333 



I cannot agree with these assumptions: The number of sclerites is not identical on both 

 sides (compare in Grandcolas' fig. 2, 4), and the shapes and relative positions of the 

 sclerites supposed to be side-homologous are far from being similar on both sides (compare 

 e.g. L2v*/L2d* and R2* in fig.l, 3, 5, 6 of Grandcolas). Furthermore, the position of the 

 genital opening, defined as the center of symmetry of these supposed side-homologies, 

 has been identified incorrectly in Polyphaginae and Cryptocercus (compare (A)). 

 Generally, a superficial correspondence in the number, arrangement, and shapes of the 

 sclerites on the left and on the right side could well indicate side-homologies, but the 

 muscles should be investigated in terms of confirmation or contradiction. The musculature, 

 however, does not at all support the side-homologies assumed by Grandcolas. 



9.2. The phylogenetic position of Cryptocercus 



Cryptocercus punctulatus, Polyphaga aegyptiaca, and Ergaula capensis are, apart from 

 Blattinae, the only species investigated in both Grandcolas (1994) and this paper. 

 According to my results Ergaula and Polyphaga are more closely related, according to 

 Grandcolas Ergaula and Cryptocercus are more closely related. 



Grandcolas lists many autapomorphies suggesting the holophyly of various groupings of 

 Polyphagidae. The autapomorphies of all groupings containing Cryptocercus will be 

 discussed subsequently according to their hierarchy, focused on the question whether the 

 features listed provide arguments to include Cryptocercus in the respective grouping. The 

 first three groupings include Cryptocercus, Ergaula, and Polyphaga and are not 

 contradictory of my results. The fourth grouping includes Cryptocercus and Ergaula but 

 not Polyphaga and is directly in conflict with my results. If this latter grouping - with or 

 without Crytocercus - proves to be holophyletic, the last two groupings subordinate to it 

 are also in conflict with my results. 



Many of these autapomorphies relate to those phallomere sclerites for which Grandcolas' 

 homology assumptions for Cryptocercus and Polyphaginae have been refuted in 9.1. (A)- 

 (E), and they are in my opinion not valid; they will be commented with "misidentifica- 

 tion", and the letter of the respective discussion in 9.1. will be added for reference. The 

 autapomorphies are numbered like in Grandcolas (no numbers used in the first two 

 groupings). From the quotations references like "in male genitalia" will be omitted. The 

 autapomorphies concerned with tibial, head, "paraproct" (= subanal lobe), or female genital 

 morphology have been reinvestigated. The autapomorphies 10, 16, and 17 of Grandcolas 

 have been omitted since they refer to characters of the wings, which are completely absent 

 in Cryptocercus. 



Polyphagidae (including Cryptocercus) 



- "Sclerite L2v* with the form of an arch invaginated in ventro-posterior direction." An 

 arch-shaped L2 = L2v* extending along an invagination (Ive-pouch) is a feature of the 

 common ground-plan of Blattaria and Mantodea (6.2.1., 7.1.). 



- "Sclerite LI* with thick-lipped edges." This probably refers to the plateau-like anterior 

 face of the pne-pouch and of LI, and this is probably a synapomorphy of the respective 



