313 



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

 with the assumed autapomorphies of subgroup 2.2. 



Grouping Q: {Archiblatta + Periplaneta + Blatta + Deropeltis + Eurycotis) + 

 (Lamproblatta + Cryptocercus) 



(139) Region Rlc separated from regions Rid and Rlv: articulations A8 and A9 present 

 (SG2. and BM: Rlc connected with Rid and Rlv: A8 and A9 absent). 

 The presence of this separation and of A8 and A9 (6.7.1., 6.7.6.) has been regarded as a 

 ground-plan feature of Blattaria (7.3.; compare (128) of grouping F, with the reverse 

 polarity assumption, and (H) in 7.5.). If this state is regarded as an autapomorphy of this 

 grouping, the character would be inconsistent with the many assumed autapomorphies of 

 the subgroups 2.2., 2.2.2., and 2.2.2.2. 



Grouping R: (Archiblatta? + Periplaneta + Blatta + Deropeltis + Eurycotis) + 

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

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

 + By rsotria? ))))))) 



(25) Muscle 11 absent: from pouch pne to region L4d (BM: 11 present). 

 Muscle 11 has been found only in Mantoida, Sphodromantis, Cryptocercus, and 

 Nahublattella, and since it is in the same relative position in all these species it has been 

 regarded as homologous and as a muscle ot the common ground-plan of Blaiiaria and 

 Mantodea (6.1.1., 6.1.3., 6.1.4.). To regard the loss of 11 as an autapomorphy of this 

 grouping would be inconsistent with the many assumed autapomorphies of the subgroups 

 2.2., 2.2.2. (since Cryptocercus is excluded), 2.2.3., and 2.2.3.2. (since Nahublattella is 

 excluded). It is thus clearly suggested that 11 has been lost several times (or that the 11 

 of Mantodea, Cryptocercus, and Nahublattella are not homologous despite their similar 

 positions). 



7.7. Conclusions in terms of phylogeny 



The phylogenetic ideas presented in 7.2.-7.4. are highly supported by many 

 autapomorphies for the various subgroups. The inconsistent characters supporting the 

 groupings listed in 7.6. can in most cases not compete with the clusters of autapomorphies 

 given in 7.4., and this is due to various reasons: 



- The (certainly) apomorphic character state relates to the loss or reduction of an element 

 (such derivations are not as convincing in their role as possible autapomorphies as those 

 relating to the presence of new elements): (126), (127), (73), (64), (129), (131), (133), 

 (109), (110), (134), (25), (95). 



- The (certainly or surmisedly) apomorphic character state is, if related as an 

 autapomorphy to one of the groupings in 7.6., the only one suggesting the respective 

 grouping, not supported by the distribution pattern of any other character and 

 inconsistent with the distribution pattern of many other characters: (25) as related to 

 grouping R, (122), (123), (124), (73), (131), (132), (133), (136), (137), (138), (139). 



