Ennya conspersa ( Stål, 1869 )

Montalvo-Salazar, Jorge L. & López-García, Margarita M., 2024, Contributions on the treehopper genus Ennya Stål, 1866 (Hemiptera: Membracidae) with two new species from Ecuador, Zootaxa 5428 (2), pp. 269-289 : 277

Ennya conspersa ( Stål, 1869) ( Figs. 5A–C )

Hille conspersa Stål, 1869: 236

Hille conspersa Stål To Hille dorsalis Fairmaire — Funkhouser (1927: 317)

Gelastogonia conspersa Stål — Goding (1929: 282)

Hille conspersa Stål To Hille dorsalis Fairmaire — Funkhouser (1951: 120)

Ennya conspersa Stål — Sakakibara (1996a: 96)

Material examined: Lectotype male ( NHRS) Hille conspersa : “ Bogota // Lindig // Hille / conspersa / Stål // Typus [print red label] // NHRS-GULI / 000105270” here designated. Twelve paralectotypes ( NHRS): “Bogota // Lindig // Paratypus [print red label] // NHRS-GULI / 000105288” and NHRS-GULI000105289: GULI000105299 with same labels.

Comments: Ennya conspersa was synonymized with E. dorsalis by Funkhouser (1927) but later revalidated by Sakakibara (1996a). Ennya conspersa differs from E. dorsalis in having a blunt dorsal process with the central carina concolorous to the pronotum, compared to acute and contrastingly black, respectively, in the latter.

The pronotal shape of E. conspersa resembles that of E. notata ( Figs. 4D–E ) and the coloration is the only remarkable difference. The pattern of coloration in both species seems to be conserved in the paralectotypes. Stål (1869) agreed they are very similar and only differ in the coloration and the dorsal process of E. notata Stål being inclined slightly forward compared to sub-perpendicular in E. conspersa Stål. However , this last difference is not very distinctive. According to the specimen labels, the type locality of both species is “ Bogotá ” but in the 19th century that city served as a place for shipping specimens to Europe, so it is unknown if the specimens were collected at the same place ( Forero 2006). Further study of additional type material and other specimens of these species is needed to clarify their status.

Sakakibara (1996a: Figs. 7 and 8 ) examined two specimens of opposite genders that he identified as E. conspersa . However, they differ distinctly from the type of E. conspersa in lacking a dorsal process and likely represent a species not yet described. Those individuals are clearly different from E. conspersa .

Figures

FIGURE 4. Ennya chlorizans Breddin lectotype female: A. frontal view, B. lateral view, C. labels. Ennya nebulosa Breddin holotype male: D. frontal view, E. lateral view, F. labels. Scale bars: 2 mm. Photos by Arne Köhler © 2023 Senckenberg Deutsches Entomologisches Institut.

FIGURE 5. Hille conspersa Stål lectotype male: A. frontal view, B. lateral view, C. labels. Hille notata Stål lectotype female: D. frontal view, E. lateral view, F. labels. Hille nutans Stål lectotype female: G. frontal view, H. lateral view, I. labels. Photos by Gunvi Lindberg © 2023 Naturhistoriska riksmuseet. Original photo cropped. Made available by the Swedish Museum of Natural History under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License, CC-BY 4.0

FIGURE 7. Ennya lamariela sp. nov. holotype male: A. frontal view, B. lateral view, C. dorsal view. Paratype melanic male: D. lateral view. Last-instar nymph: E. frontal view, F. lateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (A, E–F) 2 mm (B–D).

FIGURE 8. Ennya lamariela sp. nov. Holotype male: A. aedeagus in lateral view, B. apex of aedeagus in anterior view, C. apex of aedeagus in posterior view, D. styles in dorsal view. Paratype female: E. gonoplac in lateral view, F. second valvulae in lateral view, G. first valvulae in lateral view. Scale bars: 0.1 mm (A, D–E) 0.05 mm (B–C) 0.2 mm (E–G).