Aguana imbricata (Signoret, 1854)
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4577.1.5 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:4D18F08C-F248-45A3-A3F1-1CA4FF0968D7 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5940910 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D46647-FFD5-FFF1-FF13-FB3DFC77F84A |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Aguana imbricata (Signoret, 1854) |
status |
|
Aguana imbricata (Signoret, 1854) View in CoL
( Figs 1–29 View FIGURES 1–15 View FIGURES 16–19 View FIGURES 20–29 )
Length. Males 10.0–10.8 mm (n = 5). Females 9.2–9.6 mm (n = 4).
Head and thorax ( Figs 1–3 View FIGURES 1–15 ) much as described by Young (1977: 37) for the genus and in the diagnosis given above. Forewing venation ( Figs 16–19 View FIGURES 16–19 ), especially crossveins, shows considerable intraspecific variation. Color as in Figs 1–3 View FIGURES 1–15 and 16–19 View FIGURES 16–19 ; apical half of crown with median triangular yellowish-brown or orange marking; forewing vermiculations and spots predominantly yellowish-brown and large posterior spots predominantly yellow.
Male terminalia. Pygofer ( Figs 4–6 View FIGURES 1–15 ), in lateral view, moderately produced posteriorly; posterior margin broadly rounded; surface with numerous small macrosetae distributed mostly from basiventral third to apex; each lobe with long and acute apical process. Style ( Fig. 8 View FIGURES 1–15 ), in dorsal view, with apex truncate. Aedeagal apical processes varying intraspecifically: (1) directed dorsally and divergent ( Figs 10, 11 View FIGURES 1–15 ); (2) curved and directed anteriorly ( Figs 12, 13 View FIGURES 1–15 ); and (3) curved and directed inferiorly ( Figs 14, 15 View FIGURES 1–15 ). Paraphyses ( Fig. 9 View FIGURES 1–15 ), in ventral view, with rami long, acute, and divergent from each other. Other features as in Young’s description (1977: 37).
Female terminalia. Sternite VII ( Figs 20, 21 View FIGURES 20–29 ) not strongly produced posteriorly; in ventral view, with posterior margin convex and bearing median projection; apex of this projection emarginate. Pygofer ( Figs 20, 21 View FIGURES 20–29 ), in lateral view, well produced posteriorly; distal margin obliquely truncate; apex subacute; ventral margin slightly sinuous; small macrosetae distributed on most of surface, except basiventrally and on basidorsal two-thirds. First valvifer ( Figs 22, 23 View FIGURES 20–29 ), in lateral view, subtrapezoidal, with conspicuous, basiventral spiniform process, posterior margin slightly sinuous. First valvula ( Figs 23, 24 View FIGURES 20–29 ), in lateral view, with dorsal and ventral margins approximately parallel; apex acute; dorsal sculptured area strigate, extending from basal portion to apex of blade; ventral sculptured area scale-like, restricted to apical portion of blade; ventral interlocking device restricted to basiventral half of blade; in ventral view, base of valvula distinctly expanded outwards. Second valvula ( Figs 25–27 View FIGURES 20–29 ), in lateral view, distinctly expanded beyond basal curvature; apex subacute; preapical prominence indistinct; dorsal margin with about 50 mostly triangular continuous teeth; denticles distributed on teeth and on apical portion of blade, except on apex (dorsal dentate apical portion slightly longer than ventral portion); ducts extending towards teeth and apex of valvula (basalmost six teeth or so do not receive ducts). Gonoplac ( Figs 28, 29 View FIGURES 20–29 ) of the usual Cicadellinae type: in lateral view, with basal half narrow and apical half distinctly expanded; apex obtuse; denticuli and setae distributed on apical portion and extending anteriorly along ventral margin.
Material examined. 1 ♂, “ Brasil, PR [State of Paraná], Antonina \ Res. [ Reserva ] Rio Cachoeira , 50m \ 25.316˚ S 48.696 ˚W \ 25-26.III.2017 Sweep \ A.C. Domahovski leg.” ( DZUP) ; 1 ♂, same data as preceding, except “ 23-27.X.2017 ” ( DZUP) ; 2 ♂, same data as preceding, except “Malaise \ Entomologia UFPR ” ( DZUP) ; 2 ♂, “ Brasil, PR, Antonina \ RPPN [ Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural ] - Guaricica , 50m \ 25.316˚ S 48.696 ˚W \ 23-27.X.2017 Sweep \ A.C. Domahovski leg.” ( DZUP) ; 1 ♂, “ANTONINA – PR \ Reserva Sapitanduva \ Brasil 06.X.1986 \ Lev. [Levantamento] Ent. [Entomológico] PROFAUPAR \ MALAISE” ( DZUP) ; 1 ♂, same data as preceding, except “ 24.XI.1986 ” ( DZUP) ; 1 ♂, same data as preceding, except “ 15.XII.1986 ” ( MNRJ) ; 1 ♀, same data as preceding, except “ 21.IX.1987 ” ( MNRJ) ; 2 ♂, “BRASIL-PR, Antonina \ RPPN Reserva Natural \ Guaricica ( SPVS), Trilha dos \ Fornos , Coord. [ Coordenadas ] 25˚17’53”S, \ 48˚39’26”W 167 m a.s.l., \ 16- 20.IV.2018 A.P.Pinto leg.” ( DZUP) ; 1 ♂ and 4 ♀, “Piraquara, Paraná \ Mananciais da Serra \ 02.XII.2011 25˚29’S \ 48˚58’W 1060m \ P.C. Grossi leg.” ( DZUP) ; 1 ♂, “S. [São] JOSÉ [dos] PINHAIS – PR \ Ser. [ Serra ] [do] Mar Br 277 km 54 \ Brasil 04.XII.1987 \ Lev. [Levantamento] Ent. [Entomológico] PROFAUPAR\ MALAISE” ( DZUP) ; 1 ♂, “ Brasil, Paraná, São José \ dos Pinhais, Br 277 km 54\ ( Torre – Telepar ) 1060m \ 25˚33’18”S 48˚58’22”W \ Malaise 01-15.X.2015 \ ACD & RRC leg.” ( DZUP) ; 1 ♂, “25˚50’S 790 m \ 48˚56’W XI.2003 \ Paraná – Brasil \ G.R.A. Melo col.” ( DZUP) ; 1 ♂, “Brasil, Paraná, Estrada \ dos Castelhanos, \ 25˚51’S 48˚65’W 790m, \ 18x- 2.xi.2003, \ G. Melo, arm. [armadilha] malaise” ( DZUP) ; 1 ♂, “Quatro Barras – PR \ Brasil 18-X-65 \ P.J.S. Moure ” ( DZUP) ; 1 ♂, “ DEPT ° [Departamento] ZOOL. [Zoologia] \ UF-PARANÁ”; “PIRAQUARA – PARANÁ \ BRASIL 5/XI/72 \ Mielke & Sakakibara” ( DZUP) ; 1 ♂, “Joinville, Santa Catarina \ Brasil \ 03/XII/2005 \ Löwenberg-Neto, P. leg.” ( DZUP) .
Remarks. Aguana imbricata can be distinguished from the remaining species of the genus by the smaller size (9.2–10.8 mm), median triangular yellowish-brown or orange marking on apical half of crown ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–15 ), predominantly yellowish-brown vermiculations and spots of the forewings ( Figs 1, 2 View FIGURES 1–15 ), elongate apical aedeagal processes ( Figs 10–15 View FIGURES 1–15 ), and posterior margin of female sternite VII bearing median projection ( Fig. 20 View FIGURES 20–29 ). This species is similar to the poorly known A. russata , from which it can be distinguished by the unbranched aedeagal processes. The latter show a great deal of intraspecific variation ( Figs 10–15 View FIGURES 1–15 ).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Tribe |
Cicadellini |
Genus |