Euglossa (Euglossella) azurea Ducke

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 : 22-27

Euglossa (Euglossella) azurea Ducke , reinstated name

( Figs. 16–24 , 145 , 155 , 165 , 170 )

Euglossa azurea Ducke, 1902a: 402 [♂ ♀]. Lectotype ♂ (MPEG, visum).

Euglossa (Euglossella) jacquelynae Nemésio, 2007: 22 [♂]. Holotype ♂ (BHMH, observed published images of holotype; two paratypes examined). New synonymy.

DIAGNOSIS: Labiomaxillary complex in repose reaching second metasomal sternum; upper and lower interorbital distances equal (at most marginally different) ( Fig. 18 ); malar area short (less than 0.25 mm, noticeably shorter than diameter of mid-flagellar articles) ( Fig. 18 ); pronotal dorsolateral angle projected as a lamella; male mesotibial tufts as follows: anterior tuft rhomboid, moderately long (maximum length not exceeding mid-width of velvety area) and narrow (mid-width equivalent to width of contiguous section of velvety area), posterior tuft circular-ovoid ( Figs. 19 , 145 ); mesobasitarsal posterior keel projected in a right to slightly obtuse angle ( Fig. 21 ); second metasomal sternum with two simple meso-lateral tufts; metasoma as wide as head (if different, no more than 1.05 times) ( Fig. 16 ); head mainly green with some blue areas ( Fig. 18 ); paraocular marks trapezoidal, lower width about half length of lower lateral part of clypeus ( Figs. 17–18 ); scape with ivory spot covering almost entire anterior surface ( Fig. 18 ); mesosoma (except mesoscutellum) mainly dark green with blue-purple intergradations and bronzy iridescence ( Figs. 16–17 ), mesoscutellum blue-purple ( Fig. 23 ); first to fourth metasomal terga blue/blue-purple, remaining terga progressively green ( Fig. 24 ); mesoscutellum and central area of mesepisternum moderately punctate (punctures separated by one to two puncture diameters) ( Figs. 22–23 ); metasomal terga densely and evenly imbricate-punctate ( Fig 24 ); mesosoma vestiture dominated by pale-fuscous setae ( Figs. 16–17 , 22–23 ); eighth metasomal sternum posterior section very narrow as a slender cylinder; gonocoxite dorsal process about as wide as long ( Fig. 155 ); gonostylar lateral section with posterior margin of basal sector not projected, covered with moderately-dense setae that reach posterior margin of blades of penis valve ( Fig. 165 ).

DESCRIPTION: ♂: Structure. Total body length 10.19 mm (9.93–10.52; n=4); labiomaxillary complex in repose reaching anterior half of second metasomal sternum ( Fig. 17 ). Head length 2.63 mm (2.59–2.67; n=4), width 4.42 mm (4.30–4.52; n=4); upper interorbital distance 1.95 mm (1.85–2; n=4); lower interorbital distance 1.93 mm (1.85– 1.96; n=4); upper clypeal width 1.08 mm (1.04–1.11; n=4); lower clypeal width 1.80 mm (1.70–1.85; n=4); clypeal protuberance 0.52 mm (0.44–0.59; n=4); clypeal ridges, labral ridges, and labral windows as described for E. viridis ; labrum wider than long, length 0.88 mm (0.85–0.92; n=4), width 1.01 mm (0.96–1.04; n=4) ( Fig. 18 ); interocellar distance 0.31 mm (0.30–0.31; n=4); ocellocular distance 0.56 mm (0.52–0.59; n=4); first flagellar article longer [0.51 mm (0.46–0.56; n=4)] than second and third flagellar articles combined [0.36 mm (0.33–0.37; n=4)]; length of malar area 0.19 mm (0.17–0.19; n=4). Mandible tridentate. Pronotal dorsolateral angle projected posterolaterally as a truncate lamella; intertegular distance 3.22 mm (3.00–3.41; n=4); mesoscutal length 2.61 mm (2.48–2.67; n=4); mesoscutellar length 1.17 mm (1.11–1.19; n=4); posterior margin of mesoscutellum truncate along most of its length (laterally rounded) ( Fig. 23 ); mesotibial length 2.08 mm (1.93–2.22; n=4); mesobasitarsal length 2.06 mm (1.96–2.22; n=4), width 0.66 mm (0.61–0.67; n=4) (measured at proximal posterior keel), posterior keel projected in a right to slightly obtuse angle with proximal margin (between mesotibia-mesobasitarsus joint and apex of keel) evenly convex ( Fig. 21 ); metatibia triangular (scalene triangular) ( Fig. 20 ), maximum thickness 1.33 mm (1.26–1.48; n=4); metatibial anterior margin length 3.37 mm (3.11–3.48; n=4), ventral margin length 2.28 mm (2.22– 2.30; n=4), postero-dorsal margin length 4.19 mm (3.93–4.44; n=4); metatibial organ slit as described for E. viridis , dorsal section length 0.59 mm (0.56–0.61; n=4); metabasitarsal length 1.91 mm (1.85–1.93; n=4), mid-width 0.79 mm (0.74–0.81; n=4); metabasitarsal ventral margin truncate. Forewing length 8.69 mm (8.52–8.89; n=4); jugal comb with 12–13 (n=4) blades; hind wing with 18–21 (n=4) hamuli. Maximum metasomal width 4.41 mm (4.22–4.52; n=4); second metasomal sternum as described for E. viridis .

Coloration. Head as described for E. viridis , except lower width of paraocular ivory marks slightly narrower in most specimens (about one half length of lower lateral part of clypeus, while in most specimens of E. viridis this width about two-thirds length of lower lateral part of clypeus) ( Figs. 17–18 ). Mesosoma, including legs, as described for E. viridis ( Figs. 16–17 , 22–23 ), except preomaular spot matte brown-purple, contrasting with metallic surroundings (in E. viridis preomaular spot with faint bronzy coloration). Metasoma as described for E. viridis with following remarks: First to fourth metasomal terga blue to blue purple with scarce green iridescence, especially on lateral margins (in most specimens examined for E. viridis blue purple coloration goes mainly from first through third metasomal terga, but refer also to Comments for that species, infra) ( Fig. 24 ).

Sculpturing. Head as described for E. viridis ( Fig. 18 ). Mesoscutum as described for E. viridis ( Fig. 16 ); mesoscutellum with moderately dense punctures, also of two different sizes, major punctures slightly bigger than those on mesoscutum (increasing in size towards posterior margin), separated by about one puncture diameter on lateral thirds of mesoscutellar surface, sparser (separated by one to two puncture diameters) along mid-section (by comparison to E. viridis in which punctures are dense, i.e., contiguous, antero-medially) and near posterior margin, minor punctures about one-third size of major punctures and in a ratio of about one minor puncture per five major punctures ( Fig. 23 ); mesepisternum similar to that of E. viridis , except punctures distinctively sparser (punctures separated by one or two puncture diameters) on middle area above upper limit of mesocoxal joint, remainder of mesosomal sclerites as described for E. viridis ; metatibia as described for E. viridis ( Fig. 22 ); preomaular spot surface noticeably concave (in E. viridis preomaular spot rather even with surrounding integument). Metasomal terga as described for E. viridis ( Fig. 24 ); sterna as described for E. viridis .

Vestiture. Head as described for E. viridis ( Fig. 18 ). Mesosoma (including legs) as described for E. viridis ( Figs. 16–17 , 20, 22–23 ), except length of mesotibial anterior tuft not exceeding mid-width of velvety area, and mid-width of anterior tuft equivalent to width of contiguous velvety area ( Figs. 19 , 145 ). Metasoma as described for E. viridis ( Fig. 24 ).

Terminalia. Seventh and eighth metasomal sterna as described for E. viridis . Gonocoxite as described for E. viridis ( Fig. 155 ). Gonostylar lateral section with ventral lobe thumb-shaped, noticeably acute apically, basal sector adjacent to ventral lobe equivalent in width to ventral lobe, posterior margin straight, not projected (by comparison to E. viridis in which it is developed as a “secondary” lobe); ventral lobe with moderately-dense, light, simple setae mainly on outer surface (very few on inner surface, principally towards apex), basal sector with dense (not as dense as on “secondary” lobe of E. viridis ), fulvous, seta plumose in their apical halves, length of these setae reaching mid-section of blades of penis valve, not reaching their margin ( Fig. 165 ). Spatha as described for E. viridis .

♀: See section on females of E. viridis / azurea (vide infra).

LECTOTYPE: ♂, Brazil: “ LECTOTIPO [red label] // Macapa; 9-11-1900; Ducke [handwritten] // Brazil ; Estado do; Pará [upside down] // Lectotype; Euglossa ♂; azurea Ducke ; J.S. Moure 1960 [species name and year handwritten]” ( MPEG).

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL EXAMINED (19♂♂): Brazil: 1♂, “Brasil. GO [Goiás]. Caldas; Novas; 18/11/2004; Augusto, S.C. col. // 12324 36326 // E. jacquelynae ; paratype ” (BHMH). 1♂, “Parque Nacional; Serra do Cipó; Salicilato; 12664-36988 // Jaboticatubas MG [Minas Gerais]; BRASIL 28/10/2005; R.A. Souza Salicilato // E. cfr. jacquelynae ; Nemésio det. 2007” (BHMH). 1♂, “Brasil. MG [Minas Gerais]. Uberlândia; PANGA; 20- IV-2004; Alvarenga, P. col. // 12333 36365 // COLECÃO EC; 162 // Salicilato de; metila // E. jacquelynae ; paratype ” (BHMH). 1♂, “BRAZIL: PARÁ; BELÉM, IPEAN [Instituto de Pesquisa Agropecuária do Norte]; 27 X/ 1968; R.L. Dressler; 1205 [day and last number hanwritten] // Skatole // Euglossa ; viridis (Perty) ; det. R.L. Dressler 196 // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (FSCA). 1♂, “M. Salicylate BRAZIL: PARÁ; BELÉM, IPEAN [chemical handwritten] // 30 VI 1971; H Kennedy // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (FSCA). 1♂, “Brasilien; Bahia; Gomez S. // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (FSCA). 1♂, “RO-8627; BRASIL, Rondônia; Rolim de Moura; Linha 192 // 26 Abr 97; 11°42.293’S 61°42.216’W; Brown, Boina, Vieira // Euglossa (Euglossella) ; viridis ( Perty, 1833) ; Det. M.L. Oliveira, 1999 // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (AMNH). 1♂, “RO-9893; BRASIL, Rondônia; Porto Velho; Estação Ecológica Cuniã // 23 Maio1999; 08°17’48.1”S 63°30’30.4”W; Brown, Boina, Vieira // Euglossa (Euglossella) ; viridis ( Perty, 1833) ; Det. M.L. Oliveira, 1999 // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (AMNH). 1♂, “RO-9258; BRASIL, Rondônia; Mirante da Serra; Linha 64 // 16 Maio 1997; 10°58’35.3”S 62°47’08.0”W; Brown, Boina, Vieira // Euglossa (Euglossella) ; viridis ( Perty, 1833) ; Det. M.L. Oliveira, 1999 // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (AMNH). 1♂, “RO-13898; BRASIL, Rondônia; Mirante da Serra; Linha 80 // 29 Agosto 1997; 11°06’46.3”S 62°51’03.6”W; Brown, Boina, Vieira // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (SEMC). 1♂, as previous except first number “RO-13899” (SEMC). 1♂, “BRAZIL, Mato Grosso:; Sinop, October 1976; M. Alvarenga // Euglossa (Euglossella) ; viridis ( Perty, 1833) ; det. J.S. Ascher // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (AMNH). 1♂, “2693 // MANAUS. AM; [illegible] 23/8/90; M.L. OLIVEIRA // viridis // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (DZUP). 1♂, “Roadside // Cerradão // BRAZIL, Mato Grosso; 12°50’S., 51°47’W.; 10 IV 1968; O.W. Richards [month and day handwritten] // E. ( Euglossella ); cfr. viridis ?; Det.J.S. Moure 1972 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det. I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2011” (NHML). French Guiana: 1♂, “FRENCH GUIANA; Kourou, Km. 17 SW.; 22 March 1977; D. Roubik, No. 115 [mixed handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (SEMC). 1♂, “FRENCH GUIANA; Kourou (beach); 2 March 1977; C.D. Michener // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (FSCA). Venezuela: 1♂, “Venezuela Amazonas; El Infierno-Atures // Euglossa viridis ; (Perty); det. R.L. Dressler 1986 // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (AMNH). 1♂, “Carapito [Caripito]; Ven. [Venezuela, Monagas] Apr. 5 1940; B. Denton // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012 (USNM). 1♂, “[Venezuela, Amazonas] Río Cuao; 03 May 86; pdmb [handwritten] // Euglossa ; ( Euglossella ); azurea Ducke ♂; Det I. Hinojosa-Díaz 2012” (FSCA).

COMMENTS: As mentioned in the comments for E. viridis , there is strong superficial similarity between E. azurea and E. viridis , and in most collections specimens of E. azurea are understandably identified largely as E. viridis . The history of the recognition of E. azurea is certainly a reflection of this similarity. The species was first published in German by Ducke (1902a), while the intended initial description appeared later that same year in a Brazilian article (Ducke, 1902b). In both instances the species was described briefly with an emphasis on coloration, although Ducke did mention a few other morphological details. Hedicke (1936) and Moure (1960, 1967b) both viewed E. azurea as a junior synonym of E. viridis , and this perception remained as the valid view until the present study (e.g., Kimsey & Dressler, 1986; Moure et al., 2007). Moure (1967b) also designated a lectotype for E. azurea , which was examined during the course of our work, and is a male, and correctly listed as such in several catalogues ( Moure, 1967b; Kimsey & Dressler, 1986; Moure et al., 2007), despite Nemésio & Rasmussen (2011) referring to it as a female.

Nemésio (2007) described E. jacquelynae Nemésio from areas in south-central Brazil (states of Goiás and Minas Gerais), specifically mentioning its resemblance to E. viridis and E. cyanura . Moure et al. (2007) considered E. jacquelynae as a junior synonym of E. viridis , a conclusion with which we disagree. Nemésio (2007) was justified in his conclusion that E. jacquelynae was a species distinct from E. viridis and E. cyanura , and he rightly compared his type series with available material of both of the latter. However, given that Moure (1960, 1967b) had asserted E. azurea to already be synoymous with E. viridis, Nemésio (2007) apparently did not examine the lectotype of the former as part of that work. When we compared material of E. jacquelynae and E. azurea , including its lectotype, it is clear that the two are conspecific and we are confident that had Nemésio (2007) observed the lectotype of E. azurea he would have recognized his specimens as such as well as the error of previous authors’ synonymy. Although the holotype of E. jacquelynae was not available to us, we did have access to paratypes as well as the excellent photographs of the holotype (Nemésio, 2007, 2009) that depict clearly sufficient details to support the synonymy.

The features of coloration used by Ducke (1902a) in his original description of E. azurea attest to the fact that this species has for the most part a more extensive blue coloration on the metasoma than E. viridis . However, as mentioned before, although useful, the observed variation in color in both taxa makes this character insufficient and, when used alone, is unreliable. Nemésio (2007) also observed the metasomal terga coloration pattern when describing E. jacquelynae , and alluded to differences in the configuration of the paraocular marks and of the anterior mesotibial tuft to separate the species from E. viridis and E. cyanura . The latter species is distinguishable easily from either E. azurea or E. viridis by the sculpturing of the metasomal terga, aside from its restriction to Central America and southern Mexico. Euglossa azurea can be distinguished reliably from E. viridis based on various unambiguous characters, such as the paraocular marks, integumental sculpturing, and perhaps most definitively by traits of the midleg. The extension of the lower part of the paraocular marks, covering about two thirds of the length of the lower lateral part of the clypeus in E. viridis ( Fig. 3 ), and about half the length of the same in E. azurea ( Fig. 18 ). The sculpturing of the mesoscutellum and mesepisternum is distinctive in both species, as punctures are consistently denser in specimens of E. viridis ( Figs. 6–7 ) when compared to those of E. azurea ( Figs. 22–23 ), and this unambiguously separates these two species. The mesobasitarsal posterior keel is projected as an acute angle in E. viridis ( Fig. 8 ), where it is right to slightly obtuse (or rather blunt) in E. azurea ( Fig. 21 ). The shape and dimensions of the velvety area and the outer surface of the mesotibia seem to be at the extremes of the morphological variation observed in the viridis species group. On the one side E. viridis has a comparatively slender velvety area ( Fig. 144 ), while E. azurea has the widest velvety area of all species in the group ( Fig. 145 ). The relative size of the anterior mesotibial tuft aids in recognizing these differences when one compares its length to the mid-width of the velvety area and the tuft’s mid-width with the width of the contiguous section of the velvety area (refer to key to species, supra). The gonostylus of E. azurea is also distinctive from E. viridis , and although subject to some variation, is rath- er uniform among specimens, with the basal sector having a straight, non-projecting posterior margin instead of the noticeable “secondary” lobe present in E. viridis and all other species in the group. This entire suite of morphological features are important since both taxa are seemingly sympatric and very similar, almost cryptically so, at first glance. Additionally, no individuals of E. azurea were found with the extremes in coloration (e.g., either all green or bluish) that we observed for E. viridis . As for E. viridis , females of E. azurea cannot yet be identified unequivocally as belonging to this species and so they are treated in a separate account below (vide infra).

As noted, E. azurea is largely sympatric with E. viridis . Specimens were examined from Venezuela, French Guiana, and the northern, west-central, and southeastern regions of Brazil ( Fig. 170 ).

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 16–17. Euglossa (Euglossella) azurea Ducke, male. 16. Dorsal habitus. 17. Lateral habitus.

Figures 18–24. Euglossa (Euglossella) azurea Ducke, male. 18. Facial aspect. 19. Mesotibial tufts. 20. Outer view of hind leg. 21. Proximal section of mesobasitarsus. 22. Lateral part of mesepisternum. 23. Mesoscutellum. 24. Dorsal view of 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 164–169. Additional male genitalic features of some species of Euglossella Moure, viridis and mandibularis species groups. 164. Lateral section of gonostylus of Euglossa (Euglossella) viridis (Perty). 165. Lateral section of gonostylus of E. (E.) azurea Ducke. 166. Lateral section of gonostylus of E. (E.) mandibularis Friese. 167. Lateral section of gonostylus of E. (E.) bigibba Dressler. 168. Eighth metasomal sternum of E. bigibba, ventral aspect. 169. Eighth metasomal sternum of E. bigibba, lateral aspect.

Figures 3–9. Euglossa (Euglossella) viridis (Perty), male. 3. Facial aspect. 4. Mesotibial tufts. 5. Outer view of hind leg. 6. Lateral part of mesepisternum. 7. Mesoscutellum. 8. Proximal section of mesobasitarsus. 9. Dorsal view of metasomal terga.