www. europeanj ournaloftaxonomy. eu

2016 • Gibbs J.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2016.180

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Research article

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:DC65F03D-E892-4E79-A99A-26AllD77213D

Bees of the family Halictidae Thomson, 1869 from Dominica,

Lesser Antilles (Hymenoptera: Apoidea)

Jason GIBBS

Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, 578 Wilson Road, East Lansing,

Michigan 48824, USA. Email: [email protected]

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:BA42A49F-3EBC-4679-8F03-A58E798106Bl

Abstract. The bees of the family Halictidae Thomson, 1869 from Dominica are reviewed. Seven new

species are described and illustrated: Lasioglossum ( Dialictus ) kalinago sp. nov., L. (D. ) dominicense

sp. nov., L. (D.) kilpatrickae sp. nov., L. ( Habralictellus ) roseauense sp. nov., Sphecodes diablotinus

sp. nov., S. albifacies sp. nov. and Habralictus antillarus sp. nov. A description and images of the

previously unknown female of Microsphecodes dominicanus (Stage, 1972) are provided. In total, eleven

species are recognized: eight nest-building species and three kleptoparasites. All halictid species from

Dominica are currently known only from the island. A key to halictid bees from Dominica is provided.

Keywords. Caenohalictini, Halictini, Sphecodini, taxonomy. West Indies.

Gibbs J. 2016. Bees of the family Halictidae Thomson, 1869 from Dominica, Lesser Antilles (Hymenoptera:

Apoidea). European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/eit.2016.18Q

Introduction

The Commonwealth of Dominica is a small island in the Caribbean Sea, with a total area of approximately

750 km 2 and reaching a maximum elevation of 1447 m. Dominica is at approximately the midpoint of

the Lesser Antilles chain of islands, belonging to the so-called Windward Islands. The bee diversity

of the Lesser Antilles remains poorly studied, particularly for the family Halictidae Thomson, 1869.

Halictid bees occurring in the Lesser Antilles have been recorded and described from several Windward

Islands, including Dominica (Crawford 1914; Eickwort & Stage 1972; Gibbs 2012), and islands to the

south such as Grenada (Smith-Pardo 2009), Trinidad and Tobago (Hook et al. 2014), and St. Vincent and

the Grenadines (Ashmead 1900). A small number of halictid bees have been reported from the Leeward

Islands Saint Kitts, Saint John and Sombrero, Anguilla and the Virgin Islands to the north of Dominica

(Engel 2001b, 2006a, 2011; Genaro & Franz 2008). Islands adjacent to Dominica, such as Guadeloupe

and Martinique, do not have any halictid bees currently listed in their faunae (Ascher & Pickering 2015;

Meurgey 2014), but they do occur on these islands (A. Pauly, pers. comm.).

The bee fauna of Dominica was first reviewed by Crawford (1914), who recognized 15 species at the

time and described two halictid bees. Eighteen bee species are currently recognized from Dominica;

most are relatively large-bodied apid and megachilid bees which are not endemic to the island (Ascher

European Journal of Taxonomy 180 : 1-50 ( 2016 )

& Pickering 2015; Gibbs 2012; Moure 2007). The halictid fauna of Dominica currently comprises

four species, all endemic to the island (Gibbs 2012). These are Augochlora ignifera Crawford, 1914,

Lasioglossum punctifrons (Crawford, 1914), Microsphecodes dominicanus (Stage in Eickwort &

Stage, 1972) and Habralictus gonzalezi Gibbs, 2012. Gibbs (2012) also documented the occurrence of

two unknown species of Lasioglossum Curtis, 1833 ( Dialictus Robertson, 1902a) and one Sphecodes

Tatreille, 1804. These new species, as well as two additional species of Lasioglossum , one additional

Sphecodes , and one new Habralictus Moure, 1941 are described herein, bringing the total bee fauna of

Dominica to twenty-five species. These new species descriptions are provided to better document the

bee fauna of this region and to allow future comparisons to other islands in the Tesser Antilles.

Material and methods

This work is part of a continuing effort to revise the Lasioglossum species of North America (Gibbs

2009a, 2009b, 2010, 2011; Gibbs et al. 2013). A large number of specimens have been examined from

the West Indies, including relevant type material, with the goal of revising the Lasioglossum species in

the region. West Indian specimens have been examined from the following collections (abbreviations

indicate institutions with specimens from Dominica or type material examined):

AMNH = American Museum of Natural History, New York City, New York

BBST = Bee Biology and Systematics Taboratory, Utah State University, Togan, Utah

FSCA = Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Gainesville, Florida

NMNH = National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.

NHMUK = Natural History Museum, Fondon, England, U.K.

TAMUIC = Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas

Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Cornell University Insect Collection, Ithaca, New York

Eos Angeles County Museum, Eos Angeles, California

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina

Packer Collection at York University, Toronto, Ontario

Snow Entomological Collection, Lawrence, Kansas

This study is based largely on specimens collected from the Archbold Tropical Research and Education

Center (ATREC; abbreviated ATRC on some label information below), Dominica, including voucher

material from a previously published study (Wells & Decker 2006). More specific information on

collection sites and methods is available from that study. ATREC is located in St. Paul Parish, although

some labels from this location incorrectly read “Parish of St. Joseph, Springfield Estate”. Additional

material from the NMNH was collected largely during the Bredin-Archbold-Smithsonian Biological

Survey of Dominica (Evans 1972).

Descriptions follow those of other halictid bees (Gibbs 2009a, 2009b, 2010, 2011, 2012; Gibbs et al.

2013). Puncture density is given as the length of interspaces between punctures (i) measured in terms

of puncture diameter (pd). Metasomal terga are abbreviated ‘T’ followed by the appropriate segment

number. Antennal flagellomeres are abbreviated ‘F’ followed by the appropriate flagellomere number.

Terminology for structures follows earlier studies on bees (Engel 2001a; Gibbs 2011; Michener 2007).

A published glossary of insect surface sculpturing was used as the basis for sculpture terms in the

descriptions (Harris 1979). Tribal names for halictid bees are based on those proposed from a family-

level phylogeny (Danforth et al. 2004). Photographs were taken using a Canon MPE-65 macro lens on

a 70D or T3i body. Composite images were produced using Zerene Stacker and edited in Photoshop

Elements 12.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Results

Family Halictidae Thomson, 1869

Tribe Halictini Thomson, 1869

Genus Lasioglossum Curtis, 1933

Subgenus Dialictus Robertson, 1902a

Paralictus Robertson, 1901: 229 (type species: Halictus cephalicus Robertson, 1892, by original

designation).

Dialictus Robertson, 1902a: 48 (type species: Halictus anomalus Robertson, 1892, by original

designation and monotypy).

Chloralictus Robertson, 1902b: 248 (type species: Halictus cressonii Robertson, 1890, by original

designation).

Halictus (Gastrolictus ) Duclce, 1902: 102 (type species: Halictus osmioides Du eke, 1902, by monotypy).

Halictomorpha Schrottky, 1911: 81 (type species: Halictomorphaphaedra Schrottky, 1911, by original

designation).

Rhynchalictus Moure, 1947: 5 (type species: Rhynchalictus rostratus Moure, 1947, by original

designation).

Halictus (Smeathhalictus) Wamcke, 1975: 88 (type species: Melitta smeathmanella Kirby, 1802, by

original designation).

Lasioglossum (Afrodialictus ) Pauly, 1984: 142 (type species: Halictus bellulus Vachal, 1909, by original

designation).

Gnathalictus Moure, 2001: 493 (type species: Gnathalictus capitatus Moure, 2001, by original

designation).

Evylaeus (Viridihalictus ) Pesenko, 2007: 25 (type species: Halictus viridis Brulle, 1840, by original

designation).

Evylaeus (Glauchalictus ) Pesenko, 2007: 26 (type species: Halictusproblematicus Bliithgen, 1823, by

original designation).

Evylaeus (Virenshalictus ) Pesenko, 2007: 26 (type species: Hylaeus virens Erichson, 1835, by original

designation).

Evylaeus (Loethalictus ) Pesenko, 2007: 26 (type species: Halictus loetus Brulle, 1840, by original

designation).

Evylaeus (Aerathalictus ) Pesenko, 2007: 27 (type species: Melitta aerata Kirby, 1802, by original

designation).

Lasioglossum {Dialictus) kalinago sp. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:C2694FD3-089E-4D80-88E9-ClD073203893

Fig. 1A-C

Diagnosis

Lasioglossum kalinago sp. nov. females can be distinguished from congenerics in Dominica by the

presence of dark mesoscutal setae; other characters which are diagnostic in combination include the

following: mesepisternum punctation indistinct dorsally, dull due to microsculpture; head wider than long

(length/width ratio = 0.9; Fig. 1A); mesoscutal punctures distinct; and T1 appressed setal fan complete.

Lasioglossum dominicense sp. nov. is smaller in size, with deep and distinct punctures throughout the

mesepisternum including the hypostomal area. Lasioglossum kilpatrickae sp. nov. has a longer head

(length/width ratio = 1.0; Fig. 5A) and distinct mesepisternal punctures. Lasioglossum punctifrons

(Crawford, 1914) has a longer head (length/width ratio = 1.0; Fig. 7A), granular microsculpture with

indistinct punctation and lacks a complete T1 appressed setal fan. Lasioglossum roseauense sp. nov. has

only two submarginal cells and lacks a T1 fan. The male of L. kalinago sp. nov. is unknown.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Fig. 1 . Lasioglossum (Dialictus) kalinago sp. nov. Holotype (A) and paratype (B-C), A. Face.

B. Lateral habitus. C. Dorsum of mesosoma. Scale bars = 1 mm.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Etymology

The specific epithet is named for the indigenous people of the island. It is treated as a noun in apposition.

Type material

Holotype

DOMINICA: St. PaulParish, “Parish ofSt. Joseph” [sic], Springfield Estate, 15.34667° N, 61.3683° W,

430 m, 15-20 Mar. 2003, coll. M.E. Irwin & M. Shepard, Malaise trap (BBSL).

Paratypes

DOMINICA: 3 5 5, St. Paul Parish, topotypical (BBSL); 1 §, St. Paul Parish, ATR[E]C Springfield, Fill

trail, ‘site 2’, 15°2E N, 61°22’ W, 442 m, 24 May^l Jun. 2003, coll. T. Decker & W. Wells, Malaise trap,

voucher #645 (TAMUIC); 1 5, St. Paul Parish, ATREC, Springfield, 345 m, 15.34656° N, 61.36901° W,

7-8 Jun. 2014, coll. S.K. Kilpatrick, pan traps (TAMUIC).

Description

Female

Measurements (n = 4). Length 4.3-5.0 mm (mean = 4.6); head length 1.2-1.4 mm (mean = 1.3); head

width 1.4-1.6 mm (mean = 1.5); intertegular distance 1.0-1.3 mm (mean = 1.2).

Colouration. Head and mesosoma dull metallic green with some blue reflections, except as follows.

Labrum brown. Mandible brown with red apex. Clypeus distal half dark brown. Supraclypeal area

bronze. Antenna dark brown, flagellum with ventral surface dark reddish brown. Tegula dark reddish

brown. Wing membrane faintly dusky with dark setae, venation and pterostigma brown. Legs dark

brown, except medio- and distitarsi reddish brown. Metasomal terga blackish brown.

Pubescence. Dull white, intermixed with darker setae on mesoscutum, dorsal surface of metatibia, and

metasomal terga. Relatively sparse erect setae throughout, without tomentum, except narrow basolateral

patches of T2-T3. T1 with complete fan of appressed setae on anterior surface. T2 without apical

fimbriae, T3-T4 with only sparse fine setae on apical impressed areas. Scopa well developed on hind

leg and metasomal sterna.

Surface sculpture. Face imbricate, punctation moderately coarse, finer on frons. Clypeus punctation

sparse (i = 1-2.5 pd), surface smooth distally (i = 2-3 pd), supraclypeal area with punctures sparse,

absent medially (i = 1-2.5 pd) and lower paraocular area punctation dense (i < pd). Upper paraocular

area and frons reticulate-punctate (1 < pd). Ocellocular area punctate (i < pd). Gena and postgena finely

carinulate. Mesoscutum with tessellate-imbricate punctation moderately coarse, dense on lateral and

posterior portions (1 < pd), sparser on anterior portions and medially (i = 1-1.5 pd); mesoscutellum

similar, with small submedial impunctate area (i = 1-2 pd). Metanotum imbricate. Preepisternum

rugulose. Hypoepimeral area finely rugulose. Mesepistemum below scrobe reticulate-rugulose (1 < pd),

imbricate ventrally with coarse punctures. Metepisternum dorsal !4 rugoso-carinulate, ventral portion

imbricate. Metapostnotum medially with irregular rugae reaching % distance to posterior margin, oblique

carinulae on lateral portions extending to dorsolateral slope. Propodeum posterior and lateral surfaces

polished tessellate, with some fine carinulae. Metasomal terga polished, finely coriarious on T1 anterior

surface and apical impressed areas; punctation fine, obscure on basal portions (i = 1-2 pd), virtually

absent on apical impressed area of T2, very obscure on apices of remaining segments. Metasomal sterna

coriarious and finely, sparsely punctate (i = 2-A pd).

Structure. Head round (length/width ratio = 0.9). Eyes weakly convergent below. Clypeus U below

suborbital tangent. Gena narrower than eye. Hypostomal carinae subparallel. Pronotal dorsolateral angle

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

obtuse. Pronotal ridge rounded, interrupted by sulcus. Tegula ovoid. Submarginal cells three (lrs-m

present). Distal hamuli arranged 2-1-2. Inner metatibial spur pectinate, with 3M branches, proximal

branch much longer than width of rachis. Metapostnotum slight depressed, narrowly rounded onto

posterior propodeal surface. Propodeum with lateral carina nearly reaching dorsal margin; oblique

carina distinct. T2-T4 impressed areas medially nearly equal to longitudinal length of basal area.

Male

Unknown.

Remarks

Lasioglossum kalinago sp. nov. bears some similarity to other West Indian species, such as L. magdalena

(Baker, 1906), L. sanctivincenti (Ashmead, 1900) and L. plumbeum (Ashmead, 1900). Lasioglossum

magdalena is from Cuba and has finer punctation and a more polished mesepisternum. Specimens from

the type series of L. sanctivincenti , L. plumbeum and L. cyaneum (Ashmead, 1900), collected in St.

Vincent and the Grenadines and deposited in the NHMUK and NMNH, were examined in 2012 and

2015. Images of specimens from the type series of the latter two species are available from the NMNH.

Non-types of L. sanctivincenti and L. plumbeum from St. Vincent and the Grenadines (deposited at

FSCA) were also examined, and these species were found to be distinct from the Dominica fauna.

Lasioglossum kalinago sp. nov. can be distinguished from these species based on multiple characters,

including the distinct mesepisternal punctures of L. sanctivincenti , the long head of L. plumbeum and the

bright blue metasoma of L. cyaneum.

Lasioglossum (Dialictus) dominicense sp. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:95421366-50BE-49F3-B51C-91B51E7A0A90

Figs 2A-C, 3A-C, 4A-B

Diagnosis

Lasioglossum dominicense sp. nov. females have the following characteristics: head wider than long

(length/width ratio = 0.9; Fig. 2A); mesoscutal and mesepisternal punctures distinct (Fig. 2B-C); meso-

scutal setae entirely pale; submarginal cells three; and T1 appressed setal fan complete. The male is

similar but lacks a T1 fan. Lasioglossum kilpatrickae sp. nov. is larger, with a distinctly longer head

in both sexes (length/width ratio = 1.0; Figs 5A, 6A). Lasioglossum kalinago sp. nov. is larger in size,

with less distinct punctures on the mesepisternum and dark setae intermingled with pale setae on the

mesoscutum. Lasioglossum punctifrons has a longer head, granular microsculpture with indistinct

punctation, and lacks a complete T1 appressed setal fan. Lasioglossum roseauense sp. nov. has only two

submarginal cells.

Etymology

The specific epithet refers to the collection locality in the Commonwealth of Dominica.

Type material

Holotype

DOMINICA: $, ATR[E]C Springfield, Mt. Joy trail, ‘site 3’, 15°21 5 N, 61°22’ W, 424 m, 25 MayM Jun.

2003, coll. T. Decker & W. Wells, Malaise trap, voucher # 645 (TAMUIC).

Paratypes

DOMINICA: 3 $$, St. Paul Parish, “Parish of St. Joseph” [sic], Springfield Estate, 15.34667° N,

61.3683° W, 430 m, 15-20 Mar. 2003, coll. M.E. Irwin & M. Shepard, Malaise trap (BBSL); 1 §,

ATR[E]C Springfield, Checkhall River, ‘site 4’, 15°21’ N, 61°22’ W, 294 m, 24 MayM Jun. 2003, coll.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Fig. 2. Lasioglossum ( Dialictus ) dominicense sp. nov. Holotype (A, C) and paratype (B), $A. Face.

B. Lateral habitus. C. Dorsum of mesosoma. Scale bars = 1 mm.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

T. Decker & W. Wells, Malaise trap, voucher # 645 (TAMUIC); 2 §§, ATREC, Springfield, 345 m,

15.34656° N, 61.36901° W, 31 May 2014, coll. S.K. Kilpatrick, pan traps (TAMUIC); 1 ?, ATREC,

Springfield, 345 m, 15.34656° N, 61.36901° W, 3 Jun. 2014, coll. S.K. Kilpatrick, pan traps (TAMUIC);

8 55, ATREC, Springfield, 345 m, 15.34656° N, 61.36901° W, 5 Jun. 2014, coll. S.K. Kilpatrick, pan

traps (TAMUIC); 2 $ $, ATREC, Springfield, 345 m, 15.34656° N, 61.36901° W, 6 Jun. 2014, coll. S.K.

Kilpatrick, pan traps (TAMUIC); 5 ? $, 1 ATREC, Springfield, 345 m, 15.34656° N, 61.36901° W,

7-8 Jun. 2014, coll. S.K. Kilpatrick, pan traps (TAMUIC); 3 §§, Springfield, Nov. 1967, coll. N.L.H.

Krauss (NMNH); 1 5, St. George Parish, Long Ditton, 20 Jun. 1911 (AMNH); 2 Roseau, 0-100 m,

Jul. 1976, coll. N.L.H. Krauss (NMNH).

Description

Female

Measurements (n = 8). Length 3.5-3.8 mm (mean = 3.6); head length 1.1-1.2 mm (mean = 1.1); head

width 1.2-1.3 mm (mean = 1.2); intertegular distance 0.8-1.0 mm (mean = 0.9).

Colouration. Head and mesosoma dull metallic golden-green, except as follows. Labrum brown.

Mandible brown with red apex. Clypeus distal half dark brown. Supraclypeal area bronze. Antenna dark

brown, flagellum with ventral surface dark reddish brown. Tegula dark reddish brown. Wing membrane

hyaline with dark setae, venation and pterostigma brown. Legs dark brown, except medio- and distitarsi

and portions of metabasitarsus reddish brown. Metasomal terga blackish brown, reddish brown apically.

Pubescence. Dull white. Relatively sparse erect setae throughout, without tomentum, except on gena

near eye, pronotum dorsolateral angles and lobe, narrow basolateral patches of T2-T3 and sparsely on

T4. Metasomal T1 with complete fan of appressed setae on anterior surface. T2 without apical fimbriae,

T3-T4 with only sparse, fine setae on apical impressed areas. Scopa well developed on hind leg and

metasomal sterna.

Surface sculpture. Face imbricate, punctation moderately fine. Clypeus punctation sparse (i = 1-2.5

pd), denser proximally, surface smooth distally (i = 2-3 pd). Supraclypeal area with punctures sparse,

present medially (i = 1-2 pd), and lower paraocular area punctation dense (i < pd). Upper paraocular

area and frons reticulate-punctate (1 < pd). Ocellocular area punctate (i < pd). Gena and postgena

polished, finely punctate-lineolate. Mesoscutum imbricate, punctation moderately fine, dense on laterad

of parapsidal lines, posterior portion (1 < pd), sparser medially (i = 1-2 pd); mesoscutellum similar, with

small submedial impunctate area (i = 1-2 pd). Metanotum imbricate. Preepistemum finely reticulate

rugulose. Hypoepimeral area finely punctate. Mesepisternum below scrobe punctate (1 < pd), finely

imbricate. Metepisternum dorsal A rugulose, ventral portion imbricate. Metapostnotum medially with

irregular rugae reaching 2 A distance to posterior margin, oblique carinulae on lateral portions extending

to dorsolateral slope. Propodeum posterior and lateral surfaces polished tessellate. Metasomal terga

polished, finely coriarious on apical impressed areas, T1 anterior face polished; punctation fine, obscure

on basal portions (i = 1-2 pd), indistinct, sparser on apical impressed areas. Metasomal sterna coriarious

and finely, sparsely punctate (i = 2-4 pd).

Structure. Head round (length/width ratio = 0.9). Eyes weakly convergent below. Clypeus U below

suborbital tangent. Gena narrower than eye. Hypostomal carinae subparallel. Pronotal dorsolateral angle

obtuse. Pronotal ridge rounded, interrupted by sulcus. Tegula ovoid. Submarginal cells three (lrs-m

present). Distal hamuli arranged 2-1-2. Inner metatibial spur pectinate, with 2-4 branches, proximal

branch much longer than width of rachis. Metapostnotum narrowly rounded onto posterior propodeal

surface. Propodeum with lateral carina reaching 2 A distance to dorsal margin; oblique carina fine. T2-T4

impressed areas medially about A longitudinal length of basal area.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Fig. 3. Lasioglossum ( Dialictus ) dominicense sp. nov. Paratype, <$■ A. Face. B. Lateral habitus.

C. Dorsum of mesosoma. Scale bars = 1 mm.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50(2016)

Fig. 4. — Genital capsule of Lasioglossum ( Dialictus ) dominicense sp. nov. Paratype, <$■ A. Dorsal

view. B. Ventral view. — Genital capsule of Lasioglossum ( Dialictus ) kilpatrickae sp. nov. Paratype, S-

C. Dorsal view. D. Ventral view. Scale bars = 1 mm.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Male

Measurements (n = 1). Length 4.4 mm; head length 1.2 mm; head width 1.2 mm ; intertegular distance

0.8 mm

Colouration. Similar to female, except tarsi reddish.

Pubescence. Similar to female, except scopa absent. Lower paraocular area with sparse tomentum. T1

fan absent. T2-T4 without evident tomentum.

Surface sculpture. Similar to female, but more polished, with less evident imbricate microsculpture.

Metanotum sparsely punctate (i = 1-1.5 pd) Metepisternum punctate. Lateral surface of propodeum

distinctly punctate. T1-T4 apical impressed areas impunctate.

Structure. Similar to female, with typical sexual differences. Head round (length/width ratio = 0.97).

F2 length nearly 2 x FI. Scape, pedicel and FI reaching lower margin of median ocellus. Ante nn a

reaching posterior margin of mesosoma. T2-T4 apical impressed areas less than A of median length.

Terminalia. As shown in Fig. 4A-B.

Remarks

Lasioglossum dominicense sp. nov. bears some superficial resemblance to members of the L. parvum

species group in its size and overall appearance, but it lacks the enlarged tegula diagnostic for that

complex. It is perhaps most similar to L. sanctivincenti, and could easily be considered a subspecies

based on the close similarity to that species. Lasioglossum sanctivincenti appears to have more distinct

microsculpture throughout, which is most apparent in the interspaces of the mesoscutum and the anterior

face of Tl. The puncture density mesad of the parapsidal line is slightly denser (1 < pd) and more

numerous to a distance of about 3^1 puncture diameters from the parapsidal line. If the species were

sympatric it would be challenging to differentiate them and any variation in the above characters would

make distinguishing them next to impossible. A more comprehensive survey of the intervening islands

would be useful for clarifying the biogeographic history of these and other species in the Lesser Antilles.

Lasioglossum (Dialictus ) kilpatrickae sp. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:90970C96-A443-4BFA-A205-6A7E6332EC95

Figs 4C-D, 5A-C, 6A-C

Diagnosis

Lasioglossum kilpatrickae sp. nov. females have the following characteristics: head at least as long as

wide (length/width ratio = 1.0; Fig. 5A); mesoscutal and mesepisternal punctures distinct (Fig. 5B-C);

mesoscutal setae entirely pale; and T1 appressed setal fan complete. The male is similar but lacks a T1 fan.

Lasioglossum dominicense sp. nov. is smaller, with a distinctly shorter head in both sexes (length/width

= 0.9) (Figs 2A, 3A). Lasioglossum kalinago sp. nov. has less distinct punctures on the mesepisternum

and dark setae intermingled with pale setae on the mesoscutum. Lasioglossum punctifrons has granular

microsculpture with indistinct punctation (Fig. 7B) and lacks a complete Tl appressed setal fan.

Etymology

This species is named for Shelby Kilpatrick (TAMUIC), who collected most of the type series and

arranged additional Dominican bee specimens for study.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Fig. 5. Lasioglossum ( Dialictus ) kilpatrickae sp. nov. Holotype, $. A. Face. B. Lateral habitus.

C. Dorsum of mesosoma. Scale bars = 1 mm.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Type material

Holotype

DOMINICA: 5, St. David Parish, Castle Bruce Beach & Estuary, 15.432225° N, 61.25539° W, 10 m,

8 Jun. 2015, coll. S.K. Kilpatrick & R. Selking, sweeping (TAMUIC).

Paratypes

DOMINICA: 1 $, 2 St. David Parish, topotypical (TAMUIC); 1 S, St. Andrew Parish, Wo[o]dford

Hill, 5-7 Jun. 1987, coll. R E. Woodruff (FSCA).

Description

Female

Measurements (n = 1). Length 4.7 mm; head length 1.2 mm; head width 1.2 mm; intertegular distance

1.0 in in

Colouration. Head and mesosoma dull metallic golden-green, except as follows. Labrum brown.

Mandible brown with red apex. Clypeus distal half dark brown. Antenna dark brown, flagellum with

ventral surface dark reddish brown. Tegula dark reddish brown. Wing membrane hyaline with dark

setae, venation and pterostigma brown. Legs dark brown, except medio- and distitarsi and portions of

metabasitarsus reddish brown. Metasomal terga blackish brown, reddish brown apically.

Pubescence. Dull white. Relatively sparse erect setae throughout, without tomentum, except on gena

near eye, pronotum dorsolateral angles and lobe, narrow basolateral patches of T2-T3 and sparsely on

T4. Metasomal T1 with complete fan of appressed setae on anterior surface. T2 without apical fimbriae,

T3-T4 with only sparse fine setae on apical impressed areas. Scopa well developed on hind leg and

metasomal sterna.

Surface sculpture. Face imbricate, punctation moderately fine. Clypeus punctation sparse (i = 1-2.5 pd),

denser proximally, surface smooth distally (i = 2-3 pd). Supraclypeal area with punctures sparse, present

medially (i = 1-2 pd), and lower paraocular area punctation dense (i < pd). Upper paraocular area and

frons reticulate-punctate (1 < pd). Ocellocular area punctate (i < pd). Gena and postgena polished, finely

punctate-lineolate. Mesoscutum imbricate, punctation fine, dense on laterad of parapsidal lines, posterior

portion (1 < pd), slightly sparser medially (i = 1-1.5 pd), submedial areas sparser still; mesoscutellum

similar with small submedial impunctate area (i = 1-2 pd). Metanotum finely punctate. Preepisternum

finely reticulate rugulose. Hypoepimeral area finely punctate. Mesepisternum below scrobe punctate

(i < d), finely imbricate. Metepisternum dorsal Vs rugulose, ventral portion imbricate. Metapostnotum

medially with longitudinal rugae reaching posterior margin, oblique carinulae on lateral portions

extending to dorsolateral slope. Propodeum posterior and lateral surfaces polished tessellate. Metasomal

terga polished, finely coriarious on apical impressed areas and T1 anterior face; punctation fine, obscure

on basal portions (i = 1-2 pd), indistinct, sparser on apical impressed areas, T1-T2 apical impressed

areas impunctate, except near lateral margins. Metasomal sterna coriarious and finely, sparsely punctate

(i = 2—4 pd).

Structure. Head round (length/width ratio = 1.00). Eyes weakly convergent below. Clypeus % below

suborbital tangent. Gena narrower than eye. Hypostomal carinae subparallel. Pronotal dorsolateral angle

obtuse. Pronotal ridge rounded, interrupted by sulcus. Tegula ovoid. Submarginal cells three (lrs-m

present). Distal hamuli arranged 2-1-2. Inner metatibial spur pectinate, with 3 branches, proximal

branch much longer than width of rachis. Metapostnotum narrowly rounded onto posterior propodeal

surface. Propodeum with lateral carina reaching % distance to dorsal margin; oblique carina fine. T2-T4

impressed areas medially about !4 longitudinal length of basal area.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Fig. 6. Lasioglossum (. Dialictus) kilpatrickae sp. nov. Paratypes, S3- A. Face. B. Lateral habitus.

C. Dorsum of mesosoma. Scale bars = 1 mm.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Male

Measurements (n = 3). Length 3.9-4.7 mm (mean = 4.4); head length 1.3-1.4 mm (mean = 1.4); head

width 1.3-1.4 mm (mean = 1.4); intertegular distance 0.8-1.0 mm (mean = 0.9).

Colouration. Similar to female, except Fl-F 11 yellowish brown ventrally.

Pubescence. Similar to female, except scopa absent. Face below eye emargination with sparse tomentum,

obscuring lower paraocular area. T1 fan absent. T2-T4 with at most very sparse tomentum basolaterally.

Surface sculpture. Similar to female, but more polished, with less evident imbricate microsculpture.

Metanotum sparsely punctate (i = 1-1.5 pd). Metepisternum densely punctate (i < pd). Metapostnotal

rugae not reaching posterior margin. Lateral surface of propodeum distinctly punctate. T1-T4 apical

impressed areas impunctate.

Structure. Similar to female, with typical sexual differences. Head round (length/width ratio = 1.00-

1.04). F2 length nearly 2 x FI. Scape, pedicel and FI reaching lower margin of median ocellus. T2-T4

apical impressed areas less than A of median length.

Terminalia. As shown in Fig. 4C-D.

Remarks

Lasioglossum kilpatrickae sp. nov. is similar to L. plumbeum in many respects, most notably

the shape of the head. Despite a close similarity, the two species can be readily differentiated.

Lasioglossum plumbeum females have distinct medial punctures on the apical impressed

area of T2, finer and denser punctures on the mesepistemum, as well as a dark blue colour of

the head and mesosoma. Male L. plumbeum lack the tomentum on the lower face present in

L. kilpatrickae sp. nov.

Subgenus Habralictellus Moure & Hurd, 1982

Habralictellus Moure & Hurd, 1982: 46 (type species: Halictus auratus Ashmead, 1900, by original

designation).

Lasioglossum ( Habralictellus ) punctifrons (Crawford, 1914)

Fig. 7A-B

Halictus punctifrons Crawford, 1914: 133.

Material examined

Holotype

DOMINICA: §, examined 2015, metasoma not attached, held in capsule on pin, USNM 16733 (NMNH).

Diagnosis

Lasioglossum punctifrons is distinguished from congenerics on Dominica by any combination of the

following characteristics: head as long as wide (length/width ratio = 1.02; Fig. 7A); mesosoma with

granular microsculpture, punctation indistinct (Fig. 7B); metapostnotum long, with weak carinulae

limited to lateral margins; and T1 without complete setal fan. Lasioglossum roseauense sp. nov. has a

shorter head (length/width ratio = 0.87; Fig. 8A) and only two submarginal cells. The male is unknown.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Fig. 7. Lasioglossum ( Habralictellus ) punctifrons (Crawford, 1914). Holotype, §. A. Face. B. Dorsum

of mesosoma. Scale bars = 1 mm.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Remarks

This is clearly a member of the Lasioglossum auratum (Ashmead, 1900) species complex, which has

sometimes been recognized as a separate genus, Habralictellus Moure & Hurd. Many members of

this species group, which is endemic to the West Indies, have brilliant iridescent colours on at least

the head and mesosoma. The colours are duller in L. punctifrons. The metasoma is entirely dark,

without evident metallic reflections. The metapostnotum is elongate, approximately equal in length to

the mesoscutellum and metanotum combined, and has only weak carinulae at the lateral margins. The

overall structure and sculpturing is very similar to L. auratum , from St. Vincent and the Grenadines,

but L. auratum has bright iridescent reflections on the head and mesosoma and more distinct carinulae

on the metapostnotum, although still largely limited to the lateral parts. The Puerto Rican species

L. eickwortellum (Engel, 2001) also belongs to this group and has similar structural features. The female

of L. eickwortellum is bright iridescent, with dense but fine punctation on the mesoscutum, and a bright

orange-red colour of T1-T2.

No recent collections of L. punctifrons have been examined. To my knowledge it has not been collected

since the original survey in 1913.

Lasioglossum ( Habralictellus ) roseauense sp. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:A97639D7-DD8D-475B-B133-852AA955191F

Fig. 8A-C

Diagnosis

The female of L. roseauense sp. nov. can easily be recognized by the absence of vein lrs-m, resulting in

two submarginal cells (Fig. 8B), rather than the three submarginal cells typical of other halictid bees on

the island. In addition, the wide face (length/width ratio = 0.87; Fig. 8A), granular microsculpture and

metapostnotum lacking rugae (Fig. 8C) further differentiate this species from congenerics on the island.

Lasioglossum punctifrons is easily differentiated by its longer head (length/width ratio = 1.02; Fig. 7A).

Lasioglossum roseauense sp. nov. is superficially similar to Habralictus gonzalezi Gibbs, 2012 and

H. antillarus sp. nov., but L. roseauense sp. nov. has a weakened vein 2rs-m, typical of Lasioglossum ,

and more distinct punctation on the mesoscutum.

Etymology

This species is named for the type locality: Roseau, capital city of Dominica.

Type material

Holotype

DOMINICA: §, St. George Parish, Roseau, 8 Mar. 1965, coll. H.E. Evans (NMNH).

Description

Female

Measurements (n = 1). Fength 5.1 mm ; head length 1.3 mm ; head width 1.5 mm ; intertegular distance

I. 1 mm

Colouration. Head and mesosoma dull metallic bluish to golden green, except as follows. Fabrum

brown. Mandible brown with red apex. Clypeus distal half dark brown. Antenna dark brown, F7-F10

with ventral surface dark brownish yellow. Tegula brownish yellow. Wing membrane hyaline with dark

setae, venation and pterostigma brown. Fegs dark brown, except protibia and protarsi brownish yellow,

medio- and distitarsi and portions of metabasitarsus reddish brown. Metasomal terga blackish brown,

reddish brown apically.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Fig. 8. Lasioglossum (Habralictellus) roseauense sp. nov. Holotype, §. A. Face. B. Lateral habitus.

C. Dorsum of mesosoma. Scale bars = 1 mm.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Pubescence. Dull white. Relatively sparse erect setae throughout, without tomentum, except sparsely

on gena near eye and pronotum dorsolateral angles and lobe. Metasomal T1 with erect setae laterally

on anterior surface. T2-T4 without apical fimbriae. Scopa well developed on hind leg and metasomal

sterna.

Surface sculpture. Face granular, punctation fine, indistinct. Clypeus punctation sparse (i = 1-2.5 pd),

surface smooth distally. Supraclypeal area with punctures sparse, present medially (i = 1-2 pd), and

lower paraocular area punctation dense (i < pd). Upper paraocular area and frons indistinctly punctuate

(i = 1-2.5 pd). Ocellocular area punctate (i < pd). Gena and postgena imbricate-lineolate. Mesoscutum

tessellate, punctation fine, relatively dense laterad of parapsidal lines (i = 1.5 pd), becoming sparser

medially (i = 1.5-4 pd); mesoscutellum tessellate, sparsely punctate (i = 2-5 pd). Metanotum granular.

Preepisternum tessellate. Hypoepimeral imbricate. Mesepistemum below scrobe, tessellate-granular,

indistinctly punctate ventrally (i = 2-5 pd). Metepisternum dorsal l A carinulate, ventral portion imbricate.

Metapostnotum tessellate-granular, transversely lineolate medially. Propodeum posterior and lateral

surfaces polished tessellate. Metasomal terga polished, finely coriarious on apical impressed areas;

punctation fine, obscure on basal portions (i = 1-2 pd), indistinct, sparser on apical impressed areas,

T1-T2 apical impressed areas with irregular indistinct punctures. Metasomal sterna coriarious, sparsely

punctate on posterior half (i = 2-4 pd).

Structure. Head wide (length/width ratio = 0.87). Eyes weakly convergent below. Clypeus !4 below

suborbital tangent. Gena narrower than eye. Hypostomal carinae subparallel. Pronotal dorsolateral

angle obtuse. Pronotal ridge rounded, interrupted by sulcus. Tegula ovoid. Submarginal cells three (lrs-

m present). Distal hamuli arranged 2-1-2. Inner metatibial spur pectinate, with 5 branches, proximal

branch much longer than width of rachis. Metapostnotum narrowly rounded onto posterior propodeal

surface. Propodeum with lateral carina reaching U distance to dorsal margin; oblique carina absent.

T2-T4 impressed areas medially about U longitudinal length of basal area.

Male

Unknown.

Remarks

Lasioglossum roseauense sp. nov. belongs to the L. rufopantex (Engel, 2001) species group of

L. (Habralictellus ), which is recognizable by the short face and absence of vein lrs-m (Fig. 8A-B).

Lasioglossum eleutherense (Engel, 2001) is the only other described member of this complex. Both

are known from the Greater Antilles, reaching in the case of L. rufopantex as far as the Virgin Islands.

Lasioglossum rufopantex is easily distinguished from L. roseauense sp. nov. by the mesoscutum being

polished, iridescent green.

Tribe Sphecodini Schenck, 1868 [1869]

Genus Sphecodes Latreille, 1804

Sphecodes Latreille, 1804: 182 (type species: Nomada gibba Fabricius, 1804 = Sphex gibba Linnaeus,

1758, by monotypy).

Dichroa Illiger, 1806: 46 (type species: Sphex gibba Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation of

Sandhouse, 1943: 545).

Sabulicola Verhoeff, 1890: 328 (type species: Sabulicola cirsii Verhoeff, 1890 = Nomada albilabris

Fabricius, 1793, by monotypy).

Thrausmus Buysson, 1900: 111 (type species: Thrausmus grandidieri Buysson, 1900, by monotypy).

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Drepanium Robertson, 1903: 103 (type species: Sphecodes falcifer Patton, 1880 = Sphecodes confertus

Say, 1837, by original designation).

Proteraner Robertson, 1903: 103 (type species: Sphecodes ranunculi Robertson, 1897, bymonotypy).

Dialonia Robertson, 1903: 104 (type species: Sphecodes antennariae Robertson, 1891, by original

designation).

Machaeris Robertson, 1903: 104 (type species: Sphecodes stygius Robertson, 1893, by original

designation).

Sphecodium Robertson, 1903: 104 {= Stelidium Robertson, 1903 lapsus calami, not Stelidium Robertson,

1902c) (type species: Sphecodium cressonii Robertson, 1903, by original designation).

Sphecodes (Calio sphecodes) Friese, 1909: 182 (type species: Callosphecodes ralunensis Friese, 1909,

by monotypy).

Sphegodes Mavromoustakis, 1948: 553, unjustified emendation.

Sphecodes (.Austrosphecodes ) Michener, 1978: 327 (type species: Sphecodes chilensis Spinola, 1851,

by original designation).

Sphecodes diablotinus sp. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:D309231C-B957-4B22-924D-CD6C4766A93D

Figs 9A-C, 10A-C, 13A, 14A-B

Diagnosis

The male of S. diablotinus sp. nov. can be recognized by the combination of face without tomentose

setae (Fig. 9A) and body black. The female of S. diablotinus has the head and mesosoma black, orange-

red on T1-T4 (Fig. 10B); T2 is nearly impunctate, only sparse punctures are present basally. Both

sexes of S. diablotinus sp. nov. have a distinctly smooth triangular area on the posterior margin of the

mesepisternum (Fig. 13A). The male of S. albifacies sp. nov. is similar but has dense tomentum on the

face (Fig. 11 A). The female of S. albifacies sp. nov. is red on T1-T3 (Fig. 12B); T2 has distinct, albeit

fine punctation basally. Both sexes have a narrow, indistinct smooth area on the posterior margin of the

mesepisternum. Both sexes of Microsphecodes dominicanus (Stage, 1972) have testaceous colour on the

mesosoma and reticulate-rugae over the entire metapostnotum (Figs 15B-C, 16B-C).

Etymology

The specific epithet is based on the local word “diablotin”, meaning “little devil”, used as a common

name for the black-capped kestrel, Pterodroma hasitata (Kuhl, 1820) and the tallest peak on the island,

Morne Diablotin.

Type material

Holotype

DOMINICA: S, St. Paul Parish, Parish of St. Joseph [sic], Springfield Estate, 15.34667° N, 61.3683° W,

430 m, 15-20 Mar. 2003, coll. M.E. Irwin & M. Shepard, Malaise trap (BBSL).

Paratypes

DOMINICA: 3 SS, St. Paul Parish, topotypical (BBSL); 1 ATR[E]C Springfield, Fill trail, ‘site 2’,

15°2E N, 61°22’ W, 398 m, 23 MayM Jun. 2003, coll. T. Decker & W. Wells, Malaise trap, voucher

#645 (TAMUIC); 1 $, ATR[E]C Springfield, Fill trail, ‘site 2’, 15°2E N, 61°22’ W, 442 m, 24 May-4

Jun. 2003, coll. T. Decker & W. Wells, Malaise trap, voucher #645 (TAMUIC); 1 5, St. Paul Parish,

ATR[E]C Springfield, Checkhall River, ‘site 4’, 15°2E N, 61°22’ W, 294 m, 24 May^l Jun. 2003, coll.

T. Decker & W. Wells, flight intercept trap, voucher #645 (TAMUIC); 1 5, St. Joseph Parish, Clarke

Hall, 21-31 Jan. 1965, coll. W.W. Wirth, Malaise trap (NMNH).

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Fig. 9. Sphecodes diablotinus sp. nov. Holotype (A-B) and paratype (C), A. Face. B. Lateral

habitus. C. Dorsum of mesosoma. Scale bars = 1 mm.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Description

Male

Measurements (n = 2). Length 3.8 mm ; head length 1.0 mm; head width 1.2 mm ; intertegular distance

0.8 mm.

Colouration. Body blackish-brown, except as follows. Mandible yellow with red apex. Clypeus distal

half dark brown. Flagellum with ventral surface dark reddish brown. Tegula dark yellowish brown.

Wing membrane faintly dusky with dark setae, venation and pterostigma brown. Legs dark brown,

except medio- and distitarsi and portions of metabasitarsus reddish brown.

Pubescence. Dull white. Sparse erect setae throughout, without tomentum on head.

Surface sculpture. Face polished, punctation fine. Clypeus punctation dense (i = 1-1.5 pd). Supraclypeal

area, lower and upper paraocular areas and frons densely punctate (i < pd). Ocellocular area sparsely

punctate (i = 1-2 pd). Gena and postgena polished, finely punctate-lineolate. Mesoscutum polished;

punctation moderately coarse, relatively dense laterad of parapsidal lines (i = 1—1.5 pd), sparser on

posterior and medial area of disc (i = 1-3 pd); mesoscutellum similar. Metanotum rugulose. Preepisternum

reticulate rugulose. Hypoepimeral area finely rugulose. Mesepisternum below scrobe finely rugulose,

with smooth posterior triangle, minute punctures present in anteroventral third of triangle. Metepisternum

rugulose. Metapostnotum with longitudinal carinulae reaching % distance to posterior margin, posterior

margin smooth. Propodeum posterior and lateral surfaces smooth with irregular sparse rugae. Metasomal

terga polished, finely coriarious on apical impressed areas; punctation fine, obscure on basal portions

(i = 1-2 pd), virtually absent on Tl; apical impressed areas impunctate. Metasomal sterna coriarious and

finely, sparsely punctate (i = 2-4 pd).

Structure. Head wide (length/width ratio = 0.85-0.86). Eyes weakly convergent below. Clypeus Vi

below suborbital tangent. Frontal line deeply impressed below median ocellus. Gena narrower than

eye. Hypostomal carinae subparallel. Occipital carina small but distinct. Pronotal dorsolateral angle

orthogonal. Pronotal ridge carinate, interrupted by sulcus. Tegula ovoid. Submarginal cells two or

three (lrs-m present or absent), if lrs-m present then 2 nd submarginal cell narrow, posterior length

approximately Vi anterior length of 3 rd submarginal cell. Distal hamuli arranged 2-2. Second tarsal

segment narrow at base, length as long as 3 rd tarsus. Propodeum with lateral carina reaching 2 G distance

to dorsal margin; oblique carina fine.

Terminalia. As shown in Fig. 14A-B.

Female

Measurements (n = 2). Length 4.5-4.6 mm (mean = 4.5); head length 1.1 mm (mean = 1.1); head width

1.3-1.5 mm (mean = 1.4); intertegular distance 0.7-0.8 mm (mean = 0.8).

Colouration. Body blackish-brown, except as follows. Mandible yellow with red apex. Flagellum with

ventral surface dark reddish brown. Tegula dark reddish brown. Wing membrane faintly dusky, with

dark setae, venation and pterostigma brown. Legs dark brown, except medio- and distitarsi and portions

of metabasitarsus reddish brown. Metasoma T1-T4 reddish orange, T5-T6 and apex of T4 dark brown.

Pubescence. Dull white. Sparse erect setae throughout. Subappressed tomentum on the following:

paraocular area below eye emargination, gena, pronotum dorsolateral angle, pronotal lobe, and

preepisternum. Mesofemur and mesotibia without pollen brush. Metafemur without scopa. Metatibia

with thick setae on dorsal margin. Penicillis absent. Posterior propodeal surface with sparse short setae

below longer erect setae. Metasomal sterna without scopa.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Fig. 10. Sphecodes diablotinus sp. nov. Paratypes, A. Face. B. Lateral habitus. C. Dorsum of

mesosoma. Scale bars = 1 mm.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Surface sculpture. Face polished, punctation fine. Clypeus punctation dense (i = 1-1.5 pd). Supraclypeal

area, lower and upper paraocular areas and frons densely punctate (i < pd). Ocellocular area sparsely

punctate (i= 1-2 pd). Postgena polished, gena finely punctate-lineolate. Mesoscutum polished; punctation

moderately coarse, relatively dense laterad of parapsidal lines (i = 1-1.5 pd), sparser on posterior and

medial area of disc (i = 1-2 pd); mesoscutellum similar, submedial patch nearly impunctate. Metanotum

rugulose. Preepisternum reticulate rugulose. Hypoepimeral area finely rugulose. Mesepisternum below

scrobe finely rugulose, with smooth posterior triangle expanding ventrally, minute punctures present

in anteroventral third of triangle. Metepisternum rugulose. Metapostnotum with longitudinal carinulae

reaching 2 /s distance to posterior margin, posterior margin smooth. Propodeum posterior and lateral

surfaces reticulate rugulose. T1-T2 polished nearly impunctate, T3-T5 weakly coriarious, basal areas

with very fine obscure punctation (i = 1-3 pd), virtually absent on Tl; apical impressed areas impunctate.

Metasomal sterna coriarious and finely, sparsely punctate (i = 2-A pd).

Structure. Head wide (length/width ratio = 0.81-0.82). Eyes weakly convergent below. Labrum broad,

without apical projection or dorsal keel. Clypeus V 2 below suborbital tangent. Mandible simple, without

preapical tooth. Gena narrower than eye. Hypostomal carinae subparallel. Occipital carina small but

distinct. Flagellum 1 distinctly broader than long on dorsal surface, shorter than pedicel. Pronotal

dorsolateral angle acute. Pronotal ridge carinate, interrupted by sulcus. Tegula ovoid. Submarginal cells

three (lrs-m present), 2 nd submarginal cell narrow, posterior length slightly less than anterior length

of 3 rd submarginal cell. Distal hamuli arranged 2-2. Inner metatibial spur minutely serrate. Basitibial

plate indistinct, represented by minute glabrous spot. Metatarsus 2 narrow at base, length as long as

metatarsus 3. Propodeum with lateral carina diverging dorsally, reaching V 2 distance to dorsal margin;

oblique carina indistinct. T5 without evident pseudopygidial area, T6 with narrow pygidial plate.

Remarks

Hosts of S. diablotinus sp. nov. and S. albifacies sp. nov. are unknown, but are presumably among the

Lasioglossum (Dialictus ) species included herein. Both Sphecodes species have been collected at the

same locality as L. kalinago sp. nov., L. dominicense sp. nov. and Habralictus gonzalezi.

Sphecodes albifacies sp. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:50B6BF6B-lA37-4D18-89F3-lEF2E996173B

Figs 11A-C, 12A-C, 13B, 14C-D

Diagnosis

The male of S. albifacies sp. nov. can be recognized by the combination of face with dense tomentose

setae (Fig. 11 A), black body, and metapostnotum with longitudinal carinulae reaching two-thirds of the

distance to the smooth posterior margin. The female is similar, but has red on T1-T3 (Fig. 12B). Both

sexes have a narrow, indistinct smooth area on the posterior margin of the mesepisternum (Fig. 13B).

The male of S. diablotinus sp. nov. is similar but has no tomentum on the face (Fig. 10A). The female of

S. diablotinus sp. nov. has red on Tl- 74 (Fig. 10B). Both sexes of S. diablotinus sp. nov. have a distinct

smooth triangular area on the posterior margin of the mesepisternum (Fig. 13A). Microsphecodes

dominicanus has testaceous colour on the mesosoma and reticulate rugae over the entire metapostnotum

(Figs 15B-C, 16B-C).

Etymology

The specific epithet is derived from the Latin for “white face”, and is a reference to the dense white

pilosity of the male.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Fig. 11. Sphecodes albifacies sp. nov. Holotype (A) and paratype (B-C), S3- A. Face. B. Lateral habitus.

C. Dorsum of mesosoma. Scale bars = 1 mm.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Type material

Holotype

DOMINICA: 3, St. Paul Parish, Parish of St. Joseph [sic], Springfield Estate, 15.34667° N, 61.3683° W,

430 m, 15-20 Mar. 2003, coll. M.E. Irwin & M. Shepard, Malaise trap (BBSL).

Paratypes

DOMINICA: 2 33, St. Paul Parish, topotypical (BBSL); 1 $, ATREC, Springfield, 345 m, 15.34656°

N, 61.36901° W, 3 Jun. 2014, coll. S.K. Kilpatrick, pan traps (TAMUIC); 1 §, ATREC, Springfield,

345 m, 15.34656° N, 61.36901° W, 6 Jun. 2014, coll. S.K. Kilpatrick, pan traps (TAMUIC); 2

ATREC, Springfield, 345 m, 15.34656° N, 61.36901° W, 7-8 Jun. 2014, coll. S.K. Kilpatrick, pan

traps (TAMUIC); 2 33, St. Joseph Parish, Clarke Hall, Layou Valley, 10-17 Feb. 1965, coll. H E.

Evans (NMNH); 1 $, Clarke Hall, 19-22 Oct. 1964, coll. PJ. Spangler (NMNH); 2 $$, Clarke Hall,

11-20 Jan. 1965, coll. W.W. Wirth, Malaise trap (NMNH); 1 $, Clarke Hall, 21-31 Jan. 1965, coll.

W.W. Wirth, Malaise trap (NMNH); 1 $, Clarke Hall, 11-20 Feb. 1965, coll. W.W. Wirth, Malaise trap

(NMNH); 4 S3, St. George Parish, Roseau, 8 Mar. 1965, coll. H E. Evans (NMNH); 2 33, Roseau

Valley, 9 Sep. 1937, coll. W. Richards (NHMUK); 1 3, St. Luke Parish, S Chiltern, 2 Nov. 1966, coll.

A.B. Gurney (NMNH); 1 §, St. Patrick Parish, Grany Bay, 4 Sep. 1965, coll. D.L. Jackson (NMNH).

Description

Male

Measurements (n = 4). Length 3.5-3.8 mm (mean = 3.7); head length 1.0-1.1 mm (mean = 1.1); head

width 1.2 mm (mean = 1.2); intertegular distance 0.7-0.8 mm (mean = 0.7).

Colouration. Body blackish-brown, except as follows. Mandible yellow with red apex. Clypeus distal

half dark brown. Flagellum with ventral surface dark reddish brown. Tegula dark yellowish brown.

Wing membrane faintly dusky with dark setae, venation and pterostigma brown. Legs dark brown,

except medio- and distitarsi and portions of metabasitarsus reddish brown.

Pubescence. Dull white. Sparse erect setae throughout, face below frons with tomentum partially

obscuring clypeus, denser on lower paraocular area. Gena adjacent to eye with sparse tomentum.

Surface sculpture. Face polished, punctation fine. Clypeus punctation dense (i = 1-1.5 pd). Supraclypeal

area, lower and upper paraocular areas and frons densely punctate (i < pd). Ocellocular area sparsely

punctate (i = 1-2 pd). Gena and postgena polished, finely punctate-lineolate. Mesoscutum polished;

punctation moderately coarse, finer laterally, relatively dense laterad of parapsidal lines (i = 1-1.5 pd),

sparser on posterior and medial area of disc (i = 1-3 pd); mesoscutellum similar. Metanotum rugulose.

Preepisternum reticulate rugulose. Hypoepimeral area finely rugulose. Mesepisternum below scrobe

finely rugulose, with narrow smooth posterior margin. Metepisternum rugulose. Metapostnotum with

longitudinal carinulae reaching 2 /3 distance to posterior margin, posterior margin smooth. Propodeum

posterior and lateral surfaces smooth, with irregular sparse rugae. Metasomal terga polished, finely

coriarious on apical impressed areas; punctation fine, present on basal portions (i = 1-2 pd), sparser (i =

1—4 pd) but distinct on Tl; apical impressed areas impunctate. Metasomal sterna coriarious and finely,

sparsely punctate (i = 2-4 pd).

Structure. Head round (length/width ratio = 0.85-0.86). Eyes weakly convergent below. Clypeus !4

below suborbital tangent. Frontal line deeply impressed below median ocellus. Gena narrower than

eye. Hypostomal carinae subparallel. Occipital carina small but distinct. Pronotal dorsolateral angle

orthogonal. Pronotal ridge carinate, interrupted by sulcus. Tegula ovoid. Submarginal cells three (lrs-m

present), 2 nd submarginal cell posterior length approximately equal to anterior length of 3 rd submarginal

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Fig. 12. Sphecodes albifacies sp. nov. Paratype, $. A. Face. B. Lateral habitus. C. Dorsum of mesosoma.

Scale bars = 1 mm.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Fig. 13. Mesepistemum of species of Sphecodes Latreille, 1804 from Dominica. Arrows indicate smooth

area on posterior margin. A. Sphecodes diablotinus sp. nov. B. S. albifacies sp. nov.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

cell. Distal hamuli arranged 2-2.2 nd tarsal segment narrow at base, length as long as 3 rd tarsus. Propodeum

with lateral carina reaching 2 /3 distance to dorsal margin; oblique carina fine.

Terminalia. As shown in Fig. 14C-D.

Female

Measurements (n = 4). Length 3.7—4.1 mm (mean = 3.8); head length 1.1 mm (mean = 1.1); head width

1.3-1.4 mm (mean = 1.4); intertegular distance 0.8 mm (mean = 0.8).

Colouration. Body blackish-brown, except as follows. Mandible yellow with red apex. Flagellum with

ventral surface dark reddish brown. Tegula dark reddish brown. Wing membrane faintly dusky with dark

setae, venation and pterostigma brown. Legs dark brown, except medio- and distitarsi and portions of

metabasitarsus reddish brown. T1-T3 reddish orange, T4-T6 dark brown.

Pubescence. Dull white. Sparse erect setae throughout. Subappressed tomentum on the following:

paraocular area below eye emargination, gena, pronotum dorsolateral angle, pronotal lobe, and

preepisternum. Mesofemur and mesotibia without pollen brush. Metafemur without scopa. Metatibia

with thick setae on dorsal margin. Penicillis absent. Posterior propodeal surface with sparse short setae

below longer erect setae. Metasomal sterna without scopa.

Surface sculpture. Face polished, punctation fine. Clypeus punctation dense (i = 1-1.5 pd). Supraclypeal

area, lower and upper paraocular areas and frons densely punctate (i < pd). Ocellocular area sparsely

punctate (i= 1-2 pd). Postgena polished, gena finely punctate-lineolate. Mesoscutum polished; punctation

moderately coarse, relatively dense laterad of parapsidal lines (i = 1-1.5 pd), sparser on posterior and

medial area of disc (i = 1-2 pd); mesoscutellum similar, submedial patch nearly impunctate. Metanotum

rugulose. Preepisternum reticulate rugulose. Hypoepimeral area finely rugulose. Mesepisternum below

scrobe finely rugulose, with narrow, smooth posterior margin. Metepisternum rugulose. Metapostnotum

with longitudinal carinulae reaching 2 A distance to posterior margin, posterior margin smooth. Propodeum

posterior and lateral surfaces reticulate rugulose. T1-T2 polished, nearly impunctate, T3-T5 weakly

coriarious, basal areas with very fine obscure punctation (i = 1-3 pd), virtually absent on Tl; apical

impressed areas impunctate. Metasomal sterna coriarious and finely, sparsely punctate (i = 2-4 pd).

Structure. Head wide (length/width ratio = 0.77-0.82). Eyes weakly convergent below. Labrum broad,

without apical projection or dorsal keel. Clypeus V 2 below suborbital tangent. Mandible simple, without

preapical tooth. Gena narrower than eye. Hypostomal carinae subparallel. Occipital carina small but

distinct. Flagellum 1 distinctly broader than long on dorsal surface, shorter than pedicel. Pronotal

dorsolateral angle acute. Pronotal ridge carinate, interrupted by sulcus. Tegula ovoid. Submarginal cells

three (lrs-m present), 2 nd submarginal cell narrow, posterior length slightly less than anterior length

of 3 rd submarginal cell. Distal hamuli arranged 2-2. Inner metatibial spur minutely serrate. Basitibial

plate indistinct, represented by minute glabrous spot. Metatarsus 2 narrow at base, length as long as

metatarsus 3. Propodeum with lateral carina diverging dorsally, reaching !4 distance to dorsal margin;

oblique carina indistinct. T5 without evident pseudopygidial area, T6 with narrow pygidial plate.

Remarks

The holotype male of S. nigritus Ashmead, 1900 (NHMUK) was examined and found to have dense

pubescence on the face, like S. albifacies sp. nov., but also a large smooth triangular area on the posterior

mesepisternum. There does not yet seem to be any overlap in the halictid faunae of St. Vincent and the

Grenadines (from where S. nigritus was described) and Dominica. There are only two other species of

Sphecodes in the West Indies, both described from Cuba (Engel 2006b) and one of these, S. tainoi Engel,

2006, has subsequently been recorded from Puerto Rico (Engel & Prado 2014).

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Fig. 14. — Genital capsule of Sphecodes diablotinus sp. nov. Paratype, S- A. Dorsal view. B. Ventral

view. — Genital capsule of Sphecodes albifacies sp. nov. Paratype, $. C. Dorsal view. D. Ventral view.

Scale bars = 1 mm.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Genus Microsphecodes Eickwort & Stage, 1972

Sphecodes (Microsphecodes ) Eickwort & Stage, 1972: 501 (type species: Sphecodes kathleenae

Eickwort, 1972, by original designation).

Microsphecodes dominicanus (Stage, 1972)

Figs 15A-C, 16A-C

Sphecodes (. Microsphecodes ) dominicanus Stage in Eickwort & Stage, 1972: 509, figs 17-27.

Type locality

DOMINICA: S Chiltem, 1600 ft., 19 Feb. 1965, coll. H.E. Evans (holotype, NMNH).

Material examined

Type material

DOMINICA: 1 c?, paratype, St. Joseph Parish, Clarke Hall, Layou Valley, 4-7 Feb. 1965, coll. H.E.

Evans (NMNH); 1 S, paratype, Clarke Hall, Layou Valley, 2-13 Mar. 1965, coll. H.E. Evans (NMNH).

Other material

DOMINICA: 1 $, St. Paul Parish, ATR[E]C, Springfield, Fill Trail, ‘site 2’, 15°2HN, 61°22’ W, 442 m,

24 MayM Jun. 2003, coll. T. Decker & W. Wells, Malaise trap, voucher #645 (TAMUIC).

Description

Female

Measurements (n = 1). Length 3.4 mm; head length 0.9 mm; head width 1.1 mm; intertegular distance

0.6 mm

Colouration. Head blackish-brown, except clypeal distal margin, labrum, mandible and anterior surface

of scape testaceous. Flagellum dark reddish brown. Mesosoma including tegula and legs testaceous,

except mesonotum reddish orange, mesoscutellum with dark brown patch. Wing membrane faintly

dusky, with dark setae, venation and pterostigma dark brown. Metasoma testaceous, except apex of

T1-T4 reddish orange, T5-T6 and apex of T4 dark brown.

Pubescence. Dull white. Sparse erect setae throughout. Subappressed tomentum on face below eye

emargination. Mesofemur and mesotibia without pollen brush. Metafemur without scopa. Metatibia

with thick setae on dorsal edge. Penicillis absent. Metasomal sterna without scopa.

Surface sculpture. Face polished, punctation fine. Clypeus punctation dense (i = 1—1.5 pd). Supraclypeal

area, lower and upper paraocular areas and Irons densely punctate (i < pd). Ocellocular area punctate

(i < pd). Postgena wealdy imbricate, gena finely punctate-lineolate. Mesoscutum polished; punctation

moderately coarse, relatively dense laterad of parapsidal lines (i = 1-1.5 pd), sparser on posterior and

medial area of disc (i = 1-3 pd); mesoscutellum similar. Metanotum rugulose. Preepistemum reticulate

rugulose. Hypoepimeral area finely punctate. Mesepisternum below scrobe finely rugulose, ventral

half smooth. Metepisternum with longitudinal carinulae. Metapostnotum reticulate-rugose. Propodeum

posterior and lateral surfaces reticulate rugulose. T1-T6 polished, T3-T5 weakly coriarious basally.

Metasomal sterna coriarious and finely, sparsely punctate (i = 2-A pd).

Structure. Head wide (length/width ratio = 0.8). Eyes weakly convergent below. Labrum broad, without

apical projection or dorsal keel. Clypeus !4 below suborbital tangent. Mandible simple, without preapical

tooth. Gena narrower than eye. Hypostomal carinae diverging towards mandible. F1 much broader than

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Fig. 15. Microsphecodes dominicanus (Stage, 1972), §. A. Face. B. Lateral habitus. C. Dorsum of

mesosoma. Scale bars = 1 mm.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Fig. 16. Microsphecodes dominicanus (Stage, 1972). Paratype, S- A. Face. B. Lateral habitus.

C. Dorsum of mesosoma. Scale bars = 1 mm.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

long, shorter than pedicel. Pronotal dorsolateral angle acute. Pronotal ridge carinate, interrupted by

sulcus. Tegula ovoid. Submarginal cells three (lrs-m present), 2 nd submarginal cell narrow, posterior

length slightly less than anterior length of 3 rd submarginal cell. Distal hamuli arranged 2-2. Inn er

metatibial spur minutely serrate. Legs slender. Basitibial absent. Metatarsus 2 narrow at base, length

as long as metatarsus 3. Propodeum with lateral carina, reaching l A distance to dorsal margin; oblique

carina fine. T5 without evident pseudopygidial area, T6 with narrow pygidial plate.

Remarks

The female of Microsphecodes dominicanus is described above for the first time. Both sexes can be

distinguished easily from the two Sphecodes described above by the presence of yellow-testaceous

colour on the legs and mesosoma (Figs 15B, 16B) and the reticulate rugae present on the metapostnotum

and posterior propodeal surface (Figs 15C, 16C; see also Eickwort & Stage 1972: figs 17-18). The

host of M. dominicanus is unknown, but Microsphecodes are known to parasitize both Habralictus and

Lasioglossum (Michener 1978; Michener et al. 1979). The single female specimen was collected at the

same site as were seven specimens of H. gonzalezi and a single specimen of L. kalinago sp. nov., but

L. dominicense sp. nov. is also known from nearby sites.

The use of Microsphecodes at the generic level is questionable. Sphecodes (Austrosphecodes ) is evidently

rendered paraphyletic by Microsphecodes based on molecular phylogenetic results (Habermannova et

al. 2013). The implication of these results is that some or all Austrosphecodes should be synonymized

with Microsphecodes. The latter name has priority, but if Austrosphecodes is treated at only the

subgeneric level, then Microsphecodes should also be treated as a subgenus of Sphecodes. The current

phylogenetic hypothesis would allow for Austrosphecodes and Microsphecodes combined to be treated

at the generic level since together they form the sister group to other species included in the phylogeny

(Habermannova et al. 2013). Full taxon sampling of major sphecodine groups has not been completed.

The West Indian genus Nesosphecodes Engel, 2006, for example, also needs to be included in future

studies of sphecodine bees. Until a more complete revision of the higher level systematics of the

Sphecodini is completed, Microsphecodes is used as a genus following current usage (Michener 2007)

despite the apparent synonymy.

Tribe Caenohalictini Michener, 1954

Genus Habralictus Moure, 1941

Habralictus Moure, 1941: 59 (type species: Habralictus flavopictus Moure, 1941, by original

designation).

Zikaniella Moms, 1941: 57 (type species: Zikaniella crassiceps Moure, 1941, by original designation).

Habralictus antillarus sp. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:0AF3E368-ACF0-4F9B-99AD-115866DlA12B

Figs 17A-C, 18A-C, 19A-B

Diagnosis

Males of Habralictus antillarus sp. nov. can be distinguished from H. gonzalezi by head wide (length/

width ratio = 0.84-0.85), clypeus with distal yellow maculation less than A longitudinal length of

clypeus (Fig. 18A), and gonostylus short, with numerous distinct setae (Fig. 19A-B). In H. gonzalezi

males, the head is longer (length/width ratio = 0.95-0.96), clypeal maculation is A the longitudinal

length of the clypeus (Fig. 21 A; Gibbs 2012: fig. 8), and the gonostylus is long, clavate, with a single

distinct seta (Gibbs 2012: figs 12-13).

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Fig. 17. Habralictus antillarus sp. nov. Paratype, $. A. Face. B. Lateral habitus. C. Dorsum ofmesosoma.

Scale bars = 1 mm.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Females of H. antillarus sp. nov. have a slightly wider head (length/width ratio = 0.90) and distal dark

brown maculation of the clypeus is only Vs the longitudinal length of the clypeus (Fig. 17A). In females of

H. gonzalezi , the head is longer (length/width ratio = 0.92-0.97) and the clypeal dark maculation is

Vi the longitudinal length of the clypeus (Fig. 20A). Furthermore, the dark integument of the lower

paraocular area extends to the eye emargination in H. antillarus sp. nov. (Fig. 17A), but only to the lower

margin of the antennal socket in H. gonzalezi (Fig. 20A; Gibbs 2012: fig. 2). Lasioglossum roseauense

sp. nov. is superficially similar, but can be distinguished by generic characters such as the weak distal

venation of the forewing, including the absence of lrs-m (Fig. 8B).

Type material

Holotype

DOMINICA: S, St. George Parish, Freshwater Lake, 21 Jan. 1965, coll. W.W. Wirth, Bredin-Archbold

Smithsonian Biodiversity Survey (NMNH).

Paratypes

DOMINICA: 1 §, St. George Parish, topotypical, (NMNH); 3 $$, Freshwater Lake, 2500', 6 Mar.

1965, coll. H.E. Evans (NMNH).

Description

Female

Measurements (n = 1). Length 5.0 mm; head length 1.2 mm ; head width 1.4 mm ; intertegular distance

0.9 mm.

Colouration. Head and mesosoma iridescent golden-green, except as follows. Labrum brown. Mandible

yellow with red apex. Clypeus distal margin dark brown. Antenna dark brown. Pronotal lobe brown.

Tegula dark reddish brown. Wing membrane hyaline, with dark setae, venation and pterostigma brown.

Legs yellow. Metasomal terga reddish brown, yellow basad of graduli.

Pubescence. Dull white to dark brown. Relatively sparse erect setae throughout, without tomentum,

except on gena near eye, pronotal lobe and posterior surface of propodeum. Metasomal T1 anterior

surface bare. T3 with sparse, erect dark setae. T4-T5 with very long dark setae, most evident laterally.

Scopa well developed on hind leg and metasomal sterna, meso- and metatibia and tarsi with dark setae.

Surface sculpture. Head and mesosoma granular-tessellate, punctation indistinct. Metapostnotum

medially with weak rugae, not reaching more than half distance to posterior margin, oblique carinulae on

lateral portions extending to dorsolateral slope. Metasomal terga polished, T1-T2 virtually impunctate,

T3 sparsely punctate (i = 3-6 pd), T4 sparsely punctate (i = 2-4 pd), apical impressed areas impunctate,

T1-T2 apical impressed areas impunctate except near lateral margins. Metasomal sterna smooth,

piliferous punctures present on apical half (i = 1-2.5 pd).

Structure. Head wide (length/width ratio = 0.90). Eyes weakly convergent below. Clypeus 2 A below

suborbital tangent. Gena narrower than eye. Hypostomal carinae weakly divergent. Pronotal dorsolateral

angle obtuse. Pronotal ridge rounded, interrupted by sulcus. Tegula ovoid. Submarginal cells three (lrs-m

present). Distal hamuli arranged 2-1-2. Inner metatibial spur pectinate, with 4 branches, proximal branch

much longer than width of rachis. Metapostnotum narrowly rounded onto posterior propodeal surface;

longitudinal length greater than apical width. Propodeum with lateral carina reaching less than Vi

distance to dorsal margin; oblique carina absent. Metasomal terga strongly reflexed laterally, metasoma

appearing relatively flat. T2-T4 impressed areas medially about Vi longitudinal length of basal area.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Fig. 18. Habralictus antillarus sp. nov. Holotype, <$■ A. Face. B. Lateral habitus. C. Dorsum of

mesosoma. Scale bars = 1 mm.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Male

Measurements (n = 3). Length 4.3M.8 mm (mean = 4.4); head length 0.9-1.3 mm (mean = 1.1); head

width 1.1-1.5 mm (mean = 1.3); intertegular distance 0.7-0.9 mm (mean = 0.8).

Colouration. Similar to female except labram yellow, clypeus distal margin very narrowly yellow, F2-

F11 reddish to yellowish brown ventrally, and metacoxa metallic.

Pubescence. Similar to female except scopa absent.

Surface sculpture. Similar to female except punctation on T4 sparser (i = 4-8 pd).

Structure. Similar to female, with typical sexual differences. Head wide (length/width ratio = 0.84-

0.85), eyes more distinctly convergent below. F2 length nearly 2 x FI. Scape, pedicel and FI reaching

lower margin of median ocellus. Flagellomeres broadening towards apex. Inner metatibial spur simple,

unbranched. Metasoma slender, widening towards T4-T5; not so strongly reflexed laterally. T2-T4

apical impressed areas less than Vs of median length.

Terminalia. As shown in Fig. 19A-B. Gonostylus short, length and width subequal, with numerous long

setae.

Fig. 19. Genital capsule of Habralictus antillarus sp. nov. Paratype, <f. A. Dorsal view. B. Ventral view.

Scale bar = 1 mm.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Habralictus gonzalezi Gibbs, 2012

Figs 20A-C, 21A-C

Habralictus gonzalezi Gibbs, 2012: 3, figs 1-14.

Material examined

Holotype

DOMINICA: 5, St. Paul Parish, “Parish of St. Joseph” [sic], Springfield Estate, 15.34667° N, 61.3683°

W, 430 m, 15-20 Mar. 2003, coll. M.E. Irwin & M. Shepard, Malaise trap (BBSL; the type series is from

St. Paul Parish, collected at ATREC).

Other material

DOMINICA: 5 ??, St. Paul Parish, ATR[E]C Springfield, Fill Trail, ‘site 2’, 15°2E N, 61°22’ W,

442 m, 24 MayM Jun. 2003, coll. T. Decker & W. Wells, Malaise trap, voucher #645 (TAMUIC);

2 33, ATR[E]C Springfield, Fill Trail, ‘site 2’, 15°2E N, 61°22’ W, 442 m, 24 May^t Jun. 2003, coll.

T. Decker & W. Wells, Malaise trap (TAMUIC); 1 ?, ATR[E]C Springfield, Fill Trail, ‘site 2’, 15°2E

N, 61°22’ W, 442 m, 24 May^l Jun. 2003, coll. T. Decker & W. Wells, yellow pan trap, voucher #645

(TAMUIC); 2 $ $, ATR[E]C Springfield, Mt Joy trail, ‘site 3’, 15°2E N, 61°22’ W, 424 m, 24 MayM

Jun. 2003, coll. T. Decker & W. Wells, flight intercept trap, voucher #645 (TAMUIC); 3 $ ATR[E]C

Springfield, Mt Joy trail, ‘site 5’, 15°2E N, 61°22’ W, 497 m, 28 May^t Jun. 2003, coll. T. Decker & W.

Wells, Malaise trap, voucher #645 (TAMUIC); 1 3, ATR[E]C Springfield, Mt Joy trail, ‘site 5’, 15°2U

N, 61°22’ W, 497 m, 28 MayM Jun. 2003, coll. T. Decker & W. Wells, Malaise trap (TAMUIC); 1 3 ,

ATR[E]C Springfield, Mt Joy trail, ‘site 5’, 15°2E N, 61°22’ W, 497 m, 28 May-4 Jun. 2003, coll. T.

Decker & W. Wells, flight intercept trap (TAMUIC).

Remarks

Habralictus gonzalezi is the most northerly distributed species of the genus known to occur in the

Caribbean Islands. It can easily be distinguished from other bees on the island, except for H. antillarus

sp. nov., by the various characters diagnostic for the tribe and genus (Michener 2007). The diagnosis

provided for H. antillarus sp. nov. above can be used to distinguish these two species. The bright metallic

colouration of the head and mesosoma (Figs 20C, 21C) will distinguish it from the dull metallic, black

or testaceous colours of most of the halictine and sphecodine bees above. Lasioglossum roseauense

sp. nov. is superficially similar, but the absence of vein lrs-m (Fig.8) and the more distinct mesoscutal

punctation (Fig. 8C) clearly differentiate it from H. gonzalezi. Diagnostic characters, additional images

and a key for discriminating this species from other Habralictus in the Lesser Antilles are available in

the original description (Gibbs 2012).

Tribe Augochlorini Beebe, 1925

Genus Augochlora Smith, 1853

Subgenus Augochlora Smith, 1853

Augochlora Smith, 1853: 73 (type species: Halictus purus Say, 1837, by subsequent designation in

Cockerell 1923: 448).

Oxystoglossa Smith, 1853: 83 (type species: Oxystoglossa decorata Smith, 1853, by monotypy).

Augochlora Schrottky, 1901: 213, lapsus calami.

Odontochlora Schrottky, 1909: 141 (type species: Augochlora mulleri Cockerell, 1900, by original

designation).

Augochlora (Mycterochlora ) Eickwort, 1969: 423 (type species: Halictus repandirostris Vachal, 1911,

by original designation).

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Fig. 20. Habralictus gonzalezi Gibbs, 2012, §. A. Face. B. Lateral habitus. C. Dorsum of mesosoma.

Scale bars = 1 mm.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Fig. 21. Habralictus gonzalezi Gibbs, 2012, <$■ A. Face. B. Lateral habitus. C. Dorsum of mesosoma.

Scale bars = 1 mm.

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Augochlora ( Augochlora ) ignifera Crawford, 1914

Fig. 22A-C

Augochlora ignifera Crawford, 1914: 46.

Type locality

DOMINICA: Yale Expedition 1913, Jun. -Jul. 1913, coll. H.W. Foote, Cat. No. USNM 16734 (NMNH,

holotype, $).

Remarks

Augochlora ignifera is the only member of this genus and tribe currently known from the island, and it

can easily be distinguished from other halictid bees on that basis. The female is particularly distinctive

due to the fiery red iridescence covering most of the head, mesosoma and metasoma (Fig. 22A-C). The

wings are faintly dusky. The male has a more coppery and greenish tone (Crawford 1914). The closest

islands with a relatively well known halictid fauna are St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Six augochlorine

bees are recorded from those islands (Ashmead 1900; Moure 2007). Future studies should compare

A. ignifera to these species and others which presumably occur on intermediary islands but remain

undocumented.

Key to the Halsctidae of Dominica

1. Head and mesosoma lacking metallic reflections; female without scopa .2

- Head and mesosoma with metallic reflections; female with scopa .4

2. Tegs entirely orange-testaceous (Figs 15B, 16B); mesepisternum reddish to testaceous; marginal

cell with basal fourth or less subtended by submarginal cells; metapostnotum completely covered

in reticulate rugae (Figs 15C, 16C) . Microsphecodes dominicanus (Stage, 1972)

- Tegs mostly dark brown (Figs 9B, 10B, 11B, 12B); mesepisternum black; marginal cell

with basal third or more subtended by submarginal cells; metapostnotum with longitudinal

carinulae restricted to basal portion (Figs 9C, 10C, 11C, 12C) .3

3. Male face mostly bare (Fig. 9A); female metasoma red on T1-T4 (Fig. 10B); both sexes with

mesepisternum below scrobe with smooth triangular posterior area (Fig. 13A).

. Sphecodes diablotinus sp. nov.

- Male face covered in white pubescence (Fig. 11 A); female metasoma red on T1-T3 (Fig. 12B);

both sexes with mesepisternum below scrobe with narrow smooth posterior margin (Fig. 13B)

. Sphecodes albifacies sp. nov.

4. Metallic red colouration extending over entire body, distinctive on metasomal terga (Fig. 22B);

female T5 with median longitudinal specialized area divided; male T7 without preapical

carina forming false apex . Augochlora ignifera Crawford, 1914

- Metallic colouration limited to head and mesosoma; female T5 with median longitudinal

specialized area not divided (may be absent); male T7 with preapical carina forming false apex

....5

5. Head and mesosoma with granular microsculpture, mesoscutal punctation sparse and often

obscure; metapostnotum without distinct rugae or carinulae covering most of the surface;

female without T1 appressed setose fan .6

- Head and mesosoma with imbricate microsculpture; mesoscutal punctation dense at least

laterally and distinct; metapostnotum with distinct rugae or carinulae covering most of the

surface; female with T1 appressed setose fan .9

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

1.0 mm

Fig. 22. Augochlora ignifera Crawford, 1914. Holotype, $. A. Face. B. Lateral habitus. C. Dorsal

habitus. Images of A. ignifera provided with the permission of the National Museum of Natural History,

Smithsonian Institution, 10th and Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20560-0193 t http://www.

nmnh .si.edu/ ).

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

6. Two submarginal cells (Fig. 8B); mesoscutal punctation sparse, but distinct; male unknown

. Lasioglossum roseauense sp. nov.

- Three submarginal cells; mesoscutal punctation obscure .7

7. Second and third submarginal cells weak; head longer than wide (length/width ratio = 1.02;

Fig. 7A); male unknown (antenna unlikely to be clavate).

. Lasioglossum punctifrons (Crawford, 1914)

- Second and third submarginal cells strong; head usually wider than long (length/width ratio =

0.84-0.97); male with clavate antenna, slender T1-T2 (Figs 18B, 21B-C) .8

8. Clypeal yellow or dark brown distal maculation narrow (Vs longitudinal distance in male,

!4 longitudinal distance in female) (Figs 17A, 18A); metapostnotum longitudinal length

greater than apical width (Figs 17B, 18B); male head distinctly wider than long (length/width

ratio = 0.84-0.85) (Fig. 18A). Habralictus antillarus sp. nov.

- Clypeal yellow or dark brown distal maculation broad QA longitudinal distance in male, Vi

longitudinal distance in female) (Figs 20A, 21 A); metapostnotum longitudinal length subequal

to apical width (Figs 20B, 2 IB); male head narrower (length/width ratio = 0.95-0.96) (Fig. 21 A)

. Habralictus gonzalezi Gibbs, 2012

9. Hypoepimeral area finely rugulose, without distinct punctures; mesepisternum below scrobe

reticulate-rugulose; mesoscutal setae a mix of brown and dull white; male unknown.

. Lasioglossum kalinago sp. nov.

- Hypoepimeral area smooth, with distinct punctures; mesepisternum below scrobe punctate;

mesoscutal setae dull white .10

10. Head short (length/width ratio = 0.9; Figs 2A, 3A); smaller in size (body length ~ 4 mm) .

. Lasioglossum dominicense sp. nov.

- Head longer (length/width ratio = 1.0; Figs 5A, 6A); larger in size (body length ~ 5 mm) .

. Lasioglossum kilpatrickae sp. nov.

Discussion

Bees are widely recognized as the most important animal pollinators of wildflowers and agricultural

crops (Brown & Paxton 2009). Reports of pollinator declines have led to increased interest in bees,

yet there remains limited knowledge of bee taxonomy for many regions. This lack of understanding

is due to a dearth of taxonomic expertise and revisionary studies. For the most species-rich genus

of bee, Lasioglossum , revisions remain largely incomplete for North America, with the exception of

Lasioglossum s. s. and L. (.Leuchalictus ) (McGinley 1986), L. (Dialictus) for Canada and the eastern

USA (Gibbs 2010, 2011), and L. ( Hemihalictus s.l.) and L. (Sphecodogastra s.l. ) for eastern North

America and, in part, the West (Gibbs et al. 2013; McGinley 2003). Many North American species of

this abundant taxon still await description.

The halictid fauna of the West Indies has been poorly studied in the past, likely due to the perceived

difficulty of the group and the lack of general interest in such a depauperate bee fauna. Studies of West

Indian halictid bees, particularly in the Greater Antilles, were initiated by George C. Eickwort (Eickwort

1988), before his untimely death in Jamaica (Wcislo et al. 1994). More recently, there has been a limited

number of studies in the region, but most of these have been haphazard descriptions of only one or a

few species (e.g., Engel 2011; Gibbs 2012), which provide limited context to understanding the broader

diversity of the islands, or have been checklists which do not include coverage of halictid bees (Meurgey

2014). To begin to resolve this lack of understanding, a complete survey of all halictid bees from

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Dominica has been provided herein. Prior to this work, the halictid bee fauna of Dominica went largely

unstudied for more than a century. There are no described halictid bees reported from several islands in

the West Indies (e.g., Montserrat, Martinique, Guadeloupe, St. Tucia, Antigua and Barbuda), but this is

due to a lack of sampling and taxonomic studies in the area rather than true absence. Additional studies

of other regions in the West Indies are underway (J. Gibbs, unpublished data; A. Pauly, in lift.) as steps

towards a more complete understanding of the regional bee fauna.

Acknowledgements

Material used in this study was made available through generous loans of specimens from Brian Harris

and Sean Brady (NMNH), Terry Griswold (BBSL), Kevin Williams (FSCA), David Notton (NHMUK),

Eli Wyman and Jerry Rozen (AMNH) and Ed Riley (TAMUIC). Additional loans from other institutions

provided the comparative material necessary to understand the fauna of adjacent islands. Alain Pauly

generously provided specimens from Martinique for comparison. Shelby Kilpatrick (TAMUIC) collected

material for this study while traveling in Dominica. Post-doctoral support for the author was made

available by funding from the USDA Specialty Crop Research Initiative (2012-51181-20105). Imaging

equipment was purchased with funds from MSU Project GREEEN #GR14-053.1 thank two anonymous

reviewers for their helpful co mm ents on the manuscript.

References

Ascher J.S. & Pickering J. 2015. Discover Life Bee Species Guide and World Checklist (Hymenoptera:

Apoidea: Anthophila). Draft-41. Available from http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/2Oq?guide=Apoidea_

species [accessed 22 Jan. 2016]

Ashmead W.H. 1900. VI. Report upon the aculeate Hymenoptera of the islands of St. Vincent and

Grenada, with additions to the parasitic Hymenoptera and a list of the described Hymenoptera of the

West Indies. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 48 (2): 207-367. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1111/i, 1365-2311.1900.tb02379.x

Baker C.F. 1906. Halictinae de Cuba. In: Earle F.S. (ed.) Primer Informe de la Estacion Central

Agronomica\ 253-274. Ruiz y Hermano, Havana.

Beebe W. 1925. Studies of a tropical jungle; one quarter of a square mile of jungle at Kartabo, British

Guiana. Zoologica 6: 5-193.

Bliithgen P. 1823. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Bienengattung Halictns Latr. Archiv fur Naturgeschichte,

AbteilungA 89: 232-332.

Brown M.J.F. & Paxton R.J. 2009. The conservation of bees: a global perspective. Apidologie 40: 410-

416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/apido/2009Q19

Brulle G.A. 1840. Insectes. In: Barker-Webb M.P & Berthelot S. (eds) Histoire Naturelle des

lies Canaries, Vol. 2, Part 2\ 55-95. Bethune, Paris. Available from http://biodiversitylibrarv.org/

page/41308628 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Buysson R. 1900. Sur quelques hymenopteres de Madagascar. Annales de la Societe Entomologique

de France 69: 177-180. Available from http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8249711 [accessed 29 Feb.

2016]

Cockerell T.D.A. 1900. Descriptions of new bees collected by Mr. H.H. Smith in Brazil. I. Proceedings

of the Academy of Natural Sciences 52: 356-377. Available from http://biodiversitylibrarv.org/

page/24694236 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Cockerell T.D.A. 1923. XLIII. Some bees from British Guiana. Annals and Magazine of Natural History

9: 442-459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002229323Q8632869

Crawford J.C. 1914. Hymenoptera, superfamilies Apoidea and Chalcidoidea, of the Yale Dominican

expedition of 1913. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 47: 131-134. Available from

http://biodiversitvlibrarv.org/page/7762803 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Curtis J. 1933. British Entomology; being Illustrations and Descriptions of the Genera of Insects found

in Great Britain and Ireland: ... Vol. X. Privately published, London.

DanforthB.N., Brady S.G., Sipes S.D. & Pearson A. 2004. Single-copy nuclear genes recover Cretaceous-

age divergences in bees. Systematic Biology 53:309-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1063515049Q423737

Ducke A. 1902. Ein neues Subgenus von Halictus Latr. Zeitschrift fur Systematische Hymenopterologie

undDipterologie 2: 102-103. Available from http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13367938 [accessed 29

Feb. 2016]

Eickwort G.C. 1969. A comparative morphological study and generic revision of the augochlorine bees

(Hymenoptera: Halictidae). University of Kansas Science Bulletin 48: 325-524. Available from http://

biodiversitvlibrarv.org/page/3279444 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Eickwort G.C. 1988. Distribution patterns and biology of West Indian sweat bees (Hymenoptera:

Halictidae). In: Liebherr J.K. (ed.) Zoogeography of Caribbean Insects: 232-253. Cornell University

Press, Ithaca, New York.

Eickwort G.C. & Stage G.I. 1972. A new subgenus of Neotropical Sphecodes cleptoparasitic upon

Dialictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae, Halictinae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 45: 500-

515.

Engel M.S. 2001a. A monograph of the Baltic amber bees and evolution of the Apoidea (Hymenoptera).

Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 259: 1-192.

Engel M.S. 2001b. Three new Habralictellus bee species from the Caribbean (Hymenoptera: Halictidae).

Solenodon 1: 33-37.

Engel M.S. 2006a. A new species of Microsphecodes from St. Kitts (West Indies) (Hymenoptera:

Halictidae). Mitteilungen des Internationalen Entomologischen Vereins 31:51-54.

Engel M.S. 2006b. The Sphecodes of Cuba (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia

49B: 73-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.3409/0000000Q6783995355

Engel M.S. 2011 .Anew species of Dialictus from Sombrero Island, Anguilla (Hymenoptera, Halictidae).

ZooKeys 86: 61-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookevs.86.909

Engel M.S. & Prado S.G. 2014. First record of the cleptoparasitic bee genus Sphecodes from Puerto Rico

(Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Journal of Melittology 39: 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.17161/jom.v0i39.4781

Erichson W.F. 1835. Beschreibung von 19 neuen Hymenopteren aus Andalusien. In: Waltl J. (ed.) Reise

durch Tyrol, Oberitalien und Piemont nach dem sudlichen Spanien, nebst einem Anhange zoologischen

Inhalts (Uber die Thiere Andalusiens): 101-109. Verlag der Pustet’schen Buchhandlung (J.F. Winlder),

Passau, Germany.

Evans H.E. 1972. Bredin-Archbold-Smithsonian Biological Survey of Dominica: aculeate wasps

(Hymenoptera: Scolioidea, Vespoidea, Pompiloidea, Sphecoidea). Smithsonian Contributions to

Zoology 115: 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.5479/si.0Q810282.115

Fabricius J.C. 1793. Entomologia Systematica Emendata etAucta. Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera,

Species Adjectis Synonymis, Locis, Observationibus, Descriptionibus, Vol. 2. Pro ft, Copenhagen.

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Fabricius J.C. 1804. Systerna Piezatorum Secundum Ordines, Genera, Species Adiectis Synonymis,

Locis, Observationibus, Descriptionibus. Reichard, Braunschweig.

Friese H. 1909. Die Bienenfauna von Neu-Guinea. Annales Musei Nationals Hungarici 7: 179-288.

Genaro J. A. & Franz N.M. 2008. The bees of greater Puerto Rico (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila).

Inseeta Mundi 40: 1-24.

Gibbs J. 2009a. Integrative taxonomy identifies new (and old) species in the Lasioglossum ( Dialictus )

tegulare (Robertson) species group (Hymenoptera, Halictidae). Zootaxa 2032: 1-38.

Gibbs J.J. 2009b. New species in the Lasioglossum petrellum species group identified through an

integrative taxonomic approach. The Canadian Entomologist 141: 371-396.

Gibbs J. 2010. Revision of the metallic species of Lasioglossum ( Dialictus ) in Canada (Hymenoptera,

Halictidae, Halictini). Zootaxa 2591: 1-382.

Gibbs J. 2011. Revision ofthe metallic Lasioglossum ( Dialictus ) of eastern North America (Hymenoptera:

Halictidae: Halictini). Zootaxa '3073: 1-216.

Gibbs J. 2012. A new species of Habralictus Moure from Dominica, Tesser Antilles (Hymenoptera,

Halictidae). ZooKeys 168: 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookevs.168.2524

Gibbs J., Packer L., Dumesh S. & Danforth B.N. 2013. Revision and reclassification of Lasioglossum

( Evylaeus ), L. (Hemihalictus ) and L. {Sphecodogastra) in eastern North America (Hymenoptera:

Apoidea: Halictidae). Zootaxa 3672: 1-117. http://dx.doi.Org/10.11646/zootaxa.3672.l.l

Habermannova J., Bogusch P. & Straka J. 2013. Flexible host choice and common host switches in the

evolution of generalist and specialist cuckoo bees (Anthophila: Sphecodes). PloS ONE 8: e64537. http://

dx, doi.org/10.1371/j ournal .pone .0064537

Harris R.A. 1979. A glossary of surface sculpturing. Occasional Papers in Entomology 28: 1-31.

Hook A.W., Neff J.L., Engel M.S. & Court H. 2014. The Apoidea (Hymenoptera) fauna of Little

Tobago Island, West Indies. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 87: 242-244. http://dx.doi.

org/10.2317/JKES 130910.1

Illiger K. 1806. William Kirby’s Familien der bienenartigen Insekten mit Zusatsen, Nachweisungen

und Bemerkungen. Magazin fur Insektenkunde 5: 28-175. Available from http://biodiversitvlibrarv.org/

page/43036970 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Kirby W. 1802. Monographia Apum Angliae; or, an Attempt to Divide into their Natural Genera and

Families, such Species of the Linnean Genus Apis as have been Discovered in England ... Pol. 2.

Privately published, Ipswich, UK.

Latreille PA. 1804. Tableau methodique des Insectes. In: Deterville J.-F. (ed.) Nouveau Dictionnaire

d’Histoire naturelle : 129-200. Crapelet, Paris.

Linnaeus C. 1758. Sy sterna Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae, Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera,

Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. Vol. I. 10 th edition. Salvius, Stockholm.

Mavromoustakis G.A. 1948. On the bees (Hymenoptera Apoidea) of Cyprus.—Part I. Annals and

Magazine of Natural History, Series 12 1 (8): 541-587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222934808653931

McGinley R.J. 1986. Studies ofHalictinae (Apoidea: Halictidae), I: Revision of New World Lasioglossum

Curtis. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 429: 1-294. http://dx.doi.org/10.5479/si.00810282.429

McGinley R.J. 2003. Studies of Halictinae (Apoidea: Halictidae), II: Revision of Sphecodogastra

Ashmead, floral specialists of Onagraceae. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 610: 1-55. http://

dx.doi.org/10.5479/si.0Q810282,610

European Journal of Taxonomy 180: 1-50 (2016)

Meurgey F. 2014. Liste preliminaire des abeilles de Guadeloupe (Petites Antilles) et leurs relations avec

la flore butinee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea, Megachilidae et Apidae). Annales de la Societe entomologique

de France, New Series 50: 89-110.

Michener C.D. 1954. Bees of Panama. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 104: 1-175.

Michener C.D. 1978. The parasitic groups of Halictidae. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 51:

291-339. Available from http://biodiversitvlibrarv.org/page/13448210 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Michener C.D. 2007. The Bees of the World. 2 nd editon. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Balt im ore

Michener C.D., Breed M.D. & Bell W.J. 1979. Seasonal cycles, nests, and social behavior of some

Colombian halictine bees (Hymenoptera; Apoidea). Revista de Biologia Tropical 27: 13-34.

Moure J.S. 1941. Apoidea Neotropica - III. Arquivos do Museu Paranaense 1: 41-99.

Moure J.S. 1947. Novos agrupamentos genericos e algumas especies novas de abelhas sulamericanas.

Museu Paranaense Publicaqoes Avulsas 3: 1-37.

Moure J.S. 2001. Uma pequena abelha com cabega e mandibulas excepcionais (Hymenoptera,

Halictidae). Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 18: 493-497.

Moure J.S. 2007. Halictini Thomson, 1869. In: Moure J.S., Urban D. & Melo G.A.R. (eds) Catalogue of

Bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) in the Neotropical Region: 823-870. Sociedade Brasileira de Entomologia,

Curitiba, Brazil.

Moure J.S. & Hurd P.D. 1982. On two new groups of Neotropical halictine bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea).

Dusenia 23: 46.

Patton W.H. 1880. Two new bees of the genus Sphecodes. The American Entomologist 1: 230.

Pauly A. 1984. Classification des Halictidae de Madagascar et des lies voisines I. Halictinae (Hymen¬

optera Apoidea). Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel 94: 121-156.

Pesenko Y.A. 2007. Subgeneric classification of the Palaearctic bees of the genus Evylaeus Robertson

(Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Zootaxa 1500: 1-54.

Robertson C. 1890. New North American bees of the genera Halictus and Prosopis. Transactions

of the American Entomological Society 17: 315-318. Available from http://biodiversitvlibrarv.org/

page/7491165 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Robertson C. 1891. Descriptions of new species of North American bees. Transactions of the American

Entomological Society 18: 49-66. Available from http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7524474 [accessed

29 Feb. 2016]

Robertson C. 1892. Description of new North American bees. American Naturalist 26: 267-274.

Available from http://biodiversitylibrary.Org/page/41111637 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Robertson C. 1893. Notes on bees, with descriptions of new species. Transactions of the American

Entomological Society 20: 145-149. Available from http://biodiversitvlibrarv.org/page/7508067

[accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Robertson C. 1897. North American bees—descriptions and synonyms. Transactions of the Academy of

Science of St. Louis 1: 315-356. Available from http: //biodiversitvlibrarv. org/page/5792297 [accessed

29 Feb. 2016]

Robertson C. 1901. Some new and little-known bees. The Canadian Entomologist 33: 229-23 F

Available from http://biodiversitvlibrarv.org/page/27876572 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

GIBBS J., The bee family Halictidae of Dominica

Robertson C. 1902a. Some new or little-known bees—II. The Canadian Entomologist 34: 48—49.

Available from http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27876759 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Robertson C. 1902b. Synopsis of Halictinae. The Canadian Entomologist 34: 243-250. Available from

http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27876958 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Robertson C. 1902c. Some new or little-known bees—IV. The Canadian Entomologist 34: 321-325.

Available from http://biodiversitvlibrarv.org/page/27877036 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Robertson C. 1903. Synopsis of Sphecodinae. Entomological News 14: 103-107. Available from http://

biodiversitylibrary.org/page/4614771 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Sandhouse G.A. 1943. The type species of the genera and subgenera of bees. Proceedings of the United

States National Museum 92: 519-619. Available from http://biodiversitvlibrarv.org/page/15767247

[accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Say T. 1837. Descriptions of new species of North American Hymenoptera, and observations on

some already described. Boston Journal of Natural History 1: 361-416. Available from http://

biodiversitylibrary.org/page/32414085 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Schenck A. 1868. Beschreibung der nassauischen Bienen [Nachtrag 2], Jahrbucher des Nassauischen

Vereins fur Naturkunde 21-22: 269-382. Available from http://biodiversitvlibrarv.org/page/30370660

[accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Schrottky C. 1901. Biologische Notizen solitarer Bienen von S. Paulo (Brasilien). AUgemeine Zeitschrift

fur Entomologie 6: 209-216. Available from http://biodiversitvlibrarv.org/page/25325028 [accessed 29

Feb. 2016]

Schrottky C. 1909. Nuevos himenopteros sudamericanos. Revista del Museo de la Plata 16: 137-149.

Schrottky C. 1911. Descripgao de abelhas novas do Brazil e de regioes visinhas. Revista do Museo

Paulista 8: 71-88. Available from http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/10798589 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Smith F. 1853. Catalogue of Hymenopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum. Part

I. Andrenidae and Apidae. British Museum, Tondon. Available from http://biodiversitvlibrarv.org/

page/18380248 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Smith-Pardo A.H. 2009. A new species of Habralictus (Hymenoptera, Halictidae) from the Island of

Grenada (Lesser Antilles) with comments on the insular species of the genus. ZooKeys 27: 51-58. http://

dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.27.265

SpinolaM. 1851. Hymenopteros. In: Gay C. (ed .) Historia Fisicay Politica de Chile..., Zoologia: 153—

569. Privately published, Paris.

Thomson C.G. 1869. Opuscula Entomologica [fasc. 1]. Lundbergska, Lund.

Vachal J. 1909. Collections recueillies par M. le Baron Maurice de Rothschild dans FAfrique orientale.

Insectes hymenopteres: Melliferes. Bulletin du Museum national d’Histoire naturelle 15: 529-534.

Available from http://biodiversitvlibrarv.org/page/5033410 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

r _

Vachal J. 1911. Etude sur les Halictus d’Amerique (Hym.). Miscellanea Entomologica 19: 9-24.

Verhoeff C. 1890. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Hymenopteren-Fauna. Entomologische Nachrichten 16:

321-336. Available from http://biodiversitvlibrarv.org/page/11394849 [accessed 29 Feb. 2016]

Warncke K. 1975. Beitrage zur Systematik und Verbreitung der Furchenbienen in der Tiirkei

(Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Halictus). Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne 45: 81-123.