Hchavd — Dcnnapfcra and Orthoptera of Hawaii 329 



Group Blattellae of the Pseudoniopinae, was apparently based on a 

 misidentification, as material now before us shows the tegminal dis- 

 coidal sectors to be longitudinal, not oblique, and the ventro- 

 cephalic margins of the cephalic femora to be armed after "type A" 

 and not after "type B". 



In size, form and sex contrast close agreement with the Pseu- 

 domopine genus Latiblatella Hebard is shown. The present genus 

 is easily distinguished, however, by many features of primary im- 

 portance as well as by the color pattern, which in the genotype is 

 more highly developed and intricate than in any known species of 

 Latiblattela. 



The position of this genus is suggested, under our treatment 

 of the genus Allacta on page 327. 



The following features we believe to be of importance in recognizing 

 the genus Eoblatta. Form moderately broad. Tegmina moderately broad ; 

 fully developed in male, slightly shorter in female ; discoidal sectors longi- 

 tudinal. Wings with costal veins clubbed and intercalated triangle very 

 small. Dorsal surface of male abdomen unspecialized and not suddenly 

 constricted in distal portion. Ventro-cephalic margin of cephalic femora 

 with a row of spines that decrease suddenly in size mesad, those distad 

 being piliform, terminating in three heavy distal spines ; ventro-caudal mar- 

 gin armed with (3 and i distal) spines. Large pulvilli on all four proximal 

 tarsal joints. Large arolia present between the simple, asymmetrical tarsal 

 claws, the cephalic being very much shorter than the caudal claw. 



Eoblatta notulata ( Stal ) (Plate xxvi, figure 11.) 



i860. Blatta notulata Stal, Kongl. Svenska Freg. Eugenie's 

 Resa, Ins., p. 308. [ S , Taiti (= Tahiti).] 



1865. Ph[yUodroniia] hicroglyphica Brunner, Xouv. Syst. 

 Blatt., p. 105. [ 5,9 : Borneo: Taiti (= Tahiti).] 



We are fully in accord with Kirby who, in 1904, indicated the 

 above synonymy, except that the species is certainly not a member 

 of the genus /Vllacta, to which he assigned it. Shelford, in 1908, 

 also concurred in the synonymy but assigned the species to the 

 genus Phyllodromia. 



Stal's description is less satisfactory than that of Brunner, but 

 we are unable to understand Brunner's reason for describing his 



[27] 



