Onuphis and Aponuphis (Annelida: Onuphidae) from southwestern Europe, with the description of a new species Author Arias, Andrés Author Paxton, Hannelore text Zootaxa 2015 3949 3 345 369 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.3949.3.3 25ece91c-6566-4122-a406-236f147b58b1 1175-5326 238900 CBEF804D-5FBF-48D2-8CCD-036B70FE6ECD Onuphis pancerii Claparède, 1868 Onuphis pancerii Claparède, 1868 : 438 –440, pl. VIII fig. 1; 1870: 387, pl. V fig. 5a; Rioja, 1918 : 39 , fig. 10 (Santander); Arias & Paxton, 2014 : 158 –164, figs 9–12. Onuphis eremita . — Fauvel, 1923 (in part): 413–415, fig. 163. Not Audouin & Milne Edwards, 1833 .— Paxton, 1986 : 56–58, figs 3, 6–8, 10. Not Audouin & Milne Edwards, 1833 . Material examined . Type material. Neotype ( MNCN 16.01/311) Naples, Italy , specimen Num. 173 from the Collection of Rioja, 1894-1917 . Non-type material. Nine specimens ( MNCN 16.01/310) Enmedio sandy flat, Santander Bay, Spain , specimens Num. 686 from the Rioja Collection 1894-1917 . For a detailed listing of additional material from Italy , Spain and France see Arias & Paxton (2014) . Type locality. Gulf of Naples, Italy , central Mediterranean. Diagnosis. Prostomium anteriorly extended. Eye spots absent. Palps reaching chaetiger 1–2, lateral antennae reaching chaetiger 5–6 and median antenna chaetiger 2–4. Ceratophores long and strongly ringed, palpal ceratophores with 22–26 rings, lateral antennae with 21–29 and median antenna with 15–20 rings. Subulate ventral cirri in first five to six chaetigers; distinct subulate postchaetal lobes in first 10–19 chaetigers. Small interramal papilla present between chaetigers 4–5 to 9. Bi- and tridentate (or even multidentate) pseudocompound hooks in first three chaetigers. All hooks of equal thickness, slender long-appendaged ones absent. Subacicular hooks from chaetiger 10. Flat, distally oblique pectinate chaetae with 13–17 teeth. Single branchial filaments from chaetiger 1 to 19–24, thereafter number increasing to maximum of six to eight. Tube with soft inner layer and outer layer of vegetal material, shell-fragments and sand grains. Remarks. This species was synonymised with O. eremita by Fauvel (1923) and remained as such for nearly a century. However, Arias & Paxton (2014) demonstrated that O. pancerii is actually a valid species, morphologically different from O. eremita . Although the two species are closely related and thus share a number of parapodial and chaetal characteristics, they can easily be differentiated in that O. pancerii is a much larger, robust species than O. eremita . The anterior parapodia of O. pancerii have bi- and tridentate (or even multidentate) pseudocompound hooks of similar thickness and length of appendages. In contrast, O. eremita has only tridentate pseudocompound hooks of two types , robust short-appendaged hooks and slender long-appendaged ones. Distribution. East Atlantic (Bay of Biscay) and western and central Mediterranean.