Clorindaia hecaloides Linnavuori 1975

Paradell, S. & Zahniser, J. N., 2018, Designation of a neotype for Clorindaia hecaloides Linnavuori (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae: Deltocephalinae: Faltalini), Zootaxa 4532 (2), pp. 293-295 : 295

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4532.2.9

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:892711DC-ED1F-4B81-A42D-960952A80DE8

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5974423

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/7D704513-FFB4-406E-06F6-0786EC16C7AF

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Clorindaia hecaloides Linnavuori 1975
status

 

Clorindaia hecaloides Linnavuori 1975

Diagnosis. C. hecaloides can be easily distinguished from other species of the genus by the form of the aedeagus, as described by Paradell & Remes Lenicov (2005), “ Aedeagus long and strongly curved upwards; in lateral view, with broad socle and narrow and slightly twisted stem with two posterior preapical small tooth-like processes and a broad anterior apical spoon-like process curved downwards ending with several slightly rounded teeth; long posterior gonopore extending along the stem from near the base to the apex.” It can be distinguished from C. latiabdoma Blocker & Fang , known only from the female holotype, by the coloration of the face: that of C. hecaloides is mostly pale with brown along the sutures and sometimes with dark brown arcuate lines anterodorsally and a dark brown spot at apex of frontoclypeus, with a mostly pale clypellus and genae laterad of lorae; C. latiabdoma has a distinct brown clypellus, pale lorae, substantial brown coloration on genae laterad of lorae, frontoclypeus with diffuse lateral broad brown bands extending longitudinally from clypellus to about middle of frontoclypeus.

Material examined. Neotype ♂, here designated: ARGENTINA, Formosa Prov., Pirané, 27.II.2001, ex. dicots and Cynodon sp., coll. Paradell & Virla. 2♂, same as neotype. 11♂, 5♀: ARGENTINA, Entre Ríos Prov., rt 14 km 43, 20m, 33°13’31”S 58°41’31”W, 24 Jan 2008, C.H. Dietrich, vacuum, AR 39-1. 1 ♂: ARGENTINA, Entre Ríos Prov., rt 12 km 94, 34°2’38”S 58°59’8”W, 24 Jan 2008, C.H. Dietrich, vacuum, AR 38-1. 2 ♂: ARGENTINA, Córdoba Prov., Barranca Yaco, X. 8.2016, col. Virla. 2 ♂: ARGENTINA, Córdoba Prov., Barranca Yaco, III.12.2015, on grasses, col. Virla. 1 ♂: ARGENTINA, Córdoba Prov., Río Cuarto , XII.16.2016, on grasses, col. Virla. GoogleMaps

Neotype and 9 specimens (7 ♂, 2 ♀) deposited at MLPA; 6 specimens (5 ♂, 1 ♀) deposited at USNM; 9 specimens (7 ♂, 2 ♀) deposited at INHS.

Following the description and interpretation of Paradell & Remes Lenicov (2005), a neotype for C. hecaloides Linnavouri is designated here. See Paradell & Remes Lenicov (2005) for a detailed description and illustrations of this species. This action is needed in order to clarify the identity of this species, for which there are two conflicting interpretations in the literature ( Blocker & Fang, 1992; Paradell & Remes Lenicov, 2005). Following the interpretation of Paradell & Remes Lenicov (2005) rather than that of Blocker & Fang (1992) is preferable because the female specimens of C. hecaloides sensu Paradell & Remes Lenicov collected at the same time and place as the neotype are more consistent with the figures provided by Linnavurori (1975). The collecting locality is in the same Argentinian Province of Formosa where the lost holotype specimen was collected. Also, the broken aedeagus of the male described by Blocker & Fang (1992) may hinder interpretation of the species identity based on that specimen. The shape and coloration of the head of specimens examined by Blocker & Fang (1992) differ from the illustrations of C. hecaloides given by Linnavuori (1975). The head is longer and the color pattern more distinct in the Blocker & Fang specimens. Blocker & Fang (1992) stated that they found what they believed to be the broken piece of the aedeagus and reconstructed the entire aedeagus in their figure. However, upon examination of these specimens in this study, the broken piece was not found within the genitalia vial. These specimens appear to represent an undescribed species of Clorindaia . However, describing a new species based on these specimens seems imprudent, given the condition of the aedeagus.

Some variation in the shape of the apex of the aedeagus was observed ( Figs. 11–14 View FIGURES 1–14 ) in specimens examined of C. hecaloides . The aedeagus of the neotype specimen most closely matches that of a specimen collected at the same locality ( Figs. 10-11 View FIGURES 1–14 ). The variations shown in Figs. 12–14 View FIGURES 1–14 were all observed from specimens from one locality in Entre Ríos Prov. and are interpreted to represent intraspecific variability within C. hecaloides .

USNM

Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History

INHS

Illinois Natural History Survey

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Hemiptera

Family

Cicadellidae

Genus

Clorindaia