Corrigenda |
Corresponding author: Shelby Kerrin Kilpatrick ( sk_kilpatrick@verizon.net ) Academic editor: Michael Ohl
© 2021 Shelby Kerrin Kilpatrick, Jason Gibbs, Martin M. Mikulas, Sven-Erik Spichiger, Nancy Ostiguy, David J. Biddinger, Margarita M. López-Uribe.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC0 Public Domain Dedication.
Citation:
Kilpatrick SK, Gibbs J, Mikulas MM, Spichiger S-E, Ostiguy N, Biddinger DJ, López-Uribe MM (2021) Corrigenda: An updated checklist of the bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Anthophila) of Pennsylvania, United States of America. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 77: 1–86. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.77.49622. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 81: 181-189. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.81.62634
|
The recently updated checklist of the bees of Pennsylvania, USA (
Choropleth map of Pennsylvania specifying bee species richness by county. The greater number of species recorded for a county, the darker blue the county is on the map; lighter-colored counties have fewer species reported from them. The number of species reports for counties ranges from one (Cameron Co.) to 246 (Adams Co.).
The specimen data retrieved from GBIF.org on 07 January 2020 (GBIF Occurrence Download https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.wghcks) were filtered by “Scientific name”, (Andrenidae, Apidae, Colletidae, Halictidae, Megachilidae, Melittidae), “Continent” (North America), “Country or area” (United States of America), and “State province” (PENNSYLVANIA). We have become aware that applying the geography-based terms excluded numerous records from our search results (i.e., a record was excluded if any of these fields were empty/missing when a record was originally submitted to GBIF or if there was a misspelling/variant of the search term in any of these fields). Applying a polygon/shapefile for the state and adjusting “coordinateUncertaintyInMeters”, in place of using geography-based terms, will return all records that contain coordinates within the state, regardless of how complete their other fields are. Combining this search strategy with searches that use a wider variety of geography-based terms – to retrieve records without coordinates or that have been incorrectly georeferenced – can be used to compile a thorough GBIF dataset. However, the addition of records from searches such as these is outside of the scope of the corrigenda.
The subfamilial classification within Apidae was intended to follow
The species group, viridatum, was unintentionally omitted from Lasioglossum (Dialictus) dreisbachi (Mitchell, 1960) in both the text and Suppl. material
Typographical and formatting errors that were introduced to Suppl. material
Some of the citations of the Legend presented on page 17 were incorrectly formatted and/or had the incorrect year listed. The corrected legend is reprinted in full here for clarity and convenience:
Legend: 1 =
Specimen records from
The county records for each species have been corrected in Suppl. material
Sources for county and/or date information reported in the checklist were partially omitted in four species’ records in the checklist on pages 37, 47, 49, and 60. The data noted for each of the following species is attributable to the citation for superscript “1”: Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta producta (Cresson, 1864) – Butler; Andrena (Thysandrena) w-scripta Viereck, 1904 – Potter; Calliopsis (Calliopsis) andreniformis Smith, 1853 – Cumberland and Lackawanna; Sphecodes ranunculi Robertson, 1897 – Dauphin, Erie, Montgomery, and 14 Jul.
Several state species records, including the following, were included on the checklist based on external data sources as provided in
Thanks again to Beth Choate for graciously sharing specimen data. John (Jack) Neff (Central Texas Melittological Institute) and John Ascher (National University of Singapore) critically reviewed the published article and their feedback contributed to components of the corrigenda. GBIF Secretariats, Daniel Noesgaard and John Waller, reviewed our occurrence download and contributed suggestions for retrieving additional records in future searches. We also thank Emily Erickson, Rosemary Malfi, and T’ai Roulston for their assistance with confirming a few of the specimen records included in the updated checklist.
Bee species of Pennsylvania: taxonomy, collection dates, persistence, and distribution data
Data type: classification, phenology, distribution
Explanation note: The classification, earliest and latest dates of collection in both
Pennsylvania bee species literature review records
Data type: specimen records
Explanation note: Complete specimen literature record details for species of bees reported in Pennsylvania. Citation details, taxonomic classification (past and updated to current), type of report, occurrence details (both verbatim and transformed), and species notes are presented for 1,283 records. This file has been corrected and updated as described in the text of the Corrigenda. This replacement file for Suppl. material