Hoppers of North Carolina:
Spittlebugs, Leafhoppers, Treehoppers, and Planthoppers
Scientific Name: Search Common Name:
Family (Alpha):
« »
Chlorotettix fuscus Brown, 1933 - No Common Name     CICADELLIDAE Members: NC Records Public View

© Kyle Kittelberger- female; note dark coloration
© Kyle Kittelberger- female
© Kyle Kittelberger- male; note broken transverse
band on crown
© Kyle Kittelberger- male (L) & female (R)
synonym
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 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
habitat
plant associates
behavior Can be attracted at night with a light.
comments 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:] [Introduced:] [Extirpated:]
list_type [Official:] [Provisional:]
adult_id Unmistakable and widely known Identifiable from good quality photos of unworn specimens
Identifiable from photos showing undersides, or other specialized views [e.g., legs, face]
Identifiable only by close inspection of structural features or by DNA analysis NULL
nymph_id Unmistakable and widely known Identifiable from good quality photos, especially where associated with known host plants
Identifiable from close inspection of specimens or by DNA analysis
Identifiable only through rearing to adulthood NULL
G_rank
S_rank
rank_comments
tribe Pendarini
subgenus

Species Photo Gallery for Chlorotettix fuscus No Common Name

Photo by: Britta Muiznieks
Dare Co.
Comment: 		Photo by: Britta Muiznieks
Dare Co.
Comment:
Photo by: Britta Muiznieks
Dare Co.
Comment: 		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: 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: 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: 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
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