Hebard—Dermaptera and Orthoptera of Hawaii 329 
Group Blattellae of the Pseudomopinae, 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 1 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 xxv, figure II.) 
1860. Blatta notulata Stal, Kongl. Svenska Freg. Eugenie’s 
esa ins pesOcss) | de Lait (== ahiti).| 
1865. Ph[yllodromia| hieroglyphica Brunner, Nouv. Syst. 
Bist eptOss is sere botmiens Lait. (=— labith).| 
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 Allacta, 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 ] 
