Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T15:09:10.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REVISION OF THE MACROPSINI AND NEOPSINI OF THE NEW-WORLD (RHYNCHOTA: HOMOPTERA: CICADELLIDAE), WITH NOTES ON INTERSEX MORPHOLOGY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

K. G. A. Hamilton
Get access

Abstract

The Neopsini encompasses two genera, both exclusively Neotropical: Neopsis Oman (5 species) and Nollia n. gen. (2 species). Neopsis amazonica n. sp., Neopsis tumidifrons n. sp., Neopsis magna n. sp. (Brazil), and Nollia rustica n. sp. (Chile) are described, and the genera and species of the Neopsini are keyed.The New-World Macropsini encompasses five genera: Pediopsis Burmeister (1 species), Pediopsoides Matsumura (2 species), Reticopsis Hamilton (2 species), Macropsis Lewis (55 species), and Oncopsis Burmeister (36 species). Biological and morphological data are used to define the species in this taxonomically difficult tribe, with the result that 45 new species are described: Macropsis acapulco, M. dimorpha, M. igniscutellata, M. mexicana, M. oncopsimilis, and M. zebra from Mexico; Macropsis aureocephala, M. californiensis, M. ferrax, M. inversalis, M. palustris, M. pulchra, Oncopsis arizona, O. aureostria, and Reticopsis udrobates from southern California and Arizona; Oncopsis insignifica, O. mica, and O. tangenta from Utah; Macropsis borealis, M. rufescens, Oncopsis albicollis, O. incidens, O. interior, O. juno, O. marilynae, O. monticola, and O. tenuifoliae from northwestern North America; Macropsis dixiensis and O. infumata from southeastern North America; Macropsis decisa, M. jocosa, M. microceps, M. tunicata, M. xena, Oncopsis citrella, O. concurrens, O. dentata, O. deluda, O. prolixa, O. quebecensis, and O. vartyi from northeastern North America; and Macropsis deviridis, Oncopsis citra, O. crispae, and O. prairiana from Canada. Five new subspecies are described: O. cinctifrons kootenensis, O. prairiana ferrosus, and O. prairiana occidentalis, all from southern British Columbia; Oncopsis nigrinasi florida from Florida; and Macropsis deviridis alberta from western Canada. Five new synonymies are created. Keys to all taxa, host associations, and distribution maps are provided and the colour phases of the various polymorphic species are analyzed.The morphology and significance of intersex individuals of Oncopsis spp. are discussed.

Résumé

Les Neopsini comprennent deux genres, tous deux exclusivement néotropicaux, soit Neopsis Oman (5 espèces) et Nollia, nouveau genre (2 espèces). L'ouvrage décrit Neopsis amazonica nouvelle espèce, Neopsis tumidifrons nouvelle espèce, Neopsis magna nouvelle espèce (Brésil) et Nollia rustica nouvelle espèce (Chili), et donne les clefs d'identification des genres et espèces de Neopsini.Les Macropsini du Nouveau Monde comprennent cinq genres, soit Pediopsis Burmeister (1 espèce), Pediopsoides Matsumura (2 espèces), Reticopsis Hamilton (2 espèces), Macropsis Lewis (55 espèces) et Oncopsis Burmeister (36 espèces). L'auteur utilise des données biologiques et morphologiques pour définir les espèces de cette tribu taxonomiquement difficile, ce qui lui permet de décrire 45 nouvelles espèces. Cinq nouvelles sous-espèces sont décrites. Cinq nouvelles synonymies sont établies. Des clefs d'identification de tous les taxons, des associations à l'hôte et des cartes de distribution sont fournies et les phases colorées des diverses espèces polymorphes sont analysées.L'ouvrage étudie également la morphologie et l'importance de spécimens intersexués de Oncopsis spp.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada , Volume 115 , Supplement S123 , 1983 , pp. 5 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Amyot, C.-J.-B. and Serville, A.. 1843. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Hémiptères. 675 pp.Google Scholar
Anufriev, G.A. 1967. Notes on the genus Oncopsis Burmeister 1838 (Homoptera, Auchenorrhyncha) with descriptions of new species from the Soviet Far East. Ent. Tidskr. 88(3–4): 174–184.Google Scholar
Baker, C.F. 1898. Some new Bythoscopinae with notes on others. Psyche, camb. 8: 197–201.Google Scholar
Ball, E.D. 1902. Some new Bythoscopidae from British Columbia and the southwest. Can. Ent. 34: 303–313.Google Scholar
Ball, E.D. 1903. Food plants of some Bythoscopidae. Ohio Nat. 3: 397–399.Google Scholar
Beirne, B.P. 1951. The Nearctic species of oncopsis (Homoptera: cicadellidae). can. Ent. 83: 185–194.Google Scholar
Beirne, B.P. 1954. The Prunus- and Rubus-feeding species of Macropsis (Homoptera: Cicadellidae). Can. Ent. 86: 86–90.Google Scholar
Beirne, B.P. 1956. Leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) of Canada and Alaska. Can. Ent. 88, Suppl. 2. 180 pp.Google Scholar
Boheman, C.H. 1845. Nya Svenska Homoptera. K. svenska VetenskAkod. Handl. 1845: 21–63, 154–164.Google Scholar
Breakey, E.P. 1932. A review of the Nearctic species of Macropsis (Homoptera, Cicadellidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 25(4): 787–844.Google Scholar
Britton, W.E. 1920. Checklist of the insects of Connecticut. Bull. Conn. St. Geol. nat. Hist. Surv. 31: 45–56.Google Scholar
Burmeister, H.C.C. 1838. Genera Insectorum Iconibus Illustravit et Descripsit, Rhynchota. 48 pp.Google Scholar
Butler, E.A. 1921. On a small collection of Hemiptera from the Isle of Arran, Scotland. Scott. Nat. 1921: 159–160.Google Scholar
Buys, J.L. 1924. The Cicadellidae of the vicinity of Ithaca, N.Y., with special reference to the structure of the gonapophyses. Mem. N.Y. (Cornell) Agric. Expt. Stn 80. 115 pp.Google Scholar
Claridge, M.F., Edington, J.M., and Murphy, D.M.. 1968. The distribution of some Hemiptera in the birch-dominated woodlands of northern Scotland. Entomologist 101: 253–263.Google Scholar
Claridge, M.F. and Howse, P.E.. 1968. Songs of some British Oncopsis species (Hemiptera, Cicadellidae). Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 43(46): 57–61.Google Scholar
Claridge, M.F. and Reynolds, W.J.. 1972. Host plant specificity, oviposition behaviour, and egg parasitism in some woodland leafhoppers of the genus Oncopsis (Hemiptera, Homoptera: Cicadellidae). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 124(2): 149–166.Google Scholar
Claridge, M.F. and Reynolds, W.J.. 1973. Male courtship songs and sibling species in the Oncopsis flavicollis species group (Hemiptera, Cicadellidae). J. Ent. (B) 42(1): 29–39.Google Scholar
Claridge, M.F., Reynolds, W.J., and Wilson, M.R.. 1977. Oviposition behaviour and food plant discrimination in leafhoppers of the genus Oncopsis. Ecol. Ent. 1977(2): 1925.Google Scholar
Crevecoeur, F.F. 1905. Additions to the list of the hemipterous fauna of Kansas. Trans. Kans. Acad. Sci. 19: 232–237.Google Scholar
Daviault, L. 1936. Contribution à l'étude des insectes du Bouleau. Naturaliste can. 64: 5–17, 147–157.Google Scholar
Delong, D.M. 1916. The leafhoppers or Jassoidea of Tennessee. Ent. Bull. Tenn. st. Bd. 5. 113 pp.Google Scholar
Delong, D.M. 1923. Family Cicadellidae. In Britton's Guide to the Insects of Connecticut, part 4. Bull. Conn. St. Geol. nat. Hist. Surv. 34: 56–163.Google Scholar
Delong, D.M. 1948. The leafhoppers, or Cicadellidae, of Illinois (Eurymelinae-Balcluthinae). Bull. Ill. nat. Hist. Surv. 24(2): 97–376.Google Scholar
Delong, D.M. and Caldwell, J.S.. 1937. Check list of theCicadellidae(Homoptera)ofAmerica, North of Mexico. 93 pp.Google Scholar
Delong, D.M. and Knull, D.J.. 1945. Check List of the Cicadellidae (Homoptera) of America, North of Mexico. Graduate School Studies, Biological Sciences Series, 1. Ohio State University Press, Columbus. 102 pp.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. 1908. On some British Homoptera hitherto undescribed or unrecorded. Entomologist's mon. Mag. 44: 56–59, 80–87.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. 1919. A note on the British representatives of the genus Macropsis Lewis, with descriptions of the new species. Entomologist's mon. Mag. 55: 55–58.Google Scholar
Evans, J.W. 1935. The Bythoscopidae of Australia (Homoptera, Jassoidea). Pap. Proc. R. Soc. Tasm. 1935: 61–83.Google Scholar
Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Ryngota. Entomologiae Systematicae Supplementum. 572 pp.Google Scholar
Fattig, P.W. 1955. The Cicadellidae or leaf hoppers of Georgia. Bull. Emory Univ. Mus. 11. 68 pp.Google Scholar
Feldtmann, E. 1938. Hom., Jass. Bombus 5: 19.Google Scholar
Fieber, F.X. 1868. Europäische neue oder wenig bekannte Bythoscopidae. Verh. Zool.-bot. Gesell. Wien 18: 449–464.Google Scholar
Fieber, F.X. 1872. Katalog der Europäischen Cicadinen, nach Originalen mit Benützung der neuesten Literatur. 19 pp.Google Scholar
Fitch, A. 1851. Catalogue with references and descriptions of the insects collected and arranged for the state Cabinet of Natural History. St. N. y. A. Rep. 4: 43–69.Google Scholar
Flor, G. 1861. Die Rhynchoten Livlands in systematischer Folge beschrieben, Zweiter Theil. Arch. Naturk. Liv-Est-u. Kurlands 4(2). 567 pp.Google Scholar
Freytag, P.H. 1974. A new genus of leafhoppers — Nanopsis (Homoptera: Cicadellidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 67(4): 605–606.Google Scholar
Germar, E.F. 1821. Bemerkungen über einige Gattungen der Cicadarien. Mag. Ent. 4. 106 pp.Google Scholar
Germar, E.F. 1831. Cercopis mactata Germ., Tettigonia concinna Germ. … Agusti Ahrensii Fauna Insectorum Europae, 14: 11–15.Google Scholar
Germar, E.F. 1837. Jassus crenatus Germ., Jassas scurra Germ. … Agusti Ahrensii Insectorum Europae, 17: 10–20.Google Scholar
Gillette, C.P. and Baker, C.F.. 1895. A preliminary list of the Hemiptera of Colorado. Bull. Colo. agric. Exp. Stn. 31. 137 pp.Google Scholar
Hamilton, K.G.A. 1972 a. The Manitoban fauna of leafhoppers (Homoptera, Cicadellidae), I. Descriptions of new species and colour forms. Can. Ent. 104(6): 825–831.Google Scholar
Hamilton, K.G.A. 1972 b. The Manitoban fauna of leafhoppers (Homoptera, Cicadellidae), II. The fauna of macroleafhoppers. Can. Ent. 104(8): 1137–1148.Google Scholar
Hamilton, K.G.A. 1975. Additional characters for specific determinations in Nearctic Xerophloea (Rhynchota: Homoptera: Cicadellidae). Can. Ent. 101(9): 943–946.Google Scholar
Hamilton, K.G.A. 1976. Cicadellidae (Rhynchota: Homoptera) described by Provancher, with notes on his publications. Naturaliste can. 103: 29–45.Google Scholar
Hamilton, K.G.A. 1980 a. Review of the Nearctic Idiocerini, excepting those from the Sonoran subregion (Rhynchota: Homoptera: Cicadellidae). Can. Ent. 112(8): 811–848.Google Scholar
Hamilton, K.G.A. 1980 b. Contributions to the study of the world Macropsini (Rhynchota: Homoptera: Cicadellidae). Can. Ent. 112(9): 875–932.Google Scholar
Hartzell, A. 1935. A study of peach yellows and its insect vector. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. Pl. Res. 7: 183–207.Google Scholar
Haupt, H. 1935. Unterordnung: Gleichflügler, Homoptera. In Die Tierwelt Mittleleuropas, 4(3): 115–221.Google Scholar
Herrich-Schäffer, G.A.W. 1835. Nomenclator entomologicus. l, Homoptera, 116 pp.Google Scholar
Herrich-Schäffer, G.A.W. 1840. Zunft III. Cicadina. In Fauna Ratisbonensis. Animalia Articulata, Classis I. Insecta. 478 pp.Google Scholar
Holgersen, H. 1944. Norske sikader (Homoptera, Cicadina), II. Underfam. Tettigoninae, Acocephalinae, Bythoscopinae ( excl. Macropsis). Bergens Museum Aarbok 9. 37 pp.Google Scholar
Horváth, G. 1897. Homoptera nova ex Hungaria. Természetr. Füz. 20: 620–643.Google Scholar
Horváth, G. 1908. Les relations entre les faunes Hémiptèrologiques de l'Europe et de l'Amérique du Nord. Annls hist.-nat. Mus. natn. hung. 6: 1–14.Google Scholar
I.C.Z.N. 1961. Opinion 603. Macropsis Lewis, 1834 (Insecta, Hemiptera); designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. Bull. zool. Nom. 18: 249–251.Google Scholar
Kirkaldy, G.W. 1901. Some systematic work published during the last five years upon North American auchenorrhynchous Homoptera (Rhynchota). Entomologist 34: 336–340.Google Scholar
Kirkaldy, G.W. 1903. On the nomenclature of the genera of the Rhynchota, Heteroptera, and auchenorrhynchous Homoptera. Entomologist 36: 213–216, 230–233.Google Scholar
Kirsihbaum, C.L. 1868. Die Cicadinen der gegend von Wiesbaden und Frankfurt A. M. nebst einer anzahl neuer oder Schwer zu unterscheidender Arten aus anderen Gegenden Europa's Tabellarisch Beschrieben. Jb. nassau Ver. Naturk. 21–22. 202 pp.Google Scholar
Knull, D.M.J. 1940. Two new Mauopsis from Texas (Homoptera, Cicadellidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 33: 371–372.Google Scholar
Knull, D.M.J. 1944. Nomenclatorial notes on Cicadellidae. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 31: 123.Google Scholar
Kupka, P.L.B. 1925. Fränkische Cicadinen. Mitt. münch. ent. Ges. 15: 102–113.Google Scholar
Lawson, P.B. 1920. The Cicadellidae of Kansas. Sci. Bull, Kans. Univ. 12(1). 306 pp.Google Scholar
Leonard, M.D. 1928. Families Cercopidae, Membracidae and Cicadellidae. In A list of insects of New York, with a list of the spiders and certain other allied groups. Mem. N.Y. (Cornell) agric. Exp. Stn. 101: 145–176.Google Scholar
Lewis, R.H. 1834. Descriptions of some new genera of British Homoptera. Trans. ent, Soc. Lond. 1: 47–52.Google Scholar
Lindberg, H. 1924. Anteckningar om Ostfennoskandiens Cicadina. Acta. Soc. Fauna Flora fenn. 56: 3–49.Google Scholar
Lindberg, H. 1926. Zsr Kenntnis der Paläarktischen Cicadina, III. Notul. ent. 6: 18–21.Google Scholar
Linnavuori, R. 1965. On some new or interesting Neotropical Homoptera of the family Cicadellidae. Zool. Beitr. (n.f.) 11(12): 137–150.Google Scholar
Linnavuori, R. 1978. Studies on the family Cicadellidae (Homoptera, Auchenorrhyncha). Acta ent. fenn. 33: 1–19.Google Scholar
Linnavuori, R. and Delong, D.M.. 1977. The leafhoppers (Homoptera, Cicadellidae) known from Chile. Brenesia 12–13: 163–267.Google Scholar
Löw, P. 1885. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Cicadinen. Verh. zool.-bot. Gesell. Wien 35: 343–358.Google Scholar
Lowry, P.R. 1933. Cicadellidae leafhoppers of New Hampshire. Ohio J. Sci. 33: 59–80.Google Scholar
Matsuda, R. 1976. Morphology and Evolution of the Insect Abdomen. Pergamon Press, Toronto. 534 pp.Google Scholar
Matsumura, S. 1907. Die Cicadinen Japans. Annot. zool Jap. 6: 83–116.Google Scholar
Matsumura, S. 1912. Die Acocephalinen und Bythoscopinen Japans. J. Sapporo agric. Coll. 4(7): 279–325.Google Scholar
Medler, J.T. 1942. The leafhoppers of Minnesota, Homoptera, Cicadellidae. Tech, Bull. Univ. Minn. agric. Exp. Stn. 155. 196 pp.Google Scholar
Mercalf, Z.P. 1915. A list of the Homoptera of North Carolina. J. Elisha Mitchell sci. Soc. 31: 35–60.Google Scholar
Mercalf, Z.P. 1966. General Catalogue of the Homoptera, Fasc. VI, Cicadelloidea; part 13, Macropsidae. 259 pp.Google Scholar
Nielson, M.W. 1968. The leafhopper vectors of phytopathogenic viruses (Homoptera, Cicadellidae). Taxonomy, biology, and virus transmission. Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1382. 386 pp.Google Scholar
Oman, P.W. 1936. A generic revision of American Bythoscopinae and South American Jassinae. Sci. Bull. Kans. Univ. 24: 343–420.Google Scholar
Oman, P.W. 1947. The types of auchenorrhynchous Homoptera in the Iowa State College collecrion. Iowa st. coll. J. sci. 21(2): 161–228.Google Scholar
Oman, P.W. 1949. The Nearctic leafhoppers (Homoptera, Cicadellidae), a generic classification and check list. Mem. ent. Soc. Wash. 3. 253 pp.Google Scholar
Osborn, H. 1905. Jassidae of New York State. Contributions from the Department of Zoology and Entomology No. 22. Bull. Ohio St. Univ. 9(24): 498–545.Google Scholar
Osborn, H. 1915. Leafhoppers of Maine. Bull. Me. agric. Exp. Stn 238: 81–159.Google Scholar
Osborn, H. 1924. Neotropical Homoptera of the Carnegie Museum, part 3. Report upon the collection in the subfamily Bythoscopinae, with descriptions of new species. Ann. Cornegie Mus. 15: 383–396.Google Scholar
Osborn, H. 1928. The leafhoppers of Ohio (Cicadellidae). Bull. Ohio biol. Surv. 3: 199–374.Google Scholar
Osborn, H. 1932. Supplemental records and notes on Ohio leafhoppers. Ohio J. Sci. 32: 513–517.Google Scholar
Osborn, H. 1935. Cicadellidae of Hawaii. Bull. B.P. Bishop Mus. 134. 62 pp.Google Scholar
Osborn, H. and Ball, E.D.. 1898 a. The genus Pediopsis. Proc. Davenport Acad. nat. Sci. 7: 111–123.Google Scholar
Osborn, H. and Ball, E.D.. 1898 b. Studies of North American Jassoidea. Descriptions of early stages and new species of Bythoscopidae. Proc. Davenport Acad. nat. Sci. 7: 64–73.Google Scholar
Ossiannilsson, F. 1938. Revision von Zetterstedts Lappländischen Homopteren, I. Opusc. ent. 3: 65–79.Google Scholar
Prohaska, K. 1923. Hemiptera, Homoptera, Zikaden, Zirpen. In Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Hemipteren Kärntens. Carinthia 112–113: 32–101.Google Scholar
Provancher, L. 1872. Description de plusieurs Hémiptères nouveaux. Naturaliste can. 4: 350–352, 376–379.Google Scholar
Provancher, L. 1890. Petite faune entomologique du Canada, et particulièrement de la Province de Québec. III, cinquième ordre, les Hémiptères. 355 pp.Google Scholar
Puton, A. 1882. Notes Hémiptèrologiques. Rev. Ent. 1: 239–240.Google Scholar
Rey, C. 1894. Remarques en passant. Échange 10: 29–30.Google Scholar
Ribaut, H. 1952. Homoptères Auchénorhynques, II (Jassidae). Faune Fr. 57. 474 pp.Google Scholar
Ross, H. H. 1963. An evolutionary outline of the leafhopper genus Empoasca subgenus Kybos, with a key to the Nearctic fauna (Hemiptera, Cicadellidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 56(2): 202–223.Google Scholar
Sanders, J.G. and DeLong, D.M.. 1920. New American records and notes of Cicadellidae. Bull. Pa. Dep. Agric. 3(15): 18–20.Google Scholar
Saunders, E. and Edwards, J.. 1908. Catalogue of British Hemiptera. 16 pp.Google Scholar
Scott, J. 1873. On certain British Hemiptera-Homoptera. Revision of the Bythoscopidae, and descriptions of some species not hitherto recorded as British. Entomologist's mon. Mag. 10: 22–29, 80–82, 125–131.Google Scholar
Scott, J. 1874. On certain British Hemiptera-Homoptera. Revision of the Bythoscopidae, and descriptions of some species not hitherto recorded as British. Entomologist's mon. Mag. 10: 189–195, 235–242.Google Scholar
Singh-Pruthi, H. 1925. The morphology of the male genitalia in Rhynchota. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 1925: 127–267.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R.E. 1935. Principles of Insect Morphology. McGraw-Hill, New york. 667 pp.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R.E. 1957. A revised interpretation ofthe external reproductive organs ofmale insects. Smithsonian misc. Collns 135(6). 60 pp.Google Scholar
Stål, C. 1858. Beitrag zur Hemipterenfauna Sibiriens und des Russischen NordAmerica. Stettin ent. Ztg. 19: 175–198.Google Scholar
Strickland, E.H. 1953. An annotated list of the Hemiptera (s.l.) of Alberta. Can. Ent. 85(6): 193–214.Google Scholar
Thomson, C.G. 1870. Ofversigt af de i Sverige funna arter af släftet Pediopsis Burm. Opusc. ent. 3: 316–321.Google Scholar
Turner, W.F. 1946. Distribution of plum-feeding species of Macropsis. J. econ. Ent. 39: 394–395.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1889 a. Review of the North American species of Pediopsis. Entomologica am. 5: 165–174.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1889 b. Hemiptera from Muskoka Lake District. Can. Ent. 21: 1–11.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1889 c. On a new species of Pedlopsis. Psyche, Camb. 5: 238–241.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1890 a. New North American Homoptera. Can. Ent. 22: 110–112.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1890 b. New North American Homoptera —II. Can. Ent. 22: 249–250.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1890 c. New California Homoptera. Entomologica am. 6: 35–38.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1890 d. Review of the North American species of Bythoscopus. Entomologica am. 6: 221–229.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1894. New North American Homoptera — No. VII. Can. Ent. 26: 89–93.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1907. Notes on Jamaican Hemiptera. Bull. Buffalo Soc. nat. Sci. 8(5): 3–79.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1912 a. Synonymy of the Provancher collection of Hemiptera. Can. Ent. 44: 317–329.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1912 b. A few days' work and play in Canada. Ottawo Naturatist 26: 68–70.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1914. A preliminary list of the Hemiptera of San Diego County, California. Trans. San. Diego Soc. nat. Hist. 2: 1–57.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1916. Check List of Hemiptera (excepting the Aphididae, Aleurodidae, and Coccidae) of America North of Mexico. 111 pp.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1917. Catalogue of the Hemiptera of America North of Mexico excepting the Aphididae, Coccidae and Aleurodidae. Ent. Tech. Bull. Calif. agric. Exp. Stn. 2. 902 pp.Google Scholar
Wagner, W. 1935. Die Zikaden der Nordmark und Nordwest-Deutschlands. Verh. Ver. naturw. Heimatforsch. 24: 1–44.Google Scholar
Wagner, W. 1941. Die Zikaden der Provinz Pommern. Dohrniana 20: 95–184.Google Scholar
Wagner, W. 1944. Bombus 26/29: 128–131.Google Scholar
Wagner, W. 1949. Die deutschen Arten der gattung Oncopsis Burmeister. Verhl. Ver. naturw. Heimatforsch. 30: 1–25.Google Scholar
Wagner, W. 1950. Die Salicicolen Macropsis-Arten Nord und Mitteleuropas. Notul. ent. 30: 81–114.Google Scholar
Wagner, W. 1951. Verzeichnis der bisher in Unterfranken geffundenen Zikaden (Homoptera Auchenorrhyncha). Nachr. naturw. Mus. Aschaffenb. 33: 1–54.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1851. List of the Specimens of Homopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum, 3: 637–907.Google Scholar
Walker, F. 1852. List of the Specimens of Homopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum, supplement, 4: 1119–1188.Google Scholar
Weiss, H.B. 1918. Additions to Insects of New Jersey, no. 6. Ent. News 29: 309–312.Google Scholar
Zetterstedt, J.w. 1928. Fauna Insectorum Lapponica, 1. 563 pp.Google Scholar
Zetterstedt, J.w. 1840. Insecta Lapponica, 1. 314 pp.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, E.C. 1948. Insects of Hawaii, 4. 268 pp.Google Scholar