1970] 
Roth — • Blattaria 
443 
In species of the Mexicana Group, R2 (Figs. 3, 6, 15,18, 22, 25, 
28, 33, 37, 40, 42, 45) has a. subapical incision, and a setal brush 
(Figs. 4, 7, 9, 13, 16, 19, 23, 26, 35, 38, 43, 46) occurs on Li. 
Princis (1958, p. 63) synonymized Epilampra stigmosa Giglio-Tos 
with Epilampra conferta Walker. The specimens determined by 
Princis (Figs. 24-28, 31) as conferta are similar to a specimen, in 
the Philadelphia Academy collection, which was labeled (in pencil) 
E. stigmosa (Fig. 30). However, the E. conferta identified byHebard, 
Albuquerque, and Rehn (Figs. 229-237) have entirely different geni- 
talia from Princis’ conferta (Figs. 24-28, 31, 36-38). The type of 
Walker’s conferta (Brazil) is a female, whereas Giglio-Tos’ type of 
stigmosa is a male. 
According to Gurney (personal communication) “ E . stigmosa G.- 
T. was based on 4 males from Ecuador. Giglio-Tos also described 
E. josephi from 2 males from S. Jose, Ecuador ( stigmosa was from 
the valley of Santiago, Ecuador) ; they apparently were similar to 
stigmosa for the most part. ... No. 76 \_conferta, det. Albuquerque] 
(Figs. 235-237), seems rather small to be conferta , judging from 
Walker’s description (though type is a female), but size may be 
quite variable. I would be inclined to use the name stig??iosa for 
No. 132 [Figs. 32-33], No. 134 [Figs. 24-26], and No. 136 [Figs. 
27-28], and perhaps No. 105 [Fig. 31], but am more uncertain 
about No. 76 [Figs. 235-237] being conferta. . . . No. 105 [Fig. 31] 
has the face darker than 132, et. al., the interocular space is wider, 
and the ventral surface of the abdomen is much darker; however, if 
the genitalia agree this may be just variation.” 
It is apparent that Gurney is not convinced that stigmosa and con- 
ferta are the same species. However, for the present, I am following 
Princis’ conclusions. It is highly probable that more than one spe- 
cies is involved here which are very similar in external appearance. 
The problem may be partly solved by examining the male genitalia 
of the type of stig?nosa. Unfortunately the Type of conferta , as in- 
dicated above, is a female. The prepuce and L2d of conferta speci- 
mens from Ecuador (Figs. 32, 34) differ somewhat from these 
structures in specimens from Panama and Costa Rica (Figs. 24, 27, 
29, 30, 31) and from specimens from Peru (Figs. 36, 39). The 
R2 (Figs. 37, 40) of Peruvian males are noticeably stouter than 
the genital hooks (Figs. 25, 28) of Panamanian specimens. Epilam- 
pra conferta may well be a complex of sibling species. 
The genitalia of two undetermined or questionably determined 
species belonging to this group are shown in Figures 41-46. One 
specimen from Ecuador, determined by Albuquerque as E. mexicana 
