Xylocopa provida Smith, 1863

82. Xylocopa provida Smith, 1863 View in CoL

Fig. 81

Xylocopa provida Smith, 1863: 48 View in CoL , ♀ ♂.

Type material examined

Lectotype

INDONESIA • ♀; M. [probably Mysol]; [probably 24 Feb.–1 Jul. 1860]; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2836-01 ( lectotype designated by Lieftinck 1957).

Paralectotypes

INDONESIA • 1 ♂; M. [probably Mysol]; [probably 24 Feb.–1 Jul. 1860]; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2836-02 • 1 ♀; Wag. [Waigiou]; [ 4 Jul.–29 Sep. 1860]; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2836-03 .

Type locality

Mysol [= Misool], Waigiou [= Waigiou]. Fixed as Misool by lectotype designation.

Notes

Smith (1863) described the species, citing Mysol (= Misool) and Waigiou (= Waigeo) as the collecting localities. Lieftinck (1957: 345) selected a female nominally from Misool and designated it as the lectotype.

However, Baker (1993: 231) wrote the following:

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

a) ♀, ‘M.’ [Mysol or Morty?; white disc], ‘ X. provida Smith’, ‘ X. ( Maiella) provida F. Smith det. MA Lieftinck 1956’ [print, = XM], and ‘ lectotype Lieftinck 1957 ’. In fair condition and intact but for loss of apical segments of R II.

b) ♂ (diss.), ‘M.’ [Mysol or Morty?; white disc], ‘ Xylocopa provida Smith’, XM, and ‘Lectoallotype Lieftinck 1957 ’ [red paper].

c) ♀, ‘Wag’ [Waigiou; white disc], ‘ X. provida Smith’, ‘divisa Klug Abyss ♀ agrees with this’ [hand?], and ‘Paratype’ [print, red].

d) ♀, ‘N’ [New Guinea (Allen); white disc], ‘ Xylocopa provida ♂ Smith’ [blue paper], XM, and ‘Paratype’ [print, red].

Lieftinck’s ‘The two Smithian types are a pair from Misool’ (1957: 345) is clearly incorrect since Smith had syntypes from both Mysol and Waigiou. Lieftinck’s labelling of the New Guinea ♂, (d), as a paratype is also clearly incorrect. Since the labels ‘M.’ on specimens (a) and (b) cannot be definitely identified with either Mysol or Morty, and since, therefore, it cannot be known which specimen may have been one of Smith’s syntypes and which the basis of his 1865 record from Morty, Lieftinck’s proper course would have been to select as lectotype the one syntype of unquestionable origin, the ♀ ‘Wag’, (c). A submission to ICZN proposing redesignation may seem preferable to having as ‘lectotype’ a specimen that is neither of known origin nor certainly a syntype ”.

Whilst Baker’s reasoning is sound, we do not consider it a priority to resolve the validity of Lieftinck’s lectotype. As part of Lieftinck’s broader revision, he examined many specimens of X. provida and developed an explicit published morphological species concept. The chosen lectotype is morphologically consistent with the one specimen known for certain to be syntypic (Baker’s (c) specimen), and so Lieftinck (1957) is considered to have treated the species in a manner consistent with Smith’s original species concept. For probable collecting date, see discussion in Section 72.

Current status

Xylocopa ( Koptortosoma) provida Smith, 1863 .

Distribution

Indonesia ( North Maluku: Morotai; Southwest Papua: Misool, Waigeo, Doberai Peninsula; Papua) and Papua New Guinea (Smith 1863, 1865; Lieftinck 1957).

Species described by Smith (1865) from Morotai Island and the island of New Guinea