22 



- In Graber, Hagan, and Görg, however, 1 could not tind any observation contradicting 

 the same fusion in Mantodea: None of these authors treats the development of the region 

 concerned in sufficient detail. 



- Matsuda agrees with Walker and also Snodgrass (1933), p. 73, and (1936), p.42, about 

 Mantodea: Supraanal lobe and tergite 10 are not fused, and tergite 10 of the adults is 

 a proper one. The two latter authors (the only ones from whom Matsuda could have 

 adopted his assumption for Mantodea), however, make the same assumption for 

 Blattaria, too. They regard - as I did in the above description - the membranous lobe 

 (spl in fig. 320, 321b) of Blattaria as homologous with the spl-lobe of Mantodea. Thus, 

 the opinions of Walker and Snodgrass for Mantodea cannot - in a comparison with the 

 results of Heymons for Blattaria - serve to state a difference between Blattaria / Isoptera 

 and Mantodea. 



- Accepting Heymons' results, in Blattaria the supraanal lobe sensu Walker and Snodgrass 

 (= spl-lobe in my terminology) is posterior to or a posterior part of the supraanal lobe 

 sensu Heymons. According to Matsuda, in Mantodea the former (spl-)lobe is 

 differentiated in a postembryonic stage. Such a late elaboration of the spl-lobe is 

 possibly also true of Blattaria (and Isoptera?); at least, to my knowledge, an embryonic 

 rudiment of this lobe is not mentioned in the literature. 



- Thus, no argument comes from the data used by Matsuda to contradict the homology 

 of the spl-lobes of Blattaria and Mantodea. The assumption of a difference between 

 Blattaria and Mantodea is based upon a comparison of non-comparable data. 



Hence, the elements I call supraanal lobe spl and tergite of segment 10 TIO might both 

 be regarded as homologous in Blattaria and Mantodea - whatever structures these may be 

 in a strict morphological sense. Moreover, there are some arguments supporting these 

 homologies: (1) The supraanal lobe of Mantodea and the membranous lobe found in many 

 Blattaria (spl) show exactly the same relations to surrounding elements - namely those 

 shown in fig. 320, 321b,c. (2) My own investigations of the musculature of the respective 

 region in Sphodromantis (Mantodea), Lamproblatta, Eurycotis, and Cryptocercus 

 (Blattaria) had the result that muscle insertions are present neither on the lobe of 

 Sphodromantis nor on that of the Blattarian species, and the relations of these lobes to the 

 surrounding muscles are the same in both groups. (3) Investigations in the same species 

 show that the tergites 10 are provided with the same sets of muscle insertions. An unpaired 

 muscle running from the posterior part of tergite 10 to the rectum (present in all these 

 species) could be the musculus epiprocto-analis (Weidner 1982). The position of its dorsal 

 insertion might support the view that the true epiproct has been incorporated into tergite 

 10 in both Blattaria and Mantodea. 



3.2. The musculature 



Most muscles are compact, and the insertion areas are well-defined. Some others, however, 

 are rather diffuse, and it is not possible to exactly demarcate their insertion areas. (Such 

 a diffuse condition will be mentioned in the muscle hsts in chapter 5.). The data given in 

 the figures must be considered with these reservations. 



