I hope you all aren't getting sick of me yet :) First I want to say thank heavens that it looks like Bugguide is going to be saved else I wouldn't have brought this up as I figured it was probably pointless at this juncture but SINCE IT IS going to continue and hopefully for a very long time, I'd like to let the editors know of some problems I found in the Cicadidae section.
Some of the images that have been identified as Tibicen chloromera are in fact not this species at all.
I've spent several days keying these out because they didn't look like the T. chloromera specimens I collected in Connecticut last week and I was reluctant prior to that time to say anything because they were already ID'd by Andy Hamilton.
The images I'm talking about are these:
http://bugguide.net/node/view/10028/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/10027/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/6681/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/7151/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/7150/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/7149/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/7148/bgimage
Problem is, is that Tibicen chloromera is a darker almost black species with either a partially black or completely black pronotal collar. As you can see by the above images, they don't even meet that most basic criteria for chloromera.
Given where these photos were taken and my familiarity with cicadas from these areas, and using
Michigan Cicada Key, I have "tentatively" Id'd the first three as T. pruinosa and the second as T. canicularis.
I even had some of my colleagues have a look at these ID's for confirmation and these are their responses:
------------------------
Hi Gerry -
I agree that they do not look like chloromera. Chloromera are supposed to have a black pronotal collar, for example, and they tend to be darker overall. The only warning I would give is that keys are often local -- the Michigan cicadas site key was probably developed using specimens from that area, and if the species vary geographically then the key might fail when applied to a specimen from over here in the east.
David Marshall
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of Connecticut
75 N. Eagleville Rd., U-3043
Storrs, CT 06269
-------------------------
Gerry,
No doubt about it. Neither of these are chloromera. The protonotal collar is green, not black.
The characteristic white spots on either side of the abdomen where the thorax meets are absent also.
But without a side shot of the wings, I can’t confirm that the first one is T. linnei or not.
The second one is most likely T. winnemanna (pruinosa), all of the linnei I find are very colorfully marked as in the first pic.
I don’t think either one is T. davisi (T. canicularis is more northern in distribution) either. The wings look too long.
Just my opinion.
John Zyla
Cicadas.info
-------------------------
Hi Gerry,
I'd cast my vote for
http://bugguide.net/node/view/7148/bgimage
being T. canicularis. It looks like it's sitting on a piece of that
white plastic lattice material, and the notes refer to a fence; if
this is so, then it's rather small, which would be about right for T.
canicularis. Plus, seconding John Zyla's comments, it just doesn't
look right for chloromera-- too many things wrong. T. canicularis
seems pretty common here in CT.
This one;
http://bugguide.net/node/view/10028/bgimage
is a bit bigger- looks like it's sitting on bricks. For the same
reasons above, it doesn't look like chloromera. In the Michigan
Cicadas key, it keys to linnei or pruinosa, but the key isn't
guaranteed to work for cicadas outside of Michigan. Keying this way
is dubious, because you can't see the wings (or a whole bunch of
other characters) in the pictures.
The Michigan cicadas key probably works on most Tibicens-- but we're
conservative in our claims for it, because it was most thoroughly
tested on specimens collected in Michigan (though we used it on lots
of other specimens), and because some of the possibly cryptic species
or variants (winnnemana comes to mind) might not come out properly in
the key. So whereas the key *probably* works well for specimens all
over the range of Tibicen, there's no guarantee!
For both, though, I'd have to say they don't seem like T. chloromera.
______________________
John Cooley
Assistant Professor in Residence
University of Connecticut
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
75 North Eagleville Rd
Storrs, CT 06269-3043
-------------------------------------------------------
At the very least these should be moved up to Tibicen genus if you're not comfortable with the alternate ID's mentioned above.
Others I am 100% positive on are below:
This is Neocicada hieroglyphica the wing pattern is quite distinct.
This is Tibicen auletes the high pruinosity is a dead give-away.
This should be moved to Tibicen genus though I suspect it is T. aurifera but I will try to find a relevant key.
This should be moved to Tibicen genus
That's it for now, my eyes are going bonkers right now.
Gerry
