257 



sclerites themselves are not). Whether the fusion of RIS and RIP to form RIT' had as 

 its starting point a similar situation as in Nyctibora, or if it was preceded by a shortening 

 of RIS like in Parcoblatta, is unclear. (In the regioning of RIT' in fig. 330s the former 

 situation has been assumed, compare fig.330r). 



The Rlt-moi-phology of all these species also shows that the complete incorporation of 

 Rlt' into sclerite RIN' in Nahublattella and, in a different way, in Supella is in both cases 

 a special derivation, and that the situations in Euphyllodromia, Parcoblatta, Nyctibora, 

 and Blaberus are derived from a situation similar to Anaplecta (fig.330n), with Rlt 

 connected with Rlc only at its right end. 



The pva-ridge on Rlt is very low in Euphyllodromia, Parcoblatta (fig.282), and Nyctibora 

 (fig.319) and has been completely lost in Blaberus and Byrsotria. 



The situation in Nahublattella could be interpreted in another way: That part of RIN' 

 which near A6 curves back to the right (right part of 34 in fig.253) could alone be the 

 Rlt'-region, which is shortened like in Parcoblatta and, by this, far away from Rlc' with 

 its right end. According to this (improbable) interpretation, the Rl '-morphology of 

 Nahublattella would be likewise much more primitive than in Euphyllodromia, 

 Parcoblatta, Nyctibora, and Blaberus: There would be no fusion between Rlt' and R2', 

 and ewe would be missing. Instead, some features would have to be regarded as derived 

 peculiarities of Nahublattella: a fusion between the left end of Rlt' and the left end of 

 the posterior RlN'-sclerotisation (next to articulation A6); a reduction of the hook- 

 curvature at the left end of Rlt' (in the same area); an extreme shortening of Rlt' (which 

 in any case would be a parallelism as compared with Parcoblatta). In my view, the 

 interpretation of RIN' of Nahublattella made above is by far more probable. 



The dorsal lobe fda In Parcoblatta (fig.280, 281), Nyctibora (fig.319), Byrsotria 

 (fig.318), and Blaberus (fig. 308, 309) the posterodorsal part of the right phallomere is not 

 an undivided lobe as in Anaplecta (fda in fig. 226), Nahublattella (fda in fig.253), Supella, 

 and Euphyllodromia, but it is, from posteriorly, divided into two lobes lying one above 

 the other: dla (dorsally) and fda (ventrally). 



Sclerite RIP of Parcoblatta resembles RIN of Anaplecta: Both sclerites articulate with 

 R3 (A3 in fig. 226, 229, 281, 284), have a similar shape, and largely occupy the walls of 

 a posterior lobe (fda in fig. 226, 281). Homology is assumed for RIP and RIN - minus 

 the Rlt-region of RIN (compare fig.330n and q). Consequently, the ventral lobe fda of 

 Parcoblatta is assumedly the homologue of fda of Anaplecta. Apart from r2 (fig. 286), 

 the right phallomere of both Parcoblatta and Anaplecta has only one further muscle (rl 

 in fig.231, 286), which has the same course and is assumed to be homologous. The 

 posterior insertion of rl is in the anteriormost dorsal wall of fda in Anaplecta but in the 

 anteriormost dorsal wall of dla in Parcoblatta. Thus, it can be assumed that the dla-lobe 

 is a new outfolding originating from the anterior dorsal wall of the formerly undivided 

 fda. Hence, fda of Parcoblatta is not strictly homologous with the fda of Anaplecta and 

 the other species. (Moreover, like in e.g. Anaplecta, the ventral fda-wall of Parcoblatta 

 probably still contains the leveled vestiges of the pia-walls. Thus, the homology between 



