Baguoidea rufa
Creators: name: Webb, Michael D.
name: Xu, Ye
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hemiptera
Cicadellidae
Baguoidea
Baguoidea rufa

description: Baguoidea rufa (Melichar, 1903)
(Figs 1 A-F; 3)
Empoasca rufa Melichar, 1903: 212, plate vi, fig. 2a, b. — Distant 1908: 402. — Metcalf 1968: 351 (see Remarks below).
Baguoidea rubra Mahmood, 1967: 42, plate 9, fig. 1. n. syn.
Baguoidea rufa – Dworakowska 1973: 49, figs 1-12, 15; 1994a: 5.
Baguoidea yunnanensis Qin & Zhang in Qin et al., 2010: 55, figs 15- 27. — Qin et al. 2014: 1495, figs 12, 46, 65, 94. n. syn.
DISTRIBUTION. — Mainland Asia (Sri Lanka, Myanmar and China), Philippines and Japan (?) see final comments in Remarks below.
MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Sri Lanka • 1 ♀; Peradeniya; IV.1906; Distant Coll; NHM.
Myanmar • 1 ♂; Myitta, Doherty; coll. Distant; NHM; parasitized • 1 ♂; Myitta, Doherty; coll. Distant; NHMUK 013588830.
Philippines • 1 ♂; Ifugao Prov., Luzon, Banaue; 20.VII.1980; NHM.
REMARKS
B. rufa was described from a single specimen from Sri Lanka with the following data (translated from the German): “Peradeniya. This nice Cicadine (1 ♂) was captured by Dr Uzel on 2 May 1903 in the Botanical Garden on the shrub Dichopsis laevifolia Benth. [= Palaquium laevifolium (Thwaites) Engl. (Sapotaceae)]”. As the recorded host plant in Sri Lanka is an endemic (critically endangered) species and as B. rufa is known from outside Sri Lanka it clearly feeds on other hosts. The specimens recorded from Myanmar by Distant (1908) are probably the same as examined here (Fig. 1E, F). Baguoidea rubra was described from the holotype male (Fig. 1C, D) and five paratypes (Fig. 1A, B) from the Philippines with data: “ Baguio, Benguet, Baker” (USNM). The new synonymy of B. rufa and B. rubra is based on the type figures of the former given by Dworakowska (1973), the original description of the latter and images of its holotype sent by J. Zahniser (USNM) and the specimens studied. The differences between the two species, noted by Dworakowska (1973: 49), are either errors in the original description, i.e., Mahmood’s incorrect statement of forewings “mottled with red patches”, which are not present in the holotype images seen (see above) or an acceptable range of species variation, i.e., position of distal aedeagal processes; while the long pygofer processes figured by Mahmood for B. rubra is also probably an error. A specimen from Myanmar examined differs slightly in the male genitalia from the Sri Lanka type of B. rufa (figured by Dworakowska 1973) and the examined Philippine specimen in having the pygofer process slightly more sinuate apically and in having the lateral fine setae adjacent to the macrosetal row shorter. The same setae are shown longer and greater in number in Qin et al. ’s (2010) fig. 26 of the junior synonym B. yunnanensis (see reproduced figure here, Fig. 3L). The latter species was described from a single specimen from China and distinguished from B. rufa (and B. rubra, the other junior synonym of B. rufa) by the forewing colour (which according to all specimens seen is erroneous) and differences in pygofer and subgenital plate setae and spines at the apex of the aedeagal processes, all differences which fall within the accepted range of species variation. Genitalia figures drawn by Dworakowska (1973) were presumably taken from the holotype, as the only specimen examined, and as shown by Dworakowska’s figs 7-9 the base of the aedeagus was damaged when dissected.However, the correct aedeagal base is shown in Fig. 3I (lateral view) and Fig. 3J (dorsal view) which matches the specimens examined here and which is remarkably similar to that of some Dayus species (see Fig. 4D). It should also be noted, that the subgenital plate basal group setae are dorsal (Fig.3L) rather than ventral as shown in Dworakowska’s (1973) figs 3, 4 and that the abdominal apodemes described by Qin et al. (2010), and shown in their figure 27 (and reproduced here, Fig. 3M), are dorsal, and are a feature of the genus (see generic Remarks). Finally, the references for Japan for this species by Esaki (1932, 1950), Esaki & Ito (1954) and Kato (1933b) need to be confirmed due to the similarity of some other red marked Empoascini (see Introduction). The reference of the species from Japan (Matsumura 1934) presumably refers to Dayus takagii Dworakowska, 1971, as this species was described from material in Matsumura’s collection from Japan and also Hong Kong (see Remarks under D. takagii).
description: Published as part of Webb, Michael D. & Xu, Ye, 2022, Review of the " red " Empoascini leafhoppers in the genera Baguoidea Mahmood, 1967, Dayus Mahmood, 1967 and Homa Distant, 1908 (Hemiptera, Cicadellidae, Typhlocybinae) from Asia and the West Pacific, pp. 549-563 in Zoosystema 44 (22) on page 551, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2022v44a22, http://zenodo.org/record/7428311