Hoppers of North Carolina

Hoppers of North Carolina:
Spittlebugs, Leafhoppers, Treehoppers, and Planthoppers

Family (Alpha):

CICADELLIDAE Members:	NC Records
Chlorotettix fuscus - No Common Name

Taxonomy

Family: CICADELLIDAE	Subfamily: Deltocephalinae	Tribe: Pendarini
Taxonomic Author: Brown, 1933

Identification

Online Photographs: BugGuide, GBIF iNaturalist Google
Description: A dark species, ranging from dark brown to bluish-black [due to pruinosity]. The crown is light brown, with a dark brown transverse band that is broken in the middle; note that a minority of specimens may not show the transverse band. The crown is roundly produced, with the median length only slightly longer than the length next to the eye. The thorax is dark brown, and the forewings are brown subhyaline. The male subgenital plates have the apices convex, with the margins almost parallel-sided. The female pregenital sternite has the posterior margin with a broad V-shaped excavation that extends almost to the anterior margin; the lateral margins are roundly, concavely produced laterally. Adult males are 7.0-8.0 mm long (to 8.1 per NC specimen), while females are 7.5 mm (to 7.6 mm per NC specimen). (Cwikla, 1988)

Distribution in North Carolina

County Map: Clicking on a county returns the records for the species in that county.

Out of State Record(s)

Distribution: Eastern and southern United States; rarely collected (Cwikla, 1988)

Abundance: Recorded from several counties in the Coastal Plain (conclusively here) and Piedmont, likely more abundant in at least the eastern part of the state.

Seasonal Occurrence

Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

Habitats and Life History

Habitats:

Plant Associates:

Behavior: Can be attracted at night with a light.

Comment: NOTE: Chlorotettix is a notoriously difficult genus to identify to species visually; a majority of the species are various shade of yellow and green, and they can only be reliably distinguished by looking at genital features. Therefore, it is very important for all Chlorotettix species other than distinctive ones like necopinus to obtain a picture of the underside.

This species is very similar to C. melanotus, but frequently has a broken transverse band on the vertex that C. melanotus seemingly does not have. Additionally, while the pregenital sternites are very similar between fuscus and melanotus (they are different from tergatus), fuscus seems to have a wider excavation and less concave (wider) posterior margin on either side of the excavation compared to melanotus. Additionally, it can be differentiated from melanotus by the short, curved pygofer spine and the bifurcate aedeagal processes in the posterior aspect that melanotus has in the male genitalia.

Individuals here that do not show underside views and/or are not dissected are tentatively identified as C. fuscus.

Status: Native

Global and State Rank:

Chlorotettix fuscus - No Common Name

Species Photo Gallery for Chlorotettix fuscus No Common Name

Species Photo Gallery for Chlorotettix fuscus No Common Name
	Photo by: Ken Childs Out Of State Co. Comment:	Photo by: Ken Childs Out Of State Co. Comment:
	Photo by: Ken Childs Out Of State Co. Comment:	Photo by: Ken Childs Out Of State Co. Comment:
	Photo by: Britta Muiznieks Dare Co. Comment:	Photo by: Britta Muiznieks Dare Co. Comment:
	Photo by: Britta Muiznieks Dare Co. Comment:	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/52705306
	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/52705306	Photo by: Paul Scharf, B Bockhahn Rockingham Co. Comment: Attracted to UV Light
	Photo by: Paul Scharf, B Bockhahn Rockingham Co. Comment: Attracted to UV Light	Photo by: Paul Scharf, B Bockhahn Rockingham Co. Comment: Attracted to UV Light
	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596890	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596890
	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596890	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596890
	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596890; male, mm, additional pics by K. Kittelberger	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596890; male, 8.1 mm, additional pics by K. Kittelberger
	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596890; male, 8.1 mm, additional pics by K. Kittelberger	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596905
	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596905	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596905
	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596905	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596905; female, 7.6 mm, additional pics by K. Kittelberger
	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596905; female, 7.6 mm, additional pics by K. Kittelberger	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596905; female, 7.6 mm, additional pics by K. Kittelberger
	Photo by: Erich Hofmann Craven Co. Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53596905; female, 7.6 mm, additional pics by K. Kittelberger