Depth. Remarks. Sternaspis maior Chamberlin, 99 was extremely briefly described and also the
Depth. Remarks. Sternaspis maior Chamberlin, 99 was really briefly described and also the key distinguishing features have been primarily based upon the shield. Judging from the dimensions from the APS-2-79 ventrocaudal shield (7 mm extended, 5 mm wide), the original specimen should happen to be quite big, but maybe his specimen was severely broken and only the shield may very well be characterized.Figure . Sternaspis maior Chamberlin, 99 A Neotype (UNAM 7882), ventral view B Identical, lateral view C Very same, anterior finish, frontal view D Identical, ventrocaudal shield e Paraneotype (UNAM Sta. three), ventrocaudal shield F Paraneotype (UNAM Sta. 3, OH), ventrocaudal shield G Paraneotype (UNAM 788), ventrocaudal shield. Sternaspis princeps Selenka, 885, syntypes (NHM 885.two.3.) h Bigger syntype, median region showing gonopodial lobes i Smaller syntype, ventrocaudal shield, frontal view. Bars: A .9 mm B two mm C mm D .4 mm E .three mm F .5 mm G two.five mm H, I .two mm.Revision of Sternaspis Otto, 82 (Polychaeta, Sternaspidae)It is actually noteworthy that Chamberlin and Augener (98, for S. africana, see above) nearly simultaneously primarily based their descriptions on schematic shield illustrations. Each illustrations indicate considerable resemblances for the particular shields shape and ornamentations of S. maior. In both species, the shield was illustrated as obtaining no concentric lines; for S. maior, the anterior depression had significant keels, the primary radial rib is very distinct, plus the fan has a median notch. These options are all present around the neotype such that we are confident we discovered the identical species, and that this species is distinct. Hence, to be able to clarify its taxonomic status (ICZN 999, Art. 75.3.), a neotype has been selected, described and its diagnostic capabilities have been illustrated (ICZN 999, Art. 75.3.25.three.3). Hartman (938:3) emphasized that numerous form specimens which had been supposedly deposited in Harvard, have been not located within the collections and this consists of the variety supplies of S. maior, such that we can conclude there’s no form material offered (ICZN 999, Art. 75.three.4). We regard the neotype as conspecific using the specimen described inside the original description (ICZN 999, Art. 75.three.5). The original variety locality was from the Gulf of California, south of Guaymas, Sonora (279’40″N, 0’30″W), 43 m, along with the proposed neotype was collected in a nearby locality, along the eastern Gulf of California coast, and in equivalent depths for the original material (ICZN 999, Art. 75.three.6). The neotype and paraneotypes are deposited within the Marine Benthic Invertebrates Reference Collection with the Mazatl Academic 
Unit, UNAM (ICZN 999, Art. 75.three.7). Sternaspis maior resembles S. affinis because each species have shields with round anterior margins, fan projected beyond the amount of the posterior corners and with a median notch. The main difference relates towards the presence of concentric lines that are barely visible in S. maior and distinct in S. affinis. Distribution. Central part of the Gulf of California, M ico, in soft bottoms at 8065 m, but the original material was collected at 43 m. Sternaspis princeps Selenka, 885 http:speciesid.netwikiSternaspis_princeps Figure H, I Sternaspis princeps Selenka, 885:5, Pl. , fig. . PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12730689 Variety material. South Pacific Ocean. New Zealand. Two syntypes (NHM 885.2.three.), R.V. Challenger, North Island, NE off Gisborne, 374’S, 792’E, 274 m, 0VII874. Description. Syntypes (NHM 885.2.three.) physique smooth, except for longitudinal wrinkles starting on segment eight, almost certainly an artefact of fixation andor preservation.