Euscelis Brullé
Creators: name: Metcalf, Z. P.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 1946
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hemiptera
Cicadellidae
Euscelis

description: Genus <b>EUSCELIS</b> Brulle <i>Euscelis</i> Brulle, Homopteres, Exped. sci. Moree 3(1): 109, 1832. Haplotype, <i>Euscelis lineolatus</i> Brulle. The genus <i>Euscelis</i> may be characterized briefly as follows: head broad, as broad as or broader than the pronotum; crown short and broad, obtusely angled. Tegmina variable in length, sometimes slightly shorter and sometimes slightly longer than the abdomen, with three anteapical cells. I place the species which are described below in <i>Euscelis</i> with some hesitation. This is a large genus, including at the present time some 50 recognized species of almost world-wide distribution although no species have hitherto been recognized from any of the East Indian or Pacific islands. It is a genus which apparently contains several diverse elements, although material is not at hand for working out all of the details. The characters for this genus have never been very clearly defined. A great many species which do not rightfully belong have been placed in the genus, and the recent revisions of the genera in the group to which <i>Euscelis</i> belongs have been rather limited in their scope and have not been carefully correlated with previous work. Edwards (4) gave a key to the British genera and established five new genera without further description and without genotype designation. Haupt (10, p. 263) gives a key to the European genera without including any of the genera established by Edwards in 1922. Ball (1, p. 1) gives a key to some North American genera but does not consider the work of Haupt. He does include one of the genera established by Edwards in 1922. He gives <i>Cicada striola</i> Fallen as the genotype for <i>Dryliz</i> Edwards in spite of the fact that Haupt in 1927 had given <i>striola</i> Fallen as the type of the genus <i>Limotettiz</i> Sahlberg. The present species can be placed, therefore, in <i>Euscelis</i> until the genera of this family can be revised on a world-wide basis. In this connection it might not be amiss to attempt to straighten out the synonymy of <i>Limotettiz.</i> As far as I can determine, the facts are as follows: <i>Limotettiz</i> was described by Sahlberg (23, p. 224) and he included 23 Palearctic species, three of which were new. No type was designated by Sahlberg, and as far as I can determine, no type was selected until Haupt (9, p. 25) selected <i>Cicadastriola</i> Fallen, one of the originally included species, as the type. If this is correct, Ball's selection of <i>striola</i> as the type of <i>Dryliz</i> will not stand, and the type of this genus will be the only other included species, <i>Thamnotettiz atricapilla</i> Boheman. I have not been able to examine a specimen of <i>atricapilla</i> to determine whether it is sufficiently distinct to constitute a genus separate from <i>Limotettix</i> with <i>striola</i> as type. Neither can I be sure that <i>Limotettiz</i> as described by Edwards to include <i>quadrinotata</i> is a valid genus separate from <i>Limotettix</i> Sahlberg with <i>striola</i> as the type.
description: Published as part of <i>Metcalf, Z. P., 1946, Homoptera, Fulgoroidea and Jassoidea of Guam, pp. 105-148 in Insects of Guam II, Honolulu, Hawaii :Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 189</i> on page 121, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5174008