Paulomanus Young

Catalano, María Inés, Paradell, Susana L. & Dietrich, Christopher H., 2014, Review of the genera Paulomanus Young, 1952 and Beamerana Young, 1952 (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae: Typhlocybinae: Empoascini) with description of a new species from Argentina, Zootaxa 3802 (2), pp. 285-291 : 286-287

Genus Paulomanus Young

Paulomanus Young, 1952: 108 . Type species: Paulomanus cecropiae Young, 1952 .

Description. Head angulately produced in dorsal view, wider than pronotum; crown flat, eyes large, distance between base of eyes narrower than eye width; ocelli absent; lorum obsolete.

Legs with front femur AM1 seta enlarged and shifted to ventral margin; intercalary row with numerous fine setae subequal in length, without enlarged basal setae; hind femur with macrosetal formula 2+1; tibia row AM with 4 preapical macrosetae; tarsus elongate, tarsomere I longer than II and III combined.

Forewing with inner and outer apical cells elongate, nearly parallel sided; inner and third apical cells subequal in length, outer apical cell open basally; apical width of cell M greatly exceeding apical width of cell R; cell M extending more distad than cell R.

Hindwing with vein 1V separating from vein 2V near its base; submarginal vein extending around wing apex and confluent with apex of vein R+M; apical portion of CuA fused with apical portion of vein MP, vein Cu appearing unbranched apically; CuP confluent with submarginal vein in basal half, with pronounced sinus occurring at the point of confluence; wing apex truncate.

Male genitalia: subgenital plate expanded dorsad near mid-length, with smaller lateral lobe beneath expanded portion; pygofer lacking macrosetae, elongate process arising from ventral margin of pygofer lobe; style without preapical lobe or apical extension, apex extended laterad, outer margin with few preapical setae; connective Yshaped; aedeagus with four retrorse dorsal processes.

Notes. Paulomanus is here redefined to incorporate variation observed in the three known species. All three species have paired, elongate distal processes on the aedeagus and lack spicules or scalelike microsculpture on the aedeagal shaft. The hind wing feature used by Young (1952) to separate Paulomanus from Beamerana , i.e., fusion of RP with MA proximad of the distal third of the wing, appears to be unreliable. Additional external morphological features distinguishing these two genera have not been found so, at present, they may only be separated by examining the male genitalia.