taxonID	type	description	language	source
03E087D6B77038534EBCFC7E84BEF9FC.taxon	discussion	Lepeletier (1841: 126) described Eucera nigra in the female sex from Oran (Algeria). Friese in Dalla Torre (1896: 225) considered Lepeletier’s taxon to be preoccupied by Macrocera nigra Lepeletier, 1841 which was described on page 112. Both Dalla Torre and Friese considered the genus Macrocera Latreille, 1810 (nec. Meigen, 1803, a Dipteran genus) to be the same genus as Eucera Scopoli, 1770, hence rendering Eucera nigra Lepeletier a junior secondary homonym of Macrocera nigra Lepeletier. Whilst today Tetralonia Spinola, 1838 (the replacement name for Latreille’s Macrocera) is considered to be distinct from Eucera (Freitas et al. 2023), at the time of Dalla Torre and Friese a broad generic concept was followed. Friese in Dalla Torre (1896: 225) therefore proposed the name Eucera aterrima Friese, 1896, a name which is currently in use (e. g. Risch 2001; Mazzeo 2019), with the former publication uncertainly forming the combination Eucera nigrita ssp. aterrima Friese, 1896. Dorchin (2023: 15) treated Eucera nigra as a valid name, designating a lectotype and treating the name as senior to Eucera subvillosa Lepeletier, 1841, citing ICZN Article 24.2 as the First Reviser in choosing one concurrently published name over the other. However, this choice is secondary to the fact that Friese in Dalla Torre (1896) had already acted as the First Reviser in judging Eucera nigra Lepeletier to be a junior secondary homonym of Macrocera nigra Lepeletier. Because this action was published before 1961, and the replacement name Eucera aterrima is still in use, the provisions of Article 59.3 apply; Eucera nigra Lepeletier is permanently invalid regardless of the fact that the genera Eucera and Tetralonia are no longer considered congeneric. The oldest available name, Eucera subvillosa, therefore becomes valid, with E. aterrima as a junior subjective synonym.	en	Wood, Thomas J. (2026): On the permanent invalidity of certain eucerine bee names (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Eucerini). Zootaxa 5748 (1): 144-146, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5748.1.10, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5748.1.10
03E087D6B77038524EBCF92F8532FE4F.taxon	discussion	Dours (1873: 323) described this species in the female and male sexes from Algeria and France, from what was probably a mixed type series (Dorchin 2023; Ghisbain & Rosa et al. 2023). Considering Tetralonia to be congeneric with Eucera, rendering Tetralonia nigrifacies a junior secondary homonym of Eucera nigrifacies Lepeletier, 1841, Dalla Torre & Friese (1895: 57) provided the replacement name Eucera commixta Dalla Torre & Friese, 1895. In the literature, the name was sometimes used with Eucera and Tetralonia separated into different genera, such as by Dusmet (1928: 280) who reported Tetralonia nigrifacies Dours from Algeria and Morocco and explicitly considered it to be senior to commixta (thus implicitly considering it to be an unnecessary replacement name). However, other authors followed Dalla Torre & Friese’s treatment; Saunders (1908: 260) reported Eucera (Macrocera) commixta from Algeria, so there was therefore already confusion as to the correct name to apply to this taxon. The name Eucera commixta is currently in use (Nieto et al. 2014; Lhomme et al. 2020; Ghisbain & Rosa et al. 2023), and over time, the concept has shifted to apply to a Eucera (Synhalonia) Patton, 1879. Dorchin (2023: 29) revised the original concept of Tetralonia nigrifacies, and concluded that even if the original type material was lost, it could be recognised as a Tetralonia (not Eucera (Synhalonia )), and designated a neotype from Mascara (Algeria). However, as is true for Eucera nigra Lepeletier, the replacement name Eucera commixta was also provided before 1961, and this name is currently in use. Even if the use of the name is incorrect relative to the original specific concept of Dours and recent neotype designation, this does not affect the provisions of the Code. Article 59.3 is clear that Tetralonia nigrifacies is permanently invalid regardless of the fact that the genera Eucera and Tetralonia are no-longer considered congeneric. Following the neotype designation and fixation of the species-level concept, the valid name is therefore Tetralonia commixta (Dalla Torre & Friese, 1895) comb. nov.	en	Wood, Thomas J. (2026): On the permanent invalidity of certain eucerine bee names (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Eucerini). Zootaxa 5748 (1): 144-146, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5748.1.10, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5748.1.10
