239 



phallomere, to the left of A3 and anterior to pia, Mantoida has Hkewise a tooth-hke 

 evagination (pva in fig. 41, 28). Its sclerotisation, however, is isolated (RID in fig.41); 

 this is in contrast to both Chaeteessa and Eiirycotis (fig. 28, 77, 78) and is assumed to be 

 a derived feature. The edge 16 of Chaeteessa and Eurycotis (fig. 28, 77) has also been 

 lost. The large central invagination cbe to the left of the pva-tooth resembles cbe of 

 Chaeteessa (fig. 43, 29a). 



Taking the homology hypotheses assumed so far as a basis, the muscles of the right 

 phallomere are rather similai- in Mantoida and Eurycotis, and the assumed homologies of 

 the cuticular elements (l.-ll.) are confirmed: 



12. Some phallomero-stemal muscles insert along the anterior margin of R3 (s2 and s4 

 in fig. 42, 82; homology discussion in 6.9.). 



13. The s2-inseilion on R3 extends to the right as far as to a keel-apodeme on the age- 

 apodeme (3 in fig.41, 42, 44 and 74, 77, 82). (Keel 3 is missing in Chaeteessa.) 



14. Muscle rl (fig.48, 79) inserts on the right part of R3, immediately to the right of the 

 s2-insertion and the keel 3, and runs to the dorsal wall of the fda-lobe. 



15. Muscle r2 (fig.49, 80) runs from R3 to the cbe-invagination (compare fig.44, 74 and 

 49, 80). The right part of the posterior r2-insertion is on the Rl-sclerotisation that 

 forms the pva-tooth more posteriorly (fig. 50, 80). 



16. Muscle r3 (fig.49, 50, 80) runs from the right wall of the right phallomere to the left 

 where it inserts mainly in the dorsal wall of the pia-tooth. The rest of the left r3- 

 insertion is on the ventral fda-wall in Mantoida (compare fig.49 and 50) but in the 

 ventral pia- wall in Ewycotis (compare fig. 80 and 82). 



These muscles and the keel 3 are assumed to be homologous and to be features of the 

 common ground-plan of Blattaria and Mantodea. Muscle r4 is only present in Mantoida 

 (fig.49), the muscles r5 (fig. 80) and r6 (fig. 79) only in Eurycotis. 



Furthermore, Mantoida and Eurycotis have in common that (1) the age-apodeme extends 

 as far as to articulation A3 (fig.41, 44, 74) and that (2) even the sclerotisation posterior 

 to A3 is groove-shaped (fig.41; rge in fig. 74, 77). Both is not the case in Chaeteessa 

 (fig.28). (1) is assumed to be a feature of the ground-plan of Blattaria and Mantodea: 



17. The age-apodeme reaches articulation A3. 



As regards (2), however, the grooves posterior to A3 take different positions relative to 

 the right r3-insertion (ventral to r3 in Mantoida, dorsal to r3 in Ewycotis) and are regarded 

 as non-homologous. 



Main sclerite Rl is differently divided in the species discussed so far; the questions arise 

 (1) which of these divisions are homologous and (2) when have these divisions evolved. 

 The separation of the pva-sclerotisation (sclerite RID, fig.41) in Mantoida is certainly 

 apomorphic (compare above). 



Chaeteessa and Eurycotis have the dividing lines 4 (fig.28, 32) and A8 (fig.74) in a similar 

 position. Sphodromantis has a dividing line (4 in fig.6, 14) in the same position as 4 of 

 Chaeteessa, which is not membranous but only weaker sclerotised than the sclerites RIA 

 and RIB. This weak stripe 4 of Sphodromantis and the membranous stripe 4 of Chaeteessa 

 are assumed to be homologous. Muscle r3 of Sphodromantis (fig. 16, 19) has the same 



