Designation of a neotype for Clorindaia hecaloides Linnavuori (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae: Deltocephalinae: Faltalini) Paradell, S. Zahniser, J. N. Zootaxa 2018 2018-12-18 4532 2 293 295 WB6L Linnavuori 1975 Linnavuori 1975 [151,631,151,178] Insecta Cicadellidae Clorindaia GBIF Animalia Hemiptera 2 295 Arthropoda species hecaloides   Diagnosis.  C. hecaloidescan be easily distinguished from other species of the genus by the form of the aedeagus, as described by Paradell & Remes Lenicov (2005), “ Aedeagus long and strongly curved upwards; in lateral view, with broad socle and narrow and slightly twisted stem with two posterior preapical small tooth-like processes and a broad anterior apical spoon-like process curved downwards ending with several slightly rounded teeth; long posterior gonopore extending along the stem from near the base to the apex.” It can be distinguished from  C. latiabdomaBlocker & Fang, known only from the female holotype, by the coloration of the face: that of  C. hecaloidesis mostly pale with brown along the sutures and sometimes with dark brown arcuate lines anterodorsally and a dark brown spot at apex of frontoclypeus, with a mostly pale clypellus and genae laterad of lorae;  C. latiabdomahas a distinct brown clypellus, pale lorae, substantial brown coloration on genae laterad of lorae, frontoclypeus with diffuse lateral broad brown bands extending longitudinally from clypellus to about middle of frontoclypeus.   Material examined.  Neotype ♂, here designated: ARGENTINA, FormosaProv., Pirané,  27.II.2001, ex. dicots and  Cynodonsp., coll. Paradell& Virla. 2♂, same as neotype. 11♂, 5♀: ARGENTINA, Entre RíosProv., rt 14 km43, 20m, 33°13’31”S 58°41’31”W,  24 Jan 2008, C.H. Dietrich, vacuum, AR 39-1. 1♂: ARGENTINA, Entre RíosProv., rt 12 km94, 34°2’38”S 58°59’8”W,  24 Jan 2008, C.H. Dietrich, vacuum, AR 38-1. 2♂: ARGENTINA, Córdoba Prov., Barranca Yaco, X.8.2016, col. Virla. 2 ♂: ARGENTINA, Córdoba Prov., Barranca Yaco, III.12.2015, on grasses, col. Virla. 1 ♂: ARGENTINA, Córdoba Prov., Río Cuarto, XII.16.2016, on grasses, col. Virla.   Neotypeand 9 specimens( 7 ♂, 2 ♀) deposited at MLPA; 6 specimens( 5 ♂, 1 ♀) deposited at USNM; 9 specimens( 7 ♂, 2 ♀) deposited at INHS. Following the description and interpretation of Paradell & Remes Lenicov (2005), a neotypefor  C. hecaloidesLinnavouriis designated here. See Paradell & Remes Lenicov (2005)for a detailed description and illustrations of this species. This action is needed in order to clarify the identity of this species, for which there are two conflicting interpretations in the literature ( Blocker & Fang, 1992; Paradell & Remes Lenicov, 2005). Following the interpretation of Paradell & Remes Lenicov (2005)rather than that of Blocker & Fang (1992)is preferable because the female specimens of  C. hecaloides sensuParadell & Remes Lenicovcollected at the same time and place as the neotypeare more consistent with the figures provided by Linnavurori (1975). The collecting locality is in the same Argentinian Province of Formosawhere the lost holotypespecimen was collected. Also, the broken aedeagus of the male described by Blocker & Fang (1992)may hinder interpretation of the species identity based on that specimen. The shape and coloration of the head of specimens examined by Blocker & Fang (1992)differ from the illustrations of  C. hecaloidesgiven by Linnavuori (1975). The head is longer and the color pattern more distinct in the Blocker & Fang specimens. Blocker & Fang (1992)stated that they found what they believed to be the broken piece of the aedeagus and reconstructed the entire aedeagus in their figure. However, upon examination of these specimens in this study, the broken piece was not found within the genitalia vial. These specimens appear to represent an undescribed species of  Clorindaia. However, describing a new species based on these specimens seems imprudent, given the condition of the aedeagus. Some variation in the shape of the apex of the aedeagus was observed ( Figs. 11–14) in specimens examined of  C. hecaloides. The aedeagus of the neotypespecimen most closely matches that of a specimen collected at the same locality ( Figs. 10-11). The variations shown in Figs. 12–14were all observed from specimens from one locality in Entre RíosProv. and are interpreted to represent intraspecific variability within  C. hecaloides. 2118659602 2001-02-27 2008-01-24 2001-02-27 Paradell & Virla. & C. H. Dietrich & Prov. & Barranca Yaco, X. & Barranca Yaco Argentina -34.043888 Rio Cuarto 19 -58.985558 2 295 25 5 20 Formosa neotype 2118630913 MLPA, USNM, INHS 2 295 48 5 19 neotype