Belbina servillei ( Spinola, 1839 )

Constant, Jérôme, 2014, Revision of the Malagasy lanternfly genus Belbina Stål, 1863, with two new species (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha: Fulgoridae), European Journal of Taxonomy 102, pp. 1-37 : 31-35

Belbina servillei ( Spinola, 1839)

Figs 12A–E , 34–35 , 53

Enchophora servillei Spinola, 1839: 227 , pl. 2, fig. 3a–c (neotype in HMNH).

Enchophora servillei – Amyot & Serville 1843: 496 (listed). — White 1846: 331 (comparative note). — Walker 1851: 271 (catalogued). — Dohrn 1859: 57 (listed).

Phrictus servillei – Schaum 1850: 65 (listed).

Belbina servillei – Stål 1863a: 233 (description). — Stål 1866: 144 (key, description). — Jacobi 1917: 527 (listed). — Metcalf 1947: 123 (catalogued). — Constant 2004b: 31 (listed, comments on type).

non Belbina servillei – Lallemand 1959: 88, fig. 36a–c (key, description, lateral view of head, male genitalia) – [Misidentification of Belbina laetitiae sp. nov.]

Diagnostic characters

(1) disc of hind wings turquoise ( Fig. 12A ); (2) head, pro- and mesonotum red ( Fig. 12C–E ); (3) ground colour of tegmina bluish-green ( Fig. 12A ); (4) cephalic process strongly curved, projecting dorsad ( Fig. 12D ).

LT: ♂ (n = 1) 20.4 mm; ♀ (n = 13) 23.3 mm (21.7–24.8).

Material examined

Neotype

MADAGASCAR: ♂, neotype of Belbina servillei ( Spinola, 1839) , here designated, [Madagascar, Antongil B., Mocquerys], 15°45’ S, 49°50’ E ( HMNH).

A neotype is designated here in order to ensure stability in the nomenclature of the group, following rule 75.3 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature ( ICZN 1999). The origin of the specimen described by Spinola (1839) is unknown and Stål (1866) was the first to give a location for the species ( Madagascar). Lallemand (1959) designated a lectotype in his collection ( FSAG) that is invalid according to nomenclatural rules. Furthermore, the only labelled specimen of this species, [ Belbina servillei Sign., V. Lallemand det., 1963], in Lallemand’s collection is in fact a specimen of Belbina laetitiae sp. nov., as demonstrated by the genitalia illustrated in Lallemand (1959). In order to avoid further nomenclatural confusion, a neotype is designated which perfectly matches the illustrations given by Spinola (1839) and which is deposited in a public collection ( HMNH). I chose a male with genitalia in good condition to facilitate further work on the species.

Additional material

MADAGASCAR: 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀, no data ( MNHN); 1 ♀, near Tamatave, A. Raffray, 1884, Tamatave (Toamasina), 18°10’ S, 49°23’ E ( MNHN); 1 ♂, 3 ♀♀, Madagascar, coll. De Bergevin ( MNHN); 1 ♀, Tampina, coll. De Bergevin, 18°30’ S, 49°16’ E ( MNHN); 3 ♀♀, E Madagascar, forest, coll. De Bergevin ( MNHN); 1 ♀, Diego-Suarez, Ch. Alluaud, 1893, Diego Suarez (Ampanolahamirafy), 12°16’ S, 49°17’ E ( MNHN); 2 ♀♀, Maroantsetra region, Rantabe, Nov. 1935, Vadon, 15°42’ S, 49°39’ E ( MNHN, RBINS); 1 ♀, Antanambé, Mocquerys, 16°26’ S, 49°51’ E ( MNHN); 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀, Manjakandriana, 18°55’ S, 47°48’ E ( FSAG); 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀, Madagascar ( NMW; NHRS; ♀: NCSU); 2 ♀♀, Maroantsetra ( NCSU).

1 ♂ mislabelled “S. America, Coll. Signoret” has also been examined ( NMW).

Male genitalia

Brown ( Figs 34–35 ); pygofer higher than long and with posterior margin concave in middle in lateral view ( Fig. 34 ); anal tube as long as wide at apex and with lateral margins roundly produced in middle in dorsal view ( Fig. 35 ); posterior margin of anal tube acutely rounded posteriorly in lateral view ( Fig. 34 ) and hiding lateral margin apically in dorsal view ( Fig. 35 ); gonostyli elongate, 1.33 times longer than high (including dorsal process, 1.88 times without process), strongly surpassing apex of anal tube and rounded at apex in lateral view ( Fig. 34 ); ventral margin rounded on basal 1/5, then nearly straight ( Fig. 34 ); dorsal margin with basal, strong, laminate process projecting dorsally, strong hook laterally at middle of process projecting ventrally; dorsal half of process slightly excavate and narrowly rounded dorsally, dorsal margin of gonostyli bisinuate after process ( Fig. 34 ); gonostyli minutely rugulose on ventral half ( Fig. 34 ).

Remarks

Belbina servillei can be separated (1) from all species of the B. falleni + group by the brown colour of the genitalia, the laminate basodorsal digitiform process on the gonostyli and having the gonostyli rounded at the apex, with the dorsal margin sinuate after the process; (2) from B. bergrothi , B. foliacea , B. madagascariensis and B. nympha by the basodorsal laminate process on the gonostyli; (3) from B. bourgoini sp. nov. by the laminate basodorsal process of the gonostyli.

Distribution

See Fig. 53 .

Figures

Figs 10–12. — 10. Belbina pionneaui. 11. B. recurva. 12. B. servillei. — A. Habitus, dorsal view. B. Habitus, lateral view. C. Vertex, pro- and mesonotum, dorsal view. D. Head and prothorax, lateral view. E. Frons, normal view. — Scale bar: 10 mm (C–E not to scale).

Figs 30–35. Male genitalia. — 30–31. Belbina pionneaui. 30. Lateral view. 31. Dorsal view. — 32–33. B. recurva. 32. Lateral view. 33. Dorsal view. — 34–35. B. servillei. 34. Lateral view. 35. Dorsal view. — An = anal tube, Py = pygofer, G = gonostylus. Photographs by Y. Laurent & I. Bachy.

Figs 50–53. Distribution maps. — 50. Belbina nympha. 51. B. pionneaui. 52. B. recurva. 53. B. servillei.