307 



These discussions will be dependent on the phylogenetic hypothesis in 7.4., and the 

 soundness of the results depends on the soundness of this hypothesis. 



(P) The presence or absence of a sclerite-ring formed by the regions Llm, Lll, and Llr 

 A distinct extension Llm and possibly also a less distinct extension Lll are elements of 

 the common ground-plan of Blattaria and Mantodea (6.1.1.). However, only in species of 

 the Blattarian subgroup 2.2. Lll and Llm curve ventrad (Llm does this in a different 

 way as in the Mantodean subgroup 1.2.) and approach each other again (6.1.4.); this is 

 certainly a derived feature. The sclerite ring is either complete (Ergaula, Cryptocercus), 

 and in this case it sometimes additionally expands onto the dca-processes (Tryonicus 

 parvus, Nahublattella), or the ring has a short gap (ventrally in Polyphaga, dorsally in 

 Tryonicus angustus). In all other species of subgroup 2.2. the feature is not assessable 

 since LI has been completely lost. The only exception is Lamproblatta, which shows no 

 trace of a ring though LI is present; this is assumed to be a secondary loss because of 

 the many assumed autapomorphies of the subgroups 2.2.2. and 2.2.2.2. A complete sclerite- 

 ring is assumed to be a ground-plan feature of subgroup 2.2. 



(Q) The connection or separation of the sclerotisations of the Ive-pouch (L2 or L2D) and 

 of the paa- and pda- (or via-) processes (L2+L4N or L2E+L4N) 

 (R) The absence or presence of muscle 110 



In the common ground-plan of Blattaria and Mantodea the sclerotisation of the Ive-pouch 

 is connected with the common sclerotisation of the paa- and pda-processes (6.2.1., 7.1.), 

 and the same is true of the ground- plan of the Blattarian subgroup 2.2. Muscle 110 con- 

 necting these two sclerotisations is certainly also a ground-plan element of subgroup 2.2. 

 (or at least of 2.2.2. + 2.2.3. since Tryonicus = 2.2.1. has not been investigated; 7.3.). 

 Within subgroup 2.2.3. (fig. 328) the sclerotisations concerned can be connected with 

 {Anaplecta, Euphyllodromia, Parcoblatta, Blaberus) or separated from each other 

 {Nahublattella, Supella, Nyctibora, Nauphoeta), and muscle 110 is present in the species 

 showing a separation (and in Anaplecta) but absent in the species showing a connection 

 (except for Anaplecta). 



Anaplecta is the first offshoot within subgroup 2.2.3. The outgroup comparison with the 

 subgroups 2.2.1. and 2.2.2. clearly suggests that the connection of the sclerotisations in 

 Anaplecta corresponds to the plesiomorphic state. Nahublattella is the next offshoot, and 

 Supella follows. Both species show an (probably homologous) apomorphic separation of 

 these sclerotisations. In the remaining species, which together form subgroup 2.2.3.2.2.2., 

 both conditions - connection and separation - are represented. The outgroup comparison 

 with the subgroups 2.2.3.2.1. (Nahublattella) and 2.2.3.2.2.1. (Supella) clearly suggests 

 that within subgroup 2.2.3.2.2.2. the connected condition is an apomorphic state. This view 

 is supported by the additional lack of 110, which is certainly a derived feature, and which 

 is probably correlated with this secondary fusion of the sclerotisations. 



The fusion of the sclerotisations and the concomitant loss of 110 have certainly happened 

 several times within subgroup 2.2.3.2.2.2. since the distribution of these two derived 

 features is completely inconsistent with some other well-founded groupings: (1) Blaberus 



