Eutettix latoides sp. n., is described from central Wisconsin. It most closely resembles the Californian species E. latus Hepner, and was collected from Quercus ellipsoidalis.

Leafhopper, new species, Athysanini , Nearctic, Wisconsin, Quercus

The genus Eutettix Van Duzee pertains to the deltocephaline tribe Athysanini, the largest tribe of the family, which defies easy diagnosis. The tribe generally consists of a diverse assortment of 228 genera with Y-shaped connectives in the male genitalia that lack characteristics that would place them in other tribes (Zahniser and Dietrich 2013).

As with many athysanine genera, Eutettix itself is more readily distinguished than its tribe. They are robust, somewhat flattened leafhoppers with the head in dorsal view slightly broader than the pronotum, with a faint transverse furrow just behind the rounded anterior margin, and the anterior margin with several to many transverse striations or irregular carinae. The ocelli are located on the anterior margin close to the eyes. The pronotum has very short lateral margins and bears transverse striae. The forewing has the appendix restricted to the anal vein area, with flat (non-carinate) veins, and three anteapical cells. The abdominal tergum X is sclerotized. The male pygofer is setose with a large single or double hooklike spine within it. The subgenital plates are triangular with uniseriate macrosetae.

Although 127 species were originally described in Eutettix, it is currently considered a coast-to-coast Nearctic genus containing 56 valid species and subspecies, 31 of which are endemic to the United States, 15 endemic to Mexico, and three species are shared between the two countries. There are seven species left over from the out-dated, wider interpretation of the genus that are still waiting for proper generic placement: E. botelensis Matsumura from Taiwan; E. elongatus Melichar from the Republic of the Congo; E. fulminans Melichar from Indonesia; E. marquezi Merino from the Philippines; E. mimicus Osborn from Bolivia; E. quadripunctatus Melichar from Somalia; and E. ramosus Melichar from Tanzania.

Hepner (1942) provided the first and only revision of the species of the United States, describing 18 new species, three new subspecies, three new synonyms, and descriptions and genitalic photographs of all species. He also listed five species that did not belong to Eutettix but retained them in the genus for convenience until their generic affinities were better understood – all have since been reassigned to other genera, including one to the genus Ollarianus Ball, under which one current Eutettix species (E. rubianus [Ball]) was originally described. Sixteen Mexican species were added by DeLong and Harlan (1968) and DeLong (1980). No subsequent species have been described from anywhere in the last 33 years. In the current work a new species of Eutettix is described, bringing the total number of Nearctic species to 50.

Multiple images per view were captured using a Microvision System with an AT-200GE videocamera mounted on a Leica 10447176 Planapo 1.0x/WO 97mm lens, and compiled using Cartograph 8.0.6 software. The resulting images were cleaned using Adobe Photoshop CS 3 version 10.0.1.

Terminology follows Zahniser and Dietrich (2013), also available online in Zahniser’s interactive key to deltocephaline tribes (http://imperialis.inhs.illinois.edu/zahniser/JZKeys.asp).

The holotype is deposited in the United States National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC (USNM).

In Hepner’s (1942) key to species, the new species would key to couplet 5 because it is less than 4.75 mm, but has features inconsistent with either portion of the couplet: the dorsal branch of the pygofer hook is not falcate, as in E. rugosus Hepner, but the branches are subequal in length and the ventral branch is not curved anteriorly, as in E. subspinosus Hepner. The internal pygofer hook most resembles that of E. latus Hepner (USNM paratypes examined), but in that species the pygofer hook bifurcates just after its ventral curve, with both branches narrowing to equally acute apices. Another feature distinguishing E. latoides from E. latus is that the latter species has the aedeagal shaft broad with a large medial anterior projection, and its apical pair of processes are approximately one third the size of those in E. latoides.

I thank J. Zahniser (Illinois Natural History Survey) for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.