No. 45. Fissidentoblatta polyphagella (Bey-Bienko 1963), comb. nov.

Figs. 3G, 14G,H

Arenivaga (Psammoblatta) polyphagella Bey-Bienko, 1963: 252, fig. 1; Princis 1971: 1136.

Male characters. Tibia armament: [2.7.0][7.7.2][11.7.4/5], dorsal spines of hindtibia fairly evenly distributed. The right fronttibia has three dorsal spines, two in dorso-posterior and one in dorso-anterior position, resulting in 10 spines as total number, which is unusual for Palaearctic genera; on the left fronttibia there is only one spine on each side. The short distance and the smaller size of the two spines suggest that wounding might have caused a splitting and doubling of the spine.—Tarsal arolia: present.—Subgenital plate: with styli, Fig. 14G.—Right phallomere: Fig. 3G, 14H.

Female: unknown.

Material studied: Holotype, 1♂, Кух-Шер ДерваЗе, 1860 m, 20.IX.1957, К. ЛИндберг (prep.: Bo 1399). (M. St.Petersburg).

Species of unknown position

No. 46. “ Polyphaga” kruegeri Salfi, 1927

Polyphaga kruegeri Salfi, 1927: 231, fig. 3.

Hetrogamodes kruegeri: Chopard 1929: 334, Figs. 10–11, 68–70, 78–80, 88.

Arenivaga (Heterogamisca) kruegeri: Princis 1962: 69.

Hemelytroblatta kruegeri: Grandcolas 1994a: 157.

Male characters (according to Salfi). Wings: fully developed, tegmina without subcosta lobe.—Femur armament: all femora without apical spine.—Tibia armament: [1.8.0][7.7.0][10.7.4], dorsal spines of hindtibia evenly distributed.—Tarsal arolia: absent.

Remarks. Type material not traceable; already Chopard (1929) did not see the type specimen and could only refer to Salfi’s description, which does not contain informations about the subgenital plate concerning the distribution of bristles or the presence or absence of styles. According to the tibia armament it could either be a Mollidentoblatta or a Psammoblatta . In the Paris Museum there are two male specimens from Djanet (SE Algeria near the border to Libya) determined by Chopard as Heterogamodes kruegeri; but the armament of the midtibia [6.8.1] excludes its belonging to this species. The specimens are described herein as a new species, Heterogamodes (Heterogamisca) sulcata (No. 7).

Female: unknown

Material, presumably lost. Type, 1♂, Libya, Porto Bardia, 20.VIII.1925 .

No. 47. “ Heterogamodes” incerta Chopard, 1929

Heterogamodes incerta Chopard, 1929: 306, fig. 57.

Arenivaga (Psammoblatta) incerta: Bey-Bienko 1950: 319; Princis 1962: 68.

Characters of female. Femur armament: all femora without apical spine.—Tibia armament: [1.8.0][7.7.1][10.7.4], dorsal spines distributed in two groups (7+3). The armament of mid- and hindtibia slightly deviates from the pattern of P. africana, in contrast to Chopard’s statement.

Other characters apart from leg armament not known, since the male gender of the species is still unknown. According to femur and tibia armament either belonging to Mollidentoblatta or Psammoblatta .

Material studied: Type, 1♀, Turkestan, Sikora. (M. Wien) .

No. 48. “ Heterogamia” hirsuta Saussure, 1899

Heterogamia hirsuta Saussure, 1899: 583 .

Heterogamodes hirsuta: Chopard 1929: 301.

Arenivaga (Psammoblatta) hirsuta: Princis 1962: 67.

Remarks. Species described by Saussure after a single female from southern Africa. Chopard (1929) had already— without effect—tried to get the type specimen for study; it is obviously lost. Since the original description does not contain any information concerning the femur and tibia armament, it is not possible to place the species in one of the known genera. Chopard (1929) included it in his genus Heterogamodes on account of the dense coverage with long hairs.