Bombus ephippiatus Say
ephippiàtus [ephippiatus] Say, 1837:414
formosus Smith, 1854:403, examined
lateralis Smith, 1879:134, examined
wilmattæ [wilmattae] Cockerell, 1912:21, examined
alboniger Franklin, 1915:409, examined
folsomi (Frison, 1923:322 [Bremus]) examined

DISTRIBUTION: S Nearctic, N Neotropical Regions, W Neotropical border.

Bombus flavescens Smith
flavescens Smith, 1852a:45, examined
mearnsi Ashmead, 1905:959, examined
?baguionensis Cockerell, 1920:631, examined
tahanensis Pendlebury, 1923:65, examined
?rufoflavus Pendlebury, 1923:66, examined

TAXONOMIC STATUS: Several of these nominal taxa have been treated as separate species. B. rufoflavus [Peninsular Malaysia] and B. baguionensis [Philippines] are particularly distinct in colour pattern. They may prove to be separate species, but from the material available from a few sites, they appear to be closely similar in morphology to B. flavescens (Williams, 1991 [pdf]). Until more evidence to the contrary is available from critical studies of patterns of variation, I shall treat them as parts of a single variable species.

DISTRIBUTION: Oriental Region, Sumatran border.

Bombus frigidus Smith
frigidus Smith, 1854:399, examined

DISTRIBUTION: W Nearctic, E Nearctic Regions, Arctic border.

Bombus huntii Greene
Huntii Greene, 1860:172

DISTRIBUTION: W Nearctic, S Nearctic Regions.

Bombus infirmus (Tkalcu)
leucurus Bischoff, 1936:8, examined, not of Bischoff & Hedicke, 1931:391 (= B. subtypicus (Skorikov))
infirmus (Tkalcu, 1968a:24 [Pyrobombus]) replacement name for leucurus Bischoff, 1936:8

DISTRIBUTION: Oriental Region.

Bombus infrequens (Tkalcu)
infrequens (Tkalcu, 1989:56 [Pyrobombus]) examined

DISTRIBUTION: Oriental Region.

Bombus kotzschi Reinig
agnatus Skorikov, 1933b:248, examined, not of Skorikov, 1912:97 (= B. monticola Smith)
kotzschi Reinig, 1940:227, examined

DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic, Oriental Regions.

Bombus sylvicola Kirby
sylvicola Kirby, 1837:272

TAXONOMIC STATUS: B. sylvicola is morphologically closely similar to B. lapponicus, and it has been suggested repeatedly that they are conspecific (e.g. Sladen, 1919; Skorikov, 1922a, 1937; Pittioni, 1942, 1943; Thorp, 1962; Thorp et al., 1983).

Evidence from comparisons of DNA sequences from the 16S gene is not strong but consistent with the two taxa being separate species (Cameron et al., 2007 [pdf]). Until more evidence to the contrary is available from critical studies of patterns of variation, I shall treat them as two separate species. See also the comments on B. monticola.

DISTRIBUTION: Arctic, W Nearctic Regions.

Bombus lapponicus (Fabricius)
lapponica (Fabricius, 1793:318 [Apis])
zhaosu Wang, 1985:162, examined

DISTRIBUTION: Palaearctic, Arctic Regions.

Bombus lemniscatus Skorikov
lemniscatus Skorikov, 1912:607, examined
flavopilosus Friese, 1918:84, examined
peralpinus Richards, 1930:646, examined

DISTRIBUTION: Oriental Region.

Bombus lepidus Skorikov
lepidus Skorikov, 1912:606, examined
genitalis Friese, 1913:85, examined
tetrachromus Friese, 1918:85, examined, not of Cockerell, 1909:397 (= B. kashmirensis Friese)
yuennanicola Bischoff, 1936:7, examined

TAXONOMIC STATUS: B. lepidus and B. yuennanicola have been considered both as separate species (Bischoff, 1936) and as conspecific (Williams, 1991 [pdf]). Evidence from comparisons of DNA sequences from five genes is consistent with the two taxa being conspecific (Cameron et al., 2007 [pdf]).

DISTRIBUTION: Oriental Region.

Bombus luteipes Richards
luteipes Richards, 1934:89, examined
signifer (Tkalcu, 1989:52 [Pyrobombus]), examined

DISTRIBUTION: Oriental Region.

Bombus melanopygus Nylander
melanopyge Nylander, 1848:236
Edwardsii Cresson, 1878:184
melampygus Handlirsch, 1888:231, unjustified emendation
[melanopygus Viereck, 1904:99, incorrect subsequent spelling]
melanopygus Franklin, 1913:334, justified emendation

TAXONOMIC STATUS: B. melanopygus and B. edwardsii were shown by Owen & Plowright (1980) to differ by a single pair of alleles at one locus controlling the colour of the pubescence on gastral terga II-III. There can be little doubt that they are conspecific (Owen et al., 2010).

DISTRIBUTION: W Nearctic Region.

Bombus mirus (Tkalcu)
mirus (Tkalcu, 1968a:37 [Pyrobombus]) examined
tibetanus Friese, 1913:86, examined, not of Morawitz, 1887:202 (= B. tibetanus (Morawitz))

DISTRIBUTION: Oriental Region.

Bombus mixtus Cresson
Praticola Kirby, 1837:274
mixtus Cresson, 1878:186, not of Kriechbaumer, 1870:160 (= B. maxillosus Klug)

NOMENCLATURE: B. praticola is probably the oldest available name for this species. Any remaining confusion could be resolved by the designation of an appropriate neotype (e.g. see the comments on B. subterraneus).

Although B. praticola is probably the oldest available name for this species, the name B. mixtus has been in common use for the species since 1950 (e.g. Stephen, 1957; Thorp, 1970; Plowright & Stephen, 1973; K. W. Richards, 1973; Macior, 1975; Sakagami, 1976; Hurd, 1979; Plowright & Owen, 1980; Thorp et al., 1983; Laverty & Harder, 1988; Macfarlane et al., 1994). It is suggested that, in the interests of stability, an application be made to ICZN to use its Plenary Power to suppress the senior homonym (ICZN, 1999: Article 78) (see the comments on B. muscorum) (in prep.). However, the consequence of this action would be that mixtus (Kriechbaumer) would no longer be available for a subspecies of B. maxillosus.

DISTRIBUTION: W Nearctic Region.

Bombus oceanicus Friese
oceanicus Friese, 1909:675, examined
oceanicus Friese & Wagner, 1910:52, redescribed

TAXONOMIC STATUS: B. oceanicus is known only from the Kurile Islands. A particularly close relationship with the otherwise broadly distributed B. cingulatus (absent from the Kuriles, but present in Kamchatka, Reinig, 1939; Ito & Sakagami, 1980) has been suggested by Ito & Sakagami (1980) and it is possible that they are conspecific. More evidence is awaited.

DISTRIBUTION: Japanese, Palaearctic Regions.