Figure 6. Typhlotanais Compactus, Female A In Family Nototanaidae Sieg, 1976 And Typhlotanaidae Sieg, 1984 Author Błażewicz-Paszkowycz, Magdalena text Zootaxa 2007 2007-09-28 1598 1 141 http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.178692 journal article 10.5281/zenodo.178692 1175­5334 7604A52C-F935-459C-91DD-F7C7AD9F2CC6 ‘ mixtus ’ group Diagnosis: Body elongate (over seven times as long as wide). Carapace elongate (over 1.5 times as long as wide). Cheliped basis separated from pereonite-1 by a gap ventrally. Pereonite-1 shorter then the others, all pereonites wider than long or square; pereonite margins delicately rounded; pereonites 1–3 carpus and propodus with spiniform seta; pereopods 4–5 merus with large prickly tubercles (larger than half of carpus length), propodus distal seta as long as half of dactylus; unguis simple; dactylus and unguis combined almost as long as propodus. Both pleopod rami with proximal seta separated from the others gap. Both uropod rami two-articled. Male: Unknown. Species included: Typhlotanais mixtus Hansen, 1913 ; Typhlotanais mimosis n. sp. Remarks: The ‘ mixtus ’ group is well defined by the large gap between the cheliped basis and pereonite- 1 ventrally, large prickly tubercles on the carpus of pereopods 4–6 and a long dactylus on pereopods 4–6 that, combined with the unguis, is longer than the propodus. These characters are also valid for the provisional ‘ spinicauda ’ group, although they have pair of large terminal spines on the pleotelson. Typhlotanais mimosis n. sp. has a distinctive projection on the coxa of pereopods 1 to 3 characteristic also of T. greenwichensis and T. messinensis . The last two species constitute a separate ‘ greenwichensis ’ group defined by a number of other characters such as a lack of a gap between the cheliped basis and pereonite-1 ventrally, a row of short seta on cheliped carpus, and prickly tubercles surrounded by a row of spines. Since T. mimosis has the specific coxal projection on pereopods 1–3 the assignment of the species to the ‘ mixtus ’ group may be ambiguous, but because the new species shares more characters with T. mixtus than with any other ‘typhlotanaid’ it is placed in the ‘ mixtus ’ group at the moment.