Agapostemon (Agapostemon) subtilior Cockerell 1898, stat. rev.

Agapostemon (Agapostemon) subtilior Cockerell, 1898 stat. rev. Figs 1B, 2C–D, 3B, D, 4B, E, 5C–H, L, 6B, E, 7B, 8C, 9 Original reference Agapostemon subtilior Cockerell, 1898: 27, ♀. Neotype, ♀ (designated by Roberts 1972), Pasco, Washington State, 25 May 1896, deposited in UCMC, shown in Fig. 9. Synoynymy Agapostemon borealis Crawford, 1901: 160, ♀ (syn. under A. texanus s. lat. by Sandhouse 1936). Holotype, ♀, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Livingston leg., 4 Apr. 1896, deposited in ANSP. Images examined by ZP. Syn. nov. Agpostemon californicus Crawford, 1901: 164, ♂ [not ♀] (syn. under A. texanus s. lat. by Sandhouse 1936). Lectotype, ♂ (designated by Cockerell 1927, see remarks), Pacific Grove, California, Saunders leg., Jul. 1894, deposited in UNSM [UNSMe12747]. Images examined by ZP. Syn. nov. Agapostemon texanus vandykei Cockerell, 1925: 191, ♀ (syn. under A. texanus s. lat. by Sandhouse 1936). Holotype, ♀, Yosemite Valley, California, E.C. Van Dyke leg., 25 Jun. 1921, deposited in CAS, type no. 1652. Images examined. Online record: https://monarch.calacademy.org/collections/individual/index.php?occid=2497037&clid=. Syn. nov. Agapostemon californicus psammobius Cockerell, 1937: 150, ♂ ♀ (syn. under A. texanus s. lat. by Roberts 1972). Holotype, ♂, San Miguel Island, California, Cockerell leg., Jul. [1937], deposited in CAS. Images examined. Online record: https://monarch.calacademy.org/collections/individual/index.php?occid=2499296. Syn. nov. A gapostemon angelicus idahoensis Michener, 1937: 314, ♀ (syn. under A. texanus s. lat. by Roberts 1972). Holotype, ♀, Challis, Idaho, Louise Ireland leg., 26 Jun. 1932. Deposited in the Snow Entomological Museum at the University of Kansas. Not examined. Syn. nov. Agapostemon californicus clementinus Cockerell, 1939b: 431, ♂ (syn. under A. texanus s. lat. by Roberts 1972). Holotype, ♂, San Clemente Island, California, Cockerell leg., 18 Jun. [1938], deposited in UCMC. Images examined by ZP. Syn. nov. Taxonomy and references Agapostemon texanus – Robertson 1897: 328 [in part, combined with A. angelicus and A. texanus s. s.] (description, range). — Crawford 1901: 160 [in part, mixed with A. texanus s. s. and potentially A. angelicus] (key, taxonomy). — Sandhouse 1936: 82 [in part, combined with A. texanus s. s.] (key, diagnosis, distribution). — Roberts 1972: 533 [in part, combined with A. texanus s. s.] (key, diagnosis, distribution); 1973: 10 [in part, combined with A. texanus s. s.] (key, diagnosis, distribution). — Hurd 1979: 1953 [in part, combined with A. texanus s. s.] (catalog). — Moure & Hurd 1987: 190 [in part, combined with A. texanus s. s.] (catalog). — Portman et al. 2022: 117 [in part, combined with A. texanus s. s.] (key, diagnosis [all images of “ A. texanus ” show A. subtilior]). Agapostemon texanus subtilior – Crawford 1901: 160 (key, taxonomy). — Cockerell 1910b: 244 (record, description of male); 1927: 157 (key, taxonomy, records). — Graenicher 1911: 234 (records); 1935: 302 (distribution in WI). Agapostemon subtilior – Vachal 1903: 95 (key, description). Agapostemon borealis – Cockerell 1927: 157 (notes on taxonomy, key). Agapostemon californicus – Cockerell 1927: 158 (designation of lectotype, distribution, key); 1939a: 138 (distribution, notes on variation). — Michener 1937: 314 (note on taxonomy). Agapostemon vandykei – Cockerell 1927: 155 (raised to species, key). Agapostemon californicus clementinus – Cockerell 1939a: 138 (distribution, notes on variation). Agapostemon californicus psammobius – Cockerell 1939a: 138 (distribution, notes on variation). Agapostemon texanus californicus – Michener 1951: 1124 (catalog). Agapostemon texanus clementinus – Michener 1951: 1124 (catalog). Agapostemon texanus psammobius – Michener 1951: 1124 (catalog). Agapostemon texanus texanus – Michener 1951: 1124 [combined with A. texanus s. s.] (catalog). — Mitchell 1960: 454 [combined with A. texanus s. s.] (key, description, distribution, floral records). Agapostemon texanus vandykei – Michener 1951: 1124 (catalog). Diagnosis Agapostemon subtilior females are similar to those of both A. texanus and A. angelicus. They can be separated from A. texanus by the genal striae in the hypostomal area, which are extremely coarse and deep in A. texanus (Fig. 1C–D) compared to only moderately coarse in A. subtilior (Fig. 1B). Further, A. texanus have the punctures on the terga dense and contiguous (Fig. 4C, F), whereas A. subtilior tend to have the punctures separated with shining interspaces (Fig. 4B, E). Finally, in areas where they overlap, A. subtilior have the propodeum more weakly sculptured than A. texanus. Females of A. subtilior and A. angelicus are quite similar and can be difficult to separate. They can be most reliably separated by the shape of the clypeus, which is weakly convex in A. subtilior, with the apex more evenly curved over onto the base of the apical fimbriae, and lacking a distinct narrow vertical overhang (Fig. 2 C–D). In contrast, A. angelicus has the clypeus flattened (Fig. 2A), with the transition to the apical margin forming a 90-degree angle above the base of the apical fimbriae, this angle demarcated by a weak carina rather than evenly curved over (Fig. 2B). Agapostemon subtilior can be further recognized by the more weakly sculptured dorsal surface of the propodeum (Fig. 3B), compared to strongly sculptured in A. angelicus (Fig. 3A). In cases where A. subtilior has the propodeum somewhat more strongly sculptured, the rugae are typically strongly anastomizing. The pleura of A. subtilior are also more weakly rugose (Fig. 3D) compared to A. angelicus (Fig. 3C), especially posteriorly. There are additional, less reliable characters that can help separate females of A. subtilior and A. angelicus. The length of the dorsal surface of the propodeum of A. subtilior is typically shorter, not much longer than the length of the metanotum (Fig. 3B), whereas A. angelicus typically has the propodeum distinctly longer than the metanotum (Fig. 3A). The terga of A. subtilior are typically more sparsely punctured (Fig. 4B), with distinct shiny interspaces, particularly laterally, just basal of the premarginal line on T1 and T2 (Fig. 4E), compared to the more closely punctured terga in A. angelicus (Fig. 4A, D); however, this character can be somewhat variable. In addition, A. subtilior typically have the black mark on the apex of the clypeus thickened medially (Fig. 2C; sometimes forming a ‘tooth’), compared to straight across in A. angelicus (Fig. 2A). There are also differences in hair color, with A. subtilior typically having the hairs of the thorax and legs yellowish compared to whitish in A. angelicus, though this character is not particularly reliable, and A. subtilior typically have more extensive black hairs on the outer hind tibial scopa, with the black hairs generally extending in a line down most of the tibia whereas black hairs are generally absent or limited to the hairs directly under the basatibial plate in A. angelicus. Finally, A. subtilior are, on average, larger than A. angelicus. Male A. subtilior are similar to those of both A. angelicus and A. texanus, and they can be separated principally by the genitalia and coloration of the hind tibia. Agapostemon angelicus has the hind tibia with the anterior face all light (Fig. 5A; not counting a dark spot on the apex) and a well-developed dark mark posteriorly (Fig. 5B). In contrast, A. subtilior has a dark mark on the basal anterior face of the hind tibia (Fig. 5F, H) OR lacks dark marks on both the anterior and posterior face (Fig. 5C–D). In addition, the genitalia are different, with A. subtilior having a much narrower basal stylus and a broader medial plate (Fig. 6B) compared to A. angelicus (Fig. 6A). Male A. subtilior are very similar to those of A. texanus, but they can be separated by the dark mark on the posterior face of the hind tibia and the genitalia. Specifically, A. subtilior have a smaller dark mark on the rear face of the hind tibia, which ranges from totally absent (Fig. 5D) to taking up the apical half of the tibia (Fig. 5H), and in cases where the dark mark takes up half the tibia, it ends rather abruptly. In contrast, A. texanus has a larger dark mark, taking up at least half of the posterior face of the hind tibia, and the basal portion is generally more narrowed and attenuated rather than abruptly ending (Fig. 5J). The genitalia of A. subtilior and A. texanus are very similar, but they can be separated principally by the shape of the basal stylus: in A. subtilior the basal stylus extends laterally with the end relatively abruptly turned up towards the apex (Fig. 6E, black arrow), whereas in A. texanus the basal stylus is more evenly curving and is distinctly closer to the medial plate (Fig. 6D, black arrow). Material examined CANADA – BRITISH COLUMBIA • Robson: 1 ♂; 12 Sep. 1937; HR Foxlee leg.; UMSP. USA – CALIFORNIA – Alameda Co. • Oakland: 1 ♂; 29 Aug. 1924; AT Hertig leg.; UMSP. – Berkshire Co. • Monterey: 1 ♂; 25 Sep. 1934; Melander leg.; MCZ; 3 ♀♀, 3 ♂♂; 25 Sep. 1934; AL Melander leg.; MCZ. – Los Angeles Co. • Claremont: 1 ♀; 13 May 1902; collector unknown; MCZ • La Poente: 1 ♀; 24 Mar. 1967; collector unknown; UMSP • La Puente: 1 ♂; 1 Jul. 1968; R Lundberg leg.; UMSP • Middle Ranch, Catalina Island: 1 ♀; 21 Mar. year unknown; WP Cockerell leg.; UMSP • Pasadena: 1 ♀; 24 Mar. 1934; CD Michener leg.; MCZ; 1 ♂; 13 Sep. 1934; CD Michener leg.; Stephanomeria sp.; MCZ; 2 ♀♀; date unknown; collector unknown; MCZ • San Clemente Island (32.9408 -118.5339): 3 ♀♀, 2 ♂♂; 16Apr. 2018; MD Abemayor leg.; net, Calystegia macrostegia; UMSP • San Dimas: 1 ♀; 28 Mar. 1960; ROS leg.; UMSP. – Modoc Co. • Goose Lake: 1 ♀; date unknown; Holleman leg.; MCZ. – Monterey Co. • Pacific Grove: 2 ♀♀; date unknown; Mann leg.; MCZ. – Orange Co. • Laguna Beach: 1 ♀; 16 Aug. 1979; Wheeler leg.; MCZ. – Riverside Co. • Elsinore: 1 ♀, 4 ♂♂; 24 Aug. 1962; HE Evans leg.; MCZ • Riverside: 1 ♀, 1 ♂; 2