identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03BD879EFFC3BF63FF78F8FCFB7A3482.text	03BD879EFFC3BF63FF78F8FCFB7A3482.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Incasarus Gonzalez, Rasmussen & Engel 2013	<div><p>Genus Incasarus Gonzalez, Rasmussen &amp; Engel 2013</p><p>Type species: Incasarus garciai Gonzalez, Rasmussen &amp; Engel 2013</p><p>Diagnosis: Incasarus can be distinguished from other genera of Protandrenini —except Liphanthus — by i) a narrow pterostigma, with its greatest width less than twice the width of prestigma (Fig. 8), and ii) the margin within the marginal cell mostly straight (Fig. 8). All other genera in the tribe have a wider pterostigma, with its greatest width more than twice or so the width of the prestigma (at least as in Fig. 9), and the margin within marginal cell at least weakly convex (at least as in Fig. 9). From Liphanthus, Incasarus can be readily separated by the number of submarginal cells: Incasarus has iii) two submarginal cells, while most Liphanthus species have three. Among the nine described Liphanthus species with two submarginal cells, Incasarus can be recognized by any of the following characteristics: iv) upper paraocular and vertexal areas of head, as well as the mesoscutum, with dense to crowded punctures (at least as in Fig. 10); v) anterior portion of the tegula strongly sculptured (Fig. 10); vi) postgradular area of T2 not strongly depressed—not more so than in other terga (Fig. 12); vii) head and mesosoma with weak metallic reflections, visible under certain lighting (Fig. 10); viii) head and mesosoma bearing minute hairs, visible under certain angles; and ix) S7 apical lobe fused to apodeme (Figs. 23, 33, 48). In contrast, all Liphanthus with two submarginal cells, the head and mesoscutum have less dense, never crowded punctures (as in Fig. 11); the anterior portion of the tegula is unsculptured or weakly sculptured (Fig.11); the T2 postgradular area is strongly depressed (Fig. 13), more than in other terga, and the S7 apical lobe is differentiated from the apodeme (Fig. 47).</p><p>The females known in Incasarus also display characteristics i–viii, except that the mesoscutum of some species exhibits somewhat sparser punctation than in males and the microsculpture is weaker, making the surface shiny between punctures (as in Fig. 42). Females of Liphanthus with two submarginal cells can also exhibit distinct punctation but it is not nearly as dense as in any female of Incasarus (compare Figs. 41 and 42).</p><p>Key to the genera of Protandrenini with a narrow pterostigma and to the species of Incasarus</p><p>The key below is useful to separate the genera of Protandrenini possessing a narrow pterostigma —defined as having its greatest width less than twice the width of the prestigma, and in which the portion of the pterostigma within the marginal cell mostly straight (Figs. 39–40). Other genera in the tribe have a broader pterostigma, more than twice the width of the prestigma, and with the portion within the marginal cell distinctly convex (compare Figs. 8 and 9; and Figs. S27 and S 28 in Supplementary material 1).</p><p>Note that females of I. abotorabi, I. arequipensis, and I. garciai are currently unknown. The couplets pertaining to the reclassified species have been modified from the key by Mir Sharifi et al. (2019) to incorporate the new species and account for intraspecific variation in clypeus coloration observed in newly examined material.</p><p>1 Both sexes. Forewing with three submarginal cells (Fig. 39)................................ Liphanthus (in part).</p><p>– Both sexes. Forewing with two submarginal cells (Fig. 40)................................................. 2</p><p>2(1) Both sexes. Mesoscutum with variable surface sculpture and punctation density, but punctures generally never too deep and crowded (at most dense as Fig. 41). If punctures moderately dense, i=1–1.5d, then punctures are irregular in depth, size, and spacing, and microsculpture between punctures is shiny (Fig. 41). Anterior portion of tegula unsculptured to weakly sculptured (Fig. 43). T2 with postgradular depression deeper than those of more posterior terga (Fig. 45), this feature is more distinct in males than females. Male S7 with apical lobe differentiated from apodeme (Fig. 47)..... Liphanthus (in part)......................................................................... Go to key to Liphanthus species with two submarginal cells in Mir Sharifi et al (2019), pp. 58–77, excluding the species reclassified herein.</p><p>– Both sexes. Mesoscutum generally with deep, dense to crowded punctures, i=0.5–1d, and microsculpture dull. If punctures sparser, i~1d (at most as in Fig. 42), and microsculpture relatively shiny, punctures are deep, regular in size and spacing (Fig. 42). Anterior portion of tegula with coarse surface sculpture (at least as distinct as in Fig. 44). T2 postgradular depression not much deeper than that of other terga (Fig. 46). S7 with apical lobes broadly fused to apodeme (Fig. 48).. Incasarus ....................................................................................... 3</p><p>3(2) Male (11 flagellomeres; 7 metasomal terga)............................................................. 4</p><p>– Female (10 flagellomeres; 6 metasomal terga).......................................................... 11</p><p>4(3) Mandible with tuft of hairs arising from outer groove; outer ridge with acute process that surpasses the lower margin of the mandible in profile (Fig. 49). S2 and S3 with pubescent bands along apical margins (Fig. 51). Gonostylus differentiated from gonocoxa (Fig. 53).......................................... I. garciai Gonzalez, Rasmussen &amp; Engel.</p><p>– Mandible without tuft of hairs arising from outer groove (hairs are sparse, not in a tuft); outer ridge lacking process and clearly not surpassing the lower margin of the mandible in profile (Fig. 50). S2 and S3 without dense pubescent bands (Fig. 52). Gonostylus fused to gonocoxa (Fig. 54, see also Figs. 35, 65–66)........................................ 5</p><p>5(4) Metatibial spurs apices strongly curved (Fig. 55). Metabasitarsus without brush of long hairs basoventrally (Fig. 55). S7 apical lobe with angulation (Fig. 57; see also Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer 2019, Fig. 103)............................. 6</p><p>– Metatibial spurs apices straight (Fig. 56). Metabasitarsus with brush of long hairs basoventrally (Fig. 56, see also Fig. 27). S7 apical lobe truncate, without angulation (Fig. 58, see also Figs. 33, 69–70).................................. 7</p><p>6(5) Paraocular area with yellow mark (Fig. 59). F1&gt;3.5× longer than its greatest width (Fig. 59). Metasoma dark brown to black (Figs. 61, 12, 19–20). S4 with two distinct combs of thick setae (Figs. 61, 19, 22)............................................................................................... I. arequipensis . Romero &amp; Packer.</p><p>– Paraocular area dark (Fig. 60). F1 &lt;2× longer than its greatest width (Fig. 60). Metasoma reddish (Fig. 62). S4 without two distinct combs of thick setae (Fig. 62)................................. I. ancashensis (Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer) .</p><p>7(5) Inner margins of compound eyes moderately convergent below, UOD:LOD ≤1.2 (Figs. 63, 26); IAD subequal to the minimum distance between lower margin of antennal socket and epistomal suture (Fig. 63). Gonostylus apex much narrower than gonocoxa (Figs. 65, 35).................................................... I. ivari Romero &amp; Packer.</p><p>– Inner margins of compound eyes strongly convergent, UOD:LOD ≥1.4 (Fig. 64). IAD shorter than the minimum distance between lower margin of antennal socket and epistomal suture (Fig. 64). Gonostylus apex broad, almost as broad as gonocoxa. shorter than greatest width (Fig. 66).......................................................... 8</p><p>8(7) Metatibia with robust apicodorsal hairs strongly curved towards tibial apex (Fig. 67). S7 apical lobe with apicomedially oriented hairs (Fig. 69)............................................................................. 9</p><p>– Metatibia with apicodorsal long hairs suberect, not strongly curved (Fig. 68). S7 apical lobe entirely glabrous (Fig. 70)................................................................................................. 10</p><p>9(8) Clypeus in profile not strongly recurved near apex, apex and base forming angle of&gt; 90° (Fig. 71); in ventral view clypeus apex rounded, no distinct flat area apicomedially (Fig. 73). Mesosoma sculpture between dense punctures strongly imbricate and dull (Fig. 75)....................................................... I. aeneiventris (Friese) . Clypeus in profile strongly curved apically, apex and base forming angle of &lt;90° (Fig. 72); in ventral view, clypeus apex forming flat area apicomedially (Fig. 74). Mesosoma sculpture between dense punctures moderately imbricate, somewhat shiny (Fig. 76)................................................. I. cochabambensis (Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer) .</p><p>10(8) Clypeus extensively brown marked (Fig. 77); facial fovea ~4x as long as its greatest width (Fig. 79)................................................................................... I. abotorabi (Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer) .</p><p>– Clypeus narrowly brown basally to entirely yellow (Fig. 78); facial fovea a ~3.2x as long as its greatest width (Fig. 80)................................................................. I. amblayensis (Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer) .</p><p>11(3) Metatibial spurs robust and with strongly curved apices (Fig. 81). Metabasitarsal apical process at most as long as basal width (Fig. 83).................................................... I. ancashensis (Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer) .</p><p>– Metatibial spurs apices narrow, relatively straight (Fig. 82). Metabasitarsal apical process twice as long as basal width (Fig. 84)............................................................................................ 12</p><p>12(11) Clypeus apical margin orange (Fig. 85). Protibia with small orange basal mark (Figs. 87)............................................................................................ I. yrigoyeni . (Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer).</p><p>– Clypeus apical margin dark (Fig. 86). Protibia entirely dark (Fig. 88)........................................ 13</p><p>13(12) IOC 0.5–0.6× OOC (the latter measured such that ocellocular area is flat) (Figs. 89–90)......................... 14</p><p>– IOC greater than 0.6× OOC (the latter measured such that ocellocular area is flat) (Figs. 91–92).................. 15</p><p>14(13) Lower paraocular area and clypeus dull (Fig. 93)............................ I. ivari Romero &amp; Packer sp. nov.</p><p>– Lower paraocular area and at least apical 2/3 of clypeus somewhat shiny (Fig. 94)........... I. aeneiventris (Friese) .</p><p>15(13) Posterior half of mesoscutum and scutellum with none to weak microsculpture, interspaces between punctures shiny (Fig. 95).......................................................... I. cochabambensis (Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer) .</p><p>– Posterior half of mesoscutum and scutellum with distinct microsculpture between punctures, somewhat dull (Fig. 96)................................................................... I. amblayensis (Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BD879EFFC3BF63FF78F8FCFB7A3482	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Romero, Nora;Packer, Laurence	Romero, Nora, Packer, Laurence (2026): Reassessment of Incasarus (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae: Protandrenini) with the description of two new species (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Zootaxa 5828 (2): 151-195, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1
03BD879EFFDDBF63FF78FAE6FE8C379E.text	03BD879EFFDDBF63FF78FAE6FE8C379E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Incasarus garciai Gonzalez, Rasmussen & Engel 2013	<div><p>Incasarus garciai Gonzalez, Rasmussen &amp; Engel, 2013</p><p>(Figs. 1, 3, 7–8, 14–15, 49, 53)</p><p>This species was described in some detail by Gonzalez et al. (2013) and this information is not repeated here, although a new diagnosis and images are provided to facilitate its separation from congeners.</p><p>Diagnosis: Males can be distinguished from all other species in the genus by any the following characters: presence of a distinct tuft of long setae on the outer mandibular groove (Figs. 14, 49); outer mandibular ridge forming an acute process that surpasses the lower margin of the mandible (Figs. 14, 49); S1 and S2 with apicolateral bands of dense and long setae (Figs. 15, 51); and the gonostylus differentiated from the gonocoxa (Figs. 3, 53). Other members of the genus lack both the tuft on outer groove, and the acute process of the outer ridge of the mandible, and the apicolateral bands with dense and long hairs on S2 and S3 of I. garciai . The female remains unknown.</p><p>New record: PERU. 1♂; Huánuco, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-76.296&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-9.891" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -76.296/lat -9.891)">CP [Centro Poblado] Nauyan Rondos</a>, 9°53’28.27”S, 76°17’44.98”W [- 9.891, -76.296], 3008 m, vi.2019, I. Medina — MUSM .</p><p>Comments: This species was described based upon a sole male specimen from PERU, Ayacucho {-13.16, -74.21}, 2750 m, 22.xi.1971. However, the specimen could not be located at MUSM where it was reportedly deposited (Gonzalez et al. 2013; Mabel Alvarado, pers. comm.; Victor Gonzalez, pers. comm.). The specimen from Huánuco examined in this study largely agrees with the published description in most external morphological features and in the structure of the terminalia, and the differences between this new specimen and the description of the holotype seem minor. Further, as the two localities for the specimens are separated by 426 km, we assume conspecificity.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BD879EFFDDBF63FF78FAE6FE8C379E	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Romero, Nora;Packer, Laurence	Romero, Nora, Packer, Laurence (2026): Reassessment of Incasarus (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae: Protandrenini) with the description of two new species (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Zootaxa 5828 (2): 151-195, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1
03BD879EFFDCBF62FF78FF45FAAF3565.text	03BD879EFFDCBF62FF78FF45FAAF3565.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Incasarus aeneiventris (Friese 1908) Romero & Packer 2026	<div><p>Incasarus aeneiventris (Friese, 1908), comb. nov.</p><p>(Figs. 7, 16–17, 44, 64, 71, 73, 75, 89–90, 94)</p><p>= Panurginus aeneiventris Friese 1908, in Friese (1908)</p><p>= Panurgillus aeneiventris (Friese, 1908), in Schlindwein &amp; Moure (1999)</p><p>= Rhophitulus aeneiventri s (Friese, 1908), in Moure (2022)</p><p>= Liphanthus fritzi Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer, 2019, in Mir Sharifi et al. (2019), syn. nov.</p><p>Comments: Direct examination of the female lectotype and male paralectotype of Panurginus aeneiventris Friese, 1908, currently Rhophitulus aeneiventris following Moure (2022), deposited at the ZMHB (Figs. 16 – 17), revealed that it is conspecific with Liphanthus fritzi Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer, 2019 . The most noticeable difference between the female lectotype of R. aeneiventris we both studied at ZMHB and the female specimen of L. fritzi is the slightly reddish tints of the metasoma in the former; however, we suspect that this coloration may be due to the method of collection or specimen preservation, and not taxonomically significant. The only other minor difference observed was in the IOD:OOD ratio (0.6 in R. aeneiventris versus 0.5 in L. fritzi), which falls within the range of variation observed for other species of Incasarus and is incorporated into the identification key provided below. No notable morphological differences were detected between the paralectotype male of R. aeneiventris and the male holotype and male paratype of L. fritzi . Therefore, Incasarus aeneiventris (Friese, 1908) is regarded here as a senior synonym of Liphanthus fritzi Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer syn. nov. This species was redescribed in detail in Mir Sharifi et al. (2019), and that information is not repeated here; however, we include type specimen information, additional locality records and new images to aid with identification.</p><p>Lectotype and paratype locality: ARGENTINA. Lectotype ♀; Salta, 2500 m, [iii]. 1905, Steinbach . Paratype ♂; same data except 1200 m .</p><p>New records: ARGENTINA. 1♂, 1♀; Catamarca, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-65.116&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-28.783" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -65.116/lat -28.783)">Quirós</a> {-28.783, -65.116, 300 m}, 28.xi.1941 — MLPA . 3♂, 1♀; Catamarca, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-65.875&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-28.207" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -65.875/lat -28.207)">Rodeo</a> {-28.207, -65.875}, 1500 m, 8–28.i.1954. R. Golbach — IFML . 1♂, 1♀; Jujuy, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-65.969&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-22.062" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -65.969/lat -22.062)">Río Chico</a> {-22.062, -65.969, 3000 m}, 18.ii.1985, J.F — MLPA . One 1♂; Jujuy, Valle Grande, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-64.944&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-23.466" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -64.944/lat -23.466)">Finca Arrayanaí</a>, - 23.466, -64.944, 1709 m, 16.xi.2023, L. Álvarez &amp; M. Lucía — MLPA . 1♂; Salta, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-66.02&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-26.043" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -66.02/lat -26.043)">Yacochuya</a>, {-26.043, -66.020}, 2400 m, 04.iv.1969, A. Willink — IFML . 8♂, 1♀; Salta, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-64.606&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-24.676" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -64.606/lat -24.676)">Finca El Rey</a> {-24.676, -64.606, 1200 m}, 31.xi.1952, A. Ogloblin — MLPA . 1♀; Tucumán, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-65.315&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-26.793" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -65.315/lat -26.793)">Horco Molle</a> {-26.793, -65.315, 600 m}, 01.i.1966, L.A. Stange — IFML . 1♀; Tucumán, camino a [road to] <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-65.613&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-26.313" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -65.613/lat -26.313)">Hualinchay</a>, -26.313, -65.613, {2000 m}, 5.xi.2013, L. Álvarez &amp; M. Lucía — MLPA . 1♂, 1♀; Tucumán, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-65.489&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-26.248" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -65.489/lat -26.248)">Colalao</a>, {-26.248, -65.489, 1000 m}, Arnau — MLPA .</p><p>The following four species were described for the first time and in detail in Mir Sharifi et al. (2019), and that information is not repeated here. When applicable, new records and additional comments are provided.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BD879EFFDCBF62FF78FF45FAAF3565	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Romero, Nora;Packer, Laurence	Romero, Nora, Packer, Laurence (2026): Reassessment of Incasarus (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae: Protandrenini) with the description of two new species (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Zootaxa 5828 (2): 151-195, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1
03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FF45FB8F313E.text	03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FF45FB8F313E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Incasarus abotorabi (Mir Sharifi & Packer 2019) Romero & Packer 2026	<div><p>Incasarus abotorabi (Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer, 2019) comb. nov.</p><p>(Figs. 7, 70, 77, 79)</p><p>= Liphanthus abotorabi Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer, 2019, in Mir Sharifi et al. (2019)</p><p>Comments: Female remains unknown. No additional records are currently known.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FF45FB8F313E	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Romero, Nora;Packer, Laurence	Romero, Nora, Packer, Laurence (2026): Reassessment of Incasarus (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae: Protandrenini) with the description of two new species (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Zootaxa 5828 (2): 151-195, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1
03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FE79FC7432F5.text	03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FE79FC7432F5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Incasarus amblayensis (Mir Sharifi & Packer 2019) Romero & Packer 2026	<div><p>Incasarus amblayensis (Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer) comb. nov.</p><p>(Figs. 7, 68, 78, 80, 86, 88, 91–92, 96)</p><p>= Liphanthus amblayensis Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer, 2019, in Mir Sharifi et al. (2019)</p><p>New records: ARGENTINA. 3♂; Catamarca, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-65.641&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-28.373" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -65.641/lat -28.373)">El Portezuelo</a>, {-28.373, -65.641, 800 m}, 27.xi.1991 — MLPA . 1♀; Catamarca, N. Andalgalá, {1500 m}, 14–15.ii.2003, L. Packer — PCYU .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FE79FC7432F5	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Romero, Nora;Packer, Laurence	Romero, Nora, Packer, Laurence (2026): Reassessment of Incasarus (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae: Protandrenini) with the description of two new species (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Zootaxa 5828 (2): 151-195, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1
03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FD31FC4A338A.text	03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FD31FC4A338A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Incasarus ancashensis (Mir Sharifi & Packer 2019) Romero & Packer 2026	<div><p>Incasarus ancashensis (Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer, 2019) comb. nov.</p><p>(Figs. 7, 55, 60, 62, 81, 83)</p><p>= Liphanthus ancashensis Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer, 2019, in Mir Sharifi et al. (2019)</p><p>Comments: Mir sharifi et al. (2019) recognized this as a very distinctive species with numerous unique characteristics, including the sexual dimorphism in colour (brown metasoma of the females versus red of the males), the male modified S6 and unique genitalia. No additional records are currently known.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FD31FC4A338A	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Romero, Nora;Packer, Laurence	Romero, Nora, Packer, Laurence (2026): Reassessment of Incasarus (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae: Protandrenini) with the description of two new species (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Zootaxa 5828 (2): 151-195, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1
03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FBEDFDCC356F.text	03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FBEDFDCC356F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Incasarus cochabambensis (Mir Sharifi & Packer 2019) Romero & Packer 2026	<div><p>Incasarus cochabambensis (Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer, 2019) comb. nov.</p><p>(Figs. 7, 10, 42, 56, 66–67, 69, 72, 74, 76, 95)</p><p>= Liphanthus cochabambensis Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer, 2019, in Mir Sharifi et al. (2019)</p><p>No additional records are currently known.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FBEDFDCC356F	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Romero, Nora;Packer, Laurence	Romero, Nora, Packer, Laurence (2026): Reassessment of Incasarus (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae: Protandrenini) with the description of two new species (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Zootaxa 5828 (2): 151-195, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1
03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FA88FE7B37ED.text	03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FA88FE7B37ED.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Incasarus yrigoyeni (Packer 2019) Romero & Packer 2026	<div><p>Incasarus yrigoyeni (Packer, 2019) comb. nov.</p><p>(Figs. 7, 85, 87)</p><p>= Liphanthus yrigoyeni Packer, 2019, in Mir Sharifi et al. (2019).</p><p>New record: ARGENTINA. 1♀; Jujuy, 20 Km S <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-65.619&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-22.891" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -65.619/lat -22.891)">Abra Pampa</a>, -22.891 -65.619, 3682 m, 11.iv.2018, L. Packer — MACN .</p><p>Comments: This species was described based on a female specimen. The male is unknown. The authors noted the dense punctation on the head and mesoscutum, which suggested it could be the female of I. abotorabi (Mir Sharifi &amp; Packer); however, they argued against this possibility due to the presence of pale markings on the legs, a feature absent in females of other species in the group. Although we did not include this species in our morphological analysis because most characters were scored from males, we hereby reassign it to Incasarus because of the combination of narrow pterostigma, two submarginal cells; dense punctation on head, crowded punctation on mesoscutum; anterior portion of tegula with strong surface sculpture; and bronze reflections on the integument of head and mesoscutum, characteristics seen in the females of this genus but not in those of Liphanthus with two submarginal cells.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BD879EFFDFBF61FF78FA88FE7B37ED	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Romero, Nora;Packer, Laurence	Romero, Nora, Packer, Laurence (2026): Reassessment of Incasarus (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae: Protandrenini) with the description of two new species (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Zootaxa 5828 (2): 151-195, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1
03BD879EFFDEBF67FF78FF45FBD03556.text	03BD879EFFDEBF67FF78FF45FBD03556.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Incasarus arequipensis Romero & Packer 2026	<div><p>Incasarus arequipensis Romero &amp; Packer sp. nov.</p><p>(Figs. 7, 12, 18–25, 40, 48, 50, 52, 54, 57, 59, 61)</p><p>Diagnosis: Males can be readily distinguished from all other Incasarus by the presence of cream markings on the lower paraocular area (Figs. 18, 20–21, 59), which is entirely dark in other members (Figs. 14, 26, 60, 63–64, 77– 78). Additionally, the combination of a mandible with a broadened apex, appearing to bear a preapical tooth (Figs. 18, 50), and the presence of comb-like patches of thick setae on S4 (Figs. 19, 22, 61) is unique within the genus.</p><p>Description. Holotype male:</p><p>Dimensions: Approximate body length: ~ 5.2 mm; head width 1.5 mm; forewing length 3.3 mm; ITW 0.9 mm.</p><p>Coloration: General integument black to dark brown, with subtle dark silver reflections on head and mesosoma, under certain angles. The following parts yellow: mandible (dark brown basally, becoming reddish-brown to orange subapically and dorsally, apex red); apical ~1/3 of clypeus, slightly more extensive adjacent to epistomal lobe; lower paraocular area (except for a narrow strip adjacent to compound eye); pro- and mesofemora apicodorsally; metafemur apicodorsal spot; pro- and mesotibiae extreme base and apex; metatibia dorsally for basal half extending apically to the anterior half; metatibia apical spot; all basitarsi dorsally (suffused with brown ventrally). Tegula, wing membrane and apical impressed areas of metasomal terga light brown.</p><p>Sculpture: Labral process unsculptured, shiny; portion below process dull. Clypeus extreme apex weakly sculptured to unsculptured, shiny, becoming areolate toward dark portion of clypeus; pale portion punctures shallow, obscure medially, mostly large and dense laterally (i=1–1.5d). Clypeus dark portion areolate, somewhat shiny, impunctate except sparsely punctate adjacent to yellow portion. Supraclypeal area areolate to moderately imbricate, shiny; punctures obscure below, deep and dense between antennal sockets (i=0.5d). Subantennal sclerite strigate, somewhat dull above, shinier below; punctures dense (i=0.5–1d). Lower paraocular area moderately imbricate, somewhat dull, punctures small, somewhat sparse (i=1–3d). Paraocular area mesad of midlength of compound eye areolate, somewhat dull around antennal socket, shinier adjacent to compound eye; punctures deep, somewhat sparse (i=1–2.5d), denser (i&lt;0.5d) below level of facial fovea. Upper paraocular and vertexal areas somewhat dull, microsculpture obscure due to dense to crowded punctures; areolate, with punctures becoming sparser (i=1d) approaching occipital area. Genal and hypostomal areas strongly imbricate, somewhat shiny; punctures shallow and somewhat obscured by microsculpture, dense (i&lt;0.5d) near compound eye, otherwise irregularly spaced (i=1– 4d). Mesoscutum dull, microsculpture obscured by deep and dense, almost crowded punctation. Scutellum and metanotum strongly areolate, dull; punctures large (i=1–1.5d and i=1–2d, respectively). Propodeum dorsal surface areolate, shiny, with weak short longitudinal striae only medially. Hypoepimeral area and mesopleuron strongly to moderately imbricate, dull to somewhat shiny; punctures shallow, dense (i=1d), sparser ventrally (i=1.5–2d). Metapleuron and sides of propodeum strongly areolate, somewhat shiny; dorsolateral area of propodeum areolate to moderately imbricate, shiny, impunctate. Metasomal terga moderately to strongly imbricate, shiny; T1–T2 punctures small, dense (i=1d), except anterior declivitous area of T1 punctures shallow, sparse (i&gt;4d). T3 punctures minute, moderately dense (i=1–2d). T4–T6 punctures shallow, irregular in size and spacing (i≤3d); apical impressed areas of terga imbricate, somewhat shiny, impunctate. Metasomal sterna moderately imbricate, somewhat shiny; punctures shallow, obscure.</p><p>Pubescence: Generally white, sparse, and short. Head and mesoscutum minute, dense hairs, only visible from certain angles. Labrum with short ≤0.5MOD, branched, dense hairs apically, sparser laterally. Clypeus with long ≤2MOD hairs subapicolaterally, ≤3MOD on extreme apicolateral margin. Lower paraocular area and scape with long ≤2MOD hairs; ≤1.5MOD on vertexal area; ~1MOD on genal and hypostomal areas. Pronotum lateral surface branched hairs ≤1MOD, Mesoscutum posteriorly ≤1.2MOD; scutellum laterally and metanotum ≤2MOD; posterior surface of propodeum branched, dense hairs ≤2.5MOD. Leg hairs ≤1.2MOD, except metatibia with fine apicallyoriented hairs, dorsally increasing in length toward apex 1–4MOD, equally or slightly thicker than elsewhere on metatibia; metabasitarsus hairs dense, brown basoventrally, paler brown elsewhere ≤1.3MOD. Metasomal terga generally with minute, moderately dense hairs except longer ~1.5MOD on T1 anterior declivitous surface and towards sides; row of fine and sparse hairs ~1–2MOD at junction of disc and apical impressed areas of T2–T6, T7 laterally recurved area hairs ≤2.5MOD. Sterna generally with minute, sparse hairs. S4 bearing two comb-like patches of thick black setae on apical margin (Figs. 19, 22). S5–S6 with branched medially oriented hairs, ~1.2MOD. S5 apical margin with a medial fringe of simple, posteriorly oriented hairs ≤2MOD.</p><p>Structure: Head: ~1.2× as wide as long (81:65). Mandible ~3.4× longer than basal depth (66:19). Labrum ~2.2× as wide as long (45:20), labral process rectangular, marginal ridge strong apically, weaker laterally. Clypeus ~3.2× as wide as long (36:11), convex in profile with weak medial swelling ~1/5 length from the base, extreme apex weakly recurved ventrally, in profile. Inner and outer subantennal sutures straight, subparallel, subantennal sclerite parallel-sided; anterior tentorial pit deep, at junction of outer subantennal and epistomal sutures; epistomal suture transverse between inner subantennal sutures. Frontal line weak but distinct, flat above, a raised ridge between antennal sockets. IAD&gt;AOD (10:7). Inner margins of compound eyes strongly convergent below, UOD&gt;LOD (42:35). Facial fovea small, ~1/3 as long as scape, oval, twice as long as wide (4:2). IOC&lt;OOC (9:13). Scape more than 3× as long as greatest width (13:4), length subequal to pedicel and F1 combined (14); pedicel length and width subequal (4:5); F1 more than 3× longer than wide (10:3); F2 1.5× longer than wide (6:4); [remaining flagellomeres lengths and widths subequal (~6:6), except F11 ~2.2× as long as greatest width (11:5)].</p><p>Mesosoma: Mesoscutum ~1.3× as wide as long (41:32). Scutellum as long as metanotum and dorsal surface of propodeum combined, 13:8:5. Marginal cell almost as long as distance between its apex and wing tip (32:36). Metatibia ~4.5× longer than greatest depth (50:11). Metabasitarsus weakly swollen basoventrally,&gt;7× longer than deep at mid-length (50:7). Metatibial spur apex curved, posterior spur longer than anterior.</p><p>Metasoma: Broadest at midlength of T2. S1–S3 unmodified. S4 apical margin concave medially between setal patches. S5–S6 narrowly and transversely concave, distinctly impressed relative to other sterna. S6 with shallow U-shape apicomedial emargination.</p><p>Terminalia: S7: Apodemes enormous, long and broad, anteromedial margin concave, forming an angle of less than 10° at point of attachment; apical lobes length and width subequal, fused to apodeme, apex truncate, except acute angulation longer than lobe, oriented obliquely at an angle of ~45° relative to the longitudinal axis of the lobe, lacking hairs. S8: Spiculum anterior margin strongly concave, anterior lobe with greatest width and length subequal, lateral margins strongly concave, diverging anteriorly; lateral lobe large, subtriangular; apical lobe with lateral margins converging towards narrow and subtruncate apex, covered in dense, posterolaterally oriented hairs. Gonocoxa anterodorsally convex, outer margins convex, inner margins relatively straight. laterally, strongly concave towards apex, medial margin approximately straight for most of length, briefly concave towards apex; gonostylus fused to gonocoxa, narrow, ~4× longer than medial width, apex rounded with short, mostly medioventrally oriented dense hairs; penis valve narrow, lateral margins mostly straight narrowing to truncate apex, hair short, almost indetectable.</p><p>Female: unknown.</p><p>Material studied: PERU. Holotype ♂, and 4♂ paratypes; Arequipa, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-71.734&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-16.383" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -71.734/lat -16.383)">La Joya</a>. 16°22’58.52S, 71°44’4.08”W [- 16.383, -71.734], 2000 m, 03.iv.2022, G. Sarabia. All specimens are currently housed at PCYU but will be returned to MUSM upon completion of ongoing studies. See Fig. 7 for the geographic distribution of this species.</p><p>Etymology: The specific epithet honours Arequipa, the Province of Peru where the specimens were collected, and the latin suffix - ensis, which translates to ‘from Arequipa’. The name is masculine.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BD879EFFDEBF67FF78FF45FBD03556	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Romero, Nora;Packer, Laurence	Romero, Nora, Packer, Laurence (2026): Reassessment of Incasarus (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae: Protandrenini) with the description of two new species (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Zootaxa 5828 (2): 151-195, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1
03BD879EFFDBBF69FF78FF45FCD1366E.text	03BD879EFFDBBF69FF78FF45FCD1366E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Incasarus ivari Romero & Packer 2026	<div><p>Incasarus ivari Romero &amp; Packer, sp. nov.</p><p>(Figs. 7, 26–38, 46, 48, 58, 63, 65, 82, 84, 93.)</p><p>Diagnosis: Males of this species can be differentiated from all others in the genus by the combination of the two following characters: inner margins of compound eyes moderately convergent below, UOD:LOD ≤1.2 (Fig. 26), as opposed to ≥1.4 (compare Figs. 63 and 64); and metabasitarsus with dense patch of long hairs basoventrally (Fig. 27, 56), as opposed to dense hair patch absent (Fig. 55). Incasarus garciai, I. ancashensis and I. arequipensis also have UOD:LOD ≤1.2 but these species lack the metabasitarsal hair patch. Female of I. ivari can be differentiated from all other known females of Incasarus by the combination of IOC:OOC ratio of ~0.5 (Fig. 28), and strongly imbricate and dull surface sculpture of the clypeus (Fig. 29). Female I. ivari share the first feature only with I. aeneiventris, but can be differentiated from that species by the dull clypeus of I. ivari (compare Figs. 29, 93), as opposed to the somewhat shiny clypeus of I. aeneiventris (compare Figs. 93 and 94).</p><p>Description. Holotype male:</p><p>Dimensions: approximate body length ~ 5.16 mm; head width 1.66 mm; [forewing length 3.90 mm]; ITW 0.86 mm.</p><p>Coloration: General integument black to dark brown, with subtle bronze reflections on the head and mesosoma, when observed from certain angles. The following parts yellow: mandible (except apex red); apical ~1/3 of clypeus (remainder brown). Ventral surface of flagellum dark yellow-brown. Posterior area of tegula and apical impressed areas of metasomal terga orange-brown. All tibiae brown except small orange-brown apicodorsal mark.</p><p>Sculpture: Face below antennae moderately imbricate, somewhat shiny, yellow portion of clypeus weakly imbricate, somewhat shiny; remainder of face moderately to strongly imbricate and dull due to dense, almost crowded punctation. Clypeus punctures large, irregularly sparse (i=0.5–2d), except impunctate medially. Mid- and lower paraocular area moderately to densely punctate close to compound eye (i=0.5–1d), more sparsely punctate further from eye (i&gt;1.5d). Genal and hypostomal areas weakly imbricate, shiny, moderately to densely punctate close to compound eye (i=0.5–1d), further away punctures large, shallower, and sparser (i&gt;3d). Mesosoma strongly imbricate, dull. Mesoscutum punctures dense (i&lt;0.5d); scutellum punctures larger, sparser medially (i=1–1.5d); metanotum punctures crowded, edges sharp; sides of thorax coarsely imbricate. Hypoepimeral area and posterior portion of mesopleuron punctures moderately sparse (i=1.5–2d); anterior portion of mesopleuron punctures moderately dense (i=1–1.5d); metapleuron impunctate; propodeum dorsal surface weakly longitudinally striate, striae not attaining posterior margin except medially. Metasomal terga weakly imbricate, shiny; T1–T2 punctures dense (i=0.5–1d); T3 punctures smaller, moderately sparse (i=1.5–2d); T4–T5 punctures scattered, small and shallow, almost imperceptible; T6–T7 punctures larger and distinct apicomedially (i=1–2d). Apical impressed areas of T1–T2 strongly imbricate, imbrication increasingly weak on more posterior terga. Metasomal sterna moderately imbricate, somewhat shiny; punctures shallow, difficult to detect.</p><p>Pubescence: Generally white, branched, and sparse. Apicolateral margin of clypeus, scape, lower paraocular and hypostomal areas ~1.5MOD, upper portion of clypeus &lt;1MOD. Vertexal and genal areas ~1MOD. Mesopleuron ~1.2MOD. Lateral areas of scutellum and propodeum hairs 1–1.5MOD; pronotum, posteriorly on mesoscutum, anteriorly on metanotum, and laterally on dorsal surface of propodeum &lt;1MOD. Metatibia with thick, apicodorsally oriented hairs &lt;4MOD, metabasitarsus with dense patch of brown hairs basoventrally &lt;1.3MOD. S2–S3 with erect, sparse, short hairs &lt;0.5MOD; S4–S5 with sparse fringe of apicomedially oriented hairs ~1MOD; S6 with moderately dense apicomedially oriented hairs,&gt;2MOD.</p><p>Structure: Head: ~1.2× as wide as long (84:70). Mandible &lt;3× longer than basal depth (69:24). Labrum ~2× as broad as long (40:20), labral process trapezoidal, narrowed apically, carinate laterally and apically. Clypeus ~2.3× as wide as long (90:39), convex in profile, strongly convex towards apex, angle between basal and apical portions in profile&gt;90°; apicolateral margin convex in frontal view, apicomedial margin straight. Inner and outer subantennal sutures almost straight, subparallel, subantennal sclerite thus parallel-sided; anterior tentorial pit at junction of outer subantennal and epistomal sutures; epistomal suture transverse between inner subantennal sutures. Frontal line weak but distinct, flat above, raised and carinate between antennal sockets. IAD&lt;AOD (20:24). Inner margins of compound eyes moderately convergent below, UOD&gt;LOD (55:45). Facial fovea 5.5× as long as greater width (55:10), closer to compound eye ventrally. IOC&lt;OOC (20:35). Scape 2.5× as long as greatest width (30:12), longer than pedicel and F1 combined (23); pedicel length and width equal (10:10), F1 longer than wide (13:10); F2 shorter than wide (7:10), remaining flagellomeres shorter than wide (10:14) except F11~1.5× as long as width (20:13).\</p><p>Mesosoma: Mesoscutum ~1.3× as wide as long (80:60); length of scutellum: metanotum: dorsal surface of propodeum: 28:16:14. [Marginal cell ~0.8× as long as distance between its apex to wing tip (40:45)]. Metatibia ~5.5× longer than greatest width (55:10). Metabasitarsus produced basally, ~7× longer than wide at midlength (50:7). Metatibial spurs straight, posterior somewhat longer than anterior.</p><p>Metasoma: Broadest at midlength of T2. S1–S5 unmodified. S6 apicomedially concave, sides of concavity somewhat less than right angular.</p><p>Terminalia: S7. Apodeme long and broad, anterior margins mostly straight forming obtuse angle. Apical lobe fused to apodeme, broader at base than medial length, apex truncate, space between lobes narrowly U-shaped, with moderately dense apicomedially oriented hairs, hairs much shorter than width of lobe. S8. Spiculum anterior margin concave, lateral margins diverging anteriorly; lateral lobe large, broadly rounded; apical lobe broad, subtriangular, lateral margins mostly straight except abruptly converging towards acute apex, covered in short, sparse, posterolaterally oriented hairs. Gonocoxa anterodorsally weakly convex, sides weakly convex, abruptly narrowed towards base of gonostylus, medial margins approximately straight; gonostylus fused to gonocoxa, narrow, ~2× longer than medial width, apex rounded with short, moderately sparse hairs; penis valve somewhat narrow, lateral margins weakly sinuate, gradually narrowing to pointed apex, with short, sparse, posterolaterally oriented hairs.</p><p>Allotype Female:</p><p>Dimensions: Approximate body length ~ 5.16 mm; head width 1.61mm; forewing length 3.96 mm; ITW 0.9mm.</p><p>Coloration: Generally black to dark brown. mandible orange except basal half brown and apex black. Tegula and apical impressed areas of metasomal terga translucent light brown. Pygidial plate red except apex black. Head and metasoma with weak bronze reflections.</p><p>Sculpture: Face below facial fovea moderately imbricate, somewhat shiny; disc of clypeus punctures large, variable in spacing (i&lt;1.5d), many punctures coalesced, medial line impunctate; lower mid-paraocular area moderately densely punctate (i=1.5–2d), except dense (i&lt;1.5d) adjacent to compound eye very dense (i&lt;1.5d); remainder of face strongly imbricate to areolate, somewhat dull, punctures crowded. Genal and hypostomal area moderately imbricate, shiny; punctures shallow and moderately dense (i=1–3d). Thorax moderately imbricate, somewhat shiny. Mesoscutum, scutellum and metanotum punctation dense (i&lt;0.5d); mesopleuron punctures shallow, somewhat sparse (i=1–3d). Rest of pleura impunctate. Metasomal terga moderately to strongly imbricate, somewhat dull; T1 punctures small, dense on disc (i=1–1.5d); T2–T4 punctures minute, scattered, difficult to detect among imbrication. T5 punctures large, very deep and increasingly dense toward apical margin (i decreasing from 3d to1d). Apical impressed area moderately imbricate, somewhat dull. Metasomal sterna weakly to moderately imbricate, shiny; punctures large and deep. S2 punctures on disc irregularly sparse (i=1.5–3), dense subapically (i=1–1.5d). Lateral and subapical areas of S1–S4 punctures dense, i=1–2d, medial portion punctures absent.</p><p>Pubescence: Generally white, short-branched, sparse and short. Apicolateral margin of clypeus ~1.2MOD, scape and hypostomal area ~1.8MOD; vertexal area and mesopleuron ~1.5MOD; pronotum and lateral areas of scutellum, posterior area of mesoscutum, anteriorly on metanotum and laterally on dorsal surface of propodeum ~1MOD; &lt;1.5MOD on legs, except tibial scopa with curved and thick apicodorsally oriented hairs, increasing in length toward apex, 1–3MOD, thicker and denser on dorsal margin than elsewhere. Metasoma generally with minute hairs &lt;0.5MOD; T2–T4 increasingly longer and denser hairs at junction of disc and apical impressed area ~1.3MOD. Pre-pygidial and pygidial fimbriae dense, branched, brown ~2MOD.</p><p>Structure: Head: ~1.2× as wide as long (71:58). Mandible &lt;3× as long as basal depth (29:10). Labrum ~1.3× as broad as long (20:15), labral process trapezoidal, disc depressed medially, margins weakly defined, not carinate. Clypeus ~2× as wide as long (38:19); convex in profile, apicolateral margin straight in frontal view, apicomedial margin concave. Outer subantennal sutures almost straight, inner weakly arcuate, subantennal sclerite thus parallel-sided; anterior tentorial pit at junction of outer subantennal and epistomal sutures; epistomal suture transverse between inner subantennal sutures. Frontal line distinct, a groove above, raised and weakly ridged between antennal sockets, below. IAD slightly shorter than AOD (10:12). Inner margins of compound eyes subparallel, UOD~LOD (46:45). Facial fovea deep, long, 5× as long as greatest width (15:3), margins sinuate, closer to inner margin of compound eye below. IOC&lt;OOC (9:15). Scape ~3× as long as greatest width (14:5), subequal than pedicel and F1 combined (11); pedicel length and width equal (4:4), F1 longer than wide (6:4); F2 length and width subequal (4:4.5), remaining flagellomere lengths subequal to width (~5:~5.5) except F11 ~1.7× as long as width (10:6).</p><p>Mesosoma: Mesoscutum ~1.2× as wide as long (42:34); length of scutellum: metanotum: dorsal surface of propodeum: 13:7:8. Marginal cell ~0.8× as long as distance between its apex to wing tip (36:42). Metatibia ~5.5× longer than greatest depth (50:9). Metabasitarsus length excluding apical process ~7× depth at mid-length, (28:4), apical process length 2× depth at base. Metatibial spurs straight, posterior longer than anterior.</p><p>Metasoma: Broadest at mid-length of T2. Apical portion of pygidial plate subtriangular, swollen medially extreme apex rounded.</p><p>Material studied: BOLIVIA. Holotype ♂, allotype ♀, 7♂ paratypes and 1♀ paratype; La Paz, Achocalla, W. of <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-68.093&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-16.666" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -68.093/lat -16.666)">Mecapaca</a>, -16.666, -68.093, 3804 m, 05.iv.2024, L. Packer.All specimens are currently housed at PCYU but will be returned to ANCB pending completion of ongoing research.</p><p>Etymology: The species is named in honour of Ivar Ortuño who not only drove the junior author to the type locality but, as an engineer, designed the road taken to get there.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BD879EFFDBBF69FF78FF45FCD1366E	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Romero, Nora;Packer, Laurence	Romero, Nora, Packer, Laurence (2026): Reassessment of Incasarus (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae: Protandrenini) with the description of two new species (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Zootaxa 5828 (2): 151-195, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5828.2.1
