A NEW SPECIES OF GALIBLATTA FROM BRAZIL 
(BLATTARIA, BLABERIDAE). 
By Louis M. Roth 
Pioneering Research Laboratory 
U. S. Army Natick Laboratories 
Natick, Massachusetts 01760 
The genus Galiblatta Hebard includes a single species G. cribrosa 
Hebard, described from St. Jean du Maroni, French Guiana (Hebard, 
1926). According to Bruijning (1953) the species is also common 
in the interior of Surinam. Princis’ (1963) catalogue records only 
the above 2 references under Galiblatta and the genus is not included 
in Rocha e Silva Albuquerque’s (1964) checklist of Brazilian cock- 
roaches. 
This paper contains the description of a second species of Galiblatta, 
closely related to G. cribrosa , which I collected near Manaus, Brazil. 
The original adult male and female were collected under palm frond 
debris on July 29, 1967, and the female gave birth on September 19, 
1967. Fifteen individuals were reared and all were males (14 adults, 
1 nymph) ; no females were produced in this litter. The female had 
oviposited again by October 4, but died before giving birth again. 
Galiblatta williamsi new species. 
(Figs. 1-3, 6-8, 12-16, 20) 
Male: The number of chromosomes in the male (cells in the 
testes of one nymph were examined) is 2n = 27; presumably the 
female has 2n = 28. In addition to mitotic chromosomes (Fig. 1), 
cells with 13 and 14 meiotic chromosomes were seen. 
The male of G. williamsi (Fig. 2) differs from G. cribrosa 
(Fig. 4) principally in the structure of one of the left phallomeres. 
The phallomeres Li (Figs. 12, 17), and R2 (Figs. 14, 16, 19) are 
very similar in both species. However, L2d of cribrosa (Fig. 18) 
is more elongate and tapered than in williamsi (Figs. 13, 15) >* and 
the apical portion of L2d is tuberculate in cribrosa (Fig. 21) and 
smooth or slightly rugose (Fig. 20) (perhaps this is due to clearing 
and mounting the specimen on a slide) in williamsi. 
Hebard (1926) in his generic description of Galiblatta stated 
that the styles were “. . . partially or wholly atrophied” and in 
G. cribrosa (Hebard, 1926, p. 237, footnote 109) the sinistra! style 
in the male is absent “. . . apparently due to atrophy.” Both styles 
of the male of G. williamsi are well developed (Fig. 10), though 
249 
