Euglossa (Euglossella) cyanura Cockerell

Hinojosa-Díaz, Ismael A. & Engel, Michael S., 2014, Revision of the orchid bee subgenus Euglossella (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Part II: The viridis and mandibularis species groups, Journal of Melittology 36, pp. 1-108 : 66-74

Euglossa (Euglossella) cyanura Cockerell

( Figs. 92–104 , 151 , 161 , 170 )

Euglossa cyanura Cockerell, 1917: 146 [♀]. Holotype ♀ (USNM, visum).

DIAGNOSIS: Labiomaxillary complex in repose reaching second metasomal sternum in both sexes; upper and lower interorbital distances equal ( Figs. 96–97 ); malar area short (less than 0.25 mm, or noticeably shorter than diameter of mid-flagellar articles) ( Figs. 96–97 ); pronotal dorsolateral angle projected as a lamella; male mesotibial tufts as follows: anterior tuft rhomboid, long (maximum length exceeding mid-width of velvety area) and wide (mid-width exceeding width of contiguous section of velvety area), posterior tuft circular-ovoid ( Figs. 98 , 151 ); female mesoscutellar tuft ellipsoidal, composed of dense, dark setae, occupying two thirds of mesoscutellum length ( Fig. 94 ); male mesobasitarsus with posterior keel projected in a right to slightly acute angle ( Fig. 100 ); female metabasitarsus with anterior and posterior margins convex ( Fig. 101 ); second metasomal sternum of male with two, simple meso-lateral tufts; metasoma slightly (but consistently) wider than head (about 1.05 times) ( Figs. 92 , 94 ); head mainly green in most specimens (cyan in males at northernmost areas of range) ( Figs. 96–97 ); male with paraocular marks trapezoidal, lower width about two thirds of length of lower lateral part of clypeus ( Figs. 93 , 96 ); scape of male with ivory spot covering almost entire anterior surface ( Fig. 96 ), absent in female ( Fig. 97 ); mesosoma (except mesoscutellum) green (northernmost specimens mainly cyan) with blue-purple intergradations and bronzy iridescence ( Figs. 92–95 ), mesoscutellum blue-green (darker in northernmost specimens) ( Figs. 92 , 94 , 103 ), some females rather green throughout mesosoma; first to fourth metasomal terga blue-green with cyan iridescence on lateral margins, fifth to seventh terga cyan (all terga with strong cyan tinge in northernmost specimens) ( Figs. 92–95 , 104 ); mesoscutellum and central area of mesepisternum moderately punctate (punctures separated by about one puncture diameter in central areas), slightly denser in female ( Figs. 102–103 ); metasomal terga in male with moderately-dense punctures, noticeably larger on second tergum and progressively towards posterior segments ( Fig. 104 ), densely and evenly imbricate-punctate in female ( Fig. 94 ); mesosomal vestiture dominated by fuscous setae ( Figs. 92–95 , 102–103 ); eighth metasomal sternum posterior section very narrow as a slender cylinder ( Figs. 92–95 , 102–103 ); gonocoxite dorsal process about as wide as long ( Fig. 161 ); gonostylar lateral section with well-developed “secondary” lobe (convexity of posterior margin of basal sector) almost as long as adjacent ventral lobe, covered with dense setae reaching posterior margin of blades of penis valve.

DESCRIPTION: ♂: Structure. Total body length 11.16 mm (9.78–12.74; n=5); labiomaxillary complex in repose reaching second metasomal sternum ( Fig. 93 ). Head length 2.65 mm (2.44–2.89; n=5), width 4.64 mm (4.48–4.81; n=5); upper interorbital distance 2.09 mm (2.01–2.22; n=5); lower interorbital distance 2.09 mm (2.00–2.22; n=5); upper clypeal width 1.13 mm (1.04–1.19; n=5); lower clypeal width 1.90 mm (1.81–2.00; n=5); clypeal protuberance 0.69 mm (0.63–0.86; n=5); clypeal ridges, labral ridges, and labral windows as described for E. viridis , except paramedial ridges quasi-parallel to medial ridge, forming a rectangular clypeal disc; labrum wider than long, length 0.96 mm (0.90–1.07; n=5), width 1.10 mm (1.04–1.19; n=5) ( Fig. 96 ); interocellar distance 0.30 mm (0.29–0.30; n=5); ocellocular distance 0.61 mm (0.59–0.64; n=5); first flagellar article longer [0.58 mm (0.56–0.62; n=5)] than second and third flagellar articles combined [0.38 mm (0.36–0.41; n=5)]; length of malar area 0.15 mm (0.10–0.18; n=5). Mandible tridentate. Pronotal dorsolateral angle projected posterolaterally as a truncate lamella; intertegular distance 3.44 mm (3.37–3.59; n=5); mesoscutal length 2.70 mm (2.59–2.82; n=5); mesoscutellar length 1.25 mm (1.19–1.33; n=5); posterior margin of mesoscutellum truncate along most of its length (laterally rounded) ( Fig. 103 ); mesotibial length 2.26 mm (2.19–2.37; n=5); mesobasitarsal length 2.25 mm (2.15–2.37; n=5), width 0.71 mm (0.67–0.78; n=5), posterior keel projected in a right to slightly acute angle with proximal margin (between mesotibia-mesobasitarsus joint and apex of keel) appearing slightly convex ( Fig. 100 ); metatibia triangular (scalene triangular) ( Fig. 99 ), maximum thickness 1.40 mm (1.33–1.44; n=5); metatibial anterior margin length 3.59 mm (3.33–3.78; n=5), ventral margin length 2.53 mm (2.37–2.81; n=5), postero-dorsal margin length 4.15 mm (4.15–4.89; n=5); metatibial organ slit as described for E. viridis , dorsal section length 0.61 mm (0.52–0.67; n=5); metabasitarsal length 2.16 mm (1.93–2.37; n=5), mid-width 0.81 mm (0.74–0.89; n=5); metabasitarsal ventral margin truncate. Forewing length 8.93 mm (8.15–9.78; n=5); jugal comb with 13–15 (n=5) blades; hind wing with 19–24 (n=5) hamuli. Maximum metasomal width 4.88 mm (4.67–5.15; n=5); second metasomal sternum with two meso-lateral tufts separated by twice width of an individual tuft.

Coloration. Two color variants of males of E. cyanura exist among known specimens, specimens from Panama to Chiapas, Mexico, with integumental coloration very similar to that of E. celiae , albeit green areas showing an olive green tone throughout ( Figs. 92–93 , 96, 99, 102–104 ), lower width of paraocular ivory marks about two thirds of length of lower lateral part of clypeus ( Figs. 93 , 96 ), and first to fourth metasomal terga mainly blue-green (fourth tergum sometimes greener) ( Fig. 104 ). Males from state of Veracruz, Mexico, with a noticeable cyan coloration throughout, due mainly to a strong blue iridescence in those areas with golden-bronzy iridescence in more southerly specimens; bluish coloration in these specimens is also dominant on metasoma, where first to sixth terga are predominantly blue-green.

Sculpturing. Head as in E. viridis ( Fig. 96 ). Mesosoma as in E. azurea ( Figs. 92 , 102–103 ). Metasomal terga as follows: All terga (except anterior discal section of first tergum) moderately dense punctate, large punctures (punctures on second tergum as large as 0.40x mid-ocellus diameter), noticeably elongate longitudinally, progressively larger on apical terga ( Fig. 104 ); sterna with similar sculpturing as in E. viridis , but punctures slightly larger.

Vestiture. Mainly as described for E. viridis , except as follows: specimens from Panama to Chiapas, Mexico, with light fulvous setae throughout; frontal fringe in these specimens with brown setae ( Fig. 96 ), sturdier setae on other areas of body concolorous with softer setae ( Figs. 92–93 , 102–103 ); features of mesotibia as described for E. viridis ( Figs. 98 , 151 ). Metasomal terga not as densely setose as in E. viridis ( Fig. 104 ). Specimens from state of Veracruz, Mexico, with pilosity more similar to E. viridis .

Terminalia. Hidden sterna and genital capsule as described for E. viridis ( Fig. 161 ).

♀: Structure. Total body length 10.78 mm (10.07–11.48; n=5); labiomaxillary complex in repose reaching second metasomal sternum ( Fig. 95 ). Head length 2.80 mm (2.59–3.11; n=5); head width 4.66 mm (4.48–4.89; n=5); upper interorbital distance 2.23 mm (2.14–2.34; n=5); lower interorbital distance 2.25 mm (2.15–2.39; n=5); upper clypeal width 1.22 mm (1.19–1.33; n=5); lower clypeal width 1.96 mm (1.85–2.11; n=5); clypeal protuberance 0.70 mm (0.63–0.81; n=5); medial clypeal ridge sharp, paramedial clypeal ridges sharp in lower half, otherwise rather blunt, labral ridges and labral windows as in E. viridis ; labrum rectangular, wider than long, length 0.96 mm (0.89–1.04; n=5), width 1.17 mm (1.10–1.23; n=5); anterior margin of labrum arched outwards with subapical carina ( Fig. 97 ); interocellar distance 0.31 mm (0.30–0.34; n=5); ocellocular distance 0.66 mm (0.63–0.68; n=5); first flagellar article longer [0.56 mm (0.52–0.59; n=5)] than second and third flagellar articles combined [0.38 mm (0.36–0.41; n=5)]; length of malar area 0.17 mm (0.13–0.21; n=5). Mandible tridentate. Pronotal dorsolateral angle as in E. viridis ; intertegular distance 3.60 mm (3.41–3.78; n=5); mesoscutal length 1.27 mm (1.19–1.36; n=5); mesoscutellar length 2.71 mm (2.59–2.79; n=5); posterior margin of mesoscutellum as in male of E. viridis ( Fig. 94 ); mesotibial length 2.16 mm (2.07–2.30; n=5); mesobasitarsal length 2.07 mm (2.00–2.15; n=5), maximum width 0.63 mm (0.59– 0.67; n=5); metatibia triangular (right triangle) ( Fig. 101 ); metatibial anterior margin length 3.16 mm (2.96–3.33; n=5); metatibial ventral margin length 2.02 mm (1.81–2.19; n=5); metatibial postero-dorsal margin length 3.57 mm (3.37–3.78; n=5); metabasitarsal length 1.91 mm (1.85–2.00; n=5), proximal margin width 0.94 mm (0.89–1.04; n=5). Forewing length 8.08 mm (7.56–8.59; n=5); hind wing with 19–24 (n=5) hamuli. Maximum metasomal width 4.86 mm (4.67–5.11; n=5).

Coloration. Females exhibit integumental coloration as that described for males known from Panama to Chiapas, Mexico, although some females have predominantly green coloration (noticeably the holotype), with very faint bluish areas ( Figs. 94–95 , 97, 101 ). No females known from Veracruz, Mexico, for comparison with those males .

Sculpturing. Overall sculpturing as observed for males of E. viridis (and by extension for those females described as E. viridis / azurea ) ( Figs. 94–95 , 97 ).

Vestiture. Head, mesosoma, and metasoma as in E. viridis ( Figs. 94–95 , 97 ). Mesoscutellar tuft and corbicula as in females of E. viridis / azurea ( Fig. 94 ).

HOLOTYPE: ♀, Panama: “Porto Bello; Pan [Panama] Feb 24.’11 // Aug. BusckI; Collector // Type No.; 23144; U.S.N.M. [red label, number handwritten] // Euglossa ; cyanura ; CKLL TYPE.” ( USNM).

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL EXAMINED (113♂♂ 22♀♀): Costa Rica: 4♂♂, 3♀♀, “ COSTA RICA, San Jose; Prov., 4 Km. E. San; Ignacio de Acosta; 8 July 1963 4000 ft.; (C.D. Michener et al.) // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( SEMC, 1♂ in FSCA). 1♂, as previous except identification label, “ Euglossa cyanura ; Ckll. Det. By; R. L. Dressler ” ( CRAS). 1♂, “ COSTA RICA: Pun-; tarenas: San Vito; de Java 19 III 1966; R. L. Dressler 472 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 1♂, “ COSTA RICA, (S.) Puntarenas; Prov. Gromaco, 34km. SE. of; Potrero Grande, on Rio Coto ; Brus. 21 July 1963, 1000ft.; (C.D. Michener & W. Kerfoot) // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 1♂, “ COSTA RICA: Las Cruces, S. San Vito, Puntarenas Prov.; 15 III 1966 [mixed handwritten] // Anthurium ; C.H. Dodson 204 [handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 1♀, “ COSTA RICA: Pun-; tarenas: Golfito; 16 III 1966; R. L. Dressler 479 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 1♀, “ COSTA RICA: Guan. [Guanacaste]; Tilaran; 24 III 1966; R. L. Dressler 489 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 1♂, “Specimen’04 # 1888; morphospp: 153 // Costa Rica, Coto Brus, near San Vito; Tucanes; 8°49’01.88” N, 82°59’31.02” W; elev. 1200m; Aug. 2004; aerial netting; B. Brosi, T. Shih, B. Graham INT 818 // Euglossa ; cyanura det; T. Shih // Euglossa ♂; cyanura ; Cockerell; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2005” ( BBROSI). 1♂, as previous except first number on top label “1887” ( BBROSI). 1♀, “Specimen’04 # 784; morphospp: 105 // Costa Rica, Coto Brus, near San Vito; Lom. Lind.; 8°44’25.33” N, 82°55’17.19” W; elev. 1150m; July. 2004; Van Someren trap; B. Brosi, T. Shih, B. Graham 7-13 // Euglossa ♂; cyanura ; Cockerell; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2005” ( BBROSI). 1♀, “Specimen’04 # 1481; morphospp: 140 // Costa Rica, Coto Brus, near San Vito; LA; 8°47’06.37” N, 82°56’05.62” W; elev. 1150m; July. 2004; Van Someren trap; B. Brosi, T. Shih, B. Graham 7-31 // Euglossa ♂; cyanura ; Cockerell; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2005” ( BBROSI). 1♀, “Specimen’04 # 2336; morphospp: 105 // Costa Rica, Coto Brus, near San Vito; Sn Ramon; 8°50’26.33” N, 82°55’0.49” W Jesus; elev. 950m; July. 2004; aerial netting trap; B. Brosi, T. Shih, B. Graham I 8/26 // Euglossa ♂; cyanura ; Cockerell; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2005” ( BBROSI). 1♂, 3♀♀, “ COSTA RICA, (S.) Puntarenas; Prov., Gromaco 34km. SE. of Potrero Grande, on Rio Coto ; Brus. 21 July 1963, 1000 ft.; (C.D. Michener & W. Kerfoot) // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( SEMC). 1♀, “ COSTA RICA, Limon Prov.; Puerto Cahuita; March 16, 1966; C.D. Michener coll. // Euglossa ; cyanura Cockerell ; Det. R. L. Dressler, 1987” ( SEMC). Mexico: 1♂, “MEXICO: Chiapas; 9 km SW Palenque; ruins, 200m; 24-IV-1993 R. Ayala // ex. Orchidaceae // Euglossa ♂; viridissima ; det. D. Yanega 1993 [handwritten] // Euglossa ♂; cyanura ; Cockerell; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2005” ( SEMC). 1♂, “MEX: Cordoba; Veracruz; Oct. 14, 1965; Alfred B. Lau // E. ( Euglossa ); charapensis ; Ckll; Det. J.S. Moure 1952 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; cyanura ; Ckll.; det. D. Roubik 2003” ( USNM). 30♂♂, “MEXICO, Las [Los] Tuxtlas; W.M. Whitten; 4 July 1986; ipsdienol // Euglossa ; cyanura Cockerell // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (27 in FSCA, three in SEMC). 1♂, “MEX: Ver.; Jardín Moctezuma.; Fortin.; 950msnm: 13-VIII-86; Rodriguez G. // MUSEO DE ZOOLOGIA; HYMENOPTERA ; 10440 // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det, I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2013 ” ( MZFC). Nicaragua: 1♂, ‘‘NICARAGUA: Rio San Juan Dept.; 60 km SE San Carlos, Refugio ; Bartola , 100 m 10°58.409N, 84°20.309W; 30-V-2002, R . Brooks, Z. Falin,; S. Chatzimanolis ex. methyl salicylate/; eucaliptus oil baits, NIC1BFC02 128 // [barcode] SM0534058 ; KUNHM-ENT // Euglossa ; cyanura ; Cockerell ; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2004 [species epithet and author handwritten]’’ ( SEMC). Panama: 1♂, “84-991 [pencil] // Panama: Colon; Río Iguanita; March 1984; Mark Whitten // P-CRESOL [upside down] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 1♂, as previous except number “84-341”, chemical “TERPINEN-4-OL” ( FSCA). 1♂, as previous except number “84-813”, chemical “IPSDIENOL” ( FSCA). 2♂♂, as previous except number “84-814”, “84-815” ( FSCA). 1♂, as previous except number “84-449”, plant instead of chemical “ Spathiphillum; sp.” ( FSCA). 1♂, “84-53 [pencil] // Panama: Cocle; El Valle de Antón; March 1984; Mark Whitten // IPSDIENOL [upside down] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 4♂♂, as previous except numbers “84-54”, “84- 55”, “84-206”, “84-207” ( FSCA). 2♂♂, as previous except numbers “84-209”, “84-210”, chemical “P-CRESOL” ( FSCA). 4♂♂, as previous except numbers “84-48”, “84-49”, “84-50”, “84-51”, “84-52”, plant instead of chemical “ Anthurium ; ochranthum ” ( FSCA). 2♂♂, “ PANAMA: Coclé: N.; El Valle de Antón; 23–24 IX 1964; R. L.Dressler 108 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 2♀♀, “ PANAMA: N. El Valle; de Anton, Cocle Prov.; 23–24 IX 1964; R. L.Dressler 108 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (one in SEMC, one in AMNH). 2♂♂, “Cerro; Campana; Panama [handwritten] // 7/27/65; CH Dodson [handwritten] // Cycnoches ; egertonianum ; El Valle [handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 1♂, “ PANAMA: Pma.:; Cerro Campana; 23 XI 1976; R. L. Dressler; 1661 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; cyanura [handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 1♂, “ PANAMA: Panama,; Cerro Campana; β-ionone 11 VIII 1979; J.D. Ackerman 569 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa cyanura ♂; det. JDA 1979 [handwritten]” ( FSCA). 1♀, “ PANAMA: Pma.:; Cerro Campana; 8 V 1965; R. L. Dressler 261 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; cyanura [handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 1♀, “ PANAMA: Pma.:; Cerro Campana; 13 X 1967 [mixed handwritten] // NH Williams // Euglossa ; cyanura // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 1♀, “El Valle; Panama [handwritten] // 7/25/65; CH Dodson [handwritten] // buzzing [handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 1♂, “ PANAMA: Summit; Gardens, C.Z.; 28 VI 1965; R. L. Dressler 277 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 3♂♂, “ PANAMA: C.Z.: Navy; Reserv. N. Gamboa; 19 IV 1964; R. L. Dressler 1 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (two in FSCA, one in SEMC). 2♂♂, “ PANAMA: C.Z.: Barro Colorado I.; 26 III 1964; R. L. Dressler 9 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 1♂, “ PANAMA: Barro; Colorado Island; 26 III 1964; R. L. Dressler 9 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa (Euglossella) ; viridis ( Perty, 1833) ; det. J.S. Ascher // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( AMNH). 2♂♂, “ PANAMA: Barro; Colorado Island; 12–13 IV 1965; R. L. Dressler 247 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; cyanura Cockerell ; det. R. L.Dressler ” ( FSCA). 3♂♂, as previous except identification label “ Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (one each in USNM, SEMC, AMNH). 2♂♂, “ PANAMA, C.Z.; Barro Colorado Is.; 26 March 1964; (C.H. Dodson) [handwritten] // On Gongora ; tricolor // Euglossa ; viridis (Perty) ; Det. C.D. Michener [handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( SEMC). 1♀, “Barro Colo Isld.; Canal Zone; I-7-1929 // Collector; C.H. Curran // Euglossa ; cyanura Ckll. ; Det. H.F. Schwarz [handwritten] // Euglossa ; cyanura ; Ckll.; Det. C.D. Michener ‘92” ( AMNH). 3♂♂, “ Panama, Canal Zone; Summer Gardens; 12 December 1970; Michener, Wille [handwritten] // Euglossa ; cyanura Cockerell ; Det. R. L. Dressler, 1987” ( SEMC). 1♂, “ Panama, C.Z.; Fort Sherman; 28 March 1964 // On Gongora ; maculata ; var latibasis // Euglossa ; viridis (Perty) ; Det. C.D. Michener [handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( SEMC). 1♀, “ PANAMA: C.Z.: Piña area; 18 VII 1965; R. L. Dressler 313 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 1♀, “ PANAMA: C.Z.; Piña area; 22 May 1959; W.J. Hanson [date handwritten] // Euglossa ♀ viridis (Perty) ; J.S. Moure 1963 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( SEMC). 2♂♂, “ PANAMA: Pma.:; Las Cumbres; 17 III 1968; R. L. Dressler 903 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 3♂♂, “ PANAMA: Pma.:; Cerro Jefe; 12 VII 1967; R. L. Dressler 697 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; cyanura [handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( FSCA). 3♂♂, as previous except date “ 14 VII 1967 ” (two in FSCA, one in USNM). 6♂♂, “ PANAMA C.Z.; Cerro Galera; 3 Mar. 1959; W.J. Hanson [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (five in SEMC, one in DZUP). 3♂♂, as previous except date “ 12 Mar 1959 ” ( SEMC). 1♂, as previous except date “ 14 Mar 1959 ”, and extra identification label “ Euglossa ; viridis ♂; (Perty); J.S. Moure 1963” ( SEMC). 5♂♂, “Barro Colo. I.; C.Z.; III-12-37; S.W. Frost // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( USNM). 1♂, as previous except identification label “ Euglossa ; cyanura ; Ckll.; Det. J.S. Moure 1957 [mixed handwritten]” ( USNM). 1♂, “ PANAMA Colon Prov.; Pipeline Rd., 10 km.; NW. Gamboa (C.Z.); 4 January 1981; C.D. Michener // Euglossa ; cyanura Cockerell ; Det. R. L. Dressler, 1987” ( SEMC). 1♂, “ Panama; Canal Zone; Pipeline Road; 14 April 1964; Coll. C.H. Dodson [handwritten] // On; Gongora tricolor // Euglossa ; viridis (Perty) ; (= E. cyanura Ckll. ); Det. C.D. Michener ’69 [handwritten] // Euglossa ; cyanura Ckll. ; Dressler, 1967 [handwritten] // Euglossa ; viridis (Perty) ; = cyanura Ckll. ; Moure 1963 [handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” ( SEMC). 1♂, as previous except missing Moure’s identification label ( SEMC). 1♀, “ PANAMA Panama Prov.; 13 km. W. El Llano; (Carti Rd Km 7); 22Apr1981 on Psy -; chotria R. W. Brooks // RW Brooks; Collection; KUNHM #; 2005-En-053 // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2011” ( SEMC). 1♀, “ PANAMA Panama Prov.; 15 km. N. El Llano; (Carti Rd Km 7); 10May1981; at Cineole; Robert W. Brooks // RW Brooks; Collection; KUNHM #; 2005-En-053 // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); cyanura Cockerell ♀; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2011” ( SEMC) .

COMMENTS: Cockerell (1917) described E. cyanura apparently based on a single female, and at the time of his work euglossine males were collected only scarcely. As we have recurrently mentioned, females are often not readily distinguishable from other species (although exceptions do exist). This reality certainly influenced earlier authors’ perceptions as to the validity of Cockerell’s species. Moure (1960) initially took the position that E. cyanura was a synonym of E. viridis (synonymizing E. azurea as well), apparently relying solely on females to base his judgement. Subsequently, and most likely after having seen males conspecific with Cockerell’s holotype and noting that they were quite distinct from other taxa including E. viridis, Moure (1967b) reinstated E. cyanura as a valid species in his annotated checklist, and followed up in support of this decision a few years later ( Moure, 1970). This is one of those species for which it is truly critical to understand the male if one wishes to appreciate its discreteness from other taxa in Euglossella . Males of this species are distinguished easily from others in the viridis group by the combination of two features: large punctures on the metasomal terga ( Fig. 140 ) and pale-fuscous setae on the body, especially the mesosoma. The latter feature can be used to distinguish E. cyanura from E. granti , the males of which also have large punctures on the metasomal terga but a dramatically different vestiture (refer to the following account on E. granti , vide infra).

Historically E. cyanura has been known from Panama and Costa Rica, as noted by Moure (1970) in his reassessment validating the species. In addition, there is one record from southern Nicaragua (close to the Costa Rican border), recently documented by Hinojosa-Díaz & Engel (2012a). The species also was recently reported by Schorkopf et al. (2011) from two localities in the state of Veracruz, southeastern Mexico, and here we were able to examine specimens from four localities in two states in southeastern Mexico (Veracruz and Chiapas), one of them (Los Tuxtlas) being the same as that cited in their study ( Fig. 170 ). Although Bonilla-Gómez & Nates-Parra (1992), Ramírez et al. (2002), and Roubik & Hanson (2004) reported the species from Colombia, in none of those studies were specimens actually examined [e.g., Ramírez et al. (2002) based their report solely on Bonilla-Gómez & Nates-Parra (1992)]. The species could likely be found in areas of northwestern Colombia, towards the Pacific side of the Andes, but this needs to be confirmed. Cockerell (1922) reported a female of E. cyanura from Ecuador, but the few morphological details given in his account are ambiguous and the uncertainty of the identification is only exacerbated by the fact that females of the species are not easily differentiated from congeners. It is quite likely that Cockerell misidentified his material.

Those specimens from Veracruz have a distinctive cyan coloration and darker vestiture in contrast to all other individuals we have examined, but otherwise exhibit no structural (including genitalic structures), sculpturing, or other differences that we can discern. The male from Chiapas has the integumental and vestiture coloration typical to individuals from more southerly localities. There is a paucity of material from northern Central America and broad gaps between sampling localities (likely owing to a lack of collecting effort), but in the absence of more clearly defining features we consider this at present to be nothing more than color variation. There is a need for more extensive sampling across this part of the distribution so as to more fully define the northern limits of its range, more complete document and understand the transition in coloration, and test whether or not the darker populations represent a separate lineage. This is another area in which the combined application of morphological and molecular data would be beneficial toward refining our hypothesis of species limits for E. cyanura .

Figures

Figure 170. Collection localities for species of Euglossella Moure, viridis and mandibularis species groups [also showing localities for females attributable only to Euglossa (Euglossella) viridis (Perty)/azurea Ducke]. Locality points are based on examined specimens.

Figures 92–93. Euglossa (Euglossella) cyanura Cockerell, male. 92. Dorsal habitus. 93. Lateral habitus.

Figures 94–95. Euglossa (Euglossella) cyanura Cockerell, female. 94. Dorsal habitus. 95. Lateral habitus.

Figures 96–104. Euglossa (Euglossella) cyanura Cockerell. 96. Facial aspect of male. 97. Facial aspect of female. 98. Mesotibial tufts of male. 99. Outer view of male hind leg. 100. Proximal section of male mesobasitarsus. 101. Outer view of female hind leg. 102. Anterolateral view of mesepisternum of male. 103. Mesoscutellum of male. 104. Dorsal view of male metasomal terga.

Figures 144–154. Outer view of mesotibiae of males of species of Euglossella Moure, viridis and mandibularis species groups. 144. Euglossa (Euglossella) viridis (Perty). 145. E. (E.) azurea Ducke. 146. E. (E.) celiae, new species. 147. E. (E.) cyanea Friese. 148. E. (E.) subandina, new species. 149. E. (E.) polita Ducke. 150. E. (E.) perviridis Dressler. 151. E. (E.) cyanura Cockerell. 152. E. (E.) granti Cheesman. 153. E. (E.) mandibularis Friese. 154. E. (E.) bigibba Dressler.

Figures 155–163. Dorsal view of genital capsule of males of Euglossella Moure, viridis and mandibularis species groups. 155. Euglossa (Euglossella) azurea Ducke. 156. E. (E.) celiae, new species. 157. E. (E.) cyanea Friese. 158. E. (E.) subandina, new species. 159. E. (E.) polita Ducke. 160. E. (E.) perviridis Dressler. 161. E. (E.) cyanura Cockerell. 162. E. (E.) granti Cheesman. 163. E. (E.) bigibba Dressler.

Figures 139–140. Euglossa (Euglossella) perfulgens Moure, female. 139. Dorsal habitus. 140. Lateral habitus.