309 



Grouping B: Mantoida + Metallyticus 



(123) Region Rlt separated from region Rlc: sclerites RID, RIE or RID, RIC (BM: Rlt 

 connected with Rlc). 



To regard this certainly apomorphic state (6.7.1., 6.7.3.; compare (G) in 7.5.) as a 

 synapomorphy of Metallyticus and Mantoida would be in conflict with the assumed 

 autapomoiphies of the Mantodean subgroups 1.2. and 1.2.2. Parallelism is thus highly 

 suggested. Support for this assumption comes from the fact that some other taxa have also 

 achieved this state independently: According to LaGreca (1955), at least Amorphoscelis 

 abyssinica (Amorphoscelididae), Tamchodes insidiator (Mantidae), and Polyspilota sp. 

 (Mantidae) (fig. 13, 15, 16 in LaGreca) show the separation of Rlt from Rlc, and this is 

 certainly not a synapomorphy of these distantly related species. The Blattarian subgroup 

 2.2.3.2.2.2. also shows the separation of Rlt and Rlc. 



Arguments for alternative groupings witiiin the Blattarian subgroup 2.2. 



Grouping C: Tryonicus + Cryptocercus + (Anaplecta + (Nahublattella + (Supella + 

 (Euphyllodromia + (Parcoblatta + (Nyctibora + (Blaberus + Nauphoeta + Blaptica + 

 Byrsotria) )))))) 



(124) Left edge 61 of lobe via extending far anteriad (BM: 61 ending far posteriorly). 

 This certainly apomorphic state (6.2.1., 6.2.4.) is distinct in Tryonicus, Cryptocercus, 

 Anaplecta, and Nahublattella, and the character is hardly assessable in the other species 

 listed. Hence, it might be an autapomorphy of this grouping. This character is inconsistent 

 with the assumed autapomorphies of subgroup 2.2.2. 



Grouping D: Cryptocercus + (Anaplecta + (Nahublattella + (Supella? + 

 (Euphyllodromia? + (Parcoblatta + (Nyctibora? + (Blaberus + Nauphoeta? + Blaptica? 

 + Byrsotria?))))))) 



(125) Muscle slO present: from subgenital plate to ejaculatory duct (BM: slO absent) (126) 

 Muscle r6 absent: from region Rlc to region Rid (SG2.: r6 present) (127) Sclerites LI 

 and L2 far separated: articulation A2 absent (BM: LI and L2 articulated in A2). 



(127) is certainly the apomorphic state (6.2.4.), and the same is probably true of (125) 

 (6.9.) and (126) (6.7.6., (K) in 7.5.). These characters are inconsistent with the assumed 

 autapomorphies of subgroup 2.2.2. but consistent with (124) of grouping C. (slO and r6 

 not investigated in Supella, Euphyllodromia, Nyctibora, Nauphoeta, Blaptica, and 

 Byrsotria.) As regards (127), however, non-homology is suggested for Cryptocercus, 

 Anaplecta, and the other species: Cryptocercus and Nahublattella have lost the right part 

 of L2, which curves upwards and bears articulation A2 distally in the Blattarian ground- 

 plan, but have retained LI. Anaplecta has retained the upcurved right part of L2 but has 

 lost LI. Hence, A2 has possibly been lost in different ways. If this is true, A2 has been 

 lost three times since Anaplecta and Nahublattella are clearly more closely related 

 (autapomorphies of subgroup 2.2.3. in 7.4.). 



