Search

Megalopta purpurata Smith, 1879 (Figures 10A, 11F, 12C, 15D) Megalopta purpurata Smith, 1879: 48. Holotype male, Brazil: Amazonas, Tefé (‘Ega’) (BMNH, not directly examined). Diagnosis The male differs from those of M. guarani sp. n. and M. karitiana sp. n. by the digitiform medial protruding process of S4, in lateral view; from M. mapinguari sp. n and M. xavante sp. n. by the mesosoma homogeneously blackish (Figures 11F, 12C); also distinguished from M. mapinguari by medial protruding process of S4 lacking setae in the apex; from M. atlantica by the absence of rugulosities in basal area of metapostnotum (Figure 12C). Description Male. (15) Scape missed. (16) Flagellum missed (Figure 10A). (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity (Figure 11F). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum blackish; its length less than half of metanotum (Moure 1958); smooth, without rugulosities (Figure 12C). (19) Metepisternum with sparse pilosity, integument visible through pilosity; posterior upper margin of metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process. (20). 1st and 2nd tarsomere of foreleg unobserved. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, posterolateral margin notched. (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process digitiform in lateral view; basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite. Female. Unknown. Comments The type was not examined directly, but through photographs obtained from the British Museum (BMNH). Its inclusion in the byroni species group was based on the following features: body coloration without metallic green reflections and S 4 in basal area with a digitiform medial protruding process. Some characteristics of this species were extracted from Moure’ s (1958) redescription. Distribution BRAZIL. Amazonas: Tefé (Figure 15D)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on page 625, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Smith F. 1879. Descriptions of new species of Hymenoptera in the collection of the British museum. London (UK): Taylor & Francis.","Moure JS. 1958. On the species of Megalopta described by F. Smith (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). J N Y Entomol Soc. 66: 179 - 190."]}

Megalopta atlantica Santos and Silveira, 2009 (Figures 9F, 10B, 11E, 12B, 15D) Megalopta atlantica Santos and Silveira, 2009:14. Holotype male, Brazil: Minas Gerais, Ipanema (DZUP, examined). Diagnosis The male differs from M. guarani sp. n. and M. karitiana sp. n. by the medial protruding process of S4 digitiform in lateral view and by rugulosities present in central portion of basal area of metapostnotum; from M. mapinguari sp. n. by the mesosoma homogeneously black to brown and by medial protruding process of S4 lacking setae in the apex; from M. xavante sp. n. by the integument black and by presence of rugulosities in the basal area of metapostnotum. This latter character also distinguishes M. atlantica from M. purpurata. Description Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum blackish brown, F1–F11 not differing in diameter, F2 about two-thirds of F 3 in length, F6–F11, in anterior view, with the anterior and posterior margins flat (Figures 9F, 10B), in posterior view with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface. (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity (Figure 11E). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum blackish brown; its length half of that metanotum; with longitudinal rugulosities present in central area, the rugulosities oblique towards the sides (Figure 11E). (19) Metepisternum with sparse pilosity, integument visible through pilosity; posterior upper margin of metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae shorter than the summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, posterolateral margin notched. (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process digitiform in lateral view; basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite. Measurements Approximate body length: (12.5); intertegular distance: (3.35); maximum width of head: (3.12); length of forewing with tegula: (11.31). Female. Unknown. Distribution BRAZIL. Minas Gerais: Ipanema (Figure 15D)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 620-621, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Santos LM, Silveira FA. 2009. Taxonomic notes on Megalopta Smith, 1853 (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Augochlorini) with a synopsis of the species in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Zootaxa. 2194: 1 - 20."]}

Megalopta piraha sp. n. (Figures 4B, 5B, C, 5F, 10D, 12E, 13E, 15C) Diagnosis It differs from M. yanomami sp. n. by the basal area of metapostnotum without defined external sulcus delimiting the longitudinal rugulosities, the integument light green (Figure 4B, 12E); the male is also distinguished by the scape enlarged gradually in direction to the apex (Figure 13E) and by flagellomeres without depressed and glabrous area (Figure 10D). Description Female. (1) Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth. (2) Labral elevation with the flattened surface. (3) Clypeus with surface between punctures on basal and central area microreticulate.(4) Central portion of supraclypeal area with dense punctation, punctures separated by ≥ 1 pd). (5) Antenna reddish brown (Figure 5B). (6) Upper frons flat, not strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus. (7) Ocellocular distance smaller than the F1 length (Figure 5B). (8) Mesoscutum adjacent to the parapsidial line densely punctured, punctures contiguous on remainder of disc. (9) Scutellum with posterior margin raised in relation to anterior margin of metanotum. (10) Metanotum with integument, in oblique view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity (Figure 5F). (11) Basal area of metapostnotum reddish brown with green metallic tints, its length up to 0.8× that of metanotum, centrally with a single weak longitudinal rugulosity and a few shorter and slightly impressed ones in central portion, lateral surface smooth (Figures 4B, 5F). (12) Mesepisternum with contiguous punctation. (13) Metepisternum with sparse pilosity, integument visible through pilosity; posterior upper margin of metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process. (14) T1 with dorsal surface of disc sparsely punctured (≥ 1 pd), posterior marginal zone microreticulate between punctures. Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum pale yellow (Figure 13E), F1– F11 not differing in diameter; F2 about as long as F3 (Figure 13E); F6–F11, in anterior view with the anterior and posterior margin depressed (Figure 10D), in posterior view with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface. (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity. (18) Basal area of metapostnotum as in the female (Figure 12E). (19) Metepisternum as in the female. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae shorter than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, the posterolateral margin notched. (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process triangular in lateral view; basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite. Measurements Approximate body length: (13.0–14.8); maximum width of head: (3.4–4.3); intertegular distance: (3.6–4.4) mm; length of forewing with the tegula: (11.7–13.2). Type material Holotype female (DZUP): BRAZIL. Amazonas: ‘ Manaus – AM \ \ PDBFF 29 /11/89\ M.L. Oliveira’ ‘1008 ’. Paratypes (61♀, 13♂): BRAZIL. Amazonas: ‘ BRASIL, AM, Fonte Boa \ 023227S – 660408W\ 27.ix.2005, arm.luz\ F.F. Xavier Fº’ (1♂, INPA); ‘MANAUS – AM \ PDBFF 21 / 12/89\ M.L. OLIVEIRA’ ‘1315’ (1♀ MEUFV); ‘MANAUS – AM \ PDBFF 29 / 11/89\ M.L. OLIVEIRA’ ‘1006’ (1♀ MEUFV); ‘MANAUS – AM \ PDBFF 23 / 1/90\ M.L. OLIVEIRA’ ‘1516’ (1♀ MEUFV); ‘MANAUS – AM \ PDBFF 23 / 1/90\ M.L. OLIVEIRA’ ‘1914’ (1♀ MEUFV); ‘MANAUS – AM \ PDBFF 8 / 1/90\ M.L. OLIVEIRA’ ‘1448’ (1♀ MEUFV); ‘MANAUS – AM \ PDBFF 24 / VI/90 \ M.L. OLIVEIRA’ ‘2325’ (1♀ MEUFV); ‘MANAUS – AM \ PDBFF 8 / VII/90\ M.L. OLIVEIRA’ ‘2389’ (1♀ MEUFV); ‘ BRASIL: AMAZONAS \ MANAUS – P. DAS LARANJEIRAS \ 02-VI-1981 \ Eq: JORGE ARIAS \ ARM. DE LUZ. 15M’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ Manaus – AM \ BRASIL, 10/ 12/88\ E.F. Morato’ ‘EUGENOL\ Nº13’ ‘ fornix ’ (1♀ DZUP); (‘ Brasil. Amazonas \ Reserva Ducke \ Am 010 Km 26’ ‘ 07-18 Dez 2005 \ M.L. Oliveira &\ E. R. F. Pereira’ ‘LO-5\ 500m’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ Brasil. Amazonas \ Reserva Ducke \ Am 010 Km 26’ ‘ 07-18 Dez 2005 \ M.L. Oliveira &\ E. R. F. Pereira’ ‘LO-5\ 2500m’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL- AMAZONAS \ MANAUS RES. DUCKE \ II-1995 \ M.J.G. HOLYIN’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL AMAZONAS MANAUS\ Fazenda Porto Alegre \ (Reserva 3114\ 2°23 ′ 00 ″ S / 59°56 ′ 35 ″ W’ \ 14-15/VIII/1996 \ Hutchings, R. W. H. &\ Hutchings, R. S. G. col.’ ‘ Arm. tipo Pennsylvania \ C/cianeto de potássio\ (Roger W. Hutchings)\ Luz negra(UV-BL)’ ‘0019536’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BR AM MANAUS\ ZF-03 km 23 Res. 1112\ 2°26 ′ 02 ″ S / 59°51 ′ 15 ″ W \ 20/II/1986 (RLE)\ KLEIN, BERT col.’ ‘FAZ.ESTEIO’ ‘MALAISE’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL AM Manaus ZF-2\ km-14, Torre, 023521S-\ 600655W, 18–21.v.2004 \ lenço, luz mista e BLB, lençol’ ‘40 mts altura, J.A. Rafael \ F.B. Baccaro, F.F. Xavier Fº\ & A. Silva Fº.’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL AM Manaus ZF-2\ km-14, Torre, 023521S-\ 600655W, 16–19.iv.2004 \ luz mista/BLB, lençol’ ‘40 mts altura, J.A. Rafael \ C.S. Motta, A. Silva Fº,\ J.M.F. Ribeiro. ’ (1♂ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, AM, Manaus,\ Estrada ZF-2, 01.x.2005,\ arm. luz móvel, J.A. Rafael’ ‘ F.F. Xavier Fº, R. Machado \ A.A. Agudelo & Y.K. Dantas’ (1♂ INPA); ‘ BRASIL AM Manaus, ZF-\ 2 km 34, Base LBA,\ 02°35 ′ 37 ″ S – 60°12 ′ 39 ″ W’ ‘ 09-10.vii.2008. arm. luz\ nível do solo, J.A. Rafael \ & F.F. Xavier Fº’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRA, AM, Manaus \ PDBFF – Colosso \ 02°23 ′ 58 ″ S – 59°52 ′ 20 ″ W \ 1–4.xii.2009 \ D. Storck-Tonon Leg. ’ (2♀ INPA); ‘ BRA, AM, Manaus \ PDBFF – Colosso \ 02°23 ′ 58 ″ S – 59°52 ′ 20 ″ W \ 11–15.i.2010 \ D. Storck-Tonon Leg. ’ (6♀ INPA); ‘ BRA, AM, Manaus \ PDBFF – Colosso \ 02°23 ′ 58 ″ S – 59°52 ′ 20 ″ W \ 9–12. ii.2010 \ D. Storck-Tonon Leg. ’ (13♀ INPA); ‘ BRA, AM, Manaus \ PDBFF – Colosso \ 02°23 ′ 58 ″ S – 59°52 ′ 20 ″ W \ 28–30.iv.2010 \ D. Storck-Tonon Leg. ’ (2♀ INPA); ‘ BRA, AM, Manaus \ PDBFF – Colosso \ 02°23 ′ 58 ″ S – 59°52 ′ 20 ″ W \ 18–20.v.2010 \ D. Storck- Tonon Leg. ’ (4♀ INPA); ‘ BRA, AM, Manaus \ PDBFF – Colosso \ 02°23 ′ 58 ″ S – 59°52 ′ 20 ″ W \ 23–27.vi.2010 \ D. Storck-Tonon Leg. ’ (3♀ INPA); ‘ BRA, AM, Manaus \ PDBFF – Colosso \ 02°23 ′ 58 ″ S – 59°52 ′ 20 ″ W \ 27–29.iii.2010 \ D. Storck-Tonon Leg. ’ (5♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, Amazonas \ Novo Aripuanã, Rio \ Madeira, Lago Xadá, Comunidade Bela \ Vista. Ponto 1.\ Margem Esquerda’ ‘ 05°15 ′ 39 ″ S / 60°42 ′ 32 ″ W. 17–23.IV.2005 \ Xavier- Fo, F.F.;\ Godoi, F. & Lourido,\ A.M. leg.’ (1♂ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, AM, MANAQUIRI \ LAGO JANUACÁ RIO \ SOLIMÕES\ 03°24 ′ 21 ″ S / 60°13 ′ 99 ″ W’ ‘12-13/IV/96\ COL: DIAZ, G.A. ’ ‘ HYMENOPTERA: HALICTIDAE’ (1♂ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, Amazonas, Pq. Nac. Jau, Rio Carabinani,\ 0159S-6132W, 07–17.iv.\ 1994, C. Motta e outros’ (4♀, 2♂ INPA); ‘ Taracuá \ (Rio Uapés) – AM \ Brasil-VIII-1964\ Pereira & Machado’ (1♂ MZUSP). Pará: ‘ Canindé \ Rio Gurupi, Pará \ IV.1963 \ B. Malkin’ (1♂ MZUSP); ‘ BRASIL Pará Ourém \ Patauateua \ 21-VIII-1992 ’ ‘ Brasil Pará \ B. Mascarenhas’ (1♂ MPEG); ‘ BRASIL Pará Ourém \ Patauateua \ 1-IV-1994 ’\ ‘ Brasil Pará \ B. Mascarenhas’ (1♂ MPEG); ‘ BRASIL, Pará \ Oriximiná, Porto Trombetas \ Platô Aviso \ 12/II/2008 \ 0554685/9806548 UTM\ Y. Antonini, M.L. Oliveira leg.’ (2♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, Pará\ Oriximiná, Porto Trombetas\ Platô Saracá\ 12/II/2008 \ 0555958/9812404 UTM\ Y. Antonini, M.L. Oliveira leg.’ (4♀ INPA). Rondônia: ‘ Brasil Rondônia \ Ji-Paraná Gleba G \ Est. Rio Machado \ 14. VI.1983’ ‘ Brasil RO \ J. R. Arias’ (1♂ MPEG); Rondônia \ Vilhena\ 22 vii – 5.viii 1983 \ F.J.A. Peralta’ ‘25\ ARM\ LUZ’ (1♂ INPA). Distribution BRAZIL. Amazonas: Fonte Boa, Manaquiri, Manaus, Novo Airão, Novo Aripuanã. Pará: Ourém, Oriximiná. Rondônia: Ji-Paraná, Vilhena (Figure 15C). Etymology The specific epithet honours the ‘Pirahã’ or ‘Mura-Pirahã’, the name for an ethnic group of South American natives, descendents of the ‘Mura’, used here as a noun in apposition. The Pirahã inhabit a tract of lands traversed by the Marmelos river and almost the entire length of the Maici river, located in the municipality of Humaitá, in Amazonas, northern Brazil (Gonçalves 2000)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 615-618, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Goncalves MA. 2000. Piraha. Instituto Socioambiental, Povos Indigenas no Brasil [Internet]. [cited 2013 Apr 11]. Available from: http: // pib. socioambiental. org / en / povo / piraha / print /"]}

Megalopta chaperi (Vachal, 1904) (Figures 2E, 7B, 8A, 15A) Halictus chaperi Vachal, 1904:113. Holotype female, Venezuela (MNHP, not examined). Examined material (8♀, 2♂). See Appendix 2. Diagnosis This species differs from M. amoena, M. guimaraesi and M. mura sp. n. by the very short basal area of metapostnotum, its length about one-third as long as metanotum (Figure 2E). Its males are also distinguished by the metanotum in dorsal view with dense pilosity (Figure 7B). Description Female. (1) Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth. (2) Labral elevation with lateral surface slightly raised in relation to central portion. (3) Clypeus with the surface between punctures on basal and central area variable, microreticulate or sometimes smooth. (4) Central portion of supraclypeal area with sparse punctation, punctures separated by ≥ 1 pd. (5) Antennae reddish brown. (6) Upper frons flat, not strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus. (7) Ocellocular distance smaller than the F1 length. (8) Mesoscutum adjacent to parapsidial line densely punctured, punctures contiguous, punctation becoming sparser towards mesoscutal lip (≥ 1 pd, posterior marginal zone smooth between punctures. Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum reddish brown. F1–F11 not differing in diameter; F2 about as long as F3; F6–F11, in anterior view, with the anterior and posterior margins depressed, in posterior view with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface. (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, hidden by dense short plumose pilosity (Figure 7B). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum reddish brown, its length one-third of that of metanotum, covered by dense short plumose pilosity (Figure 7B). (19) Metepisternum as in the female. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae shorter than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus only in the apical half, the posterolateral margin notched (Figure 8A). (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process triangular in lateral view; basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite (Figure 8A). Measurements Approximate body length: (12.0–13.1); maximum width of head: (3.2–4.1); intertegular distance: (3.5–4.1); length of forewing with the tegula: (9.6–11.2); length of forewing: (8.9–10.4). Comments In the specimens from Uiramutã and Amajari, in Roraima, the basal and central areas of the clypeus have a smooth surface between punctures. The specimen deposited in DZUP, with data label ‘Batatais-SP\ 27/XI/87’\ J.S. Moure col.’, has likely been mislabelled. It was probably collected by Moure in his trip to the Ilha de Maracá, Roraima, conducted in 1987. Distribution BRAZIL. Roraima: Amajari, Uiramutã. VENEZUELA: Unknown locality., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 608-610, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Vachal J. 1904. Etude sur les Halictus d'Amerique (Hym.). Misc Entomol. 12: 113 - 115."]}

Megalopta mura sp. n. (Figures 1B, 3A, 3D ‒ E, 7E ‒ F, 8C, 15B) Diagnosis Different from M. chaperi by the length of basal area of metapostnotum in relation to metanotum length, its length never a third, and usually a half of metanotum length (Figure 3A). The female differs from M. amoena by presence in posterior upper margin of metepisternum of a conspicuously large process covered with velvety pilosity (Figure 1B) and the male by the F6–F11 wider than remaining flagellomeres; basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulosities present in central area (Figure 7E); S3 longitudinal sulcus slightly impressed (Figure 8C); S4 basally lacking pilosity, the apical margin strongly notched laterally (Figure 8C). Both sexes are distinguished from M. guimaraesi by the mesoscutum adjacent to parapsidial line with contiguous punctation, punctation becoming sparser towards the mesoscutal lip (Description Female. (1) Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth. (2) Labral elevation with the central area slightly depressed in relation to the sides. (3) Clypeus with surface between punctures on basal and central area smooth. (4) Central portion of supraclypeal area with sparse punctation, punctures separated by ≥ 1 pd. (5) Antenna reddish brown. (6) Upper frons flat, not strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus. (7) Ocellocular distance smaller than the F1 length. (8) Mesoscutum adjacent to the parapsidial line densely punctured, punctures contiguous, punctation becoming sparser towards mesoscutal lip (≥ 1 pd), posterior marginal zone smooth between punctures. Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum reddish brown; F1–F11 differing in diameter, F6–F11 wider than remaining flagellomeres; F2 about as long as F3; F6–F11, in anterior view, with the anterior and posterior margins depressed, in posterior view, basally with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface. (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity (Figure 7E). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum metallic green, its length up to 0.5× that of metanotum, longitudinal rugulosities restricted to central area (Figure 7E). (19) Metepisternum with very dense pilosity, the integument not visible through pilosity; posterior upper margin modified into a conspicuously large process densely covered with velvety pilosity, its diameter at least 0.75× the tegula length (Figure 7F). (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae shorter than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, slightly impressed posterolateral margin strongly notched (Figure 8C). (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process triangular in lateral view, basal portion glabrous, posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite (Figure 8C). Measurements Approximate body length: (9.8–11.0); intertegular distance: (3.1–4.0); maximum width of head: (2.9–3.1); length of forewing with tegula: (9.2–10.8). Type material Holotype female (DZUP): BRAZIL. Amazonas: ‘BRASIL, Amazonas, Manaus,\ ZF-2 KM 34, Base LBA,\ 09.vii. 2008, 100m, 2°35 ′ 33 ″ S \ 60°12 ′ 52 ″ W arm. luz dossel\ P.C. Grossi col. ’. Paratypes (42♀, 9♂): BRAZIL. Acre: ‘ Brasil, Acre \ Acrelândia \ 10°04 ′ S / 67°25 ′ W’ ‘ Oliveira, Morato \ & Cunha leg\ Benzil acetato’ (1♀ INPA). Amazonas: ‘ BRASIL, Amazonas \ ESENA Juami-Japurá \ 02°19 ′ 09 ″ S \ 68°25 ′ 16 ″ W’ ‘ 04-17 agosto 2005 \ L.S. Aquino leg.’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, AM, Manaus, ZF 2\ km-14. Torre, 023521S-\ 600555W, 19–21.ii.2004 \ luz mista/BL, BLB, lençol’ ‘40 mt alt. J.A. Rafael,\ C.S. Motta, F.F. Xavier Fº\ & A. Silva Fº, S. Trovisco’ (1♂ INPA); ‘ BR AM Manaus \ ZF-03 Km 23 Res. 1112\ 2°28 ′ 02 ″ S / 59°51 ′ 15 ″ W \ 19/11/ 985 (RLD)\ KLEIN BERT col.’ ‘FAZENDA ESTEIO’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, Amazonas \ BR 174 ZF6 Km 9\ Data. 03.07-86\ Col. M. V. B. Garcia’ ‘ Megalopta sp.’ (1♀ MEUFV); ‘ BRAZIL, AMAZONAS MANAUS\ Fazenda Porto Alegre \ (Reserva 3114\ 2°23 ′ 00 ″ S / 59°56 ′ 35 ″ W \ 15-16/VIII/1996 \ Hutchings, R. W.H. &\ Hutchings, R. S.G. col.’‘\ Arm. tipo Pennsylvania \ C/ Cianeto de potássio\ (Roger W. Hutchings)\ Luz Negra (UV-BL)’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, Amazonas, Manaus, Reserva Biológica de Campina \ 12.vii.2008, 77m, 2º 35 ′ 27 ″ S \ 60°1 ′ 51 ″ W arm. luz dossel\ P.C. Grossi col.’ (2♀ DZUP); ‘LO-4\ 1500m’ ‘ Brasil Amazonas \ Reserva Ducke \ Am 010 Km 26’ ‘ 07-18 Dez 2005 \ M.L. Oliveira & E. R. F. Pereira’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, Amazonas \ Manaus, Res. Ducke \ XI.2003 \ OL1- 700ms Vermelho’ ‘ Arm. Suspensa 20 mts\ A. Henriques et. al. Leg. ’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, AM, Manaus \ Reserva Ducke, Ig. \ B. Branco, 15–18.iii.2004,’ ‘ Arm. Malaise 04\ A. Henriques et. al.’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, Amazonas, \ Parque Nac. do Jaú \ 17-19/nov./2005 ’ ‘ M.L. Oliveira & E. R.\ F. Pereira leg.\ campinarana’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BR, AM, Pq. Nac. do Jaú \ Rio Carabinami mg. dir\ 1°59 ′ S / 51°32 ′ W \ 11-12/ IV/1994 \ Motta, C. et al. col.’ ‘ Luz mista mercúrio\ Luz negra BL e BLB\ Lençol’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ Brasil, Amazonas \ PARNA do Jaú \ 19-III à 05-IV-\ 2003’ ‘ M.L. Oliveira &\ J.A. Cunha leg.\ Campinarana’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, AM, Presidente \ Figueiredo, BR 174, Ramal \ do Km-200, 27.i.2006 ’ ‘ J.A. Rafael, F.F. Xavier, A. Silva Fº, D. M. M Mendes,\ em luz’ (1♂), (INPA); ‘ Brasil, Amazonas, Pres. Figueiredo \ Am 240, Km 12, Sítio Água Viva,\ 18-19/X/2006, Luz Mista,\ Motta C.S. & R. S. Hutchings’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ Brasil, Amazonas, Presidente Figueiredo,\ AM 240, Km 24,\ 2°1 ′ 2.2 ″ S 59° 49 ′ 35.8 ″ W’ ‘ 14-18.ix.2009, F.F. \ Xavier Filho, Paladini, A.;\ Ciprandi, A.; Leivas, F.’ (1♂ DZUP); ‘ BRASIL, AM, Pres. Figueiredo, AM \ 240 Km 24, Comunidade São \ Francisco, 14–18.ix.2009 \ 2°1 ′ 2.2 ″ S 59°49’35.8 ″ W \ A.C. Pires (leg.) Luz’ (1♀ DZUP). Pará: ‘ Brasil, PA\ Capitão Poço \ 19–22.xi.1984 \ V. O. Becker col’ (1♀ DZUP); ‘ Marajó P. Pedras \ 13.III-1978 ’ ‘ Brasil Pará \ M F Torres’ (1♀ MPEG); ‘ Brasil, Pará \ Serra Norte \ Fofoca \ Col. Noturna \ 18.IX. 1985 ’ ‘ MPEG HYM \ 11005595’ (1♀ MPEG); ‘ Brasil, Pará \ Serra Norte \ N-1 SERRARIA\ COL. NOTURNA\ 25.X. 1984 ’ ‘ Brasil Pará \ M. F Torres’ ‘ MPEG HYM \ 11005589’ (1♂ MPEG); ‘ Brasil Pará \ Serra Norte \ SERRARIA\ COL. NOTURNA\ 19-X-1984 ’ ‘ MPEG HYM \ 11005583’ (1♀ MPEG); ‘ Brasil Pará \ São João de Pirabas \ Japerica \ Ilha Conceição \ 22-XII-1992 ’ ‘ Brasil Pará \ J Dias’ ‘ Armadilha \ de Luz’ (1♀ MPEG); ‘ BRASIL: Pará \ Tucuruí – REMANSÃO\ 03-VIII-1980 \ eq Nunes de Mello’ ‘5598’ (1♀ INPA). Rondônia: ‘ Brasil, RO, Itapuã \ do Oeste, Flona \ do Jamari, 90m \ 9.146° S 63.012° W \ 5.ix.2012, Cavichioli \ Melo, Rosa & Santos’ ‘ Armadilha \ Luminosa’ (4♀, DZUP). ‘ Ouro Preto \ d’ Oeste, RO,\ 29-X-1987 \ C. Elias, leg.’ ‘ ProjetoPo \ lonoroeste’ (1♂ DZUP); ‘ BRASIL: RO\ Porto Velho 180m \ 24–30.iv.1989 \ V. O. Becker col’ (2♀ DZUP); ‘ BRASIL:RO\ Porto Velho 180m \ 2–12.v.1989 \ V. O. Becker’ (1♀ DZUP). Roraima: ‘ Brasil, Roraima, Amajari \ Tepequém Trilha Igarapé \ da Anta 03°46 ′ 19.7 ″ N’ ‘ 61°45 ′ 21.6 ″ W 649m 14-\ mai-09 11:00 Grigio, Jr. O\ Salicilato’ ‘MIRR 12685’ (1♀ MIRR); ‘ Brasil, Roraima, Amajari \ Tepequém Trilha Igarapé \ da Anta 03°46 ′ 19.7 ″ N’ ‘ 61°45 ′ 21.6 ″ W 649m 14-\ mai-09 11:00 Grigio, Jr. O\ Salicilato’ ‘MIRR 12686’ (1♀ MIRR); ‘ Brasil, Roraima,\ Rorainopólis, Bairro Novo \ Horizonte, 00°56 ′ 25.8 ″ N’‘\6°25 ′ 39.0 ″ W 82m 28-mar-\ 09 Gama Neto, J.L.’‘MIRR 11798’ (1♀ MIRR). FRENCH GUIANA. Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni: ‘FEVRIER’‘ GUYANE \ NOUVEAU CHANTIER\ BAS-MARONI’ (1♀ DZUP). PERU. Huanuco: ‘ Tingo Maria \ Huan. Peru \ Nov. 28 1946 \ Alt. 2200 ft. J.C. Pallister \ Coll. Donor \ Frank Johnson’ (1♀, DZUP). Junín: ‘SATIPO-PERU\ 750 Mr. \ 12.1948’ (1 ♂, RMNH). Loreto: ‘ Peru, LO, Maynas, Alpahuayo-Mishana \ KM 28 – Ex light trap \ 12vii01 Mario Callegari’ ‘col. CR col’ (3♀, CRC). San Martin: ‘ PERU, SM, Tarapoto,\ Meliponário Rasmussen \ Near Taki-Wasi, 386m, 6°28, 819 ′ S, 76°21,315 ′ W Claus Rasmussen leg\ IX-2002 Ex. light.’ ‘col. CR col’ (2 ♀, CRC); ‘ PERU, SM, Tarapoto,\ Near Taki-Wasi, 386m, 6°28,819 ′ S, 76°21,315 ′ W \ Claus Rasmussen leg\ II-2003, Rasmussen leg.’ ‘col. CR col’ (1♀, CRC); ‘ PERU, SM, Tarapoto,\ Near River Shilcayo \ 0629\ 7622, 350 masl \ April 2003 Rasmussen’ ‘col. CR col’ (1♀, CRC). SURINAME. Brokopondo: ‘ Suriname \ Phedra \ 15 Nov-1946 Ir- Schals’ (1♀, RMNH). Para: ‘ Suriname \ Zanderij \ O.P. Sardare \ 15 Sept 1961 ’ ‘at light’ (1♂, RMNH). Sipaliwini: ‘ Museum Leiden \ SURINAME \ Sipalawini \ 13–24. II.1966 \ G P Mees’ (1♂, RMNH). Wageningen: ‘ Museum Leiden \ W. Suriname Exp. \ Maratakka River \ Cupido (Indian vill.)\ 25.II.1971 \ at light\ D.C. Geijskes’ (1♀, RMNH). Comments The female from Acrelândia, Acre, was collected in a euglossine trap baited with benzil acetate. Distribution BRAZIL. Acre: Acrelândia. Amazonas: Japurá, Manaus, Novo Airão, Presidente Figueiredo. Pará: Capitão Poço, São João de Pirabas, Parauapebas, Tucuruí. Rondônia: Itapuã do Oeste, Ouro Preto do Oeste, Porto Velho. Roraima: Amajari, Rorainopólis. FRENCH GUIANA. Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni: Saint-Laurent-du- Maroni. PERU. Huanuco: Tingo Maria. Junín: Satipo. Loreto: Maynas. San Martin: Tarapoto. SURINAME. Brokopondo: Phedra. Nickerie: Wageningen. Para: Zanderij. Sipaliwini: Bven Saramacca (Figure 15B). Etymology The specific epithet honours the ‘Mura’, the name for an ethnic group of South American natives, used here as a noun in apposition. They are known for navigating along extensive areas in the rivers Amazonas, Madeira and Purus. In their long history of contact with European settlers, this group has been repeatedly stigmatized and suffered from massacres, as well as demographic, linguistic and cultural losses. Today, they live at indigenous reserves and urban centres in northern Brazil (Amoroso 2009). The yanomami species group Diagnosis The yanomami species group includes only two species, both described here as new, M. piraha sp. n. and M. yanomami sp. n. They can be identified by the following characters: posterior upper margin of metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process; basal areal of metapostnotum smooth laterally and with a few longitudinal rugulosities restricted to mid portion. Megalopta piraha sp. n. is more widely distributed in the Amazon basin, while M. yanomami sp. n. is known only from Roraima and a single locality in eastern Pará (Figure 15C)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 612-615, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Amoroso M. 2009. Mura. Instituto Socioambiental, Povos Indigenas no Brasil [Internet]. [cited 2013 Apr 11]. Available from: http: // pib. socioambiental. org / pt / povo / mura / print."]}

Megalopta karitiana sp. n. (Figures 11A, 15D) Diagnosis The male differs from those of M. atlantica, M. purpurata, M. xavante sp. n., and M. mapinguari sp. n. by the minute medial protruding process of S4, with a triangular profile in lateral view; from M. guarani sp. n. by the dark brown integument with metallic green reflections, and the dark brown metasoma with purple tints. Description Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum blackish; F1–F11 not differing in diameter; F2 about two-thirds of F 3 in length. (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pillosity. (18) Basal area of metapostnotum blackish, its length 0.6× that of metanotum; smooth and without longitudinal rugulosities along its surface (Figure 11A). (19) Metepisternum with sparse pilosity, integument visible through pilosity; posterior upper margin of metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae shorter than the summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, posterolateral margin notched. (22) S4 with medial protruding process present, minute, its profile triangular in lateral view, basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite. Measurements Approximate body length: (14.8); intertegular distance: (3.8); maximum width of head: (3.7); length of forewing with tegula: (12.7). Female. Unknown. Type material Holotype male (DZUP): BRAZIL. Rondônia: ‘ Brasil, RO, Itapuã \ do Oeste, Flona \ do Jamari, 110m \ 9.260° S 62.913° W,\ 4.ix.2012, Cavichioli,\ Melo, Rosa & Santos’ ‘ Armadilha \ Luminosa’. Distribution BRAZIL. Rondônia: Itapuã do Oeste (Figure 15D). Etymology The specific epithet honours the ‘Karitiana’, the name for an ethnic group of natives, used here as a noun in apposition. The ‘Karitiana’ experienced a brutal demographic decline after contact with the whites. Indeed, the anthropologist Darcy Ribeiro considered them extinct in 1957, however the current population numbers around 320 individuals (Storto and Velden 2005)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 622-623, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Storto L, Velden FFV. 2005. Karitiana. Instituto Socioambiental, Povos Indigenas no Brasil [Internet]. [cited 2013 Aug 14]. Available from: http: // pib. socioambiental. org / en / povo / karitiana / print"]}

Megalopta xavante sp. n. (Figures 3F, 4F, 5A, 9E, 11D, 12A, 15D) Diagnosis Differs from M. guarani sp. n. and M. karitiana sp. n. by medial protruding process of S4 digitiform in lateral view; from M. atlantica, M. purpurata and M. mapinguari sp. n. by integument mostly reddish brown with metallic green tints on head and mesosoma (Figures 3F, 4F). Description (1) Mandible simple and lacking supplementary teeth (Figure 4F). (2) Labral elevation in central portion, with rounded elevated area in relation to the sides. (2) Clypeus with surface between punctures on basal and central area smooth, the apical macula reddish brown. (4) Central portion of supraclypeal area with sparse punctation, punctures separated by ≥ 1 pd. (5) Antenna reddish brown (Figure 4F). (6) Upper frons flat, not strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus. (7) Ocellocular distance equal to length of F1 (Figure 4F). (8) Mesoscutum adjacent to the parapsidial line densely punctured, punctures contiguous, punctation becoming sparser towards the mesoscutal lip (≥ 1 pd), posterior marginal zone microreticulated between punctures. Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex (Figure 9E). (16) Flagellum reddish brown, except F2 and F3 lighter than the others (Figure 9E); F1–F11 not differing in diameter; F2 about twothirds of F 3 in length (Figure 9E); F6–F11, in anterior view, with the anterior and posterior margins flat, in posterior view with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface. (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity (Figure 11D). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum reddish brown with metallic green tints; its length about 0.7× that of metanotum; the longitudinal rugulosities slightly impressed centrally (Figure 11D). (19) Metepisternum as in the female. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae shorter than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, posterolateral margin notched. (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process digitiform in lateral view; basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notched not extended to basal half of sclerite. Measurements Approximate body length: (10.7–10.7); intertegular distance: (3–3.4); maximum width of head: (2.9–3.3); length of forewing with tegula: (9.5). Type material Holotype female (RPSP): BRAZIL. Mato Grosso: ‘Nova Xavantina MT BR \ CUNX – bacaba luz\ 14/I/99\ Canolho A.’ Paratype male: BRAZIL. Mato Grosso: ‘ Nova Xavantina \ MT BR \ CUNX – Bacaba luz\ 30/I/98 Leg\ Barreira RL’. Distribution BRAZIL. Mato Grosso: Nova Xavantina (Figure 15D). Etymology The specific epithet honours the ‘Xavante’, the name for an ethnic group of natives, used here as a noun in apposition. The Xavantes live in nine indigenous areas which are part of the territory they traditionally occupied for at least 180 years, in eastern Mato Grosso. The region where they live has suffered the environmental impact of extensive cattle ranching since the 1960s, an impact which is almost certainly irreversible. From the 1980s the impact has been intensified by the spread of giant grain farms, especially soybeans produced for export (Graham 2008). The sodalis species group Diagnosis The sodalis species group includes: M. cuprea, M. munduruku sp. n. and M. sodalis. Members of this species group can be recognized by having the mid portion of the basal area of the metapostnotum with depressed triangular area with longitudinal rugulosities branching from central rugulosities, or with transverse depression in M. munduruku sp. n., and by having the posterior upper margin of the metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process in both sexes. Furthermore, this species group exhibits a large amount of intraspecific variation in the shape of the basal elevation of the labrum and in the basal area of the metapostnotum. M. cuprea occurs in Bolivia and northern Brazil (Figure 16A), while M. munduruku sp. n. is found only in northern Brazil (Figure 16B) and M. sodalis is widely distributed (Figure 16C)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 625-627, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Graham L. 2008. Xavante. Instituto Socioambiental, Povos Indigenas no Brasil [Internet]. [cited 2013 Apr 11]. Available from: http: // pib. socioambiental. org / en / povo / xavante / print /"]}

Megalopta mapinguari sp. n. (Figures 9D, 11B, C, 15D) Diagnosis The male differs from those of M. guarani sp. n. and M. karitiana sp. n. by the shape of the medial protruding process of S4, its profile digitiform in lateral view; from M. atlantica, M. purpurata and M. xavante sp. n. by the mesosoma homogeneously metallic green and by lacking setae in the apex of medial protruding process of S4. Description Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum blackish; F1–F11 not differing in diameter; F2 about two-thirds of F 3 in length (Figure 9D); F6–F11, in anterior view, with the anterior and posterior margins flat, in posterior view with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface. (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pillosity (Figure 11C). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum metallic green, its length 0.5× that of metanotum, longitudinal rugulosities present in the mid portion (Figure 11C). (19) Metepisternum with sparse pilosity, integument visible through pilosity; posterior upper margin of metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae shorter than the summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, posterolateral margin notched (Figure 11B). (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process digitiform in lateral view (Figure 11B); basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite. Measurements Approximate body length: (12.4); intertegular distance: (3.8); maximum width of head: (2.9); length of forewing with tegula: (10). Female. Unknown. Type material Holotype male (DZUP): BRAZIL. Acre: ‘Faz. Catuaba – UFAC \ armadilha luminosa\ capoeira’. Comments The collecting date of the type specimen is unknown. The species can be easily recognized by intense metallic green reflections, sometimes mixed with black tints in integument, except for predominantly blackish metasoma. Distribution BRAZIL. Acre: Rio Branco (Figure 15D). Etymology The specific epithet honours the ‘Mapinguari’, used here as a noun in apposition. The ‘Mapinguari’, a Brazilian folklore character, is popularly known as a monster that lives in the Amazon Rainforest., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 623-624, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455

Megalopta aegis (Vachal 1904) (Figures 1E, 2D, 6E, 7A, 8E, 14A) Halictus aegis Vachal, 1904: 115. Lectotype male, Brazil: Goiás, Jataí (MNHP, not examined). Examined material (374♀, 49♂). See Appendix 2. Diagnosis The female differs from that of M. nitidicollis by the weak longitudinal rugulosities along its entire surface of the basal area of metapostnotum; from M. aeneicollis by reddish brown basal area of metapostnotum and by the imbricated rugulosities in its lateral surface (Figure 2D); from M. sulciventris by metanotum with dense short plumose pilosity present on its entire surface and by colour of integument of basal area of metapostnotum, entirely reddish brown or reddish brown in the centre with green tints laterally (Figure 2D). The male differs from that of M. sulciventris by the F6–F11 basally with glabrous area levelled to remainder of flagellomere surface (Figure 8E), metanotum with very dense pilosity covering entire disc, obscuring the integument in dorsal view, and by reddish brown basal area of metapostnotum; from M. aeneicollis and M. nitidicollis by basal area of metapostnotum with strongly impressed longitudinal rugulosities along its entire surface (Figure 6E). Description Female. (1) Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth. (2) Labral elevation with lateral surface slightly raised in relation to central portion. (3) Clypeus* with the surface between punctures on basal and central area variable, microreticulate in most specimens or smooth in a few ones. (4) Central portion of supraclypeal area with sparse punctation, punctures separated by ≥ 1 pd. (5) Antenna reddish brown. (6) Upper frons conspicuously convex, strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus (Figure 1E). (7) Ocellocular distance smaller than the F1 length. (8) Mesoscutum adjacent to parapsidial line densely punctured, punctures contiguous, punctation becoming sparser towards mesoscutal lip (Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum reddish brown, F1–F11 not differing in diameter; F2 about as long as F3; F6–F11, in anterior view, with the anterior and posterior margins depressed, in posterior view with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface (Figure 8E). (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, hidden by dense short plumose pilosity (Figure 6E). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum reddish brown, sometimes with green highlights laterally; its length half of that of metanotum; with longer longitudinal rugulosities medially, rugulosities shorter and weakly impressed laterally (Figure 6E). (19). Metepisternum as in female. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae longer than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, posterolateral margin notched (Figure 7A). (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process triangular in lateral view; basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite (Figure 7A). Measurements Approximate body length: (10.5–15.0); maximum width of head: (2.9–4.8); intertegular distance: (3.0–4.2); forewing length with the tegula: (9.4–11.8). Comments Some specimens of M. aegis from eastern Brazil have smooth interspaces between punctures in the basal and central area of the clypeal disc and weakly impressed rugulosities in the basal area of the metapostnotum. This variation, however, is not consistently present in all specimens and the recognition of a separate species from eastern Brazil seems unwarranted. Distribution BRAZIL. Alagoas: Ibateguara. Bahia: Ituberá. Ceará: Maranguape. Distrito Federal. Espírito Santo: Conceição da Barra, Linhares. Goiás: Alto Paraíso de Goiás, Caldas Novas, Formosa, Goiás, Jataí, Planaltina. Maranhão: Balsas, Caxias, Mirador, Urbano Santos. Mato Grosso: Campo Novo dos Parecis, Canabrava do Norte, Canarana, Chapada dos Guimarães, Nova Mutum, Santa Terezinha. Mato Grosso do Sul: Corumbá, [Rio Caraguatá 21°48 ′ S, 52°27 ′ W], Rio Verde de Mato Grosso. Minas Gerais: Buritis, Caratinga, Dionísio, Ipanema, Jaboticatubas, Marliéria, Morro da Garça, São Gonçalo do Rio Abaixo, São Gonçalo do Rio Preto, Santana do Riacho, Três Marias, Unaí, Viçosa. Pará: Alenquer, Altamira, Belém, Belterra, Bragança, Bujaru, Capitão Poço, Óbidos, Ourém, Parauapebas, Santarém, Santarém Novo, São João de Pirabas, Tome Açu, Tucuruí. Paraíba: Mamanguape. Pernambuco: Igarassu, Paudalho, São Lourenço da Mata. Rio Grande do Norte: Portalegre, Natal. Rondônia: Itapuã do Oeste. São Paulo: Bauru, Cajuru, Luís Antônio, São Carlos. Tocantins: Formoso do Araguaia (Figure 14A)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 597-600, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Vachal J. 1904. Etude sur les Halictus d'Amerique (Hym.). Misc Entomol. 12: 113 - 115."]}

Megalopta cuprea Friese, 1911 (Figures 4D, 13A, 16A) Megalopta cuprea Friese, 1911: 453. Lectotype female, Bolivia: Mapiri (ZMB, examined). Additional examined material (5♀, 1♂). See Appendix 2. Diagnosis The female differs from that of M. munduruku sp. n. by mid depression extending to posterior margin in basal area of metapostnotum (Figure 4D) and the male, by basal area of metapostnotum with longer and strongly impressed longitudinal rugulosities (Figure 13A); both sexes can be distinguished from M. sodalis by head and thorax mostly dark brown, lacking metallic reflections. Description Female. (1) Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth. (2) Labral elevation with lateral surface strongly elevated in relation to central portion. (3) Clypeus with surface between punctures on basal and central area microreticulated. (4) Central portion of supraclypeal area with dense punctation, punctures separated by Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum reddish brown; F1–F11 not differing in diameter; F2 about as long as F3; F6–F11, in anterior view, with the anterior and posterior margins depressed, in posterior view with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface. (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity. (18) Basal area of metapostnotum blackish, its length at least 0.7× that metanotum, medially with longer longitudinal rugulosities, laterally with microreticulated surface (Figure 13A). (19). Metepisternum as in the female. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae smaller than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, posterolateral margin notched. (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process triangular in lateral view; basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notch not extended to basal half of sclerite. Measurements Approximate body length: (13.2–14.5); maximum width of head: (3.6–3.8); intertegular distance: (4.0–4.3); length of forewing with tegula: (13.0–14.3). Comments All studied specimens were from Bolivia. The only record of this species in Brazil was published by Friese (1923:3), based on a female from ‘Manaos’. However, no additional specimens from Brazil have been found during this study and Friese (1926:124) does not include the Brazilian record in his treatment of M. cuprea. Distribution BOLIVIA. La Paz: Mapiri, Nigrillani, Santa Cruz: Espejo. BRAZIL. Amazonas: Manaus (Friese 1923) (Figure 16A)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 627-629, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Friese H. 1911. Neue Bienen aus Sud-Amerika (Hym.). Dtsch Entomol Z. 1911: 453 - 456.","Friese H. 1923. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der schwedischen entomologischen Reise des Herrn Dr. A. Roman in Amazonas 1914 - 15. 8. Apidae. Ark Zool. 15: 1 - 8.","Friese H. 1926. Die Nachtbienen-Gattung Megalopta Sm. Stett Entomol Ztg. 87: 111 - 135."]}

Megalopta yanomami sp. n. (Figures 1C, 4A, 5E, 6B, 10C, 12D, 13C, D, 15C) Diagnosis Differs from M. piraha by the basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulosities restricted to mid portion, external rugulosities strongly impressed and forming semicircles, the integument often dark green (Figure 4A); metanotum with contiguous punctation (Figure 5E); T1 densely punctured (Description Female. (1) Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth. (2) Labral elevation with lateral sides slightly raised in relation to central area. (3) Clypeus with surface between punctures on basal and central area smooth. (4) Central portion of supraclypeal area with dense punctation, the punctures separated by Male. (15) Scape uniformly enlarged (Figures 10C, 13C). (16) Flagellum reddish brown (Figure 10C), F1–F11 not differing in diameter but with depressed and glabrous area in frontal view (Figures 10C, 13D); F2 about as long as F3 (Figure 10C); F6–F11, in anterior view, with the anterior and posterior margins depressed, in posterior view with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface. (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity. (19) Basal area of metapostnotum dark metallic green, its length up to 0.8× that of metanotum, longitudinal rugulosities strongly impressed and enclosed laterally by two sulci (Figure 12D). (20) Metepisternum. As described for the female. (21) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae shorter than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (22) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, posterolateral margin notched. (23) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process widely triangular in lateral view; basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite. Measurements Approximate body length: (11.5–14.2); maximum width of head: (3.5–4.5); intertegular distance: (3.2–4.4); length of forewing with tegula: (10.3–12.3). Type material Holotype female (INPA): BRAZIL. Roraima: ‘BRASIL – Roraima \ Rio Uraricoera \ Ilha de Maracá \ 02–13.v.1987 ’ ‘ J.A. Rafael \ J.E.B. Brasil\ L.S. Aquino’ ‘ Armadilha \ de Malaise’. Paratypes (9♀, 4♂): BRAZIL. Pará: ‘Brasil Pará \ Serra Norte \ N1 Est. Serraria \ 6-IX-1983 ’ ‘ Luz U. V.’ ‘ MPEG HYM \ 11005592’ (1♀, MPEG); ‘ Brasil Pará \ Serra Norte \ MANGÂNES\ C/ Luz \ 24-X-1984 ’ ‘ Brasil Pará \ T. Pimentel’ ‘ MPEG HYM \ 11005587’ (1♀, MPEG); ‘ Brasil Pará \ Serra Norte \ MANGÂNES\ COL. NOTURNA\ 06-IX-1985 ’ ‘ Brasil Pará \ Marcio Zanuto’ ‘ MPEG HYM \ 11005600’ (1♀, MPEG); ‘ Brasil Pará \ Serra Norte \ N2 CANGA \ 3-XI-1985 ’ ‘ Brasil Pará \ N. Bittencourt’ ‘ MPEG HYM \ 11005611’ (1♂, MPEG); ‘ Brasil Pará \ Serra Norte \ N1. Col. Luz \ 19-IX-1985 ’ ‘ Brasil Pará \ J. Dias’ ‘ MPEG HYM \ 11005596’ (1♂, MPEG). Roraima: ‘ Brasil, Roraima, Amajari,\ Tepequém, Trilha Igarapé \ da Anta 03°46 ′ 19.7 ″ N’ ‘ 61°45 ′ 21.6 ″ W 649m 14-\ mai-09 11:00 Grigio, Jr. O \ Salicilato’ ‘MIRR 12678’ (1♀, MIRR);‘ BRASIL – Roraima \ Rio Uraricoera \ Ilha de Maracá \ 02–13. v.1987 ’ ‘ J.A. Rafael \ J.E.B. Brasil\ L.S. Aquino’ (4♀, INPA); ‘ Brasil: Roraima \ Rio Uraricoera \ Ilha de Maracá’ ‘ Armadilha \ de Luz’ ‘ 21-30.xi.1987 \ J.A. Rafael e\ equipe’ (1♀, INPA); ‘ Brasil Roraima \ Tepequém \ Pousada SESC \ 03°45 ′ 186 ″ N\ 61°42 ′ 959 ″ W’ ‘ 637m 14/vii.2009 \ M.L. Oliveira, O\ Mielke & M\ Casagrande leg’ (1♂, INPA); ‘ BR RR Uiramutã, Rio Wailã \ 043750/600946\ 22/III/2007 \ F.F. Xavier Filho, col.\ Luz Mista Mercúrio’ (1♂, INPA). Distribution BRAZIL. Pará: Parauapebas. Roraima: Amajari, Uiramutã (Figure 15C). Etymology The specific epithet honours the ‘Yanomami’, the name for an ethnic group of South American natives, used here as a noun in apposition. The ‘Yanomami’ comprise a society of hunter-agriculturists of the tropical rainforest of northern Amazonia, whose contact with non-indigenous society over most of their territory has been relatively recent. Their territory covers an area of approximately 192,000 km 2, located on both sides of the border between Brazil and Venezuela, in the Orinoco– Amazon interfluvial region (affluents of the right shore of the Rio Branco and left shore of the Rio Negro). The total population of the ‘Yanomami’ in Brazil and Venezuela is today estimated to be around 26,000 people (Albert 1999). The byroni species group Diagnosis The byroni group includes M. atlantica Santos & Silveira, M. guarani sp. n., M. xavante sp. n., M. mapinguari sp. n., M. purpurata Smith, M. karitiana sp. n. and additional species previously placed in the subgenus Megalopta (Noctoraptor) Engel, Brooks and Yanega. It is distinguished from other species groups by the ocellocular distance equal to length of F1 and by the sparsely punctured mesoscutum posteriorly to mesoscutal lip (≥ 1 pd). The female differs from those of other groups by lacking the mandibular subapical and supplementary teeth and the basal macula in the inner surface of the mandible. The male is characterized by the F2 as wide as about twothirds of F3, dorsal surface of flagellomeres flattened to slightly depressed and by the protruding process of S4, in lateral view, digitiform or triangular and short. It is shown here that this group also contains species with a metallic green integument, differing from the previously described dark brown non-metallic species. Bees in this group are rarely collected and most species are known from single specimens or small series. All known females in the byroni group have a morphology associated with non nest-making, parasitic behaviour. Biani and Wcislo (2007), in their work on M. byroni, consider that this group might behave as obligatory cleptoparasites or social parasites. Taking into consideration that female morphology in this group is more similar to that of macrocephalic females of nest-making species, it is more plausible to believe that they behave as social parasites. Macrocephalic females exhibit dominant queen-like behaviour over the non macrocephalic subordinate females., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 618-620, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Albert B. 1999. Yanomami. Instituto Socioambiental, Povos Indigenas no Brasil [Internet]. [cited 2013 Apr 11]. Available from: http: // pib. socioambiental. org / en / povo / yanomami / print","Biani NB, Wcislo WT. 2007. Notes on the reproductive morphology of the parasitic bee Megalopta byroni (Hymenoptera: Halictidae), and a tentative new host record. J Kans Entomol Soc. 80: 392 - 394."]}

Megalopta sulciventris Friese, 1926 (Figures 1D, 6C, 8D, 14C) Megalopta sulciventris Friese, 1926:129. Lectotype male, French Guiana: Nouveau Chantier, Bas Maroni (ZMB, examined). Additional examined material (93♀, 14♂). See Appendix 2. Diagnosis The female differs from that of M. nitidicollis by the weakly impressed longitudinal rugulosities along entire basal area of metapostnotum (Figure 1D); from M. aeneicollis by the metallic green basal area of metapostnotum and by its imbricated longitudinal rugulosities towards lateral portions (Figure 1D); from M. aegis by the metanotum sometimes with pilosity short and plumose, present only on two-thirds of disc, not obscuring the integument in oblique view (Figure 1D) and basal area of metapostnotum metallic green and with strongly imbricated longitudinal rugulosities (Figure 1D). The male differ from those of M. aegis, M. aeneicollis and M. nitidicollis by the glabrous basal portion of F6–F11 raised in relation to remainder of flagellomere surface (Figure 8D); metanotum pilosity present only in two-thirds of disc and not obscuring the integument in dorsal view (Figure 6C); basal area of metapostnotum entirely metallic green or sometimes reddish brown medially (Figure 6C). Description Female. (1) Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth. (2) Labral elevation with lateral surface slightly raised in relation to central portion. (3) Clypeus with the surface between punctures on basal and central area smooth. (4) Central portion of supraclypeal area with sparse punctation, punctures separated by ≥ 1 pd. (5) Antennae reddish brown. (6) Upper frons conspicuously convex, strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus. (7) Ocellocular distance smaller than the F1 length. (8) Mesoscutum adjacent to parapsidial line densely punctured, punctures contiguous, punctation becoming sparser towards mesoscutal lip (Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum reddish brown; F1–F11 not differing in diameter; F2 about as long as F3; F6–F11, in anterior view, with the anterior and posterior margins depressed; in posterior view with basal glabrous area elevated in relation to remaining surface (Figure 8D). (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity (Figure 6C). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum variable, reddish brown with green metallic tints or entirely metallic green; its length half of that of metanotum; with longer longitudinal rugulosities medially, rugulosities shorter laterally (Figure 6C). (19) Metepisternum as in the female. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae longer than summed length of three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, posterolateral margin notched. (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process triangular in lateral view; basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite. Measurements Approximate body length: (10.2–14.3); maximum width of head: (3.4–4.4); intertegular distance: (3.5–4.2); length of forewing with the tegula: (10.8–11.8). Distribution BRAZIL. Amapá: Pedra Branca do Amapari, Ferreira Gomes, Serra do Navio. Amazonas: Barcelos, Beruri, Ipixuna, Manaus, Presidente Figueiredo. Pará: Altamira, Belém, Oriximiná. Roraima: Amajari. FRENCH GUIANA. Saint- Laurent-du-Maroni: Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni. SURINAME. Brokopondo: Sarakreek. Nickeri: Wageningen. Sipaliwini: Coeroeni, Coppename, Kabalebo, Sarakreek (Figure 14C). The amoena species group Diagnosis The amoena species group includes M. amoena, M. chaperi, M. guimaraesi and M. mura sp. n. Its species can be recognized by the following characters: posterior upper margin of metepisternum modified into a conspicuously large process covered with velvety pilosity, its diameter at least 0.75× the tegula length (except in the female of M. amoena); male E3 centrally in the apex with sinuous notch adjacent to expanded area of sternum (Figure 8A ‒ C). M. amoena is widely distributed (Figure 14D), M. chaperi is restricted to north of the Amazonas and Negro rivers (Figure 15A), M. guimaraesi to the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado and M. mura sp. n. to north-western South America (Figure 15B)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 603-605, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Friese H. 1926. Die Nachtbienen-Gattung Megalopta Sm. Stett Entomol Ztg. 87: 111 - 135."]}

Megalopta Smith, 1853 Megalopta Smith, 1853: 83. Type species: Megalopta idalia Smith, 1853. Megalopta (Megaloptella) Schrottky, 1906: 312. Type species: Halictus ochrias Vachal, 1904. Tmetocoelia Moure, 1943: 481. Type species: Megalopta sulciventris Friese, 1926. Megalopta (Noctoraptor) Engel et al. 1997: 12. Type species: Megalopta byroni Engel et al. 1997. Diagnosis Megalopta differs from other augochlorines, including Xenochlora, by the large ocelli and the closely packed series of hamuli in the hind wing (Engel 2000; Michener 2007), as well as in the morphology of the male S3–S5 (Santos and Melo 2013). Megalopta and Xenochlora differ from most augochlorines for their non-metallic, pale brown metasoma. A pale metasoma is present in Megaloptidia Cockerell, Megommation Moure, and some species of Megaloptina Eickwort, but these genera have a very slender proboscis, with the prementum 10 to over 20× as long as broad, and except for Megaloptina, also a serrate inner metatibial spur, while in Megalopta and Xenochlora the proboscis is not so slender, with the prementum about 4–8× as long as broad, and the inner metatibial spur is pectinate. Three main lineages are recognized in the genus, the first one formed by the cleptoparasitic species, corresponding to the subgenus Noctoraptor, and treated here as the byrony group, the second one formed by the species in which the males have a conspicuous large process covered with velvety pilosity in the posterior upper margin of the metepisternum, and the last lineage comprises those species lacking a welldeveloped metepisternal process (Santos and Melo, unpublished data). The species of the second and third lineages can be further subdivided in four species groups: aegis, amoena, yanomami and sodalis. A subgeneric classification is not adopted here because the available name Megaloptella applies only to the amoena species group and Tmetocoelia has been shown to form a paraphyletic assemblage (Santos and Melo, unpublished data). Identification key to the species of Megalopta from Brazil This key includes species that occur in other South American countries (Bolivia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Nicaragua, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela) and in Central America. Females 1. Posterior upper margin of metepisternum modified into a conspicuously large process covered with velvety pilosity (Figure 1A, B)......................... 2 – Posterior upper margin of metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process (Figure 1C).................................................................................... 8 2 (1). Posterior margin of basal area of metapostnotum arcuate, gradually curved toward the metanotum laterally, the longitudinal rugulosities sometimes numerous and present laterally (Figure 1D); upper frons conspicuously convex, strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus (Figure 1E)… aegis group.................................................................................................. 3 – Posterior margin of basal area of metapostnotum straight, abruptly bending laterally toward the metanotum, the longitudinal rugulosities restricted to mid portion, absent laterally (Figure 1F); upper frons flat, not strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus (Figure 2A)... amoena group (in part)............................................................................................. 6 3 (2). Basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulosities weakly impressed medially and more developed laterally, the integument often reddish brown on basal half and metallic green on apical half (Figure 2B).............................................................................. M. nitidicollis – Basal area of metapostnotum with weak longitudinal rugulosities along its entire surface (Figures 1D, 2C, D)............................................................. 4 4 (3). Basal area of metapostnotum orangish, without metallic reflections, surface entirely finely rugulose, stronger rugulosities rectilinear and long along entire surface (Figure 2C)................................................................. M. aeneicollis – Basal area of metapostnotum reddish brown or metallic green, the longitudinal rugulosities imbricated laterally (Figures 1D, 2D)........................ 5 5 (4). Metanotum with dense short plumose pilosity, present on entire surface and obscuring the integument in oblique view (Figure 2D); basal area of metapostnotum with the integument entirely reddish brown, sometimes with green highlights laterally (Figure 2D).............................................. M. aegis – Metanotum sometimes with pilosity short and plumose, present only in two-thirds of disc, not obscuring the integument in oblique view (Figure 1D); basal area of metapostnotum with the integument metallic green with strongly imbricated longitudinal rugulosities (Figure 1D).................................................................................................. M. sulciventris 6 (2). Basal area of metapostnotum very short, about one-third as long as metanotum (Figure 2E)........................................................................ M. chaperi – Basal area of metapostnotum longer, about as long as or only slightly shorter than metanotum (Figures 1F, 3A)............................................................. 7 7 (6). Basal area of metapostnotum uniformly metallic green (Figure 1F); mesoscutum, adjacent to parapsidial line, densely punctured (≥ 1 pd) (Figure 3B); scutellum with posterior margin levelled to anterior margin of metanotum (Figure 3C)...................................................................................................... M. guimaraesi – Basal area of metapostnotum often reddish brown medially and metallic green laterally (Figure 3A); mesoscutum, adjacent to parapsidial line, with very dense contiguous punctation, in direction to mesoscutal lip punctures separated by M. mura sp. n. 8 (1). Basal area of metapostnotum smooth laterally (Figures 2F, 3F, 4A ‒ C)... 9 – Basal area of metapostnotum microreticulated laterally (Figure 4D, E)... sodalis group............................................................................................. 13 9 (8). Mandible simple and lacking supplementary teeth; ocellocular distance longer than F1 length (Figure 4F); scopa absent; basitibial plate with undefined margins (Figure 5A)......................................... M. xavante sp. n. – Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth; ocellocular distance shorter than F1 length (Figure 5B); scopa present; basitibial plate with defined margin (Figure 5C)...................................................................... 10 10 (9). Basal area of metapostnotum without longitudinal rugulae (Figure 2F); metepisternum usually with dense pilosity obscuring at the least upper half of sclerite (Figure 5D)................................................................. M. amoena – Basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulae (Figure 4A ‒ C); metepisternum with sparse pilosity, integument not obscured by pubescence (Figure 1C)… yanomami group................................................................ 11 11 (10). Basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulosities restricted to mid portion, external rugulosities strongly impressed and forming semicircles, integument often dark green (Figure 4A); metanotum with contiguous punctation (Figure 5E); T1 densely punctured (M. yanomami sp. n. – Basal area of metapostnotum without defined external sulcus delimiting the longitudinal rugulosities, integument light green (Figure 4B); metanotum often densely punctured (≥ 1 pd)................................................................................. M. piraha sp. n. 12 (8). Basal area of metapostnotum with mid depression restricted to anterior half, not extending to posterior margin (Figure 4C)............ M. munduruku sp. n. – Basal area of metapostnotum with mid depression extending to posterior margin...................................................................................................... 13 13 (12). Head and thorax mostly dark brown, lacking metallic reflections (Figure 4D)............................................................................... M. cuprea – Head and thorax metallic green (Figure 4E)................................. M. sodalis Males 1. Posterior upper margin of metepisternum modified into a conspicuously large process covered with velvety pilosity (Figure 6A)............................. 2 – Posterior upper margin of metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process (Figure 6B)..................................................................................... 9 2 (1). Posterior margin of basal area of metapostnotum arcuate, gradually curved toward the metanotum laterally, longitudinal rugulosities sometimes numerous and present laterally (Figure 6C ‒ F); pilosity of metepisternum sparse, not obscuring the integument; diameter of velvety metepisternal process about 0.5× the tegula length (Figure 6A); 1st and 2nd tarsomere of foreleg with longest simple setae longer than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres; longitudinal sulcus of S3 strongly impressed (Figure 7A)... aegis group.................................................................................................. 3 – Posterior margin of basal area of metapostnotum straight, abruptly bending laterally toward the metanotum, the longitudinal rugulosities restricted to mid portion, absent laterally (Figure 7B, E); pilosity of metepisternum dense, obscuring the integument; diameter of velvety metepisternal process about 0.75× tegula length (Figure 7F); 1st and 2nd tarsomere of foreleg with longest simple setae smaller than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres; S3 lacking a longitudinal sulcus or sulcus only weakly indicated (Figure 8A ‒ C)… amoena group.................................................................. 6 3 (2). Glabrous basal portion of F6–F11 raised in relation to remainder of flagellomere surface (Figure 8D); pilosity of metanotum restricted to two-thirds of disc, not obscuring the integument in oblique view (Figure 6C); basal area of metapostnotum entirely metallic green or sometimes reddish brown medially (Figure 6C)............................................................................. M. sulciventris – Glabrous basal portion of F6–F11 levelled to remainder of flagellomere surface (Figure 8E); metanotum often with very dense pilosity covering entire disc and obscuring the integument in oblique view (Figure 6D, F); basal area of metapostnotum reddish brown, orangish or reddish brown with metallic green, never entirely metallic green (Figure 6D, F)................................... 4 4 (3). Surface of basal area of metapostnotum entirely finely rugulose, its posterior margin slightly raised but not forming a carina (Figure 6D)...................................................................................................... M. aeneicollis – Surface of basal area of metapostnotum variable, its posterior margin forming a carina (Figure 6E, F)........................................................................ 5 5 (4). Basal area of metapostnotum with strongly impressed longitudinal rugulosities along its entire surface, lateral portions with only short rugulosities (Figure 6E)...................................................................................... M. aegis – Basal area of metapostnotum lacking longitudinal rugulosities or only with a few weak rugulosities in its mid portion (Figure 6F)............. M. nitidicollis 6 (2). Metanotum with dense pilosity; mid portion of basal area of metapostnotum very short, about one-third as long as metanotum (Figure 7B)................................................................................................................. M. chaperi – Metanotum with sparse pilosity; mid portion of basal area of metapostnotum short, about one half as long as metanotum (Figure 7D, E)..................... 7 7 (6). F6–F11 about as wide as remaining flagellomeres (Figure 8F); basal area of metapostnotum often lacking longitudinal rugulosities, only rarely with a few weak rugulosities in its mid portion (Figure 7C); S3 mostly flat, lacking a mid longitudinal sulcus (Figure 8B); S4 with pilosity basally, its apical margin slightly notched laterally (Figure 9B)............................. M. amoena – F6–F11 wider than remaining flagellomeres (Figure 9A); basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulosities in mid portion (Figure 7D, E); S3 with a weakly impressed longitudinal sulcus (Figure 8C); S4 lacking pilosity basally, its apical margin strongly notched laterally (Figure 8C).. 8 8 (7). Mesoscutum, adjacent to parapsidial line, sparsely punctured (≥ 1 pd)........................................................................................................ M. guimaraesi – Mesoscutum, adjacent to parapsidial line, densely punctured (M. mura sp. n. 9 (1). Inner orbit of eye only slightly angled; ocellocular distance longer than F1 length (Figures 9C ‒ F, 10A); F2 about two-thirds of F 3 in length; dorsal surface of flagellomeres flat (Figure 10B)… byroni group........................ 10 – Inner orbit of eye strongly angled (Figure 10C); ocellocular distance shorter than F1 length; F2 about as long as F3; dorsal surface of flagellomeres strongly depressed (Figure 10D)............................................................... 15 10 (9). Protruding process of S4 short, triangular shaped in lateral view (Figure 10E); basal area of metapostnotum without longitudinal rugulosities................................................................................................ 11 – Protruding process of S4 digitiform (Figure 11B); basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulosities, or if rugulosities absent then the integument mostly dark brown to black (Figures 11C ‒ F).................................................................................... 12 11 (10). Head and mesosoma metallic green with coppery tints, metasoma reddish brown (Figures 9C, 10F) M. guarani sp. n. – Head and mesosoma dark brown with metallic green reflections, metasoma dark brown with purple tints (Figure 11A)..................... M. karitiana sp. n. 12 (10). Mesosoma homogeneously metallic green (Figure 11C)............................................................................................................ M. mapinguari sp. n. – Mesosoma dark brown to black with metallic green tints on mesoscutum, scutellum, metanotum and basal area of metapostnotum (Figure 12A ‒ C)................................................................................... 13 13 (12). Integument mostly brown with metallic green tints (Figure 12A)............................................................................................................ M. xavante sp. n. – Integument mostly dark brown to black (Figure 12B, C)........................ 14 14 (13). Basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulosities longer on mid portion, becoming shorter laterally (Figure 11E)...................... M. atlantica – Basal area of metapostnotum smooth, without longitudinal rugulosities (Figure 11F)............................................................................. M. purpurata 15 (9). Mid portion of basal area of metapostnotum flattened, longitudinal rugulosities absent or only a few present (Figure 12D, E)............................... 16 – Mid portion of basal area of metapostnotum weakly concave, numerous longitudinal rugulosities present (Figures 12F, 13A, B)........................... 17 16 (15). Scape uniformly enlarged (Figure 13C); flagellomeres with depressed and glabrous area (Figure 13D); basal area of metapostnotum dark green, longitudinal rugulosities strongly impressed and enclosed laterally by two sulci (Figure 12D)................................................................. M. yanomami sp. n. – Scape gradually enlarging toward the apex (Figure 13E); flagellomeres without depressed and glabrous area (Figure 10D); basal area of metapostnotum light green, longitudinal rugulosities not enclosed by two lateral sulci (Figure 12E)......................................................................... M. piraha sp. n. 17 (15). Basal area of metapostnotum with shorter and weakly impressed longitudinal rugulosities (Figure 12F)........................................ M. munduruku sp. n. – Basal area of metapostnotum with longer and strongly impressed longitudinal rugulosities.......................................................................................... 18 18 (17). Integument mostly dark brown to black (Figure 13A, F)............. M. cuprea – Integument mostly metallic green (Figure 13B)............................ M. sodalis The aegis species group Diagnosis The aegis species group includes M. aegis, M. aeneicollis, M. nitidicollis and M. sulciventris. Its species can be identified by the following characters: posterior margin of basal area of metapostnotum arcuate, gradually curved toward the metanotum laterally, the longitudinal rugulosities sometimes numerous and present laterally (Figure 1D); upper frons conspicuously convex, strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus (Figure 1E); male with glabrous basal portion of F6–F11 expanded (Figure 8D, E); posterior upper margin of metepisternum modified into a conspicuously large process covered with velvety pilosity in both sexes, its diameter at least 0.5× the tegula length (Figure 1A); basal area of metapostnotum laterally with rugulose surface, the posterior margin arcuate, gradually curved towards the anterior margin laterally (Figur, Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 578-597, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Smith F. 1853. Catalogue of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British museum, Part 1: Andrenidae and Apidae. London (UK): Taylor & Francis.","Schrottky C. 1906. Neue und wenig bekannte sudamerikanische Bienen. Z Syst Hymenopterol Dipterol. 6: 305 - 316.","Vachal J. 1904. Etude sur les Halictus d'Amerique (Hym.). Misc Entomol. 12: 113 - 115.","Moure JS. 1943. Notas sobre as abelhas da colecao Zikan (Hym: Apoidea). Rev Entomol. 14: 447 - 484.","Friese H. 1926. Die Nachtbienen-Gattung Megalopta Sm. Stett Entomol Ztg. 87: 111 - 135.","Engel MS, Brooks RW, Yanega D. 1997. New genera and subgenera of augochlorine bees (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Sci Pap Nat Hist Mus Univ Kansas. 5: 1 - 21.","Engel MS. 2000. Classification of the bee tribe Augochlorini (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 250: 1 - 89. doi: 10.1206 / 0003 - 0090 (2000) 250 2.0. CO; 2","Michener CD. 2007. The bees of the world. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins.","Santos LM, Melo GAR. 2013. Taxonomic notes and description of the male of Xenochlora nigrofemorata (Smith, 1879) (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Halictinae). Zootaxa. 3670: 371 - 377. doi: 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3670.3.7"]}

Megalopta mura sp. n. (Figures 1B, 3A, 3D ‒ E, 7E ‒ F, 8C, 15B) Diagnosis Different from M. chaperi by the length of basal area of metapostnotum in relation to metanotum length, its length never a third, and usually a half of metanotum length (Figure 3A). The female differs from M. amoena by presence in posterior upper margin of metepisternum of a conspicuously large process covered with velvety pilosity (Figure 1B) and the male by the F6–F11 wider than remaining flagellomeres; basal area of metapostnotum with longitudinal rugulosities present in central area (Figure 7E); S3 longitudinal sulcus slightly impressed (Figure 8C); S4 basally lacking pilosity, the apical margin strongly notched laterally (Figure 8C). Both sexes are distinguished from M. guimaraesi by the mesoscutum adjacent to parapsidial line with contiguous punctation, punctation becoming sparser towards the mesoscutal lip ( Description Female. (1) Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth. (2) Labral elevation with the central area slightly depressed in relation to the sides. (3) Clypeus with surface between punctures on basal and central area smooth. (4) Central portion of supraclypeal area with sparse punctation, punctures separated by ≥ 1 pd. (5) Antenna reddish brown. (6) Upper frons flat, not strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus. (7) Ocellocular distance smaller than the F1 length. (8) Mesoscutum adjacent to the parapsidial line densely punctured, punctures contiguous, punctation becoming sparser towards mesoscutal lip (≥ 1 pd), posterior marginal zone smooth between punctures. Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum reddish brown; F1–F11 differing in diameter, F6–F11 wider than remaining flagellomeres; F2 about as long as F3; F6–F11, in anterior view, with the anterior and posterior margins depressed, in posterior view, basally with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface. (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity (Figure 7E). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum metallic green, its length up to 0.5× that of metanotum, longitudinal rugulosities restricted to central area (Figure 7E). (19) Metepisternum with very dense pilosity, the integument not visible through pilosity; posterior upper margin modified into a conspicuously large process densely covered with velvety pilosity, its diameter at least 0.75× the tegula length (Figure 7F). (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae shorter than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, slightly impressed posterolateral margin strongly notched (Figure 8C). (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process triangular in lateral view, basal portion glabrous, posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite (Figure 8C). Measurements Approximate body length: (9.8–11.0); intertegular distance: (3.1–4.0); maximum width of head: (2.9–3.1); length of forewing with tegula: (9.2–10.8). Type material Holotype female (DZUP): BRAZIL. Amazonas: ‘BRASIL, Amazonas, Manaus,\ ZF-2 KM 34, Base LBA,\ 09.vii. 2008, 100m, 2°35 ′ 33 ″ S \ 60°12 ′ 52 ″ W arm. luz dossel\ P.C. Grossi col. ’. Paratypes (42♀, 9♂): BRAZIL. Acre: ‘ Brasil, Acre \ Acrelândia \ 10°04 ′ S / 67°25 ′ W’ ‘ Oliveira, Morato \ & Cunha leg\ Benzil acetato’ (1♀ INPA). Amazonas: ‘ BRASIL, Amazonas \ ESENA Juami-Japurá \ 02°19 ′ 09 ″ S \ 68°25 ′ 16 ″ W’ ‘ 04-17 agosto 2005 \ L.S. Aquino leg.’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, AM, Manaus, ZF 2\ km-14. Torre, 023521S-\ 600555W, 19–21.ii.2004 \ luz mista/BL, BLB, lençol’ ‘40 mt alt. J.A. Rafael,\ C.S. Motta, F.F. Xavier Fº\ & A. Silva Fº, S. Trovisco’ (1♂ INPA); ‘ BR AM Manaus \ ZF-03 Km 23 Res. 1112\ 2°28 ′ 02 ″ S / 59°51 ′ 15 ″ W \ 19/11/ 985 (RLD)\ KLEIN BERT col.’ ‘FAZENDA ESTEIO’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, Amazonas \ BR 174 ZF6 Km 9\ Data. 03.07-86\ Col. M. V. B. Garcia’ ‘ Megalopta sp.’ (1♀ MEUFV); ‘ BRAZIL, AMAZONAS MANAUS\ Fazenda Porto Alegre \ (Reserva 3114\ 2°23 ′ 00 ″ S / 59°56 ′ 35 ″ W \ 15-16/VIII/1996 \ Hutchings, R. W.H. &\ Hutchings, R. S.G. col.’‘\ Arm. tipo Pennsylvania \ C/ Cianeto de potássio\ (Roger W. Hutchings)\ Luz Negra (UV-BL)’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, Amazonas, Manaus, Reserva Biológica de Campina \ 12.vii.2008, 77m, 2º 35 ′ 27 ″ S \ 60°1 ′ 51 ″ W arm. luz dossel\ P.C. Grossi col.’ (2♀ DZUP); ‘LO-4\ 1500m’ ‘ Brasil Amazonas \ Reserva Ducke \ Am 010 Km 26’ ‘ 07-18 Dez 2005 \ M.L. Oliveira & E. R. F. Pereira’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, Amazonas \ Manaus, Res. Ducke \ XI.2003 \ OL1- 700ms Vermelho’ ‘ Arm. Suspensa 20 mts\ A. Henriques et. al. Leg. ’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, AM, Manaus \ Reserva Ducke, Ig. \ B. Branco, 15–18.iii.2004,’ ‘ Arm. Malaise 04\ A. Henriques et. al.’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, Amazonas, \ Parque Nac. do Jaú \ 17-19/nov./2005 ’ ‘ M.L. Oliveira & E. R.\ F. Pereira leg.\ campinarana’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BR, AM, Pq. Nac. do Jaú \ Rio Carabinami mg. dir\ 1°59 ′ S / 51°32 ′ W \ 11-12/ IV/1994 \ Motta, C. et al. col.’ ‘ Luz mista mercúrio\ Luz negra BL e BLB\ Lençol’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ Brasil, Amazonas \ PARNA do Jaú \ 19-III à 05-IV-\ 2003’ ‘ M.L. Oliveira &\ J.A. Cunha leg.\ Campinarana’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ BRASIL, AM, Presidente \ Figueiredo, BR 174, Ramal \ do Km-200, 27.i.2006 ’ ‘ J.A. Rafael, F.F. Xavier, A. Silva Fº, D. M. M Mendes,\ em luz’ (1♂), (INPA); ‘ Brasil, Amazonas, Pres. Figueiredo \ Am 240, Km 12, Sítio Água Viva,\ 18-19/X/2006, Luz Mista,\ Motta C.S. & R. S. Hutchings’ (1♀ INPA); ‘ Brasil, Amazonas, Presidente Figueiredo,\ AM 240, Km 24,\ 2°1 ′ 2.2 ″ S 59° 49 ′ 35.8 ″ W’ ‘ 14-18.ix.2009, F.F. \ Xavier Filho, Paladini, A.;\ Ciprandi, A.; Leivas, F.’ (1♂ DZUP); ‘ BRASIL, AM, Pres. Figueiredo, AM \ 240 Km 24, Comunidade São \ Francisco, 14–18.ix.2009 \ 2°1 ′ 2.2 ″ S 59°49’35.8 ″ W \ A.C. Pires (leg.) Luz’ (1♀ DZUP). Pará: ‘ Brasil, PA\ Capitão Poço \ 19–22.xi.1984 \ V. O. Becker col’ (1♀ DZUP); ‘ Marajó P. Pedras \ 13.III-1978 ’ ‘ Brasil Pará \ M F Torres’ (1♀ MPEG); ‘ Brasil, Pará \ Serra Norte \ Fofoca \ Col. Noturna \ 18.IX. 1985 ’ ‘ MPEG HYM \ 11005595’ (1♀ MPEG); ‘ Brasil, Pará \ Serra Norte \ N-1 SERRARIA\ COL. NOTURNA\ 25.X. 1984 ’ ‘ Brasil Pará \ M. F Torres’ ‘ MPEG HYM \ 11005589’ (1♂ MPEG); ‘ Brasil Pará \ Serra Norte \ SERRARIA\ COL. NOTURNA\ 19-X-1984 ’ ‘ MPEG HYM \ 11005583’ (1♀ MPEG); ‘ Brasil Pará \ São João de Pirabas \ Japerica \ Ilha Conceição \ 22-XII-1992 ’ ‘ Brasil Pará \ J Dias’ ‘ Armadilha \ de Luz’ (1♀ MPEG); ‘ BRASIL: Pará \ Tucuruí – REMANSÃO\ 03-VIII-1980 \ eq Nunes de Mello’ ‘5598’ (1♀ INPA). Rondônia: ‘ Brasil, RO, Itapuã \ do Oeste, Flona \ do Jamari, 90m \ 9.146° S 63.012° W \ 5.ix.2012, Cavichioli \ Melo, Rosa & Santos’ ‘ Armadilha \ Luminosa’ (4♀, DZUP). ‘ Ouro Preto \ d’ Oeste, RO,\ 29-X-1987 \ C. Elias, leg.’ ‘ ProjetoPo \ lonoroeste’ (1♂ DZUP); ‘ BRASIL: RO\ Porto Velho 180m \ 24–30.iv.1989 \ V. O. Becker col’ (2♀ DZUP); ‘ BRASIL:RO\ Porto Velho 180m \ 2–12.v.1989 \ V. O. Becker’ (1♀ DZUP). Roraima: ‘ Brasil, Roraima, Amajari \ Tepequém Trilha Igarapé \ da Anta 03°46 ′ 19.7 ″ N’ ‘ 61°45 ′ 21.6 ″ W 649m 14-\ mai-09 11:00 Grigio, Jr. O\ Salicilato’ ‘MIRR 12685’ (1♀ MIRR); ‘ Brasil, Roraima, Amajari \ Tepequém Trilha Igarapé \ da Anta 03°46 ′ 19.7 ″ N’ ‘ 61°45 ′ 21.6 ″ W 649m 14-\ mai-09 11:00 Grigio, Jr. O\ Salicilato’ ‘MIRR 12686’ (1♀ MIRR); ‘ Brasil, Roraima,\ Rorainopólis, Bairro Novo \ Horizonte, 00°56 ′ 25.8 ″ N’‘\6°25 ′ 39.0 ″ W 82m 28-mar-\ 09 Gama Neto, J.L.’‘MIRR 11798’ (1♀ MIRR). FRENCH GUIANA. Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni: ‘FEVRIER’‘ GUYANE \ NOUVEAU CHANTIER\ BAS-MARONI’ (1♀ DZUP). PERU. Huanuco: ‘ Tingo Maria \ Huan. Peru \ Nov. 28 1946 \ Alt. 2200 ft. J.C. Pallister \ Coll. Donor \ Frank Johnson’ (1♀, DZUP). Junín: ‘SATIPO-PERU\ 750 Mr. \ 12.1948’ (1 ♂, RMNH). Loreto: ‘ Peru, LO, Maynas, Alpahuayo-Mishana \ KM 28 – Ex light trap \ 12vii01 Mario Callegari’ ‘col. CR col’ (3♀, CRC). San Martin: ‘ PERU, SM, Tarapoto,\ Meliponário Rasmussen \ Near Taki-Wasi, 386m, 6°28, 819 ′ S, 76°21,315 ′ W Claus Rasmussen leg\ IX-2002 Ex. light.’ ‘col. CR col’ (2 ♀, CRC); ‘ PERU, SM, Tarapoto,\ Near Taki-Wasi, 386m, 6°28,819 ′ S, 76°21,315 ′ W \ Claus Rasmussen leg\ II-2003, Rasmussen leg.’ ‘col. CR col’ (1♀, CRC); ‘ PERU, SM, Tarapoto,\ Near River Shilcayo \ 0629\ 7622, 350 masl \ April 2003 Rasmussen’ ‘col. CR col’ (1♀, CRC). SURINAME. Brokopondo: ‘ Suriname \ Phedra \ 15 Nov-1946 Ir- Schals’ (1♀, RMNH). Para: ‘ Suriname \ Zanderij \ O.P. Sardare \ 15 Sept 1961 ’ ‘at light’ (1♂, RMNH). Sipaliwini: ‘ Museum Leiden \ SURINAME \ Sipalawini \ 13–24. II.1966 \ G P Mees’ (1♂, RMNH). Wageningen: ‘ Museum Leiden \ W. Suriname Exp. \ Maratakka River \ Cupido (Indian vill.)\ 25.II.1971 \ at light\ D.C. Geijskes’ (1♀, RMNH). Comments The female from Acrelândia, Acre, was collected in a euglossine trap baited with benzil acetate. Distribution BRAZIL. Acre: Acrelândia. Amazonas: Japurá, Manaus, Novo Airão, Presidente Figueiredo. Pará: Capitão Poço, São João de Pirabas, Parauapebas, Tucuruí. Rondônia: Itapuã do Oeste, Ouro Preto do Oeste, Porto Velho. Roraima: Amajari, Rorainopólis. FRENCH GUIANA. Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni: Saint-Laurent-du- Maroni. PERU. Huanuco: Tingo Maria. Junín: Satipo. Loreto: Maynas. San Martin: Tarapoto. SURINAME. Brokopondo: Phedra. Nickerie: Wageningen. Para: Zanderij. Sipaliwini: Bven Saramacca (Figure 15B). Etymology The specific epithet honours the ‘Mura’, the name for an ethnic group of South American natives, used here as a noun in apposition. They are known for navigating along extensive areas in the rivers Amazonas, Madeira and Purus. In their long history of contact with European settlers, this group has been repeatedly stigmatized and suffered from massacres, as well as demographic, linguistic and cultural losses. Today, they live at indigenous reserves and urban centres in northern Brazil (Amoroso 2009). The yanomami species group Diagnosis The yanomami species group includes only two species, both described here as new, M. piraha sp. n. and M. yanomami sp. n. They can be identified by the following characters: posterior upper margin of metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process; basal areal of metapostnotum smooth laterally and with a few longitudinal rugulosities restricted to mid portion. Megalopta piraha sp. n. is more widely distributed in the Amazon basin, while M. yanomami sp. n. is known only from Roraima and a single locality in eastern Pará (Figure 15C).

Megalopta amoena (Spinola 1853) (Figures 2F, 5D, 7C, 8B, 8F, 9B, 14D) Halictus amoenus Spinola, 1853: 85. Holotype male, Brazil: Pará (MSNT, examined through photographs). Megalopta idalia Smith, 1853: 84. Syntypes, Brazil: Amazonas and Pará, Santarém (BMNH, not examined). Halictus argoides Vachal, 1904:115. Holotype male, Guyana (MNHP, not examined). Megalopta ochrias Vachal, 1904:115. Holotype male, Brazil: Goiás, Jataí (MNHP, not examined). Megalopta ecuadoria Friese, 1926: 127. Lectotype female, Ecuador: Guayas, Guayaquil (ZMB, examined). Megalopta centralis Friese, 1926: 128. Lectotype male, Guatemala (ZMB, examined). Megalopta gibbosa Friese, 1926:128. Holotype male, Ecuador: Guayas, Guayaquil, (ZMB, examined). New synonymy. Megalopta lecointei Friese, 1926:122. Lectotype female, presently designated, Brazil: Pará, Óbidos (ZMB, examined). New synonymy. Megalopta vigilans Cockerell, 1923:1. Holotype male, uncertain type locality (AMNH, examined through photographs). New synonymy. Type material examined In addition to the type material listed above, we also examined one female and one male syntypes of Megalopta lecointei in the ZMB collection. The female, with the labels ‘Obidos\ 1904\ P. Lecointe’, ‘ Brazil \ Estado\ Pará’, ‘ Megalopta ♀ \ lecointei Ducke \ n.sp.’, ‘ Megalopta \ lecointei Ducke \ n.sp.’, ‘Coll. \ Friese’ ‘Zool. Mus.\ Berlin’, ‘Type’, is here designated lectotype. The male paralectotype bears the labels ‘Obidos\ 1904\ P. Lecointe’, ‘ Brazil \ Estado do\ Pará’, ‘ Megalopta ♂ \ lecointei Ducke \ n.sp.’, ‘Coll. \ Friese’, ‘ Megalopta \ lecointei\ H. Friese 19 Ducke’ ‘Typus’. Additional examined material (833♀, 155♂). See Appendix 2. Diagnosis The female differs from those of M. chaperi, M. guimaraesi and M. mura sp. n. by posterior upper margin of metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process (Figure 5D) and by the smooth basal area of metapostnotum lacking rugulosities (Figure 2F). The male is distinguished from that of M. chaperi by the metanotum in dorsal view with sparse pilosity and by the short basal area of metapostnotum, its length at least 0.8× that of metanotum (Figure 7C); from M. guimaraesi and M. mura sp. n. by F6–F11 about as wide as basal flagellomeres (Figure 8F), central area of basal area of metapostnotum without longitudinal rugulosities (Figure 7C), S3 without longitudinal carina (Figure 8B) and S4 basally with pilosity, its apical margin slightly notched laterally (Figure 9B). Description (1) Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth. (2) Labral elevation sometimes with flattened surface. (3) Clypeus with surface between punctures on basal and central area smooth. (4) Central portion of supraclypeal with dense punctation, punctures separated by ≥ 1 pd), posterior marginal zone smooth between punctures. Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum reddish brown, F1–F11 not differing in diameter (Figure 8F); F2 about as long as F3; F6–F11, in anterior view with the anterior and posterior margins depressed, in posterior view with basal portion levelled with remaining surface. (17) Metanotum in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity (Figure 7C). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum as in the female (Figure 7C). (19) Metepisternum with dense pilosity, integument not visible through pilosity, posterior upper margin modified into a conspicuously large process covered with velvety pilosity, its diameter at least 0.75 × the tegula length. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae shorter than the summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus absent, the central and apical margin sinuous and posterolateral margin sinuous, not notched (Figure 8B). (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process triangular in lateral view; basal portion with dense short pilosity; posterolateral margin sinuous, the apical margin without a set of dense hairs (Figure 9B). Measurements Approximate body length: (9.2–12.9); maximum width of head: (2.7–3.6); intertegular distance: (2.7–4.3); length of forewing with the tegula: (8.2–10.4). Comments Several females exhibit metallic green highlights in the mesoscutum and some males have a metallic green basal area of the metapostnotum. Distribution BRAZIL. Acre: Acrelândia, Cruzeiro do Sul, Rio Branco. Alagoas: Ibateguara. Amapá: Ferreira Gomes, Oiapoque. Amazonas: Caruari, Japurá, Fonte Boa, Itacoatiara, Lábrea, Manaquiri, Manaus, Marãa, Novo Airão, Novo Aripuanã, Presidente Figueiredo, Santo Antônio do Iça, Tabatinga, Tefé. Bahia: Alagoinhas, Belmonte, Brejões, Lençois, Salvador, Senhor do Bonfim. Ceará: Maranguape. Distrito Federal. Espírito Santo: Conceição da Barra. Goiás: Alto Paraíso de Goiás, Jataí, Planaltina. Maranhão: Balsas, Caxias, Imperatriz. Mato Grosso: Alto Araguaia, Aripuanã, Barra dos Garças, Chapada dos Guimarães, Canarana, Juruena, Nova Mutum. Mato Grosso do Sul: Bataguaçu, Bonito. Minas Gerais: Belo Horizonte, Berizal, Bocaiúva, Buritis, Caratinga, Dionísio, Ipanema, Jaboticatubas, Marliéria, Minas Novas, Morada Nova de Minas, Paracatu, São Gonçalo do Rio Abaixo, Três Marias, Unaí, Viçosa. Pará: Acará, Alenquer, Altamira, Aveiro, Belterra, Bujaru, Capitão Poço, Maracanã, Medicilândia, Melgaço, Monte Alegre, Oriximiná, Santarém, São João de Pirabas, Tucuruí, Vigia. Paraíba: João Pessoa, Mamanguape, Maturéia. Pernanbuco: Camaragibe, Igarassu. Rio de Janeiro: Macaé, Nova Iguaçu, Rio de Janeiro. Rio Grande do Norte: Baia Formosa, Natal. Rondônia: Itapuã do Oeste, Ji-Paraná, Ouro Preto do Oeste, Porto Velho. Roraima: Amajari, Pacaraima. São Paulo: Alvinlândia, Bauru, Caraguatatuba, Luís Antônio, Miracatu, Nova Europa, Sete Barras. Sergipe: Santa Luzia do Itanhy. Tocantins: Pindorama do Tocantis. ECUADOR. Guayas: Guayaquil. GUATEMALA. GUYANA. Upper Demerara-Berbice: Linden. NICARAGUA. Masaya: Ticuantepe. PANAMA. PERU. Loreto: Maynas. SURINAME. Brokopondo: Brokopondo. Para: Zuid. Paramaribo: Paramaribo. Sipaliwini: Coeroeni, unknown locality. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Tunapuna / Piarco: Curepe. VENEZUELA: Miranda: Curupao (Figure 14D)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 605-608, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Spinola M. 1853. Compte rendu des Hymenopteres inedits provenants du voyage entomologique de M. Ghiliani dans le Para en 1846. Mem R Accad Sci Torino. 2: 19 - 94.","Smith F. 1853. Catalogue of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British museum, Part 1: Andrenidae and Apidae. London (UK): Taylor & Francis.","Vachal J. 1904. Etude sur les Halictus d'Amerique (Hym.). Misc Entomol. 12: 113 - 115.","Friese H. 1926. Die Nachtbienen-Gattung Megalopta Sm. Stett Entomol Ztg. 87: 111 - 135.","Cockerell TDA. 1923. Two nocturnal bees and a minute Perdita. Am Mus Novit. 66: 1 - 4."]}

Megalopta guarani sp. n. (Figures 9C, 10E, F, 15D) Diagnosis The male differs from those of M. atlantica, M. purpurata, M. xavante sp. n., and M. mapinguari sp. n. by the shape of the medial protruding process of S4, being short and having a triangular profile in lateral view (Figure 10E); from M. karitiana sp. n. by the colour of the integument, metallic green in the head and mesosoma with coppery tints (Figures 9C, 10F) and reddish brown on metasoma. Description Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum brown, except F2 reddish brown (Figure 9C), F1–F11 not differing in diameter; F2 about two-thirds of F 3 in length (Figure 9C); F6–F11, in anterior view, with the anterior and posterior margins flat, in posterior view with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface. (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pillosity (Figure 10F). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum green metallic; its length 0.75× that of metanotum; smooth without longitudinal rugulosities (Figure 10F). (19) Metepisternum with sparse pilosity, integument visible through pilosity; posterior upper margin of metepisternum unmodified, lacking a velvety process (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomere of foreleg with longest simple setae shorter than the summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, posterolateral margin notched. (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process minute triangular in lateral view (Figure 10E); basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notched not extending to basal half of sclerite. Measurements Approximate body length: (10.7); intertegular distance: (2.9); maximum width of head: (2.6); length of forewing with tegula: (9.0); length of forewing: (8.3). Female. Unknown. Type material Holotype male (MPEG): BRAZIL. Mato Grosso: ‘ Brasil MT \ Chap. dos Guimarães \ Colégio Agr. Buriti\ 8 a 13-II-1986 \ Col. I.S. Gorayeb’ ‘ Armadilha \ Malayse’. Distribution BRAZIL. Mato Grosso: Chapada dos Guimarães (Figure 15D). Etymology The specific epithet honours the ‘Guarani’, the name for an ethnic group of natives used here as a noun in apposition. Since the mid-1920s, for the Guarani subgroup Kaiowa, there has been a continuous process of expropriation of Guarani lands, which are constantly threatened by farmers (Almeida and Mura 2003)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 621-622, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Almeida RFT, Mura F. 2003. Guarani-Kaiowa. Instituto Socioambiental, Povos Indigenas no Brasil [Internet]. [cited 2013 Apr 11]. Available from: http: // pib. socioambiental. org / en / povo / guarani-kaiowa / print."]}

Megalopta munduruku sp. n. (Figures 4C, 12F, 16B) Diagnosis The female differs from those of M. cuprea and M. sodalis by basal area of metapostnotum with mid depression restricted to anterior half, not extending to posterior margin (Figure 4C) and the male, by basal area of metapostnotum with shorter and weakly impressed longitudinal rugulosities (Figure 12F). Description Female. (1) Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth. (2) Labral elevation with lateral surface slightly raised in relation to central portion, the surface slightly bilobated basally. (3) Clypeus with surface between punctures on basal and central area microreticulated. (4) Central portion of supraclypeal area with sparse punctation, punctures separated by ≥ 1 pd. (5) Antenna reddish brown. (6) Upper frons flat, not strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus. (7) Ocellocular distance smaller than the F1 length. (8) Mesoscutum, adjacent to parapsidial line densely punctured, punctures contiguous, punctation becoming sparser towards mesoscutal lip (Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum reddish brown; F1–F11 not differing in diameter; F2 about as long as F3; F6–F11, in anterior view with the anterior and posterior margins depressed, in posterior view with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface. (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity (Figure 12F). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum with shorter and weakly impressed longitudinal rugulosities (Figure 12F). (19) Metepisternum as in the female. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae shorter than the summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, posterolateral margin notched. (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process triangular in lateral view; basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite. Measurements Approximate body length: (13.3–14.0); maximum width of head: (4.0–4.8); intertegular distance: (4.4–4.8); length of forewing with the tegula: (13.3–14.0). Type material Holotype female (INPA): BRAZIL: ‘BRASIL, PA, Belterra \ FLONA Tapajós, 100m \ 02°36 ′ 15 ″ S – 54°56 ′ 35 ″ W’ ‘ 15-16.iv.2008, arm. luz\ J.A. Rafael, F.F. Xavier Fº.’. Paratypes (12♀, 1♂): BRAZIL: Amazonas: ‘ Brasil. Amazonas \ Fonte Boa \ Estr. do\ Mamopina, Km 3’ ‘ 02°32 ′ 27 ″ S 66°04 ′ 08 ″ W \ 05–30.IX 2005 \ J.A. Rafael &\ F.F. Xavier-Filho \ Em luz’ (2♀, INPA); ‘ BRASIL: ‘2070’ ‘MANAUS-AM\ PDBFF 25 / IV/90\ M.L. OLIVEIRA’ (1♀, MEUFV); ‘2072’ ‘MANAUS-AM\ PDBFF 25 / IV/90\ M.L. OLIVEIRA’ ‘ Megalopta spp.\ det. G. Melo 1996’(1♀, MEUFV); ‘ BRASIL- AMAZONAS \ MANAUS-FUA\ 23/II/82\ MORAIS. J.W.’ (1♀, INPA); ‘ BRASIL, Amazonas, Pq \ Nac. Jaú R. Carabiani,\ 0159S-6132W, 07–17.iv.\ 1994. C. Motta e outros’ (1♂, INPA) ‘ BRA, AM, Manaus \ PDBFF ‒ Colosso \ 02°23 ′ 58 ″ S – 59°52 ′ 20 ″ W \ 11–15.i.2010 \ D. Storck-Tonon Leg. ’. (1♀, INPA); ‘ BRA, AM, Manaus \ PDBFF ‒ Colosso \ 02°23 ′ 58 ″ S – 59°52 ′ 20 ″ W \ 9–12.ii.2010 \ D. Storck-Tonon Leg. ’. (3♀, INPA); ‘ BRA, AM, Manaus \ PDBFF ‒ Colosso \ 02°23 ′ 58 ″ S – 59°52’20 ″ W \ 18–20. v.2010 \ D. Storck-Tonon Leg. ’. (1♀, INPA); ‘ BRA, AM, Manaus \ PDBFF ‒ Colosso \ 02°23 ′ 58 ″ S – 59°52 ′ 20 ″ W \ 23–27.vi.2010 \ D. Storck-Tonon Leg. ’. (2♀, INPA); ‘ Br, AM, Pres. Figueiredo \ Am. 240 Km 24\ Com. São Francisco \ 02°01 ′ 05 ″ S / 59°49 ′ 59 ″ W’ ‘ 26/vii-03/viii/2005,\ Armadilha luz mista\ F.F. Xavier F°, G.M. \ Lourido, R. Machado’ (1♀, INPA). Distribution BRAZIL. Amazonas: Fonte Boa, Manaus, Novo Airão. Pará: Belterra (Figure 16B). Etymology The specific epithet honours the ‘Munduruku’, the name for an ethnic group of natives used here as a noun in apposition. Historically a people with a warrior tradition, the Munduruku culturally dominated the region of the valley of the Tapajós River, Brazil. Today, the wars they wage are to guarantee the integrity of their territory, threatened by pressures from the illegal activities of gold-panning, hydroelectric projects, and the construction of a great waterway on the Tapajós river (Ramos 2003)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 630-631, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Ramos A. 2003. Munduruku. Instituto Socioambiental, Povos Indigenas no Brasil [Internet]. [cited 2013 Apr 11]. Available from: http: // pib. socioambiental. org / en / povo / munduruku / print /"]}

Megalopta sodalis (Vachal 1904) (Figures 4E, 13C, 16C) Halictus sodalis Vachal, 1904:114. Holotype female, Brazil: Santa Catarina, Joinville (MNHP, not examined). Halictus fornix Vachal, 1904:114. Holotype female, Peru: Huallaga, Rio Mixiollo 1200 m (MNHP, not examined). New synonymy. Halictus aethautis Vachal, 1904:115. Holotype male, Peru: Lima, Callanga. (MNHP, not examined). Examined material (525♀, 111♂). See Appendix 2. Diagnosis This species differs from M. cuprea only by the metallic green integument; from females of M. munduruku sp. n. by basal area of metapostnotum with mid depression extending to posterior margin (Figure 4E), and from males, by longer and strongly impressed longitudinal rugulosities in the basal area of metapostnotum (Figure 13C). Description Female. (1) Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth. (2) Labral elevation* with flattened, slightly depressed or with lateral surface strongly raised in relation to central portion. (3) Clypeus with surface between punctures on basal and central area variable, often microreticulated and sometimes smooth. (4) Central portion of supraclypeal area with sparse punctation, the punctures are separated by ≥ 1 pd. (5) Antennae reddish brown. (6) Upper frons flat, not strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus. (7) Ocellocular distance smaller than the F1 length. (8) Mesoscutum, adjacent to parapsidial line densely punctured, punctures contiguous, punctation becoming sparser towards mesoscutal lip (Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum reddish brown; F1–F11 not differing in diameter; F2 about as long as F3; F6–F11, in anterior view with the anterior and posterior margins depressed, in posterior view with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface. (17) Metanotum with integument, in oblique view, not hidden by short plumose pilosity (Figure 13C). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum metallic green, its length at least 0.8× that of metanotum, medially with longer longitudinal rugulosities, laterally with smooth surface (Figure 13C). (19). Metepisternum as in the female. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae shorter than the summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, posterolateral margin notched. (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process triangular in lateral view; basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite. Measurements Approximate body length: (11.4–20.7); maximum width of head: (3.4–4.5); intertegular distance: (3.5–5.4); length of forewing with tegula: (10.8–16.1). Comments One specimen from Itu, São Paulo, and another from Nova Lima, Minas Gerais (Santos and Silveira 2009), exhibit a dark body coloration. The specimens from Mucugê, Bahia and another from Itatiaia, Rio de Janeiro, were collected respectively in Cambessedesia wurdackii (Melastomataceae) and Bauhinia forficata (Fabaceae). This is the largest species of Megalopta, with some females reaching almost 20 cm in body length, but many specimens exhibit smaller body size. These smaller specimens may be the result of parasitism by Fiebrigella spp. (Diptera: Chloropidae), whose larvae consume pollen of brood cells and are known to reduce the body size of adult Megalopta bees (Smith et al. 2008). Information on nests of this species was published by Sakagami and Moure (1967). Furthermore, specimens have been attracted by eugenol and methyl salicilate. The present synonymy is based on the morphology of both sexes; many characters exhibit intraspecific variation, such as the shape of the labral elevation, length of metapostnotum, tergal punctation and body size. Some individuals show purple tints in the basal area of metapostnotum adjacent to the rugulosities. Distribution BOLIVIA. Cochabamba: Villa Tunari. La Paz: Mapiri. BRAZIL. Acre: Acrelândia, Cruzeiro do Sul, Porto Acre, Rio Branco. Amapá: Pedra Branca do Amapari. Amazonas: Barcelos, Beruri, Fonte Boa, Humaitá, Itacoatiara, Japurá, Lábrea, Manaus, Novo Airão, Novo Aripuanã, Presidente Figueiredo, Tabatinga. Bahia: Camacan, Encruzilhada, Lençois, Mucugê, Salvador, Santa Terezinha. Espiríto Santo: Conçeição da Barra, Guarapari, Linhares, Santa Leopoldina. Goiás: Caldas Novas, Colinas do Sul, Jataí. Maranhão: Buriticupu. Mato Grosso: Aripuanã, Chapada dos Guimarães, Nova Lacerda, Nova Mutum, Nova Xavantina, Campo Novo do Parecis. Minas Gerais: Belo Horizonte, Bom Jesus do Amparo, Caratinga, Ipanema, Nova Lima, Santana do Riacho, Três Marias, Uberlândia, Viçosa. Pará: Alenquer, Belém, Belterra, Benevides, Bujaru, Capitão Poço, Itaituba, Melgaço, Ourém, Parauapebas, Peixe Boi, São Miguel do Guama, Tome-Açu, Tucuruí. Paraíba: Mamanguape. Paraná: Antonina, Morretes, São José dos Pinhais. Pernambuco: Caruaru, Jaqueira. Rio de Janeiro: Angra dos Reis, Arraial do Cabo, Cachoeiras de Macacu, Itatiaia, Macaé, Maricá, Teresopólis. Rondônia: Ariquemes, Guajará-Mirim, Itapuã do Oeste, Ouro Preto do Oeste, Porto Velho, Vilhena. Roraima: Amajari, Pacaraima. Santa Catarina: Brusque, Joinville. São Paulo: Caraguatatuba, Juquiá, Itu, Macaubal, Miracatu, Ribeirão Grande, Sete Barras. ECUADOR. Sucumbios: Limoncocha. PERU. Cuzco: Espinar, La Convención, Quincemil, Urabamba. Junin: Chanchamayo. Huánuco: Leoncio Prado, Puerto Inca. Lima: Cañete. Loreto: Mariscal Ramón Castilla, Maynas. Madre de Dios: Mazuko, Santa Rosa, Tambopata. Pasco: Oxapampa. Puno: Carabaya. San Martin: San Martin. SURINAME. Brokopondo: Brokopondo. Nickerie: Wageningen. Paramaribo: Paramaribo. Saramacca: Calcutta. Sipaliwini: Kabalebo. VENEZUELA. Amazonas: Puerto Ayacucho (Figure 16C)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 631-633, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Vachal J. 1904. Etude sur les Halictus d'Amerique (Hym.). Misc Entomol. 12: 113 - 115.","Santos LM, Silveira FA. 2009. Taxonomic notes on Megalopta Smith, 1853 (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Augochlorini) with a synopsis of the species in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Zootaxa. 2194: 1 - 20.","Smith AR, Wcislo WT, O' Donnell S. 2008. Body size shapes caste expression, and cleptoparasitism reduces body size in the facultatively eusocial bees Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). J Insect Behav. 21: 394 - 406. doi: 10.1007 / s 10905 - 008 - 9136 - 1","Sakagami SF, Moure JS. 1967. Additional observations on the nesting habits of some Brazilian halictine bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Mushi. 40: 119 - 137."]}

Megalopta aeneicollis Friese, 1926 (Figures 1A, 2C, 6A, 6D, 14A) Megalopta aeineicollis Friese, 1926:132. Lectotype female, Brazil: Amazonas, Barcelos (ZMB, examined). Additional examined material (38♀, 5♂). See Appendix 2. Diagnosis The female differs from that of M. nitidicollis by the evenly strongly impressed longitudinal rugulosities along entire surface of the basal area of metapostnotum (Figure 2C); from M. aegis and M. sulciventris by the basal area of metapostnotum often orangish, entirely finely rugulose, stronger rugulosities rectilinear and long along entire surface (Figure 2C). The male is distinguished from that of M. sulciventris by the F6–F11 basally with glabrous area levelled to remainder of flagellomere surface, metanotum with very dense pilosity covering entire disc, obscuring the integument in dorsal view, and by basal area of metapostnotum light orangish brown (Figure 6D); from M. aegis and M. sulciventris by the basal area of metapostnotum entirely finely rugulose, and with its posterior margin slightly raised (Figure 6D). Description Female. (1) Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth. (2) Labral elevation with lateral surface slightly raised in relation to central portion. (3) Clypeus with the surface between punctures on basal and central area smooth. (4) Central portion of supraclypeal area with sparse punctation, punctures separated by ≥ 1 pd. (5) Antennae reddish brown. (6) Upper frons conspicuously convex, strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus. (7) Ocellocular distance smaller than the F1 length. (8) Mesoscutum adjacent to parapsidial line densely punctured, punctures contiguous, punctation becoming sparser towards mesoscutal lip (Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum reddish brown, F1–F11 not differing in diameter; F2 about as long as F3; F6–F11, in anterior view, with the anterior and posterior margins depressed, in posterior view with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface. (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, hidden by dense short plumose pilosity (Figure 6D). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum orangish, its length half of that of metanotum, medially with longer longitudinal rugulosities, laterally with microreticulated surface (Figure 6D). (19) Metepisternum as in the female. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae longer than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, posterolateral margin notched. (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process triangular in lateral view; basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite. Measurements Approximate body length: (12.9–14.0); maximum width of head: (3.5–4.3); intertegular distance: (3.6–4.3); forewing length with the tegula: (10.9–11.8). Distribution BRAZIL. Amazonas: Barcelos, Japurá, Manaus, Novo Airão, Novo Aripuanã, Presidente Figueiredo, Tabatinga. Roraima: Mucajaí (Figure 14A)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 600-601, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Friese H. 1926. Die Nachtbienen-Gattung Megalopta Sm. Stett Entomol Ztg. 87: 111 - 135."]}

Megalopta nitidicollis Friese, 1926 (Figures 2B, 6F, 14B) Megalopta nitidicollis Friese, 1926: 130. Lectotype female, presently designated, Bolivia: Cochabamba, Tarata (ZMB, examined). Type material There is one female and one male syntype in the ZMB collection. The female, with the labels ‘ Bolivia \ Tarata \ 1900’, ‘ Megalopta \ nitidicollis\ ♀ 910 Friese det.’, ‘Coll.\ Friese’ ‘ LECTOTYPE \ Megalopta \ nitidicollis\ ♀ \ Friese, 1926 \ desig. Melo 2010’, is here designated lectotype. Additional examined material (31 ♀, 27 ♂). See Appendix 2. Diagnosis The female differs from those of M. aegis, M. aeneicollis and M. sulciventris by the weakly impressed longitudinal rugulosities in the central portion of the basal area of metapostnotum, in contrast with the strong rugulosities laterally, and by the integument of the basal area often reddish brown on basal half and metallic green on apical half (Figure 2B). The male is distinguished from that of M. sulciventris by glabrous basal portion of F6–F11 levelled to remainder of flagellomere surface; metanotum with very dense pilosity covering entire disc, obscuring the integument in dorsal view, and by the basal area of metapostnotum reddish brown on basal half and metallic green apically (Figure 6F); from M. aeneicollis by basal area of metapostnotum in posterior margin forming a carina; from M. aegis by basal area of metapostnotum lacking longitudinal rugulosities or only with a few weak rugulosities in its mid portion (Figure 6F). Description Female. Mandible bidentate and with supplementary teeth. (2) Labral elevation with lateral surface slightly raised in relation to central portion. (3) Clypeus. Surface between punctures on basal and central area smooth. (4) Central portion of supraclypeal area with sparse punctation, punctures separated by ≥ 1 pd. (5) Antennae reddish brown. (6) Upper frons conspicuously convex, strongly declivous toward sulcus around median ocellus. (7) Ocellocular distance smaller than the F1 length. (8) Mesoscutum adjacent to parapsidial line densely punctured, punctures contiguous, punctation becoming sparser towards mesoscutal lip (Male. (15) Scape with diameter gradually enlarging toward the apex. (16) Flagellum reddish brown; F1–F11 not differing in diameter; F2 about as long as F3; F6–F11, in anterior view, with the anterior and posterior margins depressed, in posterior view with basal glabrous area at same level of remaining surface. (17) Metanotum with integument, in dorsal view, hidden by dense short plumose pilosity (Figure 6F). (18) Basal area of metapostnotum reddish brown, except for the metallic green apex, its length half of that of metanotum, the longitudinal rugulosities limited to sides (Figure 6F). (19) Metepisternum as in the female. (20) 1st and 2nd tarsomeres of foreleg with longest simple setae longer than summed length of the three apical tarsomeres. (21) S3 with longitudinal sulcus, posterolateral margin notched. (22) S4 with medial protruding process, profile of process triangular in lateral view; basal portion glabrous; posterolateral margin notched, notch not extending to basal half of sclerite. Measurements Approximate body length: (10.5–14.6); maximum width of head: (3.3–3.9); intertegular distance: (3.4–4.1); forewing length with the tegula: (10.1–11.5). Distribution BOLIVIA. Cochabamba: Tarata. La Paz: Nigrillani. BRAZIL. Acre: Capixaba, Cruzeiro do Sul, Rio Branco. Amazonas: Ipixuna, Novo Aripuanã, São Paulo de Olivença, Urucará. Rondônia: Ariquemes, Ji-Paraná, Itapuã do Oeste, Porto Velho. PERU. Junin: Satipo. Loreto: Maynas. Madre de Dios: Mazuko, Santa Rosa, Tambopata. San Martin: Juan Guerra (Figure 14B)., Published as part of Santos, L. M. & Melo, G. A. R., 2014, Updating the taxonomy of the bee genus Megalopta (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Augochlorini) including revision of the Brazilian species, pp. 575-674 in Journal of Natural History 49 (11) on pages 601-603, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2014.946106, http://zenodo.org/record/4004455, {"references":["Friese H. 1926. Die Nachtbienen-Gattung Megalopta Sm. Stett Entomol Ztg. 87: 111 - 135."]}