3.2. 1.Lamproblattidae McKittrick, 1964Taxonomic scope.Lamproblatta Hebard, 1919, Lamproglandifera Roth, 2003History.Hebard (1919) proposed that Lamproblatta was most closely related to Eurycotis, but differentiated it based on the lack of forewings. Indeed, Lamproblatta is more superficially similar to Eurycotis than any other local genus known at this time. McKittrick (1964) identified the unique morphology of Lamproblatta ’ s internal structures and established it as a new subfamily, which Klass and Meier (2006) elevated to family status. Since then, Sanger data (Legendre et al. 2015; Malem et al. 2023), mitochondrial genomes (Bourguignon et al. 2018; Deng et al. 2023), transcriptomic data (Evangelista et al. 2019 b; Liu et al. 2023; Evangelista et al. 2024), and phenotypic data (Fig. 7; also, see supplementary material in Evangelista et al. 2019 b) has established a relationship with Xylophagodea (but see below for alternative hypotheses). Upon the description of Lamproglandifera Roth, 2003, Lamproblattidae was no longer monogeneric. Lamproglandifera is externally identical to Lamproblatta except for the presence of a visible tergal gland in the former. A few years later, Fritzsche & Zompro (2008) placed Eurycanthablatta in Lamproblattidae but gave little concrete evidence for it. We do not consider Eurycanthablatta as part of Lamproblattidae (see section below).Diagnosis.The following is revised from McKittrick (1964), who based her comparisons on Lamproblatta albipalpus and other non- Lamproblattidae (mostly Cryptocercus punctulatus). To her comparisons, we add data from our morphological analysis. (i) Female genitalia. Compared to Cryptocercus, adult female Lamproblattidae genitalia are more heavily pigmented, valvifers more elongate, paratergites much shorter, laterosternites IX are “ enormously expanded ”, second valvifer ring larger and heavier, and paratergo-mediosternal muscle IX is longer. Compared to Cryptocercus, the intersternal musculature of Lamproblattidae have the intersternal muscle VII – VIII divided into three pairs, and segmental muscles not continuous. (ii) Proventriculus. Greatly expanded armarium, heavily sculpted primary teeth (large and triangular in transverse section, rather than bladelike), projections of denticles more variable than in Cryptocercidae (i. e. with a stronger bilateral component), intercalary sclerites are noticeably shorter than the interdentaries, primary pulvilli are shorter than in Cryptocercus. Klass and Meier (2006) noted that Lamproblattidae is unique in having the tips of all six teeth inclined counterclockwise when viewed anteriorly. (iii) Male genitalia. Sclerite regions R 1 v and R 1 d simplified and forming a single sclerite R 1 J and with a medial spine-like projection, designated “ sra ” by Klass (1997) (in Cryptocercus the spine is missing, and R 1 is wider). L 1 large, flat, and boot-shaped (as opposed to a hollow lobe, or in the shape of hollow spines). L 2 c (base of McKittrick’s L 2 d) moderately narrow, nodule-like (in Cryptocercus, L 2 is broader and more rounded), process pda (sclerotized by region L 4 l) a highly elongate curved spine (pda differently shaped and not a spine in Cryptocercus, but spine-like in some Blattidae). Hook hla of left phallomere (with sclerite L 3) highly elongated, shaped like a curved cane (stout and robust in Cryptocercus) (Klass 1997). (iv) Other characteristics (Fig. 2). Maxillary palps whitish (but can have some weak pigmentation) as opposed to strongly pigmented, posterior end of SA plate whitish and lacking pigmentation to various degrees, SA plate edge slightly notched medially (but deeply notched in a few species).Remarks.Within Lamproblattidae, phylogenetic relationships are largely unknown, and morphological differences used historically (e. g., morphology of the penultimate maxillary palpomere; Rehn 1930) may not be informative when a robust species concept is applied. The shape of the penultimate maxillary palpomere was homoplasious in most cladistic analyses here (e. g., Fig. 7). Regardless, we find this character to be extremely subtle and perhaps subjective, even under quantitative analysis (e. g., if quantifying it as the basal angle of the palpomere, it is not always clear where exactly to measure the angle from). Eurycanthablatta, at least, is clearly different from Lamproblattidae species, and perhaps molecular systematics would also reveal them to be a deeper lineage. Lamproglandifera and Lamproblatta are less distinct from one another. Visible tergal gland modifications are highly volatile among Blattodea, often being variable between otherwise similar species (Roth 1969). Lamproblatta neuque Sánchez Herrera, De Martino, Realpe Sanabria, Realpe Rebolledo, 2025 also has a visible tergal gland modification (Herrera et al. 2026).The type of tergal gland modification (a patch of hairs on a modified SA plate) is, in itself, interesting because it is also present in Anaplectidae (Deng et al. 2026). Recent phylogenetic studies have shown some molecular support for Anaplectidae as sister to Lamproblattidae (Bourguignon et al. 2018; Li 2022; Deng et al. 2023; Liu et al. 2023; Evangelista et al. 2024) and we recover it here on the basis of other characters (character 14 – tergal gland modification – was usually assigned as a homoplasy). However, statistical tests in molecular analyses have not been able to rule out other possible placements (Evangelista et al. 2024).