Chlerogella azurea (Enderlein) Engel, 2010

Engel, Michael, 2010, Revision of the Bee Genus Chlerogella (Hymenoptera, Halictidae), Part II: South American Species and Generic Diagnosis, ZooKeys 47 (47), pp. 1-100 : 29-34

Chlerogella azurea (Enderlein) , comb. n.

Figs 33–38, 42–44, Maps 2, 3

Halictus azureus Enderlein, 1903: 40 .

Caenohalictus azureus (Enderlein) ; Moure and Hurd, 1987: 177; Moure et al., 2007: 830.

Holotype. ♁; PERÚ: Departement Cuzco, Cosnipata-Ebene , 1000 m, 5 January 1901, S.V. Garlepp ( ZMHB).

Additional material. PERÚ: 1♀, Huanuco Dept., P.N. Tingo Maria vic cueva d., Lechuzas , 15 January 1983, A. Newton & M. Thayer ( SEMC) ; 1♀, Huanuco Dept., Tingo Maria , 30-1-1984 [30 January 1984], L. Huggert ( PMAE) ; 1♀, Tingo Maria , 20–27.i.1968 [20–27 January 1968], A. Garcia & C. Porter ( SEMC) ; 1♀, 2♁♁, Tingo Maria , 620 m, 5–12.x.1964 [5–12 October 1964], C.C. Porter ( SEMC) ; 1♀, Dept. Cusco, Cock of the Rock Lodge , NE Paucartambo , 13º03.3'S, 71º32.7'W, 1120 m, 4–9-XI-2007 [4–9 November 2007], D. Brzoska, ex: flight intercept trap ( SEMC) . ECUADOR: 1♀, Morona-Santiago, Cord. de Cutucu , 6km E Macas, 1000 m, 12.viii.1990 [12 August 1990], M. Cooper ( COOP) ; 1♁, Zamora [Province], Zamora 1200 m, xi-23-1970, L. Pena ( AMNH) .

Diagnosis. Chlerogella azurea belongs to a complex of exceptionally similar metallic blue species with elongate heads. Among those species in this complex with bright azurite blue coloration, C. azurea is most similar to C. agaylei in which females are virtually indistinguishable, although the former tends to be slightly more lighter blue in some individuals (e.g., Fig. 33, although some approximate that of C. agaylei ) and the scape tends to have some lighter coloration basally. The unmodified SIV in males makes them easy to distinguish from C. agaylei .

Description. Female: Total body length 7.95–8.23 mm; forewing length 5.40–5.61 mm. Head length 2.39–2.50 mm, width 1.40–1.46 mm. Clypeus beginning well below lower tangent of compound eyes. Malar space 41.4–41.8% compound eye length (malar length 0.55–0.56 mm; compound eye length 1.33–1.34 mm) (Figs. 34–35). Upper interorbital distance 0.73–0.75 mm; lower interorbital distance 0.47–0.49 mm. Upper portion of pronotum medially depressed, not elongate, medially less than 0.25 times ocellar diameter in length; ventral portion of preëpisternal sulcus not broad, similar to scrobal sulcus and upper portion of preëpisternal sulcus; intertegular distance 1.25–1.30 mm; mesoscutellum weakly convex, not bigibbous. Basal vein distad cu-a by two times vein width; 1rs-m distad 1m-cu by three times vein width; 2rs-m distad 2m-cu by seven times vein width, 2rs-m relatively straight; first submarginal cell longer than combined lengths of second and third submarginal cells; second submarginal cell

Figures 33–35. Female of Chlerogella azurea (Enderlein) , comb. n. 33 Lateral habitus 34 Facial aspect 35 Lateral aspect of head.

slightly narrowed anteriorly, anterior border of second submarginal cell along Rs about as along as that of third submarginal cell; posterior border of third submarginal cell slightly more than two times longer than anterior border. Distal hamuli arranged 2-1- 2. Inner metatibial spur with six branches (not including apical portion of rachis).

Clypeus and supraclypeal area finely imbricate with weak punctures separated by 0.5–2 times a puncture width; face with small, contiguous punctures, more widely

Figures 36–38. Male of Chlerogella azurea (Enderlein) , comb. n. 36 Lateral habitus 37 Facial aspect 38 Lateral aspect of head.

spaced in malar space; punctures of face blending to imbricate integument in ocellocular area and vertex, with punctures separated by 1–2 times a puncture width; gena finely imbricate with small punctures separated by 0.5–2 times a puncture width; postgena imbricate and impunctate. Pronotum imbricate with minute punctures separated by 1–3 times a puncture width; mesoscutum imbricate with punctures separated by a puncture width or less on lateral thirds and posteriorly, anteromedially punctures becoming exceedingly faint to absent; mesoscutellum finely imbricate with small punctures separated by a puncture width or less; metanotum imbricate with minute punctures separated by

Figures 39–44. Male terminalia for Peruvian Chlerogella species [note: C. azurea (Enderlein) , comb. n., also has been recorded from southeastern Ecuador, vide Map 3]. 39 Chlerogella arhyncha sp. n., hidden and fused sterna VII and VIII 40 Detail of volsella for C. arhyncha sp. n. 4Ι C. arhyncha sp. n., genital capsule (left is dorsal aspect, right is ventral aspect) 42 C. azurea , hidden and fused sterna VII and VIII 43 Detail of volsella for C. azurea 44 C. azurea , genital capsule (left is dorsal aspect, right is ventral aspect). All scale bars = 1 mm.

a puncture width or less. Preëpisternum finely imbricate with small punctures separated by 1–3 times a puncture width; mesepisternum smooth and shining to faintly imbricate with weak punctures separated by 2–5 times a puncture width; metepisternum faintly imbricate. Propodeum strongly imbricate. Metasoma finely imbricate.

Mandible dark brown except reddish at apex; labrum dark brown; clypeal apex black, remainder of clypeus and head brilliant metallic azurite blue, with purple highlights. Antenna dark brown. Mesosoma brilliant metallic azurite blue, with purple highlights (Fig. 33); tegula dark brown. Wing membranes lightly infumate; veins dark brown. Legs dark brown. Metasoma dark brown.

Map 3. Collection localities for Ecuadorian Chlerogella (note that C. azurea has been captured principally in Perú and C. hypermeces in Colombia; vide etiam Maps 2 & 4).

Pubescence white except intermingled with dark fuscous setae on metatibia and with dark fuscous setae predominant on tarsi, apicalmost metasomal segments, and pro- and mesotibiae.

Male: As described for the female except as follows: Total body length 8.02–8.10 mm; forewing length 5.33–5.41 mm. Head length 2.42–2.45 mm, width 1.33–1.36 mm. Clypeus beginning well below lower tangent of compound eyes. Malar space 47.6–48% compound eye length (malar length 0.60 mm; compound eye length 1.25–1.26 mm) (Figs 37–38). Upper interorbital distance 0.65–0.66 mm; lower interorbital distance 0.34–0.35 mm. First flagellomere about as long as pedicel, about as long as wide; second flagellomere two times length of first flagellomere; ventral surfaces of second through eleventh flagellomeres densely covered in placoid sensilla, placoid fields not disrupted. Intertegular distance 1.07–1.10 mm; mesoscutellum not bigibbous. Inner metatibial spur serrate. Apical margin of SIII entire; apical margin of SIV entire or faintly concave, without furrow in apical half of disc; apical margin of SV entire; apical margin of SVI emarginate; terminalia as depicted in figures 42–44.

Mandible, labrum, and clypeal apex white, often with spot of white in malar space near mandibular base; scape yellow ventrally. Purple coloration stronger in some speci- mens (resulting from fading of darker underlying integument to a reddish brown shade which with the azurite blue results in a metallic purple coloration: e.g., Fig. 36).

Typical gender pilosity except postgena with numerous elongate, sinuate setae, such setae with short apical branches; inner surfaces of trochanters, mesofemur, and metacoxa with elongate, apically-plumose setae, similar setae on inner surfaces of metatrochanter, metafemur, and metatibia except largely simple and somewhat sinuate, those of metatibia particularly elongate, longer than metatibial width. Apical margin of SIII with diffuse fringe of moderate-length white setae; SIV with diffuse medioapical areas of long setae; SV similar to SIV although setae even more diffuse.

Comment. The elongate head of the holotype and sparse description of Enderlein (1903) is perhaps what misled Moure and Hurd (1987) to transfer this species to Caenohalictus in the Caenohalictini . During a study of Caenohalictus by B.W.T. Coelho she borrowed the holotype and discovered that the specimen belongs to the Augochlorini , not the Caenohalictini , and was indeed a species of Chlerogella . I am grateful to her for bringing this to my attention so that I was able to examine Enderlein’s specimen, transfer it to the genus Chlerogella , and properly associate it among its relatives.