Mongolojassus bicuspidatus (J. Sahlberg, 1871)

Tishechkin, Dmitri Yu., 2022, Contributions to the study of the genus Mongolojassus Zakhvatkin, 1953 (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Deltocephalinae: Paralimnini) with description of a new species from Northern Caucasus, Zootaxa 5128 (4), pp. 574-580 : 575-578

Mongolojassus bicuspidatus (J. Sahlberg, 1871)

Figs. 16–21

Material examined. Russia, Western Siberia , Altai Mts., Chulyshman Plateau, A. Zhelokhovtsev, 4. VIII. 1935, 2 ♂, 6 ♀ .

Description. Similar in appearance to other species of Mongolojassus .

Aedeagal processes in posterior view at bases bent basad and diverging at angle slightly less than 90 o, with small additional branches before midlength, and with tips bent outwards ( Fig. 16 ). Length of processes does not exceeds one third of shaft length. Aedeagal shaft slightly S-curved in lateral view, with processes almost parallel to distal part of shaft ( Figs. 17–18 ), not narrowed beyond gonopore ( Fig. 19 ).

Very similar to M. sibiricus and differs from it only in diverging aedeagal processes (more or less parallel in M. sibiricus ; Figs. 22–23 ).

Distribution. Northern part of European Russia ( Ossiannilsson, 1983), Northern and Southern Urals ( Galinichev & Anufriev, 2012b), Altai Mts., Western Siberia (new record).

Remarks. A comprehensive illustrated description of M. bicuspidatus was published by Ossiannilsson (1983).

Mityaev (2002) treats M. sibiricus as a junior synonym of M. bicuspidatus and points out that this taxon is widespread in the steppe zone of Northern, Central, and Eastern Kazakhstan. However, in his keys for identification of Auchenorrhyncha of Kazakhstan ( Mityaev, 1971), he gives drawings of the aedeagus of a typical M. sibiricus (as on Figs. 22–23 ).

M. bicuspidatus and M. sibiricus are, apparently, fully sympatric, since M. sibiricus was recorded from Estonia ( Vilbaste, 1965), steppes of the Southeastern European Russia ( Emelyanov, 1964b), the Urals ( Galinichev, Anufriev, 2012a), Altai Mts. ( Vilbaste, 1965), and the steppe zone of Kazakhstan ( Mityaev, 1971). Still, we have not seen males with traits intermediate between these two species. On the contrary, aedeagus shape in males from distant localities is remarkably similar ( Figs. 16–17 and 20–21 ). Thus, investigation of genitalia variability based on numerous materials from different localities is necessary to clarify the status of these taxa.

Figures

FIGURES 16–34. Mongolojassus spp. 16–21―M. bicuspidatus (16–19―males from Altai Mts., 20–21―male from North- ern Europe, after Ossiannilsson, 1983), 22–23―M. sibiricus (after Emelyanov, 1964a), 24–31―M. vinokurovi (24–28―males from Irkutsk Oblast, 29–31―male from Yakutia, after Emelyanov, 1976), 32–34―M. elpatjevskii (32–33―female holotype, 34―male paratype). 16, 20, 22, 24–25, 29―aedeagus, posterior view, 19, 28, 31―same, apical part, 17–18, 21, 23, 26–27, 30―same, lateral view, 32, 34―habitus, 33―holotype labels.