Introduction 
Part 1 of this work (Young, 1968a) included all of the tribe Proconiini, which is 
limited to the Western Hemisphere. My original plan was to include all of the 
tribe Cicadellini in one publication, but the size of the group is much greater 
than anticipated, partly because of the collecting activities in New Guinea spon- 
sored by the Bishop Museum. As a result, it was decided to publish the tribe 
Cicadellini in two parts, one for each hemisphere. The grouping is convenient, 
because my work, until now, indicates that the Old World genera stand apart, 
except for a group of genera in both hemispheres related to the type-genus, 
Cicadella Latreille. Cicadella, the only genus in Europe, is treated here because it is 
close to Chlorogonalia, new genus, and to genera related to the latter. The other 
related Old World genera will be readily associated, through Cicadella, and the 
disadvantages of the separate published parts will be ameliorated to a large ex- 
tent. 
A study of one year in Europe in 1962-1963 enabled me to study most of the 
types of Cicadellinae in the museums of Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, 
Hungary, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, France, and England. I designated lec- 
totypes in a series of papers, with plans to illustrate diagnostic characters in the 
present classification. A number of these were published in Part 1; many others 
are included here. In very many cases, the characters had been illustrated from 
specimens studied beforehand, and the lectotypes compared with the illustra- 
tions. Where problems of species identity still exist, these are noted in the text, or 
in the lists of species. Species of uncertain position or of unknown identity are 
listed at the end of this part. It should be noted that I did not study the collec- 
tions of Germar, nor of Spinola, but the Zoologische Institut und Museum in 
Hamburg has many specimens from the Germar collection, which were studied, 
and I was given photographs of some of the Spinola species by Carlo Vidano (see 
acknowledgments). Most of the museums I visited sent their undetermined 
specimens to be studied and included in this reclassification, although I had only 
a small part of the large collection in Museum national d’Histoire naturelle in 
Paris, and very little of the undetermined material from the good collection in 
Polska Academia Nauk in Warsaw. 
As in Part 1, I did not deal completely in Part 2 with genera recently revised, 
and there are some genera where characters were not found to separate nominal 
species. 
Where lectotypes are selected in Part 2, labels on the specimens are quoted 
line for line, with each line separated by a virgule or slash (/), and the individual 
labels separated by the word ‘‘and”’. 
As in Part 1, codes for bibliographic references are used in Part 2 wherever 
possible. These consist of the author’s name, a date and letter, and a page num- 
ber. The code citations refer to Metcalf’s ‘“General Catalogue of the Homop- 
tera’, Fascicle VI (see Literature Cited), and ‘“‘Cicadelloidea: Bibliography of 
the Cicadelloidea (Homoptera: Auchenorhyncha)” published in March, 1964 by 
the Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. The code 
1 
