Capicola capicola ( Friese, 1909 ) capicola (Friese, 1909

Kuhlmann, M., Gess, F. G., Koch, F. & Gess, S. K., 2011, Southern African osmiine bees: taxonomic notes, two new species, a key to Wainia, and biological observations (Hymenoptera: Anthophila: Megachilidae), Zootaxa 3108, pp. 1-24 : 20

Capicola capicola ( Friese, 1909) comb. nov.

Osmia capensis Cameron, 1906: 323-324 (nec Cameron, 1905). Male type: (red label): Type / B.M. Type HYM.17a.2531 / (Cameron’s handwriting):

Osmia capensis Cam. Type, Pearston, Cape / P. Cameron Coll. 1914-110 (NHML).

Osmia capicola Friese, 1909: 317 , 321 (replacement name for Osmia capensis Cameron, 1906 , not Cameron, 1905).

Capicola braunsiana Friese, 1911: 672–673 . syn. nov.

Capicola aurescens Cockerell, 1932b: 457–458 . syn. nov.

Hesperapis turneri Cockerell, 1934: 446–447 . syn. nov.

Hesperapis obscura Cockerell, 1934: 447–448 . syn. nov.

Michener (2000: 403) synonymized Capicola braunsiana Friese, 1911 (Melittidae) and Osmia ? capensis Cameron, 1905 . Michez et al. (2007) overlooked this synonymy and instead used the junior synonym Capicola braunsiana in their revision of the genus. Subsequently Eardley and Urban (2010: 186) erroneously list Osmia ? capensis Cameron, 1905 as a synonym of C. braunsiana instead of accepting it as the valid name for this species.

When this matter was investigated for the present study it became clear that Michener´s synonymization was incorrect. Cameron described two species as Osmia capensis in two subsequent years and this caused confusion. Unlike Friese who occasionally published descriptions of the same species twice but in different journals (see e.g. Wainia atrorufa ) Cameron based his descriptions on different specimens. The description of 1905 is based on a 10 mm long specimen from Cape Town (gender not given) collected by “Rev. J. O'Neil, S.J.” ( Cameron 1905: 197- 198) while the 7 mm long female (actually it is a male!) described in 1906 was collected in Pearston by Professor Robert Broom ( Cameron 1906: 323-324). For the latter Friese (1909) introduced the replacement name Osmia capicola Friese, 1909 to resolve the primary homonymy.

The type of “ Osmia capensis ” in the Natural History Museum, London, collected in Pearston, is about the given size and thus clearly represents the species described in 1906. However, a label in the main collection (drawer 23d-10) referring to the type collection is misleading and mentions “ Hesperapis capensis Cameron 1905 ”. This probably is the source of confusion leading to Michener´s (2000: 403) erroneous statement that Osmia ? capensis Cameron, 1905 is a synonym of Capicola braunsiana when in fact it is Osmia capensis Cameron, 1906 . The type of Osmia ? capensis Cameron, 1905 could neither be found in the Natural History Museum, London nor in the Albany Museum in Grahamstown or the South African Museum in Cape Town and is probably lost. Given the poor description, the identity of Osmia ? capensis Cameron, 1905 has to remain in abeyance.

Cameron’s chaotic publication record was recognised by his contemporaries ( Anonymous 1913a, b, Morley 1913) as well as by present day hymenopterists ( Notton et al. 2009). He has left behind an often difficult taxonomic legacy. It is obvious that in his later years Cameron mostly worked in isolation unaware of other entomologist´s publications and his poverty and ill health probably negatively influenced the quality of his publications as well (G.M. V. 1913). Thus, the taxonomic chaos described here is not an unusual case.