Maiestas Distant, 1917

Webb, Michael D. & Viraktamath, Chandra A., 2009, 2163, Zootaxa 2163, pp. 1-64 : 14-15

Maiestas Distant

Maiestas Distant, 1917: 312 . Type species: M. illustris Distant by monotypy.

Togacephalus Matsumura 1940: 38 . Type species: Deltocephalus distinctus Motschulsky , by original designation. Syn. nov. Treated as a subgenus of Recilia by Lee, 1979: 409, Kwon & Lee, 1979: 74 and Day & Fletcher, 1994: 1203, and synonymised with Recilia by Dash and Viraktamath, 1998: 4.

Inazuma Ishihara, 1953: 15 . Type species: Deltocephalus dorsalis Motschulsky , by original designation. Syn. nov. Synonymised with Recilia by Nielson, 1968: 315 and Dash and Viraktamath, 1998: 4; treated as a subgenus of Recilia by Lee, 1979: 405 and Kwon & Lee, 1979: 80 and Day & Fletcher, 1994: 1204.

Inemadara Ishihara, 1953: 15 . Type species: Deltocephalus oryzae Matsumura , by original designation. Syn. nov. Synonymised with Recilia by Nast, 1972: 343 and Dash and Viraktamath, 1998: 5 and with Recilia (Togacephalus) by Kwon & Lee, 1979: 74.

Insulanus Linnavuori, 1960a: 303 (as subgenus of Deltocephalus ). Type species: Stirellus subviridis Metcalf , by original designation. Syn. nov. Synonymized with Recilia by both Knight, 1975: 203 and Linnavuori, 1975a: 617. Treated as a subgenus of Recilia by Day & Fletcher, 1994: 1203.

Remarks. Based on the identity of Maiestas noted above (see ‘The Deltocephalus group’) most species of Recilia or Deltocephalus (Recilia) are transferred to this genus (see species lists below). Also, as noted above many inconsistencies regarding the definition and status of the Deltocephalus group genera have arisen, due in large part, to differing interpretations of the structure of the aedeagus. We have found that with respect to the shaft in Maiestas , it can be either trough-like ( Fig. 11j) or cylindrical, and may have an ‘apical bifurcation’ ( Fig. 17k), a pair of subapical lobes ( Fig. 42i), a subapical ventral process ( indica and menoni ), a pair of short subapical processes, ( trispinosa and trisuli ) or a ventral projection from the socle, e.g. banda . In addition, it seems that for those species with a cylindrical shaft with its apex bifurcate, the upper branch appears hoodlike and weakly sclerotised in dorsal view, its margin appearing as a fine single line that is very indistinct and that may have been overlooked in some previously published figures. In contrast, the remaining dorsal margin of the shaft in lateral view and the ventral margin up to the ventral apical extension (when present) have a thick double line ( Fig. 18o). In addition, with respect to the ventral extension of the shaft beyond the ‘hoodlike region, it appears to arise from beneath the ‘hood’ ( Fig. 38o) although at the same time can appear ridgelike in ventral view ( Fig. 38m). Also, if the ventral extension is homologous to the shaft apex in those species without an ‘apical bifurcation’, then it is unclear if it should be referred to as a process (or spine) or not (compare figs 37h, 37m with 38k, 38m). Unusual in Cicadellidae , the gonoduct and gonopore in Maiestas are frequently very obscure, the latter structure being referred to as “Gonopore... usually very poorly delimited” by Kramer (1962: 259, in table under Recilia ). Also, Kramer (1962) described and figured an elongate gonopore that in some cases extends along almost the entire dorsal surface of the shaft, which if true would be unusual. In our figures, what may be the ventral margin of the gonoduct appears as a double line throughout its length in lateral view, except basally, and in some cases something approaching a visible gonopore is seen beneath(?) the ‘hood’ in dorsal view.

In addition to the above, the following other differences between Maiestas species are apparent, e.g., basal abdominal apodemes variable in length and shape, subgenital plates rounded ( Fig. 34e) to more triangular ( Fig. 37e), style with lateral lobe short ( Fig. 36f) to long ( Fig. 37f) and style apical process hook-like ( Fig. 32f) or digitate ( Fig. 33f). Also, there are some external differences that are often associated with different genera, e.g., variation in the ocellocular distance and shape of the clypellus, forewing with or without reticulate venation and two or three closed subapical cells, colour markings variable and the dorsal setal formula of the fore tibia either 4+1 or 4+4. One of these features, the reticulate venation of the forewing, was used in Dash & Viraktamath’s (1998) key to separate two Indian species, i.e. indica and pruthii , but this feature is also present in four other Indian species i.e. menoni , butleri , delongi and scripta . The latter two, together with a few other Indian species were not included in Dash & Viraktamath’s key and or descriptions (see remarks under ‘Checklist of Indian and Sri Lankan species’ below). Based on the above differences between species, the division of Maiestas into separate genera or subgenera remains a possibility, but is beyond the scope of the present work.

For some of the species listed below some new information is given on the types and synonymy in Appendix 4.

Included species: