Roussyana palmnickenensis (Roussy)

ENGEL, MICHAEL S., 2001, A Monograph Of The Baltic Amber Bees And Evolution Of The Apoidea (Hymenoptera), Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2001 (259), pp. 1-1 : 1-

Roussyana palmnickenensis (Roussy)

Apis palmnickenensis Roussy, 1937: 66 .

Electrapis (Roussyana) palmnickenensis (Roussy) ; Manning, 1960: 306. Zeuner and Manning, 1976: 233 [misidentification: see Succinapis micheneri , above]

Electrapis minuta Kelner­Pillault, 1970 a: 16. NEW SYNONYMY.

Trigona (Roussyana) palmnickenensis (Roussy) ; Kerr and Cunha, 1976: 39.

Roussyana palmuickenensis Petrov, 1992: 361 . Lapsus calami .

DIAGNOSIS: As for the genus (see above).

DESCRIPTION: Female. Total body length 3.08 mm; forewing length 2.3 mm. Head longer than wide (length 0.93 mm, width 0.88 mm). Mandible with a single small tooth on upper one­fifth of apical margin. Intertegular distance 0.82 mm. Basal vein basad cu­a by two times vein width; 1rs­m distad 1m­cu by seven times vein width; 2rs­m distad 2m­cu by two times vein width; first submarginal cell shorter than combined lengths of second and third submarginal cells; second submarginal cell strongly narrowed anteriorly, anterior border shorter than r­rs; anterior border of third submarginal cell approximately nine times longer than anterior border of second submarginal cell; six distal hamuli arranged in a single, evenly spaced series.

Head and mesosoma smooth and impunctate except corbicula finely imbricate. Terga and sterna finely and faintly imbricate except lighter apical margins of terga glabrous.

Head and mesosoma black. Antennae, legs, tegulae, and metasoma dark brown except apical margins of terga light brown.

Pubescence generally pale. Labrum with several, long, simple setae widely scattered. Setae of face widely scattered, simple, and short, although setae becoming slightly longer on vertex. Mesoscutum with scattered, long, simple setae. Pubescence of scutellum as described for mesoscutum except somewhat longer. Metanotum without pubescence. Hypoepimeral area without pubescence; remainder of mesepisternum with scattered, simple setae, although particularly sparse on central disc; setae slightly longer ventrally. Basal area of propodeum without pubescence. Pubescence of legs generally simple and scattered except inner surfaces of mesotrochanter and mesofemur without pubescence and outer surface of mesotibia with dense, branched setae; inner surface of metafemur and metatrochanter without pubescence; inner surface of metatibia with keirotrichiate zone; distinct comb rows on inner surface of metabasitarsus, each composed of stiff, elongate, simple setae; outer surface with scattered, long, simple setae. T1–5 with sparse, minute, suberect, simple setae; T6 with numerous, short, simple setae uniformly covering surface; sterna with sparsely scattered, short, simple setae and with dense, subapical rows of long setae.

MATERIAL: Three specimens. Neotype ( palmnickenensis ; here designated). Female, worker caste, NB. I.1945 [Berendt Collection] ( ZMHB) labeled: ‘‘ Neotype, Apis palmnickenensis Roussy , desig. M. S. Engel’’ // ‘‘50a’’ [Berendt handwriting] // ‘‘NB. I.1945 ’’. The types for Roussy’s species were in his private collection. A diligent search for their whereabouts failed to locate them. I have thus here designated a neotype for the species. The limited description Roussy (1937) presented for the species, however, best agrees to Kelner­Pillault’s specimens among all of the corbiculate bees in Baltic amber. I, therefore, believe Roussy’s and Kelner­Pillault’s specimens to be conspecific and have chosen the most completely preserved of the two individuals in the piece to serve as the neotype for Apis palmnickenensis Roussy as well as the lectotype for Electrapis minuta Kelner­Pillault. The two paralectotype individuals (designated below) are clustered together on one end of the piece, while the neotype / lectotype is alone on the opposite end.

Lectotype ( minuta ; here designated). Female, worker caste, NB. I.1945 ( ZMHB) labeled: ‘‘ Lectotype, Electrapis minuta Kelner­ Pillault, desig. M. S. Engel’’ // ‘‘ Electrapis minuta S.K.P., syntypes, S. Kelner­Pillault, det.’’ [Kelner­Pillault handwriting] // ‘‘ Roussyana minuta (Kelner­Pillault) , det. M. S. Engel, 1999’’. Since this is the same specimen designated above as the neotype for A. palmnickenensis , the remaining labels are identical to those listed above for A. palmnickenensis (refer to preceding paragraph).

Paralectotypes ( minuta ; here designat­ ed). Two females, worker caste, NB. I.1945 ( ZMHB): these specimens are in the same amber block as the lectotype and bear the same labels. They are distinguished from the lectotype by the poorer state of preservation, both are heavily covered in Schimmel and surrounded by numerous small fracture planes .

COMMENTS: The specimen figured as a non­type of Roussyana palmnickenensis by Zeuner and Manning (1976: their pl. 3 as Electrapis palmnickenensis ) is not actually a specimen of Roussyana . The specimen is in GPUH and upon examination it is actually S. micheneri . The specimen lacks the defining features of not only the species but also the genus. Moreover, the specimen has a distinct clypeal protrusion (a character of Succinapis ) and sparse mesoscutal setae. A thin layer of pollen and mold on the specimen was apparently interpreted as copious pubescence by Zeuner and Manning. The description they presented for R. palmnickenensis , therefore, does not apply to this species.

Kelner­Pillault (1970a) designated the two specimens discussed above as syntypes but did not select one to be the name­bearing type. I have, therefore, in the interest of nomenclatural stability, selected a lectotype and paralectotype from her syntypes. Kelner­Pillault (1970a) enigmatically figured the hind wing without a jugal lobe, which is not only present but deeply incised and visible in the specimens.

Tribe MELIPONINI Lepeletier

de Saint Fargeau

Meliponites Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau, 1836:

407. Type genus: Melipona Illiger, 1806 .

Trigonini Moure, 1946: 611. Type genus: Trigona

Jurine, 1807.

Lestrimelittini Moure, 1946: 611. Type genus:

Lestrimelitta Friese, 1903 .

DIAGNOSIS: Among living taxa the Meliponini are allied to the honey bees (tribe Apini ); both tribes share the complete loss of metatibial spurs and outer mandibular grooves and possess a jugal lobe in the hind wing. The meliponines differ from Apini by the absence of an auricle, absence of an inner tooth on the claw, the reduced forewing venation, and the reduction of the sting, among other characters. Numerous ethological traits similarly serve to differentiate the tribes (reviewed by Michener, 1990: as subfamilies). Among the fossil taxa meliponines most closely resemble the tribe Melikertini but differ notably by the aforementioned characters as well as the complete loss of metatibial spurs (melikertines retain a single metatibial spur).

DESCRIPTION: Minute to moderate size (ca. 1.5–13 mm long), sparsely to moderately pubescent bees. Mandible without outer mandibular grooves. Labral width three to four times length. Clypeus variously produced, typically gently convex and not protuberant in profile. Compound eyes typically bare. Supraälar carina absent; scutellum broadly rounded posteriorly and variously produced (i.e., ranging from projecting over metanotum and propodeum to not projecting at all: e.g., see Michener, 1990). Claws of female simple (e.g., fig. 115); arolium strong and present; metatibial spurs absent; malus of strigilis without anterior velum; metabasitarsus without auricle; metatibia with penicillum (e.g., fig. 114). Distal venation of forewing weakened (e.g., figs. 111, 113); marginal cell apex typically open (e.g., figs. 111, 113); pterostigma present, moderate to large in size, much longer than prestigma, r­rs arising near midpoint, margin within marginal cell convex; 1m­cu, when present, angled; hind wing with distinct jugal lobe, lobe broadly and deeply incised; hamuli reduced; wing membrane without alar papillae. Sting reduced.

COMMENTS: The tribe Meliponini contains the familiar stingless bees. The group is today worldwide in the tropics, with a particularly high diversity in the neotropics. Michener (2000a) recognized 23 Recent genera and subgenera worldwide. Although no meliponines today occur in Europe, at least two species were present in the middle Eocene fauna of this region. Both seem closely allied to Recent sub­Saharan African genera.

Key to Genera of Meliponini