Xylocopa affinis Lepeletier 1841
Year: 2026
Type: other
Abstract: Xylocopa affinis Lepeletier, 1841 (Fig. 34) Xylocopa affinis Lepeletier, 1841: 210. MATERIAL EXAMINED. — French Guiana • 1♂ (syntype); Cay. [Cayenne]; OUMNH, ENT-HYME2848. CURRENT STATUS. — Xylocopa (Schoenherria) muscaria (Fabricius, 1775) (Moure 1960; Hurd & Michener 1961; Hurd & Moure 1963; Hurd 1978). DISTRIBUTION. — Central and South America (Ascher & Pickering 2025). REMARKS Xylocopa affinis was described from Cayenne from specimens from “ Musées de MM. Serville et comte Dejean ”. Searches in the OUMNH collection produced a single male labelled as Xylocopa affinis by Lepeletier and subsequently as Xylocopa barbata Fabricius, 1804 by Frederick Smith (blue label). It is not clear when Smith examined this material, but it is probably after 1854 as Smith (1854: 361) listed both X. affinis and X. barbata as distinct species. The nomenclatural situation surrounding X. affinis, X. barbata, and the senior synonym Apis muscaria Fabricius, 1804 was dealt with by Hurd (1959), Moure (1960), Hurd & Michener (1961); Opinion 657 (1963), and Hurd & Moure (1963). After the ICZN ruling (Opinion 657), Hurd & Moure (1963: 296, 298) newly synonymised both X. affinis and X. barbata under X. muscaria. What is unclear is the process by which this synonymy was arrived at. Moure (1960: 139-140) writes for X. muscaria: “A complete account on this group is undertaken by Dr. Paul D. Hurd, Jr., and myself, to be published in a short time” and for X. barbata: “Its definite position will be discussed later in the paper with Dr. Paul D. Hurd, Jr.”. However, the synonymies proposed by Hurd & Moure (1963) do not have any associated justifying text. Later, Hurd (1978: 22) listed the MSNT as the depository for X. affinis, and indeed Casolari & Casolari Moreno (1980: 149) indicate the presence of a single specimen from “Cayenne” from “Serville”. Moure et al. (2007: 667) indicated that the holotype of X. affinis was in the MSNT. Presumption of the holotype is an understandable position given the difficulty in tracing much of Lepeletier’s type material, but given the explicit mention in the original publication that material was also in the Dejean collection, is not a justified position. Whilst an “indication ” published before 2000 that a species was thought to have been described from a single specimen can be considered a valid lectotype designation (ICZN 1999; Article 74.6, see also Vivalo 2019: 27), I cannot find published evidence for such an “indication ” for X. affinis in the works of Hurd and Moure before 2000. Both the OUMNH and MSNT specimens must currently be considered to be syntypes. The OUMNH specimen is not currently designated as the lectotype pending study of the MSNT specimen.
Author: Wood, Thomas James
Institution: Naturalis Biodiversity Center
Domain: Life Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W7213528606
Cites:
Cited by:
Related to: