Referral of Thyone neofusus Deichmann, 1941, Thyone adinopoda (Pawson & Miller, 1981 and Havelockia obunca (Lampert, 1885) to the genus Sclerothyone Thandar, 1990, and a replacement name for the preoccupied genus Neothyone Deichmann, 1941 (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea: Dendrochirotida) Author Thandar, A. S. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville Campus, P / Bag X 54001, Durban 4000 Author Arumugam, P. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville Campus, P / Bag X 54001, Durban 4000 & 205500752 @ stu. ukzn. ac. za; https: // orcid. org 0000 - 0002 - 1945 - 7268 205500752@stu.ukzn.ac.za text Zootaxa 2022 2022-12-07 5219 1 65 71 journal article 203546 10.11646/zootaxa.5219.1.3 0523df85-98fc-4cc3-baff-61c49020a01b 1175-5326 7408120 C39DD77A-45E5-475C-B214-85DEA9D75AA9 Sclerothyone neofusus ( Deichmann, 1941 ) comb. nov. Although the holotype is now devoid of the calcareous ring and ossicles, perhaps completely decalcified, a dissected paratype demonstrated a well-developed calcareous ring ( Figure 1A ) typical of the Sclerothyonidae and the body wall ossicles ( Figure 1B ) as delicate 2-pillared tables but on their way to corrosion. The paratype corresponds well with Deichmann’s (1941) description of the species except that the pedicel ossicles are badly affected and appear as corroded rods (?plates) with central and terminal perforations ( Figure 1C ). The tentacle ossicles comprise slender, curved, perforated rods ( Figure 1D ) and open rosettes ( Figure 1E ). No ossicles were detected in the introvert. From this we conclude that the calcareous ring and ossicles of the examined paratype are close to the type species of Sclerothyone [(i.e. S. velligera (Ludwig & Heding, 1935) ] and also closely resemble those of S. unicolumnus Thandar, 2006 . However, Martins and Tavares (2019) opined that Thyone neofusus may belong in Temparena (also in Sclerothyoninae ), rather than in Sclerothyone , as they mistook the plate-like ossicles illustrated by Deichmann (1941) , to have also come from the body wall. This observation is erroneous because of misinterpretation of Deichmann’s (1941) figure legend. It is here noted that the so-called plates are actually supporting plates, labelled as such in Deichmann’s legend, while in the description she herself stated that the plates may be reduced tables from the tube feet. However, it is noteworthy that Deichmann mentioned only rosettes in the introvert, but her figure clearly illustrates a “disc of table from introvert”. This may perhaps be contamination from another preparation. Hence, Deichmann’s description of the introvert deposits require clarification from a study of more material.