Common Hymenoptera of the Greater Metropolitan Area of Costa Rica

Study Area

The list was made within the limits of the Greater Metropolitan Area and a sector of the peri-urban area (Figure 1). All specimens of the order Hymenoptera present in the MNCR collection were considered, as well as the records present in the GBIF database with specimens in BBSL, CBG, SEMC and MNB.

The INaturalist records were excluded because they did not have specimens in the collection and it is very difficult to validate the identification of the species from photographs, due to the complexity of the taxonomy, but it is not ruled out that many of these observations can be validated in the future. Likewise, the oldest records from the year 2000 were not considered, because the presence of these species cannot be validated today, as the landscape has changed a lot in recent decades.

Click to enlarge

Regarding Endemism

Within the Apidae and Halictidae families there are several specimens identified at the genus level, but it is important to emphasize that within these groups there are endemic species to which these specimens could belong; for example, for Apidae, there are specimens of bees belonging to the genus Ceratina Latreille, 1802, which has 18 species in the country, 5 of them endemic, namely: C. fumipennis, C. singularis, C. aeneiceps, C. claripennis and C. abdominalis, so it is not possible to define their endemism.

A similar case occurs for the following genera Paratetrapedia Moure, 1941, which has seven species reported for Costa Rica, within which P. albilabris is endemic; For the Halictidae family, the Augochlora genus Smith, 1853 presents 14 for Costa Rica, three of which are endemic: A. obscuriceps, A. fulgidiana and A. fulvilabris; the Augochloropsis genus Cockerell, 1897 presents five species reported for the territory, three of which are endemic: A. cyanescens, A. johannae and A. pallitarsis. Caenaugochlora Michener, 1954 presents seven species reported for the territory, four of which are endemic: C. costaricensis, C. leoi, C. beethoveni and C. donnae.

There is also the case of the Sphecodes genus Latreille, 1804, which presents only two species reported for Costa Rica: S. aeneiceps and S. clupeatus, both endemic; However, it is a group with so few serious studies that it should not be determined as endemic without an identification at the species level because there is no in-depth review that rules out the presence in the territory of other species reported for Central America that would not be endemic and are already suspected to be present due to their distribution ranges.

Regarding Data Extracted from GBIF

Since this catalogue contains species data extracted from GBIF online databases, it is important to point out the following cases regarding this data:

• There are 44 specimens identified as Partamona cupira (Smith, 1863) reported for Costa Rica; however, this species is endemic to Brazil, so the identification is erroneous [1, 2, 3].
• In BBSL there are 25 specimens of Paratetrapedia albipes Friese, 1916, which is a synonym of the species Lophopedia pygmaea (Schrottky, 1902).
• Since it is evident that the identifications have not been reviewed and updated, records prior to the year 2000 were omitted, because the physical changes in the GAM have been significant in recent years, in terms of habitat loss, so it cannot be corroborated without a witness specimen that the species continues in the area and has not been displaced to peri-urban areas outside the study polygon, to which is added that many of them are identified as species that do not correspond to the indicated distribution, which makes the identification unreliable, and it is necessary to corroborate the specimen.
• All observations that do not have a specimen from the collection were omitted, because it is not scientifically correct to use this type of records for the following reasons: the data in the photograph or the data provided may be altered, the person making the identification may be wrong and there is no specimen with which to corroborate the information.
• The species Ancyloscelis apiformis (Fabricius, 1793) was not added because, although Costa Rica is within its range of distribution, there is no way to verify its identification.
• The species Anthophorula parva (Timberlake, 1980) (Andrenidae), is not included in the official catalogue of Neotropical species, and in other taxonomic portals such as Ecdysis, it is recorded for the United States and Mexico.
• The species of the Centris genus (Apidae) were taken into account, because their biology and distribution is quite wide, and they were already reported for Costa Rica.
• The Ceratina (Zadontomerus) ignara (Apidae) was included because it is supported by the MNB, corresponding to a Syntype collected in the province of San José and is also supported by the article by Flores- Gómez, et al. [4]
• The species of the families Eupelmidae, Evaniidae, Figitidae, Encyrtidae, Crabronidae, Braconidae and Ichneumonidade collected between 2000 and 2020 were included because they were supported by the CBG and the scientists: D. Janzen, W. Hallwachs, R. Zuniga, A. Telfer, K. Perez and R. Miskie, and also by scientific publications [5, 6, 7, 8].
• The records of Formicidae, also collected between 2000 and 2020, were also included because of their support by the scientists P.S. Ward and J. Longino, as well as the Antweb platform that has continuous and updated support and review.
• The species Cephalotrigona zexmeniae and Melipona (Melikerria) beecheii (Apidae) and the two species of the genus Paratetrapedia were included because their distribution does fit with that established in the literature.
• The five species of the genus Exomalopsis (Apidae) were included, because their biology and nesting requirements can effectively allow viable populations at present [9, 10].
• The genus Calliephialtes Ashmead, 1900 (Ichneumonidae) appears three times with “f”, “q” and “zz” instead of the species name, so it was only counted once as “Calliephialtes sp.”
• The species “Clistopyga k” (Ichneumonidae) from GBIF was omitted, because it is not a valid species and 3 valid species of this genus are already reported with a control specimen in the MNCR collection.
• The name Procryptocerus carbonarius laeviventris Forel, 1899is a synonym of Procryptocerus batesi Forel, 1899.
• The genus Pyramica Roger, 1862 is a synonym of Strumigenys Smith, 1860.
• The name Pseudomyrmex alfari Forel, 1906 is a synonym of Pseudomyrmex nigrocinctus (Emery, 1890).
• The genus Zacryptocerus Wheeler, 1911 is a synonym of Cephalotes Latreille, 1802.