Comparative morphology of part of the integumental fine structure of two Erythroneurine species: Singapora shinshana (Matsumura, 1932) and Empoascanara sipra Dworakowska, 1980 (Hemiptera, Cicadellidae, Typhlocybinae)

By

Jiang, Jia
Dietrich, Christopher H.
Li, Can
Song, Yuehua

Type

Article

Date of Publication

2022

Original Publication

ZooKeys

Volume

1103

Pages

1--23

Subjects

antennae , brochosomes , fine structure , forewings , karst , mouthparts

Contributed by

Pensoft Publishers

Language

English

Published by

Sofia, Bulgaria Pensoft Publishers

Identifiers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1103.80787

 

Abstract

This study describes the fine structure of the mouthparts, antennae, forewings, and brochosomes of two leafhopper species belonging to the typhlocybine tribe Erythroneurini collected from the Karst area of Guizhou Province, southern China: Singapora shinshana, which prefers woody dicot hosts, and Empoascanara sipra, which feeds on grasses. As in other leafhoppers, the piercing-sucking mouthparts consist of a conical labrum, a cylindrical three-segmented labium, and a slender stylet fascicle. The labrum of both species has no sensilla and the labium has several common types of sensilla, but the two species differ in the numbers, types, and distribution of sensilla and in other aspects of the surface sculpture of the mouthparts. The stylet fascicle has distinctive dentition on both the maxillary and mandibular stylets. The antennae of the two species differ in several respects, including the sensilla and sculpture of the scape, pedicel, and flagellum, as well as the degree of sub-segmentation of the flagellum. Except for the variable scaly structure and rounded protrusions on the surface of S. shinshana, the fine structure of the forewing surfaces of the two species are similar to those of other leafhoppers. Only small spherical brochosomes were found on the body surface of S. shinshana and E. sipra. Similar studies of additional erythroneurine species are needed to determine whether differences in mouthpart and antennal fine structure may reflect adaptation to different host plant.