Tetragonula ruficornis

Rasmussen, Claus, 2013, Stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini) of the Indian subcontinent: Diversity, taxonomy and current status of knowledge, Zootaxa 3647 (3), pp. 401-428 : 414-416

Tetragonula ruficornis (Smith in 1870)

( Figs 6 a–i, map 2)

Trigona ruficornis Smith in Horne & Smith 1870: 185, 194: Lectotype (BMNH, worker): examined, “ India ” (typed, with handwritten reverse “69 / 86”), “ SYNTYPE ” (blue border), “ SYNTYPE [worker symbol] / Trigona / ruficornis / F. Smith, 1870: 194 / det. D. Notton, 2012”). In addition “ LECTOTYPE Trigona ruficornis Smith Design. C. Rasmussen 2013 ”; Type locality: INDIA, Uttar Pradesh, Varanasi (formerly Benares) (on April 4th, 1863) [25.28°N, 82.96°E].

Melipona smithii Bingham 1897: 560 , 563: Unnecessary replacement name for Trigona ruficornis Smith , nec “Lamarck”. Lamarck 1817 (and repeated in 1835) only listed these five stingless bee species in the genus Melipona : M. favosa , M. amalthea , M. ruficrus , M. postica , and M. pallida . The replacement name therefore remains enigmatic as there was no M. ruficornis , unless Bingham had it mistaken for M. ruficrus Latreille (not Lamarck, and -crus, Latin, in reference to leg, not -cornis, horned, in reference to the antennae).

Provenance: Frederick Smith (1805–1879) described this species based on several specimens and the report of a single nest collected by Charles Horne (1824–1872). Horne had located the nest in Varanasi (formerly Benares), Uttar Pradesh, but Smith cited confusingly and probably incorrectly the type locality as Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh, almost 500 km NW of Varanasi (many of the other insect species from this publication were in fact collected in Mainpuri and maybe hence the confusion?). The register of the Natural History Museum in London indicates that lot 69 from 1886 included, among others, three specimens of T. ruficornis from India presented by Horne as part of type specimens described earlier. David Notton of the BMNH also located the remains of a nest (BMNH specimen number 650787) labeled as Trigona from India 84/38. Referring to the register, this was part of a lot of Hymenoptera from India, collected by the late Charles Horne, and donated by his widow but also relating to Horne & Smith (1870) probably representing the nest described in that paper. The nest is apparently mostly batumen and cerumen from the internal parts of the nest, thus, not including diagnostic features such as the nest entrance or brood combs.

Lectotype: Although a single specimen was separated earlier and labeled as the “ holotype ” (specimen BMNH 17b.1187, labeled “ India ” (reverse “69 / 86”), “ Type ” (red border), “ Trigona / ruficornis / (Type) Smith”, “B.M. TYPE / HYM. / 17b.1187”), the account by Smith clearly indicates that the species was described from a nest, and multiple specimens must have been acquired by the museum. Two additional specimens with label data “69 / 86” have been located by D. Notton in the general collection under the name T. smithii , and are now considered syntypes. As already pointed out by Moure (1961), the “ holotype ” is headless and it would therefore not be desirable to select this particular specimen as the lectotype. Fortunately, Moure (1961) treating this headless specimen as holotype does not qualify as lectotype by inference (ICZN 1999, Article 74.6), as the biological account accompanying the original description clearly indicate that there was a syntype series (ICZN 1999). Instead, I here designate a complete syntype specimen as the lectotype in order to stabilize the future use of the name.

Comments: Moure (1961) suggested the headless specimen should be a callow, but the pigmentation appears to be complete, and all of the lecto- and paralectotype specimens are rather light colored compared to other Indian species. Apparently Schwarz (1939) was the first to suggest the synonymy of T. ruficornis under T. iridipennis , but he later changed his mind and identified bees from India as T. ruficornis (see Nogueira-Neto 1949, 1951).

Tetragonula bengalensis ( Cameron 1897) ( Figs 7 a–i, map 2)

Trigona bengalensis Cameron 1897: 143 –144: Lectotype (OUMNH, worker): examined, “ Trigona / bengalensis / Cam.”. In addition “ LECTOTYPE Trigona bengalensis Cameron Design. C Rasmussen 2013 ”; Type locality: INDIA, West Bengal, 26 km N of Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) on the east bank of the Hooghly river (also known as Hugli) (sometime during 1872–1886 or 1893) [ca. 22.68°N, 88.38°E].

Provenance: Peter Cameron (1847–1912) described this species based on at least five specimens collected by George Alexander James Rothney (1849–1922). These five specimens are all in agreement with the original description of T. bengalensis (only one labeled as such), but one of these individuals, standing over the name “ bengalensis ” in the Rothney drawer in OUMNH, is labeled in different handwriting and on a more recent paper label as T. iridipennis . As Cameron did not refer to T. iridipennis in his account Hymenoptera Orientalia , he must have been unaware of the species proposed by Smith (from Sri Lanka) and the label could have been added subsequently by an unknown as a sign of synonymy. However, Rothney (1903) himself later provided an account of the type locality stating that T. bengalensis was rare compared to T. iridipennis .

Lectotype: I here designate as the lectotype the only specimen from the original Rothney drawer labeled as “ bengalensis ” in order to stabilize the future use of the name. The remaining four specimens standing over the drawer label “ bengalensis Cam. ” are considered conspecific paralectotypes. An additional OUMNH drawer label is printed, in red, “BARRACKPORE: / Rothney” in support of these being authentic type specimens.

Comments: Tetragonula bengalensis was first synonymized under T. iridipennis by Bingham (1897) without further discussion. Most later authors followed this, although Sakagami (1978), in an addendum (p. 247), pointed out that males from Sri Lanka (type locality of T. iridipennis ) and India (type locality of T. bengalensis ) differed in the genitalia, but were otherwise identical. Therefore Sakagami proposed to use T. iridipennis for the Sri Lankan population and T. bengalensis for the Indian population (ignoring the fact that T. ruficornis was an earlier name), although he cautioned that T. pagdeni (Schwarz 1939) from Thailand might not differ from the latter.

Figures

FIGURE 6. Tetragonula ruficornis (Smith): lectotype of Trigona ruficornis. 6 A. Habitus, dorsal view. 6 B. Frontal view of head. 6 C. Habitus, right lateral view. 6 D. Lower frontal view of head, including mandibles. 6 E. Outer view of left hind leg. 6 F. Inner view of left hind leg. 6 G. Right forewing. 6 H. View towards propodeum. 6 I. Labels.

FIGURE 7. Tetragonula bengalensis (Cameron): lectotype of Trigona bengalensis. 7 A. Habitus, dorsal view. 7 B. Frontal view of head. 7 C. Habitus, right lateral view. 7 D. Lower frontal view of head, including partially hidden mandibles. 7 E. Habitus, left lateral view. 7 F. Labels. 7 G. View towards propodeum. 7 H. Mesepisternum. 7 I. Outer view of right hind leg.