Basic steps:
  1. Answer one or more questions on right by clicking checkboxes. It's okay to check multiple boxes. Then click any 'search' button.
  2. Results appear on left. Click the 'simplify' button to get more questions.
  3. Repeat steps 1 and 2, narrowing down the possibilities.
  4. A 'COMPARE IMAGES' link appears on left when under 100 kinds match. Use this to compare kinds.
Click Restart to search again.
Click Guides to list other guides.
Click here if you're a new user.

Discover Life 13 kinds match:
Conanthalictus bakeri  [popup]
Conanthalictus caerulescens  [popup]
Conanthalictus
Conanthalictus cockerelli  [popup]
Conanthalictus
Conanthalictus conanthi  [popup]
Halictus
Conanthalictus cotullensis  [popup]
Conanthalictus deserticola  [popup]
Conanthalictus
Conanthalictus macrops  [popup]
Conanthalictus mentzeliae  [popup]
Conanthalictus
Conanthalictus minor  [popup]
Conanthalictus
Conanthalictus namatophilus  [popup]
Conanthalictus
Conanthalictus nigricans  [popup]
Conanthalictus
Conanthalictus seminiger  [popup]
Conanthalictus wilmattae  [popup]


REMAINING (number with state)
Abdomen, S5, presence of fuzzy, bump-like projections near the lateral edges along the rim - Note that you may have to remove hairs on one side to confirm or deny the presence
 Absent - Although there is no projection, note that there is OFTEN a hair tuft here still (11)
 Present - In addition to the common hair tufts here, there are also bumpy projections (4)
Abdomen, overall integumental color NOT counting the apical rim
 1. Black to brown, sometimes with slight reddening (11)
 2. With metallic blue coloration (4)
Body length in mm, when measured from tip of abdomen to front of head
 5 (11)
 6 (10)
 4 (8)
 7 (8)
 3 (3)
 8 (3)
C. cockerelli vs C. macrops
 C. cockerelli - The hairs of S1 are a bit dense but do not completely obscure the rim and they are very sparse on S2, leaving the surface clearly visible throughout (1)
 C. macrops - The hairs of S1 and S2 are much more dense, the rim of S1 obscured and that of S2 nearly so (1)
C. conanthi vs C. cotullensis - Both of these may be separated from the rest by their very long faces - These are almost certainly the same species
 C. conanthi - According to Cockerell and Crawford, 1907, this species is larger, with a lighter tibia, lighter stigma and wing veins, as well as a darker and less green color - As all distinguishing characteristics are those which vary considerably within and between populations of the same species, it at this time seems safe to call both forms C. conanthi (1)
 C. cotullensis - According to Cockerell and Crawford, 1907, this species is smaller, with a darker tibia, darker stigma and wing veins, as well as a greener color - As all distinguishing characteristics are those which vary considerably within and between populations of the same species, it at this time seems safe to call both forms C. conanthi (1)
C. deserticola vs C. minor
 C. deserticola - Past the inferior tooth, the tip of the mandible appears slightly disjointed and shifted lower than the base of the mandible - The tergal rims are relatively dark brown, although slightly translucent they are not as transparent as the lighter tan hyaline tergal rims of C. minor - The fringe of hairs running along the bottom of the hindbasitarsus is full of very long hairs that rise off the basitarsus by clearly more than its own width - The head is clearly broader than long - These are both small species, although C. deserticola is usually slightly larger at around 4-5mm average total body length (1)
 C. minor - Past the inferior tooth, the tip of the mandible appears to stay along roughly the same axis as the base of the mandible - The tergal rims are a transparent, tan color although this may be hard to tell due to dark integument beneath - The fringe of hairs running along the bottom of the hindbasitarsus is relatively short, rising off the basitarsus by about its own width at most - The head is narrower, about quadrate or slightly broader than long - These are both small species, although C. minor is usually slightly smaller at around 3-4mm average total body length (1)
C. minor vs C. namatophilus
 C. minor - The inferior tooth of the mandible comes to a clear point, although it may sometimes be rather rounded at the tip - The head is narrower, about quadrate or slightly broader than long - This species is ALMOST ALWAYS smaller than C. namatophilus, averaging about 4mm or less in total body length (1)
 C. namatophilus - The mandible is usually simple, the inferior tooth reduced to a weak secondary ridge lacking an apical point and instead smoothly meeting the rest of the mandibular blade, although sometimes it appears to come to nearly a right angle at its tip - The head is clearly broader than long - This species is ALMOST ALWAYS larger than C. minor, averaging around 5-6mm in total body length (1)
C. seminiger vs other species
 Other species - Hairs on the hind tibia are relatively sparse and simpler, lacking such extensive branching and most hairs have little to none - Inferior tooth of mandible variable, but usually if coming to a point it is much smaller and more obviously acute - These species prefer varied habitats, ranging from those of C. seminiger to xeric deserts (12)
 C. seminiger - The hairs of the hind tibia are very plumose, making it almost look like a female scopa - The inferior tooth of the mandible appears to come to a VERY WIDE and relatively weakly distinct point - This species prefers more chaparral, cismontane types of environments (1)
Head, antennae, scape, greatest width vs length
 1. Normal to slender - The scape is at least about 3x longer than wide and is usually very slender (10)
 2. Wide - The scape is about 2-2.5x longer than it is wide and there is very minimal thickening in the latter half, if any (6)
 3. Very wide near tip - The scape is about twice as long as it is broad or sometimes slightly longer than that, appearing much more robust due to a great deal of thickening in the distal half (2)
Head, mandible, curve of tip past the inferior tooth if one is present - Do not score if an inferior tooth is absent - This is best viewed along the inner edge
 1. Straight or nearly so - The tip of the mandible is roughly straight (8)
 2. Obviously curved - The tip of the mandible is very clearly curved or bent past the inferior tooth (6)
Head, mandible, presence and form of inferior tooth
 2. Inferior tooth pointed - There is an obvious, small tooth coming off the inside of the mandible near the tip that is nearly parallel to the main blade (7)
 4. Inferior tooth truncated - The inferior tooth is very large and blunt, lacking rounding although sometime it may be slightly concave between the edges of the truncate area (5)
 3. Inferior tooth distinct and right angular (4)
 1. Simple or nearly so - There is either no inferior tooth or there is a very weak angle where one would normally be such that there is neither a point nor a rounded projection (2)
Head, overall shape
 3. Very wide - The head is clearly broader than long (8)
 2. Normal or VERY slightly long - The head is roughly square when viewed from the front, sometimes appearing slightly longer than broad (5)
 1. Very long - The head is very clearly much longer than wide (2)
State or province where bee was collected
 AZ (11)
 CA (11)
 Baja California Norte (8)
 NV (6)
 Sonora (4)
 Chihuahua (3)
 NM (3)
 Coahuila (1)
 Nuevo Leon (1)
 TX (1)
 UT (1)
Thorax, scutellum, integumental luster
 1. Granulated - With few reflections, if any (12)
 2. Shiny - With very little sculpturing, appearing highly reflective (3)