identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
2038E7143942FFF7FF29FA405B9A87D6.text	2038E7143942FFF7FF29FA405B9A87D6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megatibicen pronotalis subsp. pronotalis (Davis 1938) Sanborn 2025	<div><p>Megatibicen pronotalis pronotalis (Davis, 1938) rev. stat.</p><p>Tibicen marginalis var. pronotalis Davis 1938: 292 (Wasta, South Dakota).</p><p>Tibicen walkeri var. pronotalis Metcalf 1963: 324 .</p><p>Tibicen pronotalis walkeri Hill &amp; Marshall 2009: 63 .</p><p>Tibicen pronotalis pronotalis Hill &amp; Marshall 2009: 66 .</p><p>Neotibicen pronotalis pronotalis Hill et al. 2015: 227 .</p><p>Megatibicen pronotalis pronotalis Sanborn &amp; Heath 2016: 578 .</p><p>Ameritibicen pronotalis pronotalis Lee 2016: 451 .</p><p>Megatibicen pronotalis “Dakota ” form Kratzer 2024: 99.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2038E7143942FFF7FF29FA405B9A87D6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sanborn, Allen F.	Sanborn, Allen F. (2025): Comments and corrections to recent taxonomic changes in cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) including revised species status, a new subspecies, a new combination, and new tribal assignments of genera. Zootaxa 5609 (4): 479-502, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5609.4.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5609.4.2
2038E7143942FFF3FF29F8D15D148201.text	2038E7143942FFF3FF29F8D15D148201.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megatibicen pronotalis subsp. walkeri (Metcalf 1955) Sanborn 2025	<div><p>Megatibicen pronotalis walkeri (Metcalf, 1955) rev. stat.</p><p>Cicada marginata Say 1825: 330 (Missouri).</p><p>Cicada marginalis Walker 1852: 1128 nom. nov. pro  Cicada marginata Say, 1825 nec  Cicada marginata Olivier, 1791 .</p><p>Tibicen walkeri Metcalf 1955: 267 nom. nov. pro  Cicada marginalis Walker, 1852 nec  Cicada marginalis Scopoli, 1763 .</p><p>Lyristes marginalis Sueur 2002: 388 .</p><p>Tibicen pronotalis walkeri Hill &amp; Marshall 2009: 63 .</p><p>Tibicen pronotalis walkeri Sanborn &amp; Heath 2012: 69 (in part).</p><p>Tibicen pronotalis walkeri Sanborn &amp; Phillips 2013: 171, Table 1, 193, Fig. 21 (in part).</p><p>Neotibicen pronotalis walkeri Hill et al. 2015: 227 .</p><p>Megatibicen pronotalis walkeri Sanborn &amp; Heath 2016: 578 .</p><p>Ameritibicen pronotalis walkeri Lee 2016: 451 .</p><p>Megatibicen pronotalis walkeri Sanborn &amp; Heath 2017b: 84 (in part).</p><p>Megatibicen pronotalis “Common ” form Kratzer 2024: 97.</p><p>REMARKS. The historical taxonomy of the species and proper application of the name with priority was reviewed by Hill &amp; Marshall (2009) with additional updates to the generic placement by Hill et al. (2015), Sanborn &amp; Heath (2016, 2017a), and Lee (2016). Davis (1938) identified examples from the Dakotas, Iowa, Nebraska, and Oklahoma that were smaller and had a large piceous mark on the dorsomedial pronotal collar. Although this mark is found in other populations, it is found in a minority of specimens (Davis (1938) mentions about 2% of a population of specimens from Louisiana). He also mentions that the mesonotum is considerably smaller and the mesonotal mark in these specimens is smaller than the typical form. Finally, Davis (1938) states the new variety is more similar in appearance to  Megatibicen cultriformis (Davis, 1915) than the typical form of the species ( M. pronotalis walkeri rev. stat. at the time). Davis (1938) identified morphological differences in his proposed  variety beyond a simple color variation that Kratzer (2024) mistakenly identifies as the single variable trait used to form the subspecies.</p><p>There are data already published illustrating there are morphological differences between the subspecies. Statistically significant differences in body mass (t=2.1346, d.f.=17, P=0.0476), wing length (t=7.9020, d.f.=6, P=0.0002), and wing span (t=5.0241, d.f.=6, P&lt;0.0024) can be shown in the already published data (Sanborn et al. 2021). Further analyses (Tables 1 and 2) provided below have identified additional structures that differ between the previously assigned subspecies as demonstrated here with three measurements (Table 1).</p><p>Access to male specimens from South Dakota (n=2), Texas (n=4), and Missouri, Arkansas and Mississippi (n=6) in the author’s collection provided the opportunity to test for potential differences between, respectively, the Dakota form (equivalent to  M. pronotalis pronotalis rev. stat.), the western form (equivalent to the southwestern range of  M. pronotalis walkeri rev. stat. considered  M. pronotalis hesperius n.  ssp. here), and the common form (equivalent to the majority of  M. pronotalis walkeri rev. stat.) of  M. pronotalis identified by Kratzer (2024) (Fig. 1, Table 1). Body length, mesonotum width, and mesonotum length were measured first since Davis (1938) identified the body length and the mesonotum as being smaller in his new variety. It is not clear if Davis (1938) was referencing mesonotum width or length so both were measured and compared here.</p><p>If the Dakota form is compared to a combination of the western and common forms (the previously defined subspecies), there are statistically significant differences in body length (t=2.4112, d.f.=10, P=0.0366), mesonotum width (t=2.2816, d.f.=10, P=0.0457), and mesonotum length (t=2.9348, d.f.=10, P=0.0149). If the three forms are considered to be independent populations, eight of the nine possible pairings are significantly different statistically. ANOVA analyses of body length (F=41.8545, d.f.=2, 9, P=2.767x10 -5), mesonotum width (F=18.4501, d.f.=2, 9, P=6.545x10 -4), and mesonotum length (F=33.7091, d.f.=2, 9, P=6.602x10 -5) show statistically highly significant differences between the populations. Tukey Kramer tests, used to determine which populations differ from one another, are significant in all but one population pair for mesonotum length. Body length differs statistically in all species pairs (Dakota vs. common Q=4.6821, P=0.02231; Dakota vs. western Q=11.84, P=4.089x10 -5; common vs. western Q=9.9625, P=1.592x10 -4). Mesonotum width differs statistically in two of the three species pairs (Dakota vs. common Q=3.2464, P=0.1078; Dakota vs. western Q=7.9197, P=8.722x10 -4; common vs. western Q=6.5189, P=0.003269). Finally, mesonotum length differs in all species pairs (Dakota vs. common Q=5.4466, P=0.009806; Dakota vs. western Q=11.1029, P=6.829x10 -5; common vs. western Q=8.0067, P=8.070x10 -4). Although some of the species pairs differ in their significance if a non-parametric Kruskal Wallace test is performed due to the low sample sizes, all variables still show statistically significant differences in body length (P=0.009898), mesonotum width (P=0.01312), and mesonotum length (P=0.009739). The Dunn’s test shows that the western form is significantly different from both the Dakota and Common forms in all variables (P&lt;0.032 in all cases).</p><p>These limited sample size populations (which make it more difficult to show significant differences) statistically support the presence of three distinct populations using only three morphological features with very high probabilities in most comparisons. Kratzer (2024) appears to have identified a third subspecies in her western form rather than providing evidence that the two previously identified subspecies should be synonymized.</p><p>Kratzer (2024) also attempts to show the songs of the two subspecies are the same as another factor to support synonymy of the subspecies. She cites the website of Marshall &amp; Hill (https://insectsingers.com) as the source of songs to show similarities between the two subspecies but provides no information as to how the song parameters were measured or the sensitivity of the analysis equipment. The overlap in the song frequency cited would be expected based on the similarities in body size of the subspecies and cicada call frequency being determined by body size (Bennet-Clark &amp; Young 1996). The smaller  M. pronotalis pronotalis rev. stat. is also reported to have the higher frequency call (Kratzer 2024) as would be predicted based on its smaller size, but the specific peak frequency is not provided. More concerning is the sample size for the analysis is one song for each subspecies. The 2.2 or 2.4 syllables per second reported by Krater (2024) may actually be different if a larger sample size is measured and these values are consistent or these represent extremes of non-overlapping populations. Songs of cicada subspecies have also been shown not to differ (e.g. Puissant &amp; Gurcel 2023). In addition, the website and Hill et al. (2015) state that the songs of both subspecies are identical to  Megatibicen dealbatus (Davis, 1915) so that if we follow the logic of Kratzer (2024) that the two subspecies of  M. pronotalis and the species  M. dealbatus are the same because their songs are the same, then  M. dealbatus would also be a synonym since the songs of all three taxa are identical.</p><p>A compelling piece of evidence to support synonymy or the formation of three subspecies is the genetic analysis of Hill et al. (2015) that included both subspecies described at the time and examples of the three forms proposed by Kratzer (2024). The single example of  M. pronotalis pronotalis rev. stat. in the summary genetic analysis was found within the clade of three examples of  M. pronotalis walkeri rev. stat. (Hill et al. 2015). The specimen from Texas (identified as  M. pronotalis walkeri) is the first to diverge in the clade (which was collected near the southern end of the form distribution and was collected one county away from the specimens measured here), followed by the specimen from South Dakota ( M. pronotalis pronotalis rev. stat.) and, finally, a branch with the specimens from Florida and Lousiana ( M. pronotalis walkeri rev. stat.). This mixed grouping of subspecies in a single clade would normally be sufficient to synonymize the species but the differences in divergence of the Texas, South Dakota and two specimens from Louisiana and Florida are consistent in all genetic analyses even when the branching point positions change within clades. In fact, the Texas specimen and the South Dakota specimens each branch on different clAdes from the LoUIsIAnA And FlorIdA specImens when onlY the nUcleAr EF-1α gene Is Used to form A clAdogrAm (Hill et al. 2015, Fig. 4). The Texas specimen is always separated from the Louisiana and Florida specimens even though they were considered to be the same subspecies at the time.</p><p>Kratzer (2024) identifies three distinct forms within the synonymied species that correspond to the branches of the different source populations within the clades of Hill et al. (2015). The consistent alignment of the genetic analyses with the statistically significant morphological differences found between the three populations supports the contention that there are three subspecies rather than a single highly variable species that was formed when Kratzer (2024) synonymized the two available subspecies.</p><p>Color variability found in iNaturalist photographs should not be considered a primary reason to synonymize the subspecies since Davis (1938) described this variability and its geographic distribution while demonstrating morphological differences in the populations. Even if parts of the different phenotypic populations are sympatric, there is no evidence that the different phenotypes interbreed and produce viable hybrids. What Kratzer (2024) did not address are the morphological differences described by Davis (1938), confirmed in another study (Sanborn et al. 2021), and further confirmed here. The difference in song frequency described by Kratzer (2024) supports the difference in body size between the subspecies but there are insufficient data to show the songs are the same in the subspecies or the three forms Kratzer (2024) proposes for the species. Several taxa that Davis originally described as varieties were later shown to be distinct species based on differences in morphology, song, ecology, and distribution (Sanborn &amp; Phillips 2001, 2010, 2011).</p><p>Therefore, the synonymy of  Megatibicen pronotalis pronotalis (Davis, 1938) rev. stat. and  Megatibicen pronotalis walkeri (Metcalf, 1955) rev. stat. is not supported and the subspecies re-established here based on the consistent differences in the clade placement of the three populations in the genetic analyses of Hill et al. (2015) and the statistically significant differences in the morphological measurements (Table 1) provided for the different populations above.A third subspecies is described here for the “Western” form of Kratzer (2024) based on the genetic and morphological differences described previously. I have chosen to describe a subspecies since the population had previously been considered part of a known subspecies. Further data, particularly analyses of the songs from the three subspecies, will help determine if they are subspecies or closely related species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2038E7143942FFF3FF29F8D15D148201	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sanborn, Allen F.	Sanborn, Allen F. (2025): Comments and corrections to recent taxonomic changes in cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) including revised species status, a new subspecies, a new combination, and new tribal assignments of genera. Zootaxa 5609 (4): 479-502, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5609.4.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5609.4.2
2038E7143946FFFFFF29FCBE5C6C8644.text	2038E7143946FFFFFF29FCBE5C6C8644.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megatibicen pronotalis subsp. hesperius Sanborn 2025	<div><p>Megatibicen pronotalis hesperius n. ssp. (Fig. 2)</p><p>Tibicen pronotalis walkeri Sanborn &amp; Heath 2012: 69 (in part), 70, Fig. 72.</p><p>Tibicen pronotalis walkeri Sanborn &amp; Phillips 2013: 171, Table 1, 193, Fig. 21 (in part).</p><p>Neotibicen pronotalis walkeri (Texas specimen) Hill et al. 2015: 233, Fig. 2, 234, Fig. 3, 235, Fig. 4, 236, Fig. 5, 238, Fig. 6, 248, Appendix.</p><p>Megatibicen pronotalis walkeri Sanborn et al. 2017: ix, Table 2 (in part).</p><p>Megatibicen pronotalis walkeri Sanborn &amp; Heath 2017b: 84 (in part), Fig. 55.</p><p>Megatibicen pronotalis walkeri Sanborn et al. 2021: Supplementary Table 1 (in part).</p><p>Megatibicen pronotalis “Western” form Kratzer 2024: 101.</p><p>TYPE MATERIAL.—   Holotype. “ TEXAS GOLIAD COUNTY / US  59 6.0 mi E of Goliad / 22 June 1994 / A. Sanborn coll.” male (FSCA)  .   Paratypes. Same data as holotype, one male and two females (AFSC); “ TEXAS GOLIAD COUNTY / US  59 6.0 mi E of Goliad / 22 June 1994 / A. Sanborn, P. Phillips coll. // recorded specimen”   two males (AFSC); “ TEXAS GOLIAD COUNTY / US  59 6.0 mi E of Goliad / 22 June 1994 / A. Sanborn, P. Phillips coll.”  one female (AFSC) .</p><p>ETYMOLOGY.—The name hesperius (L. western) is in reference to the form name given by Kratzer (2024) for the population and its geographic distribution.</p><p>DIAGNOSIS.—The new sUBspecIes Is lArger thAn Both  M. pronotalis pronotalis rev. stat. and  M. pronotalis walkeri rev. stat. (see comparative measurements in Table 2 with all measurements of the proposed new subspecies being different statistically with P&lt;0.0001 in all cases) and can be distinguished by these measurements. In addition, the new subspecies lacks the large piceous marking on the dorsal prothorax midline found in  M. pronotalis pronotalis rev. stat., and the fore wing basal cell is about 1.93 times longer than broad (about 2.13 times in the new subspecies). The new subspecies can be distinguished from  M. pronotalis walkeri rev. stat. by the straighter fore wing costal margin, the expanding distal fore wing apical cell 2, the proportionately longer fore wing apical cell 8 and ulnar cell 2, ulnar cells 1 and 2 are approximately the same length, the broader distal portion of ulnar cell 3, the radial and radiomedial crossveins are not parallel and the curving mediocubital crossvein, the fore wings are about 2.71 times longer than wide in the new subspecies but about 2.79 times longer than wide in  M. pronotalis walkeri rev. stat. (and these values differ statistically t=4.013, d.f.=12, P=0.022), and the fore wing basal cell is about 2.13 times longer than broad in the new subspecies rather than about 2.22 times longer than broad in  M. pronotalis walkeri rev. stat.</p><p>Description</p><p>Ground color greenish tawny (fading to tawny with age), head, mesothorax and abdomen marked with piceous, head and abdomen also marked with castaneous. White pruinosity present on mesothorax and abdomen, dense in some specimens.</p><p>Head</p><p>Head wider than mesonotum, ground color with transverse piceous fascia between eyes encompassing ocelli, mark expands medially anteriorly to frontoclypeal suture and posteriorly to posterior head, ground color marks on either side of midline anterior to median ocellus, in posterior epicranial suture, lateral to lateral ocelli, and medial to posterior cranial depression, lateral mark extends anteriorly along eye margin to level of anterior lorum, piceous fascia on posterolateral eye extending laterally to middle of eye, piceous fascia on posterior head between lateral posterior cranial depression and middle of eye forming a ground color transverse fascia on posterolateral head and posterior to eye. Supra-antennal plate ground color with curved medial margin, anterior curve extends over anterolateral corner of postclypeus. Covered with short golden pile dorsally, denser in sutures, longer silvery pile posterior to eye. Ocelli rosaceous, eyes castaneous. Ventral head ground color, transverse piceous mark on gena between eye and postclypeus, lorum ground color with piceous posteromedial spot, expanding on lorum or central lorum lightly castaneous in some paratypes. Thick white pubescence and long, radiating white pile on lorum and gena. Postclypeus not sulcate, primarily castaneous, dorsal surface piceous on either side of ground color midline, piceous extends into dorsal transverse grooves, elongated ground spot on anterior half of ventral midline, darkening along posterior midline and posteroventral margin, transverse ridges ground color on anterior side, castaneous on posterior side. Postclypeus with thirteen transverse grooves, short golden pile on dorsum, thick white pubescence and long silvery pile on lateral postclypeus. Anteclypeus ground color with castaneous carina, ground color or only posterior half castaneous in some paratypes, and castaneous spots on anterolateral corners, posterolateral corners piceous, covered with thick white pubescence and long silvery pile. Mentum ochraceous, labium ground color with medial castaneous stripe, darkening to piceous tip reaching to posterior of middle trochanters with sparse short and long silvery pile. Antennal segments castaneous.</p><p>Thorax</p><p>Dorsal pronotum ground color with triangular piceous mark on either side of anterior midline, piceous within paramedian fissure, incomplete in some paratypes, small transverse piceous fascia on either side of dorsal midline anterior to ambient fissure. Pronotal collar ground color. Pronotum covered with short silvery pile, denser in fissures and on lateral pronotal collar. Mesonotum tawny, submedian sigillae piceous with small tawny longitudinal fascia near midline, reduced to small spot in some paratypes, anterior half of parapsidal suture castaneous, lateral sigillae piceous with broad, angled tawny posterolateral fascia, mark expanded in some paratypes almost filling lateral sigillae in one paratype, piceous between anterior arms of cruciform elevation with mark extending anteriorly along midline terminating between submedian sigillae, mark extends posteriorly onto anteromedial cruciform elevation and across anterior portion of anterior arms of cruciform elevation, piceous forms the upside down ground color “resh”- shaped mark characteristic of the genus, cruciform elevation tawny with light castaneous laterally between anterior and posterior arms, wing groove tawny with piceous anteromedial margin and castaneous spots on anteromedial and anterolateral corners. White pubescent spot on anterolateral and lateral margin of mesonotum and in anterior wing groove. Metanotum tawny with castaneous anterior margin, completely tawny in some paratypes. Long, dense silvery pile on mesonotum, denser on anterior margin, laterally and posteriorly and between arms of cruciform elevation, in wing groove, and on posterior metanotum. Ventral thoracic segments with thick white pubescence and long white pile, tawny with castaneous basisternum 2 and 3, piceous katepisternum 2 and central anepimeron 2.</p><p>Wings</p><p>Fore wings and hind wings hyaline with eight and six apical cells respectively. Fore wings about 2.71 times longer than wide. Venation ground color, veins between apical cells darker in some paratypes, piceous ambient vein in apical cells 2–4 in both fore wing and hindwing, fore wing costal margin almost straight to node. Basal cell clouded except along cubitus anterior and branch to arculus, about 2.13 times longer than broad. Pterostigma to terminus of radius anterior 1. Distal fore wing apical cell 2 expands, fore wing apical cell 8 and ulnar cells 2 longer than in other subspecies, ulnar cells 1 and 2 approximately the same length, distal portion of ulnar cell 3 broader than in other subspecies, radial and radiomedial crossveins not parallel as in other subspecies, mediocubital crossvein sinusoidal. Basal membrane of fore wing ground color speckled with orange. Hind wing with proximal two-thirds of and distal margins of anal cell 3, anal cell 2 along anal vein to curve, anal cell 1 and 2 along anal vein 2, and posterior to proximal two-thirds of cubitus posterior vein ground color, white section along distal medial margin of anal cell 3.</p><p>Legs</p><p>Coxae, trochanters, and femora tawny. Fore femora with proximal spine almost perpendicular to long axis, longest, secondary spine obliquely angled to long axis, more triangular in shape, and small, slightly angled, triangular tertiary spine, all tawny, primary and secondary spine with castaneous tips. Tibiae castaneous with proximal tawny end, tarsi castaneous. Pretarsal claws ochraceous with piceous tips, tibial spurs and comb castaneous with piceous tips. Segments radiating golden pile, longer in distal segments. Meracanthus pointed, dark tawny with castaneous base not reaching to middle of operculum, reaching to level of proximal hind trochanter. Female meracanthus longer than operculum reaching to middle of sternite II, dark castaneous lightening distally.</p><p>Operculum</p><p>Male operculum large with semi-circular posterior margin, overlapping medially, reaching to the edge of the tympanal cavity on anterior of sternite II, tawny with piceous spot on anterolateral base, covered with dense white pubescence. Female operculum with medially angled lateral margin, rounded posterolateral margin forming an approximate right angle, sinuate posterior margin, terminating medially at lateral meracanthus, reaching to anterior of sternite II, tawny with piceous spot on anterolateral base and castaneous anteromedial region, covered with thick white pubescence. Female opercula with long white pile radiating from edge.</p><p>Abdomen</p><p>Abdominal tergites piceous, tergites 2–8 with castaneous posterior margin, castaneous expanding on lateral regions of tergite 8, covered with short silvery pile, longer along anterior tergite 1, white pubescence laterally and forming a row of spots on dorsal tergite midline, more obvious in paratypes. Timbal cover tawny with white pubescence, completely concealing timbal, extending anteriorly beyond anterior of abdominal segment 1, slightly inflated from margins but with flat surface, ventral margin straight and parallel to operculum. Female abdominal segment 9 ground color with castaneous triangular mark on dorsal surface, piceous dorsolateral anterior margin becoming angled fascia to piceous dorsal beak forming castaneous triangular mark, piceous extends ventrally through stigma recurving and becoming short castaneous fascia, tawny ventrally and posteriorly, with short silvery pile on surface and dense, long, golden pile along ventral side and near posterior, white pubescence on anterolateral surfaces and covering area of stigma in some paratypes. Posterior margin of abdominal segment 9 sinuate. Sternites tawny except castaneous middle of sternite I, transverse castaneous fascia on sternite II, longitudinal piceous mark between posterior sternite II and anterior of sternite III. Epipleurites tawny with castaneous lateral margin, posterior margin and central castaneous spots in some paratypes. Female sternite VII with single, open V-shaped medial notch, light castaneous spot laterally. Sternites and epipleurites with white pubescence, very dense laterally, and radiating long silvery pile.</p><p>Genitalia</p><p>Male pygofer piceous anteriorly and dorsally, piceous margined with castaneous, tawny ventrally and along posterior margin except for piceous midline, tawny pygofer basal lobes, with rounded distal shoulder, dorsal beak very small. Pygofer basal lobe distinctive, long, triangular with rounded apex, angled laterad forming large V-shaped notch, radiating long golden pile, pygofer upper lobes ill-defined. Anal styles castaneous with tawny base, anal tube tawny with dark castaneous ventral margin. Median uncus lobe dark castaneous, triangular, flanked by finger-like lateral uncus lobes converging to rounded posterior terminus, laterally expanded at tawny base, curving ventrally distally, flattened along ventral midline to support aedeagus. Aedeagus tubular, dark castaneous.</p><p>Female gonapophyses VIII dark castaneous, gonapophysis IX dark castaneous with piceous tip, gonapophysis X ground color at base becoming dark castaneous distally, gonaophyses extend beyond dorsal beak with radiating golden pile. Gonocoxite IX tawny. Anal styles castaneous margined with ground color at base.</p><p>MEASUREMENTS (MM).—N = foUr mAles or three femAles, meAn (rAnge). Length of BodY: mAle 40.86 (40.00– 42.55), female 42.98 (41.10–44.75); length of fore wing: male 54.28 (53.60–55.60), female 55.88 (53.40–57.40); width of fore wing: male 20.00 (19.30–20.40), female 20.67 (19.70–21.20); length of head: male 6.66 (6.30–7.00), female 7.03 (7.00–7.10); width of head including eyes: male 17.60 (16.95–17.60), female 18.12 (17.65–18.80); width of pronotum including suprahumeral plates: male 18.04 (17.40–18.60), female 18.80 (18.00–19.55); width of mesonotum: male 15.64 (14.95–16.20), female 16.60 (16.10–17.35).</p><p>DISTRIBUTION.—DefInItIve exAmples of the new specIes Are known from GolIAd And JAckson CoUntIes, TexAs. Kratzer (2024) describes the “Western” form extending from the Gulf coast of Texas north to southern Nebraska. However, many of these records are based on photographs and specimens need to be examined to determine their species status. Sanborn &amp; Phillips (2013) describe  M. pronotalis walkeri rev. stat. as inhabiting two different biomes. It may be that  M. pronotalis walkeri rev. stat. and  M. pronotalis hesperius n.  ssp. are separated into these two biomes as the distribution of the two forms in Kratzer (2024) closely follows the plant communities.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2038E7143946FFFFFF29FCBE5C6C8644	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sanborn, Allen F.	Sanborn, Allen F. (2025): Comments and corrections to recent taxonomic changes in cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) including revised species status, a new subspecies, a new combination, and new tribal assignments of genera. Zootaxa 5609 (4): 479-502, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5609.4.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5609.4.2
2038E7143949FFFCFF29FF2D58E0879D.text	2038E7143949FFFCFF29FF2D58E0879D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Diceroprocta pusilla Davis 1942	<div><p>Diceroprocta pusilla Davis, 1942 rev. stat.</p><p>Diceroprocta pusilla Davis 1942: 177 (Apatzngan, Michoacan, Mexico). rev. stat.</p><p>REMARKS. Kratzer (2024) synonymized  Diceroprocta virgulata (Distant, 1904) with  Diceroprocta pusilla Davis, 1942 based on the similar fore wing infuscation pattern, body coloration, distribution of specimens found on iNaturalist (although I could not find any), and the type locality of  D. pusilla . However, there are distinct differences in the morphology and coloration that go beyond individual variability that suggest the two species are different. The type of  D. virgulata was seen in the BMNH and type material of  D. pusilla in the AMNH and the SIIS (Sanborn 1999).</p><p>The species description in Distant (1904), the drawing in Distant (1905a), and the description of Davis (1942) provide a number of coloration differences between the species. The most obvious differences in coloration are the completely piceous abdomen of  D. virgulata and the ochraceous timbal covers and lateral abdominal tergites 2 and 8 found in  D. pusilla (Davis 1942) .</p><p>More important than the color differences are the differences in body size, the male opercula, and the timbal covers.  Diceroprocta virgulata is reported to have a body length of 16 mm and a wingspan of 59 mm (Distant 1904) while  D. pusilla is reported to have a body length of 14 mm and a wingspan of 44 mm (Davis 1942). Although a 2 mm difference in body length may be found in a species, it is difficult to believe a 34% difference in wingspan within a single species. In addition, the opercula of  D. virgulata have a lateral margin that is slightly concave and angled mediad, the anteromedial margin is parallel to the lateral margin, the posterior margin is subtruncate, the medial angles of the opercula are well separated on either side of the midline of abdominal sternites I and II and the posterior margins do not extend posteriorly to the anterior of sternite II leaving a gap around most of the operculum into the tympanal cavity (Distant 1904, 1905a). In contrast, the opercula of  D. pusilla exhibit lateral margins that are almost parallel, an obliquely rounded posterior margin, the medial angles almost touch and the opercula reach posteriorly to cover abdominal sternite II (Davis 1942). Finally, the timbal covers are inflated posterolaterally in  D. virgulata (Distant 1905a) but are plate-like in  D. pusilla . The shape of the timbal cover in  D. virgulata is similar to  Diceroprocta tepicana Davis, 1938 or  Diceroprocta bakeri Distant, 1911a but divergent from  D. pusilla .</p><p>Another issue in the proposed synonymy is the lack of the ability to identify the two species as originating in the same geographic area. Kratzer (2024) correctly states that the holotype of  D. virgulata was collected in Mexico (Distant 1904) but no additional information on where the specimen was collected in Mexico is available. Since size information, opercula images, or timbal cover images are not available for the iNaturalist observations, there is no way to determine if the observations are of  D. virgulata or  D. pusilla (although I can only find  D. virgulata on the website) so that dorsal images of specimens with their wings against their body are insufficient to determine species. The synonymy is proposed based on the similar infuscation pattern of the fore wings but there is no way to confirm the synonymy based on these images since the structures which are known to differ between the species are not illustrated. The iNaturalist observations may represent only  D. virgulata, only  D. pusilla, or a combination of the two species.</p><p>Therefore,  Diceroprocta pusilla Davis, 1942 rev. stat. is removed from junior synonymy of  Diceroprocta virgulata (Distant, 1904) . The statement by Kratzer (2024) that the synonymy is reasonable based on the morphology and coloration alone is not supported as the original descriptions identify several morphological features that are distinct in each species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2038E7143949FFFCFF29FF2D58E0879D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sanborn, Allen F.	Sanborn, Allen F. (2025): Comments and corrections to recent taxonomic changes in cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) including revised species status, a new subspecies, a new combination, and new tribal assignments of genera. Zootaxa 5609 (4): 479-502, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5609.4.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5609.4.2
2038E7143951FFE4FF26FB595C6B8790.text	2038E7143951FFE4FF26FB595C6B8790.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Zammara boulardi Kratzer 2024	<div><p>ZAMMARA BOULARDI KRATZER, 2024 NOMEN NUDUM</p><p>REMARKS. Kratzer (2024) included the species  Zammara boulardi Goemans, 2016 in her field guide. The species is presented in the text in the same manner as all the other species are treated but the taxon is not available under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999). Goemans (2016) described the taxon in a dissertation with a disclaimer that the nomenclatural acts are not valid for nomenclatural purposes and thus is not a published work under the Code (Article 8.3). This disclaimer makes any names, including  Zammara boulardi, or other taxonomic acts unavailable under Article 8.3.</p><p>The taxon  Zammara boulardi remains unavailable because the dissertation is not considered a published work so Article 10.1.1 cannot apply, Article 16.1 is not fulfilled where the taxon is shown to be intended to be new (Kratzer lists Goemans as the authority), and there is no fixation of a holotype specimen or depository identified which is required for all names published after 1999 (Article 16.4). The missing information means Article 13 is not fulfilled and makes the name unavailable for nomenclatural purposes. However, Kratzer (2024) introduced the name in a published work so that the taxon is now to be known as  Zammara boulardi Kratzer, 2024 nomen nudum .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2038E7143951FFE4FF26FB595C6B8790	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sanborn, Allen F.	Sanborn, Allen F. (2025): Comments and corrections to recent taxonomic changes in cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) including revised species status, a new subspecies, a new combination, and new tribal assignments of genera. Zootaxa 5609 (4): 479-502, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5609.4.2, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5609.4.2
