[goosey]

I was going throught my old images and realised I still don't have ID's for these tiny insects. They were both seen in the Thyme last June, and were only about 2mm, you can see how small by the thyme leaf.

1. This I believe to be a froghopper of the Eupteryx sp?
I think it is so attractive with such lovely marking which just are not visible to the naked eye.




2. Absolutely no idea!

[paul m]

Yes, the first one looks very much like Eupteryx melissae which is found on a variety of labiate plats used as culinary herbs.
The second looks nymphal and I really wouldn't like to say! Good pictures given the size!

[goosey]

Thank you - one down one to go .

You wouldn't believe how many piccies I took just to get these, it's hit and miss most of the time, especially with white things or things this small.

[H Dogg]

I agree with Paul on this, the second photo will be very hard to get an ID these things can differ greatly between each stage(instar). You can just see the spines on the rear leg which points to it being on of the Cicadellidae (leaf hoppers) like the first species.

[goosey]

Oh! I wouldn't have even considered them being both froghoppers - there is nothing similar between them to look at, apart from they both exist on the same plant.
Actually I have an interesting larva image I will post here as soon as poss' .

[goosey]

There is lots of Cuckoo spit around over the summer. Until last year that exactly what I thought it was! It is actually a little insect, a Common Froghopper nymph, Philaenus spurmartus. The nymph resembles the adult shape but has no wings. Its exoskeleton needs protecting at this stage as it is not hard, so it surrounds itself in these frothy bubbles, these tastes horrid to any predators. The nymph will shed several times before the summer when it will emerge as an adult. This particular photo shows the nymph on the Helicrysum (I see it mostly on lavender) and is only 5mm long, beginning to produce the froth to hide in. It is called a froghopper because it resembles a frog and can hop from stem to stem if it is disturbed.
It was unusual to see it producing the bubbles - usually it's only the bubbles I see!

[paul m]

Originally Posted by goosey

Oh! I wouldn't have even considered them being both froghoppers - there is nothing similar between them to look at, apart from they both exist on the same plant.
Actually I have an interesting larva image I will post here as soon as poss' .

Leafhoppers, froghoppers (treehoppers, cicadas) are all very closely related (Hemiptera: Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha) but have different life-styles. The froghopper nymphs live in the 'cuckoo spit' whereas the leafhoppers don't (I think! must check up on this). So your original pictures were leafhoppers but, of course, your nymph is a froghopper.

And a plant that bears many species of insect is clearly a good one!

[H Dogg]

The best way to tell the difference of the two is Leafhoppers (Cicadellidae) have numerous spines on the hind tibiae, whereas Froghoppers (Cercopidae) dont.

[goosey]

Originally Posted by paul m

Leafhoppers, froghoppers (treehoppers, cicadas) are all very closely related (Hemiptera: Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha) but have different life-styles. The froghopper nymphs live in the 'cuckoo spit' whereas the leafhoppers don't (I think! must check up on this). So your original pictures were leafhoppers but, of course, your nymph is a froghopper.

And a plant that bears many species of insect is clearly a good one!

Oh - not what I expected to hear - this seems to keep happening!

Originally Posted by H Dogg

The best way to tell the difference of the two is Leafhoppers (Cicadellidae) have numerous spines on the hind tibiae, whereas Froghoppers (Cercopidae) dont.

That's useful to know. I don't think my close-up's will ever be detailed enough to tell though. I will keep looking out for them to see if I can find any different ones .

[H Dogg]

You can see it on the close ups on the two bugs in your first post. The close ups are fine for ID.

[goosey]

Originally Posted by H Dogg

The best way to tell the difference of the two is Leafhoppers (Cicadellidae) have numerous spines on the hind tibiae, whereas Froghoppers (Cercopidae) dont.

Not a very good picture, but I can tell by the spines on the hind tibiae that this is a Leafhopper as opposed to a froghopper! Thanks H Dogg for that useful info .
Now can anyone ID it for me please, it was on new leaf shoots of a clematis, I spotted it last night looking for non existant moths - thanks.

[H Dogg]

Elymana Sulphurella There not my strong point though so be warned

[goosey]

Ha ha! I just checked out Elymana Sulphurella and you are definitely right there!
What I am chuffed about is that all the pictures have the pale/ white end to the body – I thought it was just the flash on my own picture but they are meant to be like that!
Thanks

[H Dogg]

The paler end of the body is due to the wings being longer than the abdomen, so they become more translucent.

[goosey]

Originally Posted by H Dogg

Elymana Sulphurella There not my strong point though so be warned

Well I thought you were right, it looked so right!
I mentioned I had seen one on WAB and this was a reply

Acutipuerilis
Hi goosey,
Thanks for pointing it out... however, Elymana sulphurella is just what it isn't! This is one of the species of Empoasca, and I can't quite make out enough to tell the two native ones (E. vitis and E. decipiens)apart. The radiating white markings on the head are the giveaway, but to separate the species you need to see whether one of the long cells on the forewing is clear rather than green. I think I can just see it, making it E. vitis, but really not positive.
While a lot of leafhoppers are very distinctive, this group of small ones, known as typhlocybines, contains many species and even genera that are indistinguishable without a very close examination... usually involving dissection. Colours can also be very variable, which doesn't help. The worst genus is Edwardsiana, with about 18 species of tiny, nondescript leafhoppers that all look the same...

So it looks like it could be Empoasca vitis.