Epeolus fulvopilosus Cameron, 1902

Onuferko, Thomas M., 2019, A review of the cleptoparasitic bee genus Epeolus Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in the Caribbean, Central America and Mexico, European Journal of Taxonomy 563, pp. 1-69 : 21-24

Epeolus fulvopilosus Cameron, 1902

Figs 1C , 3A , 7D , 10

Epeolus fulvo-pilosus Cameron, 1902: 377 (♂ [sic, actually ♀]).

Proposed common name

Yellow-haired epeolus.

Diagnosis

Together with the morphological features that are diagnostic for the ‘ Trophocleptria group’, the following in combination can be used to tell E. fulvopilosus apart from all other Epeolus : the axillae are crenulate along the lateral margin, each with a large tooth near the base ( Fig. 10D ); the mesoscutellum has a pair of posteriorly directed teeth ( Fig. 10D ); the mesopleura are coarsely punctate, each with sparser punctures ventrolaterally (many i≥2d) than in the upper half, with interspaces shining; the fore wings are deeply infuscate apically ( Fig. 10B ); T1 has a broad, medially narrowed or interrupted, bright to pale yellow basal fascia ( Fig. 10B ); and T2–T4 have complete bright to pale yellow apical fasciae ( Fig. 10 A–C). Epeolus fulvopilosus most closely resembles E. boliviensis and E. nomadiformis sp. nov. in terms of integument coloration, surface sculpture and structure. Whereas in E. fulvopilosus T3 and T4 are distinctly fasciate, in E. boliviensis and E. nomadiformis sp. nov. T3 and T4 lack fasciae, although the apical impressed areas occasionally have sparse, off-white hairs. Epeolus boliviensis also lacks a basal fascia, which is present in E. fulvopilosus and E. nomadiformis sp. nov. In terms of the patterns of pubescence on the mesosoma and metasoma, E. fulvopilosus is more similar to E. fumipennis . However, in E. fumipennis the mesoscutum has a pair of well-defined paramedian bands, which are absent in E. fulvopilosus , although in the latter the mesoscutum of the female anteriorly has faint lines of bright yellow tomentum along the midline and between the midline and parapsidal lines; there is no large tooth laterally near the base of each axilla; the mesoscutellum does not have a pair of posteriorly directed teeth; the anterior and lateral surfaces of each mesopleuron are not clearly differentiated from one another; the mesopleura are more finely punctate, each with punctures more or less equally dense throughout (few i≥2d); and T1 has a broad, medially narrowed bright to pale yellow submedial fascia.

Material examined

Primary type material

MEXICO • ♀, holotype; west coast; G.F. Mathew leg.; NHMUK NHMUK 010812213 .

DNA barcoded material with BIN-compliant sequences

Unavailable.

Non-barcoded material

EL SALVADOR • 1 ♂; La Libertad, Mount San Salvador; 8 Jul. 1963; M.E. Irwin and D.Q. Cavagnaro leg.; EMEC 1135878 .

MEXICO • 1 ♀; Chiapas, 20–25 mi N of Huixtla ; 4 Jun. 1969; H.J. Teskey leg.; CNC 754058 .

Redescription

Female

MEASUREMENTS. Length 8.5 mm; head length 2.2 mm; head width 2.6 mm; fore wing length 7.2 mm.

INTEGUMENT COLORATION. Mostly black; notable exceptions as follows: at least partially ferruginous on mandible, labrum, antenna, pronotal collar, pronotal lobe, tegula, axilla, mesoscutellum, metanotum, mesopleuron, legs and pygidial plate. Mandible with apex darker than all but extreme base; preapical tooth lighter than mandibular apex (difficult to see in holotype because mandibles closed; described from non-type specimen). Antenna brown except scape, pedicel and F1 extensively orange (antennae, except left scape, missing in holotype; described from non-type specimen). F2 with orange spot basally. Pronotal collar, pronotal lobe and tegula pale ferruginous to amber. Wing membrane dusky subhyaline, slightly darker at apex. Legs more extensively reddish orange than brown or black.

PUBESCENCE. Face with tomentum densest around antennal socket, slightly sparser on clypeus, upper paraocular and frontal areas, and vertexal area. Dorsum of mesosoma and metasoma with bands of bright to pale yellow short, appressed setae. Pronotal collar with tomentum uniformly bright yellow. Mesoscutum anteriorly with faint lines of bright yellow tomentum along midline and between midline and parapsidal line. Mesopleuron nearly bare, except along margins. Metanotum with tomentum uninterrupted, uniformly pale yellow. T1 with pale tomentum mostly rubbed off in holotype, but with broad, medially interrupted bright yellow basal fascia and very narrow, bright yellow subapical fascia in non-type specimen. T2 with complete bright yellow apical fascia, broadest medially and without anterolateral extensions. T3 and T4 with complete, bright yellow apical fasciae of slightly sparser tomentum. T5 with large, continuous patch of bright yellow tomentum bordering and contacting pseudopygidial area, laterally with long, erect simple setae. T5 with pseudopygidial area lunate, its apex more than twice as wide as medial length, indicated by silvery setae on impressed disc of apicomedial region elevated from rest of tergum. S5 with apical fimbria of coppery to silvery hairs not extending beyond apex of sternum by much more than ¼ MOD.

SURFACE SCULPTURE. Punctures dense, but those of head and mesosoma sparser in some areas, larger, deeper, and more distinct. Labrum with larger and sparser punctures (i=1–2d) than clypeus (i<1d). Small impunctate dull/textured spot lateral to lateral ocellus. Mesoscutum, mesoscutellum, and axilla very coarsely and densely rugose-punctate. Tegula densely punctate anteriorly and mesally (i≤1d), sparsely punctate (i>2d) to impunctate posteriorly and along margins. Mesopleuron with denser (i<1d) punctures in upper half than ventrolateral half (i≤2d), interspaces shining though with some coriarious surface miscrosculpture; mesopleuron with punctures similar in size throughout. Metasomal terga with punctures very fine, dense (i≈1d), evenly distributed on disc.

STRUCTURE. Preapical tooth acute. Labral apex with pair of small denticles, each preceded by small discrete longitudinal ridge. Frontal keel strongly raised. Frontal area with pair of discrete, sparsely punctate protrusions, interspaces shining; each located near upper mesal margin of compound eye. Head dorsally with pair of protrusions, each located where upper genal area meets vertexal area. Vertexal area strongly convex in frontal view. Scape with greatest length 1.5 × greatest width. F2 noticeably longer than wide (L/W ratio = 1.5) (antennae, except left scape, missing in holotype; described from non-type specimen). Preoccipital ridge separated from hypostomal carina by no less than 1 MOD (difficult to see in holotype; described from non-type specimen). Pronotal collar elongate (medial length ~1 MOD), expanded laterally to about 2 × medial length in dorsal view and relatively straight along anterior margin. Mesoscutellum weakly bigibbous, depressed along posterior margin beneath distinct overhanging ridge produced to pair of posteriorly directed teeth. Axilla large, its lateral margin more than half as long as mesoscutellar width (AL/MSCW ratio = 0.7) and tip extending as far back as apex of horizontal dorsal portion of mesoscutellum; axilla with tip conspicuously diverging from side of mesoscutellum, distinctly hooked and axilla with free portion 2 ∕ 5 its medial length; axilla with lateral margin crenulate, with large tooth near base and carinate but relatively straight. Mesopleuron with carina delineating its anterior and lateral surfaces. Fore wing with three submarginal cells. Pygidial plate apically truncate.

Male

Description as for female except for usual secondary sexual characters and as follows: face more sparsely hairy; F2 shorter, but still longer than wide (L/W ratio = 1.2); mesoscutum without lines of bright or pale yellow tomentum; T1 with basal fascia absent or rubbed off in only available male specimen (only small patch of pale yellow hairs present anterolaterally (left side only)); pygidial plate apically rounded, with larger and deeper punctures, closely punctate throughout; S3–S5 with much longer (>1 MOD) coppery to silvery subapical hairs, those of S4 and S5 curved.

Distribution

Presently only known from a few sites along the Pacific coast in Central America and Mexico ( Fig. 7D ).

Ecology

Host records

Unknown.

Floral records

Cockerell (1933) indicated floral associations with Melampodium divaricatum (Rich. ex Rich.) DC. ( Asteraceae ) and Synedrella nodiflora (L.) Gaertn. ( Asteraceae ), although the identification of the specimens with which these records are associated could not be confirmed in the present study.

Remarks

The specimen upon which Cameron’s (1902) description is based is female, not male as is indicated in the original publication. Herein, the male is described from a specimen that more closely resembles the primary type of E. fulvopilosus than that of any other species. Cockerell (1933) claims to have examined 17 specimens of this species, including both sexes, although their whereabouts are unknown and his identification of them could not be confirmed in the present study. DNA barcode sequences are presently not available for E. fulvopilosus , but a unique combination of physical attributes supports its status as a separate species as outlined in the diagnosis.

Figures

Fig. 1. Male genitalia of Epeolus spp. A. E. boliviensis Friese, 1908, in which the penis lacks lobes. B. E. claripennis Friese, 1908, in which the penis lacks lobes. C. E. fulvopilosus Cameron, 1902, in which the penis lacks lobes. D. E. fumipennis Say, 1837, in which the penis lacks lobes. E. E. hanusiae sp. nov., paratype (CNC 754086), showing the penis with a short, fleshy lateral lobe (blue arrow) on each side. F. E. luteipennis Friese, 1916, showing the penis with a long, fleshy lateral lobe (blue arrow) on each side. G. E. niger (Michener, 1954), in which the penis lacks lobes. H. E. obscuripes Cockerell, 1917 stat. nov., in which the penis lacks lobes. I. E. pulchellus Cresson, 1865, in which the penis lacks lobes. Scale bars = 0.5 mm.

Fig. 3. Mesosoma of female, posterior view. A. E. fulvopilosus Cameron, 1902, showing mesoscutellum with a distinct ridge (blue arrow) overhanging its depressed posterior margin. B. E. fumipennis Say, 1837, showing mesoscutellum with a faint ridge (blue arrow) overhanging its depressed posterior margin. C. E. pulchellus Cresson, 1865, showing mesoscutellum without a distinct ridge delineating its dorsal and posterior portions. D. E. odyneroides sp. nov., paratype (KUNHM SEMC1248301), showing mesoscutellum without a distinct ridge delineating its dorsal and posterior portions. E. E. axillaris Onuferko, 2018, paratype, showing metanotum with a distinct posteromedial depression (blue arrow). F. E. rufulus Cockerell, 1941, holotype, showing flat metanotum. Scale bars = 1 mm.

Fig. 7 (opposite page). Occurrence records (yellow circles except where indicated otherwise) of: A. Epeolus boliviensis Friese, 1908. B. E. claripennis Friese, 1908. C. E. danieli (Genaro, 2014) comb. nov. (orange square) and E. luteipennis Friese, 1916. D. E. fulvopilosus Cameron, 1902. E. E. fumipennis Say, 1837. F. E. hanusiae sp. nov. G. E. niger (Michener, 1954). H. E. nomadiformis sp. nov. I. E. obscuripes Cockerell, 1917 stat. nov. J. E. odyneroides sp. nov. K. E. pulchellus Cresson, 1865.

Fig. 10. Epeolus fulvopilosus Cameron, 1902. A. Female, habitus, lateral view. B. Female, habitus, dorsal view. C. Male, habitus, lateral view. D. Female axillae and mesoscutellum, dorsal view (blue arrow indicates one of two posteriorly directed tooth-like projections of mesoscutellum). Scale bars: A–C = 3 mm; D = 0.5 mm.