314 



- For the (certainly) apomorphic character state the homology in the species concerned 

 is questionable since the possibility of parallel evolution is revealed by other species 

 having achieved the same apomoiphic character state independently: (123). 



- For the (certainly) apomorphic character state the homology in the species concerned 

 is questionable since except for a formal correspondence the morphology of the 

 respective elements is rather different: (127), (128), (132). 



- The polarity of the character is unresolved or even suggested to be the reverse: (122), 

 (135), (136), (137), (138), (139). 



- The polarity of the character is suggested to be the reverse in a certain part of the 

 phylogenetic tree, (i.e. the apomorphic character state has been secondarily reduced in 

 the crucial species excluded): (133). 



In my view, the only conceivable alternative resulting from the list in 7.6. is that supported 

 by (124), (125), (126), and possibly (127): Cryptocercus might be the sister-group of 

 subgroup 2.2.3. (Blattellidae and Blaberidae) and not of subgroup 2.2.2.2. (Polyphaga, 

 Ergaula, Lamproblatta) . And Tryonicus could well be the sister-group of Cryptocercus + 

 subgroup 2.2.3.: The possibihty of a close relation between Tryonicus and subgroup 2.2.3. 

 has already been considered in 7.3., based on the similar morphology of the hla-hook 

 ((35) and (36) in 7.4.). In Cryptocercus the hla-base has also shifted posteriad (fig. 151), 

 and the retractility and the large extension of the membranous base 30 of hla present in 

 Tryonicus and subgroup 2.2.3. could well have been reduced in this species - in correlation 

 with the shortening of hla (compare (M), (N) in 7.5.). However, in my view, the very 

 similar reduction of sclerite L4K and of the nla-process and the shift of 12 in correlation 

 with the plateau-hke shape of the anterior face of the pne-pouch, the arguments suggesting 

 that Cryptocercus belongs to subgroup 2.2.2., are somewhat more convincing ((42)-(46) 

 in 7.4.). 



Another problematical issue is the assumed phylogeny of subgroup 2.2.3.2.2. Apart from 

 the fact that more species will have to be investigated in detail to get a really reliable 

 result, some character states of members of the genus Blattella are somewhat in conflict 

 with the hypothesis in 7.4. According to Mizukubo & Hirashima (1987), fig.41, there are 

 a dla-lobe and a R4-sclerite (= RDld) and possibly also a R5-sclerite {■= RD2v) present 

 in Blattella karnyi. (A muscle corresponding to rll has not been found by these writers.) 

 In Blattella germanica (Linne, 1767) I could also find sclerites which are certainly R4 

 and R5. According to McKittrick (1964), the females of Blattella germanica rotate their 

 oothecae. These features suggest that Blattella belongs to subgroup 2.2.3.2.2.2.2.2. or, at 

 least (if R4 and R5 are assumed to be secondarily reduced in Parcoblatta), to subgroup 

 2.2.3.2.2.2.2. (compare (115) and (117)-(120) in 7.4.). On the other hand, Blattella karnyi 

 (not B. germanica) resembles Nahublattella in that the posterior part of sclerite L2 is 

 branched, and each branch occupies a process. (The two branches of B. karnyi are LD2d 

 and LD2v in Mizukubo & Hirashima, fig.41; those of Nahublattella are the sclerotisations 

 of via and psa in fig. 244, 245.) The morphology of this area would in B. karnyi be more 

 primitive than in all species included in subgroup 2.2.3.2.2. (compare (94) in 7.4.). This 

 might indicate that some of the apomorphic character states regarded as autapomorphies 

 of the subgroups 2.2.3.2.2., 2.2.3.2.2.2., and 2.2.3.2.2.2.2. are cases of parallel evolution, 

 or that R4, R5, and the rotation of the ootheca have developed earlier and have been 



