Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Praz (2017), page 7, states: "Megachile punctatissima Spinola, 1806 has been mentioned as a valid species of the genus Megachile (e.g. Nieto et al. 2014, Ascher and Pickering 2016). The entry in Spinola (1806: 135) under M. punctatissima is "3. MEGACHILE PUNCTATISSIMA. Latr. hist. des. inst. [SIC] 14. p. 54. n. 5" and was not meant as a species description. M. punctatissima Latreille is likely an incorrect spelling of "Apis punctulatissima Kirby, 1802, [=Stelis punctulatissima (Kirby, 1802)]", given that the entry in Latreille (1805) was "Apis punctatissima. Kirby, tab. 16, fig. 9", thus precisely referring to Kirby's species. Lastly, Heriades pusilla Spinola, 1808 and Heriades sinuata Spinola, 1808 have been included in the genus Megachile (Schletterer 1889, Ungricht et al. 2008); based on their original descriptions (no existing syntype is known: Casolari and Casolari-Moreno 1980) both are considered to belong to the Osmiini...Based on its original description (axillae with spine) and especially on the account of its nesting biology (nests in Rubus stems, partitions made of masticated leaf material), H. pusilla likely refers to a species of the genus Osmia Panzer, 1806 subgenus Hoplosmia Thomson, 1872. Heriades pusilla is probably best placed in synonymy with Osmia (Hoplosmia) ligurica Morawitz, 1868 and treated as a nomen oblitum; however I do not formally transfer this species into Osmia for now as this would create a homonymy with the valid species Osmia pusilla Cresson, 1864. To resolve this case study of the Spinola collection and the designation of a lectotype or neotype appear to be necessary." |
|
|
|
|
|
|