2017
DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090-412.1.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phylogenetic Relationships of a New Genus of Calliopsine Bees from Peru, with a Review ofSpinoliellaAshmead (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 38 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We provide the description of the new taxon, along with notes on the systematics of Flavomeliturgula (e.g., Table 1). The new species as well as several of those hitherto classi- fied in Flavomeliturgula are as different from one another as are traditionally differentiated as distinct genera among bees, particularly among different lineages of Panurginae (e.g., Ruz 1986Ruz , 1991Patiny 2001;Roig-Alsina and Compagnucci 2003;Gonzalez and Engel 2011;Gonzalez et al 2013Gonzalez et al , 2017Ramos and Rozen 2014). Aside from differences in setation, coloration, and the shape of labra, sulci, pygidial plates, and other structural distinctions, the development of the mouthparts are strikingly different among these groups, and this may reflect some degree of difference in host plant visitation or specialization, much as is observed among other panurgine genera (e.g., Rozen and Ruz 1995;Rozen 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…We provide the description of the new taxon, along with notes on the systematics of Flavomeliturgula (e.g., Table 1). The new species as well as several of those hitherto classi- fied in Flavomeliturgula are as different from one another as are traditionally differentiated as distinct genera among bees, particularly among different lineages of Panurginae (e.g., Ruz 1986Ruz , 1991Patiny 2001;Roig-Alsina and Compagnucci 2003;Gonzalez and Engel 2011;Gonzalez et al 2013Gonzalez et al , 2017Ramos and Rozen 2014). Aside from differences in setation, coloration, and the shape of labra, sulci, pygidial plates, and other structural distinctions, the development of the mouthparts are strikingly different among these groups, and this may reflect some degree of difference in host plant visitation or specialization, much as is observed among other panurgine genera (e.g., Rozen and Ruz 1995;Rozen 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 82%