taxonID	type	description	language	source
216487AB287BD45EE174A4352E21FAB4.taxon	diagnosis	DIAGNOSIS: Because of its projecting labiomaxillary regions, this species can easily be distinguished from Conanthalictus. The clear presence of the articulating arm of the stipes separates it from all known Dufourea and Sphecodosoma, and characters presented in the key will enable it to be separated from the other taxa treated here. HEAD (figs. 39, 42): Integument of head capsule as described for Dufourea holocyanea. Integument unpigmented except for mandibular apices. Other head features as described for Dufourea holocyanea except for following: median longitudinal thickening of head capsule absent; antennal disc moderate in size, its diameter about 0.8 times distance between its lower margin and center of anterior tentorial pit; antennal papilla projecting less than onehalf basal diameter; labrum with low labral tubercles (rather than merely bilobed as in D. holocyanea) though not surpassing clypeus in lateral view. Mandible (figs. 40, 41) as described for Dufourea holocyanea except more sinuate in aboral and adoral views (figs. 40, 44) and tubercle cluster less projecting on outer surface (fig. 41). Labiomaxillary region projecting in lateral view but not as strongly as in Dufourea and Sphecodosoma. Inner surface of lower lip with parallel ridges (figs. 45, 46) similar to those of D. holocyanea; microstructure of inner surface of upper lip uncertain. Other feature of maxilla and labium as described for D. holocyanea, except for following: articulating arm of stipital sclerite evident. Hypopharynx as described for Dufourea holocyanea. BODY: Integument as described for predefecating Dufourea holocyanea. Body shape- [? or change ‘‘ form’ ’ 3 X in this same clause to ‘‘ larva’ ’?] of postdefecating form unknown; intersegmental lines moderately weakly incised on predefecating form, unknown on postdefecating form; paired prothoracic dorsal tubercles present, more sharply defined but apparently smaller than those of mesothorax, metathorax, and most abdominal segments (fig. 38); all tubercles conical (not transverse); midbody tubercles appearing apically rounded but with apical surfaces thicker and finely wrinkled, so that those of postdefecating larva possibly truncate; abdominal segment 9 strongly produced ventrally; abdominal segment 10 positioned dorsally on 9 as seen in lateral view (fig. 38); on predefecating larva, ventral integument of segments 9 extended, causing segment 10 to be partly tilted and making anus appear somewhat dorsally on 10; ventral integument of segment 9 on postdefecating larva unknown. Spiracles small; those of thorax slightly larger than those of abdomen, those of predefecating larva without sclerites; those of postdefecating larva unknown; other spiracular features as describe for D. holocyanea except subatrium consisting of about 10 chambers. Male with median, transverse, integumental scar ventrally near apex of protrusion of segment 9 of predefecating larva, unknown on postdefecating larva; female sexual characters visible on predefecating larva as small, paired, ventral, pale, subcutaneous imaginal discs arranged sublaterally on abdominal segments 7, 8, and 9, with those of 7 farthest apart and those of 9 closest.	en	Rozen, Jerome G., ÖZbek, Hikme T. (2008): Immatures of Rophitine Bees, with Notes on their Nesting Biology (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Halictidae). American Museum Novitates 3609 (1): 1-36, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2008)3609[1:IORBWN]2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1206%2F0003-0082(2008)3609%5B1%3AIORBWN%5D2.0.CO%3B2
216487AB287BD45EE174A4352E21FAB4.taxon	materials_examined	MATERIAL STUDIED: 4 predefecating larva, Turkey: Erzurum: Atatürk University campus, N 39 ° 54 9 09 0 E 41 ° 14 9 06 0, July 4, 2001 (J. G. Rozen); 2 predefecating larvae, same except July 1, 2001 (J. G. Rozen, H. Özbek).	en	Rozen, Jerome G., ÖZbek, Hikme T. (2008): Immatures of Rophitine Bees, with Notes on their Nesting Biology (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Halictidae). American Museum Novitates 3609 (1): 1-36, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2008)3609[1:IORBWN]2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1206%2F0003-0082(2008)3609%5B1%3AIORBWN%5D2.0.CO%3B2
216487AB287BD45EE174A4352E21FAB4.taxon	discussion	REMARKS: We studied two nests of this species July 1, 2001, on the campus of Atatürk University (see fig. 63). Main burrows were open, with diameters of 5.0 and 5.5 mm, and descended more or less vertically. Cells were arranged singly and occurred between the depths of 8 and 14 cm. Because the nests were still early in construction, other cells would likely have been added at lower depths. Cells, symmetrical around their long axis, were nearly horizontal, their rears tilted slightly downward. They appeared ovoid (fig. 47), like the cells of other rophitines, in that their length ranged from 9.5 to 12.0 mm (N 5 3) and their maximum diameter was 8.0 mm (N 5 2). Cell walls were dull, smooth, without any evidence of a shiny lining, but the fine- grained surface was presumably smoothed by some activity of the female. When a water droplet was applied to the wall, the droplet was absorbed almost immediately. A number of cell walls had irregular gouges (fig. 47), very possibly created by the Systropha female removing cleptoparasite eggs with her mandibles. Biastes brevicornis (Panzer) (Apidae: Nomadinae: Biastini), a confirmed parasite of this and another species of Systropha (Warnke, 1982), was collected in the area. One cell closure (fig. 48) was shallowly concave on the inner surface and had 3 – 4 coils to the radius. Laterals, backfilled after cell closure, were 8 – 10 mm in length (N 5 2). Provisions were spherical, and two were 5.0 mm in diameter. The above information is consistent with that presented by Malyshev (1925 a) concerning the nesting biology of this species, the larva of which, as he points out, ‘‘ spins a cocoon and ejects excrements’ ’ and ‘‘ hibernates curled up and lying freely in the cocoon. ’’ Grozdanić and Vasić (1968) described nests of this species and reported that one nest was 48 cm deep, far deeper than ours. In most other respects the nest construction was similar to that of our nests including burrow diameter and cell size. However, they reported that inner surface of the cells were shiny (‘‘ glänzed’ ’); we think this is unlikely since all other rophitines about which we have information characteristically have dull inner surfaces, including those of S. planidens preserved in the AMNH from the current study. Batra and Michener (1966) described a nest and an immature larva of the closely related Systropha (Systropha) punjabensis Batra and Michener. Mature Larvae of Rophites (Rhophitoides)	en	Rozen, Jerome G., ÖZbek, Hikme T. (2008): Immatures of Rophitine Bees, with Notes on their Nesting Biology (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Halictidae). American Museum Novitates 3609 (1): 1-36, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2008)3609[1:IORBWN]2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1206%2F0003-0082(2008)3609%5B1%3AIORBWN%5D2.0.CO%3B2
216487AB2863D456E348A37B2EADFE34.taxon	diagnosis	DIAGNOSIS: The rounded body tubercles of this species easily separate it from the more pointed tubercles of Conanthalictus conanthi. The larval mandibles of the two species of Conanthalictus treated here differ from those of all other rophitines in that the mandibles are interpreted as having a conspicuous subapical tooth in addition to smaller teeth extending along the apical dorsal edge both proximal and distal to the subapical tooth. We have re-examined specimens of both and think that this interpretation is still appropriate since the subapical tooth is substantially larger than all other teeth along the dorsal edge in the two species. Interestingly, when the mandible of the predefecating larva of C. bakeri was re-examined with a compound microscope, it, like that of C. conanthi, appeared to have no teeth along the ventral apical edge. Yet, the SEM micrograph (fig. 68) of the predefecating larva clearly has two teeth along this edge. In the following, comparisons with Conanthalictus conanthi refer to the description presented by Rozen (1993). HEAD (figs. 66, 67): Integument of head capsule with scattered small sensilla that are not obviously setiform. Integument unpigmented except for mandibular apices. Head size (figs. 64, 65) moderately small compared with body size; head capsule much wider than length measured from top of vertex to lower clypeal margin in frontal view. Unlike that described for Conanthalictus conanthi, tentorium complete, including dorsal arms. As in C. conanthi, anterior tentorial pit close to anterior mandibular articulation; posterior tentorial pits in normal position; postoccipital ridge weak, evident only near posterior tentorial pit, vanishing dorsally (perhaps more quickly in postdefecating larva than in predefecating larva); median longitudinal thickening of head capsule absent; hypostomal ridge moderately developed; pleurostomal ridge well developed; epistomal ridge laterad of anterior tentorial pit extremely short because of closeness of pit to anterior mandibular articulation; ridge between pits either absent (postdefecating larva) or present but fading well before median line (predefecating larva). Parietal bands evident both as integumental scars and as subcutaneous white imaginal discs on uncleared specimens, unlike those of C. conanthi. As in C. conanthi, antennal prominence large, globose, occupy- ing much of anterolateral area of parietal, though not strongly projecting; antennal disc and papilla moderately large; papilla projecting slightly, bearing 3 – 4 sensilla. Vertex evenly rounded as seen from side, without projections. Labrum not projecting as far as clypeus in lateral view (fig. 67), very short in frontal view (figs. 66, 68); labrum and epipharynx apparently without spicules. Mandible similar to that of Conanthalictus conanthi (Rozen, 1993: figs. 38, 39) with conspicuous, sharply pointed subapical tooth and with series of sharp teeth along dorsal apical edge (see ‘‘ Remarks’ ’ for further explanation of mandibular apex); ventral apical edge with one or two minute teeth; cusp not developed; apical concavity scarcely developed, a flattened area near mandibular apex; outer mandibular surface with one or two, small, inconspicuous tubercles, each bearing single short sensillum. Labiomaxillary region greatly recessed, as in C. conanthi. Maxilla with dorsal surface spiculate; cardo, stipes, and articulating arm of stipital sclerite not evident; maxillary palpus recognizable only by several sensilla at maxillary apex. Labium (unlike that described for C. conanthi 7) weakly divided into prementum and postmentum, 7 Examination of the postdefecating larva of Conanthalictus bakeri raises the possibility that the prementum / postmentum boundary of C. conanthi was confused with the posterior boundary of the postmentum (Rozen, 1993: fig. 35). Reexamination of the head of C. conanthi in the collection of the AMNH confirms that there is a ventral line approximately in line with an imaginary line drawn from the vertex through the posterior tentorial pit, as illustrated (loc. cit.). However, in C. bakeri, the posterior margin of the postmentum is clearly behind this imaginary line; another transverse ventral line anterior to it is considered to demark the prementum / postmentum boundary. In other rophitines, the posterior margin of the postmentum falls behind this imaginary line. At the same time, if the labial length depicted in (loc. cit.) is actually only the length of the prementum, then it is disproportionately long compared with that shown in fig. 67 for C. bakeri. moderately long; labial palpus not evident except for several sensilla. Salivary lips absent; opening of salivary duct a transverse slit, narrow on postdefecating specimen but wide on predefecating specimen. Hypopharynx nonspiculate, not longitudinally grooved; hypopharyngeal groove absent (alternatively the wide salivary opening may possibly be the median remnant of the hypopharyngeal groove, with the salivary duct opening into it). BODY: Integument with fine scattered nonsetiform sensilla; many areas with fine, widely and evenly spaced spicules; dorsal body tubercles faintly wrinkled apically. Body form (figs. 64, 65) moderately robust; intersegmental lines moderately weakly incised on predefecating form; on postdefecating form ventral intersegmental lines modified as explained under ‘‘ Remarks’ ’, below; as in Conanthalictus conanthi, paired prothoracic dorsal tubercles absent; mesothorax, metathorax, abdominal segments 1 – 8 with paired dorsal tubercles (figs. 64, 65), which are conical rather than transverse; venter of abdominal segment 9 scarcely produced ventrally; abdominal segment 10 oriented apically on 9, with dorsal surface shorter than ventral surface, so that anus directed somewhat dorsally; venter of 10 of postdefecating larva with faint transverse line. Spiracles very small, without sclerites, not on tubercles; peritreme present, narrow; atrium projecting slightly beyond wall, with rim, globose; atrial wall smooth; primary tracheal opening with collar; subatrium normal in length, consisting of about 10 chambers. Male with distinct median, transverse, integumental scar ventrally near posterior margin of segment 9; female sexual characters unknown.	en	Rozen, Jerome G., ÖZbek, Hikme T. (2008): Immatures of Rophitine Bees, with Notes on their Nesting Biology (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Halictidae). American Museum Novitates 3609 (1): 1-36, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2008)3609[1:IORBWN]2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1206%2F0003-0082(2008)3609%5B1%3AIORBWN%5D2.0.CO%3B2
216487AB2863D456E348A37B2EADFE34.taxon	materials_examined	MATERIAL STUDIED: 1 postdefecating larva, USA: Arizona: Pima Co.: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, August 15, 1995 (J. G. Rozen and S. Budick); 1 probably early last larval instar, same, except April 1, 1995 (J. G. and B. L. Rozen).	en	Rozen, Jerome G., ÖZbek, Hikme T. (2008): Immatures of Rophitine Bees, with Notes on their Nesting Biology (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Halictidae). American Museum Novitates 3609 (1): 1-36, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2008)3609[1:IORBWN]2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1206%2F0003-0082(2008)3609%5B1%3AIORBWN%5D2.0.CO%3B2
216487AB2863D456E348A37B2EADFE34.taxon	discussion	REMARKS: JGR discovered a nest of Conanthalictus bakeri (adult collected and identified) on March 25, 1995, at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Pima County, Arizona, and excavated it the next day. Two immature larvae from it were reared for several days after excavation but were preserved on April 1, 1995, because they were not faring well. At least one of these appeared to be an early-stage last larval instar; it is described here, its identity certain. Later the same year, JGR again visited the National Monument and retrieved a single mature Conanthalictus larva from a nest marked in the spring. No adult voucher specimen was associated with the nest. Although the larva appears to be that of C. bakeri, adults of C. deserticola Timberlake were also common in the spring. Thus, the postdefecating larva described here is possibly C. deserticola. The differences between these two larvae are discussed under ‘‘ Remarks’ ’, below. Michener’s statement (2000) that Conanthalictus has a fused prementum and postmentum was based on only C. conanthi as reported by Rozen (1993). The prementum is weakly separated from the postmentum in C. bakeri. Although the postdefecating and predefecating larvae described here are nearly identical, they do differ beyond what one usually sees between these two life phases. The peculiar, accordion-like ridges nearly paralleling the ventral intersegmental lines on many of the abdominal segments of the postdefecating form (fig. 64) are without precedent among bee larvae and probably resulted from a postmortem change, the specimen having expanded in the preservative. Presumably the intersegmental lines would be concealed in life, a coarctation that perhaps serves as a defense mechanism to protect a diapausing individual from attack or dehydration. It seems unlikely that an active, functioning bee larva would have such ridges, and they certainly are not present on the predefecating larva (fig. 65). The ridges are integumental in nature since they persisted even after the specimen was cleared in an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide. The apices of the 10 th abdominal segments of the postdefecating (fig. 64) and predefecating (fig. 65) larvae appear dissimilar. However, while clearing the predefecating larva in an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide, we discovered that the anus is very large, and the soft, perhaps rectal integument surround the anus appears capable of everting during defecation. The roughened area surrounding the wide, slitlike anus on the postdefecating larva is thus interpreted to be the shriveled soft rectal integument. The labiomaxillary regions of the two larvae also appear different, but this may be due to postmortem modifications of the more pliable integument of the feeding larva. Two differences appear to be unrelated to larval stage. The predefecating larva has three sensilla on each antenna, and the postdefecating larva has four sensilla on each. The predefecating larva shows the internal epistomal ridge advancing part way mesad of the anterior tentorial pit, while the median section of the internal epistomal ridge is completely absent in the postdefecating larva (fig. 66), as in Conanthalictus conanthi (Rozen, 1993: fig. 36). More larval specimens of C. bakeri and C. deserticola are needed to determine whether these differences are intraspecific or interspecific.	en	Rozen, Jerome G., ÖZbek, Hikme T. (2008): Immatures of Rophitine Bees, with Notes on their Nesting Biology (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Halictidae). American Museum Novitates 3609 (1): 1-36, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0082(2008)3609[1:IORBWN]2.0.CO;2, URL: http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1206%2F0003-0082(2008)3609%5B1%3AIORBWN%5D2.0.CO%3B2
