4.3 Article

Agapostemon fasciatus Crawford (Hymenoptera, Halictidae), a valid North American bee species ranging into southern Canada

期刊

BIODIVERSITY DATA JOURNAL
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/BDJ.11.e103982

关键词

sweat bees; resurrected species name; type material; DNA barcode; distribution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the sweat bees of the genus Agapostemon and found that Agapostemon fasciatus and A. melliventris are not conspecific. A more detailed analysis of morphology, distribution, and genetic data revealed that A. fasciatus should be resurrected as a valid North American bee species. The accurate distributions of both species can be modeled based on the diagnostic features provided.
BackgroundSweat bees of the genus Agapostemon Guerin-Meneville, 1844 (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) are common and widespread in the Americas. Despite distinct morphological characters that were recognised in earlier taxonomic treatments, Agapostemon fasciatus Crawford, 1901 has been considered a variety of A. melliventris Cresson, 1874 since the 1930s and later placed into synonymy under A. melliventris in the early 1970s.New information A more detailed study of morphology (including examination of type materials), distribution and genetic data (i.e. DNA barcodes) of these two taxa suggests they are not conspecific. As such, A. fasciatus is resurrected as a valid North American bee species. Agapostemon fasciatus ranges further north in North America than A. mellivenrtis, reaching the southern Prairies Ecozone of Canada (Alberta, Saskatchewan), while most records of A. melliventris are from the south-western United States and northern Mexico. More accurate distributions for both species can be modelled as specimens in collections are identified using the diagnostic features provided. However, additional work is required on the A. melliventris species complex in the southern United States as genetic data suggest that multiple taxa could be present.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据