These could very well be the same species, in addition to this one which was indeed found on Persimmon:

If so, extra views and angles are very helpful. I can't find any single character that would imply that these are different species.

Then there are some images I found online of Baeoalitriozus magnicauda, which is an asian species but is closely allied to the american B. diospyri according to Crawford. I don't believe that species is a possibility, but I bring it up because Crawford's description of that species as well as his wing venation diagram are perhaps more useful than Ashmead's illustration of B. dispyri which is terribly asymmetrical and looks like it was rushed. That paper, despite being about the south pacific island fauna, does also mention B. diospyri:

"One species of southwestern United States, Trioza diospyri
Ashm., is beyond doubt a representative of this genus and
should be referred to it. It has stood heretofore as a species
strikingly different from other American Triozidae, but nevertheless remaining in that genus."

(For context, it was referring to B. diospyri in a time when most Triozids were in the genus Trioza, and was making the case that it should belong to Megatrioza, many species which would later be transferred to Baeoalitriozus.)

Regardless of the complex taxonomic family history, Crawford makes an interesting claim when he says that B. diospyri is strikingly different from other American Triozidae. That's effectively great news to us as we try to work through these psyllids. The only problem? Crawford's paper is 96 years old. The next question is, have any Triozid species been described since 1919 that challenge Crawford's claim? That will be the next thing that I look into.

(apologies for the lengthy comment; I like to comment in a way that shows where my head is at during the ID process, which often leads to more questions than answers).

(with exception of some west coast species that I couldn't find descriptions for that probably aren't relevant anyway), I think it's safe to say that Crawford's claim (which Tuthill reiterates here, 1943) still stands. Black psyllids are uncommon enough, but when coupled with the unique venation (especially the unusually large medial cell), pubescent body, and the shape of the genitalia and genal processes, nothing comes close. The only defining character that I can't make out from the bugguide photos is the presence of three inner apical spines (as opposed to two) on the hind tibia. If this character is assumed to be true, the bugguide photos key out to B. diospyri perfectly in Tuthull's key. If this character is assumed false, the key breaks down once wing venation is asked to be considered (which may suggest that the character is indeed true - but again, I can't tell based on the photos available).

And with that ... I think we're back where we started, in that everything points to the Persimmon Psyllid, except for the distinct lack of Persimmon.

no persimmons that I know of--I agree that the lily is coincidental. I never saw any others on the lily, or at all for the next year or two. I ran into another of these a few days after I posted this (a timely coincidence) and it was on a winter cress, which was probably also coincidental.