224 
Psyche 
[June 
greatly reduced and poorly developed or sclerotized. Most Panchlora 
lack an L2d and R2, and Li is usually represented by a weakly 
sclerotized cleft. 
In erecting the genus Phortioecoides , Rehn (1937, p. 234) stated 
that it is “Related to Phortioeca Saussure, Capucinella Hebard, and 
Capucina Saussure, showing certain features of agreement with each, 
but differing from each one by combinations of characters.” The 
genitalia of Capucinella (L2d and R2) show none of the typical 
characters of Zetoborinae; the genus probably belongs in the Epi- 
lamprinae. The shape of L2d of Phortioecoides (Fig. 37) more 
closely approaches that of Zetobora (Figs. 22, 27, 28) and I place 
Phortioecoides closer to this genus than to Capucina. 
2. Phortioecini ( Capucina > Lanxoblatta , Phortioeca , Schizopilia, 
and Zetoborella , Figs. 6-17, 40-98). L2d (Figs. 40, 43, 45, 48, 50, 
51, 54, 57, 60-62, 63, 66-70., 72, 75, 78, 81, 84) is considerably 
more developed and robust than in the Zetoborini, and reaches its 
greatest development in certain species of Phortioeca (Figs. 87, 90, 
9 3> 96-98). R2 has a well defined subapical incision (Figs. 41, 44, 
46, 52, 55, 58, 64, 71) except for several species of Phortioeca 
(Figs. 73, 76, 79, 82, 85). 
Hebard (1921, p. 210) compared Zetoborella with Zetobora spp. 
The genitalia of Zetoborella (Figs. 40, 41) are closer to other mem- 
bers of the Phortioecini (e.g. Figs. 43-46) than to Zetobora. 
Capucina patula (Fig. 10) was placed in the Panchlorinae by 
McKittrick (1964) and in the Laxtinae by Princis (i960). The 
Laxtinae of Princis is not recognized by McKittrick and she has 
assigned several of the genera in this grouping to other subfamilies. 
Princis (personal communcation) regards his subfamily Laxtinae 
. . as provisional. Further study will probably show that it is not 
at all a homogeneous group and must be sooner or later split up.” 
McKittrick used proventricular and female genitalic characters in 
placing Capucina in the Panchlorinae. However many of the char- 
acter differences she used in comparing ovipositors and proventriculi 
seem to be very subtle, and I believe the male genitalia offer char- 
acters which show more clear cut relationships in the Blaberidae 
than do the proventriculus or ovipositor. Miller (1969) found that 
the morphological diversity of the proventriculus in 9 subfamilies of 
Blaberidae “. . . often defied the most dedicated efforts to group 
them into subfamilies.” The male genitalia of Capucina are so 
similar basically to those of other members of the Phortioecini that 
I do not hesitate to assign this genus to the Zetoborinae. 
