Juliaca nigra Santos, Cavichioli, Takiya & Mejdalani, 2018
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4472.1.9 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:01833B7E-81B1-48A5-85B0-6488D9E00E13 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5980991 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4884C75C-EF7A-4267-99B7-18E157EE2F3D |
taxon LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:act:4884C75C-EF7A-4267-99B7-18E157EE2F3D |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Juliaca nigra Santos, Cavichioli, Takiya & Mejdalani |
status |
sp. nov. |
Juliaca nigra Santos, Cavichioli, Takiya & Mejdalani View in CoL sp. nov.
( Figures 1–13 View FIGURES 1–6 View FIGURES 7–13 )
Length: male holotype 4.1 mm; male paratypes 4.1–4.2 mm (n = 2); female paratypes 4.5–4.6 mm (n = 2).
Head ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–6 ), in dorsal view, well produced anteriorly, triangular; median length of crown approximately 7/10 of interocular width and 4/10 of transocular width; anterior margin subacute; without carina at transition from crown to face. Ocelli located slightly before imaginary line between anterior eye angles, each slightly closer to adjacent eye angle than to median line of crown. Crown without transverse concavity before ocelli; antennal ledge, in lateral view, with anterior margin oblique and slightly convex. Face without distinct pubescence; frons slightly flattened medially, muscle impressions distinct; epistomal suture obsolete; clypeus, in lateral view, with profile continuing contour of frons.
Thorax ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–6 ) with pronotal width slightly smaller than transocular width of head; lateral margins of pronotum slightly convergent anteriorly, posterior margin slightly concave; dorsolateral carina distinct, extending as far anteriorly as eye margin; disk without transverse rugae. Mesonotum with scutellum not striate. Forewing with membrane indistinct; bases of anteapical cells located more proximally than claval apex; with four apical cells, base of fourth more proximal than base of third. Hind wing with vein R2+3 incomplete. Hind leg with length of first tarsomere approximately equal to combined length of two more distal tarsomeres.
Male terminalia. Pygofer ( Fig. 2 View FIGURES 1–6 ), in lateral view, slightly produced posteriorly; posterior margin convex; disk with macrosetae on apical half; without processes. Subgenital plate ( Fig. 3 View FIGURES 1–6 ), in ventral view, with apical half strongly narrowed; in lateral view, extending posteriorly slightly beyond pygofer apex; with uniseriate macrosetae, microsetae also present. Style ( Fig. 4 View FIGURES 1–6 ), in dorsal view, with distal third narrowing gradually posteriorly; without preapical lobe; apex subacute. Connective ( Fig. 4 View FIGURES 1–6 ), in dorsal view, T-shaped; arms thick; stalk slender, not extending as far posteriorly as apex of style. Aedeagus symmetrical, without processes; shaft ( Fig. 5 View FIGURES 1–6 , ASH), in lateral view, with broad, sclerotized basal area that forms narrow dorsal projection; apical half with large membranous lobe ( Fig. 5 View FIGURES 1–6 , MBL). Paraphyses ( Figs. 5–6 View FIGURES 1–6 ) symmetrical; in dorsal view, with stalk long and broad, bearing pair of apicolateral lobes; rami slender, shorter than stalk.
Female terminalia. Sternite VII ( Figs. 7–9 View FIGURES 7–13 ), in ventral view, well produced posteriorly; distal margin with small, median dentiform projection. Pygofer ( Figs. 7–8 View FIGURES 7–13 ), in lateral view, moderately produced posteriorly; posterior margin narrowly rounded; macrosetae distributed on posterior half and extending anteriorly along ventral margin. Second valvula ( Figs. 10–13 View FIGURES 7–13 ), in lateral view, straight; dorsal margin bearing about 20 continuous teeth; most teeth ( Figs. 11–12 View FIGURES 7–13 ) elongate, with basal portion projected dorsally and apical portion very low, flattened; apicalmost 3–4 teeth ( Fig. 13 View FIGURES 7–13 ) triangular; denticles distributed on teeth and on apical portion of blade (ventral dentate apical portion distinctly longer than dorsal portion, Fig. 13 View FIGURES 7–13 ); preapical prominence ( Fig. 13 View FIGURES 7–13 ) distinct; apex acute. Gonoplac (partially visible in Fig. 7 View FIGURES 7–13 ), in lateral view, with basal half narrow; apical half expanded, gradually narrowing towards apex; latter subacute.
Color ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–6 ). Crown, pronotum, and mesonotum black, unmarked. Forewing translucent dark brown. Face black; labrum and labium yellow. Legs yellow; hind coxa brown.
Taxonomic notes. Juliaca nigra sp. nov. can be distinguished from the remaining species of this diverse and complex genus by the following combination of features: (1) head, pronotum, and mesonotum black, without spots or stripes ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–6 ); (2) forewing dark brown, without spots, stripes, or transparent areas ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–6 ); (3) face black, with labrum and labium yellow; (4) male pygofer slightly produced posteriorly, without processes ( Fig. 2 View FIGURES 1–6 ); (5) style with distal third narrowing gradually posteriorly ( Fig. 4 View FIGURES 1–6 ); (6) connective T-shaped, not extending as far posteriorly as apex of style ( Fig. 4 View FIGURES 1–6 ); (7) aedeagus with broad, sclerotized basal area that forms a narrow dorsal projection; apical half with large membranous lobe ( Fig. 5 View FIGURES 1–6 ); and (8) paraphyses with stalk long and broad, bearing pair of apicolateral lobes; rami slender, shorter than stalk ( Fig. 6 View FIGURES 1–6 ). This species was misidentified as J. pulla Young, 1977 by Carvalho et al. (2015). However, the forewing of J. pulla has an “anteapical transparent angular spot extending from costal margin into outer anteapical cell” ( Young 1977: p. 464; see digital image in Wilson et al. 2009) that is not present in J. nigra . Furthermore, the stalk of the paraphyses is much shorter and broader in J. pulla , i.e., rami longer than stalk ( Young 1977: fig. 378h), than in the new species ( Fig. 6 View FIGURES 1–6 ). Juliaca pulla was originally described from Panama and is also known from Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Colombia (see McKamey 2007 and Wilson et al. 2009).
Etymology. The new species name, nigra , refers to the dark brown to black color of the dorsum, without spots or stripes ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–6 ).
Known distribution. Southeastern Brazil (State of Espírito Santo).
Material examined. Brazil, State of Espírito Santo. Male holotype: “BR/ ES [Espírito Santo], Santa Teresa \ 30.IV-02.V/2010 \ M.M. LOPES Col.”; “ COLETADO EM CAFÉ [collected on coffee]” ( MNRJ) . Paratypes: five males and three females, same data as the holotype ( MNRJ); six males and thirteen females , same data as the holotype
except “ 24-28/VI/2009 \ R. Carvalho, A. Carpi, L. \ Nogueira & M. Lopes Col.” ( MNRJ); four males and two females, same data as the holotype except “ 19-23/VIII/2009 \ R. Carvalho & M. Lopes Col.” ( DZRJ); two males and six females, same data as the holotype except “ 07-11/II/2010 \ R. Carvalho & M. Lopes Col.” ( DZUP); one female, “BR/ Espirito [Espírito] Santo \ Santa Teresa \ 16-18/X/2009 \ M.M. LOPES Col.” ( MNRJ); one female, same data as the preceding except “ 17/XII/2009 ” ( MNRJ); one male, “BR/ES, Sta [Santa] Teresa \ Est. [Estação] Bio. [Biológica] Sta Lúcia \ VII/2009 \.M. LOPES Col.” ( MNRJ).
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Tribe |
Cicadellini |
Genus |