QL 566 .M43 1997 Scientific Papers Natural History Museum The University of Kansas 25 July 1997 Number 1:1-81 Genus-Group Names of Bees and Supplemental Family-Group Names^ By Charles D. Michener MCZ LIBRARY Division of Entomologi/, Natural History Museum The Kansas University of QCOLU 1997 Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA CONTENTS HARVARD UNIVERSITY ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Acknowledgments 2 GENUS-GROUP NAMES 2 SUPPLEMENT TO THE LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES 52 LITERATURE CITED 63 ADDENDUM 81 ABSTRACT This paper includes an alphabetical list of generic and subgeneric names that have been proposed for bees, with bibliographic references and indications of type species. Synonymies are not indicated, but the major group (family subfamily tribe or sometimes merely "fossil") is indicated for each. Synonymies will be indicated in a future account of world bees. New nomenclatural details include the following: Apis tlioracica Fabricius designated as type species o( Melanchxnia Perez; Paracella new subgenus of Megachile, with M. seniiivjiusta Cockerell as type species, for Paracella Pasteels, a name proposed without designation of a type species; Callistochlora new name for Callochlora Moure, 1964, not Packard, 1864; Gyrodroniella new name for Gyrodronia Thomson, 1872, not Klug, 1807; and Lithurgus Berthold, 1827, given preference over the French vernacular Lithurge Latreille, 1825. The list of family-group names in bees is corrected and up-dated. Key words: Apoidea; Generic and Family names; Type species. ' Contribution Number 3167 from the Snow Entomological Division Natural History Museum, and Department of Entomology, The University of Kansas © Natural History Museum, The University of Kansas ISSN No. 1094-0782 QL 566 .M43 1997 Scientific Papers Natural History Museum The University of Kansas 25 July 1997 Number 1:1-81 Genus-Group Names of Bees and Supplemental Family-Group Names^ By Charles D. Michener MCZ LIBRARY Division of Enkvnologi/, Natural History Miisfuin The University of Kansas QcnLO 1 7 1997 Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA CONTENTS HARVARD UNIVERSITY ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Acknowledgments 2 GENUS-GROUP NAMES 2 SUPPLEMENT TO THE LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES 52 LITERATURE CITED 63 ADDENDUM 81 ABSTRACT This paper includes an alphabetical list of generic and subgeneric names that have been proposed for bees, with bibliographic references and indications of type species. Synonymies are not indicated, but the major group (family, subfamily, tribe or sometimes merely "fossil") is indicated for each. Synonymies will be indicated in a future account of world bees. New nomenclatural details include the following: Apis thoracica Fabricius designated as type species oi Melandrena Perez; Paracella new subgenus of Megachile, with M. seuiivenusta Cockerell as type species, for Paracella Pasteels, a name proposed without designation of a type species; Callistochlora new name for Callochlora Moure, 1964, not Packard, 1864; Gyrodromella new name for Gyrodroma Thomson, 1872, not Klug, 1807; and Litlntrgiis Berthold, 1827, given preference over the French vernacular Lithiirge Latreille, 1825. The list of family-group names in bees is corrected and up-dated. Key zvords: Apoidea; Generic and Family names; Type species. ' Contribution Number 3167 from the Snow Entomological Division Natural History Museum, and Department of Entomology, The University of Kansas © Natural History Museum, The University of Kansas ISSN No. 1094-0782 vSciENTiFic Papers, Natural History Museum, The University of Kansas INTRODUCTION Table 1. The last list of genus-group names of bees was that of Sandhouse (1943). Since that time many new taxa have been described; there were about 977 entries in her list, compared with about 2057 herein. It is of some interest to examine the entire list from the viewpoint of production of genus-group names or actual entries in the list, includ- ing nomina nuda and the like. From the initiation of Lin- naean nomenclature until the end of 18th Century, five generic names were proposed for bees, Andrena, Apis, Eucera, Hylaeus, and Nomada. But for the first decade of the next century, 1800 to 1809, there are 66 entries. The result of a tabulation by decade, from 1800 to the present, is shown in Table 1. In a reevaluation in preparation, I expect to recognize about 867 genera and subgenera. the exten- Melittologists are sometimes criticized for sive use of subgenera, because species-groups, named in- formally with species names, could be used instead of sub- genera. Such a procedure would avoid burdening the lit- erature with numerous subgeneric names with their asso- ciated formalities such as type species, problems of hom- onymy, etc. Such a criticism is justified for certain groups of bees, especially in certain regions of the world. I believe strongly, however, that large genera are com- monly practical and desirable. Nearly all biologists have some idea of what is meant by generic names like Droso- philn, Cidex, and Anopheles, and many would recognize major bee genera like Aiidreun or MegachUe. If the subgen- era of each of these were elevated to generic rank, the av- erage biologist would often lose track of the sort of organ- ism involved. For many large genera with hundreds or thousands of species, the choice is not between recogniz- ing the genus with subgenera vs. the genus with species groups. It is between recognizing the genus with subgen- era vs. several or many genera, because many of the cur- rent subgenera are quite different from one another, some- times recognizable in flight, and many specialists prefer to recognize them as genera. I prefer to retain inclusive genera, for the reason indicated above. These decisions, however, are subjective regardless of one's views on sys- tematic methodology. Some recent bee specialists have used generic names in much the same way that I would use tribal names. More, however, split "excessively," Robertson (1918b) being one of the first to be overtly and purposely a "splitter." One of the advantages of subgenera is that they need not be cited, i.e., unlike genera, which are required, they Genus-Group Names of Bees The first 1807) shows no author either in the table rent tribe, subfamily, or faniily name is provided (in bold- (Illiger, of contents of the volume or in the text an indication face type) for each entry, following the classification put itself, that it was written The second 1807b) is forward by Roig-Alsina and Michener (1993) and by Illiger. (Klug, Alexander and Michener (1995). attributed to Klug in both places. The two articles were published simultaneously; page 199 of the first article is I have cited the names of type species in their original on the same leaf as page 200 of the second. Some of the combinations. This means that I have ignored the same generic names were proposed in both articles. All of complexities that could have been cited when an author, in them have been attributed in the past to Klug, and Illiger's designating a type species, placed it in a genus different from article in most cases credits Klug with such names. Given the original one or cited an erroneous author. This policy is that publication was simultaneous, I have adjusted the generally in accord with the Code, ed. 3, Art. 67d, f. references to retain Klug's authorship, in different ways Of course there have been errors, especially probable in different cases because of differing treatments in the two printers' errors, from time to time. For example, Westwood articles concerned. (1840a) instead of Coelioxi/s. published Caelioxys Except Westwood (1840a) listed a typical British species for when such errors have been or have nomencla- repeated each genus. These have been taken as type designations, tural I have not listed them. Also, nomina significance, in accordance with Opinion 71 of the Commission (1922). nuda that have not been as to a recognized relating par- Westwood listed synonymous generic names in his ac- ticular taxon are omitted. counts of many genera, often with the notation "p." for I follow Sandhouse (1943) in using the term monoba- "part." It seems clear that he was merely listing synonyms sic to indicate that there was only one originally included and that his type designations did not apply to these syn- species, and autobasic to mean that a replacement name onymous names. has the same as its antecedent, automatically type species Mehely's monumental work (1935) on palearctic name. When a is monobasic usually preoccupied, genus Hylaeus included descriptions of various subgenera. When and in the the was also original publication single species monobasic, such subgenera are valid, but those including as the I use the designated type species, only expression more than one species are invalid because of his failure to since the action the "by original designation," positive by designate a type species, a requirement after 1930 (Code, author of the name seems more than the mere significant 3rd ed.. Art. 13b). Popov (1939) rectified the sih.iation by fact that there was but one included originally species. designating type species as needed, except for certain of which he (and authors) Sandhouse (1943) used the term isogenotypic for taxa Mehely's subgenera subsequent as format included a having the same type species. Since genotype is no longer regarded junior synonyms. Popov's for a followed a list of used to mean the type species of a genus, I have changed heading subgenus, by synonyms, material, and then a statement of the the term to isotypic. When two generic names are isotypic, descriptive type spe- cies. It is clear that his intention was to a they are objectively synonynious. Isotypic by synonymy, designate type for the indicated in the however, means that the taxa are the same only by syn- species subgenus heading. Sandhouse (1943), however, considered that same onymy of their type species, which is usually subjective.