identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
D481B4E9F60D5183AF149595A9CA8D03.text	D481B4E9F60D5183AF149595A9CA8D03.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora (Caranthophora) calcarispina Wood 2026	<div><p>6. Anthophora (Caranthophora) calcarispina sp. nov.</p><p>Material examined.</p><p>Ethiopia • 1 ♂; <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=38.8&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=9.7333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 38.8/lat 9.7333)">Shewa</a>, Debre Libanos; 9.7333°N, 38.8000°E; 2550 m a. s. l.; 28 Sep. 2005; L. Friedman leg.; SMNHTAU (Fig. 10) .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Anthophora calcarispina can be immediately and indisputably recognised as a Caranthophora as it displays i) mid leg with strongly defined hair brushes on the basitarsus and apical tarsomere (Fig. 10 A); ii) hind basitarsus with a longitudinal cavity running along its upper margin; iii) hind femur and tibia thickened (Fig. 10 D); iv) disc of S 7 about as long as broad, apodeme well-defined (Fig. 10 F); v) S 8 short and broad, forming a slight lobe laterally (Fig. 10 G); vi) pygidial plate absent; and vii) T 7 with two small and widely separated lateral teeth (Fig. 10 C).</p><p>At a specific level, A. calcarispina displays numerous unique characters within the subgenus. These are 1) hind basitarsus with a strongly developed tooth that is placed medially (Fig. 10 D), 2) hind tibia with its inner margin ventrally produced into a long spine, this spine bearing the outer hind tibial spur so that it is now strongly displaced and far from the inner tibial spur (Fig. 10 D); and 3) hind trochanter with a strongly produced and flattened latitudinal carina (Fig. 10 E). Moreover, the apical tarsomere of the hind leg is strongly elongate and when including the tarsal claws exceeds the length of the basitarsus (Fig. 10 A); this character is shared with A. tarsalis (Fig. 9 B, D), but separation is straightforward based on the three aforementioned characters. With its distribution in the Ethiopian highlands, A. calcarispina is instantly recognisable when compared to either the Palaearctic or Afrotropical Anthophora faunas.</p><p>Description.</p><p>Female. Unknown.</p><p>Male. Body length: 10 mm (Fig. 10 A). Head: Dark and broad, 1.5 times wider than long (Fig. 10 B). Pale ivory maculations present on labrum with exception of apical margin narrowly and basolateral tubercules, basal portion of mandibles, clypeus along apical margin and narrow longitudinal midline, paraocular areas to upper margin of clypeus, and antennal scape. Labrum approximately as long as wide, apical corners rounded, surface finely shagreened and weakly shining. Clypeus distinctly domed, in lateral view projecting by distance equal to diameter of compound eye, surface finely and densely punctate with punctures separated by 0.5–1 puncture diameters, underlying surface polished and shining. Face and vertex covered with mixture of long white, grey, and black hairs, with shorter decumbent white hairs on frons around anterior ocellus; gena with pure white hairs, increasing in length in ventral portion and onto base of mandibles. Antennae dark, A 3 subequal to A 4 + 5.</p><p>Mesosoma: Scutum densely but very shallowly punctate, punctures confluent, surface dull. Mesepisternum with punctures slightly sparser, separated by 0.5–1 puncture diameters, interspaces with granular microreticulation, dull. Propodeal triangle basally impunctate, finely shagreened and weakly shining, poorly defined and becoming shallowly punctate apicolaterally. Scutum and scutellum covered with mixture of long whitish, light brownish, and black hairs, hairs becoming more uniformly whitish on mesepisternum. Legs predominantly dark, tarsal segments becoming reddish-orange. Mid leg with strongly defined black hair brushes on basitarsus and apical tarsomere, hairs on basitarsus concentrated on anterior margin (Fig. 10 A). Hind leg with femur slightly thickened, tibia strongly broadened and inner margin ventrally produced into long blunt spine, inner margin bearing displaced hind tibial spur (Fig. 10 D). Hind basitarsus with inner margin bearing long spine medially and second small spine subapically; hind margin viewed dorsally with distinct longitudinal concavity filled with black bristles. Apical tarsomere strongly elongate, combined with tarsal claws exceeding length of hind basitarsus (Fig. 10 A). Hind trochanter with strongly produced and flattened latitudinal carina (Fig. 10 C). Wings hyaline, venation dark brown, nervulus antefurcal.</p><p>Metasoma: Tergal discs dark, marginal areas broadly lightened hyaline (Fig. 10 C). Disc of T 1 with mixture of long greyish and black hairs, discs of T 2–5 with predominantly long black hairs; marginal areas of T 2–5 with decumbent white hairs, not obscuring underlying surface. T 7 with widely separated small lateral teeth. Disc of S 7 slightly broader than long, apodeme broadly crescent shaped, anterior margin distinctly concave (Fig. 10 F). Disc of S 8 twice as broad as long, laterally with blackened rounded lobes bearing laterally-projecting black hairs, anterior margin with golden hairs (Fig. 10 G). Genital capsule with penis valves broadly Ω-shaped, apexes narrow and acutely pointed (Fig. 10 H). Gonocoxae with strong ventrally-projecting tooth on outer margin medially, subapically with smaller laterally-projecting subapical tooth. Apex of gonocoxa with produced into blunt tooth; gonostylus small but distinct, short with long sparse hairs equalling own length.</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>From the Latin nouns calcar (spur) and spina (spine), meaning “ spurred-spine ” in reference to the presence of the inner hind tibial spur which has been displaced and is present medially on the inner margin of the spine-like projection at the apex of the hind tibia (Fig. 10 D). It is a compound noun in apposition.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Ethiopia (Shewa) (Fig. 2).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D481B4E9F60D5183AF149595A9CA8D03	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Wood, Thomas J.	Wood, Thomas J. (2026): A revision of Anthophora (Caranthophora) Brooks with a remarkable new species from the Afrotropical region (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 73 (2): 385-404, DOI: 10.3897/dez.73.201925
6900516D4B5F53AEA49D47EFA3D892BE.text	6900516D4B5F53AEA49D47EFA3D892BE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora (Caranthophora) dufourii Lepeletier 1841	<div><p>2. Anthophora (Caranthophora) dufourii Lepeletier, 1841</p><p>Anthophora dufourii Lepeletier, 1841: 75, ♀ ♂ [probably France, MNHN / OUMNH, examined].</p><p>Anthophora tecta Smith, 1854: 342, ♀ [type locality unclear, NHMUK, examined by photograph].</p><p>Anthophora dives Dours, 1869: 143, ♂ [Dalmatia, type lost].</p><p>Anthophora dufouri [sic] ssp. nigropyga Strand, 1921: 297, ♀ [Iran, SDEI, examined].</p><p>Anthophora fasciculipes Alfken, 1935: 184, ♀ [West Bank, ZMHB, not examined].</p><p>Material examined.</p><p>Albania • 1 ♂; Konispol; 23 May 2017; M. Jacobs leg.; TJWC ; Iran • 1 ♀; Persien, 1908, Asterabad [= Gorgan]; 1 Apr. – 30 Jun. 1908; O. Leonhard leg.; SDEI (holotype of Anthophora dufourii ssp. nigropyga) ; Iraq • 1 ♂; Kurdistan, Duhok gov., 5 km E of Ashewa, Mt. Gara; 1750–1950 m a. s. l.; 3 Jun. 2023; H. R. Ismael leg.; MSVI ; North Macedonia • 4 ♂, 1 ♀; Katlanovska Banja; 5 Jun. 1965; W. Vervoort &amp; C. v. Heijningen leg.; RMNH, RMNH.INS.1660689 ; Unknown • 1 ♂; OUMNH (syntype) • 1 ♀; MNHN (syntype) . For additional examined material, see Suppl. material 1.</p><p>Notes.</p><p>Lepeletier described this species as coming from “ Du midi de la France ou du nord de l’Espagne. Envoyée par M. Léon Dufour. Femelle de mon cabinet; mâle du musée de M. le général Dejean ” [From central France or northern Spain. Sent by Mr. Léon Dufour. Female in my collection, male in the collection of General Dejean]. Baker (1994: 1196) located the degraded male syntype in Dejean material in the OUMNH collection, but declined to designate it as the lectotype until material in the MNHN collection (Lepeletier collection) could be examined. The female specimen in the MNHN is also in poor condition, with only the head and mesosoma remaining (pers. obs.), but this is enough to clearly recognise its identity which is in line with the modern interpretation. As Baker noted, the identity of this distinctive species has been clear with correct sex association since the work of Lepeletier, and consequently I did not photograph either specimen. The “ terra typica ” is not clearly specified in the work of Lepeletier, but since the species is either absent from Spain or has a very marginal occurrence there, with no specimens examined to date (Fig. 2), it is best to consider it as having been described from France. Currently, no specimens have been observed from west of the “ departements ” of Gard and Bouches-du-Rhône, suggesting that the species has never occurred in Spain.</p><p>The remaining synonymies are relatively clear, although it was not possible to examine the type of A. fasciculipes as it is still on loan to Chris O’Toole who passed away in 2021. The specimen should be somewhere in the OUMNH collection which currently houses O’Toole’s unintegrated personal collection (pers. obs.).</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Europe from France eastwards to Albania *, North Macedonia *, Bulgaria, Greece, Russia (European part), Turkey, the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel &amp; West Bank), the Caucasus, Iraq *, Iran, and Turkmenistan (Kopet Dag) (Fig. 2; Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau 1841; Friese 1897; Atanassov 1964; Baker 1994; Levchenko et al. 2017; Boustani et al. 2021; Reverté et al. 2023; Ascher and Pickering 2026). It was not possible to examine any material from the European part of Russia; Friese (1897: 211) mentioned a record from Sarepta (= Volgograd), but no such specimen could be found in the ZMHB collection.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6900516D4B5F53AEA49D47EFA3D892BE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Wood, Thomas J.	Wood, Thomas J. (2026): A revision of Anthophora (Caranthophora) Brooks with a remarkable new species from the Afrotropical region (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 73 (2): 385-404, DOI: 10.3897/dez.73.201925
3D721EF5BC4357D5A3834A23FD094411.text	3D721EF5BC4357D5A3834A23FD094411.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora (Caranthophora) hedini Alfken 1936	<div><p>4. Anthophora (Caranthophora) hedini Alfken, 1936</p><p>Anthophora hedini Alfken, 1936: 19, ♀ ♂ [China: Gansu, NHRS, not examined].</p><p>Material examined.</p><p>China • 2 ♂; Kina, S. Kansu [Gansu province, precise location unclear]; Dr. Hummel leg.; ZMHB (paratypes) .</p><p>Notes.</p><p>Alfken described the species based on a single female which he explicitly designated as holotype (hence the paralectotype label in Fig. 7 A is unnecessary), as well as seven male paratypes. He retained two paratypes in his collection which are now present in the ZMHB (Fig. 7); these specimens are undated, but from the publication they were collected between 9 May – 15 Jun. 1930. Whilst it has not yet been possible to examine the holotype female, the male is clearly distinct based from all other Anthophora (Caranthophora) species due to the shape of the hind basitarsus (Fig. 7 E) which has a more strongly produced depression and carina present on the outer face than A. iole, as well as a distinctly produced hyaline tooth on the apex of the hind tibia (Fig. 7 E), and the distinctive pale facial maculations which are greatly reduced on the clypeus compared to all other species (Fig. 7 C). As noted in the previous section, A. unispina appears to be more closely allied to A. hedini, but examination of dissected material is necessary to clarify this situation. Additional unpublished specimen records from the IZCAS (M. Orr, pers. comm.) are presented in Fig. 2, expanding the distributional range to Yunnan.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>China (Gansu, Sichuan, Yunnan) (Fig. 2; Alfken 1936).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/3D721EF5BC4357D5A3834A23FD094411	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Wood, Thomas J.	Wood, Thomas J. (2026): A revision of Anthophora (Caranthophora) Brooks with a remarkable new species from the Afrotropical region (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 73 (2): 385-404, DOI: 10.3897/dez.73.201925
F694DB1620E05E02AEEA0414D8BD283A.text	F694DB1620E05E02AEEA0414D8BD283A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora (Caranthophora) iole Bingham 1898	<div><p>3. Anthophora (Caranthophora) iole Bingham, 1898</p><p>Anthophora iole Bingham, 1898: 128, ♂ [India: Himachal Pradesh, NHMUK, examined] (Fig. 3).</p><p>Anthophora albopicta Cockerell, 1917: 288, ♀ [Iran, USNM, examined] (Fig. 4) syn. nov.</p><p>? Heliophila unispina Wu, 1982: 417, ♂ [China: Xizang,? IZCAS, not examined].</p><p>Material examined.</p><p>India • 1 ♂; Simla [Shimla]; 1–31 May 1897; C. G. Nurse leg.; NHMUK (holotype) • 2 ♂; Simla [Shimla]; 1–31 Aug. 1898; C. G. Nurse leg.; D. B. Baker det. 1988; NHMUK ; Iran • 1 ♀; Kotal Malul, So. Persia [<a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=51.4068&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=29.4751" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 51.4068/lat 29.4751)">Kotal-e Malu</a>, Fars province, 29.4751°N, 51.4068°E]; 1–28 Feb. 1906; F. Benton leg.; USNM, Type No. 23147 (holotype of Anthophora albopicta) ; Nepal • 3 ♂; Kathmandu; 15 Apr. 1980; Hohmann leg.; SMNS ; Oman • 1 ♀; Dhofar, 13 km N Mirbat, Jb. Samhan [Jabal Samhan]; 4 Sep. 2019; C. Schmid-Egger leg.; CSE • 1 ♂, 1 ♀; Maskat, Al Hajar, Wadi Al Maih; 150 m a. s. l.; 9 Jan. 2025; S. Hopfenmüller leg.; SHPC ; United Arab Emirates • 1 ♂; Jebel Hafit / S El Ain; 13 Jan. 2011; C. Schmid-Egger leg.; CSE .</p><p>Notes.</p><p>Anthophora iole was described from the Western Himalayas, and nothing seems to have been published on it since that point, other than very brief identification characters and subgeneric classification in Brooks (1988: 470). Examination of Anthophora (Caranthophora) specimens from the eastern Arabian Peninsula, an area from which Caranthophora have never previously been reported, shows that they are surprisingly identical to A. iole . Remarkably, there is no difference in the genital capsule and internal sterna of specimens from the United Arab Emirates and Oman (Fig. 5 A, C, E, G) and specimens from Nepal and India (Fig. 5 B, D, F, H). Whilst the holotype of A. iole lacks its metasoma, one of the key male characters can be seen in the shape of the hind basitarsus which is distinctly flattened medially, almost concave and spoon-like (Fig. 3 D). For characters requiring dissection, most important are the disc of S 7 with the apodeme distinctly elevated and with the anterior margin wavy (almost fish-tailed; Fig. 5 C, D) and the genital capsule with the apical part of the gonocoxa displaying a distinct semi-circular emargination in its outer margin and with the gonocoxa produced into a rounded apex (Fig. 5 E, F).</p><p>With the unambiguous male characters, populations in Arabia and the Western Himalayas can be considered to be conspecific. But, are specimens known from intermediate locations in Iran and Pakistan? The key to this lies in understanding the morphology of the female of A. iole which displays extensive pale markings on the face; specimens from southern Oman (Fig. 6 A) and northern Oman (Fig. 6 B) show a mixture of yellow and brown markings, but in both cases the pale marking occupied over half the visible surface of the clypeus. This marking was obliquely referred to as “ brown ” by Brooks (1988: 470). There is a slight sculptural difference in that the female from southern Oman (Fig. 6 A) has a longitudinal impunctate strip basomedially, whereas the female from northern Oman lacks such a strip, with the basomedial surface evenly punctate. Since the specimen from northern Oman was captured with a male, and the other male record comes from the nearby United Arab Emirates, the female from northern Oman is considered to be most representative of A. iole . Should male material from southern Oman become available, differences between the northern and southern populations could be investigated further.</p><p>With the characterisation of the female of A. iole, the identity of a very poorly understood taxon can be clarified, specifically Anthophora albopicta which was described from southern Iran based on a single female specimen (Fig. 4). Cockerell placed it into the subgenus Micranthophora Cockerell, 1906, and highlighted the pale clypeus marking on a “ light ferruginous field ” (Fig. 4 C). He also described the metasoma which is missing from the specimen in its current form:</p><p>Abdomen broad, hind margins of segments whitish hyaline; whole surface of dorsal segments rather thinly covered with appressed pale hair, not forming bands; apex with a patch of black hair; apical plate very long and narrow.</p><p>This is clearly consistent with female A. iole, and when combined with the facial marking which matches that seen in the specimen from Oman, A. albopicta can be recognised as a junior synonym of A. iole syn. nov. Brooks (1988: 491) placed A. albopicta into the subgenus Heliophila Klug, 1807, probably because he simply followed Cockerell’s placement and treated Micranthophora as part of Heliophila when it is actually quite distinct (Orr et al. 2018, 2022); it is unclear if he ever examined the holotype specimen of A. albopicta directly.</p><p>It is challenging to understand precisely where “ Kotal Malul ” is within Iran. Frank Benton (1852–1919) was an American entomologist focusing on honeybees. In early 1906, he travelled from Turkestan (modern Uzbekistan) through Iran to the north-western part of British India (today Pakistan). It is possible to trace some of his stops through catalogues; Galloway (1907) listed plant specimens collected and sent by Benton with the date of receipt, allowing some of his itinerary to be reconstructed:</p><p>Erivan, Russia [Yerevan, Armenia]; received 26 Jan. 1906.</p><p>Samarkand [Uzbekistan]; received 22 Jan. – 9 Feb. 1906.</p><p>Ispahan, Persia [Isfahan, Isfahan Province, Iran]; received 14 Feb. – 2 Apr. 1906.</p><p>Shiraz, Persia [Shiraz, Fars Province, Iran]; received 2 Apr. 1906.</p><p>Nizamabad, central Persia [Nezamshahr, Kerman Province, Iran]; received 2 Apr. 1906.</p><p>Karachi, province of Sind, India [Karachi, Pakistan]; received 16 Apr. 1906.</p><p>Quetta, Baluchistan [Quetta, Pakistan]; received 16 Apr. 1906.</p><p>On the basis of the collecting labels of Benton (e. g. Cockerell 1917, with many specimens collected around Quetta in March 1906), the receipt of plant material would seem to trail collection by around 4–6 weeks, which would line up with collection in the province of Fars in February 1906. Searches in Persian texts (Arash Roudbar, pers. comm.) indicates that the original name was Kotal-e Mal’un referring to a steep mountain pass (literally meaning “ cursed pass ” in Persian). This mountain pass (located at 29.4751°N, 51.4068°E) is on what was the main route to the Persian Gulf, and it is likely that Benton visited here in February 1906. On the basis of this Iranian record, A. iole should be present somewhere in Pakistan, but all that can be currently said is that none of the species described by Nurse (1904) match it, and further sampling is required.</p><p>Finally, it is necessary to discuss the action of Brooks (1988: 566) who synonymised Heliophila unispina under A. iole without providing any additional information or justification. Heliophila unispina was described based on two males from “ Xizang: Gyirong, 2800 m. 20. VII. 1975, Chang Xuezhong ”, this referring to Gyirong around 28.39°N, 85.32°E. Whilst this is extremely close to the border with Nepal and lies around 75 km from Kathmandu, the synonymy of Brooks is questionable. Wu (1982: 417–418) provided a description which, due to the general inaccessibility of this publication, is reproduced here after machine translation from Chinese, with minor stylistic edits:</p><p>(92) Heliophila unispina, new species (fig. 40). Body length: 10 mm. Mandibles with two teeth; labrum with coarse, shallow punctures; labial base smooth with fine punctures; antennal segment 3 equal to the sum of the following two segments; thorax densely punctured; hind tibiae extended medially into a spiny structure, located between the two spurs, its length being one-quarter to one-fifth of the spur length (fig. 40 b); hind tarsi broad and flattened; T 7 with a tooth-like projection on each side of the distal margin; S 7–8 and genital capsule shown in fig. 40 d, e. Body black, labial base (black on both sides), labrum (with black circular spots on both sides of the base), the base of the mandibles, the sides of the face, the transverse stripe at the base of the maxillae, and the anterior surface of the scape are all light yellow; the apex of the mandibles is reddish-brown; the basal plates and veins of the wings are dark brown; the legs are dark brown; the tarsi are lighter in colour. The body is covered with long white hairs; the sides of the face and around the ocelli are covered with black hairs, mixed with yellowish-white long hairs; the thorax is covered with greyish-white mixed with brown long hairs; the first tergite of the abdomen is covered with sparse greyish-yellow long hairs, the distal margins of tergites 2–5 are banded with white hairs, and T 2–6 are covered with sparse short black hairs; the mid-leg basal tarsus is slender, with black brush-like hairs on the inner side, long hairs on both sides, and long black hairs on the last tarsus (fig. 40 a); the inner hairs of the hind leg basal tarsus are black; the spur is dark brown.</p><p>This species is similar to Heliophila tibialis (Mor.), but differs in the following ways: (1) antennae extend to the metathorax; (2) the mid-leg basal tarsus is slender with black brush-like hairs on the inner side, and the last tarsus has long black hairs; the hind leg basal tarsus has black hairs on the inner side; the spur is dark brown.</p><p>Based on the illustrations provided (Wu 1982: 418, fig. 40), it is extremely clear that Heliophila unispina is indeed an Anthophora (Caranthophora) species due to the characteristic morphology of S 7–8 and the genital capsule. However, it is also not possible for A. unispina to be conspecific with A. iole because whilst the apodeme of S 7 is very similar, the genital capsule (fig. 40 f) lacks a semicircular emargination in the outer margin of the apical part of the gonocoxa (e. g. Fig. 5 G, H). The description more closely fits with Anthophora hedini Alfken, 1936 (see next section) due to the colouration of the face and the presence of a spine at the apex of the hind tibia. Specifically, Wu indicates yellow markings on the labrum, lower paraocular areas, and antennal scape, but not the clypeus itself. This is broadly consistent with A. hedini which has the clypeus predominantly dark (Fig. 7 C) compared to A. iole which has the clypeus predominantly pale-marked (Fig. 3 C). Wu indicates that the apex of the hind tibia is produced into a pointed spine (illustrating this in fig. 40 b); a spine matching this description is present in A. hedini (Fig. 7 E). In A. iole, the apex of the hind tibia is produced into a rounded and flattened lamellate tooth; this can vaguely resemble a spine when viewed posteriorly (i. e. with the flattened surface not visible), but it is difficult to describe as “ extended medially into a spiny structure ”. However, a comparison of genital morphologies has not been possible, since only undissected specimens of A. hedini have been available.</p><p>A direct observation of Wu’s type material has also not been possible, and although Wu (1982: 421) indicates that all type material is preserved in the IZCAS, material of Heliophila unispina was not presented by Niu et al. (2025) in a recent photographic catalogue of Anthophorinae type specimens in this institution. It may have been accidentally overlooked, as the taxon is not mentioned even as a species for which material could not be found. Specimens may remain in the general collection without having been incorporated into the type collection which was the focus of the efforts of Niu et al. (M. Orr, pers. comm.). Consequently, the synonymy of Brooks is maintained with the need to understand if A. unispina is in fact more closely allied with A. hedini or instead represents a further distinct Anthophora (Caranthophora) species.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>United Arab Emirates *, Oman *, Iran (Fars), India (Himachal Pradesh), Nepal * (Fig. 2; Bingham 1898; Cockerell 1917, as A. albopicta; Brooks 1988). Ascher and Pickering (2026) list a specimen from Nepal (KSEM 1309303) from the Snow Entomological Museum Collection (University of Kansas Natural History Museum) identified by Brooks, but the record presented here is considered to be the first formally published from this country.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F694DB1620E05E02AEEA0414D8BD283A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Wood, Thomas J.	Wood, Thomas J. (2026): A revision of Anthophora (Caranthophora) Brooks with a remarkable new species from the Afrotropical region (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 73 (2): 385-404, DOI: 10.3897/dez.73.201925
84D11862ABF25718BCFEF12471924D46.text	84D11862ABF25718BCFEF12471924D46.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora (Caranthophora) pubescens (Fabricius 1781)	<div><p>1. Anthophora (Caranthophora) pubescens (Fabricius, 1781)</p><p>Apis pubescens Fabricius, 1781: 484, sex not specified but ♀ [Italy, NHMD, examined by photograph].</p><p>? Apis liturata Gmelin, 1790: 2789, sex not specified [Europe,? type lost].</p><p>Anthophora flabellifera Lepeletier, 1841: 40, ♂ [Algeria, MNHN, not examined].</p><p>Material examined.</p><p>Italy • 1 ♀; NHMD, 1787637 (holotype); Greece • 1 ♂; Kreta, Paleochora, 130 km WSW Heraklion; 3 Apr. 1979; Hohmann leg.; P. Westrich det. 1992; SMNS . See Suppl. material 1.</p><p>Notes.</p><p>Anthophora pubescens was described from Italy (collection D. Allioni). Zimsen (1964: 421) indicated a single specimen in Fabricius’ collection, with the bees now stored in the NHMD; a single female specimen bearing a Fabrician label remains there today (Fig. 1). This specimen was treated as the holotype by Baker and Brooks in 1978 and 1983, respectively (Fig. 1 A), and it conforms to the classical concept of the species.</p><p>The synonymy for two names given in the chresonomy of Brooks is not clear, these being Apis grisea Christ, 1791 and Anthophora flabellipes Lichenstein, 1871 [sic]. Brooks (1988: 571) listed Apis grisea Christ as a junior synonym of A. pubescens, but Warncke (1986: 100) instead listed Apis grisea Christ as i) preoccupied by Apis grisea Gmelin, 1790 (Gmelin 1790: 2785) and ii) as a junior synonym of Bombus subterraneus (Linnaeus, 1758) . Warncke’s position is more strongly justified, as Christ (1791: 130) described this taxon in the trinomial A. [pis] bomb. [us] grisea, clearly linking the taxon with a bumble bee.</p><p>Brooks also listed Anthophora flabellipes Lichenstein recte Lichtenstein as a junior synonym. This however is incorrect, and derives from Dalla Torre (1896: 283) who listed Anthophora flabellipes Lichtenstein, 1871 under Podalirius pubescens (Fabricius) . This relates to a communication by Jules Lichtenstein (1871) in the entomological bulletin between pages LXXVI and LXXIX. In this, Lichtenstein notes: “ … sont ceux d’une grosse espèce d’ Anthophora. Elle est espagnole et se rapproche beaucoup de l’ A. flabellipes de Lepeletier ” [… there is a large species of Spanish Anthophora that closely resembles Lepeletier’s A. flabellipes]. In this context, it is clear that this is simply an incorrect subsequent spelling, and no new name was created; the listing by Dalla Torre entered the European literature as if it were a specific name (e. g. Friese 1897: 142), but no-one seems to have actually checked the original work to see if the name was validly created.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>North-western Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia), Europe east to Ukraine, Russia (European part), Bulgaria, and is newly reported for Greece * (Fig. 2; Fabricius 1781; Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau 1841; Friese 1897; Levchenko et al. 2017; Reverté et al. 2023). Not yet recorded from Turkey, though based on southern Bulgarian records it should be present at least in European Turkey.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/84D11862ABF25718BCFEF12471924D46	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Wood, Thomas J.	Wood, Thomas J. (2026): A revision of Anthophora (Caranthophora) Brooks with a remarkable new species from the Afrotropical region (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 73 (2): 385-404, DOI: 10.3897/dez.73.201925
CED502F323525595AFB0D4E636D1BF39.text	CED502F323525595AFB0D4E636D1BF39.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora (Caranthophora) tarsalis Priesner 1957	<div><p>5. Anthophora (Caranthophora) tarsalis Priesner, 1957</p><p>Anthophora tarsalis Priesner, 1957: 109, ♀ ♂ [West Bank, ZMHB, neotype by present designation] (Fig. 8).</p><p>Anthophora spinacoxa Brooks, 1988: 540, ♂ [West Bank, ZMHB, examined] syn. nov. (Fig. 8).</p><p>Material examined.</p><p>Israel • 2 ♂; [label illegible] 4 Apr. 1986; R. Dukas leg.; D. B. Baker det. 1986; OUMNH • 1 ♂; Ein Gedi; 15 May 1958; Lewinsohn leg.; OUMNH • 1 ♀; En Gedi [Ein Gedi]; 20 Feb. 1985; R. Dukas leg.; C. O’Toole det. 1996; OUMNH • 1 ♀; En Gedi [Ein Gedi]; 20 Mar. 1985; R. Dukas leg.; C. O’Toole det. 1986; OUMNH • 1 ♂; Mezad Zohar; 2 Apr. 2001; L. Freidman leg.; SMNHTAU • 1 ♀; South Distr., Elat Mountain NR, Negev, malaise trap; 297 m a. s. l.; 9 Apr 1995; M. Irvin leg.; CSE • 1 ♂; Southern D., 3 km E Ne’ot Smadar; 23 Apr. 2010; Sedivy &amp; Praz leg.; ETHZ • 1 ♀; W. Ugja [Ge’a]; 28 Apr. 1976; D. Simon leg.; OUMNH • 1 ♀; W. Umrani [Urim]; 14 Apr. 1955; L. Fishelsohn leg.; OUMNH • 1 ♂; Yeroham [ Yeruham]; 17 Apr. 1972; J. Kugler leg.; OUMNH ; Jordan • 1 ♂; Jordan Valley, 10 km S Tabaqat Fahl [ Tabqet Fahel]; 24 Apr. 2007; Praz, Sedivy, Müller leg.; ETHZ ; Morocco • 1 ♂; 10 km e Agdz; 1000 m a. s. l.; 20 Apr. 2008; Sedivy &amp; Müller leg.; ETHZ • 1 ♂; 35 km S of Er Rachidia; 11 Apr. 1993; S. P. M. Roberts leg.; D. Baker det. 1994; SMNS • 1 ♂; Drâa-Tafilalet, Agdz, 6 km NW Agdz; 1050 m a. s. l.; 5 Apr. 2025; T. J. Wood leg.; TJWC • 1 ♀; Drâa-Tafilalet, Zagora, 33.8 km SW Zagora; 800 m a. s. l.; 9 Apr. 2025; T. J. Wood leg.; TJWC • 3 ♂, 2 ♀; Drâa-Tafilalet, Zagora, 8.8 km S of Tinfou (Foum Anagame); 770 m a. s. l.; 6 Apr. 2025; T. J. Wood leg.; TJWC • 1 ♀; Souss-Massa, 3 km N Centre Commune Allougoum; 800 m a. s. l.; 9 Apr. 2025; T. J. Wood leg.; TJWC ; West Bank • 1 ♂; Jericho; 13 Apr. 1909; [F. Morice leg.]; ZMHB (neotype of Anthophora tarsalis; holotype of Anthophora spinacoxa) • 2 ♂, 5 ♀; Jericho; 5 Feb. 1971; Bytinski-Salz leg.; OUMNH • 1 ♀; Mizpe Shalem; 24 Mar. 1986; I. Susman leg.; OUMNH • 1 ♀; Mizpe Shalem; 25 Feb. 2015; T. Jumah leg.; SMNHTAU • 1 ♀; Wadi Ahmer; 8 Apr. 1986; I. Susman leg.; OUMNH • 1 ♀; Avenat Rt. 90 [ Avnat]; 17 Mar. 2004; I. Zonstein leg.; SMNHTAU .</p><p>Notes.</p><p>Priesner (1957: 110) described the species from “ Wadi Ambaga near Kosseir (male and female; types) ” which refers to Quseer on the Red Sea coast as well as “ Bir Abrag (South Eastern Desert) ”, presumably implying that the latter specimens were not part of the type series. Priesner indicated that the type material of A. tarsalis was in the collection of the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture; this collection appears to have been passed to the Entomological Society of Egypt but was unfortunately destroyed during the Arab Spring in 2010 / 2011 (P. Rasmont, pers. comm.).</p><p>Whilst the type material seems to be lost, Priesner provided an unusually clear diagnosis, describing in detail the structure of the male legs and concluding with: “ The species is unmistakable by the characteristically formed and extremely long middle and hind legs of the male, and obviously belongs near A. gracilipes F. Mor., but differs from it in details of the structure of the legs ”. It is beneficial to reproduce the description of the male legs here, with references to modern images inserted directly:</p><p>Hind legs quite peculiar: hind coxae with long, fine tooth [Figs 8 E, 9 F], trochanters with hump; femora simple, posterior face smooth and shining; hind tibiae much widened towards apex, at the end with a blunt interior hump; metatarsus broad, widened towards apex and with triangular tooth [Figs 8 D, 9 D], exterior margin of metatarsus convex towards apex and set with bristles [Fig. 9 B]; joints 2–5 of the hind tarsi very long, joints 2–4 of about equal length, 2 somewhat thicker than the following joints, joint 5 about 1.5 times as long as each of the preceding three [Figs 8 D, 9 B, 9 D]; the whole tarsus almost three times as long as the tibia (apical tergite damaged).</p><p>There can only be one species that this description applies to, which is the species later described by Brooks as A. spinacoxa (Fig. 8); the presence of a long tooth on the ventral surface of the hind coxae is clearly mentioned by Priesner. This was observed by Baker, and his determinations of A. tarsalis can be seen in the OUMNH and SMNS collections (see Material examined). It was not stated by Brooks, but his type specimen of A. spinacoxa was collected by Francis Morice (1849–1926); the label (Fig. 8 A) is typical of his handwriting (e. g. see Wood 2025 a: 158; Wood 2026: 272). The majority of his collection is held in the OUMNH, but he also shared material with Friese. Most famously, he visited Jericho in April 1899 along with Otto Schmiedeknecht (1847–1936) with many of the specimens being described by Friese (e. g. Friese 1899 a, 1899 b). As Friese never specified holotypes (Rasmussen and Ascher 2008), syntypic series of several species are split across multiple institutions such as the ZMHB and OUMNH, see Wood (2026: 272–273) for an example from the 1899 Jericho collecting event. The ZMHB specimen of Anthophora spinacoxa must have remained untreated in Friese’s collection until it was bequeathed to the museum. The placement of A. tarsalis into the subgenus Heliophila by Brooks (1988: 492) is considered to have been the root cause of this confusion.</p><p>Given the loss of Priesner’s original type material, it is beneficial to create a neotype given the extremely clear description and the unique morphology of this taxon. Under Article 75.3 (ICZN 1999), this neotype is designated with the express purpose of clarifying the taxonomic status of Anthophora tarsalis . The key characters facilitating recognition are present in Priesner (1957), as well as reproduced here verbatim as well as in a synthesised form in the identification key below. The specimen selected to act as neotype is the holotype of Anthophora spinacoxa (Fig. 8); the creation of this neotype means that Anthophora spinacoxa becomes an objective junior synonym of Anthophora tarsalis syn. nov., providing absolute clarity for this taxon and providing nomenclatural stability. The neotype is consistent with Priesner’s original description, represents the male (with the species originally described from both sexes), and comes from relatively close to the original type locality (around 650 km away), with it being clear that there is a shared fauna between arid parts of the Jordan Valley and the Red Sea coast of Egypt. The neotype is part of the ZMHB collection, and is available for scientific study.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Morocco, Egypt, Israel &amp; West Bank, Jordan * (Fig. 2; Priesner 1957; Brooks 1988, as A. spinacoxa; Lhomme et al. 2020, as A. (Heliophila) tarsalis). Ascher and Pickering (2026, under subgenus Heliophila) give also Algeria which is plausible given the presence of the species in southern Morocco close to the Algerian border, but no direct evidence is provided.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/CED502F323525595AFB0D4E636D1BF39	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Wood, Thomas J.	Wood, Thomas J. (2026): A revision of Anthophora (Caranthophora) Brooks with a remarkable new species from the Afrotropical region (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 73 (2): 385-404, DOI: 10.3897/dez.73.201925
F99E9604B5015AF2BBFB84BD94E71BB7.text	F99E9604B5015AF2BBFB84BD94E71BB7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora (Petalosternon) kneuckeri Alfken 1938	<div><p>Anthophora (Petalosternon) kneuckeri Alfken, 1938</p><p>Anthophora kneuckeri Alfken, 1938: 427, ♀ [Egypt, ZMHB, examined] (Fig. 11).</p><p>Material examined.</p><p>Egypt • 1 ♀; Sinai, W. Gesgir – Da’albi und Chaschibi; 22–24 Apr. 1904; Kneucker leg.; ZMHB (holotype) .</p><p>Notes.</p><p>Brooks placed A. kneuckeri into the subgenus Caranthophora despite the fact that it is known only from the female holotype and the clypeus is entirely black (Fig. 11 C). Given that the only female character listed in the diagnosis is that the clypeus has an “ inverted T-shaped pale mark ” (Brooks 1988: 470), this perplexing choice is difficult to understand. It fits more naturally into subgenus Petalosternon Brooks, 1988 and resembles an unusually small and abraded Anthophora rivolleti Pérez, 1895 or Anthophora wegelini Friese, 1914 (one that is lacking pale tomentum on the tergal discs). Without an associated male confident placement species-level identification is currently not possible. Our understanding of the subgenus Petalosternon is extremely poor, both in terms of definition, recognition, included species, and the status of the numerous names currently placed within it (e. g. Brooks 1988). It is likely that many existing names will be synonyms, but this requires a focused subgeneric revision.</p><p>Distribution.</p><p>Egypt (Sinai).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F99E9604B5015AF2BBFB84BD94E71BB7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Wood, Thomas J.	Wood, Thomas J. (2026): A revision of Anthophora (Caranthophora) Brooks with a remarkable new species from the Afrotropical region (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 73 (2): 385-404, DOI: 10.3897/dez.73.201925
