Diceroprocta pusilla Davis, 1942

Sanborn, Allen F., 2025, Comments and corrections to recent taxonomic changes in cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) including revised species status, a new subspecies, a new combination, and new tribal assignments of genera, Zootaxa 5609 (4), pp. 479-502 : 489

Diceroprocta pusilla Davis, 1942 rev. stat.

Diceroprocta pusilla Davis 1942: 177 (Apatzngan, Michoacan, Mexico). rev. stat.

REMARKS. Kratzer (2024) synonymized Diceroprocta virgulata ( Distant, 1904) with Diceroprocta pusilla Davis, 1942 based on the similar fore wing infuscation pattern, body coloration, distribution of specimens found on iNaturalist (although I could not find any), and the type locality of D. pusilla . However, there are distinct differences in the morphology and coloration that go beyond individual variability that suggest the two species are different. The type of D. virgulata was seen in the BMNH and type material of D. pusilla in the AMNH and the SIIS ( Sanborn 1999).

The species description in Distant (1904), the drawing in Distant (1905a), and the description of Davis (1942) provide a number of coloration differences between the species. The most obvious differences in coloration are the completely piceous abdomen of D. virgulata and the ochraceous timbal covers and lateral abdominal tergites 2 and 8 found in D. pusilla ( Davis 1942) .

More important than the color differences are the differences in body size, the male opercula, and the timbal covers. Diceroprocta virgulata is reported to have a body length of 16 mm and a wingspan of 59 mm ( Distant 1904) while D. pusilla is reported to have a body length of 14 mm and a wingspan of 44 mm ( Davis 1942). Although a 2 mm difference in body length may be found in a species, it is difficult to believe a 34% difference in wingspan within a single species. In addition, the opercula of D. virgulata have a lateral margin that is slightly concave and angled mediad, the anteromedial margin is parallel to the lateral margin, the posterior margin is subtruncate, the medial angles of the opercula are well separated on either side of the midline of abdominal sternites I and II and the posterior margins do not extend posteriorly to the anterior of sternite II leaving a gap around most of the operculum into the tympanal cavity ( Distant 1904, 1905a). In contrast, the opercula of D. pusilla exhibit lateral margins that are almost parallel, an obliquely rounded posterior margin, the medial angles almost touch and the opercula reach posteriorly to cover abdominal sternite II ( Davis 1942). Finally, the timbal covers are inflated posterolaterally in D. virgulata ( Distant 1905a) but are plate-like in D. pusilla . The shape of the timbal cover in D. virgulata is similar to Diceroprocta tepicana Davis, 1938 or Diceroprocta bakeri Distant, 1911a but divergent from D. pusilla .

Another issue in the proposed synonymy is the lack of the ability to identify the two species as originating in the same geographic area. Kratzer (2024) correctly states that the holotype of D. virgulata was collected in Mexico ( Distant 1904) but no additional information on where the specimen was collected in Mexico is available. Since size information, opercula images, or timbal cover images are not available for the iNaturalist observations, there is no way to determine if the observations are of D. virgulata or D. pusilla (although I can only find D. virgulata on the website) so that dorsal images of specimens with their wings against their body are insufficient to determine species. The synonymy is proposed based on the similar infuscation pattern of the fore wings but there is no way to confirm the synonymy based on these images since the structures which are known to differ between the species are not illustrated. The iNaturalist observations may represent only D. virgulata , only D. pusilla , or a combination of the two species.

Therefore, Diceroprocta pusilla Davis, 1942 rev. stat. is removed from junior synonymy of Diceroprocta virgulata ( Distant, 1904) . The statement by Kratzer (2024) that the synonymy is reasonable based on the morphology and coloration alone is not supported as the original descriptions identify several morphological features that are distinct in each species.