1970] 
Roth — Blattaria 
471 
Gurney (personal communication) commented that “Judging from 
Hebard’s descriptive remarks about substrigata Walker, he, Albuquer- 
que, and Princis apparently have correctly identified it, but unfor- 
tunately there is no type locality for it, and the types of both it and 
opaca Walker are females . . . On the other hand, the type locality 
of opaca is Demerara, British Guiana, so Hebard may have had it 
from his French Guiana collections.” 
For the present I am considering opaca and substrigata to be dis- 
tinct. In addition to the marked differences in L2d and prepuce of 
these 2 species, the hook (R2) of substrigata (Figs. 197, 200, 201, 
204, 207) is usually distinctly wider than that of opaca (Figs. 179, 
182, 185, 188). Hebard (1926, p. 201 ) stated that E. opaca 
“. . . may prove to be a synonym of the Brazilian E. maculicollis 
(Serville), and the Ecuadorean E. stigmosa Giglio-Tos may fall in 
the same synonymy. Numerous distinct, though easily confused, spe- 
cies are known to belong to this group and, until a better concept of 
the distribution and individual variation within these is formed, we 
believe it best to use the name opaca.” According to Princis stigmosa 
is a synonym of E. conferta (see discussion under Mexicana Group). 
Hebard (1921, p. 136) stated that substrigata is closely related 
to grisea “. . . though separable by numerous features.” The genitalia 
of substrigata relate it more closely to Columbiana (Figs. 208-219) 
and opaca (Figs. 178-186), than to grisea (Figs. 68-76). 
The difficulty in identifying some of these species is shown by the 
fact that two specimens (Figs. 184-186, 187-189) determined as 
closely related to “berlandi” (cf. Figs. 115-117) by Albuquerque 
and Gurney (1962, p. 243) are similar to Hebard’s opaca. Princis 
determined one of these specimens (Figs. 184-186) as well as one 
from Surinam (Fig. 190) as E. sagitta. Gurney examined these 
specimens and in the absence of a careful study of types and genitalia 
felt that external features suggested the occurrence of more than 
one species. There can be little doubt that the genitalia of the Type 
of E. sagitta (Figs. 62-64) and what is here considered to be opaca 
are distinctly different. In sagitta Li has a setal brush (Figs. 61, 64, 
67) ( Abdomennigrum Group) and the tip of the prepuce is directed 
more posteriorly (Figs. 59, 62, 65). In opaca there is no setal brush 
on Li (Figs. 180, 183, 186, 189) ( Burmeisteri Group) and the tip 
of the prepuce is directed laterally (Figs. 178, 18 1, 184, 187, 190- 
195 ). 
Hebard (1920, p. 98) stated that E. columbiana “. . . is extremely 
close to E. mexicana Saussure and may eventually prove to be a geo- 
graphic race of that insect.” These are unquestionably distinct spe- 
