337 



or Sphodromantis, whose clypei are hardly bulged. According to (2), I could not find 

 a sutura epistomalis in Cryptocercus. In both cases the autapomorphy has to be refuted. 



29 "Arch of L2v* horizontal." "Arch of L2v*" is probably the part of L2 within the Ive- 

 pouch. However, the orientation of L2 in Cryptocercus is not or hardly different from 

 that in Polyphaga or Mantoida. If, however, the lack of an upcurving of the right parts 

 of L2 and Ive is referred to (6.2.1., 6.2.4.), this feature, if really present in the three 

 species, would be derived. However, according to fig. 5 of Grandcolas, in Therea LI 

 and the right end of L2 are still in contact (articulation A2), whereas in Cryptocercus 

 the loss of this contact A2 and the loss of the right part of L2 (upcurved in other 

 Blattaria) are probably intercorrelated. Hence, the levelness of the right part of L2 

 would probably not be homologous in Therea and Cryptocercus. 



30 "Basis of inner apophysis of L2d* widened." Misidentification (B). 



31 "Neoformation N* protruding." Misidentification (D). 



32 "L3v* as a narrow plate in dorso-caudal position." Misidentification (B). 



Cryptocercus + Therea 



34 "L3d* very shortened." Misidentification (B). 



35 "Neoformation N* as a rod." Misidentification (D). 



Conclusions 



All surmised synapomorphies suggesting that Ergaula, Eucorydia, or Therea axe more 

 closely related to Cryptocercus than to Polyphaga are not valid or at least (only 29) 

 questionable. On the other hand, in 7.3. many apomorphies have been listed which clearly 

 suggest that at least Ergaula (and Lamproblatta) is more closely related to Polyphaga than 

 to Cryptocercus (autapomorphies of the subgroups 2.2.2.2. and 2.2.2.2.2. in 7.4.). That 

 Therea and Eucorydia are true members of Polyphaginae and that they are closely related 

 to Ergaula is not questioned or even confirmed in the case of Therea, which shares at 

 least one synapomorphy with Ergaula and several synapomorphies with Ergaula and 

 Polyphaga (compare in 9.1.). 



The synapomorphies of Grandcolas suggesting Cryptocercus to be a member of 

 Polyphaginae or Polyphagidae are all not valid either. The only exception is the plateau- 

 like anterior face of sclerite LI. However, Cryptocercus is probably closely related to 

 Polyphaginae (autapomorphies of subgroup 2.2.2. in 7.4., but compare in 7.7.), and, if 

 Lamproblatta is also included, Cryptocercus might well be assigned to the Polyphaginae 

 sensu Grandcolas (representing the basalmost offshoot). 



As regards the various other groups usually assigned to Polyphagidae (Holocompsinae, 

 Euthyrrhaphinae, Latindiinae, and Tiviinae in Grandcolas, and some others), hardly 

 anything is known about the morphology of their male and female genitalia, and their 

 phylogenetic relationships are still open to question. 



