Neonicotinoid pesticides were first introduced in the mid-1990s, and since then, their use has grown rapidly. They are now the most widely used class of insecticides in the world, with the majority of applications coming from seed dressings. Neonicotinoids are water-soluble, and so can be taken up by a developing plant and can be found inside vascular tissues and foliage, providing protection against herbivorous insects. However, only approximately 5% of the neonicotinoid active ingredient is taken up by crop plants and most instead disperses into the wider environment. Since the mid-2000s, several studies raised concerns that neonicotinoids may be having a negative effect on non-target organisms, in particular on honeybees and bumblebees. In response to these studies, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was commissioned to produce risk assessments for the use of clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam and their impact on bees. These risk assessments concluded that the use of these compounds on certain flowering crops poses a high risk to bees. On the basis of these findings, the European Union adopted a partial ban on these substances in May 2013. The purpose of the present paper is to collate and summarise scientific evidence published since 2013 that investigates the impact of neonicotinoids on non-target organisms. Whilst much of the recent work has focused on the impact of neonicotinoids on bees, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that persistent, low levels of neonicotinoids can have negative impacts on a wide range of free-living organisms.

Using a combination of DNA barcodes and morphology, we examine species boundaries in bees of the genus Andrena subgenus Taeniandrena in Europe. First, we solve the long controversy surrounding the status ofAndrena ovatula(Kirby, 1802) andA. albofasciataThomson, 1870, proposed to represent distinct species nearly 100 years ago, but mostly treated as conspecific in recent studies. Our results unambiguously support the presence of two taxa that are often found in sympatry: the first taxon, referred to asA. ovatula, is present in Northern Europe but also in Southern Europe along the Mediterranean coast; the second taxon is referred to asA. afzeliella(Kirby, 1802),stat. rev., withA. albofasciataconsidered to be a junior synonym (syn. nov.), and is widely distributed in Europe. Second, we show that another widely distributed species has hitherto been overlooked in Europe:A. ovataSchenck, 1853,stat. rev.Third, we demonstrate that two taxa currently treated as subspecies should be given specific rank due to significant morphological and genetic differences:A. croceiventrisMorawitz, 1871,stat. rev., so far treated as a subspecies ofA. similisSmith, 1849, andA. vociferaWarncke, 1975,stat. nov., so far treated as a subspecies ofA. gelriaevan der Vecht, 1927. BothA. croceiventrisandA. vociferahave particularly restricted ranges in Europe, being known only from central to southern Italy and Sicily, and continental France, respectively. Fourth, we describe a new species from Sardinia and Corsica,A. antonellaesp. nov.Lastly, the following new synonymies are proposed:A. similis,A. ocreata cyprisinaWarncke, 1975 andA. similis caraimicaOsytshnjuk, 1994 are placed in synonymy withA. russulaLepeletier, 1841 (syn. nov.);A. fuscata(Kirby, 1802),A. canescensSchenck, 1853 andA. pseudovatulaAlfken, 1926 are placed in synonymy withA. afzeliella(syn. nov.). Lectotypes are designated forA. afzeliella,A. fuscata(Kirby, 1802),A. ovataandA. wilkella(Kirby, 1802). Our results suggest a particularly fast diversification in this group of bees, leading to the presence of numerous species exhibiting particularly restricted geographic ranges. We discuss the implications for conservation of this astonishing cryptic diversity in European bees.

At a time when nature conservation has become essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of our environment, it is widely acknowledged that conservation actions must be implemented within a solid taxonomic framework. In preparation for the upcoming update of the IUCN Red List, we here update the European checklist of the wild bees (sensu the IUCN geographical framework). The original checklist, published in 2014, was revised for the first time in 2017. In the present revision, we add one genus, four subgenera and 67 species recently described, 40 species newly recorded since the latest revision (including two species that are not native to Europe), 26 species overlooked in the previous European checklists and 63 published synonymies. We provide original records for eight species previously unknown to the continent and, as original taxonomic acts, we provide three new synonyms, we consider two names as nomina nuda, ten names as nomina dubia, three as species inquirenda, synonymize three species and exclude 40 species from the previous checklist. Around a hundred other taxonomic changes and clarifications are also included and discussed. The present work revises the total number of genera for IUCN Europe to 77 and the total number of species to 2,138. In addition to specifying the taxonomic changes necessary to update the forthcoming Red List of European bees, we discuss the sampling and taxonomic biases that characterise research on the European bee fauna and highlight the growing importance of range expansions and species invasions.

Iberia has one of the richest bee faunas in the world, and the genus Andrena is no exception with around 200 species known from the Peninsula. The fauna of Andrena was largely revised in the 1970s, but since then, it has received little attention. Molecular investigation of the taxonomically challenging subgenus Taeniandrena has revealed that the situation is more complicated than previously thought with several cryptic and overlooked species. From the species allied to Andrena (T. ) gelriae van der Vecht, 1927, Andrena (T. ) gredana Warncke, 1975 stat. nov. from Spain and Portugal is raised to species status, and Andrena (T. ) levante Wood & Praz sp. nov. from southeastern Spain is newly described. Furthermore, Andrena (T. ) benoisti Wood & Praz sp. nov. is described, having previously been referred to as Andrena (T. ) wilkella beaumonti Benoist, 1961. Andrena (T. ) beaumonti stat. rev. is itself distinct and restricted to the High Atlas Mountains of Morocco. Outside of the subgenus Taeniandrena, Andrena (Euandrena) fortipunctata Wood sp. nov. and Andrena (Charitandrena) hattorfiana nigricauda Wood subsp. nov. are described from Spain, and Andrena (Notandrena) juliana Wood sp. nov. is described from Spain and Portugal. The male of Andrena (Lepidandrena) baetica Wood, 2020 is also described. Andrena (Euandrena) impressa Warncke, 1967 stat. nov. is raised to species status, displaying a West Mediterranean distribution. Finally, a further two species of Andrena are newly recorded for Spain, Andrena laurivora Warncke, 1974 and Andrena confinis Stoeckhert, 1930. Altogether, these findings reinforce the fact that our understanding of the taxonomy and distribution of Andrena in southern Europe remains incomplete.

Pollinators play a crucial role in ecosystems globally, ensuring the seed production of most flowering plants. They are threatened by global changes and knowledge of their distribution at the national and continental levels is needed to implement efficient conservation actions, but this knowledge is still fragmented and/or difficult to access. As a step forward, we provide an updated list of around 3000 European bee and hoverfly species, reflecting their current distributional status at the national level (in the form of present, absent, regionally extinct, possibly extinct or non‐native). This work was attainable by incorporating both published and unpublished data, as well as knowledge from a large set of taxonomists and ecologists in both groups. After providing the first National species lists for bees and hoverflies for many countries, we examine the current distributional patterns of these species and designate the countries with highest levels of species richness. We also show that many species are recorded in a single European country, highlighting the importance of articulating European and national conservation strategies. Finally, we discuss how the data provided here can be combined with future trait and Red List data to implement research that will further advance pollinator conservation.