1970] 
Roth — Blattaria 
465 
that Audreia hamiltoni . . is clearly congeneric with carinulata 
(Saussure) of Central America, the genotype, as selected by Hebard, 
although it has a number of features of difference.” However, the 
I>2d and prepuce of hamiltoni (Fig. 166), bromeliadarum (Fig. 
169), gatunae (Fig. 172), fugax (Fig. 175), and exploratrix (Fig. 
359) are so typical of Epilampra that I assign them to this genus. 
The R2 of fugax (Fig. 176) lacks a subapical incision; this incision 
is present in the other 4 species of “Audreia" (Figs. 167, 170, 173, 
360) but is much reduced in bromeliadarum (Fig. 170), gatunae 
(Fig. 173), and exploratrix (Fig. 360). The Li’s (Figs. 168, 17 1, 
174, 177, 361) of all 5 species lack a setal brush as do the other 
members of the Burmeisteri Group. 
Princis (1967) lists 9 species of Audreia , two of which ( A . 
cicatricosa Rehn, and A. jamaicana Rehn and Hebard) I have not 
seen. It is possible that these species are also Epilampra. Princis in- 
cluded Epilampra heusseriana under Audreia but its genitalia (Figs. 
302-307) are basically those of Epilampra and I have placed it in a 
separate group (see below). The male of Audreia catharina Shelf ord 
has tergal glands on tergites 1 and 2. Its genitalia are basically sim- 
ilar to species of “Epilampra" that possess tergal glands and I placed 
it in the genus Poeciloderrhis (Roth 1970). 
For the present I suggest that the genus Audreia , as represented 
by carinulata , be retained until a more detailed study is made of other 
morphological characters of this species. 
Subgroup B : ( opaca, substrigata, columbiana, latifrons , basistriga , 
thunbergi, castanea) : The species in this subgroup have a relatively 
large L2d which overlies a considerable area of the prepuce. 
According to Princis (1958, p. 62) Walker’s E. opaca is a syn- 
onym of his E. substrigata. Princis (personal communication) ex- 
amined the types of opaca and substrigata “. . . and could not find 
any noteworthy differences. Hebard had never seen the types and 
he thought them to be two different species. I supposed that Hebard’3 
records from French Guiana [opaca] could be correct, whereas his 
record of substrigata from Colombia evidently relates to another 
species. This was, however, a pure speculation of mine.” The geni- 
talia. of Hebard’s substrigata from Colombia (Figs. 199-200) clearly 
differ from those of specimens he considered to be opaca from French 
Guiana (Figs. 178-180). Princis’ substrigata (Fig. 205) is similar 
to Hebard’s substrigata specimens (Fig. 199). The genitalia of a 
specimen from British Guiana at the CUZM, determined as opaca 
by Princis (probably before he considered it to be a synonym of 
substrigata) are similar (Figs. 181-183) to Hebard’s opaca (Figs. 
178-180). 
