Andrena (Carandrena) hebescens Wood, 2020
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.974.54794 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9B888866-0F07-4DEC-AE7B-88DFB0A4621C |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/BECF6642-E2D6-479D-A132-18F49B9725B6 |
taxon LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:act:BECF6642-E2D6-479D-A132-18F49B9725B6 |
treatment provided by |
|
scientific name |
Andrena (Carandrena) hebescens Wood |
status |
sp. nov. |
Andrena (Carandrena) hebescens Wood sp. nov. Figures 29-34 View Figures 29–34 , 35-40 View Figures 35–40
Material.
Holotype: Morocco: Guelmim-Oued Noun, 15-16.iv.1995, 1♀, leg. Ma. Halada. Deposited in the OÖLM. Paratypes: Morocco: Guelmim-Oued Noun, 15-16.iv.1995, 4♂, 6♀, leg. Ma. Halada, OÖLM; Souss-Massa, Tassademt, 50 km NE, Agadir, 19.iv.1996, 1♀, leg. M. Schwarz, OÖLM; Souss-Massa, Aoulouz-Taliouine, 19.iii.1988, 1♂, leg. H. Teunissen. Paratypes are deposited at the OÖLM and NMNL, with a male and female retained in the personal collection of TJW.
Diagnosis.
The female of A. hebescens can be placed in the Carandrena because the dorsolateral angle of the pronotum has a transverse ridge, the propodeal triangle is shagreened and weakly rugose at the base, and there is almost no punctation on the metasoma, and the head has a typical Carandrena shape, broader than long, with the inner eye margins slightly converging below (Fig. 30 View Figures 29–34 ). It is most similar to A. euzona Pérez, 1895 and A. microthorax Pérez, 1895 given its dark, non-metallic appearance ( A. aerinifrons Dours, 1873, A. bellidis Pérez, 1895, A. daphanea Warncke, 1974, A. deserta Warncke, 1974, A. nigroviridiula Dours, 1873, and A. reperta , Warncke, 1974 with metallic green or blue integument, A. binominata Smith, 1853, A. eremobia Guiglia, 1933, and A. leucophaea Lepeletier, 1841 with partially red metasoma), dull domed clypeus, and white hair bands on the tergites ( A. eddaensis Gusenleitner, 1998 and A. decaocta Warncke, 1967 with felt-like hair on the tergal discs). However, the scutum is shagreened and only weakly shining (Fig. 31 View Figures 29–34 ) whereas in A. euzona it is extensively smooth and shiny (Fig. 33 View Figures 29–34 ), and the hair bands are narrower (Fig. 32 View Figures 29–34 ) whereas in A. euzona they are wider (Fig. 34 View Figures 29–34 ). The clypeus is also evenly punctured and shagreened, weakly shining with only a subtle impunctate mid-line whereas in A. microthorax it is shiny and strongly punctured with a conspicuous impunctate mid-line, particularly at the fore margin of the clypeus where it forms a broad impunctate triangle.
The male of A. hebescens has a yellow marking on the clypeus, but this is reduced in size and does not cover the entire clypeal surface, with two black markings that extend in from the clypeal margins giving the marking an inverted ‘T’ shape (Fig. 36 View Figures 35–40 ). The male is therefore superficially similar to A. semiadesus , but can be separated by the typical Carandrena head which is clearly wider (more than 1.5 times) than the width of a compound eye in A. hebescens (Figs 37 View Figures 35–40 , 38 View Figures 35–40 ) but only slightly wider in A. semiadesus and lacking an angulate hind corner. The male of A. microthorax can have a yellow clypeal marking, but the scutum and tergites of this species are shiny, whereas in A. hebescens they are shagreened and at most, weakly shining (Fig. 39 View Figures 35–40 ).
Description.
Female: Body length 8 mm (Fig. 29 View Figures 29–34 ). Head: Black, clearly wider than long (Fig. 30 View Figures 29–34 ). Clypeus arched, shagreened, weakly shining. Clypeus evenly punctured with exception of a subtle, impunctate midline, punctures otherwise separated by 0.5-1 puncture diameters. Process of labrum trapezoidal, fore margin very weakly emarginate. Gena as wide as width of compound eye. Gena, face, and scape with moderately dense white hairs, the longest not achieving length of the scape. Vertex with whitish brown hairs of a similar length. Foveae normal, occupying half the distance between the compound eye and a lateral ocellus. Antennae dark, scape black, A2-4 apically lightened to orange, A5-12 predominantly orange ventrally, A3 exceeding A4+5, shorter than A4+5+6. Ocelloccipital distance short, less than 1/3 width of lateral ocellus. Mesosoma: Scutum dark, evenly and shallowly punctured, punctures separated by 1-2 puncture diameters, underlying surface shagreened, weakly shining (Fig. 31 View Figures 29–34 ). Scutellum less densely punctured, punctures separated by 3-4 puncture diameters, shagreenation weaker, more strongly shining. Episternum and propodeum microreticulate, dull, propodeal triangle slightly more finely shagreened, weakly shining, distinct. Scutum and scutellum with faded light brownish hairs, episternum and propodeum with longer white hairs, the longest achieving the length of the scape. Legs dark, tarsi lightened brown, pubescence white, femoral and tibial scopa white, hairs simple. Wings hyaline, venation and stigma golden brown. Nervulus interstitial to slightly antefurcal. Metasoma: Tergites dark with wide lightened margins, apically translucent, basally yellowish (Fig. 32 View Figures 29–34 ). Tergal discs microreticulate, weakly shining. T1 shallowly punctured, punctures separated by two puncture diameters. Following tergites weakly and obscurely punctured, punctures hidden by microreticulation. Tergal margins with dense white hairbands, on T1 widely interrupted, on T2-4 complete. T5+6 centrally with golden hairs flanking pygidial plate, laterally with white hairs. Sternites with plumose white hairs, forming loose fringes apically on hind margins.
Male. Body length 8 mm (Fig. 35 View Figures 35–40 ). Head: Similar to female, clypeus slightly arched, evenly and shallowly punctured, punctures separated by one puncture diameter, no impunctate central line. Clypeus centrally with yellow mark, this not reaching the lateral or basal margin of the clypeus, laterally invaded by two black marks therefore forming a broad inverted T-shape (Fig. 36 View Figures 35–40 ). Underlying surface weakly shagreened, moderately shiny. Process of labrum trapezoidal, fore margin inflated, slightly bulbous, very weakly emarginate. Antennae dark, A4-13 slightly lightened dark brown, A3 exceeding A4, shorter than A4+5. Gena enlarged, most 1.2 times wider than compound eye, non-carinate, with weakly angulate hind corner (Fig. 37 View Figures 35–40 ). Gena, vertex, and face below the level of the antennal insertions with long white hair equalling length of the scape. Scape, frons, and inner margin of compound eyes with mixture of black and white hairs. Ocelloccipital distance short, 2/3 width of lateral ocellus. Mesosoma: Similar to female but scutum with stronger shagreenation, dull except for central shining line (Fig. 38 View Figures 35–40 ). Scutellum centrally weakly shining, contrasting with the scutum. Episternum, propodeum, and mesosomal pubescence as in the female. Legs dark, tarsi lightened brown, with white pubescence. Wings hyaline, venation dark brown, stigma centrally light brown. Nervulus interstitial to slightly antefurcal. Metasoma: Similar to the female. Tergites more clearly punctured, punctures visible against the microreticulation with slightly raised margins giving the overall surface an uneven impression (Fig. 39 View Figures 35–40 ). T1-5 consistently punctured, punctures separated by 3-4 puncture diameters. T2-4 laterally with weak fringes of white hair, T5-6 with complete fringes of whitish to golden hairs. Sternites forming loose white hair bands apically. Genitalia simple, of a typical Carandrena form, gonocoxites apically forming weak points, rounded, diverging apically (Fig. 40 View Figures 35–40 ).
Distribution.
South-western Morocco in the Souss valley (Fig. 145a View Figure 145 ).
Floral preferences.
None recorded.
Etymology.
The name hebescens was chosen because this member of the Carandrena , though morphologically similar to several species with metallic green colouration, is completely dark, therefore heb - (dull or blunt) + escens (becoming).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |