Search for: All records

Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) are vital components of global ecosystems, yet knowledge of their distribution is limited in many regions. Washington state is located in an ecologically diverse part of North America and encompasses habitat types and plant communities known for high bee species richness. To establish a baseline for future studies on bee communities in the state, we used published and unpublished datasets to develop a preliminary annotated checklist of bees occurring in Washington state. We document, with high confidence, 565 species of bees in Washington and identify an additional 102 species likely to occur in the state. We anticipate future research survey efforts, such as the newly initiated Washington Bee Atlas, will discover several species that have the potential to occur in Washington and provide new data for 84 species which have not been recorded in more than 50 years. 

Abstract We reconstruct the phylogeny of the most speciose genus of cuckoo bees, genus Nomada Scopoli, 1770, using 221 species from throughout its distribution, yet with a strong emphasis on the West Palearctic. For phylogenetic reconstruction, we sequenced ultraconserved elements, allowing robust phylogenetic estimates with both concatenation and coalescent-based methods. By integrating extensive information on Nomada host records, we study macroevolutionary patterns of host associations, transitions, and phylogenetic conservatism. Using Bayesian divergence time estimates, we assess the historical biogeography of the genus, focusing on the West Palearctic. Our results show that Nomada likely originated in the Eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern region, and likely expanded its range to a near-global distribution from there. We recovered long-standing phylogenetic conservatism in the host usage of Nomada and provided strong statistical evidence for an ancestral host association with Andrena and its most recent common ancestor. However, host transitions occurred multiple times independently in the natural history of Nomada, and species of the genus are brood parasites in at least 5 genera and 4 different families of bees in the Old World. At last, we systematically revise the taxonomy of the Old World Nomada by integrating morphological study with our well-supported phylogenetic estimates. We re-establish the genus Acanthonomada Schwarz, 1966, stat. res., as a distinct, second genus in the tribe Nomadini. We recognize 13 subgenera for Nomada, 9 of which are described as new: Afronomada Straka and Bossert, subgen. nov., Colliculla Straka, subgen. nov., Gestamen Straka, subgen. nov., Hungias Straka, subgen. nov., Mininomada Straka, subgen. nov., Nomacolla Straka, subgen. nov., Nomonosa Straka, subgen. nov., Plumada Straka, subgen. nov., and Profuga Straka, subgen. nov. Aside from the subgenus Nomada s.s., we reinstitute 3 previously synonymized subgenera: Heminomada Cockerell, 1902, stat. res., Holonomada Robertson, 1903, stat. res., and Hypochrotaenia Holmberg, 1886 stat. res. A total of 15 subgeneric names are formally synonymized with the newly established subgeneric concepts. 

Scrapter is a genus of colletid bees with a primary distribution centered in Southern Africa. The genus currently comprises 68 recognized species, which are divided into nine species groups, ranging from one to 29 included species. The Scrapter heterodoxus group is presently considered to be the only monotypic group, because of synonymization of Scrapter heterodoxus with Scrapter peringueyi in a previous revision of the genus. A comparative examination of these two species using both morphological assessment and molecular sequence data from the COI barcode region supported the recognition of S. peringueyi as a valid species, which we accordingly resurrect as the second species of the Scrapter heterodoxus species group. We provide high resolution images of the type specimens for both species and updated diagnoses to enable their separation from all other species of Scrapter . 

Establishing a higher classification of bees based on morphology alone can fail to capture evolutionary relationships when morphological characters either vary very little between distantly related groups, or conversely vary greatly between closely related species. This problem is well represented in the subfamily Panurginae, for which a recent global revision based on phylogenomic data unexpectedly revealed that two Old World species previously placed in Camptopoeum Spinola and Flavipanurgus Warncke, are in fact most closely related to each other, and together form a sister group relationship to the remaining Flavipanurgus and Panurgus Panzer combined. To rectify this situation, we here establish an expanded phylogenomic data set of Old World Panurgini and re-assess generic and subgeneric concepts for the tribe. To solve the paraphyly of Camptopoeum and Flavipanurgus , we establish the new genus Halopanurgus gen. nov. containing the species H. baldocki (Wood & Cross), comb. nov. and H. fuzetus (Patiny), comb. nov. , both of which are restricted to coastal sands, saltmarshes, and inland saline lagoons in the extreme south of Portugal and south-west of Spain. Re-evaluation of four recently used subgenera in Panurgus strongly supports a simplified classification of two subgenera; Pachycephalopanurgus Patiny, stat. rev. including Micropanurgus Patiny syn. nov. , and Panurgus s. str. including Euryvalvus Patiny. Pachycephalopanurgus species seem to be oligoleges of Asteroideae (Asteraceae), whereas Panurgus s. str. may be oligoleges of Cichorieae (Asteraceae). Our findings reinforce the challenges of establishing a phylogenetically sound classification of Panurginae using morphology alone and illustrate that even in well-studied regions like Europe unrecognised genera can persist in underexplored corners of the continent. 

Abstract The recent advances in sequencing technologies, phylogenomics and divergence dating methods call for an integrative review of the current state of Hymenoptera systematics. We here explore the impact of these latest developments on the Hymenoptera phylogeny and our understanding of the timing of Hymenoptera evolution, while identifying the current methodological constraints and persistent knowledge gaps that warrant further investigation. Our review highlights the lack of consensus among the backbone phylogeny of Hymenoptera between key phylogenomic studies, as the higher level phylogeny remains unresolved in key nodes such as the relationships among Eusymphyta, the relationships within the Infraorder Proctotrupomorpha and the placements of the superfamilies Ichneumonoidea, Ceraphronoidea and Vespoidea. Furthermore, we underline the huge variation in divergence age estimates for Hymenoptera and detect several major gaps and/or disagreements between the fossil record and available age estimates, either due to the poorly studied fossil record or problematic age estimates, or both. To better understand the timing of Hymenoptera evolution and the role of key diversification factors, we will need continuous efforts to (i) reconcile conflicts among morphological and molecular phylogenies, by improving taxon sampling of underrepresented lineages, applying novel techniques to study morphology, making use of genome‐scale data and critically assessing incongruences in genetic markers; (ii) improve the Hymenoptera fossil record, by exercising integrative taxonomy and bringing together paleontologists and neontologists; and (iii) reconcile age estimates, by relying on tip dating approaches to bridge fossils, morphology and genomes across time.