...I thought I recalled that separate subspecies pages had been setup for the cerambycid Strangalia famelica (solitaria), and that is indeed the case. Why can't the same be done for these two subspecies?

Incidentally, there are a few other formosa subspecies in North America besides just these two as indicated on the species info page, although none of these are as yet posted in the guide.

As it stands now, there are two pics of nominotypicals from Oklahoma that are in the general species page that could be moved - all remaining photos on that page would be assignable to subspecies generosa.

Having little experience in the technical workings of BugGuide, I do wonder if BugGuide would accept any of the following formats in its requested species box: "formosa generosa", "formosa_generosa", "formosa-generosa", other ways? I have never tried such obvious tricks but I imagine others have.

If you need a page, just post a note in Forums - Requests for Additional Guide Pages.

Shortly after I posted my above stupid message I realized that subpecies Guide pages are indeed an option, BUT the newly generated taxonomic name attached to image unfortunately still remains at the species level.

Yes, the taxonomic name which is automatically appended to the "Title" under the image as the image is placed on its species page unfortunately does not extend to subspecies. However, a glance immediately above the image does show the correct Taxonomy structure. This is an internal BugGuide deficiency which we are all hoping that BugGuide 2.0 will address but I have no way of knowing that it will.

...usually distinguish the subspecies, but this can be tricky in intergrades zones. It does seem strange to only have a separate page for the nominotypical subspecies.

Truthfully, I don't fully subscribe to the way the 'subspecies concept' has been applied to cicindelid taxonomy - many of them (such as this one) do not fit the classic concept of allopatric populations in which gene flow is prevented by external (i.e., geographic) barriers, but rather seem to represent a complicated pattern of clinal variation. But that is another debate ;-)