308 



and Nauphoeta are (together with Blaptica and Byrsotria) members of the certainly 

 holophyletic taxon Blaberidae (McKittrick 1964). (2) Parcoblatta, Nyctibora, Blaberus, 

 and Nauphoeta are (together with Blaptica and Byrsotria) members of a probably 

 holophyletic taxon characterised by the autapomorphies (115)-(117) in 7.4. Hence, the 

 fusion and the loss of 110 can be assumed to have been achieved independently in 

 Euphyllodromia, Parcoblatta, and Blaberus. 



7.6. Conflicts in the distribution of character states 



In some characters whose polarity is rather clear, the distribution of the apomorphic state(s) 

 over the taxa is inconsistent with the phylogenetic hypothesis in 7.4.; these inconsistencies 

 can only be resolved by the assumption of either parallel evolution in the one or reversal 

 in the other species. In some other characters, mainly in those discussed in 7.5., the polarity 

 might be supposed to be the reverse of that assumed in 7.4. or resulting from the 

 discussions in 7.5. The discussions have shown that this is highly improbable, but some 

 doubt may remain. If the reverse polarity is supposed, the distribution of the surmisedly 

 apomorphic character states would also be inconsistent with the hypothesis in 7.4. 

 The (clearly or possibly) apomorphic character states concerned and the groupings they 

 might support will be listed here, and the respective plesiomorphic states are given in 

 brackets. This will be done in the same manner as in 7.4. The conclusiveness of many of 

 these "apomoiphic" states is in terms of their value as possible autapomorphies decreased 

 by uncertain homology relations, uncertain or even improbable polarity assumptions, or 

 other circumstances. Some of these states, however, could really be autapomorphies and 

 could hazard the phylogenetic hypothesis in 7.4., but only in very few points. 

 In the species provided with "?" some or all of the respective characters have not been 

 investigated. For muscles the two insertion areas are given. 



Arguments for alternative groupings within Mantodea 



Grouping A: Metallyticus + (Mantoida + Sphodromantis) 



(122) Groove on region Rlc behind articulation A3 and anterodorsal to right insertion of 

 muscle r3 present (BM: Groove on Rlc behind A3 and anterodorsal to left r3-insertion 

 absent). 



This groove on the Rlc-region (fig. 6, 20, 41), not homologous with the rge-groove of 

 Blattaria (6.7.1.), is very distinct in Mantoida and Sphodromantis, hardly recognisable in 

 Metallyticus, and missing in Chaeteessa (6.7.3.). To interpret the groove as an 

 autapomorphy of this grouping would be in conflict with the many assumed 

 autapomorphies of the subgroups 1.2. and, since the groove is more distinct in Mantoida 

 and Sphodromantis, 1.2.2. It is assumed that this groove is a ground-plan element of 

 Mantodea and has been reduced in Metallyticus and lost in Chaeteessa. The following fact 

 supports this interpretation: The age-apodeme on R3 probably reaches articulation A3 in 

 the common ground-plan of Blattaria and Mantodea (6.7.1., 7.1.), but in Chaeteessa age 

 does not reach A3, and the right posterior part of age has evidently been reduced. A 

 concomitant reduction of the groove posterior to A3 would be plausible. 



