Andrena ( Andrena ) genalis Morawitz, 1880

Andrena ( Andrena) genalis Morawitz, 1880 View in CoL

Figs 1–9 View Figs 1, 2 View Figs 3–9

Andrena genalis Morawitz, 1880: 363 View in CoL , ♀ ( holotype: ♀, “nordwestlichen Mongolei” [ Nanshankou , Xinjiang, China]; ZISP), examined.

MATERIAL EXAMINED. Russia: Altai, Ongudai , 13.VII 1901, 1 ♂, W. Steinfeld // к. Вольмана [collection of Wolmann] // Andrena genalis , ♂, D.A. Sidorov det. 2024 [ ZISP]. Specimen has front legs only .

DIAGNOSIS. The male of Andrena genalis is very similar to the male of A. scutellaris (examined by description in Osytshnjuk et al., 2005: 123) in general structure and distribution. However, it differs in coloration and sculpture: the mesoscutum medially is dull and granulate (vs shiny and smooth in A. scutellaris ), pubescence mostly dark, the rest of hairs are yellowish (vs greyish). The terminalia of both species seems to be very similar, though genitalia of A. scutellaris illustrated only as contour drawings ( Osytshnjuk et al., 2005: 97, fig. 207). Nevertheless, the genitalia of A. genalis could be distinguished by broad and apically rounded gonocoxite dorsal tooth and less elongated gonostyle.

The females of these two species clearly differ by coloration of pale pubescence (dirty yellow to reddish in A. genalis vs pale yellow to white in A. scutellaris ) and large admixture of dark to black hairs on the head and the mesoscutum in A. genalis .

Andrena genalis View in CoL is also similar in coloration with European species A. fulva (Müller, 1766) View in CoL ( Xu & Tadauchi, 1997, as A. armata Gmelin, 1790 View in CoL ; Gusenleitner & Schwarz, 2001, 2002), but the female clearly differs by the very broad head with distinct malar space and short compound eyes, and the male differs by the long malar space, the smooth and shiny genal area in anterior half (vs entirely dull and shagreened in A. fulva View in CoL ), the mandible without tooth-like projection at the base, and pale pubescence dirty white (vs yellowish).

DESCRIPTION OF HITHERTO UNKNOWN MALE. Structure and sculpture. Very similar to the female (see Xu & Tadauchi, 1997: 168; Osytshnjuk et al., 2005: 117; Astafurova et al., 2021: 28) in general structure, sculpture and coloration. Body length: 10.0 mm. Head. Very wide for the subgenus Andrena s. str., 1.3 times wider than long ( Fig. 4 View Figs 3–9 ). Compound eyes relatively small, about 1/2 of the height and 1/8 of the width of the face (frontal view), the distance between the inner edges increases downwards. Face rather flat, relief weakly expressed. Mandibles typical for the subgenus – long, strongly crossing apically, red-brown at the ends, without tooth-like projection at the base of the mandible. Process of labrum trapezoidal, with thickened apex, rounded beyond the apex, swollen at the edges ( Fig. 3 View Figs 3–9 ). Malar area about 1/2 of the width ( Fig. 2 View Figs 1, 2 ). Clypeus base weakly domed, the lower half curves back, apex is slightly concave in center. Gena broad, without carina or clear angle on posterior edge, slightly expands downwards. Flagellomeres equally long, only F1 slightly longer than subsequent segments ( Fig. 4 View Figs 3–9 ). Face below the antennae shiny, weakly shagreened, confluent and finely punctate; above the antennal sockets dull, with coarse, parallel, non-branching wrinkles, surface between wrinkles granulate. Malar area smooth and polished ( Fig. 3 View Figs 3–9 ). Clypeus without impunctate middle line, unlike in the female. Gena shiny on anterior half, with fine and sparse punctures, separated by 1-2 puncture diameters, posteriorly shagreened and denser punctate. Vertex behind ocelli granulate. Hairs on head generally long and sparse, brownish, around antennae and upper edge of head with dirty yellow hairs mixed with individual dark ones ( Figs 1–4 View Figs 1, 2 View Figs 3–9 ). Mesosoma. Mesoscutum, scutellum, mesepisternum and propodeum dull, granulate, indistinctly punctured with shallow dots. Propodeal triangle small, narrow, slightly concave basally (unlike the female) with weak wrinkles on granulate surface ( Fig. 5 View Figs 3–9 ). Mesosoma with brownish pubescence ventrally and laterally; dorsally and on posterior surface of propodeum covered in dirty yellow hairs, mixed with single dark ones, especially between the wings ( Figs 1, 2 View Figs 1, 2 , 5 View Figs 3–9 ). Legs proximally covered in brownish long hairs, tarsi distally with long dirty yellow hairs on outside surface and short reddish-golden ones on inside surface ( Fig. 1 View Figs 1, 2 ). Metasoma. Terga with marginal areas slightly depressed, lateral convex areas on T2 distinct, linearly edged. Tergal discs weakly shagreened to smooth, shiny, with scattered fine punctures; marginal areas smooth and polished with sparse very fine punctures. T1 entirely and T2 anteriorly in dense long and dirty yellow hairs; T2 posteriorly, T3 and T4 with sparse and short dark hairs; apical margins almost glabrous. T5–T7 with rather long yellowish hairs ( Figs 1, 2 View Figs 1, 2 , 6 View Figs 3–9 ). Sterna with sparse pale hairs. S7 simple, of the usual shape for the subgenus, with one narrowly pointed central process, almost glabrous ( Fig. 8 View Figs 3–9 ). S8 also typical for the subgenus; with straight apical process, on the apex truncated and covered in yellowish hairs ( Fig. 9 View Figs 3–9 ).

Genitalia typical for the subgenus ( Fig. 7 View Figs 3–9 ). Gonocoxite with dorsal teeth small, evenly narrowed, rounded apically. Gonostylus almost flat (lateral view), expanded and uniformly rounded apically, clearly carinated along the inner margin (dorsal view). Pubescence of gonostylus sparse, elongated to the outer margin. Penis valve wide, visible base equal in width to the distance between the outer margin of gonocoxal teeth, apically narrowed; lateral folds on the base well-defined, curved in, forming narrow slit (lateral view); lower fold slightly narrower than the upper one.

Coloration. Body black to dark-brown, antennae black on dorsal surface and dark brown on ventral surface, wings weakly brownish with veins dark brown, front legs (middle and hind legs not preserved) dark red-brown with tarsal segments appears lighter, metasomal terga black with marginal areas lightened golden brown.

DISTRIBUTION. Kazakhstan: near Almaty (the collection of Oberösterreiches Landesmuseum, Linz, Austria, T.J. Wood, personal communication, new record); Kyrgyzstan: Engilchek, Sarydzhaz ( Osytshnjuk et al., 2005); China: Xinjiang: Zhaosu County, Alasan ( Wu, 1985; Xu & Tadauchi, 2012), Hami Prefecture, Nanshankou ( Astafurova et al., 2021); Russia: Altai Republic, Ongudai (new record).

Although several publications ( Wu, 1985; Xu & Tadauchi, 1997, 2012; Osytshnjuk et al., 2005) mentioned Mongolia in distribution of Andrena genalis (apparently following Morawitz, 1880), this species is unknown from Mongolia to date.

Unexpected record of Andrena genalis in southern Siberia challenges previous data on its distribution only in the Tian Shan Mountains. The new record in Ongudai, Russia, is about 900 km north of previously known habitats of this species. It is likely that Andrena genalis is a very rare but widespread species in the high mountains of Central Asia, as far as A. scutellaris ( Osytshnjuk et al., 2005: 123) . Further fieldwork may reveal the true distribution of this species and its ecological affiliations.