Cicada Linnaeus 1758

SEVEN SPECIES OF CICADA REPORTED FROM BRAZIL Cicada brazilensis Metcalf, 1963b: 823 nom. nov. pro Cicada vitrea Germar, 1830: 42 nec Cicada vitrea Fabricius, 1803. Cicada confusa Metcalf, 1963b: 761 nom. nov. pro Cicada rufipes Germar, 1830: 44 nec Cicada rufipes Fabricius, 1803. Cicada novella Metcalf, 1963b: 830 nom. nov. Cicada gracilis Germar, 1830: 44 nec Cicada gracilis Schellenberg, 1802. Cicada purpurescens Metcalf, 1963b: 804 nom. nov. Cicada coerulescens Germar, 1830: 45 nec Cicada coerulescens Fabricius, 1803. Cicada melanaria Germar, 1830: 41 (Brasilia). Cicada effecta Walker, 1858a: 13 (Para). Cicada leucothe Walker, 1852: 1131 (Pará). REMARKS. Germar (1830) described five species of Cicada from Brasilia. Four of these, Cicada vitrea Germar, 1830, Cicada rufipes Germar, 1830, Cicada gracilis Germar, 1830, and Cicada coerulescens Germar, 1830, were given nomina nova by Metcalf (1963b) to become, respectively, Cicada brazilensis Metcalf, 1963b, Cicada confusa Metcalf, 1963b, Cicada novella Metcalf, 1963b, and Cicada purpurescens Metcalf, 1963b as the Germar names were preoccupied. Cicada confusa, Cicada novella, and Cicada purpurescens were listed as part of the Brazilian cicada fauna by Nunes et al. (2023) but Cicada brazilensis was not included in the work. There is a fifth species, Cicada melanaria Germar, 1830, that was reported from Brazil in Germar (1830) that is also missing from the list of Brazilian species in Nunes et al. (2023). All five of Germar’s species were reported to originate from the “Mus. de Winthem”. Some Winthem specimens are now part of the NHMW collection but none of these species were found in the NHMW (H. Zettel, personal communication). Although C. melanaria is listed as having been part of the Germar collection in Lviv (ZMD), the specimen is now listed as being “lost” (Shydlovskyy & Holovachov 2005). There is a label for the species in a drawer but the specimen is missing (zoomus.lviv.ua/GERMAR/ZM3845web.htm). The remaining species are not listed as being part of the Germar collection in Lviv (ZMD) (Shydlovskyy & Holovachov 2005) and could not be located. The original descriptions are sufficiently vague so that no specific generic assignments can be made but there are some hints as to placement (e.g. size and opercular shape of Cicada melanaria suggest it is a member of the Fidicinini). As a result, no further determination as to the correct generic assignment is possible for Germar’s species at this time and the genus and tribe remain as part of the Brazilian cicada fauna even though Cicada is mainly found in the western Palaearctic and true members of the genus are not represented in the New World (Marshall et al. 2018). Walker (1852, 1858a) also described species of Cicada from Brazil that were not included in the list of Nunes et al. (2023). Cicada effecta Walker, 1858a and Cicada leucothe Walker, 1852 were both reported as originating in Pará. These are both smaller cicada species (body length and wing span about 18.9 mm and 52.5 mm for C. effecta (Walker, 1858a) and 12.6 mm and 37.8 mm for C. leucothe (Walker, 1852)) that could be assigned to one of several genera. However, Walker primarily used fore wing venation as a means to describe species and there is no way to reduce the number of possible genera that fit the limited description provided along with the description of the venation pattern. The type specimens for these two species should have been deposited in the BMNH but neither could be found in the collection (M. Webb personal communication). As a result, no generic reassignment can be made for these two species either and they must remain assigned to Cicada for the time being. In addition to the valid taxa described in Cicada, there are four nomina nuda that have been reported to originate in Brazil. Cicada biguttulus Billberg, 1820 (nom. nud.), Cicada elegans Billberg, 1820 (nom. nud.), Cicada signata Billberg, 1820 (nom. nud.), and Cicada costa Dohrn, 1859 (nom. nud.) are all reported from Brazil but the species do not meet the requirements to be valid under the Code since they are all part of species lists without any descriptions provided. Billberg (1820) lists himself as the source (“Eg. = Auctor hujus operis” = the author of this work) for the species with page numbers that are beyond the end of the work so it appears the species were never described and are nomina nuda. In contrast, Dohrn (1859) appears to have misspelled “casta” rather than intentionally introducing a new name. Dohrn (1859) provides a list of names for the genus Cicada including “costa”. The name “costa” is part of a series of names that are attributed to Stål, the species are listed in Dohrn (1859) in the same order as the species in Stål (1854), and there is a type of Cicada casta Stål, 1854 in the NHRS. This suggests that Dohrn (1859) did not introduce a nomen nudum but included a misspelled name in his list of species and Cicada costa Dohrn, 1859 should not be considered a nomen nudum in the future. Metcalf (1963c) includes Cicada casta as a junior synonym of Parnisa designata Walker, 1858b (a species included in the list of Nunes et al. 2023). Although not explicitly stated in Metcalf (1963c), Cicada casta Stål, 1854 is a primary homonym of Cicada casta Gmelin, 1789 and Metcalf (1963c) appears to have made the next oldest available name the valid taxon name following Article 23.3.5 (ICZN 1999).Published as part of Sanborn, Allen F., 2023, Resolving taxonomic issues of cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) including new combinations, new synonymies, and revised status, with updates on the diversity of the Brazilian cicada fauna and new records for four South American countries, pp. 339-362 in Zootaxa 5318 (3) on pages 351-352, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5318.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/816689