Psyche 
[September 
182 
study may show the two genera are not closely related, but it is 
not possible at this writing to attempt an analytic treatment of the 
genera of the subfamily. It is certain, however, that Dryadoblatta 
is not closer in relationship to any of the other genera, and its agree- 
ment with Pinaconota in many features is marked.” 
I have examined a male specimen which Rehn determined as 
Pinaconota sp. (Fig. 52), and have also seen the male type of 
Ischnoptera (?) sicca Walker which Kirby synonymized with Pina- 
conota bifasciata (Saussure) and which Princis (1958, p. 68) lists 
as a synonym of this species. The male shown in Fig. 51 is similar 
to the type of sicca, and I collected all stages of this species in the 
hanging nest of an oriole in the Amazon. Princis (personal com- 
munication) examined my specimens of sicca and concluded that 
Ischnoptera sicca Walker is not a Pinaconota. The male genitalia 
indicate clearly that neither Ischnoptera sicca (Figs. 53-55) nor 
Rehn’s Pinaconota sp. (Figs. 56-58) are closely related to Dryado- 
blatta (Figs. 24-26), a genus obviously related to Galiblatta (Figs. 
21-23). The genitalia of Pinaconota sp. and “I.” sicca are quite 
different and support Princis’s conclusion that they are not congeneric. 
2. Notolamprini ( Notolampra [Figs. 6, 8a]). — Rehn and 
Hebard (1927, p. 202) noted that the 3 species of Notolampra have 
a markedly convex dorsal surface but are more elongate than Phora- 
spis, which is a genus whose species are also strongly convex and 
resemble cassidid Chrysomelidae. According to Rehn and Hebard, 
Notolampra . . marks a transition from the more normal epilam- 
prine type to that of the specialized phoraspid offshoot of the family.” 
Princis (i960) placed Notolampra in the Phoraspinae; but the 
male genitalia of Phoraspis differ considerably from those of Noto- 
lampra and I have placed Phoraspis in the Phoraspini of the Epilam- 
prinae (Roth, 1972). 
The genitalia of 2 species of Notolampra which I have seen differ 
markedly from each other. In N. gibba (Type genus) the L2d (Fig. 
27) is much more robust than the L2d of members of Poroblattini, 
and does not taper toward the apex. Ri (Fig. 28) is long and 
slender and has a subapical incision; Li (Fig. 29) differs in shape 
from the Li of Poroblattini (cf. Figs. 11, 14, 16, 20, 23, 26). In 
N. antillarum , the shape of L2d (Figs. 30, 33) differs from that 
of N . gibba (Fig. 27) and is partially covered by minute spines. The 
phallomeres Ri (Figs. 31, 34) and Li (Figs. 32, 35) are very 
similar to those of Poroblattini. Notolampra gibba is found in Brazil, 
and N. antillarum is West Indian. 
3. Epilamprini ( Litopeltis [Figs. 7, 7a], Cariacasia [Fig. 8]. — 
Idle genitalia of Litopeltis and Cariacasia are sufficiently close to 
