Agapostemon (Agapostemon) angelicus Cockerell 1924

Agapostemon (Agapostemon) angelicus Cockerell, 1924 Figs 1A, 2A–B, 3A, C, 4A, D, 5A–B, K, 6A, 7A, 8B Original reference Agapostemon angelicus Cockerell, 1924: 537, ♀. Holotype, ♀, Mexico, Baja California, Angel de la Guardia Island (also known as Isla Estanque), Pond Island Bay 1 Jul. 1921, EP Van Duzee leg., deposited in CAS, type no. 1502. Images examined by ZP. Online record: https://monarch.calacademy.org/taxa/index.php?tid=672893 Taxonomy and references Agapostemon texanus – Robertson 1897: 328 [in part, combined with A. texanus and A. subtilior] (description, range). — Vachal 1903: 94 [likely in part, mixed with A. texanus] (key, description). Agapostemon angelicus – Cockerell 1927: 156 (description of male, key, records). — Sandhouse 1936: 83 (key, diagnosis, distribution). — Fischer 1950: 78 (records). — Roberts 1972: 461 (key, description, distribution); 1973: 5 (key, diagnosis, biology, distribution). — Hurd 1979: 1953 (catalog). — Moure & Hurd 1987: 188 (catalog). — Portman et al. 2022: 114 (key, diagnosis). Agapostemon angelicus angelicus – Michener 1951: 1125 (catalog). Diagnosis Females of A. angelicus are similar to those of A. texanus s. s. and A. subtilior, and they can co-occur with both species. Agapostemon angelicus can be separated from A. texanus s. s. by the striations on the gena, which are relatively fine in A. angelicus (Fig. 1A) and extremely strong in A. texanus (Fig. 1C–D). Agapostemon angelicus can be separated from A. subtilior by the shape of the clypeus, which is flattened all the way to the apical margin and terminates in a very narrow vertical overhang just above the apical fimbriae, forming a weak carina between the 90-degree separation of anterior and ventral faces of the clypeus (Fig. 2B). In contrast, A. subtilior has the clypeal weakly convex, not flat, and more evenly and somewhat irregularly sloping to the base of the apical fimbriae (Fig. 2D), lacking the very narrow vertical portion and associated carina which typifies A. angelicus. Note these clypeal characters are subtle and somewhat variable depending on wear, they but are useful in separating A. angelicus from A. subtilior throughout its range. In addition, A. angelicus has a more coarsely striate propodeum, with the ridges parallel or moderately anastomizing (Fig. 3A), whereas A. subtilior typically has the propodeum more weakly sculptured (Fig. 3B). The pleura of A. angelicus are also more strongly sculptured (Fig. 3C), with the reticulations more strongly upraised (even along the posterior margin) than in A. subtilior, which has the reticulations more weakly upraised and with smaller gaps (Fig. 3D); this character is subtle but distinctive and reliable. There are additional, less reliable characters that can help separate females of A. angelicus and A. subtilior. These include the black mark on the apex of the clypeus, which is generally straight across in A. angelicus (Fig. 1A) whereas it typically is thickened or has a ‘tooth’ medially in A. subtilior (Fig. 2C). Agapostemon angelicus typically has a longer dorsal face of the propodeum, which is generally longer than the metanotum (Fig. 3A), whereas the length of the dorsal face of the propodeum is typically about equal to that of the metanotum in A. subtilior (Fig. 3B). In addition, A. angelicus typically has contiguous punctures on the terga (Fig. 4A, D), whereas A. subtilior typically has distinct interspaces between the punctures (Fig. 4B, E); this character is most reliable on the lateral areas of the T1 and T2 just basal to the premarginal line. Further, A. angelicus tends to have whiter hairs versus more yellowish hairs in A. subtilior (though this character is rather unreliable), A. angelicus tend to have any dark hairs on the tibial scopa limited to the very base (compared to typically extending down in line from the basatibial plate through most of the tibia in A. subtilior), and A. anglicus tend to have more copious hairs laterally on the terga, especially T1 (Fig. 4A). Finally, A. angelicus are, on average, smaller than both A. subtilior and especially A. texanus s. s. Males of A. angelicus are similar to those of both A. texanus s. s. and A. subtilior, but they can be definitively separated by the genitalia, with the basal stylus much thicker and the medial plate smaller and more acute (Fig. 6A). In addition, A. angelicus males have a dark mark ONLY on the posterior hind tibia (Fig. 5A–B; not counting a small dark mark on the apex of the tibia), whereas A. texanus and A. subtilior males also have a dark mark on the anterior face of the hind tibia (Fig. 5E, G, I) (or in the case of some A. subtilior, the hind tibia can be entirely light as in Fig. 5C–D). In addition, A. angelicus has the hind leg with a distinctly narrower femur, tibia, and basitarsus (Fig. 5K) compared to A. subtilior (Fig. 5L) and A. texanus (Fig. 5M), though the difference between A. angelicus and A. subtilior is somewhat subtle. Material examined USA – ARIZONA – Apache Co. • Apache NF, Terry Flat, 9700 ft, NE of Alpine ca. 5 air miles: 1 ♀; 31 Jul. 1998; Arduser and Stevens leg.; MAPC • Benny Crk USNF campground, by Bunch Reservoir: 1 ♂; 10 Jul. 1998; Arduser and Stevens leg.; net, Potentilla crinita; MAPC. – Coconino Co. • E. Page 7.9 mi. on Hwy 98: 3 ♂♂; 26 Jun. 2023; Arduser and MacRae leg.; MAPC • S. Page 15 mi. on Hwy 89: 1 ♀; 26 Jun. 2023; Arduser and MacRae leg.; net, Sphaeralcea sp.; MAPC. – Gila Co. • Globe: 1 ♀; Jul. 193?; Parker leg.; MCZ. – Graham Co. • Dublin: 1 ♀; 8 Mar. 1937?; Cockerell leg.; UMSP • Pinaleno Mtns., Hospital Flat, 9000 ft: 2 ♀♀, 1 ♂; 29 Jul. 2003; Arduser and Stevens leg.; MAPC. – Greenlee Co. • Apache NF, SE Rose Peak ca 2 mi. on Hwy 191: 3 ♀♀; 31 Jul. 1997; Arduser and Stevens leg.; net, Machaeranthera sp.; MAPC. – Maricopa Co. • Tempe: 1 ♀; 3 Aug. year unknown; J Bequaert leg.; MCZ. – COLORADO – Baca Co. • Comanche National Grasslands nr Springfield: 1 ♀, 4 ♂♂; 22 Jul. 1998; R Clinebell leg.; Asclepias latifolia; MAPC. – Larimer Co. • Cameron Pass, elev. 10 000 ft: 2 ♂♂; 18 Aug. 1940; HE Milliron leg.; UMSP • Pingree Park: 1 ♀, 1 ♂; 17–22 Aug. 1922; FC Hottes leg.; UMSP; 1 ♂; 20 Aug. 1926; RF Dawson leg.; UMSP. – Otero Co. • Vogel Canyon Picnic Area: 1 ♀; 23 Jun. 2023; Arduser and MacRae leg.; net, Escobaria vivipara; MAPC. – IDAHO – Oneida Co. • Stone: 1 ♂; 14 Sep. 1972; GF Knowlton leg.; UMSP. – IOWA – Woodbury Co. • Sioux City: 1 ♂; 17 Aug. 1937; CN Ainslie leg.; UMSP; 1 ♂; Oct. 1939; CN Ainslie leg.; UMSP. – KANSAS – Ellsworth Co. • (38.58598 -98.1401): 2 ♂♂; 13 Jul. 2018; A Morphew leg.; AMC. – Gove Co. • (38.970421 -100.5056): 3 ♂♂; 22 Jul. 2019; A Morphew leg.; AMC. – Hodgeman Co. • (38.100843 -98.6435): 2 ♂♂; 22 Jun. 2018; A Morphew leg.; AMC. – Logan Co. • (39.0784 -100.9095): 3 ♂♂; 28 Jul. 2018; A Morphew leg.; AMC. – Morton Co. • Cimarron National Grassland, “Point of Rocks” area: 1 ♀; 20 Jul. 1998; R Clinebell leg.; Asclepias latifolia; MAPC. – Rice Co. • (38.487554 -98.1573): 2 ♂♂; 11 Jun. 2018; A Morphew leg.; AMC. – Sheridan Co. • (39.207824 -100.2152): 1 ♂; 3 Jul. 2018; A Morphew leg.; AMC. – Stafford Co. • (38.186276 -98.6429): 1 ♂; 12 Jun. 2018; A Morphew leg.; AMC. – Thomas Co. • (39.149998 -101.0742): 7 ♂♂; 10 Jul. 2018; A Morphew leg.; AMC. – Wallace Co. • (38.912332 -101.8017): 2 ♂♂; 19 Jun. 2018; A Morphew leg.; AMC. – MINNESOTA – Big Stone Co. • Dybdahl WPA (45.43976 -96.2415): 1 ♀; 27 Jun. 2016; Pennarola and Leone leg.; UMSP • Ortonville: 1 ♀; 5 Aug. 1935; DG Denning leg.; UMSP. – Brown Co. • (44.2114 -94.542): 3 ♀♀; 16 Jul. 2021; ED leg.; bee bowl; CNBL • (44.29578 -94.7671): 2 ♂♂; 9 Sep. 2021; SM and RK leg.; bee bowl; CNBL • (44.39939 -94.7165): 1 ♀; 30 Jun. 2021; WB, SM leg.; bee bowl; CNBL. – Clay Co. • (46.74468 -96.4675): 1 ♀; 14 Jul. 2017; I Lane leg.; bowl; UMSP. – Cottonwood Co. • (43.99175 -95.2175): 1 ♀; 24 Jun. 2021; WB, SM leg.; bee bowl; CNBL; 1 ♀; 17 Aug. 2021; SM leg.; bee bowl; CNBL • (44.00121 -95.2591): 5 ♀♀; 24 Jun. 2021; SM, WB leg.; bee bowl; CNBL. – Douglas Co. • (45.4729 -95.3918): 1 ♀; 21 Jul. 2022; A Carroll, G Zebrasky leg.; yellow pan trap; CBG • (45.5044 -95.4531): 1 ♀; 12 Jul. 2022; A Carroll, G Zebrasky leg.; yellow pan trap; CBG. – Faribault Co. • 1 ♀, 1 ♂; 18 Aug. 1936; CE Mickel leg.; UMSP. – Jackson Co. • (43.51976 -94.874): 1 ♀; 13 Jul. 2021; LS, WB leg.; bee bowl; CNBL; 1 ♀, 1 ♂; 1 Sep. 2021; SM leg.; bee bowl; CNBL • Graham Creek WMA (43.78235 -95.4131): 3 ♀♀; 2 Jul. 2021; WB, EB leg.; bee bowl; CNBL; 1 ♀; 29 Jun. 2022; ED leg.; bowl; CNBL • Sioux Valley WMA (43.51555 -95.2989): 1 ♀; 16 Jun. 2022; MM leg.; bowl; CNBL; 1 ♀; 30 Jun. 2022; WB leg.; bowl; CNBL. – Lincoln Co. • (44.35099 -96.0915): 1 ♀; 24 Jun. 2021; ED, IR leg.; bee bowl; CNBL • (44.40319 -96.4448): 21 ♀♀; 13 Jul. 2016; Pennarola and Leone leg.; UMSP • Hole in the Mountain (44.25681 -96.2925): 3 ♀♀; 12 Jul. 2016; Pennarola and Leone leg.; UMSP. – Lyon Co. • (44.46335 -95.8984): 6 ♀♀; 24 Jun. 2021; ED, IR leg.; bee bowl; CNBL • (44.53108 -95.8984): 5 ♀♀; 30 Jun. 2021; IR, ED leg.; hand net, Ratibida columnifera; CNBL; 1 ♀; 30 Jun. 2021; IR, ED leg.; hand net, Verbena stricta; CNBL; 31 ♀♀; 1 Jul. 2021; SM leg.; bee bowl; CNBL; 1 ♀; 28 Jul. 2021; CHS, IR leg.; bee bowl; CNBL; 1 ♀, 2 ♂♂; 18 Aug. 2021; LS leg.; bee bowl; CNBL; 1 ♂; 18 Aug. 2021; WB leg.; hand net, Heliopsis helianthoides; CNBL; 1 ♀; 23 Jun. 2022; ED leg.; bowl; CNBL • (44.5639 -95.7592): 1 ♀; 29 Jun. 2019; SG, LN leg.; bee bowls; CNBL • (44.564 -95.7593): 1 ♀; 28 Jul. 2021; WB, LF leg.; bee bowl; CNBL; 1 ♀; 18 Aug. 2021; IL leg.; hand net, Helianthus maximiliani; CNBL • Lines WMA (44.58493 -95.635): 1 ♀; 14 Jul. 2022; ED leg.; bowl; CNBL. – Martin Co. • (43.5495 -94.7961): 1 ♀; 12 Jul. 2019; MK, LN leg.; bee bowls; CNBL • (43.5495 -94.7962): 1 ♀; 30 Aug. 2021; WB leg.; hand net, Solidago rigida; CNBL; 1 ♀; 1 Sep. 2021; SM leg.; bee bowl; CNBL • Krahmer WMA (43.69432 -94.6017): 1 ♀; 8 Jul. 2021; CHS, SM leg.; bee bowl; CNBL; 1 ♀; 17 Jun. 2022; WB leg.; bo