Checklist of Leafhopper Species 1758-1955 - Systematic ...

2is given for each name. In Metcalf’s catalogue, species were sometimes listed twice, either asnominotypical subspecies or, in a few instances, unintentional duplicate listings or separate citations forthe male and female. In this checklist, such species are listed only once, although both pages in Metcalf’scatalogue are cited. Not surprisingly, some nomenclatural practices followed by Metcalf were not inaccordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, first published years after Metcalf’sdeath but before publication of his catalogue. For example, some of the ‘obvious misspellings’ in theoriginal descriptions of species names must be treated as the correct original spellings. Also, newreplacement names compete in priority with their own author and date, rather than the date of the namethey replaced. In the checklist below, the synonymy of Metcalf’s catalogue is therefore sometimeschanged to bring it into alignment with the current International Code of Zoological Nomenclature(International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999).The original combination of every name can be unambiguously inferred from the synonymylisting. Nevertheless, it is not always straightforward for subspecies that are valid and have changedstatus since their description. Explanation by example is given below.The first entry below shows a subspecies that was originally described as such. The second entrybelow is for a subspecies that was originally described as a full species, as Ciccus cinctipes. The thirdentry below shows a subspecies that was originally described under a different nominate species, asCicadella gothica atra. The last entry below shows a species that was originally described as asubspecies, as Cicadella hieroglyphica inscripta.Teletusa excavata atra MelicharTeletusa excavata atra Melichar 1925a: 345 [n.subsp. of excavata]; Metcalf 1965a,6(1): 525 [Cat.]Teletusa excavata cinctipes (Walker)Ciccus cinctipes Walker 1851b: 803 [n.sp.]; Metcalf 1965a, 6(1): 525 [Cat.]Neokolla hieroglyphica atra (Barber)Cicadella hieroglyphica atra Barber 1921b: 130 [n.subsp. of gothica]; Metcalf1965a, 6(1): 277 [Cat.]Neokolla inscripta (Olsen)Cicadella inscripta Olsen 1922a: 362 [n.subsp. of heiroglyphica]; Metcalf 1965a,6(1): 277 [Cat.]Papers are cited by author, year, and key letter, corresponding to the key letters given in thebibliography (Metcalf 1964a). Limited numbers of the bibliography are still available upon request to theabove address. An electronic version of Metcalf’s bibliography of the Auchenorrhyncha is beingprepared at North Carolina State University and will be posted on the NCSU Libraries website(http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/archives).The 104-page index of species and subspecies is essentially the same as provided for thecatalogue (Burnside 1971) except that it usually lists the original spellings even when Metcalf treatedthem as ‘obvious misspellings,’ as mentioned above.As with any work of this detail, it is difficult to eliminate all errors. I would appreciatenotification of any errors so that they can be corrected. Other comments, and reprints of recent papers forinclusion in the contemporary database in progress, are always welcome.AcknowledgmentsThe majority of the data was initially input as part of a planned USDA/ARS SystematicEntomology Laboratory’s project on the insects of North America. This project was variously headed byR.W. Poole, R.W. Hodges, and T.J. Henry and the data on Homoptera largely input by A.L. Hicks. M.ATouchet transcribed and input the distribution information. Data was managed using the BIOTA softwareby Colwell (1996). L.L. Deitz and M.A. Solis made helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of themanuscript. Encouragement for this checklist from L.L. Deitz, C.H. Dietrich, K.G.A. Hamilton, M.W.