204 N. C. AGR. EXP. STA. BUL. 239 
pygofer process absent. Plates triangular, not extending posteriorly nearly as 
far as pygofer apex, setal arrangement variable interspecifically. Style without 
preapical lobe. Connective fused with paraphyses or not when latter are pre- 
sent. Aedeagus with shaft slender and elongate, with a pair of processes aris- 
ing at base or on basal half of shaft, often slightly asymmetrical. Paraphyses 
stalked and symmetrical, or absent. 
Female abdominal sternum VII well produced, posterior margin varying 
from almost transverse (C. quadrifasciata (L.)) to broadly emarginate with the 
posterior margin of the emargination convex, disk usually with a narrow 
longitudinal flattened portion (exception: quadrifasciata). Dorsal membrane of 
genital chamber bearing a conspicuous median plate. Ovipositor with second 
valvulae each broad in apical two-thirds of portion beyond basal curvature, 
the dorsal margin of expanded portion regularly convex and_ bearing 
numerous small quadrate primary teeth, extending almost to apex; apex 
narrowly rounded, apicoventral margin with very fine denticulations. Pygofer 
slender, narrowly rounded at apex, with a number of macrosetae in a broad 
group parallel to posteroventral margin. 
Species of Cardtoscarta are quite variable in color. 
Specimens belonging to the genus Cardioscarta Melichar have been examined 
from Colombia and the Guianas to southern Brazil and Bolivia. Cardioscarta is 
related to Poectloscarta Stal and to janastana, new genus (see discussion of 
Poectloscarta). It may be separated from Poectloscarta by the male plates which 
are not abruptly narrowed anteapically and by the basal aedeagal processes. 
For distinguishing characters of Janastana, see the discussion of that genus 
(below). 
The identity of Tettigonia albigutta Walker and of Cardioscarta fatidica 
Melichar is based on an examination of the holotype and lectotype, respec- 
tively, of these nominal species. My interpretation of Cardioscarta electa 
Melichar is based on a study of the lectotype. 
My identification of Tettigonia flavifrons Signoret is based on a dissection of a 
male (fig. 165) in the Signoret collection in Vienna. I have seen no specimen 
eligible as lectotype of this nominal species. Signoret stated that it was 
described from the collections of Germar and Boheman. 7. flavifrons has page 
priority over 7. crocipennis Signoret which was also described from the Germar 
collection. A male specimen of crocipennis studied in ZIMH from the Heyer 
collection, and possibly eligible to be lectotype of crocipennis also has genitalia 
like figure 165 and crocipennis is suppressed because of this. 
Metcalf (1949b:266) renamed fasciata Melichar in the belief that Melichar 
had misdetermined (fasciata L.) = quadrifasciata L. I accept Cicada quadrifasciata 
L. as the species Melichar had at hand. He referred to the page number of 
quadrifasciata in the 1767 Linnean work, but called the species fasciata L., an 
obvious lapsus. Metcalf (loc. cit.) said it was a typographical error. Although I 
have not seen Linnaeus’ specimens of quadrifasciata, the present interpretation 
is consistent with Fabricius’ identification, and with that of most subsequent 
authors. Metcalf’s substitute name, Poeciloscarta nigrofasciata is therefore 
relegated to synonymy under quadrifasciata L. It was a substitute name without 
a type-specimen. His objections to the length of the male plates (long vs. 
short) is relative and indecisive unless the length is compared to something. I 
