S. beameri vs S. dicksoni and S. pratti | S. dicksoni vs S. pratti - Small, but consistent, differences - There is some doubt as to whether or not these are two different species | State or province where bee was collected

Check boxes for all that apply. If uncertain, skip character or select several states. Then click on any search button.
Navigate with above index or scroll bar.

Number scored for a state is in green.

1. State or province where bee was collected

3AZ    1CA    3NM    3TX   

2. S. beameri vs S. dicksoni and S. pratti

1S. beameri - The pit interspaces on the head between the ocelli and antennal fossae are small, usually under one pit diameter - The pitting of the scutum is very distinct due to its coarseness, these pits much larger than those of the other two species and are readily visible under a microscope - The pit interspaces on the scutum average one or less in females and 1.5-2 in males    2S. dicksoni and S. pratti - The pit interspaces on the head, between the ocelli and the antennal fossae, are large, usually equal to several pit diameters and often quite variable - The pitting of the scutum is often hard to see except at certain angles, this due to the relatively small size of the pits - The pit interspaces on the scutum usually average over two pit diameters   

3. S. dicksoni vs S. pratti - Small, but consistent, differences - There is some doubt as to whether or not these are two different species

1S. dicksoni - The propodeal triangle is roughened in its basal half but becomes smooth and shiny along its posterior half where it bends over to the rear face as well as at the sides of the triangle, best seen when looking down at the propodeum    1S. pratti - The dorsal face of the propodeal triangle is roughened and dulled to its posterior rim medially or very nearly so, strongly rugulose basally and more tessellate posteriorly, but at the sides this area is smooth and shiny such that it creates a contrast in surface reflectivity that is best seen when looking down at the propodeum