lunes, 2 de mayo de 2011

HEMIPTERA: Cicadellidae (Leafhoppers)



Name-Bearing Type: Rhynchota or Hemiptera ( Linnaeus,1758).
Common name: True bugs

Hemiptera, Homoptera, Heteroptera?

There was a long-standing tradition to treat the Homoptera and Heteroptera as separate groups usually having each the rank of order or as suborders within Hemiptera (e.g., Brues et al. 1954; Borror and White 1970; Borror et al. 1981). The former approach was common in North American entomology, in which Hemiptera included Heteroptera only, thus restricting the concept for Hemiptera (Schuh and Slater 1995). Morphological evidence, nonetheless, pointed out that Homoptera was probably paraphyletic (e.g., Goodchild 1966; Schlee 1969d; Bourgoin 1986a, 1986b, 1993; Sweet 1996), or at least that evidence of its monophyly was not documented (Schlee 1969d). Some of the alleged characters supporting “Homoptera” mentioned were: enlarged foramen in the head, large sutures defining the mandibular plate, forewing larger than hindwing, reduced tarsomeres, and simple sperm (Boudreaux 1979; Hamilton 1981). Nonetheless, some of these characters are not synapomorphies (e.g., forewing –hindwing character), or may be based on reductions, which are difficult to homologize (e.g., number of tarsomeres).

Hennig (1969, 1981) doubted the monophyly of Homoptera, stating that the characters used for distinguish it from Heteroptera were symplesiomorphies. He recognized three groups within Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha, Auchenorrhyncha, and Heteropterodea (as “Heteropteroidea”), the latter clade formed by Coleorrhyncha + Heteroptera (Schlee 1969d). The paraphyly of Homoptera was further corroborated with 18S rDNA sequence analyses (Wheeler et al. 1993; Campbell et al. 1994, 1995; Sorensen et al. 1995; von Dohlen and Moran 1995). Even though evidence is compelling towards a paraphyletic “Homoptera”, and that this has been adequately communica to a more general audience (e.g., Carver et al. 1991; Kristensen 1991; Gullan 2001; Fagua 2005), it is still frequent to see references to “Homoptera” in areas such as Integrated Pest Management (e.g., Pedigo 1996), or in general entomological textbooks (e.g., Arnett 2000), practice that should be avoided (Forero, D. 2008).

“Homoptera” is an abandoned name formely used for all the hemipterans except the Heteroptera. Homopterans are a paraphyletic group, now divided into three monophyletic orders/suborders: Sternorrhyncha (White flies, scale insects, aphids and jumping plant lice), Auchenorrhyncha (Leaf hoppers, plant hoppers, cicadas), and the relict group Coleorrhyncha (Grimaldi, D. & Engel, M. 2005).

Diagnostic features:
(Weber 1930; Hennig 1969, 1981; Cobben 1978; Kristensen 1991)

* The mandibles and maxillary laciniae are modified into concentric stylets, the mandibular enclosing the maxillary ones, both forming the food and salivary channels; the multisegmented sheetlike labium is covering the mandibular and maxillary stylets.

* The maxillary and labial palpi are always absent.

Fig.1 Head and mouthparts of Hemiptera. (A) Head with mouthparts separated; and (B) cross-section of the proboscis. Source: R.E Snodgrass. Principles of insect morphology.

Yoshizawa & Saigusa (2001) proposed another potential synapomorphy:

* The fork of the anterior axillary fold-line of the forewing.

Hemiptera has long been recognized as a monophyletic group (Hennig 1969; Carver et al. 1991). They are very diverse and quite a large order, with over 100,000 species described worldwide. These insects can be very numerous, so they have considerable importance as a food resource, not only in the aquatic environment but even more so in terrestrial environments.

All bugs have piercing - sucking mouthparts. Wing length is variable within and among species, but generally the forewings are smaller than the hindwings. The forewings of some Hemiptera are thickened basally, forming wings called hemelytra (half elytra). Others have membranous forewings and hind wings. A triangular plate called a scutellum may be present at the base of the forewings. Many of these insects are wingless, at least during part of their life cycle.

Bugs are hemimetabolous, lacking a pupal stage (there are a few with unusual development, however). Bugs have several nymphal instars, and although most resemble the adults, in other cases they are quite different in appearance. Bugs are mostly plant feeders, and some induce abnormal growth such as leaf curling or swellings that allow the insects to dwell within a cavity surrounded by plant tissue. Because piercing - sucking mouthparts are conducive to spread of microbial organisms, bugs often transmit plant diseases (Grimaldi, D. & Engel, M. 2005)

Important characteristics for identification of the Hemiptera suborders: (Holzinger, W. 2003)


Diagnostic features:

* Complex tymbal acoustic system.

* Aristate antennal flagellum.

* Reduction of the proximal median plate in the fore-wing base.

Fig.2. A defining feature of the Auchenorrhyncha: the aristate antenna. (a) Cicadidae, (b) Membracidae, and (c) Fulgoridae.

Fulguromorphs has an enlarged pedicel, with numerous sensillar palte organs.


In the middle ages cicadas and spittlebugs remained the only members of the group that received attention and were described in a separate chapter in UlysseAldrovandi´s (1522-1605) main work “De AnimalibusInsectis”. During the 17th century, large tropical or biologically peculiar species were brought from expeditions and attracted interest, such as manna producing species from Ceylon or the 17-year cicada of New England. Only during the first half of the 18th century attention was paid to inconspicuous native species. The classification began with Carl von Linné (Linnaeus) (1707-1778) and his “Systemanaturae…” (10 edition, 1758).Withing the ordenHemiptera, he stablished a single genus, Cicada, and withing the groups “Cruciate” (now Membracidae), “Spumantes” (now Cercopidae) and “Deflexae” (now Cicadellidae). Following Linné’s principles of systematics, the activities of observation, comparison and classification increased at the end of the 18th century, resulting in a growing number of species descriptions of Auchenorrhyncha. (Holzinger, W. 2003).

Auchenorrhyncha has been traditionally divided in two main groups:
(Carver et al. 1991)

* Cicadomorpha

* Fulguromorpha

Nonetheless, it has been extensively debated if Auchenorrhyncha is a monophyletic group or not.

CICADOMORPHA (Evans, 1946)

Sources: Holzinger, W. (2003); Forero, D. (2008)

Withing this group, three superfamilies are recognized:

1. Cercopoidea (spittlebugs or froghoppers)

Fig. 3. Left: Sphenorhina melanoptera. Right: Prosapia bicincta.

2. Cicadoidea

Fig. 4. Cicadidae recently molted adult and exuviae.

3. Membracoidea (Leafhoppers and treehoppers)

Fig.5. Above (right): Cladonota sp. (Membracidae). Panama; Above (Left): Proconia sp. (Cicadellidae). Ecuador; Below (left): Ferrariana trivittata (Cicadellidae). Panama; Below (right): Platygonia spatulata (Cicadellidae). Panamá.

CICADELLIDAE (Leafhoppers) (Latreille,1825)

Source: Forero, D. (2008); Triplehorn, Charles A. and Norman F. Johnson. (2005).

The speciose family Cicadellidae, commonly called leafhoppers and sharpshooters (Membracoidea), has more than 22.000 described species worldwide and 5.000 species in the Neotropical region (Freytag and Sharkey 2002). Cicadellidae has about 36 subfamilies worldwide (Oman et al. 1990; Dietrich 2004).

They constitude a very large group, and they are of various forms, colors and sizes. They are similar to froghoppers and aetalionids in the genus Aetalion, but they have one or more rows of small spines extending the lenght of the hind tibiae. Leafhoppers rarely exceed the 13mm long, and many are only a few milimeters long. Many are marked with a beautifull color pattern.


Leafhoppers live on almost all types of plants, including forest, shade and orchard trees, shrubs, grasses, and many field and garden crops. They feed principally on the leaves of their food plant. The food in most species is quit specific, and the habitat is therefore well defined.

Life cycle

Most leafhoppers have a single generation a year, but a few have two or three. The winter is usually passed in either the adult or the egg stage, depending of the species.

Economically important pests

They caused five major types of injury to plants:

1. Some species remove excesive amount of sap and reduced or destroy the chlorophyll in the leaves, causing the leaves to become covered with minute white or yellow spots. With continued feeding, the leaves turned yellowish or brownish.

Injury produced on apple leaves by various species of Erythroneura, Typhlocyba, and Empoasca.

2. Some species interfere with the normal physiology of the plant, for example by the mechanically plugging the phloem and the xylem vessels in the leaves so that transport of food materials is impaired. A browning of the outer portion of the leave, and eventually of the entired leave, results.

Injury produced by potato leafhopper, Empoasca fabae.

3. A few species injured plants by ovipositing in green twigs, often causing the terminal portion of the wings to die.

Various species of Gyponana cause damage of this sort. The eggs punctures are similar tp those of the buffalo treehopper, but smaller.

4. Many species of Cicadellids act as vectors of organisms that caused plant diseases. Astern yellows, corn stunt, phloem necrosis of Elm, Pierce's disease of grape, phony peach, potato yellow dwarf, curly top in sugar beets, and other plant diseases are transmitted by leafhoppers.

Chiefly species in the subfamilies Agalliinae, Cicadellinae, and Deltocephalinae.

5. Some species cause stunting and leaf curling that result from the inhibition of growth on the undersurface of the leaves, where the leafhoppers feed.

The potato Leafhopper, Empoasca fabae also produceds this kind of injury.


Many species of leafhoppers emit fron the anus a liquid called "honeydew". It consists of unused portions of plant sap to wich are added certain waste products of the insects.

Related article: Steiner, F. et al. 2004. A novel relationship between ants and leafhopper. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae; Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). European Journal of Entomology; 2004; 101, 4; ProQuest pg. 689.


Source: Forero, D. (2008)

Dietrich and Deitz (1993) analyzed the relationships of the Membracoidea using morphological characters, focusing mostly in non-cicadellid taxa (Aetalionidae and Membracidae). In their analysis Cicadellidae is monophyletic and the sister group of (Melizoderidae + (Aetalionidae + Membracidae)).

- Synapomorphies for Cicadellidae: According to Dietrich and Deitz (1993).

  • Mesonotum exposed posteriorly.
  • Labium not reaching the metathoracic coxae.
  • m-cu1 crossvein present.
  • Metatibia with distinct long setae.
  • Tarsomere I of hind leg without cucullate setae.
  • Sternum IX and subgenital plate not fused.
  • Abdominal tergum with divided acanthae.

All of which are homoplastic characters in their analysis. Hamilton (1999) presented a phylogeny of the extinct and extant families of Membracoidea, and placed Myerslopiidae as the sister group of the remaining families. In Dietrich et al. (2001) analysis Myerslopiidae grouped with Cicadoidea taxa, whereas in Cryan’s (2005) Myerslopiidae was recovered as the sister group to all remaining Membracoidea. Hamilton (1999) also considered Ulopidae as a separate group from Cicadellidae, and placed Cicadellidae as sister group of (Ulopidae + (Aetalionidae + Membracidae)), rendering Cicadellidae paraphyletic with respect to Membracidae. This scheme was first supported by Dietrich et al. (2001b) based on the analysis of 28S rDNA sequences, where the clade including Ulopinae and Megophthalminae appears as more closely related to Aetalionidae + Membracidae; and posteriorly by Cryan (2005).

Phylogenetic hypotheses based on morphology were first proposed by Ross (1957), then by Hamilton (1983) and Dietrich (1999). Dietrich et al. (2001) was the first attempt to recover the phylogeny of most cicadellid subfamilies and tribes using 28S rDNA sequences, and found that most of them were not monophyletic. Within Cicadellidae some groups had been subject of analyses (e.g., Evacanthinae: Dietrich 2004; Cicadellinae: Takiya et al. 2006; Deltocephalinae: Zahniser and Dietrich 2008).

- According to C. H. Dietrich et al. 2001

Traditionally, Cicadellidae have been regarded as the sister group of a lineage comprising the three treehopper families (e.g., Strümpel, 1972; Evans, 1977), and a recent morphology-based cladistic analysis provided some support for this relationship (Dietrich and Deitz, 1993). However, some authors, based on morphological (Hamilton, 1983, 1999), paleontological (Shcherbakov, 1992), and behavioral (Rakitov, 1998) evidence, have suggested that the Cicadellidae are paraphyletic with respect to Membracidae. These alternative phylogenetic hypotheses (Fig. 6a), which persist at least partly because of ambiguities in the available morphological evidence (cf. Dietrich and Deitz, 1993; Hamilton, 1983, 1999), have yielded con flicting classifications of membracoid family-group taxa (cf. Hamilton, 1983; Oman et al., 1990) and require different interpretations of the evolutionary origins of various membracoid behavioral, ecological, and physiological traits.

For example, treehoppers, like cicadas and spittlebugs, have sessile nymphs that cannot jump. Nymphs of many treehopper species also form aggregations that are tended by ants (Wood, 1993).

In contrast, leafhopper nymphs (with few exceptions) are active and capable of jumping and are rarely ant-attended.

Leafhoppers are also unique among Cicadomorpha in producing brochosomes—minute, hydrophobic granules produced in the Malpighian tubules and applied to the external surfaces of the body in an act known as anointing (Rakitov, 1996, 1999).

If treehoppers are derived from leafhoppers (Fig. 6b), then their derivation presumably coincided with losses of brochosome production and nymphal jumping ability. If treehoppers and leafhoppers are sister groups (Fig. 6a), then treehoppers may merely retain the ancestral condition of these traits found in cicadas and spittlebugs.

Conflicting interpretations of the fossil record and present patterns of geographic distribution are also required by the alternative membracoid phylogenies. Cicadellidae first appear in the fossil record in the lower Cretaceous (Hamilton, 1990, 1992), whereas treehoppers are unknown in fossil material older than Tertiary age (Shcherbakov, 1996), suggesting that leafhoppers arose much earlier than treehoppers.

Both groups also occur worldwide, but 11 of the 13 treehopper subfamilies are restricted to the New World and the 3 most plesiomorphic membracid subfamilies are presently restricted to the Neotropics (Dietrich and Deitz, 1993). If leafhoppers and treehoppers are sister groups, then the absence of pre-Tertiary treehopper fossils is a sampling artifact. If leafhoppers gave rise to treehoppers, then treehoppers presumably originated in the New World after the breakup of Gondwana and reached the Old World by dispersal.


Structure of leafhoppers:

Fig. 7.Paraphlepsius irroratus (Cicadellidae). A, Dorsal view; B, anterior view of head. Ant, antennae; ap, appendix; clp, clypeus; e, compound eye; el, elytron of front wing; fm, femur; fr, frons; ge, gena; lbr, labrum; lo, lorum; mv, marginal vein; n1, pronotum; oc, ocelli; scl2, mesoscutellum; tb, tibia; ver, vertex.

Termonology comparison of wing veins:

Characters of leafhoppers:

Fig. 8. A.Face of Xerophloea viridis (Ledrinae); B, face of Paraphlepsius irroratus (Deltocephalinae); C, face of Idiocerus alternatus (Idioceranidae); D, face of Tinobregmus vittatus (Coelidiinae); E, face of Sibovia occatoria (Cicadellinae); F. front wing of Kunzeana marginella (Typhlocybinae); G, face of Parabolocratus (Hecalinae); H, front wing of Endria inimical (Deltocephalinae); I, hind wing of Macropsis viridis (Macropsinae); J, head, pronotum, and scutellum of Dorycephlus platyrhynchus, dorsal view (Dorycephalinae); K, same, lateral view; L, head, pronotum, and scutellum of Xerophloea viridis, dorsal view (Ledrinae); M, hind wing of Aceratagallia sanguinolenta (Agalliinae). ant. Antennae; AP, apical cells; clp clypeus; clpl, Clypellus; eps1 episternum of prothorax; ge, gena; oc, ocellus.

Leafhoppers head morphology:
Source: Dietrich, C. H. 2005

Fig 9. A-F, head anterior view: A, Evacanthus (Evacanthini); B, Krisna (Krisnini); C, Tartessus (Tartessinae); D, Platyproctus (Adelungiini); E, Bathysmatophorus (Errhomanini); F, Thymbrus (Thymbrini). G-H, head and prothorax, lateral view: G, Cicadalla (Cicadelini); H, Matsumurella (Athysanini). I-K, head pronotum, mesonotum and scutellum, dorsal view: I, Populicerus (Idiocerinae); J, Pediopsoides (Macropsinae); Oniella (Evachanthini). Drawing A-F original; G-K from Anufriev & Emeljanov (1988).

Leafhopper wings:

Fig.10. Leafhopper wings. A-G, forewing: A, Hortensia (Cicadellini); B, Erromus (Errhomenini); C, Deltocephalus (Deltocephalini); D Hamana (Scarini); E, Idiocerus (Idiocerinae); F, Typhlocyba (Typhlocybini); G, Jikradia (Coelidiinae). H-O, hind wing: H, Agallia (Agalliini); I, Macropsis (Macropsinae); J, Penestragania (Iassini); K, Typhlocyba (Typhlocybini); L, Protalebrella (Alebrini); M, Hymetta (Erythroneurini); N, Empoasca (Empoascini); O, Joruma (Jorumini). Drawings from Oman (1949).

Leafhopper leg morphology:

Fig.11. A-E, apex of hind femur, dorsal view, showing variation in macrosetal formula: A, 2+2+1; B, 2+2+1; C, 2+1+1; D, 2+1. F-J, right hind tibia, posterior view, except G and J, cross-section: F-G, Bathysmatophorus (Errhomenini); H, Bothrogonia (Cicadellini); I-J, Diplocolenus (Paralimnini). K-N, left front femur, anterior view: K, Doratura (Doraturini); L, Thagria (Thagriini); M, Alebra (Alebrini); N, Xestocephalus (Xestocephalini). O-P, hind tarsus, ventral view: O, Kybos (Empoascini); P, Balclutha (Balclutini).


Costa, J. 2006. The Other Insect Societies. Library of congress cataloging-in publication data. Pag.245.

Dietrich, C. H. 2005. Keys to the families of cicadomorpha and subfamilies and tribes of cicadellidae (hemiptera: auchenorrhyncha).The Florida Entomologist Vol. 88, No. 4 (Dec., 2005), pp. 502-517.

Dietrich, C. H., Rakitov, R. A., Holmes, J. L. & Black, W. C. 2001.Phylogeny of the Major Lineages of Membracoidea (Insecta: Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha) Based on 28S rDNA Sequences Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. Vol. 18, No. 2, February, pp. 293–305.

Forero, D. (2008). The Sistematics of the Hemiptera. Revista Colombiana de Entomología 34 (1): 1-21

Grimaldi, D.; Engel M. 2005. Evolution of the Insects. Cambridge University Press.

Holzinger, W.; Kammerlander, I. & Nickel, H. 2003.The Auchenorrhyncha of Central Europe: Fulgoromorpha, Cicadomorpha,

Triplehorn, Charles A. and Norman F. Johnson. (2005). Borror and DeLong's Introduction to the Study of Insects, 7th edition, Thomas Brooks/Cole.


sábado, 30 de abril de 2011


Acanthocinus aedilis
Los Cerambycidae aparecieron en nuestro planeta hace 65 millones de años, acompañando a los vegetales arbóreos. Todas las especies conocidas son endófitas, es decir, que durante su etapa larvaria viven en el interior de los vegetales o de alguna de sus partes.

Algo de historia
-         En 1758 Linneo publico una décima edición de su obra Sistema Naturae, donde describe el nombre de 76 sp. de Longicorneos, repartidos en tres géneros; Cerambyx, Leptura y Necydalis. En su ultima edicion aumenta el numero de sp. a 121.
-         Un catalogo de Cerambycidos de las Americas fue publicado por Miguel Ángel Monné en 22 fasciculos entre 1993 y 1995, y actualizado para la region tropical entre 2005 y 2006.
-         Napp (1994) realizó el primer estudio de relaciones filogenéticas entre las subfamilias de Cerambycidae. 

Claudia Martinez (2000), reporta basandose en los trabajos de Monné (1993-1995) e informacion reciente que para Colombia existen:
Acanthocinini Blanchard, 1845 25526

Cómo se reconoce un Cerambycido?
Poseen tarsos pseudopentámeros, sus antenas tienen tubérculos y la longitud de estas va desde un cuarto hasta dos y tres veces el largo del cuerpo.
Algunos caracteres útiles para reconocer las subfamilias de Cerambycidae (p.ej. Laminae: 159 y 160. Parandrinae: 157. Prioninae: 163 y 164. Lepturinae: 167) son:

157.Tarso pentámero
158.Tarso pseudotetrámero
159.Cabeza hipognata
160.Ultimo segmento de los  palpos maxilares fusiforme
161.Cabeza sub-vertical
162.Ultimo segmento del palpo   maxilar redondeado
163.Pronoto con margen lateral
164.Coxas anteriores transversas
165.Coxas anteriores redondeadas
166.Coxas anteriores cónicas
167.Cabeza elongada, estrecha detras de los ojos. 
168.Borde anterior y porterior del pronoto anguloso.
169.Empodio tarsal oculto, con una cerda. 
170.Borde anterior y posterior del pronoto redondeado. 
171.Empodio tarsal expuesto, con 2 cerdas.


Entre los caracteres clave para las tribus con uñas divaricadas (p.ej. Acanthocini: 231,  Acanthoderini: 234, Lamiini: 232, Polyrhaphidini: 233) tenemos:
230. Tubérculos anteniferos muy proximos entre si.
231. Tubérculos anteniferos separados.
232. Escapo con cicatriz no apice.
233. Lados del protorax con espina prominente
234. Pronoto con tubérculos.
235. Elitros con pelos erectos ó semidecumbentes.
236. Elitros sin pelos erectos ó semidecumbentes.
237. Lóbulos oculares inferiores muy reducidos.
238. Lobulos oculares con por lo menos la mitad longitud de las genas.
239. Protorax sin tubérculo lateral.
240. Protorax con tubérculo.
241. Puntos gruesos junto al borde anterior y posterior del pronoto.
242. Puntos finos junto al borde posterior del pronoto.
243. Ultimo tergito sin espinas.
244. Ultimo tergito abdominal con dos espinas dorsales.

Ahora, si queremos reconocer algún género de Acanthocinini, algunos caracteres taxomonicos son: 235-259  (p. ej. 235+238+239: Lasiolepturges zikani, Melzer, 1928. 235+238+240+242+244: Pseudocriopsis modesta, Melzer, 1931.)

245. Elitros con cresta centro basal
246. Elitros sin cresta centro basal
247. Cresta de elitros con dos mechones de pelos negros en porciones anterior y posterior.
248. Cresta de elitros sin mechones de pelos.
249. Elitros con carenas dorso-laterales nitidamente demarcadas.
250. Elitros sin carenas dorso-laterales.
251. Lados del protorax con espina larga.
252. Lados del protorax con espina corta.
253. Femur con cerdas cortas
254. Pronoto con cuatro manchas amarillentas
255. Pronoto con dos manchas negras
256. Apice del elitro sin espina, oblicuamente truncado.
257. Apice del elitro con una espina en angulo externo.
258. Lobulos oculares inferiores dos veces mas largos que la longitud de las genas.
259. Lobulos oculares inferiores tres veces mas largos que la longitud de las genas.




viernes, 29 de abril de 2011


Cinthy Jimenez

Description of the family.

Members of the family Sphingidae, commonly known as hawk moths, sphinx moths and hornworms, It is best represented in the tropics but there are species in every region (Scoble, 1995).They are large (2-20 cm wingspans), they are major pollinators of flowers and mostly nocturnal, their feeding behavior is very noticeable, it is like as a hummingbird. They are moderate to large in size and are distinguished among moths for their rapid, sustained flying ability (Scoble, 1995), than can reach 40-50 km / hr (Akkuzu, et al. 2008). The narrow wings and streamlined abdomen are adaptations for rapid flight.


According to Classification Kawahara (2009) is a monophyletic grouped. Our analysis strongly corroborates morphological evidence for the monophyly of the Sphingidae and supports a basal divergence within the family between Smerinthinae+Sphinginae (BP = 92%) and Macroglossinae (BP = 91%).


Sphingidae is a family of Lepidoptera order, that includes about 200 genus (Kawahara et al. 2009) and 1.400 species (Kitching and Cadiou 2000), are one of the most conspicuous and wellstudied insects. The position of the Sphingidae within the Lepidoptera is well reviewed by Scoble (1991). He follows Minet (1986) and Holloway et al. (1987) in keeping the Sphingidae within the Bombycoidea rather than treating them as a separate superfamily, the Sphingoidea, as do Common (1970), Hodges (1971) and Kuznetsov & Stekolnikov (1985) although all these authors have recognized their close relationship to the Bombycoidea.

In this work the following classification is adopted:

  • ORDER: Lepidoptera

  • SUBORDER: Glossata

  • INFRAORDER: Heteroneura

  • DIVISION: Ditrysia

  • SUPERFAMILY: Bombycoidea

  • FAMILY: Sphingidae

Before 1903 the classification of the Sphingidae had been based on purely superficial characters with the result that many unrelated species were lumped together and many closely related species were placed in widely separated genera .

Rothschild and Jordan were the first to adopt a natural, phylogenetic classification in their revision ofthe family. They used such characters as structure of the antennae, spination of the legs and abdomen, structure of the palpi, pilifer and feet, and examined the genitalia of a large number of species. The family Sphingidae was split into two divisions (Asemanophorae and Semanophorae), five subfamilies and seven tribes. The Sphingidae Semanophorae’ and the ‘‘Sphingidae Asemanophorae,’’ distinguished by the presence or absence of a patch of short sensory hairs (microtrichia) on the inner surfaceof the first segment of the labial palp. These groups correspond approximately to the present-day Macroglossinae and (Smerinthinae +Sphinginae) respectively (Kawahara et al. 2009).

Carcasson (1968), in hist work on the African Sphingidae, proposed a revision to the classification of the Sphingidae of Rothschild & Jordan based on the genital armatures of both sexes and on the early stages. In the Philampelini and Choerocampini this did not matter much as the genitalial structure of these insects is extremely uniform. The names proposed by Rothschild & Jordan for supra-generic taxa were adopted by Carcasson, although several older and more appropriate names were substituted. The term 'subfamily' was substituted for 'division', which has no nomenclatural status; all subsequent taxa above the rank of genus were demoted by one step. The 'tribes' of Rothschild & Jordan became 'subtribes', a useful rank which was not recognized in the International Code until 1985.

Hodges (1971), in his work on the Sphingidae of America north of Mexico, drew up a further revised system of classification, commenting that Rothschild & Jordan based their's '....on a very large number of characters, mainly of the adults. Many additional characters of the larvae and pupae fall into line if the associations of the genital systems are followed rather than those of the spination of the pilifer or of certain palpal characters'. Hodges further added that '....Rothschild & Jordan pointed out that the subfamilies and tribes within the Semanophorae were not equal and that several species and genera within each had characters which would tend to put them either one way or the other with the system. Hodges agreed with Carcasson in redefining the Semanophorae and Asemanophorae as subfamilies but points out that Carcasson incorrectly used these names. The subfamilies Sphinginae and Macroglossinae were proposed as substitutes, respectively.

Minet (1994) said that since Hodges' Sphinginae were most likely paraphyletic, with the Smerinthini and Sphingini only showing a few symplesiomorphies, the two tribes should be raised to subfamily status, as used by Kitching & Cadiou (2000). Recently, some of the above findings have been questioned. Placement of the Sphingidae within the Bombycoidea is still supported by Kawahara et al. (2009) in their large-scale molecular phylogenetic analysis of the Sphingidae. However, some of their results challenge aspects of the current lower taxonomy based on morphology, and provides a foundation for a new classification.

It is best represented in the tropics but there are species in every region (Scoble, 1995). They are moderate to large in size and are distinguished among moths for their rapid, sustained flying ability (Scoble, 1995), than can reach 40-50 km / hr (Akkuzu, et al. 2008). The narrow wings and streamlined abdomen are adaptations for rapid flight.

Currently, sphingidae classified in three subfamilies: Macroglossinae, Smerinthinae and Sphinginae.

The Macroglossinae are a sub-family that distributed worldwide and comprising more than 600 species. The subfamily is divided into three tribes: Dilophonotini, Macroglossini and Philampelini. the family has characterised for have first segment of labial palpus on mesal side with short sensory hairs on the naked area; proboscis long; frenulum and retinaculum always well developed; spines on caudal margins of abdominal terga either strong or weak, sometimes diffuse; midtibia with a single pair of spurs, hindtibia with two pairs. Its genitalia in male are symmetrical or slightly to moderately asymmetrical, with gnathos and uncus divided or undivided; saccus sometimes developed; sacculus with a single apical process; eighth sternum usually modified by being sclerotized medially, laterally and basally. And in female has lamella postvaginalis developed, lamella antevaginalis absent.

The Larva is Variable. Its head large or small, but always rounded. Horn may be absent and replaced by a 'button' in the final instar. Tapering anteriorly from thoracic segment 3 or abdominal segment 1 to head. Eye-spots may be present on these segments. And the Pupa has Proboscis fused with body, but may project into a ridge (carinate).

The Document has interested in the tribe Dilophonotini, A tribe of nearly 150 species distributed throughout the tropical and temperate regions of the Old and New Worlds, but with its stronghold in the Neotropical Region. Many of the more advanced species are diurnal and some are generalised mimics of such bees as Bombus and Xylocopa.

The Imago of this family is pattern of forewing variable. Its Genitalia is Very diverse and often asymmetrical in both sexes. The male has uncus with beak-like extension, entire or divided, but with a marked furrow on the medial line; gnathos spatulate (entire or split), but sometimes absent; sacculus with complex apical process armed with spines; saccus well developed. In female, lamella postvaginalis broad and developed; sclerotized part of ductus bursae short but the two slender bands on the posterior margin always well defined.

The Larva is diverse; the horn may be very slender and movable. Many have tubercles or excrescences on the thoracic segments and/or anal segments. And, the pupa has proboscis fused with body. Labrum displaced ventrally.

Genus for tribu and Distribution for Colombia:
  • Subtribe Dilophonotina - Burmeister, 1878
  • Genus Aellopos - Hübner, 1819

The Genus has described five species for Colombia :

Aellopos ceculus: The wingspan is 42-47 mm. It can be distinguished from all other Aellopos species by the yellow median band found on the hindwing upperside.

Aellopos clavipes: The body is dark brown with a wide white band across the abdomen. Wings are dark brown. The forewing has a black cell spot and three white spots near the pale brown marginal area. Note the absence of white scales on the hindwing anal angle, helping to distinguish this species from Aellopos titan.

Aellopos fadus : (Wing span: 2 1/4 - 2 3/4 inches (5.7 - 6 cm)). The body is brown with a wide white band across the abdomen. The upperside of wings is dark brown; the forewing has two bands of pale spots and lacks a black spot (typical of clavipes) at the end of the cell; the hindwing has a pale patch on the costa and one on the inner margin.

Aellopos tantalus: (wingspan: 1 3/4 - 2 1/4 inches (4.5 - 5.7 cm)).The body is reddish brown with a wide white band across the abdomen. The forewing upperside is reddish brown with a black cell spot and 3 white spots near the gray marginal area. A pale streak runs from the cell spot to the inner margin of the wing. The hindwing upperside is dark brown.

The Aellopos titan is a strong flying, day sphinx found from Uruguay and northern Argentina north through Central America. The body is dark brown (greenish, dorsally on the thorax, white on undersides of same) with a wide white stripe across the abdomen. The wings are dark brown. The upperside of the forewing has a black spot at the end of the cell and two bands of translucent white spots. The upperside of the hindwing has pale patches along the costa and inner margin.The moth broods continuously in the tropics. Gregory Nielsen reports a February 24, 2011, flight in Villavicencio, Meta, Colombia.

  • Genus Aleuron - Boisduval, 1870

The Genus has described two species for Colombia.

Aleuron neglectum neglectum: (wingspan 48-53 mm) There are no pearly white lines across the base of the discal cell or across the first abdominal segment as there are with A. iphis.

Extremely similar to Aleuron iphis but most easily separated by the smaller, black (not brown) median patch on the underside of the forewing. Basal white belt of abdomen upperside much narrower than in Aleuron neglectum, the following tergite not brown. Forewing upperside very similar to Aleuron neglectum but differs in the black median lines indistinct posteriorly, except the basalmost, which is bordered white basally but not distally, except at costal margin. Forewing underside with a smaller, black median patch (brown in Aleuron iphis) that generally does not touch the discal cell, least not between M3 and CuA1, there being always a spot of the ground-colour at the base of cell M3 - CuA1.

Aleuron iphis: (wingspan 52-57 mm). Upperside of abdomen with a conspicuous basal white belt, the following tergites brownish. Palps slightly angulated laterally. Forewing upperside crossed medially by four back lines, the basalmost bordered with white basally and distally. Forewing underside with a brown median patch that is contiguous with the discal cell between M1 and CuA1 and extends basad posteriorly.

    • Genus Baniwa - Lichy, 1981

    • Genus Callionima - Lucas, 1857

The Genus has described six species for Colombia.

Callionima calliomenae: (Wing span: approx. 67mm). It is immediately distinguishable from all other Callionima species by the regularly dentate outer forewing margin that is only slightly excavate below the apex and the dark yellow basal half to the hindwing upperside.

Callionima denticulata: (Wing span: 59 - 72 mm). t is extremely similar to Callionima pan pan, but the forewing apex is strongly truncate, the outer margin strongly excavate below the apex and markedly dentate. The basal half of the forewing underside is distinctly orange, contrasting with the greyish-brown distal part. The hindwing upperside is as in Callionima pan pan, but the black anal spot is at least 1.5 mm wide.

Callionima inuus: (Wing span: 67 - 72 mm). A thin but distinct yellow streak runs from the tip of the pointed apex almost to the base of the large light-coloured patch along the costa.

Callionima pan: (Wing span: approx. 64 mm).Females call in the males with a pheromone released from a gland at the tip of the abdomen. Both males and females nectar at flowers. Females are seldom taken at lights while males are more common.

Callionima parce parce: Wing span: 2 5/8 - 3 1/8 inches (6.7 - 8 cm))."Forewing upperside with a curved pale oblique apical line, expanding at M1 into a pale patch that curves back up the outer edge of the apical line towards the apex, resulting in the area between the outer margin and the apical line being paler that the area immediately basal to the apical line." The upperside of the forewing is orange-brown with paler patches and a large silvery spot at the end of the cell. The upperside of the hindwing is reddish-orange.

  • Genus Cautethia - Grote, 1865

  • Genus Enyo - Hübner, 1819

The Genus has described six species for Colombia.

Enyo bathus: It is similar to Enyo gorgon and Enyo taedium taedium, but there are no patches of woolly scaling on the abdomen. The forewing upperside is intermediate in pattern between these two species. The anterior half of the wing has a dark brown, median, longitudinal line that diverges apically to form a dark brown triangular patch. The line is followed by a marginal pale brown half-moon shaped patch.

Enyo cavifer cavifer: (Wing span: approx. 60-62 mm)In both sexes the forewing apex is truncated as opposed to sinuate as in Enyo gorgon. Ground colour is chocolate-brown, almost black in some places. The forewing discal cell is narrower than in either Enyo gorgon or in Enyo taedium taedium.

Enyo gorgon gorgon: (wingspan: approx. 66-72 mm)

  • Genus Erinnyis - Hübner, 1819

    The Genus has described eleven species for Colombia.

    Erinnyis alope: (Wing span: 3 1/4 - 3 15/16 inches (8.2 - 11.5 cm)). The upperside of the forewing is dark brown with short yellowish streaks on the inner half and wavy yellowish bands on the outer half. The upperside of the hindwing is bright yellow with a wide dark brown border.

  • Genus Eupyrrhoglossum - Grote, 1865

    The Genus has described three species for Colombia.

    Eupyrrhoglossum sagra: (Wing span: 5.1 - 5.3 cm). There is a semi-transparent submarginal spot on the forewing. The head has a low medial crest and the thorax is pale grey, contrasting sharply with the dark brown edges and median line. There is a blackish subbasal band on forewing upperside and a median yellow band of nearly even width on the hindwing upperside. The fringe is yellow.

  • Genus Hemeroplanes - Hübner, 1819

    The Genus has described four species for Colombia.

    Hemeroplanes diffusa: In Hemeroplanes diffusa the yellow bands of the abdomen upperside extend across the entire width of the segments. The fringes of the tergites are also yellow.The underside of the body is a paler orange than in Hemeroplanes triptolemus.The forewing upperside has bluish-white shading in the basal and postmedian areas, and the silver mark is 4-5 mm long, not forked basally. The posterior branch is obsolete.The hindwing upperside has bluish white shading in the marginal area, and the basal area is also bluish-white.The hindwing underside is more orange than in Hemeroplanes triptolemus, and the postmedian area is rust-brown along the greyish-brown border.

    Of the four Hemeroplanes species, H. diffusa is the only one that does not have the silver streak basally forked; Hemeroplanes longistriga is the only one with elongated extensions of the silver streak; Hemeroplanes ornatus has upper yellow abodminal bands that are retricted (but clearly visible) and do not cross the entire abdomen, while those same upper yellow bands extend dorsally across entire segments in triptolemus.

    • Genus Himantoides - Butler, 1876

    • Genus Isognathus - C. & R. Felder, 1862

      The Genus has described eight species for Colombia.

      Isognathus allamandae: (Wing span: male: 68mm; females: 78mm). Very similar to Isognathus australis, but allamande has narrower wings. The male Forewing distal margin is dentate, convex, and obtusely angled at M3. 30 mm. Forewing upperside more uniform in colour than in Isognathus australis; grey, with darker markings and lightly shaded with white; curved white line running between Rs1 and M1 in Isognathus australis represented by a straighter, double grey line; black streaks running between M3 and CuA1, and CuA1 and CuA2, both heavier than in Isognathus australis. Yellow band along inner margin of forewing upperside more extended than in Isognathus australis. Hindwing upperside marginal band narrower than in Isognathus australis. Yellow basal area of hindwing underside more extended than in Isognathus australis reaching Rs; dark marginal border only 1 mm wide at hind angle (4 mm in Isognathus australis).

      Female: 35 mm. As male but black streaks running between M3 and CuA1, and CuA1 and CuA2, both absent.