I agree these cicadas do not agree entirely with canicularis as seen in the northeast, but they aren't a good match for the davisi/auriferus group either. Unfortunately, not enough work has been done in this area. I strongly suspect the skewed characters are either an artifact of blending or perhaps isolation in forested fragments of the upper Miss. Riv. Basin.

I have also often wondered if the canicularis group mirrors the davisi/auriferus group and is possibly composed of 2 or more distinct populations based on distribution, habitat and morphology (??). Certainly, T. canicularis in the east does not appear to be identical to so called "canicularis" from the upper Mid-West.

I will forward links to acouple other folks to hopefully get some more angles and comments ;)

Not disagreeing with you relative to the taxonomic identity of the critter in the pic, but here are examples of the "davisi-auriferus" group" and examples of the eastern & western canicularis also. I thought a series of pictures side by side might help. I also looked through my auriferus, davisi and harnedi + canicularis (limited series of those) - the cicada pictured here is not congruent with any of the specimens I have either.

Note: The mesonota of the aurifuris-davisi group seems shorter, heads wider and the pronota less maculated with black....????

auriferus, davisi harnedi, davisi


To me, it's the short dark opercula, pattern on the mesonotum and the black patterns on the pronotum that look more akin to canicularis - the head is blunt though and it lacks the typical pubescence seen in most canicularis.

canicularis (NH), "canicularis" (Michigan)




This Iowa cicada is anomalous for now.