Lasioglossum (Dialictus) tegulariforme ( Crawford, 1907 )

Gardner, Joel & Gibbs, Jason, 2023, Revision of the Nearctic species of the Lasioglossum (Dialictus) gemmatum species complex (Hymenoptera: Halictidae), European Journal of Taxonomy 858 (1), pp. 1-222 : 182-187

Lasioglossum (Dialictus) tegulariforme ( Crawford, 1907)

Figs 73–75 , 76P , 88B , 90A , 93A , 108A , 109A

Halictus (Chloralictus) tegulariformis Crawford, 1907: 194 (holotype, ♀, deposited in USNM, examined).

Halictus tegulariformis – Cockerell 1916: 77 (comparative notes to helianthi).

Halictus (Chloralictus) tegulariformis – Ellis 1914: 101 (comparison to jamaicae = gemmatum). — Sandhouse 1924: 2, 7 (key to species), 11 (comparison to ellisiae).

Lasioglossum (Chloralictus) tegulariforme – Michener 1951: 1118 (catalogue).

Dialictus tegulariformis – Hurd 1979: 1972 (catalogue). — Moure & Hurd 1987: 133 (catalogue).

Diagnosis

Females of L. tegulariforme have the tegula very large (maximum length more than half ITS and clearly exceeding posterior margin of mesoscutum in dorsal view), with inner posterior margin strongly concave, and densely punctate (IS <1 PD); T1 disc with an impunctate median line about 1 OD wide; paraocular area punctures similar in size and density to frons punctures; mesoscutum completely dull, tessellate, and finely and densely punctate (IS ≤ 1 PD with 4–5 punctures between posterior end of parapsidal line and lateral edge of mesoscutum); T1 anterior slope usually somewhat shiny with weak microsculpture; and T3 usually with a dense and complete subapical band of tomentum.

Females of L. tegulariforme are most similar to those of L. angelicum sp. nov., L. gaudiale , and L. helianthi , all of which have the T1 disc uniformly punctate, paraocular punctures distinctly larger and sparser than frons punctures, and T3 lacking a complete subapical band of tomentum. Females of L. gaudiale (and most L. angelicum ) also have the mesoscutum more sparsely punctate (IS = 1–2 PD and 2–3 punctures between posterior end of parapsidal line and lateral edge of mesoscutum) and often shiny. Females of L. helianthi have the tegula smaller (maximum length half or less ITS and not exceeding posterior margin of mesoscutum in dorsal view).

Males of L. tegulariforme have the tegula large (as in the female); mesoscutum tessellate and densely punctate (IS ≤ 1 PD); metapostnotum shiny with strong rugae; disc of T1 finely, sparsely punctate medially (IS = 1–3 PD), contrasting with the more densely punctate disc of T2 (IS = 1–2 PD); and T1–T2 apical rims impunctate.

Males of L. tegulariforme are most similar to those of L. angelicum sp. nov. and L. helianthi , both of which have the T1–T2 discs uniformly moderately densely to sparsely punctate (IS = 1–2 PD) with some punctures extending onto apical rims. In addition, males of L. angelicum have the mesoscutum usually more sparsely punctate (IS = 1–2 PD), and males of L. helianthi have the tegula smaller (not exceeding posterior margin of mesoscutum in dorsal view).

Etymology

Crawford (1907) formed the specific epithet ʻ tegulariformis ʼ from the specific epithet ʻ tegularis ʼ plus the Latin noun ʻ forma ʼ (shape, figure) and the adjectival suffix ʻ -is ʼ (pertaining to, having the nature of). It refers to the similarity of this species to L. tegulare .

Material examined

Holotype UNITED STATES – Nevada • ♀; Ormsby Co.; [39.2° N, 119.8° W]; 6 Jul.; Baker leg.; USNM.

Other material

CANADA – British Columbia • 1 ♀; Okanagan-Similkameen Reg. Dist., Osoyoos, Rd. 22, Okanagan R.; 49.0895° N, 119.5358° W; elev. 280 m; 22 Apr. 2009; L. R. Best leg.; PCYU .

UNITED STATES – California • 1 ♀; Contra Costa Co., San Pablo ; [37.96° N, 122.35° W]; 6 Jun. 1931; E.P. Van Duzee leg.; CAS • 1 ♀; Los Angeles Co., Chatsworth ; 34.26° N, 118.601° W; 1–8 Jul. 2017; LACM • 1 ♀; Merced Co., Dos Palos; [36.99° N, 120.63° W]; 6 Sep. 1949; J.E. Gillaspy leg.; TAMU-ENTO X1389007 • 1 ♀; San Mateo Co., Redwood City ; [37.48° N, 122.23° W]; 13 Sep. 1952; P.H. Arnaud leg.; ex Foeniculum vulgare ; CAS • 1 ♂; Yolo Co., CLBL; 38.52395° N, 121.91851° W; elev. 28.35 m; “Summer 2006”; T. Shih, M. VanDyke leg.; ex Origanum sp. “ Marjoram ”; WRME • 1 ♀; Yolo Co., Hermle 3; 38.765384° N, 121.796119° W; 6 Jul. 2016; A. Buderi leg.; ex Polygonum aviculare ; UCDC FORB201662412 • 1 ♀; Yolo Co., Hermle SR3; 38.7457° N, 121.7657° W; 7 Jul. 2016; O. Lundin leg.; UCDC FORB201686092 • 1 ♀; Yolo Co., Johnston A; 38.782453° N, 121.790404° W; 23 May 2016; A. Buderi leg.; ex Anthemis cotula ; UCDC FORB201661310 • 3 ♀♀; ibid.; 5 Jul. 2016; A. Buderi leg.; ex Hirschfeldia incana ; UCDC FORB201662280 , FORB201662279 , FORB201662221 • 2 ♀♀; ibid.; 29 Jul. 2016; R. Deleray leg.; ex Hirschfeldia incana ; UCDC FORB201662630 , FORB201662626 • 1 ♀; Yolo Co., Russell Ranch A; 38.542148° N, 121.869337° W; 30 Jun. 2016; R. Deleray leg.; ex Convolvulus arvensis ; UCDC FORB201662118 • 6 ♀♀; Yolo Co., Russell Ranch SR3; 38.5423° N, 121.8855° W; 26 Jul. 2016; O. Lundin leg.; UCDC FORB201685695 , FORB201685690 , FORB201685751 , FORB201685793 , FORB201685700 , FORB201685689 • 1 ♂; Yolo Co., Student Farm 1A; 38.5399° N, 121.766° W; 16 Aug. 2011; N.S.L. Pope leg.; ex Phacelia californica ; WRME FORB201103273 • 1 ♀; Yolo Co., Turk 10W/S; 38.574631° N, 121.952068° W; 6 Jun. 2016; A. Buderi leg.; ex Eschscholzia californica ; UCDC FORB201661556 • 1 ♀; Yolo Co., Turk 10W/S; 38.576708° N, 121.946151° W; 29 Jun. 2016; R. Deleray leg.; ex Convolvulus arvensis ; UCDC FORB201662039 • 1 ♀; Yolo Co., Turk 10W/S; 38.574631° N, 121.952068° W; 29 Jun. 2016; R. Deleray leg.; ex Malva nicaeensis ; UCDC FORB201662066 • 1 ♀; Yolo Co., Turk 10W/S; 38.576708° N, 121.946151° W; 29 Jun. 2016; R. Deleray leg.; ex Polygonum aviculare ; UCDC FORB201662051 • 1 ♀; ibid.; 25 Aug. 2016; S. Cibotti leg.; ex “ Physalis lancifolia ”; UCDC FORB201663575 • 1 ♀; Yolo Co., Turk 54 SR2; 38.6131° N, 121.9665° W; 12 Jul. 2016; O. Lundin leg.; UCDC FORB201685452 • 1 ♀; Yolo Co., Turk 6S; 38.576639° N, 121.937155° W; 18 Mar. 2016; R. Deleray leg.; ex Phacelia ciliata ; UCDC FORB201660028 • 2 ♀♀; Yolo Co., Turk 6S; 38.5795° N, 121.9389° W; 20 Jul. 2016; A. Buderi leg.; ex Solanum americanum ; UCDC FORB201663367 , FORB201663366 • 1 ♀; ibid.; 24 Aug. 2016; S. Cibotti leg.; ex “ Physalis lancifolia ”; UCDC FORB201664451 • 1 ♀; Yolo Co.; 38.5775° N, 121.8297° W; 19 Jun. 2008; K. Ullmann leg.; ex Lepidium latifolium ; WRME M2008SR2 Barger _016 • 1 ♀; Holt ; [37.93° N, 121.43° W]; 7 Aug. 1948; W.F. Chamberlain leg.; TAMU-ENTO X1388805. – Idaho • 1 ♀; Boundary Co., Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge ; 48.7347° N, 116.3965° W; 8 Jul. 2010; Jan Rose leg.; FWSE • 1 ♀; ibid.; 9 Aug. 2010; Jan Rose leg.; FWSE • 2 ♀♀; Canyon Co., Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge ; 43.55281° N, 116.64137° W; 4 Oct. 2012; Addison Mohler leg.; FWSE • 2 ♀♀; Canyon Co., Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge , DFS; 43.55281° N, 116.64137° W; 5–6 Jul. 2012; Sabrina Seidel leg.; FWSE • 3 ♀♀; Gooding Co., Wood R. 1 mi. NE Gooding ; [42.95° N, 114.7° W]; 6–7 Jul. 1980; M.S. and K.M. Wasbauer leg.; CUIC. – Nevada • 1 ♂; Fallon ; [39.47° N, 118.78° W]; 12 Aug. 1940; L.C. Kuitert leg.; SEMC. – Oregon • 9 ♀♀; Harney Co., Malheur National Wildlife Refuge ; 42.8277° N, 118.8874° W; 14 Jul. 2010; Linda Beck leg.; FWSE • 1 ♀; Harney Co., Malheur National Wildlife Refuge ; 43.2635° N, 118.8421° W; 20 May 2011; Tami Coe leg.; FWSE • 4 ♀♀; Harney Co., Malheur NWR; 43.2652° N, 118.8433° W; 8 Jul. 2010; Linda Beck leg.; FWSE • 5 ♀♀; Multnomah Co., Government Island Habitat Restoration Project ; 45.58233° N, 122.53719° W; 11 May 2016; M. Blackburn, R. Hatfield leg.; FWSE • 1 ♀; ibid.; 21 Jul. 2016; M. Blackburn, K. Hietala-Henschell leg.; FWSE • 1 ♀; ibid.; 25 May 2017; M. Blackburn, R. Hatfield leg.; FWSE • 1 ♀; ibid.; 22 Jun. 2017; M. Blackburn, K. Hietala-Henschell leg.; FWSE • 1 ♀; ibid.; 26 Jul. 2017; M. Blackburn, K. Hietala-Henschell leg.; FWSE. – Washington • 4 ♀♀; Stevens Co., Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge ; 48.4654° N, 117.7358° W; 23–24 Aug. 2011; Mike Munts leg.; FWSE .

Range

Cascadia bioregion, northern Great Basin, and California ( Fig. 75 ).

Floral hosts

APIACEAE : Foeniculum : F. vulgare • ASTERACEAE : Anthemis : A. cotula L. • BORAGINACEAE : Phacelia : P. californica Cham. • P. ciliata • BRASSICACEAE : Hirschfeldia : H. incana (L.) Lagr.-Foss. • Lepidium : L. latifolium L. • CONVOLVULACEAE : Convolvulus L.: C. arvensis L. • LAMIACEAE : Origanum L. • MALVACEAE : Malva L.: M. nicaeensis All. • PAPAVERACEAE : Eschscholzia : E. californica • POLYGONACEAE : Polygonum : P. aviculare L. • SOLANACEAE : Physalis • Solanum : S. americanum Mill.

DNA barcodes

Three confirmed sequences available (BOLD process IDs: BCLRB752-10, DLIII111-18, DLIII112-18). There is a small amount of divergence within these sequences (0.31% maximum intraspecific p-distance). They are closest in terms of p-distance to L. deludens sp. nov. (2.17% minimum interspecific p-distance). Two fixed nucleotide substitutions distinguish L. tegulariforme from all other Nearctic species of the L. gemmatum complex: 183(T) and 570(C) (Supp. file 2).

Figures

Fig. 73. Lasioglossum (D.) tegulariforme (Crawford, 1907), ♀, holotype (USNM) (reproduced from Gardner & Gibbs 2022). A. Lateral habitus. B. Dorsal habitus. C. Face. D. Metasoma and propodeum. Scale bars = 1 mm.

Fig. 74. Lasioglossum (D.) tegulariforme (Crawford, 1907), ♂ (reproduced from Gardner & Gibbs 2022) (WRME). A. Dorsal habitus. B. Lateral habitus. C. Face. D. Metasoma and propodeum. Scale bars = 1 mm.

Fig. 75. Georeferenced collection records of Lasioglossum (D.) tegulariforme (Crawford, 1907) (black squares) and predicted distribution by maximum entropy ecological niche modelling in Maxent (colour shading). Warmer colours indicate higher cloglog probability of occurrence.

Fig. 76. Male genitalia illustrated in dorsal view and positioned such that the gonostylus is parallel to the plane of vision. Retrorse lobes are also illustrated separately to the bottom left of each figure in lateral view, positioned parallel to the plane of vision. A. Lasioglossum (D.) angelicum sp. nov.B. L. (D.) coactus (Cresson, 1872). C. L. (D.) deludens sp. nov. D. L. (D.) diabolicum sp. nov.E. L. (D.) gaudiale (Sandhouse, 1924). F. L. (D.) gloriosum sp. nov. (the retrorse lobe was not visible for illustration). G. L. (D.) helianthi (Cockerell, 1916). H. L. (D.) holzenthali sp. nov. I. L. (D.) indagator sp. nov. J. L. (D.) magnitegula sp. nov. K. L. (D.) perparvum (Ellis, 1914). L. L. (D.) profoundum sp. nov. M. L. (D.) pseudotegulare (Cockerell, 1896). N. L. (D.) rufodeludens sp. nov. This genital capsule was damaged during dissection and some details may be slightly distorted.O. L. (D.) stictaspis (Sandhouse, 1923) (holotype) (reproduced from Gardner & Gibbs 2022). P. L. (D.) tegulariforme (Crawford, 1907) (reproduced from Gardner & Gibbs 2022). Scale bars = 0.25 mm.

Fig. 88. Metapostnotum. A. Lasioglossum pseudotegulare (Cockerell, 1896), ♀, completely dull with fine rugae obscured by microsculpture. B. L. tegulariforme (Crawford, 1907), ♀, shiny with strong rugae. Scale bars = 0.25 mm.

Fig. 90. T1 disc.A. Lasioglossum tegulariforme (Crawford, 1907), ♀, with median impunctate line about 1 OD wide (brackets). B. L. angelicum sp. nov., ♀, uniformly punctate. Scale bars = 0.5 mm.

Fig. 93. Mesoscutum. A. Lasioglossum tegulariforme (Crawford, 1907), ♀, finely and very densely punctate. B. L. angelicum sp. nov., ♀, coarsely and moderately sparsely punctate. Scale bars = 0.5 mm.

Fig. 108. Mesoscutum. A. Lasioglossum tegulariforme (Crawford, 1907), ♂, densely punctate. B. L. pseudotegulare (Cockerell, 1896), ♂, moderately sparsely punctate. Scale bars = 0.5 mm.

Fig. 109. T1–T2. A. Lasioglossum tegulariforme (Crawford, 1907), ♂, T1 more sparsely punctate than T2 and apical rims impunctate. B. L. helianthi (Cockerell, 1916), ♂, T1 and T2 uniformly punctate with some punctures on apical rims. Scale bars = 0.5 mm.