312 



Arguments for other alternative groupings within Blattaria 



Grouping M: {Archiblatta? + Periplaneta + Blatta + Deropeltis + Eurycotis) + Tryonicus? 

 + (Anaplecta + (Nahublattella + (Supella? + (Euphyllodromia? + (Parcoblatta + 

 (Nyctibora + (Blaberus + Nauphoeta + Blaptica? + Byrsotria? ))))))) 

 (135) Muscle s7 present: from subgenital plate to L2 (SG2. and BM: s7 absent) (24) 

 Region Lla level (BM: Lla hood-shaped). 



s7 (6.9.) has been regarded as a ground-plan muscle of Blattaria (7.3.) which has been 

 lost in subgroup 2.2.2.2. (compare (56) in 7.4., with the reverse polarity assumption, and 

 (L) in 7.5.). The anterior part of LI (Lla) is hood-shaped in the common ground-plan of 

 Blattaria and Mantodea (6.1.1.). In Archiblatta, Periplaneta, Blatta, Deropeltis, and 

 Eurycotis, in both species of Tryonicus, and in Nahublattella Lla has become level 

 (6.1.4.). In the other species listed this character has not been investigated {Supella, 

 Euphyllodromia) or is not assessable for the complete loss of LI (remaining species). 

 Lamproblatta does not reveal (24) since it has a distinct vestige of the hood- or even of 

 the plateau-shape (LI bends into the dorsal pne-wall; 6.1.4.). 



To regard (24) and (135) as autapomorphies of this grouping would be inconsistent with 

 the assumed autapomorphies of subgroup 2.2. If Cryptocercus really has vestiges of s7, 



(135) would moreover be inconsistent with the assumed autapomorphies of subgroup 2.2.2. 



Grouping N: {Archiblatta? + Periplaneta + Blatta + Deropeltis + Eurycotis) + 

 (Tryonicus? + (Cryptocercus + (Polyphaga + Ergaula))) 



(136) Tendon tre and muscle s8 present (SG2. and BM: tre and s8 absent). 



The presence of tre (6.7.1.. 6.7.5.) and s8 (6.9.) has been regarded as a ground-plan feature 

 of Blattaria (7.3.; compare (73) in 7.4., with the reverse polarity assumption, and (I) in 

 7.5.). (s8 not investigated in Archiblatta and Tryonicus). If this state is regarded as an 

 autapomorphy of this grouping, the character would be inconsistent with the assumed 

 autapomoiphies of the subgroups 2.2. and, if tre and s8 are not assumed to have been lost 

 secondarily in Lamproblatta, 2.2.2. and 2.2.2.2. 



Grouping O: {Archiblatta? + Periplaneta + Blatta + Deropeltis + Eurycotis) + 

 (Tryonicus? + (Lamproblatta + (Polyphaga + Ergaula))) 



(137) Muscle r6 present: from region Rlc to region Rid (SG2. and BM: r6 absent). 

 The presence of r6 (6.7.6.) has been regarded as a ground-plan feature of Blattaria (7.3.; 

 compare (126) of grouping D, with the reverse polarity assumption, and (K) in 7.5.). If 

 this state is regarded as an autapomorphy of this grouping, the character would be 

 inconsistent with the assumed autapomorphies of the subgroups 2.2. and 2.2.2. 



Grouping P: {Archiblatta + Periplaneta + Blatta + Deropeltis + Eurycotis) + (Tryonicus 

 + (Ciyptocercus + (Lamproblatta + (Polyphaga + Ergaula)))) 



(138) Groove rge present (SG2. and BM: rge absent). 



The presence of rge (6.7.1., 6.7.6.) has been regarded as a ground-plan feature of Blattaria 

 (7.3.; compare (75) in 7.4., with the reverse polarity assumption, and (J) in 7.5.). If this 



