Haris Attila: Hymenoptera Research in the Carpathian Basin - Natura Somogyiensis 29. (Kaposvár, 2016)

On some species described by Scopoli, Poda, Christ, Heer and Mocsáry from the Carpathian Basin

40

Natura Somogyiensis

Hereby, we suggest, using of Bombus monacha Christ, 1791 instead of Bombus bar- butellus Kirby, 1802 which is junior synonym of Bombus monacha Christ, 1791.

Apis minima Poda, 1760

Material examined: Bombus hypnorum (Linné, 1758): female; Tátraszéplak, 27. 04. 1916, female; Kudsiri havasok, 06. 07. 1905, 1 female, (especialli forma alboanalis).

Original description: "Apis hirsuta thorace rufo, abdomina nigro postice albicante. Reliquis omnibus minor."

There are 2 identifications for this species. One is Bombus hypnorum Linné, 1758 sensu (Rogenhofer and Dalla Torre 1881) the other is Habropoda tarsata (Spinola, 1838) sensu (Warncke 1986).

The Rogenhofer and Dalla Torre (1881) identification is perfectly match the description of Poda, but Wamcke's identification doesn't match in one important item: in Habropoda tarsata (Spinola, 1838) the abdomen is 3 color: base with dense red pubescence, middle segments black and apical segments with dense white pubescence. Therefore the Rogenhofer and Dalla Torre (1881) identification is correct.

Apis minima Poda, 1760 is junior synonym of Bombus hypnorum (Linné, 1758).

Pompilus lateritius Mocsáry, 1879 spec. rev.

Material examined: Lectotype: 1 female, old, handwritten label "Gellérth. coll 22/7" (probably original label of Mocsáry); second label old manuscript, not from Mocsáry: "Pompilus lateritius Mocs. rufithorax costa"; third label with red margin : "typus Pompilus lateritius Mocs. det. Mocsáry" (no indication who designated, this type of label wasis used in the 60-90's in the Museum.); fourth label:"Arachnotheutes rufithorax det. L. Móczár"; Lectotype: Pompilus lateritius Mocsáry, 1879 det. A. Haris 2016".

The lectotype well agrees the description of Mocsáry (1879). The type is the original specimen collected by Mocsáry (1879).

The reason of revocation. Pompilus lateritius Mocsáry, 1879 were synonymised by László Móczár (Móczár 1956). Unfortunately, Móczár overlooked the 2 dates. Pompilus lateritius Mocsáry was described in 1879 while Pompilus rufithorax Costa was described 3 years later in 1882.

Further conseqvences:

1. Pompilus lateritus Taschenberg, 1880 described from Abyssinia (Ethiopia) is junior homonym of Pompilus lateritus Mocsáry, 1879 described from Hungary.

2. Pompilus lateritius Mocsáry, 1879 is valid as Arachnotheutes lateritius (Mocsáry 1879).

3. Instead of Agenioideus lateritius (Taschenberg, 1880), Agenioideus masrensis (Priesner, 1955) shall be used. Since new combination can not be established for homonym name. See about this Wahis (2006).

4. Arachnotheutes rufithorax (Costa, 1882) was described from Calabria but Arachnotheutes lateritius (Mocsáry, 1879) was described from Budapest: Gellért Hill. Therefore the identity of these 2 species shall be checked again. If the 2 species is iden