1970] 
Roth — Blattaria 
455 
but is separated from it by the absence of a setal brush on Li. R.2 
usually has a subapical incision but a few species lack this character. 
The prepuce is usually well defined but in a few species it is markedly 
reduced. 
The Burmeisteri Group includes the largest number of species of 
Epilampra and may be further divided into subgroups based on the 
relative sizes, shapes, and extent of development of L2d and the 
prepuce. Although not all of the species will fit readily into the fol- 
lowing subgroups many of them do show a close relationship and I 
believe an attempt at sub-divisions is worthwhile. 
Subgroup A: ( burmeisteri , tainana, quisqueiana, sabulosa, wheel - 
eri, gundlachi, haitensis, hamiltoni, bromeliadarum t gatunae , fugax) : 
In this subgroup the area of L2d is relatively small in relation to, and 
covers only a small anterior part of the prepuce. In burmeisteri (Figs. 
127, 130, 132), quisqueiana (Figs. 136, 139, 142), and sabulosa 
(Figs. 145, 148, 150) the L2d is roughly divided in 2 parts, the 
left half usually being larger and sometimes more darkly pigmented 
than the right half. Rehn and Hebard (1927, p. 233) compared 
quisqueiana with grisea and substrigata. The prepuce and L2d of 
quisqueiana are closest to sabulosa and differ noticeably from those 
of substrigata (Subgroup B, Figs. 196, 199, 202-203, 205-206) and 
grisea ( Abdomennigrum Group, Figs. 68, 71, 74). 
Epilampra gundlachi has been confused with burmeisteri (Rehn 
and Hebard, 1927, p. 223), but the male genitalia of these 2 species 
are distinctive (cf. Figs. 1 5 7 - 1 5 9 and 127- 129). According to Rehn 
and Hebard (1927, p. 228), the nearest relative of haitensis is wheel- 
eri. However, the L2d of haitensis (Fig. 163) is closer to gundlachi 
(Figs. 157, 160) than it is to wheeleri (Figs. 1 5 1, 154) ; note the 
pointed spur on the left side of L2d in gundlachi and haitensis, and 
its absence in wheeleri. 
For almost 50 years the status of the genus Audreia Shelford has 
been in question. Hebard (1920, p. 92-93) stated “First steps only 
have as yet been taken to separate properly the generic units related 
to Epilampra, in which partial to complete reduction in organs of 
flight has occurred. At the present time, as was the case with Shel- 
ford in 1910, insufficient material is at hand to allow a proper revi- 
sion to be made. A number of species are before us which must be 
assigned to this genus as characterized by Shelford, but which indicate 
the presence of at least four distinct groups, though females alone 
of the majority of species are represented. Larger series and male 
examples will be needed before it can be determined whether these 
