Nomia iridescens Smith, 1857

5. Nomia iridescens Smith, 1857 View in CoL

Fig. 4

Nomia iridescens Smith, 1857: 43–44 View in CoL , ♀.

Type material examined

Lectotype

MALAYSIA • ♀; Mal. 75 [ Malacca]; [ 13 Jul.–25 Sep. 1854]; OUMNH, ENT-HYME 2767 ( lectotype indicated by Baker 1993, de facto lectotype designated by Pauly 2009).

Type locality

Malacca, India. Fixed as Malacca ( Malaysia) by lectotype designation.

Notes

Baker (1993: 193) wrote the following:

“There are three supposed types:-

NHM: ♀, ‘ iridescens ♀ ’ [Westwood’s hand], B.M. Type Hym. 17 a 1614 (antennae and legs more or less broken, metasoma lost beyond segment 1).

UMO (in type collection):-

♂, ‘Mal’ [blue disc, = Malacca]: this is a ♂ of Curvinomia fulvata (F., 1804), ♀, ‘MAL. 75.’ [white disc; cf. note under 5.9-41 and ‘ Nomia iridescens Westw. MSS. ’ [blue paper].

Although the species was known to Smith, as he believed, in both sexes (1853: 89), he described only the ♀. The UMO ♂ has therefore been labelled as of no type status [and, since Wallace did not visit Malacca until 1854, it could not in any event have been one of the specimens that Smith saw prior to 1853].

The NHM ♀, without any indication of locality, is probably one of the [ Indian] specimens on which Westwood’s MS name was based. It was no doubt before Smith when he described the species, adopting Westwood’s MS name, and may be accepted as a syntype. The UMO ♀ may also be accepted as a syntype of iridescens , and this specimen is now designated as LECTOTYPE, in preference to the NHM ♀, on the grounds a) that the specimen is of known locality and provenance [ Malacca ( Wallace ), ex W.W. Saunders’ collection], and

b) that it is in a better state of preservation (intact but for loss of L tarsus II).

The NHM specimen has accordingly been labelled as a paralectotype.

The two ♀♀ are probably conspecific but are not identical. The Malacca ♀ ( lectotype) has the basal zone of the propodeum broader (nearly as broad as flagellum) and less sharply defined posteriorly, as in recent material from Singapore (P. Blakang Mati; Bukit Tingah) and Johore (G. Lambak; Kluang F.R.; Jason Bay). The NHM ♀ [‘East India’: Smith, 1853] has the basal zone of the propodeum narrow and more sharply marginate posteriorly, as in a recent ♀ from Perak (Ulu Piah). Available regional material is inadequate to permit assessment of the significance of these and other minor differences (e.g., the NHM and Perak ♀♀ have the long, erect setae of the metanotum pale, whereas in the Singapore, Johore and Malacca ♀♀ they are predominantly dark).

[The ♂ described by Westwood in 1875 may be traced in NHM or in Westwood’s collection in UMO: details given by Westwood indicate that this ♂ was at least a member of the iridescens group. His description does not apply to the UMO ♂ referred to above.]”.

Pauly (2009: 159) noted Baker’s lectotype, and therefore acted as the first publisher of this designation. We follow Baker’s argument that the Malaccan specimen is the better choice of lectotype since it is of known providence compared to the NHMUK specimen.

Current status

Curvinomia iridescens ( Smith, 1857) ( Pauly 2009) .

Distribution

India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, China, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia (Peninsula, Borneo), Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia ( Java) ( Pauly 2009; Ascher & Pickering 2024).