisternum densely and coarsely punctate (except mesoscutum largely impunctate posteromedially); interspaces smooth throughout. Scutellum densely and coarsely punctate anteriorly (interspaces smooth); punctures crowded and moderately coarse posteriorly (interspaces imbricate). Metanotum punctation difficult to discern from coarsely rugose integument. Metepisternum with oblique carinae mid-anteriorly; rugose above, densely and finely punctate below. Lateral surface of propodeum densely and finely punctate anteriorly; punctation difficult to discern from coarsely rugulose integument elsewhere. Vertical surface of metapostnotum imbricate above. Metasomal terga interspaces smooth throughout; T1–T2 largely impunctate; T3–T4 moderately sparsely and minutely punctate; T5 densely and finely punctate. Metasomal sterna interspaces imbricate throughout; S1 impunctate; S2 moderately densely and finely punctate; S3–S4 moderately densely and finely punctate (except punctures sparse mid-longitudinally); S5–S6 densely and moderately finely punctate.
MALE (Figs. 36B, 36D, 36F). As in female, except for usual secondary sexual characteristics and as follows:
Dimensions (mm): Approximate body length 7.2–8.2; head width 2.7–3.0; head length 2.1–2.4; intertegular distance 1.7–2.2; forewing length 6.3–6.8.
Colouration: Tibiae entirely black. Mediotarsi pale-brown. S1–S5 posteriorly and S6 entirely dark-brown.
Structure: Malar area ~0.8x as long as basal depth of mandible (32:38). F1 0.8x as long as its apical width (24:30). UID:LID (56:45). Horizontal surface of metapostnotum ~0.7x as long as metanotum (26:38). Posteromedial surface of front coxa without spine. Posterior hind tibial spur ciliate. Hind basitarsus ~3.3x longer than broad (46:14). Outer rami of hind tarsal claws ~1.7x as long as inner rami (10:6). S7, S8 and genital capsule as in Figs. 37A, 37B, 37C, respectively.
Pubescence: Clypeus with plumose, moderately long hairs on disc. Paraocular and genal areas with only erect hairs. Hairs of mesoscutum and scutellum as long as those on remaining mesosoma. Mesoscutum with off-white and black hairs intermixed. Ventral mesosoma with sparse pubescence. Legs with pale-yellow setae. Metasomal terga marginal zones with off-white appressed hairs. S6 with pale-yellow, short setae throughout.
Surface sculpture: Supraclypeal area with punctures crowded. Paraocular area finely punctate adjacently to inner margin of eye. Mesepisternum moderately sparsely punctate towards ventral surface. Lateral surface of propodeum sparsely and moderately finely punctate posteriorly. T1–T2 finely punctate; T1 sparsely punctate, T2 moderately densely punctate. S3–S4 sparsely punctate mid-longitudinally. S6 finely punctate laterally; moderately coarsely punctate mid-longitudinally.
Material studied: Primary type specimens: Lectotype ♀ of C. senilis— “Type”. “B. M. TYPE; HYM.; 17.a.533”. “B. M. TYPE; HYM.; Colletes; senilis; Smith, 1879 ”. “PETROPOLIS; Feb. 1857.; J. Gray. ”. “ Lectotype; 1957; Det. J. S. Moure 1957”. “ Colletes; petropolitanus; D.T.; Det. J. S. Moure 1957”. “NHMUK013379537”. {NHMUK}. Holotype ♁ of C. catulus— “Tucuman; Rep - Arg”. “Coll. ♁; catulus; Vach.”. “MUSEUM PARIS; Coll. J. VACHAL 1911”. “ HOLOTYPE ”. “ Colletes; catulus; Vach.”. {MNHP}. Lectotype ♀ of C. inflatus— “ Pérou; Callanga”. “inflatus; ♀ Vach.”. “MUSEUM PARIS; Coll. J. VACHAL 1911”. “ LECTOTYPE ”. “ LECTOTYPE; Colletes inflatus ♀; Vachal, 1909; designated R. Ferrari, 2018”. {MNHP}. [hereby designated]
Secondary type specimens: Paralectotypes ♀ and ♁ of C. senilis — BRAZIL—Pará: prior to 1870, [H. Bates], 1♀ 1♁, {NHMUK}. Paralectotypes ♀♀ of C. inflatus — BOLIVIA—La Paz: Mapiri, 1♀, {MNHP}. PERU—Cus-co: Callanga, 1♀, {MNHP}.
Additional specimens: ARGENTINA—Chaco: Parque Nacional Chaco, (-26.8875, -59.6223), 20/iv/2008, [A. Taylor], 1♀, {PCYU}. Corrientes: Parque Nacional Mburucuya, (-28.0213, -58.0427), 1/i/2010, [N. Veiga], 1♁, {PCYU}; idem, except 12/ii/2010, 1♁. La Rioja: La Rioja, i/1923, [M. Gómez], 1♁, {MACN}. Misiones: Dos de Mayo, xii/1973, [Fritz], 1♀, {AMNH}. Rio Paraná below Montecarlo, 6/iv/1974, [Vardy & Vardy], 2♀♀, {NHMUK}. Tucumán: 3km W Las Juntas, (-26.3997, -65.4986), 20/i/2008, [K. Ramos], 1♁, {RPSP}. Choromoro, 19/i/1996, [J. Sharkey], 1♁, {PCYU}. BOLIVIA—Santa Cruz: Sara, 27/xi/1916, [J. Steinbach], 1♀, {MACN}. BRAZIL — Acre: Rio Branco, UFAC, 17/viii/1995, [Machado & Santos], 1♁, {RPSP}. Mato Grosso: Gallery Forest, (-12.8333, -51.4733), 20/ix/1968, [O. Richards], 1♁, {NHMUK}. Minas Gerais: Araxá, 15/iv/1965, [C. Elias], 1♁, {DZUP}; idem, except 22/iv/1965, 1♀; idem, except 28/iv/1965, 1♁; idem, except 5/v/1965, 1♁; idem, except 15/05/1965, 3♁♁; idem, except 20/v/1965, 1♀; idem, except 27/viii/1965, 1♁; idem, except 14/11/1965, 1♁. Belo Horizonte, COPASA/ Barreiro, 21/i/1999, [G. Sousa], 1♀, {UFMG}; Estação Ecológica, viii/1998, [D. Yanega], 3♀♀ 4♁♁, {UFMG}; idem, except 27/v/1998; 1♀. Brasilândia de Minas, Fazenda Brejão, 29/ix/1999, [A. Azeve- do], 4♁♁, {UFMG}. Brazópolis, xii/1961, [C. Elias], 5♁♁, {DZUP}. Cássia, Rancho do Popi, 28/iii/1999, [E. Al- meida], 9♁♁, {UFMG}. Ibiá, 18/vi/1965, [C. Elias], 2♀♀ 3♁♁, {DZUP}; idem, except 20/x/1965, [C. Elias], 1♁, {DZUP}. Itajubá, 2/xii/1955, [M. Arié], 1♁, {DZUP}. Mar de Espanha, 4/iii/1911, [J. Zikán], 1♁, {DZUP}. Nova Resende, vii/1961, [C. Elias], 2♁♁, {DZUP}. Paraopeba, Fazenda Itapoá, 22/xii/1998, [V. Silva], 1♁, {UFMG}. Passos, ix/1961, [C. Elias], 1♀, {DZUP}; idem, except 5/xi/1961, 1♁; idem, except 17/iv/1963, 2♁♁; idem, except ix/1963, 1♁; idem, except 1/x/1963, 1♁; idem, except 21/xii/1964, 1♁. Patos de Minas, 20/xi/1965, [C. Elias], 4♁♁, {DZUP}; idem, except 23/xi/1965, 22♀♀ 24♁♁. Poços de Caldas, (-21.6430, -46.5073), 22/xi/2016, [Fer- rari & Freitas], 6♀♀ 1♁, {PCYU}; idem, except xi/1961, [C. Elias], 2♁♁, {DZUP}. Perdizes, vii/1965, [C. Elias], 1♀, {DZUP}. Ponte Nova, 1/iii/1989, [F. Silveira], 1♀, {MEUV}; idem, except 5/iv/1989, 2♀♀; idem, except 1♀, {UFMG}. Viçosa, unspecified locality, 25/x/1985, [G. Melo], 1♀, {MEUV}; idem, except 31/xii/1985, 1♀; idem, except 15/iii/1986, 1♀; idem, except 25/ii/1989, 1♀; Mata do Paraíso, 22/xi/1989, [M. Thiengo], 2♀♀, {MEUV}; idem, except 1/xii/1989, 2♁♁. Paraná: São Mateus do Sul, Fazenda Durgo, 3/iii/2009, [R. Kamke], 1♁, {LUNUF- SC}; UN-SIX/ Petrobrás, 19/iii/2012, [R. Kamke], 1♀, {LANUFSC}. Rio de Janeiro: Rio de Janeiro, xi/1911, [A. Ducke], 1♁, {NHMUK}. Santa Catarina: Florianópolis, Praia de Moçambique, 23/xii/2002, [A. Zillikens], 2♁♁, {LANUFSC}. Pomerode, Bairro Testo Alto, 16/xi/2007, [R. Kamke], 1♀, {LANUFSC}; idem, except 4/iv/2008, 1♁. PARAGUAY—San Pedro: Cororo, (-23.4527, -56.3964), 8/ii/2007, [E. Willis], 1♀, {PCYU}.
Range: ARGENTINA (Chaco, Corrientes, Entre Ríos, La Rioja, Misiones, Tucumán), BOLIVIA (La Paz, Santa Cruz), BRAZIL (Acre, Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais, Pará, Paraná, Rio de Janeiro, Santa Catarina, Sṳo Paulo), PARAGUAY (Alto Paraná, San Pedro), PERU (Cusco). See also Fig. 14.
Biogeographical distribution: Chocoan dominion (Cerrado and Chacoan provinces), Parana dominion (Atlantic, Araucaria and Parana Forests provinces), South American transition zone (Monte and Puna provinces), and South Brazilian dominion (Madeira, Rondônia and Yungas provinces) at altitudes of 200–3300m a.s.l.
DNA barcode: Available. BOLD: AAR9968 (3♀♀ 1♁). Distance from the nearest neighbour (C. latitarsis Robertson, 1891): 5.53–6.43%.
Floral hosts: Compositae— Baccharis dracunculifolia DC. (this study); B. spicata (Lam.) Baill. (Steiner et al. 2010). Lamiaceae— Eriope blanchetii (Benth.) Harley (Silva et al. 2007). Rubiaceae— Spermacoce sp. (Ducke 1910b (as Borreria sp.)). Sapindaceae— Matayba guianensis Aubl. (Carvalho & Oliveira 2010).
Comments: Common species that is very widely distributed in South America.
Except for minor differences in pubescence colouration, the type specimens of both C. catulus and C. inflatus are morphologically indistinguishable from that of C. senilis Smith (not Eversmann), and therefore the synonomies originally proposed by Moure (1949), and later acknowledged by many other authors (e.g. Moure & Urban 2002; Moure et al. 2007, 2012; Ferrari & Silveira 2015; Ascher & Pickering 2018), are endorsed by the present study. Unfortunately, the male lectotype of C. speculiventris that was supposedly deposited at the USNM (Moure & Urban 2002; Moure et al. 2007, 2012) could not be located neither there (B. Harris, pers. comm.), nor at the AMNH (C. Smith, pers. comm.), nor at the Illinois Natural History Survey (T. McElrath, pers. comm.), and therefore it appears to be lost, at least temporarily. Thus, I am herein also following Moure’s recommendation to treat C. speculiventris as a junior synonym of C. petropolitanus.
The male holotype of C. catulus (NHMUK) is in bad condition—it is missing both antennae, both right wings and the metasoma. However, the diagnostic characters of C. petropolitanus found in the head of the male (clypeus without mid-longitudinally depression, and malar area less than half as long as basal depth of mandible) leave no doubt that the former is indeed a junior synonym of the latter.
The type series of C. inflatus consists of three female syntypes (not two females and one male as indicated by Vachal in the original description), two of them from Cusco (Peru) and the other from La Paz (Bolivia). When visiting the MNHP in 1986, Moure studied the type series and labelled one of the females from Cusco as the species’ lectotype. However, this designation has never been published and consequently cannot be considered a valid nomenclatural act (ICZN 1999; see Article 9.8). Therefore, I herein formally designate the female from Cusco (the same specimen chosen by Moure) as the lectotype of C. catulus. The three specimens are in good condition.
description: Published as part of Ferrari, Rafael R., 2019, A revision of Colletes Latreille (Hymenoptera: Colletidae: Colletinae) from Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, pp. 1-91 in Zootaxa 4606 (1) on pages 61-65, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4606.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/2860607