Euscelis, Brullé, Brullé

Metcalf, Z. P., 1946, Homoptera, Fulgoroidea and Jassoidea of Guam, Insects of Guam II, Honolulu, Hawaii: Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 189, pp. 105-148 : 121

Genus EUSCELIS Brulle

Euscelis Brulle , Homopteres, Exped. sci. Moree 3(1): 109, 1832. Haplotype, Euscelis lineolatus Brulle .

The genus Euscelis may be characterized briefly as follows: head broad, as broad as or broader than the pronotum; crown short and broad, obtusely angled. Tegmina variable in length, sometimes slightly shorter and sometimes slightly longer than the abdomen, with three anteapical cells.

I place the species which are described below in Euscelis with some hesitation. This is a large genus, including at the present time some 50 recognized species of almost world-wide distribution although no species have hitherto been recognized from any of the East Indian or Pacific islands. It is a genus which apparently contains several diverse elements, although material is not at hand for working out all of the details. The characters for this genus have never been very clearly defined. A great many species which do not rightfully belong have been placed in the genus, and the recent revisions of the genera in the group to which Euscelis belongs have been rather limited in their scope and have not been carefully correlated with previous work. Edwards (4) gave a key to the British genera and established five new genera without further description and without genotype designation. Haupt (10, p. 263) gives a key to the European genera without including any of the genera established by Edwards in 1922. Ball (1, p. 1) gives a key to some North American genera but does not consider the work of Haupt. He does include one of the genera established by Edwards in 1922. He gives Cicada striola Fallen as the genotype for Dryliz Edwards in spite of the fact that Haupt in 1927 had given striola Fallen as the type of the genus Limotettiz Sahlberg. The present species can be placed, therefore, in Euscelis until the genera of this family can be revised on a world-wide basis.

In this connection it might not be amiss to attempt to straighten out the synonymy of Limotettiz. As far as I can determine, the facts are as follows: Limotettiz was described by Sahlberg (23, p. 224) and he included 23 Palearctic species, three of which were new. No type was designated by Sahlberg, and as far as I can determine, no type was selected until Haupt (9, p. 25) selected Cicadastriola Fallen, one of the originally included species, as the type. If this is correct, Ball's selection of striola as the type of Dryliz will not stand, and the type of this genus will be the only other included species, Thamnotettiz atricapilla Boheman. I have not been able to examine a specimen of atricapilla to determine whether it is sufficiently distinct to constitute a genus separate from Limotettix with striola as type. Neither can I be sure that Limotettiz as described by Edwards to include quadrinotata is a valid genus separate from Limotettix Sahlberg with striola as the type.