302 



fused, L41 has developed an swe-apodeme, and the right phallomere has evolved the 

 pia-tooth. 



This phylogenetic hypothesis as a whole is for several reasons extremely improbable: ( 1 ) 

 If accepting it, one would have to suppose that many of the features assumed for the 

 common ground-plan of Blattaria and Mantodea (listed in 7.1.) are not ground-plan 

 features but similarities born by parallel evolution. Some of the most important have been 

 mentioned in the steps 1.-7. Concerned are, for example: the detailed similarities of the 

 L41- and L4d-regions and of the swe-apodeme in Mantoida and Archiblatta; the arch- 

 shape of L2 and articulation A2 in e.g. Mantoida, Archiblatta, and Polyphaga; the similar 

 morphology of paa and pda in Mantoida and Tryonicus; the pia-teeth of Mantodea and 

 e.g. Archiblatta. (2) In addition, some elements present in subgroup 2.2.3. or its subordi- 

 nate subgroups but not in the other Blattaria and in Mantodea would have to be regarded 

 as ground-plan elements of Blattaria, e.g. the hook-like curvature of the median end of 

 the Rlt-region, inclusive of its cwe-thickening, and the Ive-apodeme. Features of the 

 females could be added to this "ground-plan" hst, e.g. the advanced rotation of the ootheca. 

 Hence, as regards (1) and (2), this hypothesis would be extremely conflicting with the 

 outgroup comparison of Blattaria with Mantodea - much more than the hypothesis 

 proposed in 7.4. (3) This hypothesis is rather inconsistent in itself: In several cases 

 secondary reductions (e.g. nla-process in 2.) or parallel evolution (situation in 5.) have to 

 be assumed. If the developments contained in the steps 1.-5. are arranged in another way, 

 some of these assumptions could be avoided, but they would only unavoidably be replaced 

 by other assumptions of secondary loss or parallel evolution. 



If only some or even only one of the polarity statements of this alternative hypothesis are 

 accepted, this would still cause extensive inconsistencies either with the ground-plan 

 hypothesis given in 7.1. or with the clusters of assumed autapomorphies given in 7.4. If 

 it is, for example, supposed that rge (J) is an autapomorphy of a Blattarian subgroup 

 comprising Archiblatta, Eurycotis (and the other species assigned to subgroup 2.1.), 

 Tryonicus, Lamproblatta, Cryptocercus, Polyphaga, and Ergaula, and that the lack of rge 

 in subgroup 2.2.3. is the plesiomorphic state, one would have to accept many cases of 

 parallel evolution. Which features would have to be regarded as having evolved several 

 times depends on which type of phallomere complex is regarded as plesiomorphic for this 

 hypothetical grouping: (1) If the basic phallomere morphology is supposed to resemble 

 Archiblatta, all the assumed autapomorphies of subgroup 2.2. must have developed two 

 times independently. (2) If the basic phallomere morphology is supposed to resemble either 

 Tryonicus, Lamproblatta, Cryptocercus, Polyphaga, or Ergaula, most of the similarities 

 in the morphology of the L41- and L4d-regions (including the similar insertions of 12 and 

 14; 6.3.1.) and in the posterior part of the right phallomere (with the fda-lobe and the pia- 

 tooth; 6.7.1.), which have revealed in the comparison between Mantoida, Chaeteessa, 

 Archiblatta, and Eurycotis, would have to be regarded as cases of parallel evolution. (3) 

 If any combination or mixture of these types is supposed to represent the basic phallomere 

 morphology, the extent of parallel evolution having to be accepted could not be decreased, 

 but only the assumptions of parallel evolution necessary for (1) and (2) would mingle. 

 If it is assumed that either tre and s8, or r6, or the L2-curvature, or nla, or dca, or the 

 separation of Rid and Rlv from Rlc, or the connection of Rlc and Rlt is an 



