Megachile cleomis Cockerell, 1900

Megachile cleomis Cockerell, 1900: 13 [♀, not ♂].

     Lectotype ♀, designated by Mitchell (1935: 37). USA, New Mexico, Santa Fe, 6 July [no year provided], by T.D.A. Cockerell [Cockerell, no. 3381].

Megachile pruinosa Friese, 1903: 246 [♂, ♀]. Preoccupied, not Megachile pruinosa Pérez, 1897, nomen dubium (Ghisbain et al. 2023: 65). Synonymy by Cockerell (1913: 536).

     Syntypes ♂, ♀. USA, Texas, Fedor, May and June, by G. Birkmann [].

Taxonomic notes: Though described as a valid species, Cockerell (1913: 536) subsequently considered his Megachile cleomis Cockerell, 1900 a western subspecies of M. generosa Cresson, 1878 [= Megachile texana Cresson, 1878], an opinion later supported by Mitchell (1935: 36) who considered it a valid subspecies of M. texana Cresson, 1878, the female differing from the typical form in having fewer dark hairs on the thorax dorsally with those of tergum 1 entirely so. Mitchell (1935: 36) also indicated that the ♀ and ♂ were incorrectly associated by Cockerell (1900), with at least some of the ♂s in the syntype series representing another species (i.e., Megachile mendica snowi Mitchell, 1927).

Cockerell (1906: 166) indicated that M. pruinosa Friese, 1903 was a preoccupied name, but stated that H. Friese felt that M. pruinosa Pérez, 1897 was a synonym of M. argentata (Fabricius, 1793) [= Anthidium florentinum Fabricius, 1775], though Ghisbain et al. (2023: 65) considered it nomen dubium, despite having examined the type and placing it in the subgenus Eutricharaea Thomson, 1872. Cockerell (1913: 536) also indicated that M. pruinosa Friese was a synonym of M. cleomis Cockerell, 1900 (as M. generosa cleomis), which was supported by Mitchell (1935: 36, as a junior synonym of M. texana var. cleomis Cockerell, 1900). Mitchell (1962: 118) did not recognize subspecies of M. texana, and M. pruinosa Friese was not included as a synonym of M texana as M. cleomis was not considered a species of the eastern United States (see Mitchell 1935: 37, though with some eastern records); Michener (1951: 1172) subsequently recognized M. cleomis as a valid species, with M. pruinosa Friese listed as a synonym, though recorded from QC west to BC in Canada, with records from eastern states as well. Hurd (1979: 2054) synonymized both M. cleomis and M. pruinosa Friese under M. texana, which was supported by Bzdyk (2012: 56), but the former is recognized here as a valid species, with the latter considered a junior synonym, with Cockerell (1913: 536) credited with the synonymy, though once the correct type material can be exaimned, it may turn out to be conspecific with M. texana.

Bzdyk (2012: 56) designated a lectotype ♀ of Megachile cleomis Cockerell, 1900 from “E. Las Vegas, New Mexico, 15 July ‘[18]99, by A. Garlick, on Cleome [UCMC] and placed it into synonymy under M. texana; however, this designation was not required as Mitchell’s (1935: 37) mention of the type of M. cleomis can be considered an unambiguously selected and valid lectotype designation as it was the only ♀ from Cockerell’s (1900: 14) syntype series that had this associated information. She also indicated that the description was based on two cotypes (Bzdyk 2012: 58) which is also incorrect as Cockerell (1900: 14) clearly indicated many ♂s from the type locality.

Though Sheffield et al. (2011: 42) also included M. cleomis as a synonymy of M. texana, Sheffield and Genaro (2013: 14) recognized it as a valid species, with 1.45% sequence divergence in COI from M. texana, and Sheffield and Heron (2019: 70) subsequently recognized it as a valid taxon occuring in BC.

DNA Barcode Index Number (BIN): BOLD:ACE4973

Distribution in Canada: Mitchell 1935 [BC, AB, ON, QC -latter two likely mis identified?]; Buckell 1950 [BC]; Sheffield and Heron 2019 [BC].

It is suspected that records in Canada from ON and QC likely represent misidentifications, and likely represent M. texana.