Nomia cincta Smith, 1859

Wood, T. J., Risch, S., Orr, M. C. & Hogan, J. E., 2025, An illustrated type catalogue of the bee species collected by Alfred Russel Wallace and described by Frederick Smith from Southeast Asia (Hymenoptera: Apoidea), European Journal of Taxonomy 1028, pp. 1-144 : 65-67

40. Nomia cincta Smith, 1859

Fig. 41

Nomia cincta Smith, 1859: 132–133 , ♀.

Type material examined

Lectotype

INDONESIA • ♀; Ké [Kai]; [ 1–6 Jan. 1857]; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2799 ( lectotype indicated by Baker 1993, de facto lectotype by present designation).

Paralectotype

INDONESIA • 1 ♀; Ké [Kai]; [ 1–6 Jan. 1857]; NHMUK .

Other material examined

INDONESIA • 1 ♀; Asia Arch., Key Ins. [Kai]; 1900; H. Kühn leg.; H. Friese det.; NHMW • 1 ♀; Ins. Aru; [undated, but pre-1916 due to Ritsema handwriting]; Rosenbey leg.; T.J. Wood det.; RMNH, RMNH.INS.1714061 • 1 ♂, 1 ♀; Key Ins. [Kai]; H. Kühn leg.; T.J. Wood det.; RMNH, RMNH. INS.1714043 .

Type locality

Key Island [= Kai].

Notes

Baker (1993: 204–205) wrote the following:

“ Three ♀♀ standing as cincta in the UMO type collection are labelled:-

a) Ké [white disc] and ‘ Nomia cincta . Smith’ [blue paper].

b) ‘Bac.’ [white disc] and ‘ Nomia cincta . Smith’.

c) ‘Aru’ [blue disc].

Two ♀♀ standing as cincta in NHM are labelled:-

d) ‘Ké [white disc, similar to that of (a)] and ‘ cincta . Sm. Key Isl.’ [blue paper].

e) ‘Key I.’ [blue disc], ‘ Nomia cincta . Smith’, and ‘Smith coll. pres. By Mrs. Farren White. 99- 303’ [B.M. printed label]. This is B.M. Type Hym. 17 a 2839: False type.

The Batchian and Aru specimens, (b) and (c), cannot be regarded as syntypes and have been labelled as of no type status. They represent two very distinct species, neither of which is conspecific with the Ke females. As to the three Ke females, (a) and (d) may be regarded as syntypes, (e) less certainly so: the data label is in a different script and otherwise different from Wallace’s usual label for Ke insects, and Smith’s determination label is in a style different from those of specimens (a) and (d) [similar to the labels of, e.g., specimens (e)-(g) of Nomia dentata Smith , also from Smith’s personal collection]. Notwithstanding the B.M. labelling of specimen (e), specimen (a) is now designated as LECTOTYPE of cincta (Smith was expressly describing material in W.W. Saunders’ collection) and it has been labelled accordingly. It is in good condition and intact but for the loss of the last two segments of tarsus R III. The syntype (d), no doubt a duplicate retained by Smith, has been labelled as a paralectotype: it is in bad condition, much broken and the metasoma lost, and it is not certain that it is conspecific with the lectotype. The NHM false type has been labelled as a possible syntype; it is conspecific with the lectotype ”.

Pauly (2009: 206) indicated that material was in the NHMUK based on Baker (1993), but this is more like to actually refer to Michener (1965: 161) who gave this institution as the type repository. Given the mixed nature of the material, we formally designate the specimen indicated by Baker as the lectotype to decisively fix the name on Kai Island based on the OUMNH specimen. NHMUK specimen (d) can be considered as a paralectotype.

Current status

Mellitidia cincta ( Smith, 1859) ( Michener 1965; Pauly 2009).

Distribution

Indonesia ( Maluku: Kai, Aru) ( Smith 1859).