Megachile (Litomegachile) lippiae Cockerell, 1900

Pritchard, Zoe A., Ivie, Michael A., O’Neill, Kevin M. & Delphia, Casey M., 2025, A faunal treatment of the Megachile (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) of Montana with a key for their identification, Zootaxa 5683 (1), pp. 1-51 : 35

Megachile (Litomegachile) lippiae Cockerell, 1900

Megachile cleomis var. lippiae Cockerell, 1900: 15 .

Megachile texana var. lippiae Cockerell, 1900: 223 . Mitchell 1935a: 37.

Megachile lippiae ; Pearce 2008: 51. Pearce et al. 2012: 101.

Megachile (Litomegachile) lippiae ; Butler 1965: 3. Hurd 1979: 2053. Scott et al. 2011: 55. Sheffield et al. 2011: 38. Bzdyk 2012: 46 . Kuhlman and Burrows 2017: 12. Sheffield and Heron 2019: 70. Engel 2020: 10.

Megachile concinna , not Smith, 1879 (misidentification); Pearce 2008: 107.

Diagnosis. The female of M. lippiae can be identified by its suberect white setae and erect black setae on T6 and apically concave T6 (viewed laterally) ( Fig. 7N ). The female is difficult to discern from M. coquilletti (see M. coquilletti above) (see Taxonomic Challenges). The male of M. lippiae can be identified by its narrow probasitarsus, which is not excavated ventrally, the apical margin of T6 (ventrad to the transverse carina) with submedian teeth closer to lateral teeth than to each other ( Fig. 9F ), the scutum with less than 25% black pubescence, and mostly white pubescence on the dorsal tergites and vertex of head. The male of M. lippiae is most similar to M. texana , which has greater than 50% black pubescence on the scutum, tergites with significant bands of black pubescence, and the vertex of head with greater than 50% black pubescence (see Taxonomic Challenges).

Notes. Megachile lippiae has been collected widely across Montana ( Fig. 1R ). Photographs, illustrations, full morphological descriptions, and notes on the biology of this species can be found in Sheffield et al. (2011) and Bzdyk (2012). Sheffield and Genaro (2013) briefly made a claim of validity for Megachile cleomis Cockerell. See Taxonomic Challenges above for a discussion of this issue. The voucher for the misidentified specimen ( Pearce 2008) is in the MTEC identified as a male M. lippiae (MTEC 088326) ( Table 2; Supp. Material 2: Erroneous Records).

Figures

FIGURE 1. County-level distribution of each Megachile species in Montana. Females identified as Megachile latimanus/ Megachile perihirta (and data without recorded specimen sexes) are counted here as M. perihirta as they are not distinguishable from one another in Montana. Males identified as Megachile lapponica/Megachile relativa (and data without recorded specimen sexes) are counted here as M. relativa as they are not distinguishable from one another in Montana. Mitchell county records are included on maps but not in specimen counts. Two specimens did not have county-level localities and are not included in maps but are included in specimen counts.

FIGURE 7. Female Megachile characters. (A–H) Anterolateral view of mandible, (I–N) Lateral view of metasoma, tergites 4–6, (O) Lateral view of tergites on M. dakotensis, and (P) Lateral view of head with pronounced tooth on the posterior genal margin on M. pugnata.

FIGURE 9. Male Megachile T6 characters. (A–B) Transverse carina, (C) Apical margin with two pairs of prominent teeth on M. parallela, (D) Apical margin with two pairs of small teeth, (E) Apical margin (ventrad the transverse carina) with submedian teeth closer to each other than to lateral teeth, and (F) Apical margin (ventrad to the transverse carina) with submedian teeth closer to lateral teeth than to each other.