Search

Key to the French species of Pelecocera For several years we have used various keys to identify our specimens: Verlinden (1994), Stubbs & Falk (2002), Van Veen (2004), Haarto & Kerppola (2007), Speight & Sarthou (2017), but some features were not satisfactory: the colour of the legs is variable; the tergites may or may not have pairs of yellow or grey spots for the same species, especially on the autumn specimens (P. pruinosomaculata, P. caledonica), as already noted by Mik (1896) who recognised Pelecocera rectinervis Kertész, 1896 as a black morph of Pelecocera latifrons, now Pseudopelecocera latifrons; and the presence or absence of a few white or black bristles on the anterior anepisternum is also variable for four of the six species. For this work we examined about twenty-five characters and retained the most reliable ones. Characters examined, but not retained are: shape of the basoflagellomere, position of the arista on the basoflagellomere, shape of the face on lateral view, colour and pruisosity of the face, occiput width behind the inner corners of the eyes, colour of the setae on anterior anepimeron, pruinosity of the notopleuron, length of pili on the scutellum, leg colour, alula shape and distribution of microtrichia, pterostigma colour, pruinosity of the sternites, abdomen colour pattern, and genitalia shape. For females, the most diagnostic feature is the shape of the vertex and frons, which is unique for each species (Fig. 7). In P. lugubris and P. caledonica, the vertex appears as a continuation of the upper frons. In the other species, there is a discontinuation (ridge) between the lower and the upper frons, the latter being continuous with the vertex. The length from the anterior ocellus to the ridge of the vertex is also characteristic of each species. Pelecocera garrigae females have the peculiarity of not having any pollinose transverse band above the lunule (Fig. 2C), unlike all the other species. 1. Arista thick, inserted apically on basoflagellomere, composed of 3 highly visible segments in females, very short in males (Fig. 8A). Anepimeron, katepisternum and katepimeron partly shiny black....................................................................... P. tricincta (Abdomen with 3 yellow fasciae, sometimes narrowly interrupted in the middle) - Arista hair-like, inserted dorsally on basoflagellomere (Fig. 8B). Anepimeron, katepisternum and katepimeron entirely grey pollinose................................. 2 (Abdomen with orange or greyish pairs of maculae, or completely black) 2. Basal radial (r) and basal medial (bm) wing cells partly bare......................................... P. caledonica (Lunule polished on lateral arms and median triangle. Female frons polished black and slightly swollen and regularly convex, flanked by two parallel lines along the eyes, which reach the transverse pollinose band above the lunule, without being reduced anteriorly as in P. lugubris) - Basal radial (r) and basal medial (bm) wing cells entirely covered with microtrichia................................. 3 3. Anterior anepisternum with some white pile on the anterodorsal part (few and short in P. garrigae). Middle paraface wider (or as wide) than the diameter of the anterior ocellus (Figs. 9A and 9B)............................................. 4 - Anterior anepisternum without pile. Paraface narrower than the diameter of the posterior ocellus (Fig. 9C and 9D)........ 5 4. Lunule entirely grey pollinose (Fig 10A). Paraface wider than diameter of anterior ocellus (Fig. 9A)........... P. lugubris (Female: Frons strongly swollen after the vertex, forming a large, polished triangle bordered by two lines directed towards the lunule. Distance between the anterior ocellus and the apex of the triangle is approximately 4-5 times the diameter of the anterior ocellus. Punctation of the frons very thin and sparse. Transverse pollinose band above the lunule. Male: grey pollinose frons.) - Lunule brownish or blackish, slightly polished, and not pollinose (Fig 10B). Paraface as wide as diameter of anterior ocellus (Fig. 9B)............................................................................. P. garrigae sp. nov. (Female: Frons polished posteriorly to the vertex, delimited by a curved transverse line (ridge) between the two eyes: the distance between the anterior ocellus and the ridge is 2 to 3 times the diameter of the anterior ocellus. Anterior half of the frons strongly punctate, hardly polished, without transverse pollinose band above the lunule unlike all other Pelecocera species. Male: Frons punctate, slightly polished.) 5. Lunule with grey pollinose median triangle strongly contrasting with polished lateral arms (Fig. 10C). No setae on posterior anepisternum and notopleuron. Metafemora and metatibia completely yellow........................... P. scaevoides (Female: Distance between anterior ocellus and ridge very short, barely as long as diameter of the anterior ocellus. Ridge straight in the middle between the two eyes. In some specimens there is no visible ridge, the curvature of the frons is regular. Narrow transverse pollinose band above lunule.) - Lunule completely grey pollinose (Fig. 10D). Setae present on posterior anepisternum and notopleuron. Metafemora and metatibia usually with black ring............................................................. P. pruinosomaculata (Female: Distance between anterior ocellus and ridge short, about 1.5 - 2 times longer than diameter of the ocellus. Male: Flagellum almost entirely black or only black on the distal half. Spring specimens have more contrasting black and yellow legs, and less variability on the abdomen, especially males with obvious yellow spots. In large populations of autumn, there is a high variability in the coloration of the legs and the abdominal pattern. We do not know any locality with both generations, spring and autumn)., Published as part of Lair, Xavier, Ropars, Lise, Skevington, Jeffrey H., Kelso, Scott, Geslin, Benoît, Minssieux, Elise & Nève, Gabriel, 2022, Revision of the genus Pelecocera Meigen, 1822 (Diptera: Syrphidae) from France taxonomy, ecology and distribution, pp. 1-24 in Zootaxa 5141 (1) on pages 14-16, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5141.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/6577662, {"references":["Verlinden, L. (1994) Faune de Belgique. Syrphides (Syrphidae), Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, 289 pp.","Stubbs, A. E. & Falk, S. J. (2002) British Hoverflies. An Illustrated Identification Guide. Second edition. British Entomological & Natural History Society, London, 469 pp.","van Veen, M. P. (2004) Hoverflies of Northwest Europe: identification keys to the Syrphidae. KNNV Publishing, Utrecht, 254 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.1163 / 9789004274495","Haarto, A. & Kerppola, S. (2007) Suomen kukkakarpaset ja lahialueiden lajeja (Finnish hoverflies and some species in adjacent countries). Otava, Keuruu, 647 pp.","Speight, M. C. D. & Sarthou, J. - P. (2017) StN keys for the identification of the European species of various genera of Syrphidae 2017. Syrph the Net, the database of European Syrphidae (Diptera). Vol. 99. Syrph the Net publications, Dublin, 139 pp.","Mik, J. (1896) Dipterologische Miscellen (2. Serie). Wiener entomologische Zeitung, 15, 106 - 114.","Kertesz, C. (1896) Pelecocera rectinervis, nova Dipterorum species ex Hungaria. Termeszetrajzi Fuzetek, 19, 26 - 29."]}

Pelecocera garrigae Lair & Nève sp. nov. Figs 1, 2, 7D, 8B, 9B, 10B Type material. HOLOTYPE: FRANCE: Pyrénées-Orientales: Sournia, Chemin de Roquebert, 42.7250°N 2.4660°E, alt. 480 m, 1 ♂ 17 April 2019 (X. Lair). Holotype deposited in the MNHN, specimen ED11396. PARATYPES: FRANCE, Bouches-du-Rhône: Marseilles, National Park of Calanques, La Panouse, 43.2564°N 5.4401°E, alt. 160 m, 1 ♂, 2 April 2017, IMBE 1001 and 1 ♀, 5 April 2018 (L. Ropars), paratype deposited in the MNHN, specimen ED11397; National Park of Calanques, La Gardiole, 43.2406°N 5.4781°E, alt. 203 m, 1 ♀, 3 May 2017, IMBE 1002; 1 ♀ 7 May 2018 (L. Ropars), CNC 1619206; Pyrénées-Orientales: 1 ♀, Sournia, chemin de Roquebert, 42.7250°N 2.4660°E, alt. 480 m, 24 April 2013 (X. Lair), this specimen was mentioned as P. lusitanica by Speight et al. (2013) and in Lair et al. (2021), XL01001; 1 ♀, 3 May 2018, (X. Lair), XL01002; 3 ♂, 17 April 2019 (X. Lair & C. Kassebeer), XL01003-01005; 1 ♂, 25 April 2020 (X. Lair), XL01006; 1 ♂ and 1 ♀, 28 April 2020, (X. Lair & E. Lecointe), XL01007-01008; 1 ♀, 4 May 2020 (A. Parret), XL01009; Alpes-de-Haute-Provence: 1 ♂, Saint-Michel l’Observatoire, 43,9300°N 5.7189°E, alt. 650 m, Malaise trap, 19-26 May 2010 (J.P. Orts & G. Nève), GN00524. Additional examined material: SPAIN, Malaga: ♀, Istan, 500 – 600m [ca. 36.5828°N 4.9494°W], 5 April 1972 (leg V. S. van der Goot & J.A.W. Lucas), NBC (mentioned as Pelecocera (Chamaesyrphus) Lair & Nève spec. nov in van Eck & Mengual 2021). FRANCE, Vaucluse: ♀, Caromb, Lac du Paty [ca. 44.1322° N 5.1136° E], 30 May 1995 (leg. Merz & Eggenberger), det. G. Pétremand 2020, MHNG. Diagnosis. Pelecocera garrigae sp. nov. is readily identified as belonging to the Chamaesyrphus subgenus due to the hair-like arista located dorsally on the basoflagellomere, and the anterior anepisternum with some white pile anterodorsally. In P. garrigae, the face protrudes forward and is entirely black with a shiny median stripe and mouth edge; the face sides are strongly pollinose, appearing light grey. The parafaces along the eyes are wide, reminiscent of Cheilosia Meigen, 1822. The lunule is slightly shiny and not pollinose. The frons is punctuate and not pollinose. The abdominal pattern is variable, either entirely black, or with pairs of lateral reddish-brown spots of varying size on tergites 3 to 5 (females), or 4 to 5 (males), or only on tergite 5 (females). Description. MALE. Measurements . total body length (without antennae): 4.8 mm; wing length: 3.6 mm (holotype). Total body length: 4.8−6.4 mm; wing length: 3.6-4.7 mm (n = 3). Head. Antenna black, basoflagellomere with small ventral posterior orange spot. Arista black, bare, inserted dorsaly before the apex (from the middle to the three quarters of the ridge). Face: protrudes forward, entirely black and strongly pollinose, appearing whitish, except shiny mouth edge. Paraface narrower than in females. Frons: punctate and hardly polished, delimited by a curved transverse line (ridge) between the two eyes: the distance between the anterior ocellus and the ridge is 2 to 3 times the diameter of the anterior ocellus. Lunule: black, slightly shiny. Eyes bare. Thorax. Mesoscutum and scutellum shiny black, finely punctuate. covered with semi erected short white pile. Postpronotum and notopleuron pollinose. Scutellum shiny black. Pleura black, entirely pollinose. Anterior anepisternum with 3 or 4 white pile. One black seta on posterior anepisternum, postero-dorsally. Legs: Mainly black, with yellow trochanters. Covered with short white hairs. Femora 1-3 black, narrowly yellow at basal and apical ends. Tibiae 1-2 black, with third to half basal yellow bases and apex narrowly yellow. Tibia 3 black with yellow knees. Tarsi 1 and 2 yellowish to entirely black. Tarsus 3 black. Wing: Entirely covered with microtrichia. Upper outer cross-vein M1 strongly sloping. Stigma pale yellow. Alula: narrow, entirely covered with microtrichia. Abdomen. Narrow, with parallel edges. Tergites entirely black or with badly defined red brown lateral spots on tergites 3 and 4. Pregenital segment with white pile. Sternites: lustrous black, slightly pollinose, densely punctuated. Genitalia. The surstyli are symmetrical. Viewed laterally, their shape is subtriangular with a blunt apex covered with whitish pile. The cerci are semicircular, with long whitish pile. The hypandrium is elongate, subcylindrical, with a black cap at its apex and a bifid appendix ventrally. FEMALE. Very similar to males. Measurements: Total length (without antennae): 5.1 to 8.0 mm, wing length 4.4 to 6.5 mm (n=4). Head: Antenna black, basoflagellomere orange ventrally, with black upper ridge, the face protrudes forward and is entirely black, with a shiny mouth edge and a black shiny median stripe, the lateral face is pollinose, appearing light grey. The paraface are wider than in the male, reminiscent of Cheilosia. The anterior half of the frons is punctate and hardly polished, without any transverse pollinose band above the lunule unlike all other Pelecocera species. The lunule is dark brown or black, slightly shiny. Abdomen: The tergites are completely black, or with pairs of reddish-brown lateral spots on tergites 3 to 5, or only on tergite 5. Etymology. From the French noun “garrigue” (Bigot & Picard 1989), describing the Mediterranean scrubland on limestone where the species was found. Distribution. This species is known only from the locations mentioned above, in the French administrative departments of Pyrénées-Orientales, Bouches-du-Rhône, Alpes-de-Haute-Provence and Vaucluse (Fig. 3). In the Parc National des Calanques it has been found at localities up to 5.5 km apart. The species is probably still to be found in other limestone areas of Mediterranean France. The specimen from the Spanish province of Malaga indicates that the species is also be present in Spain.

International audience

International audience; As pollinator decline is increasingly reported in natural and agricultural environments, cities are perceived as shelters for pollinators because of low pesticide exposure and high floral diversity throughout the year. This has led to the development of environmental policies supporting pollinators in urban areas. However, policies are often restricted to the promotion of honey bee colony installations, which resulted in a strong increase in apiary numbers in cities. Recently, competition for floral resources between wild pollinators and honey bees has been highlighted in semi-natural contexts, but whether urban beekeeping could impact wild pollinators remains unknown. Here, we show that in the city of Paris (France), wild pollinator visitation rates are negatively correlated to honey bee colony densities present in the surrounding landscape (500m-slope =-0.614; p = 0.001-and 1000m-slope =-0.489; p = 0.005). Regarding the morphological groups of wild pollinators, large solitary bee and beetle visitation rates were negatively affected by honey bee colony densities within a 500m buffer (slope =-0.425, p = 0.007 and slope =-0.671, p = 0.002, respectively) and bumblebee visi-tation rates were negatively affected by honey bee colony density within a 1000m buffer (slope =-0.451, p = 0.012). Further, lower interaction evenness in plant-pollinator networks was observed with high honey bee colony density within a 1000m buffer (slope =-0.487, p = 0.008). Finally, honey bees tended to focus their foraging activity on managed rather than wild plant species (student t-test, p = 0.001) whereas wild pollinators equally visited managed and wild species. We advocate responsible practices mitigating the introduction of high density of honey bee colonies in urban environments. Further studies are however needed to deepen our knowledge about the potential negative interactions between wild and domesticated pollinators.

International audience

Since the rise of agriculture, human populations have domesticated plant and animal species to fulfil their needs. With modern agriculture, a limited number of these species has been massively produced over large areas at high local densities. Like invasive species, these Massively Introduced Managed Species (MIMS) integrate local communities and can trigger cascading effects on the structure and functioning of ecosystems. Here, we focus on plant and insect MIMS in the context of plant–pollinator systems. Several crop species such as mass flowering crops (e.g. Brassica napus) and domesticated pollinating insects (e.g. Apis mellifera, Bombus terrestris) have been increasingly introduced worldwide and their impact on natural communities is addressed by an increasing number of scientific studies. First, we review the impacts of major insect and plant MIMS on natural communities by identifying how they affect other species through competition (direct and apparent competition) or facilitation (attraction, spillover). Second, we show how MIMS can alter the structure of plant–pollinator networks. We specifically analysed the position of A. mellifera from 63 published plant–pollinator webs to illustrate that MIMS can occupy a central position in the networks, leading to functional consequences. Finally, we present the features of MIMS in sensitive environments ranging from oceanic islands to protected areas, as a basis to discuss the impacts of MIMS in urban context and agrosystems. Through the case study of MIMS in plant–pollinator interactions, we thus provide here a first perspective of the role of MIMS in the functioning of ecosystems. Fil: Geslin, B.. Université Avignon; Francia. Aix-Marseille Université; Francia. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Francia Fil: Gauzens, B.. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania Fil: Baude, M.. Université d'Orléans; Francia. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Francia Fil: Dajoz, I.. Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7; Francia. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Francia. Universite Pierre et Marie Curie; Francia Fil: Fontaine, C.. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Francia. Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle; Francia Fil: Henry, M.. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique; Francia Fil: Ropars, L.. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Francia. Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7; Francia. Aix-Marseille Université; Francia. Universite Pierre et Marie Curie; Francia Fil: Rollin, Orianne. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina. Institut Technique et Scientifique de l’Apiculture et de la Pollinisation; Francia. Unité Mixte Technologique. Protection des Abeilles Dans l'Environnement; Francia Fil: Thébault, E.. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Francia. Universite Pierre et Marie Curie; Francia. Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7; Francia Fil: Vereecken, N. J.. Université Libre de Bruxelles; Bélgica

Urban ecosystems are expanding worldwide and are often considered as biological deserts. However, environmentally‑friendly management practices may promote the maintenance of urban communities. Such is the case for wild bees (super family Apoideae) with an increasing number of studies reporting relatively diverse bee assemblages in densely urbanized habitats. Here, we report some examples found in the bibliography of cities harbouring relatively diverse bee assemblages, although different methods were used to sample wild bees. We also provide new data concerning the wild bee fauna in the city of Paris (France). During a two‑year field campaign carried out in 7 locations in downtown Paris, we captured 360 individuals belonging to 51 species. This raises the bee species richness in Paris to 67 species. Although this assemblage only represents 6.9 % of the French bee fauna and shows characteristics of a depauperate community (low abundance of parasitic species, dominance of the Halictidae family), some of the Parisian localities sampled exhibit relatively important species richness. This diversity should be preserved given the global pollination crisis and the current context of increasing urbanization. However, emerging management practices in urban environments, such as massive introductions of domesticated honeybee colonies (more than 700 hives are currently established in downtown Paris) could negatively impact on these communities of urban pollinators., Les milieux urbains sont en expansion constante et sont parfois considérés comme des déserts de biodiversité. Pourtant, une certaine biodiversité existe en ville et les pratiques de gestion émergentes dans les milieux urbains peuvent aider à son maintien. C’est notamment le cas pour les abeilles sauvages (super‑famille des Apoidés Apiformes) où des études de plus en plus nombreuses montrent qu’une biodiversité non négligeable d’abeilles peut être présente dans les centres urbains denses. Nous relayons ici les résultats de certains de ces articles qui, avec des méthodes et des intensités de piégeages différents, montrent tous que les villes peuvent héberger des assemblages relativement diversifiés d’abeilles sauvages. Nous apportons également de nouvelles données sur la faune d’abeilles de Paris intra‑muros. Lors d’une campagne de terrain de deux ans dans sept localités de Paris nous avons capturé 360 spécimens d’abeilles sauvages appartenant à 51 espèces différentes. Cette nouvelle campagne porte la richesse spécifique de Paris intramuros à 67 espèces. Bien que cet assemblage ne regroupe que 6.9 % des espèces de la faune Française et montre des caractéristiques d’une communauté affaiblie (faible abondance d’espèces cleptoparasites, sur‑dominance d’espèces de la famille des Halictidae), certaines des localités Parisiennes échantillonnées présentent une diversité d’espèces relativement élevée, qu’il est important de préserver afin de garantir la pérennité des communautés de pollinisateurs dans le contexte actuel de croissance des milieux urbains. Des pratiques de gestions émergentes au sein des villes comme l’implantation massive d’abeilles domestiques (près de 700 ruches dans Paris intramuros), pourraient néanmoins fragiliser ces communautés., Ropars Lise,Dajoz Isabelle,Geslin Benoît. La ville un désert pour les abeilles sauvages ?. In: Le Journal de botanique, n°79, 2017. Septembre. pp. 29-35.