770 
92. Sibovia 
93. Pegogonia 
95. Miarogonalia 96. 
Be 
103. 
106. 
[ 87. Selvitsa { 107. 
vite rire cone l briOg: 
109. 
Inuyana 
N. C. AGR. EXP. STA. BUL. 239 
ERYTHROGONIA GENERIC GROUP 
eye 
99. Cinerogonalia 
| 4 1Gon- Amphigonalia | 
Balacha 
Pawiloma 
Nannogonalia 
Fonsecaiulus 
98. Ruppeliana 
32. Caragonalia| 102. Erythrogonia 
104. Tettisama 
105. Aguatala 
Torresabela 
Aguahua 
Nielsonia 110. Kapateira 
Macunolla. 111. Hortensia 
113. Bubacua 
114. Cubrasa 
100. Sisimitalia 
112. Schistogonalia 
I have not seen a specimen eligible to be lectotype of Cicada splendida 
Fabricius. I place it in Erythrogonia-on the basis of Signoret’s illustration 
(1854b: plate 11, fig. 15), which appears to be close to E. jumaca Medler. 
Medler did not select a lectotype of E. phoenicia (Signoret). The specimens 
(NMV) he mentioned as ‘““Type’’, with labels: ‘““San Paolo/Coll. Signoret” 
and “‘phoenicia/det. Signoret’’, without abdomen, is here designated lectotype 
and will be so labeled. A female specimen, with the same data, is in the same 
collection. The lectotype bears also a label: ‘““Type’’, in pencil. 
Medler (op. cit., p. 18) mentioned a ‘““Type” of EF. quadriguttata (Fabricius), 
which is apparently the same specimen Young (of. cit., p. 16) selected as lec- 
totype. The specimen bore no type label when Young studied it. 
