Centris (Hemisiella) trigonoides Lepeletier, 1841

Vivallo, Felipe, 2019, Lectotype designations, taxonomic notes and new synonymies in some species of the bee genus Centris Fabricius, 1804 described by Amédée Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Zootaxa 4624 (1), pp. 23-40 : 30-31

Centris (Hemisiella) trigonoides Lepeletier, 1841 nomen protectum

Centris trigonoides Lepeletier, 1841 . 167.

Type data: This species was described based on an unknown number of males collected in an undetermined locality. A single male with original Lepeletier’s identification label was found at MNHP being here designated the lectotype. The specimen has the following data label: trigonoides [handwritten]\ [green label] Museum Paris [printed] Patria ignota [handwritten]\ type [printed in red ink]\ Centris lanipes F. ♂ [handwritten] det. Friese 1898 [printed]\ trigonoides [handwritten] ( MNHP). The specimen is relatively well preserved.

Type locality: Unknown (“Patrie inconnue”).

Centris punctata Lepeletier, 1841 . 169.

Type data: Syntype female ( MNHP, not examined). Type locality: Brazil: Goiás state.

Centris picea Lepeletier, 1841 . 166. Nomen oblitum (new junior synonymy)

Type data: Lepeletier (1841) did not indicate how many females he used to describe this species. A single female bearing original Lepeletier’s label was found at MNHP which is here designated the lectotype. The specimen has the following data label: picea [handwritten]\ [green label] Museum Paris [printed] patria ignota [handwritten]\ type [printed in red ink]\ Centris lanipes F. ♀ [handwritten] det. Friese 1898 [printed] \ Type Lepelletier [handwritten]\ C. picea [handwritten]\ MNHN, Paris EY25605 [printed] ( MNHP). The specimen is well preserved.

Type locality: Unknown (“Patrie inconnue”).

Comments: The synonymy between Centris picea and C. lanipes ( Fabricius, 1775) was cited in Moure et al. (2007). The study of the primary types of both species (the lectotype female of C. lanipes is housed at ZMUC) showed that they correspond to different species, recognizing C. picea to be conspecific with C. trigonoides by the presence, among other characters, of a smooth longitudinal carina on the lower half of the clypeus, absent in C. lanipes . This justifies the transfer of the former species from the synonymy of C. lanipes to that of C. trigonoides . Although the three species studied here were described by Lepeletier in the same article, C. picea has page priority so it should be the valid name for the species. However, in this case the priority principle applies ( ICZN, 1999: Article 23.9.1). This allows for prevailing usage of names when the “senior synonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899” (condition 23.9.1.1) and the junior synonym has been used “in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years” (condition 23.9.1.2). In this case, both conditions are met, because the name C. picea has been considered junior synonym of C. lanipes , and according to a scientific engine searcher (scholar.google.com) the name “ C. trigonoides ” has been cited in more than 100 articles during the last 50 years. Indeed, this species is by far one of the most cited centridine bees due to its relevance as pollinator, wide distribution range and its capacity to nest in artificial pre-existing cavities (trap-nest). Considering this and according to the Article 23.9. C. trigonoides must be considered the valid name of the species (nomen protectum), and C. picea one of its junior synonyms (nomen oblitum).

This species has been recorded from Mexico ( Moure et al., 2007) to Argentina ( Roig-Alsina, 2000). Taxonomic decision for synonymy: Moure (1960a) for C. trigonoides and C. punctata .