Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-7nm9g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-28T11:17:37.635Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

The planthopper genus Stenocranus in Canada: implications for classification of Delphacidae (Hemiptera)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

K G.A. Hamilton
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Biodiversity, K.W. Neatby Building, Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Ontario,Canada K1A 0C6 (e-mail:


The Canadian species of Stenocranus Fieber are keyed by external characters correlated with species concepts defined by known genitalic characters. Stenocranus is differentiated from Terauchiana Matsumura (Asian; here reported from the New World for the first time) and Embolophora Stål (from Africa) by the remarkable development of the female pygofers, which completely conceal the ovipositor. Based on both head and genitalic characters, the genus is divided into two subgenera: typical Stenocranus with many Old World species and two Canadian species, and subgenus Codexnov. for other New World species. The type of Delphax dorsalis Fitch, 1851 is a specimen of Stenocranus pallidus Beamer, 1946 syn. nov., and "S. dorsalis" sensu Beamer is S. unipunctatus (Provancher, 1872). A lectotype of Delphax vittata Stål, 1862 is designated for the taxon S. unipunctatus (sensu Beamer, nec Provancher); its paralectotypes are specimens of S. acutus Beamer. The apparent evolutionary relationships of this fauna to other species of the world Stenocranini and within the superficially similar Saccharosydnini reveal numerous homoplasies and dramatic autapomorphies, contrasted with only a few reliable synapomorphies. A hierarchical classification of Delphacidae, based on the most distinctive synapomorphies, defines subfamily Delphacinae as encompassing at least four tribes: Vizcayini, Stenocranini, Tropidocephalini, and Delphacini, with "Kelisiinae" reduced to subtribe of Stenocranini and "Saccharosydnini" placed within Tropidocephalini.


Une clé permet d'identifier les espèces canadiennes de Stenocranus Fieber d'après leurs caractéristiques externes qui ont été reliées aux concepts d'espèces définis par les caractères connus des pièces génitales. Stenocranus se différencie de Terauchiana Matsumura (asiatique; signalé ici pour la première fois dans le Nouveau Monde) et Embolophora Stål (africain) par le développement remarquable des pygofères de la femelle qui cachent entièrement l'ovipositeur. D'après les caractères à la fois de la tête et des génitalias, le genre se divise en deux sous-genres, le sous-genre typique Stenocranus avec plusieurs espèces de l'Ancien Monde et deux espèces canadiennes et le sous-genre Codexnov. pour les autres espèces du Nouveau Monde. Le type de Delphax dorsalis Fitch, 1851 est un spécimen de Stenocranus pallidus Beamer, 1946 syn. nov. et « S. dorsalis » sensu Beamer est S. unipunctatus (Provancher, 1872). Un lectotype de Delphax vittata Stål, 1862 est désigné pour le taxon S. unipunctatus (sensu Beamer, nec Provancher); ses paralectotypes sont des spécimens de S. acutus Beamer. Les relations évolutives apparentes de cette faune avec les autres espèces mondiales de Stenocranini, ainsi qu'à l'intérieur des Sacchar osydnini d'apparence superficielle semblable, montrent de nombreuses homoplasies et des autapomorphies remarquables, alors qu'il y a peu de synapomorphies fiables. Une classification hiérarchique des Delphacidae, basée sur les synapomorphies les plus distinctes, définit la sous-famille Delphacinae comme comprenant au moins quatre tribus, les Vizcayini, les Stenocranini, les Tropidocephalini et les Delphacini; les « Kelisiinae » sont réduits à une sous-tribu des Stenocranini et les « Saccharosydnini » sont placés parmi les Tropidocephalini.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Asche, M. 1985. Zur Phylogenie der Delphacidae Leach, 1815 (Homoptera Cicadina Fulgoromorpha). Marburger Entomologische Publikationen, 2(1), teil 1–2: 1910.Google Scholar
Asche, M. 1990. Vizcayinae, a new subfamily of Delphacidae with revision of Vizcaya Muir (Homoptera: Fulgoroidea) – a significant phylogenetic link. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, 30: 154187.Google Scholar
Bartlett, C.R. 2005. Progress in the phylogeny of the Delphacidae using molecular and morphological tools. In Abstracts of talks and posters, 12th International Auchenorrhyncha Congress, University of California, Berkeley, 7–12 August 2005, S[ymposia]: 2930.Google Scholar
Bartlett, C.R., and Deitz, L.L. 2000. Revision of the New World delphacid planthopper genus Pissonotus (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea). Thomas Say Publications in Entomology: Monographs. Entomological Society of America, Lanham, Maryland.Google Scholar
Beamer, R.H. 1945. The genus Kelisia in America north of Mexico (Homoptera-Fulgoridae-Delphacinae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 18(3): 100108.Google Scholar
Beamer, R.H. 1946 a. The genus Stenocranus in America north of Mexico (Homoptera-Fulgoridae-Delphacinae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 19: 111.Google Scholar
Beamer, R.H. 1946 b. A new species of Stenocranus and notes on a Bakerella (Homoptera-Fulgoridae-Delphacinae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 19: 137138.Google Scholar
Beamer, R.H. 1951. A review of the genus Kelisia in America north of Mexico, with four new species (Homoptera-Fulgoridae-Delphacinae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 24: 117121.Google Scholar
Crawford, D.L. 1914. A contribution towards a monograph of the Homopterous insects of the family Delphacidae of North and South America. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 46: 557640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denno, R.F., and Perfect, T.J. 1994. Introduction: planthoppers as models for ecological study and effective pest management. In Planthoppers: their Ecology and Management. Chapman & Hall, New York. pp. 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dozier, H.L. 1922. A synopsis of the genus Stenocranus, and a new species of Mysidia (Homoptera). The Ohio Journal of Science, 22(3): 6983.Google Scholar
Emeljanov [Ymel'yanov], A.F. 1996. On the question of the classification and phylogeny of the Delphacidae (Homoptera, Cicadina), with reference to larval characters. Entomological Review, 75(9): 134150.Google Scholar
Fieber, F.X. 1866. Grundzüge zur generischen Theilung der Delphacini. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wein, 16: 497516.Google Scholar
Fitch, A. 1851. Catalogue with references and descriptions of the insects collected and arranged for the State Cabinet of Natural History. Annual Report of the State Cabinet of Natural History, 4: 4469.Google Scholar
Hamilton, K.G.A. 1990. Homoptera. In Insects from the Santana Formation, Lower Cretaceous, of Brazil. Edited by Grimaldi, D.A.. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 195: 82122.Google Scholar
Hansen, H.J. 1890. Gamle og nye hovedmomenter til Cicadariernes morphologi og systematik. Entomologisk Tidskrift utgifven af Entomologiska Föreningen i Stockholm, 11: 1976. [English translation in Entomologist, 33 (1900).]Google Scholar
Haupt, H. 1929. Neueinteilung der Homoptera-Cicadina nach phylogenetisch zu wertenden Merkmalen. Zoologische Jahrbücher, Abteilung für Systematic, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere, 58: 173286.Google Scholar
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1961. Opinion 602. Delphax Fabricius, 1798 (Insecta, Hemiptera); interpretation under the plenary powers. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 18(4): 246248.Google Scholar
Ishihara, T. 1949. Revision of the Araeopidae of Japan, Kyukyu Islands and Formosa (Hemiptera). Scientific Reports of the Matsuyama Agricultural College, 2: 1102 + 17 pl.Google Scholar
Leach, W.E. 1815. Entomology. In Edinburgh Encyclopaedie, 9: 57172.Google Scholar
Matsumura, S. 1915. Neue Cicadinen Koreas. Transactions of the Sapporo Natural History Society, 5: 154184.Google Scholar
Maw, H.E.L., Foottit, R.G., Hamilton, K.G.A., and Scudder, G.G.E. 2000. Checklist of the Hemiptera of Canada and Alaska. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario.Google Scholar
Metcalf, Z.P. 1923. A key to the Fulgoridae of eastern North America with descriptions of new species. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Society, 38: 139230 + pl. 38–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalf, Z.P. 1939. Hints on bibliographies. Journal of the Society of Bibliographers of Natural History, 1: 241248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalf, Z.P. 1943. Fascicle IV: Fulgoroidea, Part 3: Araeopidae (Delphacidae). In General catalogue of the Hemiptera. Edited by China, W.E.. Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Muir, F. 1915. A contribution towards the taxonomy of the Delphacidae. The Canadian Entomologist, 47: 208–212, 261–270, 296–302, 317320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir, F. 1918. Homopterous notes. II. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 3: 414429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir, F. 1930. On some South American Delphacidae (Homoptera, Fulgoroidea). Entomologiske Tidskrift utgifven af Entomologiska Föreningen i Stockholm, 51: 207215.Google Scholar
Muir, F., and Giffard, W.M. 1924. Studies on North American Delphacidae. Bulletin of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, Division of Entomology, 15: 153.Google Scholar
Oman, P.W. 1947. The types of Auchenorrhynchous Homoptera in the Iowa State College Collection. Iowa State College Journal of Science, 21(2): 161228.Google Scholar
Osborn, H., and Ball, E.D. 1897. Contributions to the Hemipterous fauna of Iowa. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Sciences, 4: 172234.Google Scholar
Oshanin, V.T. 1912. Katalog der paläarktischen Hemipteren (Heteroptera, Homoptera-Auchenor-rhyncha und Psylloideae). R. Friedländer & Sohn, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provancher, L. 1872. Description de plusieurs Hémiptères nouveaux (continuée). Le Naturaliste Canadien, 4: 319320.Google Scholar
Ribaut, H. 1934. Nouveaux delphacides (Homoptera-Fulgoroidea). Bulletin de la Société d'Histoire naturelle de Toulouse, 66: 281301.Google Scholar
Stål, C. 1862. Novae vel minus cognitae Homopterorum formae et species. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift, 6: 479504.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1897. A preliminary review of the North American Delphacidae. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, 5: 225261.Google Scholar
Van Duzee, E.P. 1917. Catalogue of the Hemiptera of America north of Mexico, excepting the Aphididae, Coccidae and Aleurodidae. University of California Publications, Technical Bulletins, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, Entomology, 2: 557558.Google Scholar
Vilbaste, J. 1968. Über die Zikadenfauna des Primorje Gebietes. Izdatel'stvo “Valgus”, Tallin[n, Estonia]. [In Russian with German summary.]Google Scholar
Wagner, W. 1963. Dynamische Taxionomie, angewandt auf die Delphaciden Mitteleuropas. Mitteilungen aus dem Hamburgischen zoologischen Museum und Institut, 60: 111180.Google Scholar
Yang, C.T. 1989. Delphacidae of Taiwan (II) (Homoptera: Fulgoroidea). National Science Council, Republic of China, Special Publication 6, Taipei.Google Scholar
Yang, J.T., and Yang, C.T. 1986. Delphacidae of Taiwan (I), Asiracinae and the tribe Tropidocephalini (Homoptera: Fulgoroidea). In Collected papers on Homoptera of Taiwan. Taiwan Museum Special Publication Series No. 6.Google Scholar