﻿Corrections and additions to the catalogue of the bees (Hymenoptera, Anthophila) of Russia

﻿Abstract The present study is an update to the first catalogue of Russian bees published in 2017. For the Russian fauna, five recently described species are reported, as well as 45 species newly recorded since the first catalogue (including one invasive species), nine species overlooked in this previous Russian checklist, and 17 published synonymies. Original records are provided for nine species previously unknown to Russia and, as a taxonomic act, one species, Anthidiumovasi Warncke, 1980, syn. nov., is synonymised with Icteranthidiumfloripetum (Eversmann, 1852). Additionally, 14 species are excluded from the original catalogue and numerous other taxonomic changes and clarifications are included. The present work revises the total number of genera for Russia to 64 and the total number of species to 1,268.


Introduction
The 'Annotated Catalogue of Russian bees' (Astafurova and Proshchalykin 2017; Levchenko et al. 2017;Proshchalykin 2017a;Proshchalykin et al. 2017;Proshchalykin and Astafurova 2017;Proshchalykin and Fateryga 2017), is a major milestone in the study of this diverse group of hymenopteran insects in a vast territory such as that of Russia.Due to the intensive work of the team of authors, it was possible to include all the published data on bees from Russia known at that time in the catalogue.In total, the catalogue contained 1,215 species from 66 genera and six families (Colletidae -100 species/2 genera; Andrenidae -244/5; Halictidae -263/13; Melittidae -25/3; ).
For such works, it has become common practice to publish corrections and additions accumulated over time approximately once every five years.Similar updates have already been released twice for the European Bee Checklist (Rasmont et al. 2017;Ghisbain et al. 2023), first published in 2014 (Nieto et al. 2014).This first update of the catalogue of Russian bees allows for the correction of previous errors, the introduction of the latest nomenclatural and taxonomic changes, as well as the inclusion of taxa recorded for the first time and species newly described for science from this territory.

Materials and methods
Bringing together new literature records and taxonomic updates for this work was made possible by (i) an exhaustive review of the literature published since the first catalogue of Russian bees (Astafurova and Proshchalykin 2017; Levchenko et al. 2017;Proshchalykin 2017a;Proshchalykin et al. 2017;Proshchalykin and Astafurova 2017;Proshchalykin and Fateryga 2017), (ii) an in-depth revision of the literature not considered in the catalogue, and (iii) original information provided by the authors of the present work.This new list is mostly based on material directly examined by taxonomists and does not include data published online that has not otherwise been validated by experts (e.g., observations reported on iNaturalist, Discover Life, GBIF).

How to use the updated list
The species are ordered by family and listed alphabetically within the following sections: -Species recently described as new to science (i.e., new species described after 2017); -Published synonymies (i.e., synonymies published after 2017); -Other taxonomic changes and clarifications (i.e., relevant changes published after 2017, such as new combinations, taxa upgraded to species rank or downgraded to subspecies rank, as well as clarifications of interesting cases that have led to changes in the updated checklist of the Russian bees); -Species recorded in Russia after 2017 (i.e., published as new to Russia but not new to science); -Species overlooked in the Russian catalogue (i.e., species recorded in Russia before 2017 but not included in the annotated catalogue of 2017); -New species records for Russia (new entries presented in this article for the first time); -Species to be excluded from the Russian checklist (discussions and explanations of the exclusion of certain species from this new checklist).

Subgeneric classification of Andrena Fabricius, 1775
In the last few years, new subgenera have been described and new combinations have been proposed.These changes are included in the current updated list.Notes.According to Warncke (1967: 179) and Gusenleitner and Schwarz (2002: 130) A. aulica Morawitz, 1876 is a junior synonym of A. bimaculata (Kirby, 1802).However, Popov (1949), Osytshnjuk et al. (1978) and Astafurova et al. (2021) regarded A. aulica as a valid species.Wood and Monfared (2022: 66) regarded A. aulica as a subspecies of A. bimaculata (Kirby, 1802).The taxonomic status of A. bimaculata sensu lato is problematic and requires a revision.Although Astafurova et al. (2021) reported A. aulica from the European part of Russia, the distribution of this species is unclear due to ongoing taxonomic confusion with A. bimaculata.In the present update, we do not treat A. aulica as a full species.
Distribution.Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Turkey.Andrena rufomaculata is distributed in Turkey, Iran and the Levant (Wood et al. 2020;Wood and Monfared 2022).

Generic and subgeneric classification of Halictini
The generic and subgeneric classification of Halictini has remained unclear and inconsistent depending on the author or authors.The subgeneric classification of Halictus follows Michener (2007).The genus Seladonia is not used here, and species included in Seladonia in Ghisbain et al. (2023) are placed here in the subgenera Pachyceble Moure, 1940, Seladonia Robertson, 1918, and Vestitohalictus Blüthgen, 1961.The subgeneric classification of Lasioglossum is based on the conclusions of Gibbs et al. (2013) and follows Ghisbain et al. (2023) and Ascher and Pickering (2023).Species included in the subgenus Evylaeus in the first catalogue of Russian bees (Astafurova and Proshchalykin 2017) are now split into the subgenera Biennilaeus Pesenko, 2007, Dialictus Robertson, 1902, Hemihalictus Cockerell, 1897, Pyghalictus Warncke, 1975, and Sphecodogastra Ashmead, 1899.

Lasioglossum (Hemihalictus) adabaschum (Blüthgen, 1931)
Distribution.First record for Russia (south of European part: Astrakhan Province, Kalmykia Republic) by Astafurova and Proshchalykin (2023a: 2).Outside Russia known from Turkmenistan (Astafurova and Proshchalykin 2023a).Pesenko (1986: 113) recorded this species from "south of the European part of the USSR" without giving a precise locality for Russia.The record from Russia (Stavropol Territory) by Chenikalova (2005: 26) needs to be checked.Outside of Russia known from north-western Africa (Tunisia, Algeria), Europe (nearly throughout from Spain in the west as far as northern Germany, Poland), and through Turkey to northern Iran (Ebmer 1988;Pesenko et al. 2000).

Family Megachilidae Latreille, 1802
Species recently described as new to science

Pseudoanthidium (Pseudoanthidium) reptans (Eversmann, 1852)
Notes.Synonymised with Pseudoanthidium nanum (Mocsáry, 1880), which is the subjective synonym according to Litman et al. (2021Litman et al. ( : 1296)).Pseudoanthidium reptans is a nomen oblitum, while P. nanum is a nomen protectum.(1980: 161).Kasparek (2022: 168) first published high-quality illustrations of the female holotype of Icteranthidium ovasi, which allowed us to ascertain that it is surprisingly almost identical in morphology to the female lectotype of I. floripetum (Fig. 1A, C, F).Therefore, these species should be treated as conspecific with Eversmann's name taking priority.It is also of note that the male paralectotype of I. floripetum has the same large reddish-brown maculation in upper gena behind the eye (Fig. 1B, D) as the female types of both I. floripetum and I. ovasi, while the male paratypes of I. ovasi do not have them, according to Kasparek (2022: 168).Distribution.Russia (Urals: Orenburg Province), Turkey, Iran, and Kazakhstan (Atyrau Province) (Litman et al. 2021;Kasparek 2022).
Distribution.Russia (North Caucasus, Crimea), south-eastern Europe, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Iran (Fateryga and Proshchalykin 2020;Maharramov et al. 2021;Ghisbain et al. 2023).Notes.Recognised as a valid species (not as a synonym of Trachusa interrupta (Fabricius, 1781)) according to Kasparek (2020: 22).In the narrow sense, T. interrupta is a mainly Mediterranean species distributed from southern Spain and France, southern Switzerland and Austria over the Balkans to Greece and western Turkey; in south-eastern and Eastern European countries, the distribution extends to Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Ukraine (Kasparek 2020(Kasparek , 2022)).

Megachile (Chalicodoma) alborufa Friese, 1911
Distribution.First recorded for Russia (North Caucasus: Karachay-Cherkessia Republic, as Megachile pyrenaica (Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau, 1841)) by Fateryga et al. (2019Fateryga et al. ( : 1171)), but that report referred to M. alborufa (Fateryga and Proshchalykin 2020: 229); also reported as M. alborufa from Adygea and North Ossetia -Alania republics by Fateryga and Proshchalykin (2020: 229).These two species are closely related and differ in the colour of the legs, as well as the vestiture and the nature of the tergal fasciae in the female sex: Megachile alborufa has reddish legs from tibiae onwards and pale pubescence on terga 1 and 2; in M. pyrenaica, the legs are mostly black except reddish tarsi while pale pubescence is developed on terga 1-5.As there are no differences in structural morphology, M. alborufa may actually represent just a colour form or a subspecies of M. pyrenaica (Fateryga and Proshchalykin 2020).The taxonomy of this species complex requires further investigation.Megachile alborufa is known outside Russia from Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey (Fateryga and Proshchalykin 2020).In the narrow sense, M. pyrenaica is known from Western and Southern Europe, North Africa, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Israel, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan (Maharramov et al. 2021).

Megachile (Megachile) pyrenaea Pérez, 1890
Distribution.First recorded for Russia (north-west and north of European part: Leningrad Province and Karelia Republic) by Elfving (1968: 37)  Species to be excluded from the Russian checklist Hoplitis (Alcidamea) laboriosa (Smith, 1878) Distribution.Was reported on the base of an erroneous record (based on a locality misinterpretation).The species occurs in Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and China (Ghisbain et al. 2023;Müller 2023).
Hoplitis (Alcidamea) turcestanica (Dalla Torre, 1896) Distribution.This species was earlier reported from Russia as Hoplitis caularis (Morawitz, 1875) (Proshchalykin and Fateryga 2017;Fateryga et al. 2018), which was considered a senior synonym of H. turcestanica (Ungricht et al. 2008).Then, H. turcestanica was reinstated as a valid species by Fateryga and Proshchalykin (2020: 226), who provided an additional record from the south of European part: Astrakhan Province.Although, H. turcestanica and H. caularis are indeed two very different species, the material from Crimea, reported as H. caularis, belongs not to H. turcestanica but to H. mollis (Fateryga and Ivanov in press; see also above), while specimens from the Astrakhan Province belong to an apparently undescribed species (A.Müller, personal communication).Hoplitis turcestanica is confirmed to Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan, while H. caularis is known from Kazakhstan (Müller 2023).The records of both species from Turkey, Syria, Uzbekistan, and China require confirmation, as are the records of H. turcestanica from the North Caucasus and Urals mentioned by Proshchalykin and Fateryga (2017) and Fateryga and Proshchalykin (2020).

Family Apidae Latreille, 1802
Species recently described as new to science

Other taxonomic changes and clarifications
The following nomenclatural changes were proposed by Dorchin (2023): Tetralonia Spinola, 1838 is reestablished as genus, including Tetraloniella Ashmead, 1899 (Dorchin et al. 2018); Cubitalia Friese, 1911 is treated as subgenus of Eucera Scopoli, 1770; and Synhalonia Patton, 1879 is retained as subgenus of Eucera as in Michener (2007).Therefore, the following three species previously included in the genus Cubitalia and 14 species previously included in the genus Tetraloniella (Levchenko et al. 2017)  Notes.The type series was revised in ZISP by P. Rasmont (Ghisbain et al. 2023: 26).The specimens comprising the type series are only females, all belonging to the difficult group of Anthophora aestivalis (Panzer, 1801), in which generally only males can be reliably identified.Therefore, the name Anthophora erschowi was considered to be a species inquirenda and removed from the European (including Russian) checklists.Notes.Recognised as a separate subspecies according to Ilyasov et al. (2019: 310).Distribution.Russia (Far East: Primorskiy and Khabarovsk territories) (Proshchalykin and Sergeev 2020).

Conclusions
Here we have presented an update on the knowledge of the species diversity and taxonomy of the bee fauna of Russia, considering all the advances made after the publication of the catalogue of Russian bees (Astafurova and Proshchalykin 2017; Levchenko et al. 2017;Proshchalykin 2017a;Proshchalykin et al. 2017;  1, Suppl.material 1).
After the revision of the first checklist, we report five species recently described, 45 species newly recorded since the first catalogue (including one species non-native to Russia), nine species overlooked in the previous Russian checklist, and 17 published synonymies.We provide original records for nine species previously unknown to Russia and, as original taxonomic act, we synonymise one species and exclude 14 species from the previous checklist.Numerous other taxonomic changes and clarifications are also included.The final count of species per family, subfamily, tribe and genus is available in Table 1.An updated list of Russian bees is available as Suppl.material 1.

Table 1 .
Updated species totals for Russian bees.Proshchalykin and Astafurova 2017; Proshchalykin and Fateryga 2017) and considering material that was overlooked by that work.An updated total of 1,268 species belonging to 64 genera and six families are now recorded within Russia (Table