Nomia dentata Smith, 1859

42. Nomia dentata Smith, 1859

Fig. 43

Nomia dentata Smith, 1859: 133 View in CoL , ♀ ♂.

Type material examined

Lectotype

INDONESIA • ♀; Aru; [ 8 Jan.–2 Jul. 1857]; OUMNH, ENT-HYME 2801-01 ( lectotype indicated by Baker 1993, de facto lectotype designated by Pauly 2009)

Paralectotypes

INDONESIA • 1 ♂; Aru ; [ 8 Jan.–2 Jul. 1857]; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2801-02 • 1 ♂, 1 ♀; Aru ; [ 8 Jan.– 2 Jul. 1857]; NHMUK .

Type locality

Aru.

Notes

Baker (1993: 205–206) wrote the following:

“ Four specimens standing as dentata in the UMO type collection are labelled:-

a) ♀, ‘Aru’ [white disc] and ‘ Nomia dentata Smith’ [blue paper].

b) ♂, ‘Aru’ [white disc] and ‘ Nomia dentata Smith’ [blue paper].

c) ♀, ‘M.’ [white disc: Mysol] and ‘ Nomia dentata Smith. ’ [blue paper].

d) ♂, ‘Wag.’ [white disc: Waigiou] and ‘ Nomia dentata . Smith’ [blue paper].

Five specimens standing as dentata in NHM are labelled:-

e) ♀, ‘Dory’ [white disc]} all also ‘ Nomia dentata Smith’

f) ♀, ‘New Guinea’ [white disc]} and ‘Smith coll. pres. by Mrs.

g) ♀, ‘Mysol’ [white disc]} Farren White. 99-303.’

h) ♀, ‘Aru’ [repeated on both sides of white disc], ‘ Nomia dentata Sm. Type det. Michener 1960’, and ‘This should have been designated as Lectotype in Michener: 1965 and labelled as such. It is not unique. det. C.R. Vardy, 1969’. This is B.M. Type Hym. 17 a 2836: false type.

j) ♂, ‘Aru, ♂ ’’ [white disc] and ‘dentata . ♂. Aru.’ [blue paper].

The Mysol, Waigiou, Dory and New Guinea: specimens, (c) to (g), cannot be regarded as syntypes and have been labelled as of no type status: quite apart from the fact that they are not from the type locality for dentata, Allen did not collect on Mysol until mid-1860, Wallace in Waigiou until July 1860, or Allen in New Guinea (at Sorong) until early 1861. The Mysol ♀ (g) is probably dentata ; the Mysol ♀ (c) and the New Guinea and Dory ♀♀, (f) and (e), are probably not dentata : these three specimens are in poor condition, The Waigiou ♂ (d), which is headless, is probably not dentata and is not conspecific with either of the Aru ♂♂, (b) and (j); it is possibly to be associated with the New Guinea and Dory ♀♀.

As to the four Aru specimens, (a), (b) and (h), which have typical Wallace labels, and doubtfully (j), which has a larger label in a slightly different script, these may all be accepted as syntypes of dentata . The two ♀♀, (a) and (h), are apparently conspecific. Notwithstanding Michener’s labelling of specimen (h) as ‘Type’ (presumably ‘lectotype’ was intended, but, in any event, as Vardy noted, this labelling was not confirmed by publication), specimen (a) is now designated as the LECTOTYPE of dentata (since Smith was expressly describing material in W.W. Saunders’ collection) and it has been labelled accordingly. It is in good condition but lacks the last two segments of tarsus R II and the distitarsus of R III.

The NHM ♀, (h), has been labelled as a paralectotype. It is in poor condition. The two ♂♂, (b) and (j), represent two clearly distinct species. On the bases of structural and sculptural correspondences, the NHM ♂ (j) would appear to be the ♂ of dentata . Notwithstanding the reservation expressed above concerning the syntype status os [author note: sic] specimen (j), both (b) and (j) have been labelled as syntypes of dentata , (b) of course with the qualification that it is not conspecific with the putative ♂ of that species. The actual identity of specimen (b), and the identities of specimens (c) to (f), are irrelevant to present purposes; further, any revision of Mellitidia would demand the availability of substantially more material than is immediately available”.

Pauly (2009: 206) noted Baker’s lectotype, and therefore acted as the first publisher of this designation.

Current status

Mellitidia australis ( Guérin-Méneville, 1831) ( Wood & Bossert 2025) .

Distribution

Indonesia ( Maluku: Aru, Southwest Papua, West Papua, Papua) ( Smith 1859; Ascher & Pickering 2024; Wood & Bossert 2025).