Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes



Species Neotibicen winnemanna - Eastern Scissor(s) Grinder

Tibicen winnemanna (MALE) - Neotibicen winnemanna - male Tibicen winnemanna - Neotibicen winnemanna - male Eastern Scissor(s) Grinder Cicada - Neotibicen winnemanna Summer cicada - Tibicen - Neotibicen winnemanna Cicada - Neotibicen winnemanna Neotibicen - Neotibicen winnemanna Dog-day Cicada - Neotibicen winnemanna cicada - Neotibicen winnemanna
Kingdom Animalia (Animals)
Phylum Arthropoda (Arthropods)
Subphylum Hexapoda (Hexapods)
Class Insecta (Insects)
Order Hemiptera (True Bugs, Cicadas, Hoppers, Aphids and Allies)
Suborder Auchenorrhyncha (True Hoppers)
Infraorder Cicadomorpha (Cicadas, Spittlebugs, Leafhoppers, and Treehoppers)
Superfamily Cicadoidea (Cicadas)
Family Cicadidae (Cicadas)
Subfamily Cicadinae
Tribe Tacuini
Genus Neotibicen (Dogday Cicadas)
No Taxon (pruinosus group (Scissor Grinders))
Species winnemanna (Eastern Scissor(s) Grinder)
Other Common Names
"Scissor(s) Grinder"
Proposed: "Eastern Scissor Grinder" OR "Southern Scissor Grinder"

"Eastern Scissor(s) Grinder" - NOTE: This common name, though not formally published, is used to distinguish winnemanna from pruinosus nominate ("coined" Bill Reynolds, 2008).
Synonyms and other taxonomic changes
37 mm body length

Length - Generally 1.75 to 2.25 inches (incl. wings)

Average length incl. wings: ~2" - 2.25"
For additional details, see comments under photos.

NOTE: Much of the following information is based on lit., per. observ. &/or per. comm.

1) Most similar to T. pruinosus in morphology and call but often confused with linnei!
NOTE: The characteristic pruinose/white ")" marks behind the tymbal covers in males of T. pruinosus are often weakly developed to near absent in males of T. winnemanna.

2) Dorsum of abdomen usually marked with brown, tan, or orangish blotching along the mid-line of the first 2 abdominal segments (often running the full length of the abdomen in some specimens). This character may also be lacking and black abdomens are not out of the norm for many individuals and black abdomens may be common in some populations.

3) Unlike the females of T. pruinosus, females of T. winnemanna along the Atlantic states typically lack the well-developed paired pruinose spots at the base of the abdomen and more often closely resemble females of T. linnei (Sympatric populations considered!). However, identification and separation of the females of T. linnei and T. winnemanna is usually possible based on the following:
*Both genders of T. linnei usu. possess a well developed ventral black stripe running the full length of the abdomen (this stripe may have uneven edges, but ever present); this trait is lacking or very poorly developed in specimens of T. winnemanna.
*Females of T. winnemanna usually do not have glossy black abdomens and often have tan or dark brown markings dorsally on the anterior abdominal segments - neither of which are characteristic of linnei.

4) Costal margin of forewing often strongly bent as seen in T. linnei. This single shared character often creates identification nightmares for many.

5) The black mask across the face of winnemanna (and pruinosus) is said to be broken and possess green intrusion; however, contrary to popular diagnostics may in fact at times be solid black, complete and unbroken. In fact, the variations in this trait seen in some populations of winnemanna/pruinous confound id. In contrast, the black face mask does tend to hold true in most cases for T. linnei (NOT all!). All in all, this trait is another example of a morphological character that often holds true, but is not absolute!

6) Opercula of males similar to those of T. pruinosus; however, in many eastern T. winnemanna specimens, the opercula can often be slightly more elongated and sharper than typically seen in pruinosus (+ winnemanna pop's) to the west.

HYPOTHETICAL: Some of the overlapping traits most often seen in linnei, like the bowed costae and elongated opercula, are possibly artifacts of introgression (more work is needed to substantiate). The two taxa "appear to readily cross", particularly in urban and suburban areas. Suspected "hybrid populations" are not uncommon, esp. in urban environments where intermediate morphologies and calls create identification problems.

There appears to be a complex blending with regards to both morphologies and calls. Generally, linnei and winnemanna are quite distinct in character sets, however, in some parts of the range, the delineation of the the two becomes ambiguous and thought to be an artifact of introgression. (per. comm. & per. observ., Bill Reynolds, 2008)

NOTE: Others have made similar observations involving possible hybridization between and among several Tibicen species. Some of the suspected hybrid groups involve closely related taxa in other parts of the eastern US. Based on morphologies and call characteristics, it appears as though T. canicularis x pruinosus, T. canicularis x linnei, and T. linnei x pruinosus crosses may also occur in areas where these taxa are sympatric to the north and west.


Observations + per. comm.:
T. winnemanna in the northern and eastern part of its range - esp. urban areas in central NC north into VA, DC, MD & PA often seem to possess more linnei-like traits and usu. exhibit widely variable calls (such traits incl. strongly bowed costae, more elongated opercula, and rapid slurring calls)

Populations in w. & sc. NC (Charlotte metro area), south across SC, e. GA, n. FL (?) extending west into e. AL seem to be more pruinosus-like (incl. wing shape, shape of the male opercula, call and basic coloration & morphology).


NOTES on calling behaviors for members of the T. pruinosus complex:

Perhaps the most notable differences among the calls of T. pruinosus, T. winnemana and T. latifasciatus involves males' calling times and activities. Males of T. latifasciatus typically call during the day, (sunlight hours) from 8:00 am to early evening (prior to sunset) and strong chorus activity can be heard all day. In contrast, T. pruinosus & T. winnemanna are both most active in the evening/dusk 'til shortly after sunset, with occasional light chorus activity at sporadic times during the day.

Although the song of T. latifasciatus is very similar to that of T. pruinosus & T. winnemanna, it is considered by many to be a bit more "pitchy" or "squawky" - some have even described the call of latifasciatus as sounding "almost inverse" to that of the other two. Audal studies and comparisons suggest the call similarities among the three taxa are great (~same) but can be subject to variation based on geography and ambient environmental conditions (i.e. temp, humidity, etc.). But on a final note, there is still something to be said for the human ear and our own abilities to recognize and differentiate subtle variations in sound.

YOUTUBE Video & Sound File for T. winnemanna

YOUTUBE Videos & Sound Files for T. pruinosus
The following example demonstrates the extreme pruinnosity seen in some populations of pruinosus and how they can be similar in appearance to latifasciatus.
Additional sound file of T pruinosus in Kansas

YOUTUBE Videos & Sound Files for T. latifasciatus


NOTE: Some IMAGES under this taxon may be MISIDENTIFIED and are in a constant state of review!
Based on morphological characteristics, call similarities, and distribution patterns, several species are subject to confusion and erroneous id (We/I make mistakes!).
This is a dynamic "living-breathing" site and though we (I) make mistakes, we strive to share the most comprehensive and accurate information possible.
Comments, corrections and updates are always welcome.
"Eastern/Southern USA":

Most of the literature and reports for T. winnemanna suggest this taxon occupies a more eastern and southern distribution than the related taxon T. pruinosus.

T. winnemanna is best known from areas east of the Appalchian Mountains incl. Atlantic states from PA south to FL(?). Populations of these cicadas seem to occupy the lower mountain elevations, Piedmont Plateau and upper/inner Atlantic Coastal Plain where they frequent deciduous & mixed deciduous-coniferous forests. Populations often approach the bays and estuaries, but are generally absent in maritime forests & coastal scrub.
As mentioned, these cicadas are NOT known to be "immediately coastal" in distribution (esp. in the South) being replaced by closely related taxa in coastal environments (please refer to Tibicen latifasciatus (Davis 1915), "Coastal Scissor(s) Grinder Cicada").

The following localities are for cicadas best fitting the description given for T. winnemanna
(Personal Observ., Bill Reynolds, 2007-2011 + per. comm.):

Tibicen winnemanna

Mid-Atlantic States/prov. (Confirmed): PA, MD, & DC
Mid-Atlantic States/prov. (Ambiguous Records based on per. comm.): NJ(?), NY (?), & DE(?)

Southern Atlantic States (confirmed): VA, NC, SC, & GA

NOTE: Much of the following information is based on per. observ. &/or per. comm., Bill Reynolds:
Cicadas with characteristics seen in winnemanna have been reported/collected from the following:
(in support of observ's. by Dr. Sanborn):

NOTE: With regards to morphological characters (esp. tan dorsal markings along the abdomen), Dr. A. Sanborn also mentions similar observations in distribution for winnemanna/winnemanna-like populations - per. comm. + info obtained from S. Halbert, ref. collection at the University of FL in Gainesville

NOTE: Sanborn reports populations of "pruinosus" extending across the Gulf States often possess characters suggestive of T. winnemanna and may be more akin to that taxon. Representatives in the University of FL collection from such locations are currently classified as "winnemanna".

Possible Range may include the following regions(?) - (based on reports by Sanborn & holdings in the UF collection):

Gulf States of the "Deep South": FL, AL, MS, & LA (e. TX?)

FLORIDA: restricted to n. FL & Panhandle counties (ambiguous records? / seems to be rare if present ??)

ALABAMA: reported statewide - may be locally common, esp. in c. & n. AL & along major rivers
Gulf Coastal Plain of s. Alabama (ambiguous records / seems to be rare to absent)
Piedmont Plateau of east central AL (scattered - uncommon to rare)
Blackbelt Prairies of wc. AL (scattered - ranges from locally abundant to uncommon)
Mountains of c & ne AL (scattered - ranges from locally abundant to uncommon)
Tennessee River Valley of N. Alabama (WIDESPREAD & VERY common)

MISSISSIPPI: reported statewide - may be locally common, esp. in c. & n. MS ... & along primary rivers

LOUISIANA: reported statewide - often scattered but may be locally abundant ... esp. along rivers (scattered in coastal areas, may be locally common)

TEXAS: Likely T. pruinosus nominate (?)

"Upper Mid-South": e. KY & most of TN (scattered reports ranging from locally abundant to absent)

NOTE: Populations with "winnemanna-like" traits appear to "transition" into T. pruinosus across expansive areas of the upper mid-South (incl. AL, MS, LA & TN...most notable across the Tennessee River basin n. into the Ohio Riv.).

Personal Observ., Bill Reynolds:
Populations from "something in the pruinosus/winnemanna group" can be heard along rivers and waterways across sw. Georgia (Flynt River - Decatur Co., GA west into Seminole Co., GA) and parts of Florida adj. to sw. GA & se. AL (Scattered & Uncommon to rare!). Since these cicadas occupy river basins and hardwood forests, call in the evening and are not associated with cedars, it's widely thought they are likely "winnemanna" (not latifasciatus which is found to the south in w. central FL and typically calls during the day). Many years back, I collected a few specimens from this region and they were to the best of my recollection more winnemanna-like (one specimen remains in my personal collection and is consistent with winnemanna & certainly not representative of latifasciatus).

Given the continuity & distribution coupled with "blending", T. pruinosus and T. winnemanna likely represent a single taxon and might better be described as clinal. However, more work is needed to fully understand the relationship between winnemanna and pruinosus.

Usually associated with inland deciduous & mixed forests.
Occasionally found in pine dominated forests here in the Southeast.
*"Riparian" - often associated with forests along river systems
Across the range: June-October
NC: June-Sept (more common in late summer-early autumn)
SC & GA: June-OCT (Most common in late summer-early autumn)
Seems to prefer various Hardwoods (Maple, Hickory, Cherry, Sweet gum + others) but can be found in pine dominated systems.

Emerging nymphs have occasionally been collected on Pines (host?) and in fair numbers.
Life Cycle
eggs laid in twigs and/or bark
eggs hatch and nymphs fall to the ground
Nymphs burrow in to the ground and feed on the sap in tree roots
After several years, the mature nymphs surface, climb and the adults emerge
NOTE: Much of the following information is based on per. observ. &/or per. comm., Bill Reynolds:

Based on color, pattern and wing shape, T. winnemanna is frequently confused with T. linnei.

Blending may also complicate species identification (?)

*"INTRASPECIFIC blending" (?): T. winnemanna appears to transition or hybridize/intergrade with T. pruinosus across the upper mid-South (incl. populations across the Tennesse River Valley of Tennessee & n. Alabama, many of which possess characters typical of winnemanna).
Since both pruinosus and winnemanna possess similar calls and behaviors, such similarities and broad range of blending helps support the recognition of T. winnemama as conspecific with T. pruinosus.

*"INTERSPECIFIC blending" (?): T. winnemanna "appears to hybridize/intergrade" with T. linnei in urban areas (man manipulated environments) of central NC - possibly elsewhere (cicadas exhibiting intermediate morphologies and intermediate calls are not uncommon). Since T. winnemanna (pruinosus) and linnei usually possess distinct character sets (i.e. call and to some degree morphological traits) and exhibit limited blending, such differences support the recognition of these taxa as distinct with incidental hybridization likley being an artifact of human disturbance.

A single pallid variant of winnemanna, similar in appearance and description to Beamer's T. pruinosus f. fulva, was collected in 2009


"The TROUBLE with winnemanna"
T. winnemanna VS. T. linnei

Diagnostics such as the "line bisection test" & "wing node position" used to separate T. linnei from T. pruinosus in the Midwest - seems to be challenged when applied to "T. pruinosus/winnemanna" (+ other taxa) in the Southeast. I have noticed that while the point of bisection varies in T. winnemanna in the east and T. pruinosus from the upper mid-South, it nearly always bisects the designated wing cell somewhere across the last half or third. This point of bisection is often very near, on the point of coalescence, and in some cases even anterior to the point of coalescence between the C (costal vein) & SC (subcostal) - a characteristic predicted for T. linnei. Midwestern conventions and use of this test suggest little if any bisection of the designated wing cell in members of the pruinosus group.

Regarding T. linnei:
In support of the test, the point of bisection is "relatively consistent" in most T. linnei and crosses the halfway point nearly everytime either on the point of coalescence (in females) or anterior to the point of coalescence (usu. males).

NOTE: Some variation exists between males and females of T. linnei and among populations of T. linnei. The "line bisection test" is not an ABSOLUTE. Even for T. linnei, there have been populations and isolated specimens which DO NOT conform nor meet the expected test results!

Although this test has some support and validity in the upper Midwest, it is of little use if you wish to separate female specimens of T. winnemanna, T. pruinosus and T. linnei collected below the Mason-Dixon Line. Using this character and test, as a stand alone deciding factor, may result in erroneous identification.

I have had the "Costal Margin" discussion on numerous occasions with cicada aficionados & several leading cicada specialists, few of whom continue to weigh heavily on the costal margin diagnosis for identification of linnei or separation of it from similar related types.

NOTE: Bowing in the costae and use of the "line bisection test" for species determination can fail. There is significant overlap in this trait and strong bowing in the costae can be seen in any of the following taxa: T. linnei, T. pruinosus, T. winnemanna and T. canicularis (to a lesser extent T. robinsonianus). Due to overlap, it is not possible to separate the species based on this character alone.


Costal Margin used in id ... continued!

Please refer to the following paper for discussion on the idenification of T. linnei and separation of this species from related taxa.

According to Beamer and supported in other manuscripts, the shape of the opercula of the males in T. linnei vs. T. pruinosus is the ONLY true deciding factor, not the wing shape.

NOTE: In parts of the range where linnei is sympatric with related taxa (esp. pruinosus/winnemanna), separation using traditional morphological characters incl. wing shape, coloration, opercula shape, etc., may be moot (per. comm. & per. observ.). Regarding Beamer's observations, opercula shape is NOT always diagnostic and may vary in both T. linnei & among members of the T. pruinosus/winnemanna group as well. (per.comm. & per. observ.)

In some parts of the range, the males' calls may be the only SINGLE useful character for species identification and separation of pruinosus/winnemanna & linnei!

As mentioned earlier, pruinosus/winnemanna and linnei "likely hybridize" creating additional identification issues. Morphological and audal analysis seem to support crossing between and among several taxa incl. the aforementioned.
See Also
"Green Tibicen Species"
Collectively, yet informally, referred to as the "Green Tibicen species" (per. comm.), the following cicadas are often difficult to differentiate and all appear to be very closely related. Genitalic analysis of the males suggest these species are very closely related and morphological differences between and among the species are slight. It is also thought (based on observations) that several of these may be involved in complex hybrid zones; however, more work is needed to substantiate and better understand these observations.
Tibicen pruinosus pruinosus var. fulvus Beamer 1924 [syn. T. pruinosa var. fulva], "Pale Scissor(s) Grinder Cicada"

"Southern Dog-day Cicadas"
Loosely & informally referred to as the "Southern Dog-day Cicadas" (suggested - Reynolds 2010), the following taxa are mostly "southern" in distribution and appear to be closely related. These cicadas share several traits, incl. elongated opercula in the males, rapid trill and/or clicking calls, and unusually wide heads relative to body dimension (head widths usu. exceed thoracic widths).
(*appears to be the most divergent member within this group - ??)