﻿Description of two new species of the leafhopper genus Pediopsis Burmeister (Hemiptera, Cicadellidae, Eurymelinae, Macropsini) from China

﻿Abstract Two new leafhopper species of Pediopsis Burmeister, Pediopsisalbopicta Li & Dai, sp. nov. from Hunan and Guizhou provinces of central China and Pediopsispianmaensis Li & Dai, sp. nov. from Yunnan Province of southwestern China, are described and illustrated. Ambiguity in the original description of P.bannaensis Yang & Zhang is discussed, and figures of the female holotype of P.femorata Hamilton are provided for the first time. A checklist and key to Chinese species of Pediopsis are also given.


Introduction
The leafhopper genus Pediopsis Burmeister, belonging to the tribe Macropsini of the subfamily Eurymelinae (sensu Dietrich and Thomas 2018), was established by Burmeister (1838) as a subgenus of Bythoscopus Germar; it was subsequently raised to the level of genus and Jassus tiliae Germar, 1831 was designated as its type species by Kirkaldy (1903). Many authors (Anufriev 1971;Hamilton 1980;Tishechkin 1997;Cai et al. 2005;Dai and Li 2013;Yang and Zhang 2015;Yang et al. 2016) have described new species or proposed new combinations in the genus worldwide, increasing the number of species to 19, of which six are known from China (Dai et al. 2018). In this paper, two new species of Pediopsis from China are described, ambiguity in the original description of P. bannaensis Yang & Zhang is discussed, and the status of P. femorata Hamilton is commented on. Figures of the female holotype of P. femorata for the first time are provided. In addition, a checklist and key to the Chinese species of Pediopsis are given.

Materials and methods
Specimens studied were collected by netting. External morphology was observed under Olympus SZX7 and BX43 microscopes. Male terminalia preparations were macerated in a boiling solution of 8% NaOH for ~ 5 min. Habitus images of adults were obtained by using a KEYENCE VHX-1000 system. Genitalia drawings were created and edited utilizing Adobe Illustrator CS6 and Photoshop CS6 based on line drawings of specimens.
The higher classification and morphological terminology used in this work follows Hamilton (1980) and Dietrich and Thomas (2018). Body length is measured from the apex of the head to the end of the folded forewings and presented in millimeters (mm).
Type specimens of the new species and other material examined are deposited in the Institute of Entomology, Guizhou University, Guiyang, China (GUGC).
Distribution. Palaearctic, Oriental, Nearctic, and Australian regions. Remarks. Pediopsis can be distinguished by the following combination of features: head across eyes usually distinctly narrower than pronotum, face wider than long, lora relatively large, pronotum frontally declivous and usually with strongly oblique striations, male pygofer without spines or processes, dorsal connective usually strongly developed. The traditional separation of Pediopsis from Pedionis (Hamilton 1980) is followed here, but, as more species become known, the two genera may be synonymized. The difficulty in defining Pediopsis is apparent from the fact that the genus was keyed out in two places in Hamilton's (1980) key. At present, the most reliable feature to separate the two genera is the presence or absence of processes or spines on the ventral margin of the male pygofer (absent in Pediopsis and present in Pedionis).  Cai & Wang, 2005: 206, fig. 1. Distribution. China (Shandong Province). P. femorata Hamilton, 1980: 919;Figs 22-26. Distribution. China (Taiwan). P. kurentsovi Anufriev, 1971: 95, figs 4-6;1976: 133. Distribution. China (Hebei, Heilongjiang provinces), Russia. P. ningxiaensis Dai & Li, 2013: 961, figs 22-31. Distribution. China (Ningxia Province). P. tiliae (Germar, 1831: 14) Species mainly pale, sometimes forewing with distinct brown markings; forewings with two or three subapical cells (Fig. 4) (Figs 1-3). Body background color black to dark brown. Head and face (Fig. 3) yellowish, with dark spots or stripes, frontoclypeus slightly milky white, eyes dark brown with reddish tinge, fading to gray; ocelli dark; apex of anteclypeus and gena black. Pronotum (Fig. 1) with anterior half dark brown, posterior half gray, striations on surface darker. Mesonotum (Fig. 1) evenly black with white tip. Forewing (Figs 1, 2) brown, with several transparent patches at midlength and subapically; veins black with clear white spots. Legs yellowish with black or brown patches.

Distribution. China (Hunan and Guizhou provinces).
Etymology. The specific epithet of the new species is derived from the Latin words albus (white) and picta (spot), referring to the white tip of the mesonotum and white spots on the forewing veins.
Remarks. This species can be readily separated from other congeners by the contrasting color pattern of its mesonotum, white spotted forewing veins, and different shape of the aedeagus and dorsal connective. Description. Body color (Figs 12-14). Specimen from alcohol. Yellowish to dark brown, striations on head, face, and pronotum same color as those of ground color. Head (Figs 12, 13) yellowish, face with dark brown spot at upper central region, eyes brown with gray tinge, ocelli yellow, lower parts of ocelli slightly brown, anteclypeus with brown macula. Pronotum (Fig. 12) yellowish on anterior areas, especially those near eyes, then gradually darkening to almost black at posterior part. Mesonotum (Fig. 12) evenly black, with small yellowish tip. Forewing (Fig. 12) dark brown to almost black on basal part, veins black. Legs yellow with brown markings.

Distribution. China (Yunnan Province).
Etymology. The specific epithet refers to the type locality of the new species, Pianma Town (Yunnan Province), combined with the Latin suffix -ensis, meaning "pertaining to".
Remarks. The new species can be distinguished from all other congeners by its darker body color, forewing with two ante-apical cells, simple aedeagus, and S-shaped dorsal connective.

Pediopsis bannaensis Yang & Zhang
Pediopsis bannaensis Yang & Zhang, 2015: 488, figs 29-39. Remarks. This species was described from the holotype and paratype male from China deposited in the Northwest A&F University, Yangling, China (NWAFU) and three male paratypes from Thailand in the Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, USA (INHS). However, there are some ambiguities in the original description. Firstly, if the genitalia are drawn accurately, two different species appear to have been figured. The genitalia of one species were shown undissected in fig. 33 of the original description, and based on the aedeagus, the dissected parts of another species were shown in figs 34-39. The aedeagus shown in fig. 33 is the one described, i.e., "Aedeagus strongly tapered from wide base to narrow apex in lateral aspect". Enquiries made by one of us (Webb) indicate that there are three (not two) Chinese specimens of the species present in the NWAFU collection, with the original type data, all without type labels. Of these specimens only one is dissected and matches fig. 33. Other enquiries made regarding the paratypes in INHS indicate that their aedeagi also match fig. 33. All type series specimens match the habitus images in the original description with respect to general appearance and color pattern, particularly the long dark basal triangles of the mesonotum. However, unaccountably none match the actual specimen imaged based on the leg position in the lateral habitus figure (Yang and Zhang 2015: fig. 30). It is suggested that the dissected specimen in NWAFU be regarded as the holotype even though we do not know what specimen provided the external images, which are of a better specimen.

Pediopsis femorata Hamilton Figs 22-26
Pediopsis femorata Hamilton, 1980: 919. Pediopsoides femorata-Huang and Viraktamath 1993: 365, misapplication? Pediopsis femorata-Dai et al. 2018 Remarks. This species was described based on the female type from Taiwan island, China. Subsequently, Huang and Viraktamath (1993) moved it into Pediopsoides Matsumura according to their own specimens from Taiwan. However, Dai et al. (2018) studied the material examined by Hamilton (1980) and Huang and Viraktamath (1993) and considered Huang and Viraktamath's (1993) identification of Pediopsoides femorata to be a misidentification and gave it a new name; it may or may not be a new species of Pediopsoides (see Li et al. in prep.).