identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03F7674D6760A545FEE8FC18FB5620A4.text	03F7674D6760A545FEE8FC18FB5620A4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora aerizusa Vachal 1903	<div><p>Anthophora aerizusa Vachal, 1903</p><p>(Figs 1; 2)</p><p>Anthophora aerizusa Vachal, 1903a: 378 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Gabon • 1♂ (invalid neotype); Ogooué, Congo; R. W. Brooks det.; MNHN-EY-EY33378.</p><p>Sierra Leone • 1♂ (lectotype by present designation); Sierra Leone; MNHN-EY-EY58555 • 1♀; Sierra Leone; MNHN-EY-EY58556 (paralectotype by present designation) • 1♀; swamp nr. York; 27.X.1991; G. G.M. Schulten leg.; T. J. Wood det.; RMNH, ZMA. INS.834654.</p><p>Unknown • 1♂; Congo; collection Ernest André 1914; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58558.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Amegilla (Aframegilla) aerizusa (Vachal, 1903) (Brooks 1988) .</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Sierra Leone, Cameroon, and Gabon (Vachal 1903a; Brooks 1988; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025). The SEMC record KSEM1323337 from Kenya (GBIF; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025) is doubtful due to the differing ecoregion which does not contain tropical forest; revision is required.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Anthophora aerizusa was described based on a female and male from Sierra Leone, without any additional information as to collector or collecting date; Vachal stated that the material was in “ ma collection ”, this being placed in the MNHN in 1911 (Rasmussen 2012). Brooks (1988: 558) introduced a confusing situation because he stated that he was unable to find this type material in the MNHN, and hence designated a neotype from Gabon (also MNHN). What is surprising is that searches of the MNHN general collection (not Vachal specimen boxes) produced the two original Vachal syntypes from Sierra Leone (Figs 1; 2), with the male labelled as lectotype by Brooks in 1983!</p><p>As highlighted by Rasmussen (2012: 9), Vachal rarely indicated that a specimen was part of a type series, and usually provided just simple identification without indicating the genus or year of determination. This can be seen in the type material for Anthophora aerizusa (Figs 1A; 2A), with just “aerizusa Vach. ” and either a ♀ or ♂ symbol. Based on this pattern, the two specimens are recognised as Vachal’s original type material,and the neotype designation of Brooks (1988) is therefore invalid; the male labelled as lectotype by Brooks in 1983 is now formally published here, by present designation. It is unclear why Brooks did not simply publish the original type material as a lectotype designation. Morphologically, the original type material is conspecific with the specimen selected by Brooks as the neotype, and so the treatment as a species of Amegilla (Aframegilla) Popov, 1950 and current species concept is justified and maintained.</p><p>Based on the description, Amegilla aerizusa is likely the senior synonym of Amegilla robinae Brooks, 1988 which was described from Sierra Leone based on a single male specimen. It has not yet been possible to trace the holotype on the MSNG collection (see Wood &amp; Bossert 2025), but Brooks (1988: 548) writes: “ A. robinae is the only species of the subgenus Aframegilla which has blue metasomal bands of hair and yellow markings on the face of the male”, additionally giving characters related to S7+8 and the genital capsule. The statement is not correct, because Amegilla aerizusa itself presents yellow facial markings and blue metasomal hairbands, and was also described from Sierra Leone, suggesting conspecificity. Brooks described the facial markings of Amegilla robinae as Aniline Yellow, the mesosomal hairs as Buckthorn Brown, and the metasomal hairs as Russian Blue; these colours are all presented by Amegilla aerizusa . However, the MNHN lectotype is not dissected, preventing comparison of the genitalia and internal sterna,and synonymy at the present time would be unwise without examining the type of Amegilla robinae, but these suspicions are formally presented here pending further study.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6760A545FEE8FC18FB5620A4	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6763A546FEFAFABFFA0920A3.text	03F7674D6763A546FEFAFABFFA0920A3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora annos Vachal 1903	<div><p>Anthophora annos Vachal, 1903</p><p>(Fig. 3)</p><p>Anthophora annos Vachal, 1903a: 378 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Democratic Republic of the Congo • 1♀; Coquilhatville [ Mbandaka]; 15.VIII.1926; T. J. Wood det.; RMNH, ZMA.INS.834647.</p><p>Sierra Leone • 1♀ (holotype); 10.V.1895; MNHN-EY-EY58557.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Amegilla (incertae sedis) annos (Vachal, 1903) (Brooks 1988) .</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Sierra Leone, Cameroon, and Democratic Republic of the Congo* (Vachal 1903a; Friese 1922, as Anthophora leucocephala; Brooks 1988).</p><p>REMARKS Vachal briefly described Anthophora annos from a single specimen from Sierra Leone, highlighting the specific pattern of yellow markings on the mandibles, labrum, clypeus, and narrowly on the supraclypeal area, the predominantly black pubescence except for the white hairs on the head and forelegs, and the almost bare metasoma. He indicated that the specimen was in “ ma collection ”, and searches in boxes of predominantly unidentified Vachal material in the MNHN produced a single female specimen bearing a handwritten Vachal label. The locality label is not quite fully faded, and reads: “Sierra Leone, 10 May 1895”. Although no collector is indicated, based on additional MNHN specimens with the same label style, the collector may have been Eugène Anatole Auguste Victor Boullet (1847-1923).</p><p>The specimen is clearly the holotype due to the Vachal label and the close correspondence with the original description. Brooks (1988: 515) did not study this specimen, but placed it within Amegilla (incertae sedis), and synonymised Anthophora leucocephala Friese, 1922 under it (Brooks 1988: 560). Whilst Amegilla annos is an appropriate combination, no evidence was provided for the synonymy, and the type of Anthophora leucocephala should be investigated in the ZMHB collection to judge its validity. Based on the holotype of Amegilla annos, no placement beyond incertae sedis is possible at the present time; it does not show any obvious affinities, and without a confidently associated male, no action should currently be made given the challenge associated with correct phylogenetic placement of female specimens within the Anthophorinae (see the subgeneric classification scheme of Brooks 1988).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6763A546FEFAFABFFA0920A3	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6762A54CFF1AFABFFE25269F.text	03F7674D6762A54CFF1AFABFFE25269F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora atrocaerulea Sichel 1869	<div><p>Anthophora atrocaerulea Sichel, 1869</p><p>(Fig. 4)</p><p>Anthophora atro-caerulea Sichel in Dours, 1869: 60.</p><p>Anthophora regalis Cockerell, 1946: 22, n. syn.</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Cameroon • 1♀ (holotype of Anthophora regalis); Metet; G. Schwab leg.; MCZ, MCZ:Ent:27598 (examined by photograph Fig. 5).</p><p>Côte d’Ivoire • 1♀; Baoulé; 1897; H. Pobéguin leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58568.</p><p>Democratic Republic of the Congo • 1♀; Congo Belge Central, Prov de Maniema, Kindu; 1917; L. Burgeon leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58569.</p><p>Gabon • 1♀; Congo, Ogooué, Samkita; 1911; F. Faure leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58570 • 1♂, 3♀; Ogooué, Lambaréné; 1911; R. Ellenberger leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58571, EY58572, EY58573, EY58574 • 3♂; Ogooué, Lambaréné;1912; R. Ellenberger leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58575, EY58576, EY58577 • 1♂, 4♀; Ogooué, Lambaréné; 1913; R. Ellenberger leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58578, EY58579, EY58580, MNHN-EY-EY58581, EY58582.</p><p>Celebes, recte Africa • 1♀ (lectotype by present designation, Fig. 4); MNHN-EY-EY58546.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Amegilla (Aframegilla) atrocaerulea (Sichel, 1869) .</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the Congo (Cockerell 1946, as Anthophora regalis; present work). If Amegilla atrocaerulea (inclusive of Amegilla regalis) is recognised as a junior synonym of Amegilla cincta, then more widespread across tropical West and Central Africa east to Uganda (Smith 1879; Vachal 1903a; Meade-Waldo 1914; Brooks 1988; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>The type material of Anthophora atrocaerulea has been considered lost, as is the case for most material described by Dours due to the destruction of his collection in World War One. However, in the case of Dours (1869), many of the taxa described in this work were sources from multiple collections,particularly the collection of Sichel, who is the taxon authority in this case. Anthophora atrocaerulea was explicitly cited as coming from the collections of “Sichel, Dours”, and examination of the MNHN collection was able to find a single specimen bearing labels in the handwriting of Sichel reading: “ atrocaerulea Sichel ” and “Décrite” [described].It is beneficial to reproduce the original description here:</p><p>“♀ Nigra . Thoracis, capitisque pilis rufis, vel ferrugineo-nigris partim viridescentibus. Abdominis 1-4 latè metallico-caeruleo marginatis. Femoribus nigro-ferrugineo pilosis,duobus anterioribus viridescentibus. Alis fumatis.</p><p>(SICHEL)”</p><p>As discussed in the Material and methods,Sichel provided the description and so satisfies the criteria of availability other than the actual publication (Article 50.1.1); it is clear from the way that this description is presented that it was entirely the work of Sichel. The specimen itself meets the original description based on the partly green hairs of the head and mesosoma, the metallic blue hairbands on the apical margins of T1-4 (hairbands composed of distinctly flattened hairs, and with the hairbands broadening medially),and the legs with blackish-orangish hairs, with the first two pairs of legs also showing metallic green hairs on their outer faces. Due to this close match and the presence of handwritten Sichel labels, the specimen is considered to be a genuine syntype and is here designated as the lectotype. The type locality was given as “Célèbes” which is today the island known as Sulawesi in the Wallacean region of Indonesia, but the specimen has no legible information displayed on the other three labels which could indicate where it was caught.</p><p>Ignoring the published stated locality, the specimen itself is clearly an Amegilla (Aframegilla) species due to the presence of metallic hairs on the head, mesosomal dorsum, on the margins of T1-4 (hairs distinctly flattened), and also on the outer faces of the first two pairs of legs, and the absence of pale integumental marks on the paraocular areas.No other group of Amegilla shows this colour combination including flattened metallic hairs on the metasoma, even the Amegilla (Zonamegilla) . Brooks (1988: 511) placed atrocaerulea into the genus Amegilla subgenus Zonamegilla based on the description and the stated type locality;the subgenus Aframegilla does not (based on current understanding) occur outside of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. In the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary, the taxon must be considered to have been described at least in part from somewhere in Africa. Dours indicated specimens in his collection which may indeed have been from Sulawesi,but since these are lost, their identity will always remain obscure.Several Amegilla (Zonamegilla) species occur on the island (see new species descriptions below), and Dours may have confused them with atrocaerulea . The specimen described by Sichel however can therefore be recognised in the combination Amegilla (Aframegilla) atrocaerulea .</p><p>.</p><p>The question then becomes which African species is Amegilla atrocaerulea? It becomes the third oldest Amegilla (Aframegilla) name described, after Amegilla cincta (Fabricius, 1781) and the non-metallic Amegilla nubica (Lepeletier, 1841) (the type species of the subgenus). Based on the morphology, Amegilla atrocaerulea is very close to Amegilla cincta due to 1) the intermixed metallic green hairs on the head and mesosomal dorsum, 2) the well-defined broad apical hairbands composed of flattened metallic hairs on the marginal areas of T1-4, 3) the dark paraocular areas, 4) the presence of intermixed black, orange, and metallic greens on the outer faces of the fore and mid tibiae, and 5) the predominantly dark tibial scopae with a strip of orangish hairs along the dorsal length of the hind tibiae. All of these characters are present in the holotype of Amegilla cincta (Fig. 6) with the exception that the tergal bands are emerald green, not blue.</p><p>Amegilla cincta itself has not always been well-understood. Originally described as Andrena cincta from “Malabaria” by Fabricius (1781: 473) which refers to the Malabar coast in south-western India. However, Meade-Waldo (1914: 56, as Anthophora cincta) summarises that this is incorrect, highlighting the comments of Smith (1879: 123-124) who argued that specimens agreeing with the type specimen in the Banks collection have been received from Sierra Leone, and hence the bee is African, not Indian. Cockerell (1919: 118) followed this concept following examination of Meade-Waldo determined specimens. Popov (1950: 258), in recognising Amegilla as a distinct genus for the first time, placed Amegilla cincta into this genus based on the description, treating it as being described from Africa. Lieftinck (1958) provided more detail about possible syntypic specimens in the Fabricius collection in Kiel (now in NHMD, Copenhagen), and also treated cincta in the combination Amegilla cincta in line with the work of Popov.</p><p>The question then becomes, if the distinction is only based on the colour of the tergal bands, is this a genuine species-level difference? It is necessary here also to consider Anthophora regalis, described from Cameroon (Fig. 5). Cockerell (1946: 22) gave minimal diagnosis:</p><p>“Related to A. expleta Vachal, but that has the bands blue becoming white laterally. A. vivida Smith, type ♀, has the hind tibiae all black, but a variety has a tuft of white at apex behind; A. vivida has emerald green bands, and no band on first tergite.”</p><p>Cockerell’s diagnosis is typically unhelpful, vaguely characterising Amegilla expleta (see next species entry),and incorrectly reporting that Anthophora vivida Smith,1879 (= Amegilla vivida) was described based on the female sex, when it was described from a male specimen (Smith 1879: 120). The holotype of Anthophora regalis is clearly an Amegilla (Aframegilla), and was placed there by Brooks (1988: 506), who took no further action. Based on this holotype, there are no differences from Amegilla atrocaerulea and it is here synonymised under it n. syn. It may be the case that both Amegilla atrocaerulea and Amegilla regalis are junior to Amegilla cincta given the minor colour differences and currently lack of documented structural differences, but further study is required.A conservative position is therefore adopted here, even though it is suspected that these minor colour differences are not representative of species-level differentiation.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6762A54CFF1AFABFFE25269F	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6769A54CFEF0FD9AFA38269E.text	03F7674D6769A54CFEF0FD9AFA38269E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora expleta Vachal 1910	<div><p>Anthophora expleta Vachal, 1910</p><p>(Fig. 7)</p><p>Anthophora expleta Vachal, 1910a: 324 .</p><p>Amegilla (Aframegilla) nila Eardley, 1994: 5, n. syn.</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Malawi • 1♂; Ntchisi Forest;25.XII.1974; H. R. Feijn leg.; T.J Wood det. (C. D. Eardley 2015 det. as Amegilla nila); RMNH, ZMA.INS.1240875. Tanzania • 1♀; Usambara, Nguelo [ Ngwelo]; MNHN-EY-EY58547 (lectotype by present designation) • 1♀; Tanganyika, Morogoro;1963; Br.Ananias Denis leg.; T. J. Wood det.; RMNH, ZMA.INS.834652.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Amegilla (Aframegilla) expleta (Vachal, 1910) .</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania, Malawi*, Zimbabwe (Vachal 1910a; Cockerell 1919; Eardley 1994, as Amegilla nila).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Vachal described a male specimen from “Mbiliwa À Wantu” [now within Lubumbashi] and a female from Nguelo, Usambara. He indicated that the male was from the MRAC collection, but that the female was in “ ma collection ”. Brooks (1988: 515) placed Anthophora expleta into the genus Amegilla, but left it as incertae sedis as he did not locate the type material. Eardley &amp; Urban (2010: 441) stated that both male and female syntypes were present in the MRAC collection, but this is false, as Vachal explicitly stated that the female was in his collection.</p><p>Searches in the MNHN collection located this female which bore a handwritten Vachal label (Fig. 7A), and it can be recognised as an Amegilla (Aframegilla) species due to the abundant power-blue metallic pubescence on the tergal margins. The female is hereby designated as the lectotype, and the recognition of Amegilla expleta as part of the subgenus Aframegilla means that it is senior to Amegilla (Aframegilla) nila Eardley,1994 n. syn. This latter taxon was described based on one female and four males from the eastern highlands of Zimbabwe (not examined) and the key diagnostic feature was indicated to be the restriction of metallic-blue pubescence to the tergal margins only, rather than extending also onto the tergal discs as in Amegilla (Aframegilla) caelestina (Cockerell, 1919) and Amegilla (Aframegilla) cymatilis Eardley, 1994 (Eardley 1994: 3, 7), and also Amegilla (Aframegilla) caerulea (Friese, 1905) . This character of tergal discs free of metallic hairs is clearly present in the lectotype of Amegilla expleta, with the recognition of this synonymy aided by the presence of a male from Malawi in the RMNH collection which was determined by Eardley as Amegilla nila, and which helps fill the distributional gap between the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe.</p><p>In light of the original description combined with the comments of Cockerell (1919: 118) who highlighted that “ Anthophora expleta ” was one of “several [African] species of Anthophora with more or less blue colour on the abdomen”, it is unclear why Brooks placed Amegilla expleta as incertae sedis.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6769A54CFEF0FD9AFA38269E	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6769A54CFC5BFD9AFA0E20A3.text	03F7674D6769A54CFC5BFD9AFA0E20A3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora hastula Vachal 1910	<div><p>Anthophora hastula Vachal, 1910</p><p>(Figs 8; 9)</p><p>Anthophora hastula Vachal, 1910b: 533 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Eritrea • 1♂, 1♀; Asmara, Eritrea; J. Vachal det.; MNHN-EY-EY58565, MNHN-EY-EY58566.</p><p>Ethiopia • 1♂; Ethiopie Merid, Tchafianani; 1-30.IV.1905; M. de Rotschild leg.; J. Vachal det.; MNHN-EY-EY58545 (lectotype by present designation) • 1♀; Ethiopie Merid, Tchafianani; 1-30. IV.1905; M. de Rotschild leg.; J. Vachal det.; MNHN-EY-EY58544 (paralectotype by present designation).</p><p>Kenya • 1♀; Afrique Orient. Angl ., Kisoumou ( Victoria-Nyanza) [ Kisumu]; 1-30.IX.1904; Ch. Alluaud leg.; R. Benoist det.; MNHN-EY-EY58567.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Amegilla (Zebramegilla) hastula (Vachal, 1910) n. comb.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Nominally Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Kenya (Vachal 1910b), but revision of African Amegilla (Zebramegilla) is required.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Anthophora hastula was not studied by Brooks, and was placed as Anthophorini incertae sedis (Brooks 1988: 450). Searches in the MNHN produced specimens of Anthophora hastula in boxes of predominantly unrevised anthophorine material from the Vachal collection. Vachal explicitly described the species based on a male and female from Tchafianani, and indicated that he also had “ un couple ” from Asmara. It was possible to find these Eritrean specimens, but it is ambiguous as to whether they are actually part of the type series. In any case, the male from Tchafianani is here designated as the lectotype.This precise locality cannot currently be traced,but can be considered to be within modern Ethiopian territory. Morphologically, Anthophora hastula can be placed as Amegilla (Zebramegilla) hastula n. comb. due to the lack of arolia between the tarsal claws, yellow-marked supraclypeal and lower paraocular areas, moderate body size, black and white banded metasoma, and lack of metallic hairs anywhere on the body. The status of Amegilla hastula and indeed all East African Amegilla (Zebramegilla) Brooks, 1988 species is unclear due to the lack of revision,and the biogeographical boundaries between Egypt, Sudan, the Arabian Peninsula, the Horn of Africa, and East Africa are currently completely unclear for this group of bees. Deep revision is required, ideally using molecular tools, with work beginning on the North African and Levantine fauna (TJW, P. Rasmont, pers.obs.). Amegilla hastula does not appear to match any Amegilla (Zebramegilla) species I have examined to date, particularly due to the long A3 which equals A4+5.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6769A54CFC5BFD9AFA0E20A3	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6768A551FEEDF8BDFDBE2183.text	03F7674D6768A551FEEDF8BDFDBE2183.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora padiola Vachal 1910	<div><p>Anthophora padiola Vachal, 1910</p><p>(Fig. 10)</p><p>Anthophora padiola Vachal, 1910b: 533 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Kenya • 1♂ (lectotype by present designation); Afrique Orient. Angl ., sud du Lac Rodolphe [ Lake Turkana], entre le chemin de fer et le lac; 1-31.VIII.1905; M. de Rotschild leg.; J. Vachal det.; MNHN-EY-EY58559.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Amegilla (Zebramegilla) padiola (Vachal, 1910) n. comb.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Nominally Kenya (Vachal 1910b), but revision of African Amegilla (Zebramegilla) is required.</p><p>.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Anthophora padiola was not studied by Brooks, and was placed as Anthophorini incertae sedis (Brooks 1988: 450). As for Anthophora hastula, one specimen of Anthophora padiola was found in predominantly undetermined material from the Vachal collection. Originally described based on two males from “ Nairobi et du sud du lac Rodolphe (VIII), Afrique orientale anglaise ”, only the specimen from Lake Rodolphe [Lake Turkana] could be located; it does not bear a typical Vachal label written with thick black ink, possibly because this material was described shortly before the end of Vachal’s life when his typical modus operandi may have been disrupted, but the specimen matches the description: “ Diffère de A. torrida Sm. par l’article 3 des antennes pas plus long que l’article 5; par son chaperon tout jaune; par la base du prototarse 3 en dehors avec un bouquet de poils gris jaunâtre .”</p><p>This short A3 that equals A5 (slightly exceeding the length of A4), almost entirely yellow-marked face (with black markings limited to the areas around the tentorial pits), and short brush of pale hairs as the base of the hind basitarsus are all visible, and the specimen can be accepted as syntypic; it is here designated as the lectotype in the absence of the specimen from Nairobi . Morphologically, it can be placed as Amegilla (Zebramegilla) padiola n. comb. due to the lack of arolia between the tarsal claws, yellow-marked supraclypeal and lower paraocular areas, moderate body size, black and white banded metasoma, lack of metallic hairs anywhere on the body, and typical genital capsule. As for Amegilla hastula, a deep revision of East African Amegilla (Zebramegilla) is required.</p><p>CLARIFICATION OF THE AMEGILLA (ZONAMEGILLA) SPECIES PRESENT ON THE ISLAND OF SULAWESI</p><p>Dealing with the subgenus Amegilla (Zonamegilla) in South-east Asia is highly challenging due to the very small morphological differences displayed by species. This resulted in many taxa being described as varieties or subspecies of Amegilla zonata (Linnaeus, 1758), the oldest name in the group and the type species of the subgenus (Popov 1950). Cockerell (1910: 412) wrote, when talking about “variation” inside Amegilla zonata: “Nevertheless, in the moist tropical islands of the Malay Archipelago it has developed several distinct forms, which are probably constant and for the most part confined to particular islands”. This is quite an understatement, as there is a swarm of currently undescribed diversity, particularly east of the Wallace Line (pers. obs.).</p><p>The challenge of characterising species is rendered more complex by the uncertain identity of Amegilla zonata itself, having been described based on the female sex only (Baker 1996). Given the challenges of correct sex association, the identity of the male is somewhat ambiguous, but a consensus exists in the limited available literature that it is the male with large and flattened more-or-less rectangular apical blades of the gonocoxae and reduced black markings around the tentorial pits (Lieftinck 1975; Baker 1996; Engel 2007), i.e., not the Amegilla zonata of Cockerell (1910) and subsequent works. Baker (1996) synonymised Amegilla cingulifera (Cockerell, 1910) under Amegilla zonata, giving it a broad distribution from India to southern China and Taiwan south to the Malay Peninsula at least as far south as Perlis (Lieftinck 1975; Baker 1996).</p><p>Whilst a case may need to be written to the ICZN to decisively and unambiguously fix the application of this name, it is the concept of Lieftinck and Baker that is followed here, with Amegilla zonata not considered to be present on the islands of Borneo, Sumatra, Java, or further east. When dealing with the fauna of Sulawesi, it is necessary to resolve the application of the names described by Cockerell, specifically Amegilla andrewsi (Cockerell, 1910) (Fig. 11), Amegilla borneensis (Cockerell, 1910) (Fig.12), Amegilla stantoni (Cockerell, 1911), Amegilla samarensis (Cockerell &amp; LeVeque, 1925), and Amegilla whiteheadi (Cockerell, 1910) (Fig. 13). Three of the five taxa and all five taxa were considered to be valid at a specific level by Lieftinck (1975) ( Amegilla samarensis and Amegilla stantoni not explicitly mentioned) and Brooks (1988), respectively, and the work of the latter is consequently used as the current taxonomic baseline.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6768A551FEEDF8BDFDBE2183	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6774A556FEE4F89DFC4020A4.text	03F7674D6774A556FEE4F89DFC4020A4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amegilla (Zonamegilla) whiteheadi (Cockerell 1910) Cockerell, 1910) (Cockerell 1910	<div><p>Amegilla (Zonamegilla) whiteheadi (Cockerell, 1910)</p><p>(Fig. 13)</p><p>Anthophora zonata ssp. whiteheadi Cockerell, 1910: 412 .</p><p>Anthophora zonata ssp. stantoni Cockerell, 1911: 233, n. syn. MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Philippines • 1♀ (holotype of Anthophora zonata ssp. whiteheadi); Cape Engano [EngaÑo], Luzon; Whitehead leg.; NHMUK • 1♀ (holotype of Anthophora zonata ssp. stantoni); Manila,PI; W. A. Stanton leg.; USNM (examined by photograph only). Additional specimens of Amegilla whiteheadi are listed in Supplementary material 1.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Malaysia (Borneo), Philippines, Indonesia (Java, Sumatra: Lampung, East Kalimantan, Sumbawa, Flores, Sulawesi, including the Talaud Islands Regency and Sangihe Islands Regency, and the Sula Islands: Taliabu) (Fig. 16).</p><p>REMARKS Cockerell described Amegilla whiteheadi based on the female sex from the northernmost part of the island of Luzon. Unfortunately, female Amegilla (Zonamegilla) are often impossible to identify without first characterising the species using the male sex, understanding the overall range, and then detecting meaningful female characters once range overlaps are understood or excluded.In his only work on Amegilla (Zonamegilla) species, Lieftinck (1975: 289) stated that there were six species of Amegilla (Zonamegilla) in East Asia with the fifth sternum “deeply triangularly or semicircularly excavated”, these being Amegilla andrewsi, Amegilla buruensis (Cockerell, 1911), Amegilla dulcifera (Cockerell, 1926), Amegilla flammeozonata (Dours, 1869), and Amegilla whiteheadi . This contrasts species like Amegilla ternatensis (Cockerell, 1910) (Indonesia: North Maluku) which has the apical margin of S5 straight. Amegilla buruensis is restricted to the South Maluku islands (Indonesia: Ambon, Buru, Ceram; pers. obs.), Amegilla dulcifera is found in China,Taiwan, and Japan (Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025), and Amegilla flammeozonata is one of the species in the unclear group of brown non-metallic Amegilla (Zonamegilla) which requires further investigation and delineation. The most abundant Amegilla (Zonamegilla) species present on Sulawesi has a deeply emarginate S5; assessment of Amegilla andrewsi (described from Java) and Amegilla whiteheadi (described from the Philippines) is necessary.</p><p>Examination of males of Amegilla whiteheadi from across the Philippines as well as type material of Amegilla andrewsi (Fig.11) and Amegilla borneensis (Fig.12) allows discriminative morphological characters to be compiled (Table 2). Males of Amegilla whiteheadi from across the Philippines are identical with males from Sulawesi in all key characters including the reduced black facial markings, light hairs overing the majority of the outer face of the hind basitarsus, bright light sky blue metallic hairs comprising the tergal hairbands, S5 with a deep semicircular incision, S6 with a semicircular depression containing a longitudinal keel, and genital capsule with a distinct notch or kink in the outer margins of the gonocoxae (Figs 14; 15). There are very slight differences in colouration, but these are not considered to be significant, and bees on Sulawesi are considered conspecific with Amegilla whiteheadi from the Philippines.</p><p>Concerning additional taxa described from the Philippines, Cockerell described Amegilla stantoni from Manila based on a single specimen, arguing that: “The abdominal bands are essentially as in true zonata, not at all as in whiteheadi ”. This statement is impossible to make with confidence, given that the type of Amegilla whiteheadi has been wetted and is in poor condition, and given that only two different single specimens are being considered with no estimate of intraspecific variation. Consequently, the colouration of the hairbands is indicative of very little. In contrast, the specimen of Amegilla stantoni (photographs available on the Smithsonian website; https:// collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/ento/) is in excellent condition, and shows the same colour pattern (bands bright light sky blue) as fresh specimens from 1) the Philippines islands; and 2) Sulawesi. From the area around Manila, the locus typicus of Amegilla stantoni, only two male types could be detected.The first is typical Amegilla whiteheadi with the deeply emarginate S5 and genital capsule with a clear kink in the outer margin of the gonocoxae (Fig. 14; see Appendix I for full specimen details), and the second was referable to Amegilla samarensis with the margin of S5 sinuate and without a clear kink in the outer margin of the gonocoxae (see following section). Given the three available names from the Philippines, the two male morphologies,and the female differences ( Amegilla whiteheadi and Amegilla stantoni smaller,with bright light sky blue apical hairbands that are relatively broad, Amegilla samarensis larger, dark turquoise blue, and comparatively narrow), and since Amegilla whiteheadi and Amegilla stantoni were both described from the island of Luzon, Amegilla whiteheadi is considered to be a specimen in degraded condition and the senior name of the species that was subsequently described Amegilla stantoni n. syn. Examination of female specimens from the Philippines and Indonesia (Java) that have been wetted reveals that the colouration of the tergal hairbands changes from the colour observed in Amegilla stantoni to that observed in Amegilla whiteheadi, supporting this action.</p><p>Revision of material in the RMNH collection allowed the overall range of Amegilla whiteheadi to be clarified, with specimens from some of the small islands south of Sumatra, Java, northern and eastern Borneo, Sulawesi including outlying islands, the Sula Islands, and the Philippines (Fig. 16; see Appendix I). On Sulawesi, Amegilla whiteheadi is an abundantly collected predominantly lowland species that is present along the coast and close to urban areas. In the RMNH collection, some of the material presented here was separated as Amegilla wallaceana Lieftinck, an unpublished manuscript name. Many visitors to the island collected it, including 19th century collectors such as Eltio Alegondas Forsten (1811-1843; collections made between 1840-1842, see van Wingerden 2020), Hermann von Rosenberg (1817- 1888; collections made between 1863-1864, see in den Bosch 1985), and Hans Fruhstorfer (1866-1922). Given the abundance of this species, it is a little surprising that it was not collected by Alfred Russel Wallace during his three visits to Sulawesi in 1856/1857 (predominantly around Makassar) and 1859 (predominantly around Manado and Tondano) (Wood et al. 2025). The presence of Amegilla whiteheadi on Sulawesi is supported by a specimen determined by Donald Baker in 2001 that is in the SEMC (KSEM942907; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>Specimens that are here considered to be Amegilla whiteheadi which were collected from the Talaud Islands Regency and Sangihe Islands Regency display noticeably darker mesosomal hair, this being almost ginger. Males however are the same, and this is considered to represent simple variation. They geographically bridge the gap between the southern Philippine islands and northern Sulawesi. Specimens were also available from the island of Maju which is located halfway between Sulawesi and the island of Halmahera (North Maluku). These specimens show a different colour pattern, though no structural differences, and are described below as a subspecies.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6774A556FEE4F89DFC4020A4	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6772A557FF4DFADFFA1A22F8.text	03F7674D6772A557FF4DFADFFA1A22F8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amegilla (Zonamegilla) whiteheadi subsp. majui Wood 2026	<div><p>Amegilla (Zonamegilla) whiteheadi majui n. subsp.</p><p>(Figs 17; 18)</p><p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:31634947-8281-4AA6-B702-2B3B837BC884</p><p>TYPE MATERIAL. — Holotype. Indonesia • 1♂; N. W. Moluccas, Majau Isl. [ Maju]; 7.XI.1953; A. M. R. Wegner leg.; RMNH, RMNH.INS.1717050.</p><p>Paratypes. Indonesia • 6♂, 12♀; N. W. Moluccas, Majau Isl. [ Maju]; 7.XI.1953; A. M. R. Wegner leg.; RMNH.</p><p>DIAGNOSIS.— Amegilla whiteheadi majui n. subsp.presents no structural differences from the nominate subspecies. However, females present much brighter orange-red pubescence on the dorsal and lateral parts of the mesosoma (Fig. 17A), and the tergal hairbands are tinged with orange to Mother-of-Pearl (Fig. 17D), whereas they are a clearer green-turquoise blue in typical Amegilla whiteheadi (c.f. Figs 14D; 15D, not when wetted as in Fig. 13D). Males show the same differences in colouration (Fig. 18A; D), with the same sternal and genital characters as typical Amegilla whiteheadi including a deep emargination in the apical margin of S5 and a longitudinal keel on S6 (Figs 18 E-H). Given that differences between the population on Maju island and populations on the other islands highlighted above are purely based on colour, it is not considered necessary to make a full structural description.</p><p>ETYMOLOGY. — Named after the island of Maju. The name is in the genitive form.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Indonesia (North Maluku: Maju) (Fig. 16).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6772A557FF4DFADFFA1A22F8	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6772A55AFC52FA7EFDA120A4.text	03F7674D6772A55AFC52FA7EFDA120A4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amegilla (Zonamegilla) samarensis (Cockerell & LeVeque 1925)	<div><p>Amegilla (Zonamegilla) samarensis (Cockerell &amp; LeVeque, 1925)</p><p>(Fig. 19)</p><p>Amegilla whiteheadi ssp.samarensis Cockerell &amp; LeVeque, 1925: 170 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Indonesia • 1♂; Celebes; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; M-Celebes, Palu-Valley; 8.V.1955; H. H. F. Hamann leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; N. Celebes; 1917; Dr.W. Kaudern leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; N. Celebes, Bolaang Mon. gondau [Bolaang Mongondow], Labuan Boroko; 1-30.VI.1949; C. Franssen leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 3♂, 1♀; N. Celebes, Minahasa, Mapanget; 1-31.V.1949; C. Franssen leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; N. Celebes, Modoinging; 1060 m a.s.l.; 1-30.VI.1941; F. Dupont leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Lore-Lindu N. P. nr. Dongi-Dongi shelter, malaise trap; -1.2500°S, 120.3300°E [co-ordinates provided]; c. 1100 m a.s.l.; 6-9.XII.1985; C. V. Achterberg leg.;T. J. Wood det.; RMNH • 1♀; Sulawesi,Tengah, Lore Lindu N. P., Marena, Hihia, 10 km N Gimpu, lowland rainforest; 360 m a.s.l.; 20.III.1985; J. P. &amp; M. J. Duffels leg.; T. J. Wood det.; RMNH • 1♀; SW Celebes, Malino; 1000 m a.s.l.; 1-30.VI.1936; L. J. Toxopeus leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; C. Sulawesi, Sungai Anowah, 41 km N of Wotu, along Trans-Sulawesi Highway; 650 m a.s.l.; 24.X.1993; J. P. &amp; M. J. Duffels leg.; RMNH • 1♂; C Sulawesi, nr Luwuk, Bunga, malaise trap; c. 300 m a.s.l.; 11-14.XI.1989; C. van Achterberg leg.; RMNH • 1♂; C Sulawesi, nr Luwuk, Salodik, malaise trap; c. 400 m a.s.l.; 11-14.XI.1989; C. van Achterberg leg.; RMNH • 1♂; Sula Isl., Mangole, near Buya, malaise trap; c. 465 m a.s.l.; 13.X.-2.XI.1993; C. van Achterberg leg.; RMNH. <p>Philippines • 1♀ (holotype of Anthophora whiteheadi ssp. samarensis); Samar; 2.VI.1924; R. C. McGregor leg.; NHMUK • 1♀; Bur. Agr., P. I.; C. R. Jones leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 2♂; Dapitan, Mindanao; C. F. Baker leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Imugan, Luzon; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Isl. Biliran; C. F. Baker leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Los Banos; C. F. Baker leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♂; Los Banos, Lag., Phil.; 30.V.1951; H. M. &amp; D. Townes leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 2♀; Luzon; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♂; Misamis Or., Mt. Balatukan, 15 km SW of Gingoog; 1000-2000 m a.s.l.; 27-30.IV.1960; H. H. Torrevillas leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♂; Mt. Banahao [Mount Banahaw], Luzon; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Mt. Maquiling [Mount Makiling]; 22.VIII.1949; L. B. Uichanco leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Mt. Maquiling [Mount Makiling]; 294 m a.s.l.; 7.VIII.1949; S. Calaustro leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Mt. Maquiling [Mount Makiling]; 380 m a.s.l.; 22.XI.1948; P. Alfonso leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 3♀; Mt. Maquiling [Mount Makiling], Luzon; C. F. Baker leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♂, 1♀; Negros Or., Mt. Talinas; 1020 m a.s.l.; 29.VI.1958; H. E. Milliron leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Palawan, 8-13 km E of Tarumpitao Pt.; 70 m a.s.l.; 21.V.1958; H. E. Milliron leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Pikit Cot. [Cotabato], Phil.; 13.VI.1953; H. Townes leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♂; St. Luis Calapan, Mindero, Phil.; 13.IV.1954; H. M. &amp; D. Townes leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♂; Surigao, Mindanao; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH.</p></p><p>Philippines • 1♀ (holotype of Anthophora whiteheadi ssp. samarensis); Samar; 2.VI.1924; R. C. McGregor leg.; NHMUK • 1♀; Bur. Agr., P. I.; C. R. Jones leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 2♂; Dapitan, Mindanao; C. F. Baker leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Imugan, Luzon; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Isl. Biliran; C. F. Baker leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Los Banos; C. F. Baker leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♂; Los Banos, Lag., Phil.; 30.V.1951; H. M. &amp; D. Townes leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 2♀; Luzon; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♂; Misamis Or., Mt. Balatukan, 15 km SW of Gingoog; 1000-2000 m a.s.l.; 27-30.IV.1960; H. H. Torrevillas leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♂; Mt. Banahao [Mount Banahaw], Luzon; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Mt. Maquiling [Mount Makiling]; 22.VIII.1949; L. B. Uichanco leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Mt. Maquiling [Mount Makiling]; 294 m a.s.l.; 7.VIII.1949; S. Calaustro leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Mt. Maquiling [Mount Makiling]; 380 m a.s.l.; 22.XI.1948; P. Alfonso leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 3♀; Mt. Maquiling [Mount Makiling], Luzon; C. F. Baker leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♂, 1♀; Negros Or., Mt. Talinas; 1020 m a.s.l.; 29.VI.1958; H. E. Milliron leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Palawan, 8-13 km E of Tarumpitao Pt.; 70 m a.s.l.; 21.V.1958; H. E. Milliron leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♀; Pikit Cot. [Cotabato], Phil.; 13.VI.1953; H. Townes leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♂; St. Luis Calapan, Mindero, Phil.; 13.IV.1954; H. M. &amp; D. Townes leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH • 1♂; Surigao, Mindanao; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Philippines and Indonesia (Sulawesi, Sula Islands: Mangole) (Fig. 16).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Amegilla samarensis was described from a single female from the island of Samar, and the holotype specimen (NHMUK) is actually labelled as “ Anthophora zonata samarensis ” (Fig. 19), but it was published as Anthophora whiteheadi ssp. samarensis (Cockerell &amp; LeVeque 1925: 170) . Examination of the RMNH collection has revealed many specimens determined by Lieftinck from the Philippines and Sulawesi. This included the undescribed male of Amegilla samarensis (Fig. 20) which can be immediately separated from Anthophora whiteheadi due to the apical margin of S5 which is essentially straight,with only very weak scalloping (Fig. 20D), with the surface of S6 also lacking a semi-circular depression and longitudinal keel (Fig. 20D). Females are slightly more challenging to recognise, but can be separated as in Amegilla whiteheadi the tibial scopa is almost entirely composed of yellowish hairs with a line of black hairs along the ventral margin of the hind tibiae, whereas in Amegilla samarensis the tibial scopae is composed of predominantly dark brown hairs with a broad line of dusky yellowish hairs along the dorsal margin of the hind tibiae.Whilst this is a colour difference, it has been able to examine a large number of Amegilla whiteheadi female specimens from Sulawesi and elsewhere,and the character appears stable. Moreover, the colouration of the tergal hairbands is bright light sky blue in Amegilla whiteheadi and dark turquoise blue in Amegilla samarensis . The hairbands are also comparatively broad in Amegilla whiteheadi, occupying around 25% of T2, 40% of T3 and more than 50% of T4, whereas in Amegilla samarensis they occupy &lt;20% of T2 and around 25% of T3 and T4. With these differences combined, separation can be made with confidence.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6772A55AFC52FA7EFDA120A4	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D677FA55DFC4AFADFFED622E2.text	03F7674D677FA55DFC4AFADFFED622E2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amegilla (Zonamegilla) sicheli Wood 2026	<div><p>Amegilla (Zonamegilla) sicheli n. sp.</p><p>(Fig. 21)</p><p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:6C341602-6401-4F73-A03A-300CEDF211A0</p><p>TYPE MATERIAL. — Holotype. Indonesia • 1♀; C. Celebes [Sulawesi], Todjamboe, Palopo [-2.9333, 120.1000]; 800 m a.s.l.; 15.VI.1941; H. &amp; E. Vonk leg.; RMNH, RMNH.INS.1716684 .</p><p>DIAGNOSIS. — Amegilla sicheli n. sp. can quickly be recognised as an Amegilla due to the first recurrent vein in the forewing joining the middle of the second submarginal cell and the absence of arolia between the tarsal claws. Recognition at a subgeneric level is in principle more challenging due to the lack of a male, with the subgeneric classification of Brooks (1988) largely based on male characters. Due to weak characters and largely indistinguishable females these subgenera were not recognised by Michener (2007), and the problem of recognising Amegilla subgenera in South-east Asia was extensively discussed by Carion et al. (2025) and partly by Wood &amp; Bossert (2025). In practice, material from Indonesia falls into two groups; subgenus Glossamegilla Brooks, 1988 which can be functionally recognised due to the relatively long tongue and absence of metallic pubescence, and subgenus Zonamegilla which can be functionally recognised due to the relatively short tongue and presence of metallic pubescence (though taxa around Amegilla flammeozonata Dours, 1869 lack such pubescence). In the case of Amegilla sicheli n. sp., the abundant metallic pubescence allows placement in the Zonamegilla .</p><p>The specimen itself is remarkably similar to Amegilla atrocaerulea at first glance, but careful examination shows that it cannot be the same due to the distinctly flattened nature of the metallic hairs comprising the metasomal hairbands in Amegilla atrocaerulea (and Amegilla cincta), whereas these are simple and distinctly unflattened in Amegilla sicheli n. sp. (compare Fig. 21F and Fig. 4F). The metasomal hairbands are also distinctly broadened medially in Amegilla atrocaerulea, whereas they maintain a uniform length in Amegilla sicheli n. sp. Finally, the galea of Amegilla atrocaerulea has subtle but distinct longitudinal striations on its surface (Fig. 4D), whereas Amegilla sicheli n. sp. lacks such striations (Fig. 21C). Finally, the specimen of Amegilla sicheli n. sp. is of known provenance, coming from collectors who are known to have been present on Sulawesi at this time and collected Odonata from the locus typicus in April 1941 (van Tol 1987: 159), and so it is definitively considered to be from the island of Sulawesi, whereas Amegilla atrocaerulea is definitively considered to be from tropical Africa.</p><p>Due to the lack of any kind of formal revision of Amegilla (Zonamegilla) species (the monograph mentioned by Lieftinck 1975 was never completed), and the large number of undescribed species to the east of the Wallace Line, care needs to be taken when working with this group of bees. Amegilla sicheli n. sp. however can be recognised due to the unique combination of head, scutum, scutellum,fore and mid tibiae and tarsi, and apical margins of T1-4 with aquamarine metallic hairs (Fig. 21); this is unique within the Indo-Australian Zonamegilla fauna.</p><p>Specifically, for the other two Amegilla (Zonamegilla) species present on the island of Sulawesi, Amegilla sicheli n. sp. can also be diagnosed by the reduced pale facial markings other than on the clypeus (Fig. 21B), with very small yellow markings on the supraclypeal area and lower paraocular areas (in Amegilla whiteheadi and Amegilla samarensis with broad yellow markings present adjacent to the clypeus on the supraclypeal and paraocular areas), antennal scape dark (variably yellow marked in both comparison species), tibial scopae predominantly black with intermixed black and white hairs along the dorsal margin of the hind tibiae (Fig. 21E; in Amegilla whiteheadi with the tibial scopae composed predominantly of yellowish hairs with a line of black hairs along the ventral margin of the hind tibiae, and in Amegilla samarensis with the tibial scopae composed of predominantly dark brown hairs with a broad line of dusky yellowish hairs along the dorsal margin of the hind tibiae).</p><p>ETYMOLOGY. — Named after Frédéric Jules Sichel for his work on anthophorine bees, even if much of it was posthumously published by Dours; Sichel’s collection provided (and continues to provide) remarkable specimens of scientific interest. The name is in the genitive form.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Indonesia (Sulawesi) (Fig. 16).</p><p>DESCRIPTION</p><p>Female</p><p>Body length. 20 mm (Fig. 21A).</p><p>Head. Predominantly dark, with small pale maculation on supraclypeal area, lower paraocular areas, anterior margin of clypeus with narrow longitudinal stripe medially, majority of labrum except along base, and majority of mandibles except apexes (Fig. 21B). Outer surface of galea smooth and polished (Fig. 21C). Gena, vertex, frons, and paraocular areas with electric green metallic hairs with longer fine black hairs intermixed. Antennae with A3 exceeding A4+5, shorter than A4-6.</p><p>Mesosoma. Mesosoma predominantly covered with mixture of yellowish, electric green metallic, and black hairs, appearing greyish at distance (Fig. 21D). Mesosoma ventrally with pubescence becoming white, laterally on propodeum with long black hairs intermixed. Legs with outer faces of fore and mid tibiae and tarsi with metallic green hairs, hind legs with tibial scopae predominantly composed of black hairs, with intermixed black and white hairs along the dorsal margin of the hind tibiae, white hairs extending onto hind basitarsi (Fig. 21E). Wings hyaline.</p><p>Metasoma. Terga dark, covered with dense hair-bearing punctures, punctures separated by 0.5-1 puncture diameters; surface finely microreticulate, dull to weakly shining in places. Tergal discs covered with predominantly decumbent black hairs, tergal margins with hairs electric green, forming dense apical hairbands which obscure the underlying surface (Fig. 21F). Hairbands covering around 20% of T1-2, 30% of T3, and up to 50% of T4. T5 laterally with scattered white hairs, predominantly with black pubescence. Pygidial plate rounded, laterally with faintly raised fine carina, internal surface smooth and featureless.</p><p>Male</p><p>Unknown.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Co-ordinates for the collecting locality were taken from van Tol (1987). Despite many Sulawesi Amegilla specimens available for study, no additional material of Amegilla sicheli n. sp. has been located. Targeted searches at higher altitudes may be necessary.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D677FA55DFC4AFADFFED622E2	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6778A55DFEE4F9BEFC222301.text	03F7674D6778A55DFEE4F9BEFC222301.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora laticincta Dours 1869	<div><p>Anthophora laticincta Dours, 1869</p><p>(Fig. 22)</p><p>Anthophora lati-cincta Dours, 1869: 124 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — France • 1♀ (lectotype des. Brooks 1988); Cors [ Corse = Corsica]; MNHN-EY-EY58560 • 1♀ (paralectotype, not originally labelled as such by Brooks); Cors; MNHN-EY-EY58563.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Anthophora (Anthophora) subterranea (Germar, 1826) (Brooks 1988) .</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Pan-Mediterranean (Brooks 1988; Rasmont 2014, as Anthophora canescens Brullé, 1832 recte 1833; Ascher &amp; Pickering, as Anthophora canescens).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Described from Corsica based on specimens from “Collection Sichel, Dours” (Dours 1869: 125). As Dours’ collection is lost, material was sought in the MNHN collection, and Brooks (1988: 555) designated a lectotype from this collection. However, inspection of the MNHN general Anthophora collection revealed that the specimen was actually confusingly labelled as neotype by Brooks. Considering this specimen itself, the two main labels with written information are in the handwriting of Sichel, as was the case for Anthophora atrocaerulea . Since Dours explicitly stated that specimens could be found in “Collection Sichel, Dours”, this indicates that the specimen is a genuine syntype.Importantly, the transcription of the label information by Brooks of “Cors/Anthoph laticincta Sich n. s. 3 females/ = nigro-cincta Lp. v. female a Jurin ghli/ Drews, J.” does match the specimen in question, and so it can be accepted as a valid lectotype designation despite the neotype label; it has now been properly labelled as the lectotype (Fig. 22A).</p><p>Additionally, in the Sichel collection (adjacent to but not integrated into the general collection), a second specimen with the same label information was located which is also syntypic, as it is labelled as laticincta by Sichel. This does not appear to have been inspected by Brooks, as it lacks any of his labels. This second female has now been labelled as paralectotype following Brooks’ valid lectotype designation.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6778A55DFEE4F9BEFC222301	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6778A55DFC43FB1FFC7420A4.text	03F7674D6778A55DFC43FB1FFC7420A4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthophora nigrovittata Dours 1869	<div><p>Anthophora nigrovittata Dours, 1869</p><p>(Fig. 23)</p><p>Anthophora nigro-vittata Dours, 1869: 98, ♀.</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — France • 1♀ (lectotype by present designation); Cors [ Corse = Corsica]; MNHN-EY-EY58562.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Listed as a junior synonym of Anthophora balneorum Lepeletier, 1841 by Brooks (1988: 560), but the balneorum -group is currently under molecular and morphological revision (TJW, P. Rasmont, pers. comm.). It will likely be retained as a distinct Corso-Sardinian species endemic to these two islands based on preliminary results.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — As Anthophora balneorum, West Mediterranean (Brooks 1988); as Anthophora nigrovittata, Corsica and Sardinia only (Rasmont 2014).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>As for Anthophora laticincta, Anthophora nigrovittata was described from Corsica based on specimens from “Collection Sichel, Dours” (Dours 1869: 99). In the Sichel collection, a single specimen bearing Sichel’s handwriting was located. The specimen is labelled as coming from Corsica, and is labelled as “ A. nigrovittata n.s. ♀♂” (Fig. 23A). This is clearly one of Sichel’s specimens, and as it morphologically corresponds to the description it is hereby designated as the lectotype.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6778A55DFC43FB1FFC7420A4	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D677BA560FEFCFA5FFE0920A4.text	03F7674D677BA560FEFCFA5FFE0920A4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Crocisa calcarata Vachal 1903	<div><p>Crocisa calcarata Vachal, 1903</p><p>(Fig. 24)</p><p>Melecta nitidula Fabricius, 1804: 386 .</p><p>Crocisa calcarata Vachal, 1903a: 382, n. syn.</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Unclear • 1♂ (holotype of Crocisa calcarata Vachal, 1903); Chanchamayo, Afr ? [recte Australasian region]; MNHN-EY-EY58548.</p><p>OTHER MATERIAL. — Indonesia • 1♀; Ambon, recte Australia, NHMD, not examined ].</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Thyreus nitidulus (Fabricius, 1804) n. syn.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — From Sulawesi and the southern Philippines to the Solomon Islands and northern Australia (Lieftinck 1959; 1962).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Vachal described C. calcarata from a single male specimen, indicating uncertainty over the label information, writing “ Afr. australis.? ”. Eardley (1991: 39) included the taxon in his revision of sub-Saharan Melectini and examined the holotype, treating it correctly as Thyreus calcaratus, and stating that he was unable to trace the collecting locality. New examination of the specimen shows that it is predominantly covered with almost adpressed strongly flattened metallic blue hairs.These flattened hairs are strongly characteristic of the species (or species complex) Thyreus nitidulus (Fabricius, 1804) (Lieftinck 1959; 1962) which occurs from Sulawesi and Timor to northern Australia and the Solomon Islands (type ♀, Indonesia: Ambon, recte Australia, NHMD). The species Thyreus wallacei (Cockerell, 1905) (Philippines, Palawan,?Sula Islands) also has similar flattened hairs, but 1) these hairs are lanceolate and do not branch apically whereas the type of T. calcaratus has the hairs slightly but distinctly branching apically (Fig. 24), and 2) this species has a strongly produced pair of spots of flattened hairs situated anterolaterally on the scutellum, whereas the type of T. calcaratus has weakly produced spots situated basolaterally (Fig. 24B, D).</p><p>Based on these distinctive flattened metallic hairs, T. calcaratus must be considered to have been collected in South-east Asia, not Africa.However, its specific identity is somewhat unclear. Morphologically, it does not match any of the subspecies of T. nitidulus delineated by Lieftinck (1959; 1962). Specifically, the presence of weakly produced basolateral spots of metallic blue hairs on the scutellum and the extent of metallic blue hairs on T1 which cover almost the entire surface does not match a currently recognised name. In examining material identified by Lieftinck in the RMNH and MNHN collections, the closest form was a specimen from the MNHN collection (ex. coll. Pérez) labelled as coming from “Ile Dammer” [=Damar Island, Pulau Damer] to the north-east of Timor (Fig. 25). This specimen was labelled as “ssp. inedite ” by Lieftinck, i.e., an undescribed or unpublished subspecies. It shares the surface of T1 that is almost entirely covered with metallic blue hairs, but has only the slightest indication of metallic blue hairs basolaterally on the scutellum.</p><p>Given the complexity in T. nitidulus sensu lato (Lieftinck 1959; 1962) due to a lack of structural differences despite the numerous differences in pubescence, and the need to further investigate this potential species complex using molecular tools, it seems most prudent to synonymise T. calcaratus under the broad T. nitidulus concept of Lieftinck pending further revisions (see full synonymy in Lieftinck 1959; 1962). With additional careful investigation and characterisation of T. nitidulus sensu lato on more islands in the Wallacean region, including small islands such as Damer, it may be possible to understand more precisely where T. calcaratus was actually collected and what its true status may be. For now, what can be said with confidence is that it is definitively excluded from the African Thyreus fauna.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D677BA560FEFCFA5FFE0920A4	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6745A562FC2FFABFFA0020A4.text	03F7674D6745A562FC2FFABFFA0020A4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Crocisa calceata Vachal 1903	<div><p>Crocisa calceata Vachal, 1903</p><p>(Figs 26; 27)</p><p>Crocisa calceata Vachal, 1903a: 380 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Central African Republic • 1♀; Fort Sibut, Haut Chari, Congo français; Le Moult leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58584 (ex. coll. De Gaulle 1919).</p><p>Gabon • 1♂ (lectotype by present designation); Lastourv[ille]; 1.VIII.-30.IX.1898; Bouyssou leg.; MNHN-EY-EY58550.</p><p>Sierra Leone • 1♀ (paralectotype by present designation); MNHN-EY-EY58549.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Thyreus calceatus (Vachal,1903) (Eardley 1991) .</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Senegal, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, Central African Republic*, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Ethiopia,Kenya,Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Lesotho, South Africa (Eardley 1991; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>REMARKS Vachal described C. calceata from specimens from Lastourville [Gabon], Sierra Leone, Ouganda [Uganda], Dakar [Senegal], and the Belgian Congo [Democratic Republic of the Congo]. Eardley (1991: 42) wrote: “Cockerell (1937b), in taking Lastourville as the type locality of this species, designated the specimen from this locality as the lectotype of this species”. Cockerell (1937: 28) specifically wrote: “Lastourville, being the first locality cited is to be taken as the type-locality of C. calceata ”.</p><p>Under ICZN (1999) Article 74.5 this does not constitute a valid lectotype designation, as Cockerell did not use the term lectotype or its equivalent (e.g. “the type”), he did not examine the material directly, and did not explicitly select a syntype to act as the unique name-bearing type of the taxon. His writing only implicitly indicates that the syntype from Lastourville should be representative of the species. This is a minor quibble, and in order to maintain consistency with the revision of Eardley, this male specimen from Lastourville is hereby designated as the lectotype. An additional paralectotype from Sierra Leone is present in the MNHN collection that was not recognised by Eardley as being part of the original type series, even though he examined and determined it (Fig. 27A).</p><p>Finally,the genital capsule from the lectotype male had been extracted and stored in a glycerine vial. It was possible to extract the capsule and mount it on card, though some aspects of the capsule were obscured by thick gelatine (Fig. 26F).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6745A562FC2FFABFFA0020A4	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6746A563FEF4FADFFAB42063.text	03F7674D6746A563FEF4FADFFAB42063.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Crocisa delumbata Vachal 1903	<div><p>Crocisa delumbata Vachal, 1903</p><p>(Fig. 28)</p><p>Crocisa delumbata Vachal, 1903a: 381 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Sierra Leone • 1♂ (paralectotype); MNHN-EY-EY58551.</p><p>OTHER MATERIAL. — Democratic Republic of the Congo • 1♀, 1♂, RBINS, not examined .</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Thyreus delumbatus (Vachal, 1903) (Eardley 1991) .</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. —?Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Sudan, Djibouti, Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia, Eswatini, South Africa (Eardley 1991; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>REMARKS Vachal described the species based on two females from Boma in the Belgian Congo from the RBINS collection (not examined for the present paper) and one male from Sierra Leone in “ ma collection ”. Eardley (1991: 21) could not find the male, and so designated one of the RBINS females as lectotype. Searches in the MNHN collection were able to locate this male which bears a handwritten Vachal label.It has now been labelled as paralectotype, but the more pressing issue is that its occurrence in Sierra Leone is somewhat at odds with its reported distribution which is more typically eastern in Africa (Eardley 1991; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025). Further revision of West African Thyreus material is necessary to better understand the distribution of this species; the utility and stability of the presence of absence of a small pair of light patches of pubescence on the scutellum as an identification and species delineation character in African Thyreus requires investigation and validation. At the present time, the morphology of this paralectotype does not seem consistent with “ Thyreus delumbatus ” specimens from East Africa (pers. obs.).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6746A563FEF4FADFFAB42063	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6746A564FC22F8FDFB6E22A2.text	03F7674D6746A564FC22F8FDFB6E22A2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Crocisa interrupta Vachal 1903	<div><p>Crocisa interrupta Vachal, 1903</p><p>(Figs 29; 30)</p><p>Crocisa interrupta Vachal, 1903a: 382 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Equatorial Guinea • 1♂ (paralectotype by present designation); Congo, Bata; 25.IX.1897; Bouyssou leg.; MNHN-EY-EY58553.</p><p>Ghana • 1♀ (lectotype by present designation); Acra [ Accra]; MNHN-EY-EY58552.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Thyreus interruptus (Vachal,1903) (Eardley 1991) .</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Sierra Leone, Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda (Eardley 1991; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Vachal described C. interrupta from specimens from Acra [Ghana], Batah [Equatorial Guinea], Sierra Leone, and “ des chutes de Samlia ” [Gabon, see Madl 2021]. Eardley (1991: 37) wrote: “A female from Accra, Ghana, was designated as the lectotype of this species by Cockerell and Mackie (1933)”. Cockerell &amp; Mackie (1933: 36) wrote:“Accra must be considered the type locality”.As for C. calceata, this does not constitute a valid lectotype designation under Article 74.5 because the authors did not explicitly select a syntype to act as the unique name-bearing type of the taxon. In order to maintain consistency with the revision of Eardley, this female specimen from Accra is hereby designated as the lectotype (Fig. 29A). An additional paralectotype from Equatorial Guinea is present in the MNHN collection that was not recognised by Eardley as being part of the original type series, even though he examined and determined it (Fig. 30A).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6746A564FC22F8FDFB6E22A2	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6741A566FC20F9BEFBB120A3.text	03F7674D6741A566FC20F9BEFBB120A3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Crocisa nubica Lepeletier 1841	<div><p>Crocisa nubica Lepeletier, 1841</p><p>(Fig. 31)</p><p>Crocisa nubica Lepeletier, 1841: 453 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Chad • 3♀; Gassi ( N’Djamena); 2.III.1992; G. G. M. Schulten leg.; T.J. Wood det.; RMNH, ZMA.INS.1240882. Nigeria • 1♂; Jebba, Bacita environs; 6.XII.1973; G. F. Mees leg.; T. J. Wood det.; RMNH, RMNH.INS.778424 • 1♂; Nguru, MVP light trap; 1-7.IV.1994; H. Bottenberg leg.; T. J. Wood det.; RMNH, RMNH.INS.156236.</p><p>Senegal • 1♀; Dakar; 1906; G. Melou leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY58583.</p><p>Sudan • 1♀; Khartoum; 10.III.1924; H. H. King leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH, RMNH.INS.722238 • 1♀; Soudan-Egyptien, Khartoum et env.; 1907; Ch. Alluaud leg.; T. J. Wood det.; MNHN-EY-EY35576 • 1♀; W. Darfur, S. Jebel Murra, Kallikitting [ Kalokitting]; 4,450 ft a.s.l.; 2.VI.1932; M. Steele leg.; M. A. Lieftinck det.; RMNH, RMNH.INS.722230.</p><p>Togo • 1♂; R. Maritime, Lac de Togo, Kpene; 23-30.XI.1980; G. G. M. Schulten leg.; T. J. Wood det.; RMNH, ZMA.INS.1240864. Unclear • 1♀ (lectotype by present designation); La Nubie [ probably Sudan]; MNHN-EY-EY58561 .</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Thyreus nubicus (Lepeletier,1841) (Lieftinck 1968) .</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Senegal*, Togo*, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, Egypt (Lepeletier 1841; Morice &amp; Szépligeti 1904; Cockerell &amp; Mackie 1933; Lieftinck 1968).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Lepeletier (1841) described this bee based on the female sex explicitly from the Dejean collection with a locus typicus of La Nubie. Neither Lieftinck (1968) nor Eardley (1991) could locate this material, it was not mentioned by Baker (1994), and new searches in the OUMNH collection were also fruitless. It was therefore a surprise to open the Lepeletier boxes at the MNHN and find the mesosoma and first two metasomal segments of a specimen labelled as Crocisa nubica in Lepeletier’s handwriting.</p><p>Examination of this specimen shows that it matches Lepeletier’s description and illustration, with the large size, strongly infuscate forewings, and coalescent lateral white spots on the scutum which reach but do not continue onto the scutellum. It is also consistent with the use of this name by Lieftinck (1968). It is unclear why this specimen is not in the Dejean collection in Oxford, but it could well have been misplaced by Lepeletier and not returned.It is however syntypic, and can confidently be said not to be present in the Latreille-Dejean-Lepeletier collection based on past and present searches. Given that the number of specimens used by Lepeletier to describe the species is unknown, although this fragment is the likely holotype, it is here designated as the lectotype to cement its existence and presence in the MNHN.</p><p>Although Lieftinck (1968: 106) raised doubts about the records of T. nubicus from Chad and Cameroon by Strand (1912) and Meyer (1921), its presence in at least Chad can be confirmed based on newly examined material. Literature records of T. nubicus from tropical Africa must be treated with suspicion given the demonstrated presence of this species in xeric habitats on the edge of the Sahara desert. In this context, the specimen from Togo is somewhat peculiar since it is labelled as coming from the coast; further investigation is required. The host bee species could help shed light on its ecology, but this is currently unknown. Since most records come from Sudan, it would seem to be the likelier terra typica out of Sudan and Egypt, the two together likely comprising Lepeletier’s La Nubie.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6741A566FC20F9BEFBB120A3	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6742A567FEE7FEDAFB2026FE.text	03F7674D6742A567FEE7FEDAFB2026FE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ctenoplectra alluaudi Vachal 1903	<div><p>Ctenoplectra alluaudi Vachal, 1903</p><p>(Fig. 32)</p><p>Ctenoplectra alluaudi Vachal, 1903b: 99 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Côte d’Ivoire • 1♀ (not ♂) (holotype); Assinie; MNHN-EY-EY58564.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Ctenoplectra antinorii Gribodo, 1884 n. syn.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya,Tanzania, and Malawi (Vachal 1903b, as Ctenoplectra alluaudi; Eardley 2003; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025; Wood &amp; Bossert 2025).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Vachal (1903b) described Ctenoplectra alluaudi from Assinie which can be found today in Côte d’Ivoire. A single specimen was available in the MNHN, but it was in poor condition with both hind tibiae and the metasoma broken off, with one tibia and the metasoma glued to a piece of card (Figs 32B; 32E). Moreover, the specimen is female, as evidenced by the tibial scopa and oil collecting hairs on the ventral part of the metasoma (Fig. 32F), as well as 12 antennal segments. It can be concluded that the damage to the specimen occurred after Vachal’s description, as he described characters on the dorsal surface of the metasoma which is now not visible since this side is glued to the card, exposing the ventral surface. The specimen is accompanied with a note in French which reads: “ Ctenoplectra alluaudi Vachal, 1903 ♂ seen by C. Eardley returned October 2004 without label”.</p><p>The specimen lacks one of Vachal’s handwritten identification labels, but despite this lack of label, it can be recognised as the holotype of Ctenoplectra alluaudi due to the collecting information. There are no other suitable specimens in the MNHN collection; only two males are present – a male specimen of Ctenoplectra antinorii Gribodo, 1884 collected by Sjöstedt from Tanzania,and a paralectotype male of Ctenoplecta armata Magretti, 1895 from Ethiopia (see Wood &amp; Bossert 2025 for the main type series).</p><p>In his revision of African Ctenoplectrini, Eardley (2003: 7, as Ctenoplectrina allaudi [sic]) wrote: “The scutal punctation, absence of a scopa and structure of T7 and S7-S8 all resemble C. politula, indicating that C. allaudi [sic] belongs to the genus Ctenoplectrina ”, noting that he examined the “male” holotype in the MNHN. As discussed by Wood &amp; Bossert (2025), some of the choices made in this revision are difficult to interpret; the specimen is clearly female, not male. Because the specimen has tibial scopae and oil collecting hairs on the metasoma, it cannot be a member of the parasitic genus Ctenoplectrina Cockerell, 1930, as this lineage does not collect pollen and oil itself. Due to the very dense scutal punctures, Ctenoplectra alluaudi can simply be recognised as a junior synonym of Ctenoplectra antinorii n. syn. (type revised by Wood &amp; Bossert 2025).</p><p>As to the additional specimens identified by Eardley as “ Ctenoplectrina allaudi [sic]”, they must be revised to understand what they are and if the actually represent an undescribed Ctenoplectrina species. As noted in the next taxon entry, currently only one Ctenoplectrina species can be confidently said to have been described based on available examined type material and published descriptions.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6742A567FEE7FEDAFB2026FE	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6742A569FC50FDBAFE0622E2.text	03F7674D6742A569FC50FDBAFE0622E2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Scrapter ugandica Cockerell 1944	<div><p>Scrapter ugandica Cockerell, 1944</p><p>(Fig. 33)</p><p>Ctenoplectra nigrotestacea Magretti, 1895: 162 .</p><p>Scrapter lactipennis Friese, 1909: 189 .</p><p>Ctenoplectra paolii Guiglia, 1928: 491 .</p><p>Ctenoplectra politula Cockerell, 1930: 360 .</p><p>Scrapter ugandica Cockerell, 1944: 805, n. syn.</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Uganda • 1♀ (holotype of Scrapter ugandica); Madi; 1-31.V.1927; G. D. H. Carpenter leg.; NHMUK. For additional examined material of Ctenoplectrina nigrotestacea as well as type specimen illustrations, see Wood &amp; Bossert (2025) .</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Ctenoplectrina nigrotestacea (Magretti, 1895) n. syn.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Nigeria, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, and South Africa (Cockerell 1944, as Scrapter ugandica; Eardley 2003; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025; Wood &amp; Bossert 2025).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Davies &amp; Brothers (2006) noticed that Scrapter ugandica actually belonged to the genus Ctenoplectrina due to the tongue morphology, lack of arolia, absence of facial foveae, wing morphology, lack of metabasitibial plate, and oil-collecting hairs on the sterna, though these are reduced and in combination with the lack of pollen collecting hairs on the hind tibiae (Fig. 33D) demonstrate placement in the parasitic Ctenoplectrina . Transferring it to this genus, they declined to further pursue its relationship with Ctenoplectrina politula “the only other formally described species”.</p><p>This comment is intriguing, because at the time of publication both Ctenoplectrina politula and Ctenoplectrina alluaudi were considered part of this genus (Eardley 2003). Following the synonymy above of Ctenoplectrina alluaudi with Ctenoplectra antinorii and the cataloguing work of Wood &amp; Bossert (2025) who identified Ctenoplectra nigrotestacea as the oldest available name for this parasitic taxon, it is possible to also place S. ugandica as a junior synonym of this species. Due to this recent change, the full synonymy is given above.</p><p>Scrapter ugandica displays the typical traits of Ctenoplectrina as described by Davies &amp; Brothers (2006), and due to the red legs is suitably placed under Ctenoplectra nigrotestacea . It is possible that this is a complex of species due to the wide geographic range, but at the present time this is unproven, and Scrapter ugandica is such a junior synonym that other earlier names will have priority over it in any subsequent revision, particularly because it is almost identical to the holotype of Ctenoplectra paolii (see photographs in Wood &amp; Bossert 2025). See Wood &amp; Bossert (2025) for additional comments.</p><p>As a final comment, these actions render Ctenoplectrina monotypic at the present time, although Schaefer &amp; Renner (2008) indicate that there is an undescribed Ctenoplectrina species in Nigeria and Togo. To my knowledge, no taxon description has been published since 2008, and given the four available junior names (including one described from Nigeria), care must be taken to robustly differentiate any purportedly new species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6742A569FC50FDBAFE0622E2	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D674CA56AFEF7F9DEFEE620A4.text	03F7674D674CA56AFEF7F9DEFEE620A4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Xylocopa affinis Lepeletier 1841	<div><p>Xylocopa affinis Lepeletier, 1841</p><p>(Fig. 34)</p><p>Xylocopa affinis Lepeletier, 1841: 210 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — French Guiana • 1♂ (syntype); Cay. [ Cayenne]; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2848.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Xylocopa (Schoenherria) muscaria (Fabricius, 1775) (Moure 1960; Hurd &amp; Michener 1961; Hurd &amp; Moure 1963; Hurd 1978).</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Central and South America (Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Xylocopa affinis was described from Cayenne from specimens from “ Musées de MM. Serville et comte Dejean ”. Searches in the OUMNH collection produced a single male labelled as Xylocopa affinis by Lepeletier and subsequently as Xylocopa barbata Fabricius, 1804 by Frederick Smith (blue label). It is not clear when Smith examined this material, but it is probably after 1854 as Smith (1854: 361) listed both X. affinis and X. barbata as distinct species. The nomenclatural situation surrounding X. affinis, X. barbata, and the senior synonym Apis muscaria Fabricius, 1804 was dealt with by Hurd (1959), Moure (1960), Hurd &amp; Michener (1961); Opinion 657 (1963), and Hurd &amp; Moure (1963). After the ICZN ruling (Opinion 657), Hurd &amp; Moure (1963: 296, 298) newly synonymised both X. affinis and X. barbata under X. muscaria .</p><p>What is unclear is the process by which this synonymy was arrived at. Moure (1960: 139-140) writes for X. muscaria: “A complete account on this group is undertaken by Dr. Paul D. Hurd, Jr., and myself, to be published in a short time” and for X. barbata: “Its definite position will be discussed later in the paper with Dr. Paul D. Hurd, Jr.”. However, the synonymies proposed by Hurd &amp; Moure (1963) do not have any associated justifying text. Later, Hurd (1978: 22) listed the MSNT as the depository for X. affinis, and indeed Casolari &amp; Casolari Moreno (1980: 149) indicate the presence of a single specimen from “Cayenne” from “Serville”. Moure et al. (2007: 667) indicated that the holotype of X. affinis was in the MSNT.</p><p>Presumption of the holotype is an understandable position given the difficulty in tracing much of Lepeletier’s type material, but given the explicit mention in the original publication that material was also in the Dejean collection, is not a justified position. Whilst an “indication ” published before 2000 that a species was thought to have been described from a single specimen can be considered a valid lectotype designation (ICZN 1999; Article 74.6, see also Vivalo 2019: 27), I cannot find published evidence for such an “indication ” for X. affinis in the works of Hurd and Moure before 2000. Both the OUMNH and MSNT specimens must currently be considered to be syntypes. The OUMNH specimen is not currently designated as the lectotype pending study of the MSNT specimen.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D674CA56AFEF7F9DEFEE620A4	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D674FA56BFC52FABFFE882183.text	03F7674D674FA56BFC52FABFFE882183.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Xylocopa cajennae Lepeletier 1841	<div><p>Xylocopa cajennae Lepeletier, 1841</p><p>(Fig. 35)</p><p>Xylocopa cajennae Lepeletier, 1841: 203 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — French Guiana • 1♂ (lectotype by present designation); Cayenne; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2849-01 • 1♂ (paralectotype by present designation); Cayenne; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2849-02 .</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Xylocopa (Neoxylocopa) fimbriata Fabricius, 1804 (Moure 1960; Hurd &amp; Moure 1963; Hurd 1978; Moure et al. 2007; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Central and South America (northern part) (Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Xylocopa cajennae was described from “ Cayenne ” from “ Musées de MM. Serville et comte Dejean ”. Erichson (1848: 591) was the first to suggest that X. cajennae may be the male of Xylocopa fimbriata Fabricius, 1804, and the name was variably treated by other authors including Schrottky (1902: 464) who listed it as a junior synonym of X. fimbriata .</p><p>Moure (1960: 144) provided a summary, as X. caiennae [sic]. He wrote “The two specimens of X. caiennae are in the Hope Department of Entomology, Oxford”. This served as the basis for the listing of Hurd (1978: 78) who gave the OUMNH as the type repository. Although Moure was correct to give Oxford as the repository, and personally visited the collection before 1960, no modern determination or type designation labels have been left behind. Moure et al. (2007: 656) list “syntypes” in the OUMNH. Contemporary examination of the collection produced these two males, only one of which bears a Lepeletier label. This particular male specimen is in good condition, and is designated as the lectotype.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D674FA56BFC52FABFFE882183	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D674EA56CFEFAF89DFAE52183.text	03F7674D674EA56CFEFAF89DFAE52183.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Xylocopa crassa Lepeletier 1841	<div><p>Xylocopa crassa Lepeletier, 1841</p><p>(Fig. 36)</p><p>Xylocopa crassa Lepeletier, 1841: 204 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Unclear • 1♀ (holotype); India?; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2850.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Xylocopa (Platynopoda) tenuiscapa Westwood, 1840 n. syn.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Southern Asia, from India to the Malay Peninsula (Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Xylocopa crassa was described as “ Sans indication de patrie. Mus ée de M. le comte Dejean, précédemment Latreille”. Smith (1854: 346) wrote “ Hab. Africa. This is probably the female of torrida, both having been sent together from Fernando Poo [Bioko, Equatorial Guinea] on more than one occasion, with a note to this effect”.This refers to Xylocopa (Mesotrichia) torrida (Westwood, 1838), a species of tropical Africa.Smith (1874: 260) repeated the synonymy, which was followed by Hurd &amp; Moure (1963: 302) and Hurd (1978: 89). Hurd (1978: 89) indicated that the repository of X. crassa was unknown.</p><p>It is unclear why Smith wrote this, because X. torrida was described based on the male sex, and X. crassa based on the female sex, but with no evidence provided to link the two. Westwood (1838: 113) was imprecise in giving the locus typicus for X. torrida as “ Habitat in Africa tropicali occidentali ”. Smith’s writing does not indicate if he examined Lepeletier’s type, as is the case for other specimens (e.g. Smith 1854: 363, see below). Hurd (1978: 89) indicates that the repository for X. torrida is also unknown. Smith’s sex association is therefore based on inference, and it is unclear if he examined the type of either species. His writing “having been sent together” cannot refer to type material, but instead newly received specimens.</p><p>Examination of the OUMNH collection produced a single badly damaged specimen labelled as X. crassa with a Lepeletier label which must be the holotype,given the stated presence only in the collection of Dejean. It bears a label reading “India?”, which presumably was added by Lepeletier as it matches his handwriting, concluding in the description of the species that there was no prior indication of its geographic origin. Based on the large head with sparse punctures, it appears to be a Xylocopa (Platynopoda) Westwood, 1840 species.Although it is indeed superficially similar due to its large size, dark colouration, and carinate posterior margin of the scutellum, it does not belong to X. torrida due to the sparse punctures of the vertex that are clearly on average separated by much more than a puncture diameter (Fig. 36C; in X. torrida with the punctures of the vertex very dense, separated by 0.5 punctured diameters with the exception of two impunctate areas above the lateral ocelli) and the deeply impressed divots situated dorsolaterally above the lateral ocelli (Fig. 36C; in X. torrida without such divots, surface here only weakly impressed).</p><p>Because the antennae are missing, it is not possible to distinguish between the different species of Platynopoda with confidence (a key morphological character for separating females; Hurd &amp; Moure 1963). Xylocopa crassa could be declared to be a nomen dubium due to the specimen lacking this key morphological feature, but it is not unreasonable to synonymise it under Xylocopa tenuiscapa Westwood, 1840, a common species in India, the likely geographic origin of the material. Either way, the functional effect is the same.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D674EA56CFEFAF89DFAE52183	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6749A56DFC56F89DFB3020A3.text	03F7674D6749A56DFC56F89DFB3020A3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Xylocopa dejeanii Lepeletier 1841	<div><p>Xylocopa dejeanii Lepeletier, 1841</p><p>(Fig. 37)</p><p>Xylocopa dejeanii Lepeletier, 1841: 209 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Indonesia • 1♂ (holotype); Java; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2851.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Xylocopa (Zonohirsuta) dejeanii Lepeletier, 1841 (Hurd &amp; Moure 1963).</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — South-east Asia, from India to the islands of Borneo, Java, and Sulawesi (van der Vecht 1953, as X. collaris ssp. nigrocaerulea Smith, 1874; Lieftinck 1955, as X. collaris; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Xylocopa dejeanii was described from the island of Java from a single specimen, with Lepeletier noting: “ Java, selon la note qui est sous l’individu unique du musée de M. le comte Dejean. Je la croirais plutôt américaine ” [Java, based on the note placed below the unique individual from the Dejean collection. I believe it more likely to be American]. Lepeletier may have thought it American in origin due to its small body size and pubescence colouration; he described other similar-sized and coloured Xylocopa from the Americas in the same publication (e.g. see entries below).</p><p>Examination of the OUMNH collection produced a single male specimen bearing labels indicating both Java and Lepeletier’s sceptical note suggesting an American origin. It can be unquestionably accepted as the holotype. Although the specimen is damaged and missing its head, it can easily be recognised as X. dejeanii due to the hind femur ventromedially with a pointed tooth, the hind tibia apically with two teeth with the inner tooth shorter and apically rounded (Fig. 37C), and the colour pattern with buff hairs on the mesosoma, the outer faces of the fore legs, and the surface of T1 (Figs 37 B-D). This colour pattern is a little darker than what is normally seen for Javan specimens which usually have buff hairs also partially covering T2 (present at least basally) and more extensively on the outer faces of the mid and hind tibiae, but this is considered to be just minor variation.</p><p>The decisive location of this holotype maintains the current concept for this widespread species, doubly important both nomenclaturally and given its recent molecular characterisation (Zhang et al. 2025). Xylocopa dejeanii is the priority name for the species, with Xylocopa collaris Lepeletier, 1841 unavailable as it is preoccupied by Apis collaris Olivier, 1789 = Xylocopa flavicollis (De Geer, 1778) (see Hurd &amp; Moure 1963: 301). Previously, the name X. collaris Lepeletier was used for the Javan species (e.g. Lieftinck 1955).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6749A56DFC56F89DFB3020A3	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D674BA56EFEE4FADFFB0A20A4.text	03F7674D674BA56EFEE4FADFFB0A20A4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Xylocopa latreilleii Lepeletier 1841	<div><p>Xylocopa latreilleii Lepeletier, 1841</p><p>(Fig. 38)</p><p>Xylocopa latreilleii Lepeletier, 1841: 206 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — India • 1♂ (lectotype by present designation); Bengale /Bengalia; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2846.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Xylocopa (Platynopoda) tenuiscapa Westwood, 1840 (Maa 1938; Hurd &amp; Moure 1963).</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Southern Asia, from India to the Malay Peninsula (Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Xylocopa latreilleii was described from “ Bengale ” from “ Musées de MM. le comte Dejean et Serville ”. Cockerell (1929: 302) wrote “I saw X. latreillii [sic] in the Hope collection at Oxford, but made no notes”, but it is unclear if he was referring to type material or not.Maa (1938: 323) noted the type locality “of X. latreillei [sic] Lepel., ♀♂ from Bengal, in the Hope Museum, Oxford University”, and treated the taxon as a junior synonym of X. tenuiscapa, a position followed by Hurd &amp; Moure (1963: 308).</p><p>It is unclear if Maa ever visited the OUMNH collection, because only a single male could be produced bearing a label in Lepeletier’s handwriting. However, due to the combination of uniformly narrow antennal scape (not broadened and flattened apically) combined with the flattened and S-shaped fore basitarsus, it can conclusively be recognised as a junior synonym of X. tenuiscapa, supporting the position of Maa. Casolari &amp; Casolari Moreno (1980: 148) indicate the presence of a single specimen of X. latreilleii in the MSNT collection from “Bengala” from the collection of “Serville”. This is highly likely to be a syntype from the Serville collection. It is unclear if this has ever been studied, and no precise published reference to it could be found. The single available OUMNH male can be designated as the lectotype (in Fig. 38A labelled only as syntype, lectotype label added subsequently by James Hogan, pers. comm.), conclusively supporting the current nomenclatural situation.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D674BA56EFEE4FADFFB0A20A4	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D674AA56FFF1FFAFFFC6D20A4.text	03F7674D674AA56FFF1FFAFFFC6D20A4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Xylocopa marginella Lepeletier 1841	<div><p>Xylocopa marginella Lepeletier, 1841</p><p>(Fig. 39)</p><p>Xylocopa marginella Lepeletier, 1841: 205 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Indonesia • 1♀ (holotype); “ Insula Java ”; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2852.</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Xylocopa (Platynopoda) latipes (Drury, 1773) n. syn.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — South-east Asia, from north-eastern India (Assam, Nagaland, Sikkim, West Bengal) through southern China and Myanmar to the islands of Borneo, Java, and Bali (Maa 1938; Lieftinck 1955; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Xylocopa marginella was described from “ Java ” from “ Musée du général comte Dejean ”. No author has been able to successfully trace the type material, but Maa (1940: 574) suggested synonymy with X. latipes . Hurd &amp; Moure (1963: 256) placed X. marginella in the subgenus Platynopoda, and noted that X. marginella may be a synonym of X. latipes, as proposed by Maa.</p><p>Examination of the OUMNH collection produced a single large Xylocopa (Platynopoda) specimen labelled as “♀”, “ Xyl. marginella LeP” “Insula Java”. This is indisputably the holotype; it can be recognised as X. latipes due to A3 which is shorter than A4-6 (Fig. 39C) and due to the wings with purple to greenish iridescence (not golden as in Xylocopa magnifica (Cockerell, 1929) which does not reach the Indonesian islands). The proposed synonym of Maa (1940) can therefore be accepted. Xylocopa marginella is already listed as a synonym of X. latipes by Ascher &amp; Pickering (2025). It is unclear if this synonymy has ever been formally made, and to ensure that this action exists, it is formally made here. Finally, whilst the morphological concept of X. latipes is quite clear, the exact provenance of the material used to describe it is not. This is discussed and resolved through a neotype designation below.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D674AA56FFF1FFAFFFC6D20A4	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6755A570FEF0FADFFA0A20A4.text	03F7674D6755A570FEF0FADFFA0A20A4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Xylocopa micans Lepeletier 1841	<div><p>Xylocopa micans Lepeletier, 1841</p><p>(Fig. 40)</p><p>Xylocopa micans Lepeletier, 1841: 208 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — United States of America • 1♂ (lectotype by present designation); “ Georgia, Carolina ”; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2845 .</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Xylocopa (Schoenherria) micans Lepeletier,1841 (Smith 1854; 1874; Hurd &amp; Moure 1963; Hurd 1978; Moure et al. 2007; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Southern United States to Mexico and Central America (Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Xylocopa micans was described from “ Caroline ”, referring to the south-eastern part of what is now the United States of America (the Carolinas).Lepeletier described the species from material from the collections of “ Musées de MM. Serville et comte Dejean ”.</p><p>Smith (1854: 363) was the first to establish the synonymy between X. micans and Xylocopa vidua Lepeletier, 1841, with X. vidua considered to be the female to the male of X. micans . Smith (1854: 363) indicated that at least the type of X. vidua was in the collection of Westwood. Hurd (1978: 21) lists the repositories of X. micans and X. vidua as unknown, but overlooked Smith’s note.Smith (1879: 297) again writes “Having had an opportunity of seeing the types of the sexes, I have united them as constituting one species”. Baker (1994: 1191) indicated that Smith often pointed out types in the Westwood collection, and inspection of the OUMNH collection produced a male labelled as Xylocopa micans by Lepeletier.</p><p>As Casolari &amp; Casolari Moreno (1980: 149) indicate only two specimens of X. micans in the Spinola collection from Texas collected by Pilate, these cannot be considered syntypic as they do not match the collecting information.As no other authors have located type material for X. micans (see Moure et al. 2007: 667), the male in the OUMNH is designated as the lectotype (newly labelled after Fig.40A, James Hogan, pers.comm.); it conforms to the currently accepted species concept that is still recognisable despite the dermestid damage suffered by the specimen.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6755A570FEF0FADFFA0A20A4	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6754A571FEFAFABFFB142162.text	03F7674D6754A571FEFAFABFFB142162.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Xylocopa vidua Lepeletier 1841	<div><p>Xylocopa vidua Lepeletier, 1841</p><p>(Fig. 41)</p><p>Xylocopa vidua Lepeletier, 1841: 208 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — United States of America • 1♀ (lectotype by present designation); Georgia; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2844 .</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Xylocopa (Schoenherria) micans Lepeletier,1841 (Smith 1854; 1874; Hurd &amp; Moure 1963; Hurd 1978; Moure et al. 2007; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Southern United States to Mexico and Central America (Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>REMARKS Like X. micans, X. vidua was described from “ Caroline ”, but with specimens from “Musées de France et de M. le comte Dejean”. Examination of the OUMNH produced a single female labelled Xylocopa vidua by Lepeletier. As for X. micans, Hurd (1978: 21) lists no known type repository for X. vidua . It is possible that there is a syntype in the MSNT since Casolari &amp; Casolari Moreno (1980: 149) indicate one specimen of X. vidua from “ Caroline ” from “Serville”. This does not match the given repository information, but the specimen may be syntypic if Lepeletier made an error here. No material could be located during searches at the MNHN, and as no other authors have found type material for X. vidua (see Moure et al. 2007: 667), the OUMNH specimen can be hereby designated as the lectotype (newly labelled after Fig. 41A, James Hogan, pers. comm.) to cement the existing and well-established synonymy.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6754A571FEFAFABFFB142162	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6754A572FC7CF9FEFA3522E2.text	03F7674D6754A572FC7CF9FEFA3522E2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Xylocopa viridipennis Lepeletier 1841	<div><p>Xylocopa viridipennis Lepeletier, 1841</p><p>(Fig. 42)</p><p>Xylocopa viridipennis Lepeletier, 1841: 205 .</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — India • 1♀ (holotype); India, ind.or.[India orientalis]; “ Latr.Colln. ” (Fig. 42A); OUMNH, ENT-HYME2847 .</p><p>CURRENT STATUS. — Xylocopa (Platynopoda) tenuiscapa Westwood, 1840 (Maa 1938; Hurd &amp; Moure 1963).</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Southern Asia, from India to the Malay Peninsula (Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>Xylocopa viridipennis was explicitly described from the “Latr. Colln.” and indicated to be in the “ Musée de M. le comte Dejean ”. Searches of the OUMNH found a single female specimen labelled Xylocopa viridipennis by Lepeletier. It is most probably the holotype of X. viridipennis .Maa (1938: 321-323) treated X. viridipennis as a junior synonym of X. tenuiscapa Westwood, 1840, a position followed by Hurd &amp; Moure (1963: 318), and suggested that the type of X. viridipennis was probably in the MSNT. However, Casolari &amp; Casolari Moreno (1980) do not list any specimens under this name, so this is considered to be unsupported in combination with the presence of the specimen in the OUMNH collection.</p><p>Examination of the X. viridipennis specimen supports the position that it is a junior synonym of X. tenuiscapa; A3 is as long as A4-6, rather than shorter than A4-6 as is the case in X. latipes, and the wings basally have greenish iridescence and the tergal discs of T3-4 are comparatively finely punctate, whereas Xylocopa perforator Smith, 1862 has greenish-purple iridescence and the discs are comparatively densely punctate (Hurd &amp; Moure 1963). Moreover, X. perforator is only confidently known from Sumatra eastwards (Lieftinck 1955), making collection from this region prior to the year 1833 (the death of Latreille) less likely than the stated locus typicus of India.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6754A572FC7CF9FEFA3522E2	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
03F7674D6757A574FC2AFA7EFEE9267D.text	03F7674D6757A574FC2AFA7EFEE9267D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Xylocopa latipes (Drury 1773)	<div><p>Xylocopa latipes (Drury, 1773)</p><p>(Fig. 43)</p><p>Apis latipes Drury, 1773: 87, 88, plate XLVIII.</p><p>MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Indonesia • 1♂ (neotype by present designation); W. Java, Oedjoeng Genteng [ Ujung Genteng]; 1.VII.1939; M. A. Lieftinck leg.; RMNH, RMNH.INS.1715473 .</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — South-east Asia, from north-eastern India (Assam, Nagaland, Sikkim, West Bengal) through southern China and Myanmar to the islands of Borneo, Java, and Bali (Maa 1938; Lieftinck 1955; Ascher &amp; Pickering 2025).</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>As mentioned above in the entry for X. marginella, whilst the current use and interpretation of X. latipes is well established (e.g. Smith 1854; 1874; Maa 1938; 1940; Hurd &amp; Moure 1963), the provenance of the original material used to describe it is not. Drury (1773: 87-88, plate XLVIII; Fig. 43A) describes what is clearly a Xylocopa (Platynopoda) male with expanded fore tarsi which are flattened and pale ivory in colour. The antennal scape is also distinctly broadened apically. Drury claims to have received the specimen from “the island of Johanna, near Madagascar” which is the island now called Anjouan or Ndzuani in the Comoro Islands.This is well outside of the known range of X. latipes, as noted by Hurd &amp; Moure (1963: 256): “If, as Drury (1773: 87) has stated, the type of X. latipes came from “… the island of Johanna near Madagascar”– well beyond the known geographic range of the species as currently understood – a reëvaluation [sic] of this complex may be necessary”.</p><p>Currently, there does not seem to be any potential benefit that could possibly be gained by a re-evaluation of this group based on this reported type locality that is so far outside of the currently accepted range.As for Xylocopa caerulea (Fabricius, 1804) that was nominally described from New Caledonia, but which does not occur further east than Java and Borneo (Wood et al. 2025), it is beneficial to create a neotype to permanently fix the name and concept within its current usage in order to maintain nomenclatural stability (Jiménez-Mejías et al. 2024). In line with Article 75.3 of the Code (ICZN 1999), this neotype designation is necessary to clarify and cement the concept of X. latipes as a species of South-east Asia, as a species that can be immediately recognised in the male sex due to the combination of flattened and ivory-coloured fore tarsi and antennal scape that is broadened apically, and as a species for which type material has been lost and never located by any previous worker (e.g. Maa 1938: 327). The selected neotype matches Drury’s original description and illustration, being a male and sharing the flattened and ivory-coloured fore tarsi and antennal scape that is broadened apically (Fig. 43C, D).</p><p>The specimen does not come from close to the reported type locality,specifically because the type locality is so doubtful. The new locality was selected as western Java because this is within the known range of the species in its current treatment, and the species is commonly encountered on this island with large population size. This neotype designation is consistent with both current and past use of the name in both taxonomic and ecological publications (e.g. Westwood 1840; Smith 1854, 1874; Maa 1938, 1940; Lieftinck 1955; Hurd &amp; Moure 1963).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7674D6757A574FC2AFA7EFEE9267D	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.		Plazi	Wood, Thomas James	Wood, Thomas James (2026): Neither lost nor quite forgotten: tracing 19 th and early 20 th century bee types in the collections of Oxford and Paris (Hymenoptera Apoidea). Zoosystema 48 (21): 639-692, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2026v48a21
