256 
Psyche 
[September 
L2vm. The R.2 (Fig. 38) is broad, relatively short and, as in 
Pycnoscelus , lacks a subapical incision. 
Princis (1964) lists 4 valid species of Proscratea: peruana Sauss., 
inequalis (Walker), funebris Burmeister, and complanata (Perty). 
Brunner (1865) synonymized P. peruana with P. complanata with, a 
(?) and Kirby (1904) listed them as synonyms. Hebard (1926) 
placed funebris as a synonym of complanata , but Rehn (1932) felt 
that this was not warranted until additional information became 
available. Princis (1963) concluded that the above synonymies were 
incorrect, and showed differences in pronotal shapes and color mark- 
ings of the 4 species. I have examined the type of P. inequalis and 
find that its genitalia are so different from those of P. complanata 
(type of genus) that it undoubtedly does not belong to this genus. 
I collected P. complanata (det. by Gurney) in Brazil and estab- 
lished a colony which was maintained for several years at the Natick 
Laboratories. Habitus figures of adults and a nymph (from the cul- 
ture) are shown in figures 40-44. The adult pronotal markings may 
vary (Figs. 40-42) (see Rehn, 1932, p. 71) and the pattern of the 
specimen shown in figure 42 resembles that shown by Princis (1963, 
p. 148) for funebris. The specimen provisionally determined by Rehn 
as peruana has pronotal markings (Fig. 45) similar to complanata. 
Princis (1964) placed Panchlora, Proscratea, and Phortioecoides 
in the Panchloridae. Male genitalia clearly place Phortioecoides in 
the Zetoborinae (Blaberidae) (Roth, 1970a). The male phallomeres 
of the Panchlorinae (5 genera) are notable for their marked reduc- 
tion or absence (Roth, 1971b, Gurney and Roth, 1972). The geni- 
talia of Proscratea are not characteristic of the Panchlorinae. 
Hebard (1926) and Rehn (1932) believed that Proscratea be- 
longed to that section of the Perisphaeriinae which included Para- 
nauphoeta Brunner and its allies. I have examined the male genitalia 
of 6 species of Paranauphoeta and all 3 phallomeres differ markedly 
from those of Proscratea. 
McKittrick (personal communication) placed Proscratea in the 
Diplopterinae. However, the shape of the L2d and R2 in Proscratea 
are more like those of Pycnoscelus and I tentatively place Proscratea 
in the Pycnoscelinae. McKittrick (1964) shows Diploptera , Leuro- 
lestes, and Pycnoscelus , as arising from a common stock. Phoetalia 
(= Leurolestes) which she placed with Diploptera in the Diplop- 
terinae belongs to the Blaberinae (Roth, 1970b). The shape of the 
spermatophore of Proscratea complanata looks like a bowling pin and 
strongly resembles the spermatophore of Diploptera suggesting a 
relationship between these 2 genera. However, other genera in 
