Pochazia sublimata
Creators: name: Kobayashi, Shigeki
name: Suzuki, Masahiro
name: Kuwahara, Ryosuke
name: Park, Jaekook
name: Yamada, Kazutaka
name: Jung, Sunghoon
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2024
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hemiptera
Ricaniidae
Pochazia
Pochazia sublimata

description: Pochazia sublimata (Jacobi, 1916)
Figs. 5, 10.
Ricania sublimata Jacobi, 1916 (imprint 1915): 303. Type locality: Formosa: Taihanroku [= Taiwan: Koshun, Nanwan].
Ricania (Ricanula) sublimata: Melichar, 1923: 130 [Catalogued].
Ricania sublimbata [sic]: Kato, 1933: Pl. 7, Fig. 1 (wrong spelling).
Ricanula sublimata: Metcalf, 1955: 101–102 [Catalogued]; Yang, 1989: 195–199, fig. 13, 14.
Pochazia sublimata: Schumacher, 1915a: 129 [Catalogued]; Schumacher, 1915b: 137–138 [n. comb., note, descrption]; Esaki, 1932: 1801, fig. 3560; Duan & Chen, 2020: 211, Pl. I-3, 8, 13, Pl. II-18, 23, Pl. III-28, 33, Pl. IV-38, Pl. V-45, 46, Pl. VI-53, 58, 63, 68.
Pochazia sublimata (Jacobi, 1915): Stroiński & Bourgoin 2022: 273 (different date of publication).
Diagnosis. Tegmen black with a white costal spot (Fig. 5A, B, D, E); male phallic complex with three spinose processes (Fig. 10H–K): dorsal one longer than 1/2 length of phallobase (Fig. 10H, J) (ca. 800 / 1100 µm in SK1028); female anal segment 1.4× length of gonoplac in lateral view (Yang 1989; Duan & Chen 2020). See also the diagnosis of P. shantungensis.
Description. Adult (Fig. 5). See Yang (1989: 195–197, fig. 13A–E; based on specimens from Taiwan).
Measurements. Male: Body length (including tegmen): 14.3–15.8 mm; tegmen length: 14.26–15.83 mm (Fig. 5A, B). Female: Body length (including tegmen): 14.2–14.9 mm; tegmen length: 14.17–14.85 mm (Fig. 5C, D). Male genitalia (Fig. 10) (n = 1): length and width: anal segment 970 µm, ca 660 × 490 µm, (Fig. 10A–C); Pygofer damaged (Fig. 10D, E); Genital style 1270 µm × 400 µm (Fig. 10F, G); Phallic complex (Fig. 10H–K); phallobase ca. 1100 µm in length, 350–450 µm in diameter, with three pairs of spinose processes; dorsal one 900 µm in length, lateral view (Fig. 10H, J), lateral one 215 µm in length, 165 µm in width at base (Fig. 10J), ventral one 560 µm in length (Fig. 10I–K), aedeagus 1000 µm in length (Fig. 10H, K). See also Yang (1989: 197, fig. 13F–G). Female genitalia. Not examined. See Yang (1989: 197, fig. 13K–L). Fifth instar nymph: Not examined. See Yang (1989: 197–199, fig. 14).
Material examined. 1 ♂ 1 ♀, CHINA: Koshun, [Taiwan], 29.iv.1922, [K.] Takeuchi, ♀ | OMU110, SK1028 ♂ | OMU111 (OMU).
Distribution. China: Heilongjiang, Shandong, Fujian and Hainan Is. (Chou & Lu 1977), Jiangsu
(Liu et al. 2007), Shanghai (Xia et al. 2009), Henan (Zhao et al. 2010), Hubei (Chen 2000), Hunan (Mi et al. 2018), Guizhou (Duan & Chen 2020), Taiwan (Jacobi 1916). Erroneously listed from Japan (Metcalf 1955; Park & Jung 2020, 2021), but the ‘Japan’ record was actually from Taiwan by Kato (1933, Plate 7-1) after original description.
Host plants. Ebenaceae: Diospyros kaki L.f.; Rosaceae: Crataegus cuneata Siebold & Zucc.; Rubiaceae: Coffea spp. (Chou & Lu 1977), Actinidiaceae: Actinidia chinensis Planch.; Cycadaceae: Cycas revoluta Thunb.; Ericaceae: Rhododendron simsii Planch.; Lauraceae: Cinnamomum camphora (L.) J.Presl; Rosaceae: Malus domestica (Suckow) Borkh., Prunus salicina Lindl., Amygdalus persica [= Prunus persica (L.), Batsch]; Rutaceae: Citrus maxima (Burm.) Merr., C. reticulata [= Citrus × aurantium L.], Fortunella margarita [= C. japonica Thunb.]; Theaceae: Schima superba Gardner & Champ.; Vitaceae: Vitis vinifera L. etc. (Liu & Zhang 2000; Luo et al. 2004; Yu et al. 2018).
Biology. This species has two generations per year in Guizhou and Jiangxi, China; overwintering takes place in the egg stage; host plants are damaged from May to June and from July to September (Liu & Zhang 2001, Luo et al. 2004). For the biology in China see also Liu & Zhang (2000), Luo et al. (2004) and Yu et al. (2018).
Remarks. Originally described from six specimens, including both male and female. The species name was first catalogued and mentioned by Schumacher (1915a; 1915b) before the original publication was printed. Schumacher (1915b: 137) noted: “Während der Drucklegung erhalte ich Heft 3 der Deutsch Ent. Zeitschr. vom 1. 7. 1915, worin Jacobi auf S. 303 diese Art unter dem Namen Ricania sublimata beschrieben hat. Ich habe hier meinen Namen ersetzt, aber die Beschreibung ungeändert stehen lassen”. [= While printing I received issue 3 of the Deutsch Ent. Zeitschr. dated July 1, 1915, in which Jacobi described this species on page 303 under the name Ricania sublimata. I've replaced my name here, but left the description unchanged.]. He transferred Ricania sublimata Jacobi to genus Pochazia with the description based on ca. 40 specimens (sex unknown) from Taiwan: “Alikang [Kuang-shan, Kao-hsiung] VIII.1909; Kosempo [Chia-hsieng] XI. 1908, X. 1909; Kankau (Koshun; VII. 1912; Taihanroku VI., VII. 1908; Yama no Taiko X. 1908 [Mus. Dahlem]); Taihanroku VI., VII., XI. 1908 (Mus. Berlin) [Presumably type series designated by Jacobi, see Schumacher (1915a) 1)]. (Ca. 40 Ex.)”. Schumacher expressed the scientific name as “ Pochazia sublimata Jac. ”, and Jacobi paper was presumably published late at 1916 not imprinted “ Juli 1915 ” on the issue. Subsequent authors linked the name and the reference to the original description, leading to a conception that the correct author of new species is Jacobi. In fact, Metcalf (1955: 101) catalogued Jacobi paper after Schumacher papers as follows: “1916 Ricania sublimata Jacobi, Deutsche Ent. Zeit. 1915: 303 [n. sp.]” 2). Since Schumacher’s new species, “ Pochazia sublimata ” is available for including species description and type specimens, its priority was, against the author’s will, inevitably established on the very date of the publication of the report in which his paper was included. Schumacher is considered therefore the author of the species following the Principle of Priority under Article 23 of the code (ICZN 1999). However, Jacobi’ new species “ Ricania sublimata ” can be considered a junior subjective synonym of Pochazia sublimata Schumacher, 1915, we treat Ricania sublimata Jacobi, 1916 (imprint 1915) as presumed valid name under Article 23.9 of the code (ICZN 1999) in order to avoid present confusion.
Preservation of the species name Ricania sublimata Jacobi, 1916 (imprint 1915) as the senior subjective synonym would require a reversal of precedence according to Article 23.9 (ICZN 1999). This states that in order to maintain the prevailing usage the following conditions must be met: 1) the senior synonym (in this case Pochazia sublimata Schumacher, 1915) has not been used as a valid name after 1899 [Article 23.9.1.1], and 2) the junior synonym (namely Ricania sublimata Jacobi, 1916) has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years (in this case 1970s to present) and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years [Article 23.9.1.2]. The older name Pochazia sublimata Schumacher, 1915, is a nomen oblitum with respect to the younger name Ricania sublimata Jacobi, 1916, which therefore must be considered a nomen protectum [Articles 23.9.2.1 and 23.9.2.2 apply 3)].
1) Schumacher (1915a: 129): “Formosa: Von Taihanroku beschrieben. Im Museum von demselben Fundort, 6. 08, 7. 08, 11. 08.” [= Taiwan: Described by Taihanroku. In the museum from the same location, August 6th, August 7th, August 11th.]
2) Typed date of publications on printed page of the journals: Jacobi 1916: “ Juli 1915 ” [July 1915]; Schumacher 1915a: “ September 1915 Issued”; Schumacher 1915b: “ 23 Oktober 1915 ” [23 October 1915].
3) We cited over 30 papers used Ricania sublimata Jacobi, 1916 as valid name as follows and five are found synonymic list: Yang (1989); Duan & Chen (2020); Park & Jung (2020); Park & Jung (2021); Stroiński & Bourgoin (2022). 26 works by published at least 20 authors (1977~2023): Catalogued, illustrated (4). Chou & Lu (1977): 315, fig. 10 [Catalogued, illustration]; Chou et al. (1985): 1–152 [Catalogued]; Shao & Chung (2022) [List on the web]; Zhang & Li (2011): 202 [Illustrated]. Description, morphological character, note (4). Wang et al. (2011): 127–129; Liu et al. (2017): 174–179; Cheng et al. (2019): 5359–5370; Pan et al. (2020): 980–987. Biology, pest control, note (18). Tan (1995): 33–37; Chen (2000): 24–25; Liu & Zhang (2000): 5–7; Liu & Zhang (2001): 39–41; Luo (2003a): 14–15; Luo (2003b): 76–77; Luo et al. (2004): 41–42; Liu et al. (2007): 57–62; Qiu et al. (2010): 95–96, 101; Zhao et al. (2010): 16–17; Zhao et al. (2011): 18–19; Chen et al. (2015): 117–120; Mi et al. (2018): 145, 147; Yu et al. (2018): 55–56; Jin et al. (2019): 595–601; Li et al. (2022): 336–338; Xia et al. (2009): 199–200; Xu et al. (2022): 1067–1079.
description: Published as part of Kobayashi, Shigeki, Suzuki, Masahiro, Kuwahara, Ryosuke, Park, Jaekook, Yamada, Kazutaka & Jung, Sunghoon, 2024, Reevaluation of taxonomic identity of the recently introduced invasive planthopper, Pochazia shantungensis (Chou & Lu, 1977) (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea: Ricaniidae) in Japan, pp. 151-178 in Zootaxa 5446 (2) on pages 169-171, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5446.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/11101526