Guyalna brisa
Creators: name: Sanborn, Allen F.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hemiptera
Cicadidae
Guyalna
Guyalna brisa

description: Guyalna brisa (Walker, 1850)
Cicada brisa Walker 1850: 131. (British Guiana)
Fidicina amazona Distant 1892a: 58. (Amazonas)
Remarks. Cicada brisa was described from a single specimen (Walker 1850). The specimen cannot be located in the BMNH where it was listed as being deposited and is considered missing (Sanborn 2016a). The confusion of G. dyticamazona n. sp. specimens being identified as G. brisa (e.g. Jacobi 1951; Sanborn et al. 2008; Sanborn 2010; 2016a) supports the need to define the nominal taxon objectively through the designation of a neotype.
Ruschel (2015) reports and illustrates a specimen that was identified and provided with a neotype label by M. Boulard in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN), Paris but formal publication of the information has not occurred based on Articles 8 and 9 (ICZN 1999; 2012). The holotype of the junior synonym Fidicina amazona is currently deposited in the BMNH (Sanborn 2016a). However, the genitalia of the specimen in the MNHN that is proposed as the neotype has significantly different genitalia as illustrated in Ruschel (2015) than the specimen of F. amazona (images of the BMNH specimen sent by M. Webb). This suggests that either the specimen in the MNHN is a new species or F. amazona is not a junior synonym of G. brisa. Specimens from Guyana (British Guiana), the type locality, are needed to make a final determination as to the status of the proposed neotype and the status of F. amazona.
Guyalna brisa can be distinguished from its most similar species, G. dyticamazona n. sp., by the dense golden pile and piceous markings on the dorsal abdomen that are greater in G. dyticamazona n. sp., the wider lateral pronotal collar in the new species, the four longitudinal fasciae on the pygofer of G. brisa, the castaneous legs of the new species rather than the olivaceous legs of G. brisa, fore wing apical cell 3 is longer than apical cell 1 in the new species but of equal length in G. brisa, and the male opercula do not meet on the midline in the new species but do in G. brisa. Most importantly, the male genitalia differ in that the lateral branch of the uncus is recurved in the G. dyticamazona n. sp. extending only as far as the uncal dorsal crest while the lateral branch of the uncus forms an oblique angle to the uncal dorsal crest with the majority of the lateral branch of the uncus extending beyond the uncal dorsal crest when viewed from the side (based on images of the holotype of the junior synonym Fidicina amazona).
The reference to this species by Jacobi (1951) in Peru is considered a misidentification of G. dyticamazona n. sp. due to the similar habitus appearance as outlined above. The specimen identified by Jacobi (1951) originated in Iquitos, the capital of Loreto Province where the specimens of the type series of G. dyticamazona n. sp. were also collected. This suggests the taxon was misapplied to specimens of G. dyticamazona n. sp. and the species is removed from the cicada fauna of Peru.
DISTRIBUTION. The species has been reported from Brazil and Guyana (Metcalf 1963a; Sanborn 2013). Ruschel (2015) illustrates a specimen from French Guiana. The Colombian and Peruvian references (Metcalf 1963a; Sanborn 2013) are considered G. dyticamazona n. sp. and G. brisa is removed from the fauna of both countries here. Based on the differences in the genitalia, it appears G. brisa is found in northeastern South America with individuals identified from Guyana (holotype) and French Guiana (unofficial neotype). The presence in Brazil needs confirmation as specimens from western Brazil are included in the type series of G. dyticamazona n. sp.
description: Published as part of Sanborn, Allen F., 2020, The cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) of Peru including the description of twenty-four new species, three new synonymies, and thirty-seven new records, pp. 1-129 in Zootaxa 4785 (1) on pages 120-121, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4785.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3862255