identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03E87829FFCB645EFAF5EB6D0A12FB5A.text	03E87829FFCB645EFAF5EB6D0A12FB5A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bothriocerini Muir 1923	<div><p>Bothriocerini Muir, 1923</p><p>Historical taxonomical account. In 1835, Burmeister established the genus Bothriocera Burmeister, 1835, and classified it under the group Cicadines Fulgorina, corresponding to Latreille's 1807 classification of Cicadariae Fulgorellae. Spinola (1839:145), noting the unique position of the antennae—situated within a notch on the head (referred to as "Néfliers de la maison Burdin (op. cite: 138)"—implicitly placed the genus within his group Cicadariae Fulgorellae Fulgorites Cixioides, though he did not name it explicitly. Spinola (1852: 52) confirmed this placement within the Fulgoritae, Cixioideae. Among these Fulgorites, Stål described the genus Andana Stål, 1856, which he synonymized with Bothriocera a decade later, placing it within Fulgorida Cixiida (Stål, 1866) and thereby reinforcing Spinola's initial classification. Since then, Bothriocera has remained within the family Cixiidae Spinola, 1839 .</p><p>In his foundational classification of planthopper families based on male genitalia morphology, Muir (1923) established the tribe Bothriocerini using a dual-character criterion: "Subantennal process present OR antennae sunk into pits”. The tribe initially included five genera— Bothriocera, Borysthenes Stål, 1866, Kinnara Distant, 1906, Euryphlepsia Muir, 1922, and Stenophelpsia Muir, 1922 —designated "for convenience" (p. 98) in the first part of his 1925a paper (pp. 97–110). However, in the second part of this work (1925b: pp. 156–163), Muir reclassified Kinnara and the cixiid subfamily Meenoplinae Fieber, 1872, removing them from Cixiidae to form the families Kinnaridae Muir, 1925, and Meenoplidae Fieber, 1872, respectively. It is interesting that Muir acknowledged that the tribe might be "only one of convenience," as he did not identify any unique characters uniting the "considerably different" of the four genera that remained within it (op. cit.: 158). Additionally, Euryphlepsia was originally described three years earlier as part of the Cixiidae tribe Oecleini (Muir, 1922), a tribe Muir did not revisit in subsequent work and which remained unaddressed until its revival by Emeljanov (1989).</p><p>In 1930, Muir, while publishing the foundation of the current planthopper classification, confirmed the tribe Bothriocerini . However, he mistakenly included the five genera previously mentioned in the first part of his 1925 work, despite Kinnara having already been reclassified as the type genus of the Kinnaridae . A few years later, Metcalf (1938) elevated Bothriocerini to subfamily rank and separated Bothriocerini, retaining only the genus Bothriocera, from Stenophlepsini Metcalf, 1938. Stenophlepsini was noted to include “at least four genera,” though only three were attributed: Borysthenes, Euryphlepsia, and Stenophelpsia (Metcalf, 1938: 239).</p><p>Fifty years later, Emeljanov (1989) revisited the classification of the family Cixiidae, providing a fundamental reorganization that, together with his subsequent publications (Emeljanov, 2000, 2002; Holzinger et al., 2002), still underpins our current classification although that framework is now in strong disagreement with recent phylogenetic analyses (Le Cesne et al., 2022; Bucher et al., 2023; Luo et al., 2024). Within the Cixiidae and from the Cixiinae, Emeljanov separated a new subfamily: Borystheninae including the single genus Borysthenes and Bothriocerinae including Bothriocera and the genus Bothrioceretta Caldwell 1950 . The latter was distinguished based on differences in the vertex structure, male genitalia, and overlapping forewings (Caldwell 1950). Emeljanov restricted Stenophepsini to Stenophelpsia and Euryphlepsia, moving them to the subfamily Cixiinae, where they were to be "compared with the Oecleini (= Myndini Metcalf, 1938), as Muir himself did (1922)" (Emeljanov, 1989:94).</p><p>With the advent of molecular phylogenetics, the position of the Bothriocerinae has been further clarified. All recent studies (Ceotto et al., 2008; Le Cesne et al., 2022; Bucher et al., 2023; Luo et al., 2024) place this subfamily within the Oecleini, rendering the latter paraphyletic. To ensure classification stability and prevent rapid successive revisions with premature conclusions, Luo et al. (2021, 2024) established the Oecleinian lineage (without assigning it a formal Linnaean rank), encompassing the tribes Duiliini, Stenophepsiini, Oecleini, and Bothriocerini . While the first three tribes remain within Cixiinae, Bothriocerini was downgraded to a tribe but remains formally distinct and separate from Cixiinae .</p><p>Although currently restricted in distribution to the Nearctic and Neotropical regions, the group has been enriched in recent years by a series of Eocene fossil genera from Western Europe ( Bothriobaltia Szwedo, 2002; Delwa Szwedo, 2019; Klugga Szwedo, 2019; and Liwakka Szwedo, 2019), indicating that Bothriocerini were much more widely distributed in the past.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E87829FFCB645EFAF5EB6D0A12FB5A	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	Cesne, Maxime Le;Huber, Elisabeth;Bourgoin, Thierry	Cesne, Maxime Le, Huber, Elisabeth, Bourgoin, Thierry (2025): Historical account and redescription of Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881) (Hemiptera, Fulgoromorpha, Cixiidae), an endemic species from the lesser Antilles. Zootaxa 5665 (1): 85-98, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5665.1.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5360.3.8
03E87829FFC86454FAF5EB090C81F9F4.text	03E87829FFC86454FAF5EB090C81F9F4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry 1881) Bourgoin 2025	<div><p>Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881)</p><p>(Figs. 1–4)</p><p>Diacira substigmatica Lethierry, 1881: 13</p><p>Sevia substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881), comb. by Fennah, 1945: 140</p><p>Vicentia substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881), comb. by Holzinger, 2004: 952</p><p>Nivcentia substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881), comb. by O’Brien, 2006: 312</p><p>Description. Length. Male: 4.5–4.8 mm with the wings (N=31), Female: 5–5.1 mm (N=28).</p><p>Color. Head pale yellowish orange (ferruginous). Ocelli pale yellow with a red ring at their base. Thorax dark yellowish brown (ferruginous). Abdomen black. Legs paler than head and thorax except external half of prothoracic tibiae and tarsus which are brownish. Forewings transparent and smocked with the presence of an elongated oval black spot on the costal margin. Light brownish spots are present on the apical part of the forewing, and all the apical transversal vein are highlighted by a light brownish spot. Veins brown except proximal portion of cubital veins pale yellow. These brownish spots, not mentioned in the original publication, seem more or less strongly visible depending on the specimen; present on the type specimen.</p><p>The hindwing is transparent.</p><p>Head (Fig. 1). The posterior compartment of the vertex sub-rectangular, with longitudinal carina not reaching the anterior suture. Frons and lateral carinae strongly marked on dorsal and frontal view. Frons wider ventrally, hiding antennae and ocelli in frontal view. Ocelli are almost half of the size of the pedicel. Antennal pedicels globular, sunk under the lateral suture of the frons by a carina almost circling it on lateral view. Antennal flagellum as long as the width of the pedicels bearing it. Anteclypeus and postclypeus with a median carina. Rostrum very long, distinctly surpassing the coxa and reaching the last segments of the abdomen.</p><p>Thorax. Prothorax with a sharply concave posterior margin. Mesonotum tricarinate, with a median and a pair of lateral carinae.</p><p>Forewings (Fig. 2) with common stem ScP+ R + MP as long as basal cell, common stem ScP+ R a little shorter. ScP+RA1 separating from RA2 before middle of the forewing; RA2 with 2 terminals; RP with 3 terminals; first fork slightly before MP1 +2 fork, second one at same level of MP1 fork. MP with 5 terminals of the trifid anterior branch type (Le Cesne et al., 2022) with MP1.1, MP1.2, MP2, MP3, MP4; MP1 +2 separating from MP3 +4 at nodal line. CuA forking into CuA1 and CuA2 before the nodal line; icu joining CuP before posterior margin of the forewing. Subapical line well materialized by darkened transverse veinlets. C3 long and longer than C3'; C4 long but shorter than C3, quadrangular with a common short margin with C5; C5 short, distinctly triangular basally; C5' longer than C3 slightly widening distally. PCu and A1 fusing before middle of claval area.</p><p>Hindwing of V-type in the MP-CuA connection (Le Cesne et al., 2022).</p><p>Hindlegs with an unarmed metatibiae and six apical spines separated in two groups of three by a diastema (Brozek et al., 2024). First metatarsomere elongated with 8 apical teeth, the two lateral ones being longer than the six in the middle; second metatarsomere with the same number of teeth, and two longer lateral ones. Metatibiotarsal formula: 0-(3d3)/8/8.</p><p>Male genitalia. (Fig. 3, 4 and 5). Male genitalia asymmetrical with a sclerotized periandrium bearing an apical rounded and multi denticulated lobe (1) on its left latero-posterior margin (Fig. 5F) and a non-symmetrical spiniform process bearing round eight small apical teeth (2) on its dorsal posterior margin and one ventral (Fig. 5F and G). Periandrium wall slimmer distally at the articulation transitioning from the perandrium to the aedeagus sensu stricto. The later curving above the periandrium to point anteriorly. Aedeagus s.s. forming a weakly sclerotized tube curving more or less regularly on the dorsal margin of the endosome; distributed in three main parts as marked by a thin membranous fold (Fig. 4 and 5F): 1) the first one (a) well sclerotized bearing a short basal postero-lateral spiniform process pointing antero-dorsally (3), and proximally three to four minute spines (s) weakly sclerotized at the aeseagus s.s. base (Fig. 4), 2) the second part (b) remaining partly sclerotized in its wall, on one side mainly and 3) the third part (c) only supported dorsally by a distinct, distally shortly acute (4) rod-like sclerotized plate (rpa), and an apical spiniform aedeagal process pointing posteriorly (5) at the distal margin of the aedeagus (Fig. 4 and 5E, F, G); a thin sclerotized ring marks the phallotrem opening into a more or less rounded endosomal sac (End), fully membranous and translucid, widening distally (Fig. 4A and 5) and probably inflatable. Its opening not distinguishable. Inside the aedeagus s.s. the ductus seminis (ds) is supported by a pair of rod like plates (rps), proximally united in a single sclerotized and wider tube of the ductus seminis connected basally to the base of the aedeagus s.s.. Because the aedeagus s.s. is weakly sclerotized and somehow translucid, the internal and paired ductus seminis rod-like plates and the rod-like one of the aedeagus are well observable such as being external plates. Anal tube regularly ovoid in dorsal view; lightly convex on lateral view.</p><p>Note. We present here a detailed morphological description of the male genitalia of the species. Several structures, reported here for the first time, are minute and weakly or non-sclerotized, making them difficult to observe without high-resolution techniques. These features are likely present in related species, but their individual or specific variation remains untested. This points to a potential gap between the fine-scale characters revealed through detailed examination and those traditionally used for routine taxonomic identification, highlighting the need for caution and a more integrative approach in future taxonomic revisions of the taxa.</p><p>From a morphological standpoint, the paired rod-like plates of the ductus seminis correspond to the ligamentary processes (sheath sensu Muir, 1926), as previously reported in the ground plan of fulgoromorphan male genitalia (Bourgoin, 1988; Bourgoin &amp; Juang, 1990). These structures are internally fused with the ventral wall at the base of the aedeagus sensu stricto (Fig. 4B), clearly marking the beginning of the aedeagus sensu stricto.</p><p>Distribution. Lesser Antilles: La Guadeloupe (Saut de la Lézarde; Col des 2 Mammelles; Chutes du Carbet, Bras David, Cascade aux Écrevisses), La Dérisade island (Ravine Cybèle), Martinique (Macuba, Morne Rouge, Montagne Pelée, Presqu’île de la Caravelle, Source Didier, Terreville, Trois Rivières).</p><p>Habitat and host plants. Bothriocerini species have most frequently been associated with Poaceae (25%), Asteraceae (8.5%), and Juncaceae (8.5%) (Bourgoin, 2025). Host plants remain unknown for B. substigmatica . In Guadeloupe, individuals were captured by sweep netting along trails bordered by ferns in undisturbed primary rainforest (Figs 6).</p><p>Studied material</p><p>Guadeloupe</p><p>MNHN: 14 males: [Guadeloupe (97); Saut de la lézarde; 15-VIII-2001; Th. Bourgoin réc.], [Muséum Paris], [Museum Paris; MNHN(EH) 25599 to 25601, MNHN(EH) 25605 to 25615], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2023]; 7 males and 4 females: [Guadeloupe (97); Col des 2 mammelles; 12-VIII-2001; Th. Bourgoin réc.], [Muséum Paris], [Museum Paris; MNHN(EH) 25616 to 25622 and 25634 to 25637], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2023]; 8 females: [Guadeloupe (97); Col des 2 mammelles; 15-VIII-2001; Th. Bourgoin réc.], [Muséum Paris], [Museum Paris; MNHN(EH) 25626 to 25633], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2023], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2023]; 2 males: [Ravine Cybèle; alt. 10–50m; 11-III-1977], [Mission; Museum Antilles; LA DESIRADE; L. Matile leg.], [Museum Paris; MNHN(EH) 25265 and MNHN(EH) 25603], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2023]; 4 males: [Guadeloupe; Mangrove; II-1982; J. CARAYON LEG.], [Muséum Paris], [Museum Paris; MNHN(EH) 25602 and 25623 to 25625], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2023]; 1 female: [Mission; Museum Antilles; GUADELOUPE; L. Matile leg.]; [BRAS DAVID; Maison de la forêt; atl. 245 m; 9-III-1977]; [Museum Paris; MNHN(EH) 25643]; 2 females: [Guadeloupe (97); 2° chute du carbet; 12-VIII-2001; Th. Bourgoin réc.], [Muséum Paris], [Museum Paris; MNHN(EH) 25638 and 25639], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2023]; and 3 females: [Guadeloupe; Mangrove; II-1982; J. CARAYON LEG.], [Muséum Paris], [Museum Paris; MNHN(EH) 25640 to 25642], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2023].</p><p>IRHNB: 1 male and 1 female, [Guadeloupe (97); Col des 2 mammelles; 12-VIII-2001; Th. Bourgoin réc.], [Muséum Paris], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2023].</p><p>Martinique</p><p>MNHN: 1 female, [Martinique; Le Morne Rouge; Chamflor, fauchage], [MUSEUM PARIS; 09-VII-2022; Th. Bourgoin rec.], [MNHN, Paris; EH30854], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2025]; 1 male, [Martinique; Le Morne Rouge; Chamflor, 320m, PL], [MUSEUM PARIS; 06-VII-2022; Th. Bourgoin rec.], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2025], [MNHN, Paris; EH30859]; 2 females, [Martinique; Montagne Pelée; 850-900m, fauchage], [MUSEUM PARIS; 07-VII-2022; Th. Bourgoin rec.], [MNHN, Paris; EH30855 and EH30857], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2025]; 1 male, [Martinique; Trois Rivières; fauchage], [MUSEUM PARIS; 09-VII-2022; Th. Bourgoin rec.], [MNHN, Paris; EH30858], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2025]; 1 male, [Martinique; Macuba], [MUSEUM PARIS; 02-VII-2022; Th. Bourgoin rec.], [MNHN, Paris; EH30856], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2025]; 1 male, [Martinique; Terreville; - XI-2000; Cl. &amp; J. Pierre rec.], [MUSEUM PARIS], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2025], [Museum Paris; MNHN(EH) 17894]; 1 male, [Martinique; Presqu’île de la Caravelle; Anse l’étang (côte N)], [MUSEUM PARIS; 11-III-2011; Th. Bourgoin Rec.], [MNHN, Paris; EH30858], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2025], [Museum Paris; MNHN(EH) 17863]; 2 females, [MARTINIQUE; Source Didier; 16-IV-2001; Cl. &amp; J. Pierre rec.], [MUSEUM PARIS], [MNHN, Paris; EH30863 to EH30864], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2025]; 3 males, [MARTINIQUE; Source Didier; 23-IV-2001; Cl. &amp; J. Pierre rec.], [MUSEUM PARIS], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2025], [MNHN, Paris; EH30860 to EH30862]; 2 females, [Martinique; rte forestièr Fond l’étang; Rte de la Trace, Mt Pelée], [MUSEUM PARIS; 13-III-2011; Th. Bourgoin rec.], [Museum Paris; MNHN(EH) 17866 and 17868], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2025]; 1 female, [Martinique; Plateau Boucher, 628m; Rte de la Trace, Mt Pelée], [MUSEUM PARIS; 09-III-2011; Th. Bourgoin rec.], [Museum Paris; MNHN(EH) 17856], [ Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881); M. Le Cesne det. 2025].</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E87829FFC86454FAF5EB090C81F9F4	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	Cesne, Maxime Le;Huber, Elisabeth;Bourgoin, Thierry	Cesne, Maxime Le, Huber, Elisabeth, Bourgoin, Thierry (2025): Historical account and redescription of Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881) (Hemiptera, Fulgoromorpha, Cixiidae), an endemic species from the lesser Antilles. Zootaxa 5665 (1): 85-98, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5665.1.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5360.3.8
03E87829FFC06456FAF5E8610BA0F906.text	03E87829FFC06456FAF5E8610BA0F906.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Andes quadraticauda Fennah 1985	<div><p>Andes quadraticauda Fennah, 1985</p><p>Andes truncatus Fennah, 1978, nec Andes truncatus Synave, 1953</p><p>Andes synafenni Le Cesne, De Haas &amp; Bourgoin 2023 syn. nov.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E87829FFC06456FAF5E8610BA0F906	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	Cesne, Maxime Le;Huber, Elisabeth;Bourgoin, Thierry	Cesne, Maxime Le, Huber, Elisabeth, Bourgoin, Thierry (2025): Historical account and redescription of Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881) (Hemiptera, Fulgoromorpha, Cixiidae), an endemic species from the lesser Antilles. Zootaxa 5665 (1): 85-98, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5665.1.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5360.3.8
03E87829FFC06456FAF5ED150DA4FB76.text	03E87829FFC06456FAF5ED150DA4FB76.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bothriocera Burmeister 1835	<div><p>Bothriocera species of Guadeloupe</p><p>B. substigmatica was the only known Bothriocerini species in Guadeloupe until Bonfils and Delpanque in 1971 mentioned the presence of Bothriocera eborea Fennah, 1943, which exhibits a different wing pattern and male genitalia. Since these reports, the J. Carayon, and L. Matile collects in the 70s and 80s, and J. Etienne and the third author in 2001, provided numerous specimens from Lesser Antilles kept in the collection of the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle of Paris, and are now under study. With the collection of C. Pierre from Martinique Entomologie, who also collected Cixiidae in the French Antilles in recent years, we can state that B. substigmatica is a common species in Guadeloupe and Martinique. If we did not yet find in those collecions any specimens of B. eborea as mentioned by Bonfils and Delpanque (1971), we found at least one female of B. cyanea Fennah, 1943 collected by the third author in 2001 and several other specimens in C. Pierre's collection (Bartlett, 2023). The Cixiid diversity of the Lesser Antilles is still poorly known, and new Bothriocera species are expected to be described in near future.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E87829FFC06456FAF5ED150DA4FB76	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	Cesne, Maxime Le;Huber, Elisabeth;Bourgoin, Thierry	Cesne, Maxime Le, Huber, Elisabeth, Bourgoin, Thierry (2025): Historical account and redescription of Bothriocera substigmatica (Lethierry, 1881) (Hemiptera, Fulgoromorpha, Cixiidae), an endemic species from the lesser Antilles. Zootaxa 5665 (1): 85-98, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5665.1.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5360.3.8
