identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
A14D878FFFE7FFE082ABFC61FD2984D6.text	A14D878FFFE7FFE082ABFC61FD2984D6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neolarra ASHMEAD	<div><p>NEOLARRA ASHMEAD</p> <p>Neolarra belongs to the monotypic tribe Neolarrini and is restricted to North America including Mexico. In her revision of the genus, Shanks (1977) recognized 14 species and two subgenera. She reported that all known hosts were species in the panurgine genus Perdita except for N. hurdi Shanks, which, she stated, parasitized nests of Calliopsis (Micronomadopsis) larreae (Timberlake). She attributed this later association to me presumably because I had reported (Rozen, 1958: 54) a single individual of N. hurdi examining a nest entrance of C. larreae 18 miles west of Blythe, Riverside Co., California. I had no other indication that the Neolarra individual was attacking C. larreae; no immatures of either presumed host or parasite were found. Rust (1988) reported no cleptoparasites in his study of the nesting biology of C. larreae, and recently, at the same site I had worked in the 1950s, I discovered a large nesting site of an unidentified Perdita around which numerous N. hurdi adults were searching the sand. Hence, I conclude that Neolarra is exclusively cleptoparasitic on species of Perdita so far as is now known.</p> <p>Neolarra (Neolarra) californica Michener</p> <p>Figures 1–3</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS: The pupae of the two species of Neolarra described here are nearly identical and can be separated only on the basis of slight differences in the production of their axillae and mesoscutellum. They are easily distinguished from pupae of other Nomadinae sensu lato because of the single, long, setalike apex of the larger tubercles on the vertex and on most of the metasomal terga. These hairlike structures are longer than the tubercles themselves in Neolarra. In most other known pupae of the Nomadinae, vertical (if present) and tergal tubercles are sharply pointed, without a setalike apex (see references in McGinley, 1989; Roig­Alsina and Rozen, 1994; Rozen, 1989, 1992, 1994, and 1997a). The pupa of Holcopasites, described below, also has some cephalic tubercles with elongate apices, but some of these are hooked or zigzagged (fig. 5), unlike the straight or gently curved ones of Neolarra. The lack of tubercles on the mesoscutum, mesoscutellum, and the first metasomal tergum is also helpful in separating the genus in the pupal stage from pupae of many other Nomadinae.</p> <p>HEAD: Integument without setae but with series of two small and several very small tubercles on each side; these tubercles each with elongate, setalike apex (fig. 1); elsewhere integument without tubercles but with some obscure patches of fine spicules that are not so dense or long as to appear velvety. Apex of clypeus without rounded, downward­projecting swelling on each side of labrum as in Ammobatini; labrum somewhat shorter than maximum width, its apex narrowly curved in frontal view; pupal ocelli moderately defined but not tuberculate; flagellomere not distinctly swollen apically. Mandibles vaguely swollen subapically both adorally and medially.</p> <p>MESOSOMA: Integument in many areas finely spiculate but spiculation not velvety; setae absent. Lateral angles and posterior lobes of pronotum moderately produced, corresponding to those of adult. Mesepisternum without tubercles; mesoscutum without rounded or sharp tubercles or even verrucae; axillae unmodified, not elevated; mesoscu­</p> <p>Fig. 4. Dorsal surface of mesothorax and metathorax, enlarged, lateral view, of pupa of N. (Phileremulus) vigilans.</p> <p>Figs. 5, 6. Pupa of Holcopasites insoletus, right side, dorsal view, and entire body, lateral view, respectively, with sharply pointed tubercles of top of head and metasoma enlarged.</p> <p>Scales (= 1.0 mm) refer to figs. 1 and 2, and to figs. 5 and 6, respectively.</p> <p>tellum not produced, without tubercles; metanotum slightly produced, corresponding to that of adult. Tegula slightly produced, without tubercle(s); wings without tubercles. All coxae, trochanters, femora, and tarsi without tubercles; hind tibia with low, sharply point­ ed tubercles along outer surface.</p> <p>METASOMA: Integument finely spiculate in some areas but spicules not long enough to be velvety; setae absent. T1 without transverse row of tubercles; T2–5 (female) and T2–6 (male) each with subapical row of tubercles, most of which bear single, elongate, setalike apex; T6 (female) and T7 (male) without tubercles. S3 and 4 (female) and S3– 5 (male) with a few very small apical tubercles (figs. 1, 2). Apex of metasoma produced as tapering, apically rounded, terminal spine as seen from above, below, or side (fig. 1). Spiracles present but obscure.</p> <p>MATERIAL STUDIED: 1 female pupa, Cienega, Hidalgo Co., New Mexico, V­16­1987 (J. G. Rozen); 1 male and 1 female pupa, same except V­14­1987, from nest of Perdita luciae Cockerell (NEW HOST RECORD). Identified by comparison with adults collect­ ed at the same time.</p> <p>REMARKS: These three pupae are nearly identical, displaying little variation (except for sex differences). They are reasonably well­preserved, although their metasomas have become distended, as can be seen in figure 1.</p> <p>Neolarra (Phileremulus) vigilans (Cockerell) Figure 4</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS: See Diagnosis for Neolarra californica, above.</p> <p>HEAD, MESOSOMA, METASOMA: As described for Neolarra californica except for following: Labrum about as long as maximum width. Axillae produced as distinct lobes (accommodating pointed axillae of adult); mesoscutellum more produced relative to mesoscutum as seen in lateral profile (fig. 4), but without tubercles.</p> <p>MATERIAL STUDIED: male, 1 female pupa, Fort Robinson, Dawes Co., Nebraska, VIII­ 12­1971 (J. G., B. L., and K. C. Rozen) from Perdita zebrata Cresson ? nest area. Identified by adults collected at the same time and</p> <p>by features of the developing imago within the pupal exoskeleton.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A14D878FFFE7FFE082ABFC61FD2984D6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	ROZEN, JEROME G.	ROZEN, JEROME G. (2000): Pupal Descriptions of Some Cleptoparasitic Bees (Apidae), with a Preliminary Generic Key to Pupae of Cleptoparasitic Bees (Apoidea). American Museum Novitates 3289: 1, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2000)289<0001:PDOSCB>2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082%282000%29289%3C0001%3APDOSCB%3E2.0.CO%3B2
A14D878FFFE2FFED82B9FC89FB81862D.text	A14D878FFFE2FFED82B9FC89FB81862D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Osiris pallidus Smith 1854	<div><p>Osiris pallidus Smith ?</p> <p>Figures 7–10</p> <p>In the recent past (e.g., Hurd, 1979), Osiris was generally placed in the exclusively parasitic Nomadinae with a large array of other genera. More recently Roig­Alsina (1989) suggested that the genus and its close relatives did not belong to the Nomadinae, and Roig­Alsina and Michener (1993) subsequently placed it in the Apinae with several other parasitic tribes that had been included in the Nomadinae sensu lato. Sharply pointed tubercles on the pupal head are characteristic of the Nomadinae; their absence in Osiris, therefore, seems to support the removal of the genus from the Nomadinae. However, there are no pupal features that align the genus with other bee taxa to the extent pupal bees are now known.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS: Among all of the cleptoparasitic Apidae, pupal Osiris can be recognized by the densely spiculated apical patch on each of the larger tergal tubercles (figs. 7, 9, 10). The erect, acutely pointed, paired mesoscutellar tubercles (figs. 7, 8) and the absence of mesoscutal tubercles are also helpful in distinguishing these pupae.</p> <p>HEAD: Integument apparently nonspiculate, without either setae or sharply pointed tubercles, but with low, sometimes almost undetectable row of rounded verrucae above level of antennal sockets along inner orbit and another, even fainter series on vertex above and behind upper orbit. Apex of clypeus without rounded, downward­projecting swelling on each side of labrum as in Ammobatini; labrum about as long as wide, its apex a simple curve in frontal view; pupal ocelli strongly defined; each lateral ocellus with small, rounded tubercle immediately mesad; distal flagellomeres expanded on out­ er (lower) side. Mandibles strongly swollen posteriorly near apex.</p> <p>MESOSOMA: Integument finely, inconspicuously spiculate in some areas; setae absent. Lateral angles of pronotum strongly produced, well elevated above lateral lobes, bearing low verrucae; posterior lobes of pronotum strongly produced. Mesepisternum without tubercles; mesoscutum without distinct paired tubercles but with paramedian row of verrucae on each side, anterior ones of which are larger than posterior ones; axillae unmodified, not elevated; mesoscutellum with pair of elevated, acutely pointed, paramedian tubercles; metanotum not produced. Tegula slightly produced, without tubercle(s), but apparently with low, poorly defined verrucae; wings with low, tuberclelike swelling about ⅓ way to apex. Coxae without tubercles; trochanters with apicoventral, angled expansion; femora somewhat expanded basoventrally; tibiae apically expanded into outer, angled, tuberclelike swelling, extreme apex of which often becomes pigmented; hind tibia also with basal verrucae on outer surface, without sharply pointed tubercles; tarsi without tubercles.</p> <p>METASOMA: Integument finely, inconspicuously spiculate in some areas except apices of most tergal tubercles each with dense, conspicuously spiculate patch; setae absent. T1 with only one or two small subapical tubercles; T2–4 (female) with subapical row of rounded tubercles; T5 with tubercles small, indistinct; T6 without tubercles. Sterna without apical tubercles. Apex of metasoma produced into broadly rounded projection as seen from above (fig. 10), not as terminal spine. Spiracles evident.</p> <p>MATERIAL STUDIED: 4 female pupae, Fazenda Santa Carlota, São Paulo, Brasil, preserved V­25­89 (E. Camillo, C. A. Garófalo).</p> <p>Figs. 11–13. Pupa of Mesoplia (Mesoplia) rufipes. 11. Entire body, lateral view. 12. Labrum and mandibles, frontal view, enlarged. 13. Right side of body, frontal view.</p> <p>Fig. 14. Pupal thorax of Mesoplia (Eumelissa) species?, dorsal view.</p> <p>Scales (= 1.0 mm) refer to figs. 7, 8 and to 11, 13, and 14, respectively.</p> <p>The determination of this species as Osiris pallidus was based on body size, shape of pygidial plate and hind basitarus, and most aspects of color pattern of a developing pharate female that was nearing eclosion. However, integumental texture was difficult to evaluate, and the metasoma became quite dark apically, a feature not recorded by Shanks (1986) or found on females in the collection of the American Museum of Natural History. Hence the specific identity of these specimens is questionable.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A14D878FFFE2FFED82B9FC89FB81862D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	ROZEN, JEROME G.	ROZEN, JEROME G. (2000): Pupal Descriptions of Some Cleptoparasitic Bees (Apidae), with a Preliminary Generic Key to Pupae of Cleptoparasitic Bees (Apoidea). American Museum Novitates 3289: 1, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2000)289<0001:PDOSCB>2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082%282000%29289%3C0001%3APDOSCB%3E2.0.CO%3B2
