Figure 5 from: Dorey JB, Fagan-Jeffries EP, Stevens MI, Schwarz MP (2020) Morphometric comparisons and novel observations of diurnal and low-light-foraging bees. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 79: 117-144. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.79.57308

Figure 5 Dorsal head of some included species and related species for comparison of ocelli size A male and B female Reepenia bituberculata (Halictidae: Nomiinae) collected in low-light conditions CLasioglossum (Chilalictus) ochroma (Halictidae: Halictinae), a species that has been hypothesised to be adapted to low-light conditions due to loss of pigment DMellitidia tomentifera (Halictidae: Nomiinae), a bee in the same subfamily as Reepenia without enlarged ocelli EMeroglossa gemmata (Colletidae: Hylaeinae) FM. impressifrons penetrata (Colletidae: Hylaeinae) GM. eucalypti (Colletidae: Hylaeinae) HHylaeus (Analastoroides) foveatus (Colletidae: Hylaeinae) a bee in the same subfamily as Meroglossa that lacks enlarged ocelli. Meroglossa gemmata has enlarged ocelli, consistent with adaptation to low-light conditions, comparable in relative size to R. bituberculata. The other two Meroglossa spp. (M. impressifrons penetrata and M. eucalypti) do not show such extreme morphological features compared to other members of the genus examined by Houston (1975), but are facultative low-light adapted. When compared to representatives from their respective subfamilies both Meroglossa (Hylaeinae) and Reepenia (Nomiinae) have relatively enlarged ocelli. Colours refer to those for each behavioural state in Fig. 4.