Homa Distant, 1908

Qin, Dao-Zheng, Liu, Yang & Zhang, Ya-Lin, 2011, A taxonomic study of Chinese Empoascini (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae: Typhlocybinae) (III), Zootaxa 3094, pp. 30-42 : 31-32

Homa Distant, 1908

Homa Distant, 1908: 400 . Type species. Homa insignis Distant, 1908 , synonymised with Homa haematoptilus ( Kirkaldy, 1906) by Dworakowska, 1969: 487.

Redescription. Red empoascines. Head distinctly wider than maximum width of pronotum ( Fig. 1 ). Vertex subquadrate, in dorsal view equal to or slightly shorter than width between eyes, anterior margin rounded, coronal suture not extended beyond midlength of vertex ( Fig. 1 ), profile of transition of vertex to face rounded ( Fig. 2 ). Face short and convex, lateral frontal suture present ( Figs 2, 3 ). Eyes large ( Figs 1–3 ). Forewing narrow, veins RP, MP’ and MP’+CuA’ separate at their bases, all arise from longitudinal m cell, 2nd apical cell with margins subparallel but slightly broadened at apex, r cell narrower than c cell, both narrower than m and cua cells ( Fig. 4 ). Hindwing with area bordered by vannal veins small, vein CuA unbranched apically ( Fig. 5 ).

Abdominal sternal apodemes weakly developed ( Fig. 14 ). Male pygofer elongate, strongly narrowing caudad, terminally scattered with rigid microsetae on each side of pygofer lobe, dorsal margin produced with lobe or not, ventral appendage absent ( Figs 6, 8 ); dorsal bridge quite long ( Fig. 7 ). Subgenital plate far exceeding pygofer, broad at base, abruptly constricted in basal 1/3 at dorsal margin and from there with a cluster of tapered or terminally truncated macrosetae forming the basal group, lateral macrosetae not numerous and uniseriate, fine microsetae inconspicuous or absent ( Figs 6, 10 ). Paramere long, caudal part strongly narrowing and curved, bearing teeth apically and few setae basad of serrations ( Figs 6, 13 ). Connective fused with base of aedeagus ( Figs 11, 12 ). Aedeagus without preatrium and dorsal apodeme, shaft tubular, long, in lateral view slightly tapering distally, ending in unpaired apical process or two asymmetrical processes ( Figs 11, 12 ). Anal tube process simple, curved anteriad and narrowing apically ( Figs 6, 9 ).

Remarks. Homa was established by Distant (1908) with H. insignis Distant (1908) as the type species from Sri Lanka. Kato (1929, 1933) described two more species ( H. elongata Kato 1929 , H. rubrodorsata Kato 1933 ) from China ( Taiwan) and Japan. McAtee (1934) downgraded Homa as a subgenus of Empoasca Walsh but it was later restored to a generic rank by Evans (1947). Mahmood (1967) redescribed the genus based on the type specimen deposited in the Natural History Museum, London. Metcalf (1968) reconsidered Homa as a subgenus of Empoasca , but this treatment has not been accepted by Dworakowska in her following works; Dworakowska (1969) transferred Eupteryx haematoptilus Kirkaldy (1906) to Homa and synonymized Homa insignis Distant (1908) with Homa haematoptilus ( Kirkaldy, 1906) . Later, she transferred Homa upoluana Osborn (1934) to Dayus Mahmood (1967) ( Dworakowska, 1971) and Homa elongata Kato (1929) to Asialebra Dworakowska (1971) ( Dworakowska, 1993) . Dworakowska (1984) subsequently described Homa katoi from Malaysia. To date, three Homa species have been reported worldwide, distributed throughout the Austro-Oriental Region.

Mahmood (1967) redescribed the genus and listed the following diagnostic features: “connective narrowly Vshaped, short; aedeagus without preatrium or dorsal apodeme, shaft tubular, produced caudad, slightly curving dorsad and ending in an unpaired sharp apical process which is recurved, also with a thin, short basal process on each side of shaft”. His redescription and reillustration of Homa insignis appears to show the connective is separate from the base of the aedeagus. Furthmore, Mahmood (1967) compared Homa with Empoasca and noted “It differs from Empoasca in its lack of anal hooks and processes…..”. From the illustration of Homa katoi Dworakowska (1984) (see Dworakowska 1984: Figs 54 , 60 ) and also the Homa specimens deposited in NWAFU ( Figs 11, 12 ), the male genitalia have the connective fused with the aedeagus base, and a distinct anal tube process is present ( Figs 6, 9 ). Contrary to Mahmood’s (1967) description, Dayus Mahmood also has a distinct anal tube. Dayus was revised by Qin & Zhang (2007).

Homa belongs to the Usharia Dwor. group and is related to Dayus , Baguoidea Mahmood and Goifa Dworakowska. All have the forewing with all apical veins arising from the m cell, the connective fused with the base of the aedeagus and the hindwing with CuA unbranched. Homa differs from the other genera in having veins RP and MP of the forewing have a short distance confluent, the sternal abdominal apodemes weakly developed with tips not widely divergent, the subgenital plate with an angulate basolateral projection with a cluster of macrosetae forming the basal group, and the aedeagal shaft ending in an unpaired apical process or two asymmetrical processes.

Dworakowska (1993) studied the holotype of Homa elongata Kato (1929) , transferring the species to Asialebra Dworakowska , and noting that “at the time of examination of the specimen it was under custody of M. Kato’s widow.” She did not mention the repository of Homa rubrodorsata Kato in this or her subsequent papers. Because Kato’s original description is insufficient and the type of Homa rubrodorsata (1 female) cannot be located, the latter is treated as a species inquirenda and is omitted from the key.

Included taxa: H. haematoptila ( Kirkaldy, 1906) , H. katoi Dworakowska (1984) , H. rubrodorsata Kato (1933) and H. sinensis Qin & Zhang , sp. n.

Distribution. China (Yunnan and Taiwan Provinces), Japan, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Malaysia, Australia.

Figures

FIGURES 1 – 14. Homa sinensis Qin & Zhang, sp. n., 1, head and thorax, dorsal view; 2, same, left lateral view; 3, face; 4, forewing; 5, hindwing; 6, male terminalia, left lateral view; 7, pygofer side, dorsal view; 8, same, left lateral view; 9, anal tube appendage, left lateral view; 10, subgenital plate, dorsal view; 11, aedeagus, left lateral view; 12, same, dorsal view; 13, paramere; 14, abdominal apodeme.

FIGURES 44 – 56. Ifugoa mikra Dworakowska & Pawar, 44, head and thorax, dorsal view; 45, same, left lateral view; 46, face; 47, forewing; 48, hindwing; 49, pygofer side and ventral pygofer appendages, left lateral view; 50, same, dorsal view; 51, anal tube appendage, left lateral view; 52, subgenital plate, dorsal view; 53, aedeagus, left lateral view; 54, same, dorsal view; 55, paramere; 56, abdominal apodeme.

FIGURES 57 – 70. Schizandrasca ussurica (Vilbaste, 1968), 57, head and thorax, dorsal view; 58, same, left lateral view; 59, face; 60, forewing; 61, hindwing; 62, male terminalia, left lateral view; 63, pygofer side, dorsal view; 64, same, left lateral view; 65, apex of anal tube appendages, dorsal view; 66, subgenital plate, dorsal view; 67, aedeagus, left lateral view; 68, paramere; 69, connective; 70, abdominal apodeme.