taxonID	type	description	language	source
03E98798FFA6232DFF30FE9EB055FDBB.taxon	discussion	Remarks. We follow here the concept of European workers of this genus. The following species (nebulosa) is placed in Amplicephalus by Blocker et al., 1995: 298.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFA6232DFF30F93DB052F806.taxon	description	synonymised by Dash & Viraktamath, 1995 a: 40.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFA7232CFF30FD4CB75CFB82.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This Old World genus was placed in Deltocephalini by Emeljanov (1999: 547) and Kamitani (1999: 79). One African, one East Palaearctic (Japan) and six Oriental / Pacific species were recorded in Wilson’s (1983) revision with one of the latter, lucaniae (Dlabola), from India, also extending to the Mediterranean Region. Two species from India, wilsoni Rao & Ramakrishnan (1990) and P. montanus Rao (1989) were subsequently added. The record for P. lineaticollis Distant from Iran (Dlabola, 1981) may be erroneous as this material could be P. iraniensis sp. nov. (see Appendix 5).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFA82323FF30FDDCB27DFC13.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The single Old World species of Polyamia is only tentatively retained in the genus as all other species are from the New World and based on the revision of Sinada & Blocker (1994) the identity of the genus is uncertain. It is distinguished in North America by the extra forewing cross veins but in the Old World this character is also present in Matsumuratettix and Maiestas. The only other Old World species, P. drepananiforma Zhang & Duan from China, is a synonym of Matsumuratettix hiroglyphicus (Matsumura) (see above).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFA92320FF30F957B12EFAA1.taxon	description	Many inconsistencies regarding the definition and status of the genera in the Deltocephalus group have arisen (due in large part), to differing interpretations of the structure of the aedeagus and as to whether the observed differences are at the generic or subgeneric level. In this context the recognised variation in the aedeagus is as follows (see also discussion under Maiestas below): Group 1. Aedeagal shaft short and robust, strongly upturned distally without an apical extension, with a distinct apical gonopore (Fig. 6 h). Group 2. Aedeagal shaft short and robust, weak to strongly upturned distally with a distinct apical extension and distinct apical gonopore (Figs 4 h, 5 h). Group 3. Aedeagal shaft elongate, gradually and weakly curved distally, with or without an apical extension that sometimes forms a ventral apical ridge; gonopore obscure (Fig. 11 h). The following alternative options for the above groups, together with the names that have been applied to those groups, i. e. those names used prior to the current inclusion of Maiestas, are as follows: Option 1. A single genus with two subgenera (Ribaut, 1952, Knight, 1975 and Dash & Viraktamath, 1998), as follows: a Deltocephalus sensu lato Subgenus 1. Deltocephalus sensu str. (Group 1) Subgenus 2. Recilia sensu lato (Groups 2 and 3, including Recilia and the following synonyms: Togacephalus, Inemadara, Inazuma and Insulanus). Option 2. Two genera (Kramer, 1962, Kwon & Lee, 1979, Day & Fletcher, 1994 and Kamitani, 1999; Biedermann & Niedringhaus, 2004), as follows: a Deltocephalus sensu str. (Group 1) b Recilia sensu lato (Groups 2 and 3, including Recilia and the following synonyms or subgenera: Togacephalus, Inemadara, Inazuma and Insulanus). The following option is also possible but has not been used in the literature. Option 3. Three genera as follows: a Deltocephalus sensu str. (Group 1) b Recilia s. str. (Group 2) c Togocephalus sensu lato (Group 3, including Togacephalus and the following synonyms or subgenera: Inemadara, Inazuma and Insulanus). With the inclusion of Maiestas into the Deltocephalus group its features of the aedeagus fall into those of Group 3 and unfortunately, as it is the older name, it takes priority over Recilia and Togacephalus in Options 1 a Subgenus 2, 2 b and 3 c above. Therefore the revised Options 1 – 3, together with a fourth option, are as follows (revised parts in bold): Option 1. A single genus with two subgenera as follows: a. Deltocephalus sensu lato Subgenus 1. Deltocephalus sensu str. (Group 1) Subgenus 2. Maiestas sensu lato (Groups 2 and 3, including Maiestas and the following synonyms: Recilia, Togacephalus, Inemadara, Inazuma and Insulanus) Option 2. Two genera as follows: a. Deltocephalus sensu str. (Group 1) b. Maiestas sensu lato (groups 2 and 3, including Maiestas and the following synonyms or subgenera: Recilia, Togacephalus, Inemadara, Inazuma and Insulanus) Option 3. Two genera as follows: a. Deltocephalus sensu lato, including Deltocephalus sensu str. and Recilia sensu str. as a subgenus or synonym: (Groups 1 & 2) b. Maiestas (Group 3) Option 4. Three genera as follows: a. Deltocephalus sensu str. (Group 1) b. Recilia sensu str. (Group 2) c. Maiestas sensu lato (Group 3, including Maiestas and the following synonyms or subgenera: Togacephalus, Inemadara, Inazuma and Insulanus) Which of the above Options 1 – 4 is preferred is a matter of conjecture. However, for the present we consider it prudent to use Option 4, thereby retaining the well known genus Recilia for two species (coronifer and raoi), and transfering all other species formerly in Recilia or Deltocephalus (Recilia) to Maiestas. Based on colour pattern and shape of the head, style and aedeagus, further sub-division of the new Maiestas group is possible, and some of this variability is reflected in the type species of Maiestas and the type species of its synonyms (see 4 c above). For example, the type species of Maiestas (M. illustris), has a longer head than other species (Fig. 11 a), the type species of Togacephalus (T. distincta) and Inazuma (I. dorsalis), have distinctive style apical processes (Figs 34 f, 36 f); the former has the aedeagus with an apical ventral ridge (Fig. 34 m) and the latter distinctive forewing markings (Fig. 36 o). In addition, some other notable variation is also present in some other species (see remarks under Maiestas below). However, until further work is done on the large assemblage of species in the new Maiestas group, we prefer not to give the above divisions formal group names. With respect to some other stated differences between genera in the Deltocephalus group, we have found that, contrary to Linnavuori (1959: 129), the pygofer is dorsally sclerotised in both Deltocephalus and Recilia, and contrary to Kramer (1962: 259) the aedeagus in Deltocephalus can be without (Fig. 6 j) or with an apical notch, the lateral margin of the subgenital plate is slightly convex (Fig. 6 d) and in Recilia s. str. (as noted above), the gonopore is distinct (Fig. 4 i).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFAB2320FF30FA75B7ABF8E9.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Over 400 Old World species have been placed in Deltocephalus (or one of its subgenera) at one time or another (see Appendix 3). Subsequently, most of these species have been transferred to other genera and further species are transferred here (see Appendix 2). In the present study only six Old World Deltocephalus species are positively identified in this genus, one other (D. cotula) is tentatively included and several others await confirmation of identity (see Appendix 1). For the New World 30 species are listed by Blocker et al., 1995: 303 – 304, of which one (pulicaris) occurs in both the Old and New World.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFAC2327FF30FA53B6C4F93F.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. India: 2 ♀, Pusa H. M. Lefroy; 2 ♀, Surat, H. M. Lefroy (all syntypes Deltocephalus brunnescens). Sri Lanka: 5 ♂, 3 ♀, M. Wilson. All BMNH.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFAC2327FF30FA53B6C4F93F.taxon	discussion	Remarks: The aedeagal shaft is very variable in this species with respect to its width in lateral view and the presence or absence of a spine on the ventral margin (compare Figs 9 k and 9 q). However, as both forms can occur in the same population (in this case the series from Sri Lanka), they are regarded as a single species.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFAC2327FF30FC78B2BBFAF7.taxon	discussion	Remarks. We tentatively retain this species in Deltocephalus as it has a simple dorsally curved aedeagal shaft with an apical gonopore. However, Theron (1970: 320) made the following statement (with added information in square brackets from Theron’s description of the species): “ various characters, such as the spinulation of the fore tibia [3 + 4], the number of closed subapical cells [two], the structure of the male plates [triangular, lateral margins convex and each bearing 6 – 7 strong uniseriate spines; apex dorsally with numerous long slender setae] and the dorsomedial sclerotization of the pygofer, suggests that it should be included in Ribaut’s (1952) subgenus Recilia ”. Linnavuori (1961: 481) also considered this species to be misplaced in Deltocephalus.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFAC2326FF30F8D0B223FF19.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Sri Lanka: 7 ♂, 16 ♀ (MMB); 1 ♂ (HNHM) (all syntypes of D. infirmus).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFAC2326FF30F8D0B223FF19.taxon	discussion	Remarks. A similar species to D. vulgaris but with the aedeagal shaft lacking an apical notch. The placement of this species in Jassargus by Ishihara (1961: 244) is erroneous as it is based on a different (unknown) species.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFAC2327FF30FDA0B654FD0A.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Based on the shape of the aedeagus this species is similar to D. maculiceps but its vertex is longer and lacks markings. It was described from Tianshan Mountain, Xinjiang Province, China.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFAD2326FF30FEEDB27DFE7D.taxon	discussion	Remarks. There are two forms of the aedeagus in this species as currently recognised (see figs by Dash & Viraktamath, 1998). What appears to be the same species was also recorded (from Japan?) by Kamitani (1999, figs 22 – 29).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFAD2326FF30FE0DB13FFD7E.taxon	discussion	Remarks. As currently defined (see ‘ Introduction’ and ‘ The Deltocephalus group’) only two species are positively included in Recilia and two others are of uncertain placement. All other previously included species are transferred to Maiestas (see below).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFAD2325FF30FA9DB2C4F9E0.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Based on the identity of Maiestas noted above (see ‘ The Deltocephalus group’) most species of Recilia or Deltocephalus (Recilia) are transferred to this genus (see species lists below). Also, as noted above many inconsistencies regarding the definition and status of the Deltocephalus group genera have arisen, due in large part, to differing interpretations of the structure of the aedeagus. We have found that with respect to the shaft in Maiestas, it can be either trough-like (Fig. 11 j) or cylindrical, and may have an ‘ apical bifurcation’ (Fig. 17 k), a pair of subapical lobes (Fig. 42 i), a subapical ventral process (indica and menoni), a pair of short subapical processes, (trispinosa and trisuli) or a ventral projection from the socle, e. g. banda. In addition, it seems that for those species with a cylindrical shaft with its apex bifurcate, the upper branch appears hoodlike and weakly sclerotised in dorsal view, its margin appearing as a fine single line that is very indistinct and that may have been overlooked in some previously published figures. In contrast, the remaining dorsal margin of the shaft in lateral view and the ventral margin up to the ventral apical extension (when present) have a thick double line (Fig. 18 o). In addition, with respect to the ventral extension of the shaft beyond the ‘ hoodlike region, it appears to arise from beneath the ‘ hood’ (Fig. 38 o) although at the same time can appear ridgelike in ventral view (Fig. 38 m). Also, if the ventral extension is homologous to the shaft apex in those species without an ‘ apical bifurcation’, then it is unclear if it should be referred to as a process (or spine) or not (compare figs 37 h, 37 m with 38 k, 38 m). Unusual in Cicadellidae, the gonoduct and gonopore in Maiestas are frequently very obscure, the latter structure being referred to as “ Gonopore ... usually very poorly delimited ” by Kramer (1962: 259, in table under Recilia). Also, Kramer (1962) described and figured an elongate gonopore that in some cases extends along almost the entire dorsal surface of the shaft, which if true would be unusual. In our figures, what may be the ventral margin of the gonoduct appears as a double line throughout its length in lateral view, except basally, and in some cases something approaching a visible gonopore is seen beneath (?) the ‘ hood’ in dorsal view. In addition to the above, the following other differences between Maiestas species are apparent, e. g., basal abdominal apodemes variable in length and shape, subgenital plates rounded (Fig. 34 e) to more triangular (Fig. 37 e), style with lateral lobe short (Fig. 36 f) to long (Fig. 37 f) and style apical process hook-like (Fig. 32 f) or digitate (Fig. 33 f). Also, there are some external differences that are often associated with different genera, e. g., variation in the ocellocular distance and shape of the clypellus, forewing with or without reticulate venation and two or three closed subapical cells, colour markings variable and the dorsal setal formula of the fore tibia either 4 + 1 or 4 + 4. One of these features, the reticulate venation of the forewing, was used in Dash & Viraktamath’s (1998) key to separate two Indian species, i. e. indica and pruthii, but this feature is also present in four other Indian species i. e. menoni, butleri, delongi and scripta. The latter two, together with a few other Indian species were not included in Dash & Viraktamath’s key and or descriptions (see remarks under ‘ Checklist of Indian and Sri Lankan species’ below). Based on the above differences between species, the division of Maiestas into separate genera or subgenera remains a possibility, but is beyond the scope of the present work. For some of the species listed below some new information is given on the types and synonymy in Appendix 4. Included species:	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFAF2324FF30FF76B1A0FD69.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species is very similar to schmidtgeni, but can be distinguished by its slightly shorter aedeagal shaft and slightly more robust style apex (compare Fig. 17 k with 18 k and Fig. 17 f with 18 f). Although the original description indicates that the aedeagus differs from that of schmidtgeni by its more dorsally angled aedeagus, the reverse seems to be true! The rather poor original drawing of the aedeagus in beieri may be as a result of the aedeagus being examined and drawn dry; the genitalia of the holotype (NMW) having been previously glued to a card (now in glycerine). The aedeagus of the examined paratype is not angled at midlength and is intermediate in proportions between the holotype and material from North Africa of uncertain species identity (see remarks under schmidtgeni). The original description of beieri indicated one male (the holotype) and seven paratype females (Dlabola collection and NMW). However, in addition to the holotype (NMV) a paratype male (figured here, ex Dlabola coll., MNHN) has been examined and 4 paratype females and an immature are also in NMV (pers. comm. Herbert Zettel). The record from Ethiopia (Heller & Linnavuori, 1968: 13, fig. 1) needs to be confirmed.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFAF2324FF30FBC5B70AFB73.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The figures given here are from a specimen from Serbia (BMNH).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFAF233BFF30F84FB1E6FD32.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The identity of this species is taken from Wagner (1939: 163, figs 240 – 241). Wagner (1939) renamed Thamnotettix coronifer Marsh, sensu Fieber (1872), as schmidtgeni and figured what he presumed to be the same species from Germany (see Fig. 17 o). These figures match those specimens examined here (BMNH) from S. Europe and the Mediterranean (France, Austria, Russia, Greece, Hungary and Turkey), a feature of which is the elongate aedeagal shaft, slightly angled at midlength (Fig. 17 k). Other specimens found under this name in BMNH and NMW, from the Middle East, and N. and W. Africa, were found to have a shorter, broader and more evenly curved aedeagal shaft (see Figs 19 k, 20 k, and 21 k) and some a straighter and longer style apical process (see Fig. 21 f). See also remarks under beieri. With reference to French records of this species it has been reported from Toulouse by Ribaut (1952), and Corsica and Dordogne by della Giustina (1989: 127) who considered it to be rather rare. However, Benoit Nusillard writes (pers. comm.) that it is found in numbers on the garrigue north of Montpellier (Hérault), around Valence and Montélimar (Drôme) (mixed with Recilia coronifer), and in the Camargue around Arles (Bouches du Rhône) and there strongly attracted to UV light. Specimens were collected between 26 of June and 11 October, with possibly two generations.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFB1233AFF30FB14B2F1F8ED.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species, which is the type species of Inazuma, is widespread in Asia and the Pacific on rice. It is easily recognised by its distinctive forewing markings (Fig. 36 o). Whilst retaining Inazuma as a valid taxon (as a subgenenus of Recilia) Kwon & Lee (1979) stated: “ there are not so much remarkable independent generic characters as a subgenus in Inazuma ”. In fact the genus was only distinguished by these authors by a rather vague reference to a difference in the shape of the style. From our observations the style has a digitate apical process and short subapical lobe (Fig. 36 f), not known to us in previous figures. This form of the style in dorsalis is just one type of a very variably shaped structure in the group as a whole (see remarks under Maiestas above).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFB12339FF30F8BEB636FEE7.taxon	discussion	Remarks. As currently defined this species is confined to Hawaii. Other Pacific records are of a new species (knighti) described below (see Appendix 5). It differs from knightii by the apical extension of the aedeagus being broader in lateral view (compare Figs 38 k and 39 k) and more laterally compressed basally (compare Figs 38 m and 39 m) and the style apical process being more robust (compare Figs 38 f and 39 f). It differs from samuelsoni (see below) only in its broader subgenital plate. We have examined the lectotype male, (designated by Fletcher & Condello, 1993: 43) and paralectotype male, Hawaii (BPBM), of hospes.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFB22339FF30FCAEB72FFC1F.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species differs from hospes only in its narrower subgenital plate.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFB22339FF30FBF0B03EF9E3.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Although the apex of the dissected aedeagus of the type is damaged it matches, together with other parts of the genitalia, the specimen figured here from New Britain. Linnavuori’s (1960 a) figure of the aedeagus, from a specimen from Micronesia, appears to be of a different species. This species (M. subviridis sensu Linnavuori), was later synonymised with hopponis from Taiwan (Linnavuori, 1975 a). We have examined the following material: Holotype ♂, Piti Guam, 11 – 5 - 1936, O. H. Sweezey, swept from lawn grass (BPBM) and various additional specimens (BMNH) from the following Pacific islands: Philippines, New Britain, Ellis Is., Sulawesi, N. Moluccas, Papua New Guinea.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFB32338FF30FAA7B647FA6F.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The identitity of this species cannnot be ascertained due to the poor original figures.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFB32338FF30FA00B180F9E3.taxon	discussion	Remarks. See under ‘ Pacific species’ above.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFBC2337FF30FE50B703FDB4.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Syntype ♀, Algeria, (BMHH); 1 ♂, Algeria (BMNH).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFBC2337FF30FE50B703FDB4.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The dissected genitalia of the only known male of this species was found to be missing its aedeagus. However, in all other respects this species comes close to other Bampurius species. External distiguishing features of the genus are the head markings (Fig. 53 a), long antennae and recurved costal forewing veins.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFBC2337FF30FC77B24CF801.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Syntypes 2 ♀, Sri Lanka: Trincomali, T. B. Fletcher (BMNH). Additional material: several specimens (♂ and ♀) from India (BMNH, UASB) and Oman (UASB).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFBC2337FF30FC77B24CF801.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Distinguishing features of this species are the dorsal placement of the long basal processes of the aedeagus. Hecalini Hecalus porrectus (Walker) Acocephalus porrectus Walker, 1858: 262, Sri Lanka. Deltocephalus alacer Stål, 1859: 293, syn. nov., Hong Kong. For full synonymy see Morrison (1973: 421).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFBC2337FF30FC77B24CF801.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Syntype ♀ of A. porrectus, “ Ceylon 52 62 ”; type ♂ of D. alacer, “ China, Kimb ” (NRS).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFBC2337FF30FC77B24CF801.taxon	discussion	Remarks. We here retain the genus Hecalus for porrectus following Morrison (1973: 410) rather than Linnavuoriella Evans, following Linnavuori (1975 b: 32). Morrison stated “ I am of the opinion that Linnavuoriella should be considered a synonym of Hecalus because (1) Hecalus specimens at hand have heads which range from angulate to spatulate with intermediate forms not clearly one or the other, and (2) in all other features, including genitalia, the species are very similar ”. Linnavuori (1975 b) unaware of the synonymy of Linnavuoriella with Hecalus, distinguishes it from other genera (namely Parabolocratalis Evans, Lualabanus Linnavuori, Bordesia Bergavin and Hecalus) by the following key: 5 (6) Body robust. Head broad. Crown, pronotum and scutellum with more or less developed fulvous bands. Apical area of elytra dark smoky with milky areolate spots, in pale specimens at least tips of some apical veins dark. Stem of penis arising from dorsal part of socle ........................................................................................................................................................................ Linnavuoriella 6 (5) Body elongate, without fulvous pattern. Elytra sometimes infumed along veins, but without milky areole spots, veins totally pale. If penis long, then stem arising from ventral part of socle ......................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................... 7 (which includes the genera mentioned above). We have studied Hecalus from India and find that there are intermediates in the above characters that are used for distinguishing Linnavuoriella from Hecalus and hence we treat the two as synonyms following Morrison (1973). Paralimnini	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFBC2337FF30FD42B79AFCA9.taxon	discussion	Remarks. A single female type is present in MMB, labelled “ Museum Paris / Afrique Orient. Angl. / Rendilé (Mont Karoli) / Maurice de Rothschild / 1905 ”. The generic placement here is based on the Linnavuori’s determination label on the above specimen, reading: " Okaundua ornatula (Mel.) ". Two other species are included in the genus, O. consita Linnavuori (type species) from West Africa and O. crassicauda Heller & Linnavuori from Ethiopia.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFBC2336FF30F82AB6CAFE9D.taxon	materials_examined	Deltocephalus rufobilineatus Melichar, 1914: 140, Java. Bhavapura rufobilineatus (Melichar), Chalam & Rao, 2005 b: 385, India. Material examined. Taiwan: 1 ♂, M. Kato; Thailand: 1 sex unknown (abdomen missing), Doi Pmg Kaug, 1400 m., 1. v. 1979; Java: syntype (?) ♂, D. rufobilineatus (MMB, see Webb et al, 1990), 4 ♂, 2 ♀, Bogor, 24. xi. 1989; Malaysia: 1 ♂, Pantai Remis, 5. vii. 1976 (all BMNH). Remarks. The opportunity is taken to give more detailed figures of this species and to record new country records.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFBD2336FF30FB2BB052FAE6.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Syntypes: see Webb et al (1990).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFBD2336FF30FAB4B010FA70.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Holotype ♀, ‘ Ceylon Nictn’ (HUMN).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFBD2336FF30FE6BB728FDB0.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The identity of this species was not confirmed by Theron (1975: 189), who noted that the species was only known from the female type. However, Michael Stiller (pers. comm.) writes: “ This species is definitely Vilargus, and probably V. pumilicans (Naudé). In Naudé (1926) the latter was described from 5 males and campanus from one female, from widely separated localities. I have examined many specimens and need to include another five species in this genus, with all females depicting the characteristic posterior emargination of sternite 7 ”.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFBD2336FF30FD41B1C6FCDE.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. See Webb et al (1990).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FFBD2336FF30FCACB76BFB5D.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. See Webb et al (1990). Stenometopiini Stirellus coloratus (Distant). Comb. nov. Deltocephalus coloratus Distant, 1918: 82, India. Material examined. India: 1 ♂ (syntype), “ Ukhrul, Manipur. 6400 feet Lat 25 N. Long. 94 – 95 E. viii- 08 Reud. W. Pettigrew ” (BMNH); 1 ♂, Dharumpur, c. 5000 ft, Simla Hills, 14. v. 1908. N. A. (BMNH)	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF87230CFF30FF3BB152FDD0.taxon	description	Recilia dolabra Kramer, 28 August 1962: 265, figs 16 – 20, Liberia; Linnavuori, 1969: 1184, Zaire. Syn. nov.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF87230CFF30FF3BB152FDD0.taxon	materials_examined	Type material examined. Paratypes (D. angustisectus): 1 ♂, 1 sex unknown (abdomen missing), Israel, U. Rubin, 4. vii. 1958; 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Palestine, Bodenheimer, 15. ix. 1930, 4. viii. 1930. Additional material. Lebanon: 1 ♂, Nahr el-Barred, 31. x. 1999, H. Abdul-Nour; Syria: 2 ♂, Baniyas, 23. ix. 1999, H. Abdul-Nour; Israel: 1 ♂, Kefar, Ha Yarak, 30. i. 1975. All BMNH.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF87230CFF30FF3BB152FDD0.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The aedeagus of this species is similar to coronata and lobata. The reference for Zaire (see synonomy above) needs to be confirmed.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF87230CFF30FDDBB277FCB0.taxon	materials_examined	Type material examined. Syntypes: 2 ♀, S. India, Kodai Kanal, T. V. Campbell (BMNH). One of the syntypes also has a Distant handwritten determination label with the word ‘ type’, a BMNH red type disc and a label: “ S. India, E. A. Butler, 1915 - 60 ”.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF87230CFF30FDDBB277FCB0.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species is tentatively included in Maiestas pending the examination of males. It can be distinguished externally by the extra cross veins in the forewing and a fine brown line parallel to the fore margin of the head either side of the midline. The former character would key out the species in the first couplet of Dash & Viraktamath’s, 1998 key.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF87230CFF30FC7BB09DFB30.taxon	materials_examined	Type material examined. Syntypes: 2 ♀, S. India, Kodai Kanal, T. V. Campbell (on same mount with “ KK 5.15 ” on underside of specimen mount) plus Distant’s hand written determination label with the word ‘ Type’ and a museum red type disc. Additional material. S. India: 1 ♂, 1 ♀, same data as syntypes (on same mount with another specimen of a different species, with “ KK 5.14 ” handwritten on the underside of the specimen mount (see “ Material and Methods - T. V. Campbell material ”); 1 ♀, S. India, Madras, Coonoor, T. V. Campbell (recent label); “ C 4.15 [?] ” handwritten on underside of specimen mount.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF87230CFF30FC7BB09DFB30.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The male genitalia of this species are given for the first time.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF87230CFF30FADBB293FA10.taxon	materials_examined	Type material examined. Syntypes: 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Ethiopia: Gonale, 12. iv. 1901 (MMB).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF87230CFF30FADBB293FA10.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The male genitalia of this species are illustrated for the first time. The aedeagus is very similar to angustisecta and lobata.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF87230CFF30FA1BB23EF8F0.taxon	materials_examined	Type material examined. Syntypes: 16 ♀, India, Calcutta, various dates 1906 – 1907; Distant collection 1911 – 383 (BMNH).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF87230CFF30FA1BB23EF8F0.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species was described from an unspecified number of specimens from “ Calcutta Indian Mus. ”. All syntypes are brachypterous and bear a similar style of data label. One specimen bears Distant’s hand written type determination label with the word “ type ” and a museum red type disc. Of the remainder 11 bear an additional Indian Museum label.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF87230CFF30F8BBB09DF830.taxon	materials_examined	Type material examined. Syntypes, Seychelles: 2 ♂, “ Silhouette, ’ 08 ”; 1 ♀, 1 sex unknown (abdomen missing), “ Mahe, ‘ 08 - 9 ”; 1 ♂, no data (all BMNH).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF87230CFF30F8BBB09DF830.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The male genitalia of this species are given for the first time.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF882303FF30FF79B7FEFEAE.taxon	description	Deltocephalus (Recilia) prabha (Pruthi), Dash & Viraktamath, 1998: 31 – 32, figs 252 – 259.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF882303FF30FF79B7FEFEAE.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The synonymy of these two species has been shown by Duan & Zhang (in. prep.).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF882303FF30FE79B756FB4E.taxon	description	Deltocephalus (Recilia) porticus (Melichar), Dash & Viraktamath, 1998: 18, figs 96 – 106.114. Deltocephalus (Recilia) fletcheri (Melichar), Dash & Viraktamath, 1998: 20, figs 122 – 128.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF882303FF30FE79B756FB4E.taxon	materials_examined	Type material examined. Syntypes Deltocephalus porticus Melichar: 4 ♂, 2 ♀, Sri Lanka, Peradeniya (MMB). Syntypes Deltocephalus intermedius Melichar: 1 ♂, Sri Lanka, Peradeniya, 1 f, Henaratgod (MMB). Syntypes, Paivana durga Distant: 2 ♂, “ S. India, Kodai Kanal, T. V. Campbell ”, “ S. India, E. A. Butler, 1915 - 60 ” (BMNH). Syntypes Cicadula fletcheri Pruthi: 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Kodai Kanal, Palnis, 7000 ft, Sept. 1921, Fletcher Coll. (ZSI). Additional material. India: 2 ♂, 4 ♀ (on same mount) and 4 ♀ (on same mount), “ K K 5.17 ” (handwritten under the specimen mount) and a recent label for Kodai Kanal (see “ Material and Methods - T. V. Campbell material ”) (BMNH). The latter specimens also with “ Pulney Hills ”, May 1917, 1928 - 503 ” (BMNH register entry for 1928 - 503 reads: “ S. India, T. V. Campbell, coll. by donor ”) (see Remarks). Several males and females from India: Mudigree, Yercaud, Silchar and Hyderabad (UASB).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF882303FF30FE79B756FB4E.taxon	discussion	Remarks. There is variation in the brown marking in this species but as all specimens have similar male genitalia they are regarded as the same species. Types of porticus and durga and specimens from Hyderabad, Bangalore, Bannerghatta, Jog Falls, Thekkadi, Yercaud and Nagarahole have a brown spot on the head (Fig. 28 a). This spot is fainter in specimens from Munnar (Fig. 25 a) and Nongpoh and is absent in the types of intermedius and specimens from Mudigere, Sukna, Jog Falls, Nandi Hills, Trichur and Silchar (Fig. 30 a). Specimens from Valparai are both with and without markings and the type series of durga and the additional BMNH material from Kodai Kanal have additional brown marking on the head and pronotum (Fig. 26 a) and forewings.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF882303FF30FB59B2F3FA2E.taxon	materials_examined	Type material examined. Holotype ♀, India: “ Pusa, H. M. Lefroy ”, “ Distant Coll. 1911 - 383 ” (BMNH). Additional material. 1 ♀, same data as holotype (BMNH) (see Remarks).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF882303FF30FB59B2F3FA2E.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The original description of pulviscula indicates darker markings than are present on the specimen labelled as type (BMNH), except the apical dark patch on the hind tibia is clear. The forewings have extra cross veins that would key out the species in the first couplet of Dash & Viraktamath’s (1998) key. Distant (1908) indicated only one specimen had been sent by Lefroy but another similar female specimen (topotypic) with the same labels (see above) is also in the BMNH.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF882303FF30F9F9B01DF86E.taxon	materials_examined	Type material examined. Type (sex unknown, abdomen missing), Sri Lanka: Weligama, T. B. Fletcher, 22. i. 08, plus Distant’s hand written determination label with the word ‘ Type’ and a red museum ‘ Type’ disc (BMNH).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF882303FF30F9F9B01DF86E.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Although this species was described from an unknown number of specimens from “ Ceylon; Weligama (Fletcher) ” Distant noted in its description that the “ abdomen beneath [was] imperfectly seen in [the] typical specimen, but apparently more or less piceous on [its] lateral margins ”. This statement is both ambiguous (as it could imply either a single specimen or one (the typical specimen) of several specimens) and puzzling because if the abdomen was obscure why are other ventral parts of the body adequately described? Also, the type specimen, although now missing its abdomen, is mounted on a micro pin and therefore its abdomen (when present) would surely have been clearly visible! Another specimen (BMNH) from W. Malaysia, Pahang (see Fig. 33, male genitalia), matches the type almost exactly, including the unusual markings (see Fig. 33 a), but if the two specimens are the same species their disjunct distribution is surprising.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF892302FF30FF79B2F2FE6E.taxon	materials_examined	Type material examined. Seychelles: syntypes M. vagans: 1 ♂, 2 ♀, 1 (specimen missing, labelled type), no further data, numbered “ 64 ”, “ 61 ”, “ 99 ” and “ 54 ” respectively; 1 ♂, 1 ♀, “ Mahe, ’ 08 - 9 ”, numbered “ 55 ”; holotype ♂ S. seychellensis, “ Silhouette, ’ 08 ”, numbered “ 19 ” (all BMNH).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF892302FF30FF79B2F2FE6E.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The remainder of the type series of vagans (and many other species collected on the same expedition) and further data for numbered specimens is in Cambridge University (see ‘ Material & methods – Percy Sladen Trust Expedition material’.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF8A2301FF30FF3BB75AFD90.taxon	materials_examined	Type material examined. INDIA: Holotype ♂, Meghalaya: Cherrapunjee, 5. xi. 1981, C. A. Viraktamath (UASB). Paratypes: Assam: 8 ♂, 5 ♀, Silchar, 15. xi. l 981, C. S. Wesley; West Bengal: 2 ♂, Calcutta, 1 l. xi. 198 1, C. A. Viraktamath; Karnataka: 1 ♂, 20 Km N. Yelburga, 13. xii. 1974, K. D. Ghorpade (BMNH, ZSI, UASB).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF8A2301FF30FF3BB75AFD90.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species was described and figured by Dash & Viraktamath (1998) from India as Deltocephalus (Recilia) hospes Kirkaldy. Subsequent figures of hospes from its type locality (Hawaii) by Knight and those of the lectotype by the current authors (Fig. 38) indicate that hospes should be restricted to Hawaiian material and that material from India is a new species. The differences are that in the new species the vertex is much shorter with different markings (compare Figs 32 a and 38 a) and the aedeagal ‘ apical extension’ is much longer (compare Figs 32 h and 38 k). Within India, the species is closely related to aridus but differs in the structure of the apex of the aedeagus, sternal apodemes and subgenital plates. See also M. knighti sp. nov	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF8A2301FF30FD9BB12EFB30.taxon	description	Recilia hospes (Kirkaldy), Fletcher & Condello, 1993: 43 – 44, Australia, misidentification.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF8A2301FF30FD9BB12EFB30.taxon	materials_examined	Type material examined. Holotype ♂, New Zealand: South Island, Tasman Valley, Glentamner Stn, 2,000 ’, 3. ii. 1972, W. J. Knight & P. S. Broomfield (BMNH). Other material. Australia: 1 ♂, NSW, Jerilderie, 19. xii. 1978 (BMNH). Papua New Guinea: 1 ♂, Wapenamanda, 7. x. 1977 (BMNH).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF8A2301FF30FD9BB12EFB30.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species was described and figured by Evans (1966) from Australia as Deltocephalus coronifer Marshall and by Knight (1975) from New Zealand and Linnavuori (1960 b) from Fiji as Deltocephalus hospes Kirkaldy and Deltocephalus (Insulanus) hospes Kirkaldy, respectively. Subsequent examination and figures of hospes from its type locality (Hawaii) by Knight and those of the lectotype by the current authors (Fig. 38) indicate that hospes should be restricted to the Hawaiian material and that material from other Pacific localities is a new species. The differences are that in the new species the aedeagal ‘ apical extension’ is narrower in lateral view (compare Figs 38 k and 39 k) and less ridge-like in ventral view (compare Figs 38 m and 39 m), the style apical process is less robust (compare Figs 38 f and 39 f) and the third basal abdominal apodemes are smaller (compare Figs 38 n and 39 n). See also M. dashi sp. nov.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF8A2301FF30FAFBB280F930.taxon	description	Sordid yellow; vertex with a narrow dark brown submarginal band, thereafter to anterior margin pale yellow; fore wing veins margined with brown. Male pygofer with dorsal margin narrowly rounded basally, in dorsal view (Fig. 52 p); lateral process narrow, weakly and evenly curved from base to apex in lateral view, extending well beyond pygofer lobes. Aedeagus weakly curved dorsally in lateral view; dorsal (anterior) margin abruptly narrowing near midlength in lateral view (Fig. 52 h).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF8A2301FF30FAFBB280F930.taxon	materials_examined	Type material examined. Holotype ♂, Iran: Minab, 22. ix. 2002 (BMNH). Paratypes: 3 ♂, same data as holotype (BMNH).	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
03E98798FF8A2301FF30FAFBB280F930.taxon	discussion	Remarks. In Wilson’s (1983) key the new species runs to couplet 7 but has characters in common with both halves of the couplet i. e. the pygofer dorsal margin is narrowly curved as in lineaticollis (first part of the couplet) and the aedeagal processes are without a distinct medial bend in lateral view (second part of the couplet). From lucaniae with a similar overall shaped aedeagus it differs in having the pygofer process shorter and less strongly curved dorsally and the aedeagus differs from all species in having the dorsal (anterior) margin abruptly narrowing near midlength in lateral view.	en	Webb, Michael D., Viraktamath, Chandra A. (2009): 2163. Zootaxa 2163: 1-64
