Carineta bilineosa Walker, 1858b, 2019

Sanborn, Allen F., 2019, The cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) of Bolivia including the descriptions of fifteen new species, the resurrection of one genus and two species, seven new combinations, six new synonymies, and twenty-eight new records, Zootaxa 4655 (1), pp. 1-104 : 55-57

Carineta bilineosa Walker, 1858b rev. stat., new record

( Fig. 8 )

Carineta bilineosa Walker 1858b: 12 . ( Brazil) rev. stat.

Carineta obtusa Walker 1858b: 14 . ( Brazil) rev. stat., n. syn.

Carineta tenuistriga Walker 1858c: 311 . (Tejuca, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) rev. stat., n. syn.

Carineta diplographa Berg 1879: 212 . (Córpus, Misiones, Argentina) rev. stat., n. syn.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Berg 1883: 184.

Carineta fasciculata ? (non Germar) d’Utra 1908: 354–355, Fig 2 .

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Hempel 1913a: 94.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Hempel 1913b: 139.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Hempel 1913c: 197.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Hempel 1913d: 3.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Delétang 1919: 64.

Carinetta (sic) fasciculata (non Germar) Moreira 1921: 125.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Costa Lima 1922a: 111.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Costa Lima 1922b: 113.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Moreira 1928: 24.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Moreira 1929: 139–140.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Fonseca & Autuori 1932: 60, Figs 29A–29C.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Monte 1932: 25, Fig 19 .

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Fonseca 1934: 267.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Wymore1934: 885.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Costa Lima 1936: 131.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Fonseca & Araujo 1939: 285, Plate XII, Fig 5 .

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Costa Lima 1942: 11, Fig 5 .

Fidicina fasciculata (non Germar) Fonseca 1945: 297.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Fonseca 1945: 301.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Torres 1945: 4, 8–9, Fig 2 .

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Torres 1946: 10, Plate 2, Fig 4 .

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Torres 1948b: 73, Figs 1A , 2A .

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Pesson 1951: 1502.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Torres & China 1955: 479–480, Figs 1 a–1b.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Vayssière 1955: 254.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Müller 1956: 192.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Gomez-Menor Ortega 1957: 28.

Fidicina fasciculata (non Germar) Mariconi 1958: 331–332.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Hayward 1960: 35.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Torres 1963b: 50, 52, 55, 56, Figs. 14–15 .

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Heinrich & Pupin Neto 1964: 5.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Heinrich 1967: 43.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Lekić 1967: 3.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Le Pelley 1968: 306, 467.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Weidner & Wagner 1968: 142.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Martinelli & Zucchi 1987a: 469.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Martinelli & Zucchi 1987b: 470.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Santos 1988: 27.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Martinelli & Zucchi 1989b: 13–16, 18, 20, Fig 1 .

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Martinelli 1990: 13.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Martinelli & Zucchi 1997a: 208.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Martinelli & Zucchi 1997b: 135–141, Figs 1–2 , 14 , 18 , Table 1.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Albuquerque, Martinelli, Ros & Stülp 2000: 196.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Fornazier & Martinelli 2000: 1176.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Fornazier & Rocha 2000: 1167, 1169.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Scarpellini 2001: 66.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Reis, Souza & Venzon 2002: 84.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Almeida 2004: 104–105.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Martinelli 2004: 518–521, 525–526, 529, Figs 18.1–18.2, 18.4d, 18.4g.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Martinelli, Maccagnan, Ribeiro, Pereira & Santos 2004: 619.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Santos & Martinelli 2004: 630.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Bolcatto, Medrano & De Santis 2006: 7, 10, Map 1.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Martinelli 2006: 1.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) De Santis, Medrano, Sanborn & Bolcatto 2007: 11–12, Fig 2 .

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Santos & Martinelli 2007: 311.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Lara, Perioto & de Freitas 2010: 116.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Maccagnan & Martinelli 2011: 446–448, 450–451, Figs 1 i–1 j, 2f, 3f, 4e.

Carineta fasciculate (sic) (non Germar) Maccagnan & Martinelli 2011: 448, Table 1.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Decaro Júnior, Martinelli, Maccagnan & Ribeiro 2012: 1.

Carineta fasciculata (non Germar) Sanborn & Heath 2014: 69.

REMARKS. The application of the taxa C. fasciculata , its current synonyms and C. maculosa has been confused historically. However, an image of the Germar type (or at least what Germar considered to be C. fasciculata stored in his collection) located on the website (http://zoomus.lviv.ua/en/germar_collection/) of the Zoological Museum, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, L’viv, Ukraine (ZMD) has allowed for a definitive distinction of the various taxa. This specimen is from the Germar collection and verifies what Germar considered to be his taxon permitting the clarification and application of the taxon in the literature.

Berg (1883) appears to be the first to synonymize C. fasciculata with Carineta bilineosa rev. stat., Carineta obtusa rev. stat., n. syn., Carineta tenuistriga rev. stat., n. syn., and Carineta diplographa rev. stat., n. syn. Distant (1883b) listed the species as synonyms but with question marks suggesting he was not certain of this synonymy. Distant (1906a) then removed the question marks and considered the species to be synonyms in his catalogue. This interpretation was continued in the later Cicadoidea catalogues ( Metcalf 1963c; Duffels & van der Laan 1985; Sanborn 2013) along with the majority of researches publishing on the species as outlined above.

Jacobi (1907) made several errors in his interpretation of taxa and the concept of each taxon is updated here to clarify the actual taxa. Jacobi (1907) incorrectly identified and illustrated ( Jacobi 1907, Fig. 21) a marked specimen as C. bilineosa (actually C. pilifera Walker, 1858c based on the ovoid body, the longitudinal piceous mark on the posterior dorsal prothorax, the lack of a transverse piceous mark in the ambient fissure, the marks surrounding the mesothoracic sigillae, the presence of the a piceous mark between the anterior arms of the cruciform elevation, greater pilosity, the angle of the junction of the median vein and radius posterior at the node, the shape of the ulnar and apical cells of the fore wing, the dark markings on the female dorsolateral abdominal segment 9, and known distribution in both Bolivia and Ecuador all of which differ from C. bilineosa ). He also identified what would become C. maculosa as C. fasciculata ( Jacobi 1907, Fig. 25). Finally, Jacobi (1951) made comparative references to the similar species C. postica and C. fasciculata (actually C. maculosa ) in the description of C. titschacki Jacobi, 1951 , both of which differ significantly from C. bilineosa so that his concept of C. bilineosa is incorrect as is his concept of C. fasciculata which was later to be determined as a new species ( Torres 1948a).

Torres (1948a) started to clarify the taxa by identifying the species illustrated as C. fasciculata in Jacobi (1907) as his new species C. maculosa Torres, 1948a . Torres (1948a) further applied his new taxon to identifications of examples of northern Carineta species previously identified as C. fasciculata . The image of the specimen from the Germar collection has reduced thoracic marking and has the more stout body similar to C. maculosa rather than the heavily marked, thinner body of the current junior synonyms of C. fasciculata . The availability of the image of the Germar specimen compared to the type material of the Walker species in the BMNH and the Berg species in the Museo de La Plata shows that these are not the same taxa and the previously synonymized species Carineta bilineosa rev. stat., Carineta obtusa rev. stat., n. syn., Carineta tenuistriga rev. stat., n. syn., and Carineta diplographa rev. stat., n. syn. are resurrected from junior synonymy with C. fasciculata here although the resurrected species do all represent the same taxon.

The specimen illustrated here ( Fig. 8 ) is from near the type locality of Carineta diplographa rev. stat., n. syn. in Misiones Province, Argentina and matches the image of the holotype in Marino de Remes Lenicov et al. (2015). It has the same narrow body, piceous markings, shape of fore wing cells, position of fore wing veins, shape of timbal cavity as the holotype of C. bilineosa rev. stat. in the BMNH. The specimen also matches the coloration and descriptions of Carineta bilineosa rev. stat., Carineta obtusa rev. stat., n. syn., Carineta tenuistriga rev. stat., n. syn., and Carineta diplographa rev. stat., n. syn. In addition, Berg (1879) distinguishes his new species from C. fasciculata by a list of piceous markings that are missing in C. fasciculata , differences confirmed by the image of the Germar specimen. These data and images confirm that Carineta bilineosa rev. stat., Carineta obtusa rev. stat., n. syn., Carineta tenuistriga rev. stat., n. syn., and Carineta diplographa rev. stat., n. syn. are not synonyms of C. fasciculata and are here resurrected. In addition, the synonymy of Carineta obtusa rev. stat., n. syn., Carineta tenuistriga rev. stat., n. syn., and Carineta diplographa rev. stat., n. syn. with Carineta bilineosa rev. stat. is also confirmed by examination of the Walker type specimens in the BMNH and the image of the holotype of Carineta diplographa rev. stat., n. syn. in Marino de Remes Lenicov et al. (2015).

Martinelli & Zucchi (1997b) illustrate the distribution of C. bilineosa rev. stat. (as C. fasciculata as described above) inhabiting grassland, savannah, open forest habitats, xeric shrub lands and agricultural areas (as defined by Leeuwen et al. 2013) of eastern and southern Brazil, northeastern Argentina, eastern Paraguay and northeastern Bolivia ( Martinelli & Zucchi 1997b). This corresponds with the description of C. diplographa rev. stat., n. syn. described from most northeastern Province of Argentina but the distribution is more expansive than that of the true C. fasciculata (see below) with overlap in the distribution of the two species only in Misiones, Argentina, and the state of and São Paulo in Brazil.

The most similar species in Bolivia is C. cingenda Distant, 1883b . This species differs in the transverse piceous fascia in the ambient fissure of the pronotum and reduced piceous markings of the mesothorax.

DISTRIBUTION. The species has been reported from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay as C. fasciculata ( Metcalf 1963c; Duffels & van der Laan 1985; Maccagnan & Martinelli 2011; Sanborn 2011b; 2013; 2018c). However, C. bilineosa rev. stat. and its synonyms have been reported previously only from Argentina and Brazil ( Metcalf 1963c) so this is the first references to C. bilineosa rev. stat. in both Bolivia and Paraguay. The specimen listed by Jacobi (1907) from Bolivia is considered C. pilifera as outlined above.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Comparison of Adusella rev. stat. and Odopoea morphology: A, Adusella venturii (Distant, 1906c) n. comb. (top) and Odopoea dilatata (Fabricius, 1775) (bottom) habitus; B, Adusella venturii n. comb. dorsum; C, Odopoea dilatata dorsum; D, Adusella insignifera (Berg, 1879) n. comb. lateral view of male genitalia; E, Adusella insignifera n. comb. posterior view of genitalia; F, Odopoea funesta (Walker, 1858b) lateral view of male genitalia; G, Odopoea funesta posterior view of male genitalia; H, Adusella venturii n. comb. ventral view of female genitalia; I, Odopoea cariboea Uhler, 1892 ventral view of female genitalia. Scale bar: A, 2 cm; B–C, 5 mm; D–G, 1 mm; H–I, 2 mm.

FIGURE 2. Tympanoterpes virgulata n. sp.: A, holotype male and paratype female habitus; B, holotype male dorsum; C, paratype male timbal; D, paratype male operculum; E, paratype female operculum; F, holotype male lateral view of genitalia; G, holotype male posterior view of genitalia; H, paratype female lateral view of genitalia; I, paratype female ventral view of genitalia. Scale bar: A, 2 cm; B, 5 mm; C–E, 2 mm; F–G, 1 mm; H–I, 2 mm.

FIGURE 4. Guyalna dasyeia n. sp.: A, Holotype male habitus; B, holotype male dorsum; C, holotype male timbal; D, holotype male operculum; E, paratype male lateral view of genitalia; F, paratype male posterior view of genitalia. Scale bar: A, 2 cm; B, 5 mm; C–D, 2 mm; E–F, 1 mm.

FIGURE 5. Guyalna fasciata n. sp.: A, Holotype male habitus; B, holotype male dorsum; C, holotype male timbal; D, holotype male operculum; E, holotype male lateral view of genitalia; F, holotype male posterior view of genitalia. Scale bar: A, 2 cm; B, 5 mm; C–D, 2 mm; E–F, 1 mm.

FIGURE 8. Carineta bilineosa Walker, 1858b rev. stat.: A, habitus; B, dorsum. Scale bar: A, 2 cm; B, 5 mm.

FIGURE 14. Herrera concolor n. sp.: A, holotype female habitus; B, holotype female dorsum; C, holotype female operculum; D, holotype female lateral view of genitalia; E, holotype female ventral view of genitalia. Scale bar: A, 2 cm; B, 5 mm; C–E, 2 mm.

FIGURE 15. Herrera freiae n. sp.: A, holotype female habitus; B, holotype female dorsum; C, holotype female operculum; D, holotype female lateral view of genitalia; E, holotype female ventral view of genitalia. Scale bar: A, 2 cm; B, 5 mm; C–E, 2 mm.

FIGURE 18. Herrera signifera n. sp.: A, holotype male and paratype female habitus; B, holotype male dorsum; C, paratype male timbal; D, paratype male operculum; E, paratype female operculum; F, holotype male lateral view of genitalia; G, holotype male posterior view of genitalia; H, paratype female lateral view of genitalia; I, paratype female ventral view of genitalia. Scale bar: A, 2 cm; B, 2 mm; C–I, 1 mm.

FIGURE 19. Carineta fasciculata (Germar, 1821): A, habitus; B, dorsum. Scale bar: A, 2 cm; B, 5 mm.