Vol. 78 2026

ARTICLES

A Morphometric Approach to the Comparative Morphology of Aedeagus and Genital Plate Shapes in Two Cercopis Species (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha, Cercopidae)

Rukiye Tanyeri1,*, Alaettin Kaya2, Ahmet Yesari Selçuk3, Haluk Kefelioğlu4 & Ünal Zeybekoğlu4

More info

*1Sinop University, Faculty of Arts and Science, Department of Biology, Sinop, Türkiye; E-mail: rtanyeri@sinop.edu.tr
2Department of Basic Science, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Dicle University, Diyarbakır, Türkiye; E-mail: altkaya21@gmail.com
3Department of Forestry, Artvin Vocational School, Artvin-Coruh University, Artvin, Türkiye; E-mail: ahmetyesari@gmail.com
4Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Türkiye; E-mails: unalz@omu.edu.tr,
halukefe@omu.edu.tr

https://doi.org/10.71424/azb78.1.002879

PDF

Abstract

The species of the genus Cercopis Fabricius, 1775 are morphologically similar, and there are difficulties in identifying them due to the inadequacy of diagnostic keys and the colour and pattern variations. For this reason, it can be challenging to distinguish the species without carefully dissecting and examining the male genitalia. In the present study, we compared the morphology of the aedeagus and the genital plates of two Cercopis species using geometric morphometrics (GM). We investigated the size and shape of the aedeagus and genital plates of C. intermedia Kirschbaum, 1868 and C. vulnerata Rossi, 1807 to evaluate whether these structures could serve as useful tools for species differentiation. The centroid size of aedeagus was significantly different between species (p=0.01), but genital plate size was not (p=0.8). Both aedeagus and genital plate shape were significantly different between species, based on Procrustes ANOVA and Pillai trace (MANOVA) p value. The results of discriminant function analysis of aedeagus and genital plate indicate that species are clearly discriminated. The parametric p value of T2 and permutation p value of T2 and procrustes distances show that the differences were significant.

Key words

Shape variation, Türkiye, Cercopis, geometric morphometry

How to Cite
Tanyeri R., Kaya A., Selçuk A. Y., Kefelioğlu H. & Zeybekoğlu Ü. 2026. A Morphometric Approach to the Comparative Morphology of Aedeagus and Genital Plate Shapes in Two Cercopis Species (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha, Cercopidae). Acta zoologica bulgarica 78.

References

  1. Adams D. C., Slice D. E. & Rohlf F. J. 2004. Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the ‘revolution.’ Italian Journal of Zoology 71: 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/11250000409356545.
  2. Arnqvist G. 1998. Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature, 393 (6687): 784-786.
  3. Bai M., Beutel R. G., Liu W.G., Li S., Zhang M. N., Lu Y. Y., Song K. Q., Ren D. & Yang X. K. 2014. Description of a new species of Glaresidae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) from the Jehol Biota of China with a geometric morphometric evaluation. Arthropod Systematics & Phlogeny 72: 223-236.
  4. Bai Y., Dong J. J., Guan D. L., Xie J. Y. & Xu S.O. 2016. Geographic variation in wing size and shape of the grasshopper Trilophidia annulata (Orthoptera: Oedipodidae): morphological trait variations follow an ecogeographical rule. Scientific Reports 6 (32680): 1-15.
  5. Bartlett C. R., Dietz L. L., Dmitriev D. A., Sanborn A. F., Soulier-Perkins A. & Wallace M. S. 2018. “The Diversity of the True Hoppers (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha), 501-590”. In: Insect Biodiversity: Science and Society Volume II. (Eds.): Foottit R. G. & Adler P. H. ). Wiley Blackwell, Chichester/England, 1024 pp.
  6. Belintani T., de Paiva V. F., de Oliveira J. & da Rosa J. A. 2022. New in morphometry: Geometric morphometry of the external female genitalia of Triatominae (Hemiptera: Reduviidae). Acta Tropica 229 (106383): 1-8.
  7. Bluemel J. K., Derlink M., Pavlovčič P., Russo I. R. M., Andrew King R., Corbett E., Blejec A., Wilson M. R., Symondson W. O. C. & Virant-Doberlet M. 2014. Integrating vibrational signals, mitochondrial DNA and morphology for species determination in the genus Aphrodes (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). Systematic Entomology 39 (2): 304-324.
  8. Bookstein F. L 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data. Cambridge University Press, New York Cambridge, 455 p.
  9. Börstler J., Lühken R., Rudolf M., Steinke S., Melaun C., Becker S., Garms R. & Kruger A. 2014. The use of morphometric wing characters to discriminate female Culex pipiens and Culex torrentium. Journal of Vector Ecology 39: 204-212.
  10. Campos R., Botto-Mahan C., Coronado X., Jaramillo N., Panzera F. & Solari A. 2011. Wing shape differentiation of Mepraia species (Hemiptera: Reduviidae). Infection, Genetics and Evolution 11: 329-333.
  11. Changbunjong T., Chaiphongpachara T. & Weluwanarak T. 2023. Species discrimination of Stomoxys flies S. bengalensis, S. calcitrans, and S. sitiens (Diptera: Muscidae) using wing geometric morphometrics. Animals 13 (4): 647-655.
  12. Cheng L., Tong Y., Zhao Y., Sun Z., Wang X, Ma F. & Bai, M. 2022. Study on the relationship between richness and morphological diversity of higher taxa in the darkling beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Diversity 14 (1): 60-72.
  13. Cryan J. R.& Svenson G. J. 2010. Family-level relationships of the spittlebugs and froghoppers (Hemiptera: Cicodomorpha: Cercopoidea). Systematic Entomology 35: 393-415.
  14. Demirel E. & Dinç H. 2021. Cercopis sanguinolenta (Scopoli, 1763) (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Cercopidae) dilemma and redescription of rare Cercopis Fabricius, 1775 species from Turkey. Turkish Journal of Entomology 45 (1): 99-114.
  15. Demirel E. 2022. Some color variations of Cercopis distincta (Melichar, 1896) and a recent contribution to the asset of Hatay Cercopids: Triecphorella geniculata (Horváth, 1881) Biological Diversity and Conservation 15 (3): 332-338. https://doi.org/10.46309/biodicon.2022.1194694
  16. Demirel E. & Hasbenli A. 2021. Contributions to the Cercopidae Leach, 1815 (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha) fauna of the Bolkar Mountains. Biological Diversity and Conservation 14 (3): 456-463.
  17. Escobar-Suárez S., Villalobos-Leiva A., Fabres A., Órdenes-Clavería R., Cruz-Jofré F., Laroze D. & Benítez H. A. 2023. A geometric morphometrics and genetics characterization of Vanessa carye in an extreme elevational gradient in the Chilean Altiplano. Zoologischer Anzeiger 304: 105-112.
  18. Espinoza-Donoso S., Angulo-Bedoya M., Lemic D. & Benítez H. A. 2020. Assessing the influence of allometry on sexual and non-sexual traits: An example in Cicindelidia trifasciata (Coleoptera: Cicindelinae) using geometric morphometrics. Zoologischer Anzeiger 287: 61-66.
  19. Gumiel M., Catalá S., Noireau F., Rojas de Arias A., García A. & Dujardin J.P. 2003. Wing geometry in Triatoma infestans (Klug) and T. melanosoma Martinez, Olmedo & Carcavallo (Hemiptera: Reduviidae). Systematic Entomology 28: 173-179.
  20. Hammer Ø., Harper D. A. T., Ryan P. D. 2001. PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologica Electronica 4: 1-9.
  21. Harvey A. & Sherratt E. 2023. A comparison of ecomorphology between introduced and native Australian dung beetles. Australian Journal of Zoology 70 (4): 115-125.
  22. Holzinger W. E., Kammerlander I. & Nickel H. 2003. The Auchenorrhyncha of Central Europe. Fulgoromorpha, Cicadomorpha excl. Cicadellidae. (Volume:1) Koninklijke Brill NV, 673 p.
  23. Jaramillo-O. N., Dujardin J. P., Calle-Londoño D. & Fonseca-González I. 2015. Geometric morphometrics for the taxonomy of 11 species of Anopheles mosquitoes. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 29: 26-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/mve.12091.
  24. Klingenberg C.P. 2011. MorphoJ: An integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Molecular Ecology Resources 11 (2): 353-357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02924.x
  25. Klingenberg C.P. 2013. Visualizations in geometric morphometrics: how to read and how to make graphs showing shape changes. Hystrix 24, 15.
  26. Kociński M., Grzywacz B., Hristov G. & Chobanov D. 2021. A taxonomic outline of the Poecilimon affinis complex (Orthoptera) using the geometric morphometric approach. PeerJ 9: 1-20.
  27. Laojun S., Changbunjong T., Sumruayphol S., Pimsuka S. & Chaiphongpachara T. 2024. Wing geometric morphometrics and DNA barcoding to distinguish three closely related species of Armigeres mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand. Veterinary Parasitology 325:110092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2023.110092.
  28. Li S., Ricchiardi E., Bai M. & Yang X. 2016. A taxonomy review of Oreoderus Burmeister, 1842 from China with a geometric morphometric evaluation (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Valgini). ZooKeys 552: 67-89.
  29. Li R., Zhang H., Li S. & Bai M. 2017. Geometric morphometric analysis of Eysarcoris guttiger, E. annamita and E. ventralis (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Systematic Zoology 42: 90-101. https://doi.org/10.11865/zs.201708.
  30. Liang A. P. & Fletcher M. J. 2002. Morphology of the antennal sensilla in four Australian spittlebug species (Hemiptera: Cercopidae) with implications for phylogeny. Australian Journal of Entomology 41: 39-44.
  31. Liang A. P. & Webb M. D. 2002. New taxa and revisionary notes in Rhinaulacini spittlebugs from southern Asia (Homoptera: Cercopidae). Journal of Natural History 36: 729-756.
  32. Liu H. Y., Du, R. L., Zhao, W., Yang, X. K., & Yang, Y. X. 2023. A morphometric approach to the comparative morphology of aedeagi shapes in net-winged beetles: A case study on the Macrolycus dotatus species group (Coleoptera: Lycidae). Arthropod Systematics & Phylogeny 81: 897-916.
  33. Lodos N. & Kalkandelen A. 1981. Preliminary list of Auchenorrhyncha with notes on distribution and importance of species in Turkey VI. families Cercopidae and Membracidae. Türkiye Bitki Koruma Dergisi 5 (3): 133-149.
  34. Ludoški J., Francuski L., Gojković N., Matić B. & Milankov V. 2023. Sexual size and shape dimorphism, and allometric scaling in the pupal and adult traits of Eristalis tenax. Ecology and Evolution 13 (3): 1-17.
  35. Mutanen M. & Pretorius E. 2007. Subjective visual evaluation vs. traditional and geometric morphometrics in species delimitation: a comparison of moth genitalia. Systematics Entomology 32: 371-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.2006.00372.x.
  36. Nugroho S. S., Mujiyono S. P. S., Prasetyo A. S. & Garjito T. A. 2020. Wing geometry analysis as a potential tool for species identification for Anopheles mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Indonesia. Serangga 25 (1): 93-104.
  37. Oleksa A., Căuia E., Siceanu A., Puškadija Z., Kovačić M., Pinto M. A. & Tofilski A. 2023. Honey bee (Apis mellifera) wing images: a tool for identification and conservation. GigaScience 12: 1-13.
  38. Ossiannilson, F. 1978. The Auchenorrhyncha (Homoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica 7 (1): 1-122.
  39. Qubaiová J., Růžička J. & Šípková H. 2015. Taxonomic revision of genus Ablattaria Reitter (Coleoptera, Silphidae) using geometric morphometrics. ZooKeys 477: 79-87.
  40. Önder F., Tezcan S., Karsavuran Y. & Zeybekoğlu Ü. 2011. Türkiye Cicadomorpha, Fulgoromorpha ve Sternorrhyncha Kataloğu, Meta Basım, İzmir, 157 p.
  41. Polihronakis M. 2006. Morphometric analysis of intraspecific shape variation in male and female genitalia of Phyllophaga hirticula (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 99 (1): 144-150.
  42. Pretorius E. & Scholtz C. H. 2001. Geometric morphometrics and the analysis of higher taxa: a case study based on the metendosternite of the Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 74 (1): 35-50.
  43. Rohlf F. J. 2015. The tps series of software. Hystrix 26: 9-12.
  44. Rohlf F. J. & Bookstein F. L. 1990. Proceedings of the Michigan morphometrics workshop. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology.
  45. Rohlf F. J. & Marcus L. F. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8 (4): 129-132.
  46. Rohlf F. J. & Slice D. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology 39 (1): 40-59.
  47. Romiti F., Redolfi De Zan L., Piras P. & Carpaneto G. M. 2017. Shape variation of mandible and head in Lucanus cervus (Coleoptera: Lucanidae): a comparison of morphometric approaches. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 120 (4): 836-851.
  48. Saiwichai T., Laojun S., Chaiphongpachara T. & Sumruayphol S. 2023. Species identification of the major Japanese encephalitis vectors within the Culex vishnui subgroup (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand using geometric morphometrics and DNA barcoding. Insects 131: 1-14.
  49. Sarıkaya A. D., Okutaner A. Y. & Sarıkaya Ö. 2019. Geometric morphometric analysis of pronotum shape in two isolated populations of Dorcadion anatolicum Pic, 1900 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Entomology 43 (3): 263-270.
  50. Smith-Pardo, A. H., Lingafelter, S. W., Laroze, D., Piñeiro-Gonzalez, A., & Benítez, H. A. 2025. Shape as a Key to Taxonomy: Morphometric Analysis of Tetropium Species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Insects 16 (4): 386. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16040386
  51. Soulier-Perkins A. Cercopoidea Organised On Line. The Catalogue of Life Partnership. 2019. doi: 10.15468/2jxczc.
  52. Suganya M. & Manimegalai K. 2021. Landmark-based Geometric Morphometric Analysis of Wing Shape of Trilophidia annulata (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology 50 (6):1-13.
  53. Tanyeri R. & Zeybekoğlu Ü. 2020. Color/Pattern Variation of Cercopis vulnerata Rossi, 1807 (Auchenorrhyncha: Cercopidae) Populations of Northwestern Turkey. The Black Sea Journal of Sciences 10 (2): 266-273.
  54. Tanyeri R. & Zeybekoğlu Ü. 2022. Evaluation of Cercopidae (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Cicadomorpha) Species Distributed in Sinop and Kastamonu (Turkey) in Taxonomic Terms. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University Journal of Agriculture 25 (1): 133-139.
  55. Tanyeri R., Kaya A., Selçuk A.Y., Kefelioğlu H. & Zeybekoğlu H. 2025. Discrimination of the three Aphrophora species: Linear morphometric and 2D-geometric morphometric approach. Biologia 80: 1997-2006.
  56. Tarrís-Samaniego S., Muzón J. & Iglesias M. S. 2023. When size and shape matter: morphometric characterization of two sympatric dragonflies of the genus Perithemis (Odonata: Libellulidae). Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 95 (Supply 1): 1-10.
  57. Zúniga-Reinoso Á. & Benítez H. A. 2015. The overrated use of the morphological cryptic species concept: An example with Nyctelia darkbeetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) using geometric morphometrics. Zoologischer Anzeiger 255: 47-53.
  58. Zelditch M. L., Swiderski D. L. & Sheets H. D. 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Academic press. New York and London, 437p.
  59. Zhao W., Liu H., Geiser M. & Yang Y. 2022. Morphology and geometric morphometrics unveil a new genus of Cantharidae (Coleoptera, Elateroidea) from mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber, with a preliminary investigation on the phylogenetic position. Invertebrate Systematics 36 (7): 608-621.
  60. Zubrii N. A., Filippov B. Y., Kondakov A. V., Khruleva O. A., Rybalov L. B. & Vikhreva D. V. 2022. DNA Barcoding versus morphological variability of Pterostichus brevicornis brevicornis (Kirby, 1837) (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the Arctic and Subarctic. Insects 13 (2): 204-221.
  61. Zubrii N. A., Filippov B. Y., Kondakov A. V., Khruleva O. A. & Rybalov L. B. 2023. Integrative taxonomy of two morphologically similar species of the subgenus Cryobius Chaudoir, 1838 (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Pterostichus Bonelli, 1810) from northern Eurasia and North America. Ecologica Montenegrina 61: 8-15.