Crosbella elongata Evans, 1956

Lambkin, Kevin J., 2020, Revision of the Hylicellidae of the Late Triassic of Queensland (Hemiptera Cicadomorpha: Hylicelloidea), Zootaxa 4790 (3), pp. 525-539 : 530

Crosbella elongata Evans, 1956

( Figs 4–8 )

Crosbella elongata Evans, 1956: 192 , fig. 5H; Carpenter, 1992: 233, fig. 150.1; Martins-Neto et al., 2003: 253; Jell, 2004: 55,

2 unnumbered figs. Crosbella alata Evans, 1956: 193 , fig. 5K; Evans 1961: 15; Martins-Neto et al. 2003: 253; Jell, 2004: 55, syn. nov. Mesocicadella venosa Evans, 1956: 194 , fig. 5I; Carpenter, 1992: 257, fig. 163.2; Martins-Neto et al., 2003: 253; Jell, 2004: 63,

2 unnumbered figs. syn. nov. Mesocicadella punctata Evans, 1961: 14 , fig. 1A; Jell, 2004: 63, syn. nov. (partim) Triassoscelis anomala: Evans, 1961: 16 (specimen UQE1/1A).

Material (all Mount Crosby). Holotype tegmen UQC 2125, holotype tegmen and part hindwing of C. alata UQC 173/174, paratype hindwing of? C. alata UQC 1923/1924, holotype tegmen of M. venosa UQC 844, holotype tegmen of M. punctata QMF 3681a/b. 1841. Five additional tegmina: UQE 1/1A, identified as Triassoscelis anomala by Evans (1961); ACC: I.38a/b, I.39, I.49a/b, I.51.

Description. Tegmen c. 19.7–20.5 mm long (holotype 20.5), c. 5.8– c. 6.4 mm wide (holotype c. 6.4), length/ width 3.2–3.4; apparently entirely darkly shaded ( Figs 7, 8 ), although the counterparts of entirely darkly-shaded specimens have the vein margins pale, especially noticeable around the costal veinlets ( Fig. 4 ).

Notes. Evans distinguished his C. alata on its tegmen length of 14 mm, ‘widely-spaced punctures’, and M and CuA 1 ‘with accessory terminal veins’, compared to the type species with tegmen length of 12 mm, ‘shallow pits’, M 1 simple, M 2 and M 3 with additional branches, and CuA ‘not preserved’. There is, however, some variation in tegmen length and considerable variation in the details of the apical venation of the species, and C. alata falls within this range. Its punctation is poorly preserved and scarcely detectable. Evans’ figure (1956, fig. 5K—compare with Figs 5, 6 ) does not show the three weak costal veinlets and several apical crossveins, and has CuA 1b simple rather than branched. The holotype of C. alata also preserves what appears to be a small portion of the hindwing ( Fig. 6 ). Its venation is similar although not exactly the same as the paratype specimen, UQC1923/1924, which Evans identified as the hindwing of C. alata . In the absence of venational congruence of this hindwing with the hindwing preserved in the holotype specimen, and confirmed association with the tegmen, UQC1923/1924 is therefore only tentatively referred to C. elongata . Mesocicadella venosa was separated on the presence of costal veinlets, accessory branches on RA and RP, and additional branching of CuA 1, all of which match the venational scheme of C. elongata . Evans’ figure (1956, fig. 5I) does not show the multi-branched CuA 1 and lacks several apical crossveins. The holotype of M. punctata is again a typical specimen of C. elongata . Evans (1961) distinguished it on ‘the veins apically simple instead of being multi-branched’, but the apex of the specimen is not preserved and those post-nodal veins which are preserved match the branching pattern of C. elongata . The specimen preserves more of the multi-branched state of CuA than is shown in Evans’ figure ( Evans 1961, fig. 1A). Specimen UQE1/1a, identified by Evans (1961) as Triassoscelis anomala , preserves only the central and antero-apical venation which matches that of the holotype of C. elongata .

Figures

FIGURES 4–6. Crosbella elongata Evans: 4, holotype UQC2125 (mirrored); 5, holotype and postero-apical area of holotype UQC174 of Crosbella alata Evans; 6, holotype UQC174 of C. alata.

FIGURES 7–8. Crosbella elongata Evans: 7, ACC I.49a; 8, ACC I.39.