Kuohledra Cai and He

Jones, Joshua R. & Deitz, Lewis L., 2009, Phylogeny and systematics of the leafhopper subfamily Ledrinae (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) 2186, Zootaxa 2186 (1), pp. 1-120 : 43-44

Genus Kuohledra Cai and He

Kuohledra Cai and He, 1997: 8 , 14.

Type species. K. kuohi Cai and He, 1997: 8 , 14, fig. 1, A–N, by original designation.

Synonymy. None.

Description. Cai and He (1997): “Medium or large leafhoppers. Body elongate, parallel-sided, coarsely granulate and punctate. Colouring brownish. The anterior margin of head foliaceous. Vertex obtusely angulate and obliquely angulate in front of eyes, surface nearly smooth and deflected on each side. Eyes very prominent. Ocelli placed on the transect of anterior margins of eyes, nearer to each other than to eyes, with a crescent impression on each outside. Face concave, frontoclypeus long and narrow, antennal ledges and pits distinct. Pronotum transverse, gradually arising from anterior to posterior margins, strongly deflected on each side, disk in basal part convex, anterior margin slightly curved, lateral margin diverging caudad, posterior margin distinctly insinuated medially. Scutellum small, the basal angles and anterior half moundly prominent, disk concave. Tegmina subhyaline with a knob on middle, reticious and prominent veins with scattered granules, the base of 1st claval vein crestiformly prominent. Metathoracic tibiae usually not foliaceously dilated. Posterior margin of 7th or 8th tergite medially insinuated. Pygofer with a shoehorn-shaped process. Subgenital plate pod-shaped. Style long and narrow, usually with a process near tip. Aedeagus long and curvate, shaft tubulose, subterminal ampliate with a pair of well developed processes, phallotreme on the dorsal surface.”

Species. [3]: kuohi Cai & He ; zhaoi Cai & He ; z hengi Cai & He.

Range. China.

Host plants. Unknown.

Material examined. None.

Remarks. The type specimen of Kuohledra kuohi , deposited in the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Academica Sinica), Beijing, was unavailable for examination. Cai and He (1997: 14) explained that Kuohledra differs from Funkikonia in the former having a “nearly smooth crown and strongly elevated pronotum”. These character state differences seem reasonably simple to interpret initially; however, when specimens of Ledropsis are also considered, clear differentiation becomes difficult. Many specimens of Ledropsis often have a nearly smooth crown and strongly elevated pronotum.

Because Kato (1931) did not specifically provide diagnostic features to differentiate Funkikonia from Ledropsis , differentiating Kuohledra from Funkikonia on the basis of two features that are common in Ledropsis means possibly misidentifying a specimen of Ledropsis as Kuohledra , and vice versa.

Both Kuohledra and Funkikonia possess a large tubercle in the center of the forewing. Cai and He listed the “knob” (tubercle) in the center of the wing as a diagnostic character for Kuohledra , but Kato did not for Funkikonia . Kato did, however, give it for F. tuberculata , its type species. The possession of this tubercle, and distinct textures associated with it (see ‘Remarks’ under description for Funkikonia above), may serve as better diagnostic features to separate out Kuohledra and Funkikonia from Ledropsis ; further examination of specimens is necessary to be sure.

Comparison of the male genitalia from the specimen presumed to F. tuberculata (JRJLed_449) with Cai and He’s drawings for Kuohledra showed there to be a strong general resemblance, but a few differences. In Cai and He’s drawings of K. kuohi , the inner, subapical, dorsomedial processes of the pygofer are less sclerotized and not hooklike, the apex of aedeagus is narrower, and it has a pair of well developed subapical processes. In the specimen of F. tuberculata , the inner subapical processes of the pygofer are more sclerotized and hooklike, the apex of the aedeagus is slighter wider in lateral aspect before narrowing, and the subapical processes are lacking.

The present phylogenetic analysis shows that even within a genus, the expression of textures on the dorsum and subapical processes on the pygofer can be rather labile. Across Ledrinae , and even in nonledrines, the expression of subapical processes of the aedeagus can also be quite labile, although their presence or absence seems to be more conserved within a genus. While a possibility of plasticity of expression of the aedeagal subapical processes exists across the species in these two genera, utilizing the presence or absence of the processes as a diagnostic feature differentiating Kuohledra and Funkikonia seems reasonable, based on the few specimens and illustrations seen. But again, further examination of specimens is necessary to be sure.

Examination and comparison of the type specimens of K. kuohi and F. tuberculata , along with the other described species of Kuohledra and positively identified similar species of Ledropsis , will best answer this question, but obtaining these types and material for examination may not be possible. Until then, Kuohledra and Funkikonia may be treated separately and distinguishable by these genitalic features. Without examination of male genitalia, they will not key out separately.