Scrapter heterodoxus (Cockerell, 1921)

Bossert, Silas & Noort, Simon van, 2022, A group of two: Scrapter peringueyi is not a synonym of Scrapter heterodoxus (Hymenoptera, Colletidae, Scraptrinae), African Invertebrates 63 (1), pp. 1-18 : 1

Scrapter heterodoxus (Cockerell, 1921)

Figures 1 , 2 , 5

Polyglossa heterodoxa Cockerell, 1921: 204.

Material examined.

Lectotype: South Africa: Cape Town, leg. F. Foly, ♂, SAMC, catalogue no. SAM-HYM-B000145. Labels associated with this specimen are shown in Fig. 1A . According to Cockerell (1921), the specimen was collected in 1914 . Additional material: South Africa: Cape Province, 31 km S of Clanwilliam, 32°23.1'S, 18°56.8'E, 7 September 2001, leg. B. N. Danforth, C. D. Eardley, K. L. Walker, 6♂, 15♀, CUIC. Cape Province, Sauer, Suurfontein, -32.85, 18.5667, 25 August 1994, leg. V. B. Whitehead, 2♂, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007774. Cape Province, Holfontein, 20 km S. of Clanwilliam, -32.4333, 18.95, 8 August 1984, leg. V. B. Whitehead, 3♂, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007777. Cape Province, Piketberg, Wittewater, -32.9167, 18.7, 5 September 1990, leg. V. B. Whitehead, 1♀, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007784. Cape Province, Piketberg, farm Hartbeesrivier, Kapteinskloof, -32.875, 18.625, 23 August 1991, leg. V. B. Whitehead, 1♂, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007785. Cape Province, Piketberg, Banghoek, -32.75, 18.6, 20 September 1991, leg. V. B. Whitehead, 1♀, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007786. Cape Province, Mamre, Malmesbury Div. Cape, -33.5167, 18.4667, 25 August 1977, leg. V. B. Whitehead, 1♂, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007788. Cape Province, Joostenbergkloof, Stellenbosch, -33.7667, 18.7667, 14 August 1988, leg. V. B. Whitehead, 3♂, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007789. Cape Province, Joostenbergkloof, Stellenbosch, -33.7667, 18.7667, 31 July 1988, leg. V. B. Whitehead, 1♂, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007790. Cape Province, Katberg Pass, R 351, -32.4667, 26.65, 25 November 1985, 1♀, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007791. Cape Province, Kakamas, 16.5 km N of Orange R. bridge, Rd to Namibia, -28.6000, 20.5667, 22 July 1993, leg. V. B. Whitehead, 1♀, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007792. Cape Province, Leipoldtville, -32.2333, 18.4833, 14 September 1984, leg. V. B. Whitehead, 2♀, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007793. Cape Province, Hetkruis, Groenrivier, - 32.6, 18.75, 14 August 1991, leg. V. B. Whitehead, 1♂, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007794. Cape Province, 7 km N. of Elandsbaai, -32.25, 18.35, 21 September 1984, leg. V. B. Whitehead, 1♂ and 1♀, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007795. Cape Province, Doringfontein, 33km N. of Piketberg, 30 August 1987, -32.6, 18.7667, leg. V. B. Whitehead, 1♂, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007796. Cape Province, Tygerberg, -33.8833, 18.6, 14 September 1990, leg. K. Steiner, 1♀, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B009506. Cape Province, Elands Bay , -32.3, 18.35, 26 September 1985, leg. V. B. Whitehead, 1♂, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B009507. Cape Province, Sevilla, Traveller’s Rest, -32.07278, 19.08056, 25 August 2007, leg. S. van Noort, 1♀, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B010372. Cape Province, Somerset (W.) Strand, 25 October 1925, -34.1167, 18.8333, leg. H. Brauns, 1♀, SAMC, cat. no. SAM-HYM-B007776a .

Diagnosis.

♂: the male of S. heterodoxus differs from all other Scrapter species except S. peringueyi in possessing the unique combination of the following characters: body size of ≥ 12 mm, hind femur greatly enlarged, hind tibia strongly broadened apically (Figs 1E , 5B ), hind basitarsus unmodified (enlarged in S. amplitarsus Eardley, 1996) and midleg basitarsus unmodified (enlarged in S. armatipes (Friese, 1913)). Scrapter heterodoxus differs from S. peringueyi in the shape of the apical section of the hind tibia: the shape of the projecting apical portion is tapering in S. heterodoxus , resembling a triangular shape, whereas the projecting apical portion of the tibia in S. peringueyi is parallel-sided, resembling a rectangular shape (Figs 1E , 4E , 5A , 5B ). As in the female sex, the surface sculpturing of the basal zone of the propodeum is rugulose in S. heterodoxus , whereas it is substrigulate in S. peringueyi (Figs 5C , 5D ). The integument between the punctation on the mesoscutum is polished in S. heterodoxus and shagreened (dull) in S. peringueyi .

♀: The female differs from most species of Scrapter , except S. caesariatus Eardley, 1996, S. peringueyi and those of the S. nitidus and S. basutorum species groups, in having a medio-longitudinally depressed clypeus ("mediolongitudinal sulcus" in Eardley 1996), but the depression is shallower than in the species of the S. nitidus and S. basutorum groups. With 6.8-9.3 mm body length, S. heterodoxus is on average larger than S. caesariatus (at most 7.3 mm) and the species of the S. nitidus group (at most 7.7 mm long). It differs from all aforementioned Scrapter species except S. peringueyi in having a declivous propodeal surface, without a nearly horizontal basal zone. Scrapter heterodoxus is very similar and clearly closely related to S. peringueyi . It differs in having a rugulose surface sculpturing of the basal zone of the propodeum, particularly of the anterior portion, whereas the sculpturing of S. peringueyi is substrigulate (Figs 5E , 5F ). As in the male, the integument between the punctation on the mesoscutum is polished in S. heterodoxus and shagreened (dull) in S. peringueyi .

Comments.

The females of S. heterodoxus and S. peringueyi are difficult to distinguish at times, whereas the males are easily recognized. The published sequence data of S. heterodoxus from previous molecular-phylogenetic treatments ( Almeida and Danforth 2009; Branstetter et al. 2017; Almeida et al. 2019) is associated with a vouchered specimen deposited in the CUIC. This specimen is part of the examined series listed under additional material, which was collected in the Western Cape Province, 31 km S of Clanwilliam. The voucher corresponds to the type specimen of S. heterodoxus , which means that the previously published DNA data refers to the true S. heterodoxus and not to S. peringueyi .

Figures

Figure 1. Male lectotype of Scrapter heterodoxus (Cockerell, 1921). A habitus, dorsolateral view, and labels B habitus, lateral view C head, frontal view D propodeum E hind leg tibia F fore wing.

Figure 2. Female non-type specimen of Scrapter heterodoxus (Cockerell, 1921), (SAM-HYM-B 007786). A habitus, dorsal view B habitus, lateral view C head, frontal view D propodeum E labels F fore wing.

Figure 4. Non-type male specimen of Scrapter peringueyi (Cockerell, 1921), stat. rev. A habitus, dorsal view B habitus, lateral view C head, frontal view D propodeum E hind leg tibia F fore wing.

Figure 5. Comparison of the shape of the male hind leg tibia and propodeal sculpture. A Scrapter peringueyi (Cockerell, 1921), stat. rev. hind leg tibial apex, non-type male specimen (deposited in CUIC) B Scrapter heterodoxus (Cockerell, 1921) hind leg tibial apex, non-type male specimen (deposited in CUIC) C Scrapter peringueyi (Cockerell, 1921), stat. rev. propodeal sculpture, non-type male specimen (SAM-HYM-B 007139) D Scrapter heterodoxus (Cockerell, 1921) propodeal sculpture, lectotype male (SAM-HYM-B 000145) E Scrapter peringueyi (Cockerell, 1921), stat. rev. propodeal sculpture, holotype female (SAM-HYM-B 000144) F Scrapter heterodoxus (Cockerell, 1921) propodeal sculpture, non-type female (SAM-HYM-B 007786).