Baguoidea Mahmood 1967
Fuente:
Zenodo
Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Publié: |
Zenodo
2022
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866901642453975040 |
|---|---|
| author | Webb, Michael D. Xu, Ye |
| author_facet | Webb, Michael D. Xu, Ye |
| contents | <p><b>Genus <i>Baguoidea</i> Mahmood, 1967</b></p><p><i>Baguoidea</i> Mahmood, 1967: 40. — Qin <i>et al.</i> 2010: 55; 2014: 1498 (key).</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. — <i>Baguoidea rubra</i> Mahmood, 1967 by original designation.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Mainland Asia (Sri Lanka, Myanmar and China), Philippines and Japan (?), see Remarks of <i>B. rufa</i> below.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>This monotypic genus is tentatively regarded as distinct from <i>Dayus</i>. It differs only in having the basal group setae of the subgenital plate blunt-tipped (also found in some <i>Homa</i> species) and distal macrosetae more numerous (Fig. 3L) and in lacking an unusual ventral apodeme of the 8 th abdominal sternite, found in <i>Dayus</i>. In other respects, it is similar to <i>Dayus</i> in its overall red colour, having the 3rd apical cell in the forewing petiolate (Fig. 3C), male pygofer with processes (Fig. 3G), form of the subgenital plate and aedeagus and well developed male basal dorsal abdominal apodemes (Fig. 3M). The genus was redescribed by Yu & Yang (2013) as there were some errors in Mahmood’s original description and figures, which also had implications on subsequent studies (see Remarks under <i>B. rufa</i> below). Yu & Yang (2013) also noted that Dworakowska (1973) had stated (and figured) that the facial laterofrontal sutures were absent in <i>Baguoidea</i> but were present in their specimens, and are also present in the specimens studied here. This apparent mistake by Dworakowska may have been due to the sutures being obscure against the red facial colour.</p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_7428340 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | Baguoidea Mahmood 1967 Webb, Michael D. Xu, Ye Biodiversity Taxonomy Animalia Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Cicadellidae Baguoidea <p><b>Genus <i>Baguoidea</i> Mahmood, 1967</b></p><p><i>Baguoidea</i> Mahmood, 1967: 40. — Qin <i>et al.</i> 2010: 55; 2014: 1498 (key).</p><p>TYPE SPECIES. — <i>Baguoidea rubra</i> Mahmood, 1967 by original designation.</p><p>DISTRIBUTION. — Mainland Asia (Sri Lanka, Myanmar and China), Philippines and Japan (?), see Remarks of <i>B. rufa</i> below.</p><p>REMARKS</p><p>This monotypic genus is tentatively regarded as distinct from <i>Dayus</i>. It differs only in having the basal group setae of the subgenital plate blunt-tipped (also found in some <i>Homa</i> species) and distal macrosetae more numerous (Fig. 3L) and in lacking an unusual ventral apodeme of the 8 th abdominal sternite, found in <i>Dayus</i>. In other respects, it is similar to <i>Dayus</i> in its overall red colour, having the 3rd apical cell in the forewing petiolate (Fig. 3C), male pygofer with processes (Fig. 3G), form of the subgenital plate and aedeagus and well developed male basal dorsal abdominal apodemes (Fig. 3M). The genus was redescribed by Yu & Yang (2013) as there were some errors in Mahmood’s original description and figures, which also had implications on subsequent studies (see Remarks under <i>B. rufa</i> below). Yu & Yang (2013) also noted that Dworakowska (1973) had stated (and figured) that the facial laterofrontal sutures were absent in <i>Baguoidea</i> but were present in their specimens, and are also present in the specimens studied here. This apparent mistake by Dworakowska may have been due to the sutures being obscure against the red facial colour.</p> |
| title | Baguoidea Mahmood 1967 |
| topic | Biodiversity Taxonomy Animalia Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Cicadellidae Baguoidea |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7428340 |