New Definition of Neoprotereunetes Fain et Camerik, Its Distribution and Description of the New Genus in Eupodidae (Acariformes: Prostigmata: Eupodoidea)

Simple Summary The mite genus Neoprotereunetes, long neglected in the literature, is revised according to modern taxonomic standards. Six species from both Arctic and Antarctic locations, previously placed in the genera Protereunetes or Eupodes, are transferred to Neoprotereunetes. The new genus Antarcteupodes is created to accommodate one Antarctic species A. maudae comb. nov, originally described in Protereunetes. An identification key to Neoprotereunetes is provided. Abstract The genus Neoprotereunetes Fain et Camerik, 1994 is revised and its definition is extended in order to incorporate some species of the invalid genus Protereunetes Berlese, 1923. The former type species Neoprotereunetes—Ereunetes lapidarius Oudemans, 1906 is redescribed and transferred to Filieupodes Jesionowska, 2010 (Cocceupodidae); Proterunetes boerneri is redescribed and designated the new type species. Two species groups are proposed to embrace Arctic and Antarctic species, respectively. Protereunetes paulinae Gless, 1972 is redescribed, whereas Protereunetes maudae Strandtmann, 1967 is redescribed and designated the type species of the new genus Antarcteupodes gen. nov. A key to the species of Neopretereunetes is provided.

Morphological nomenclature for idiosoma and gnathosoma follows Baker and Lindquist [3]; for leg chaetotaxy, a universal Grandjean's notation system, reviewed by Norton [19] and applied for eupodoids by Lindquist and Zacharda [20] and Baker [21], is used.The spinelike seta on tibia I is treated herein as a famulus, and thus designated by the Greek letter kappa (κ) rather than the Latin letter k, analogically to the famuli on tarsi I and II designated by the Greek letter epsilon (ε).Palpal and leg setal formulae are given from trochanters to tarsi with solenidia and famuli indicated in parentheses.The setae for basi-and telofemora are given separately, even when segment is not divided.The terms "long" and "short" related to dorsal hysterosomal setae mean values equal to or longer than the distance between members of a pair of setae and shorter than this distance, respectively.This excludes lateral hysterosomal setae, i.e., c 2 , f 2 and h 2 , and also setae f 1 and h 1 , which are more tightly clustered at rear part of hysterosoma (caudal bent).Those are longer than remaining hysterosomal setae, and the latter in some eupodid genera (e.g., Benoinyssus, Aethosolenia) differentiated into trichobothria.Eupathidia are treated herein as setae (1) completely hollow, and (2) with a widely open base and designated by the Greek letter zeta (ζ), subtending the name of a seta.When a seta does not fulfill both conditions (e.g., it is partially hollow) it is then designated by "ζ?".Abbreviations used: ap-subcapitular apodema, cpcpodocephalic canal, LL-lateral lip, LS-labrum, OE-esophagus, tr?-trachea?.Diagnoses and descriptions of taxa refer to adult females if not stated otherwise.
Idiosomal venter.Coxisternal fields integument with weakly striate-spiculate ornamentation.Coxisternal setal formula: 3-1-4-3.Small cavities near outer margin of coxae I-III present.Genital aperture posteroventral, flanked by four or five pairs of aggenital setae (ag 1-4 or -5 ).Genital valves bearing six (or exceptionally five) pairs of genital setae (g 1-6 (-5) ) of which the anterior first is longer than the second and the second is longer than the remaining ones.All setae g are always in single row and none more lateral than others.Internal genital structures consist of two pairs of genital papillae and four or six pairs of eugenital setae (eu 1-4 or -6 ) set on protuberances.Anal opening terminal, flanked by three pairs of pseudanal setae: ps 1,2 posteriorly (sometimes located terminally or dorsally) and shorter ps 3 anteriorly.No anal setae (an) on anal valves.One pair of ventral lyrifissures (ih) present.
Legs.Legs I and IV longer than II and III, but all shorter than body.Femora I subdivided ventrally, II undivided, III and IV divided.All apoteles with ambulacra, consisting of pad-like empodium with dense setulae arranged in bands on lateral margins and pair of hooked claws with short outgrows on its ventral surface.Integument with spiculate ornamentation.All setae densely pilose except for sparsely pilose v on trochanters I and II and weakly barbed supracoxal seta el.Solenidia and famuli.Leg I. Genu with one dorsomedial erect solenidion σ.Tibia with one anterior complex of rhagidial organ ϕ 1 and spiniform famulus κ, and one medial rhagidial organ ϕ 2 , tandemly or obliquely in separated depressions.Tibial rhagidial organs long and T-shaped or L-shaped, or either short and ellipsoid to almost spherical.Tarsus with two rhagidial organs ω 1,2 and one stellate famulus ε, in tandem in confluent or separate depressions.Posterior one two to three times longer than anterior one.Leg II.Genu with or without medial, erect solenidion σ.Tibia with two rhagidial organs ϕ 1,2 (anterior and medial), tandemly in separate depressions.Tarsus with two or three rhagidial organs and with or without spiniform famulus ε, variously arranged.Mostly three rhagidial organs present, in confluent depression arranged alternately, i.e., anterior and posterior rhagidial organs situated antiaxially, whereas the medial one is situated paraxially.However, only two rhagidial organs can be present and situated obliquely in separate depressions or in tandem in confluent depression.Leg III.Genu without solenidion.Tibia with or without proximal rhagidial organ.Tarsus without rhagidial organs.Leg IV without solenidia.
Differential diagnosis.The genus resembles Caleupodes Baker, 1987 in having short dorsal setae, all legs shorter than the body, femora IV not enlarged and two rhagidial organs on both tibiae I and II.It differs from Caleupodes in having integument with striate-spiculate ornamentation (reticulate in Caleupodes), pilose dorsal setae (weakly serrate in Caleupodes), six or five genital setae (seven in Caleupodes) and three pairs of pseudanal setae (two in Caleupodes).Neoprotereunetes also shares some similarities with the genus Pseudoeupodes Khaustov, 2014, i.e., short dorsal setae, legs shorter than body and femora IV not enlarged.It differs from Pseudoeupodes in having five or six genital setae (six in Pseudoeupodes), three pairs of pseudanal setae (two in Pseudoeupodes), two rhagidial organs on both tibiae I and II (one rhagidial organ and one erect solenidion in Pseudoeupodes).
Species belonging to the genus Neoprotereunetes: 1. Protereunetes paulinae Gless, 1972 Neoprotereunetes boerneri species group Diagnosis.Genital region with five aggenital, six genital and six eugenital setae.Tarsus I with 21 setae (additional ventro-lateral antiaxial seta on tarsus I between setae pv and v 1 ).Tarsus IV with 13 setae.Tibia I with five setae.Genua III and IV each with four setae.Femur I with 13 setae.Arctic and sub-Arctic distribution.Currently the group contains only one species (N.boerneri).
Remarks.The original description lacks some valid diagnostic characters and thus the species is redescribed herewith.The type material of N. boerneri does not exist ( [25], p. 408; correspondence with Dr. Vladimir Gusarov, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo), but the specimens collected from Spitsbergen fully fit the original description and figures by Thor [7].
The species was redescribed by Strandtmann [11] on the basis of specimens collected from tundra and from the nests of brown lemming (Lemmus trimucronatus) in Alaska.The Strandtmann's material was not available for this study, but no significant differences between the specimens from Alaska and those from Svalbard were found.
N. boerneri possesses a unique character, i.e., one extra ventro-lateral, antiaxial seta on tarsus I, located between setae pv and v 1 .An additional tarsal seta is present in yet another eupodid species, Echinoeupodes echinus Khaustov, 2017.In that species additional seta (designted as "vs" by Khaustov [26]) is situated ventrally, between the pair of pv setae, and occurs on tarsi of all four legs.As it is hard to determine whether these two cases deal with homologous setae, the extra seta is marked only with an asterisk (*) in our study (Figures 5B and 7G).
Neoprotereunetes minutus species group Diagnosis.Genital region with four aggenital, six (or exceptionally five) genital and four eugenital setae.Tarsus I with 20 setae.Tarsus IV with 11 setae.Tibia I with four setae.Genu III with two or three setae.Genu IV with three setae.Femur I with 12 setae.Antarctic and sub-Antarctic distribution.

Neoprotereunetes crozeti (Strandtmann et Davies, 1972) comb. nov.
Protereunetes crozeti [12,22,27] Diagnosis.Genital region with four pairs of ag and six pairs of g setae.Trochanter IV with one seta.Tarsus II with three rhagidial organs and without spiniform famulus.Both tarsal rhagidial organs in separate depressions.Proximal rhagidial organs on tibia I and II long, at most four times shorter than its segment.No rhagidial organs on tibia III.
Differential diagnosis.N. crozeti resembles N. minutus by long proximal rhagidial organs on tibiae and lack of famulus on tarsus II.It differs from N. minutus in lacking proximal rhagidial organ on tibia III (present in N. minutus) and in arrangement of tarsal rhagidial organs.On tarsus I, in N. crozeti tip of antiaxial ω 1 and base of paraxial ω 2 overlap, whereas in N. minutus both are situated medially in tandem.On tarsus II, in N. crozeti ω 2 and ω 3 lie side by side and in N. minutus ω 3 is displaced anteriorly in relation to ω 2 .
Distribution.Possession Island, Crozet Islands, ATF [12].Material examined.None.Remarks.The original description lacks some valid diagnostic characters, but as the type-or any other material was not available for this study, only standardized diagnosis is given.There is no information on type material deposition in the original paper.It is not deposited in Bishop Museum (courtesy of Dr. Jeremy Frank, Entomology Collections Manager at Bishop Museum).

Neoprotereunetes exiguus (Booth, Edwards et Usher, 1985) comb. nov.
Eupodes exiguus [14,22,27] Diagnosis.Genital region with four pairs of ag and six pairs of g setae.Trochanter IV with one seta.Tarsus II with three rhagidial organs and spiniform famulus.Both tarsal rhagidial organs in confluent depressions.Proximal rhagidial organs on tibiae I-III short, at least seven times shorter than their segment.
Differential diagnosis.N. exiguus resembles N. parvus by very short, globular proximal rhagidial organs on tibiae, and T-shaped rhagidial organs on tarsi I and II.It differs from N. parvus in number of rhagidial organs on tarsus II (two instead of three) as well as in presence of rhagidial organ on tibia III and seta on trochanter IV (both absent in N. parvus).
Remarks.The original description contains all valid diagnostic characters and thus only standardized diagnosis is given.
Differential diagnosis.N. minutus closely resembles N. crozeti, by long proximal rhagidial organs on tibiae and lack of famulus on tarsus II.N. minutus, however, possess a proximal rhagidial organ on tibia III (lacking in N. crozeti).Additionally, the arrangement and shape of rhagidial organs is different in these two species.On tarsus I, in N. minutus ω 1 and ω 2 lie parallel, while in N. crozeti they lie in tandem.On tarsus II, in N. minutus ω 3 is displaced anteriorly in relation to ω 2 and in N. crozeti ω 2 and ω 3 lie side by side.
Material examined.Holotype male (Bishop Museum, slide labeled "BBM 7055"): Antarctic Peninsula, Anvers Island, Norsel Point, 64 Remarks.The redescription by Booth et al. [14] contains all valid diagnostic characters and thus only a standardized diagnosis is given here.
Except the type locality, records published before 1985 are not included as suggested in [14].
Mites collected from subalpine grasslands of Mt.Aso and Mt.Kamegamori in Japan were identified by Shiba [33] as P. minutus.However, the depicted specimen does not fully agree with the original description and figures as well as the holotype of P. minutus.It has shorter rhagidial organs on tibiae I and II and shows rather unusual solenidiotaxy of tibia II (two rhagidial organs and one erect solenidion; see [33], Figure 7e), which does not occur in any other eupodoid species.As the solenidiotaxy of tibiae is not commented in the description and thus cannot be confronted with that figure, this record remains dubious.
Luxton [30] recorded N. minutus from Dunedin, New Zeland and refered this species to Eupodes antipodus (Womersley, 1937).As no nomenclatorial act was established or synonymy commented it is not included here.

Neoprotereunetes parvus (Booth, Edwards et Usher, 1985) comb. nov.
Eupodes parvus [14,22,27] Diagnosis.Genital region with four pairs of ag and six pairs of g setae.Tarsus II with two rhagidial organs and spiniform famulus.Both tarsal rhagidial organs in confluent depressions.Proximal rhagidial organs on tibia I and II short, at least seven times shorter than its segment.No rhagidial organs on tibia III.Trochanter IV without setae.
Differential diagnosis.N. parvus resembles N. exiguus by short proximal rhagidial organs on tibiae and T-shaped rhagidial organs on tarsi I and II.It differs from N. exiguus in number of rhagidial organs on tarsus II (two instead of three) as well as in absence of rhagidial organ on tibia III and seta on trochanter IV (both present in N. exiguus).
Remarks.The original description contains all valid diagnostic characters, and therefore only a standardized diagnosis is given here.
Two subspecies of N. parvus were proposed by Booth et al. [14]: N. parvus parvus from South Orkney Islands and N. parvus grahamensis from South Shetland Islands and Antarctic Peninsula, which differs from nominative subspecies only in body length and lengths of idiosomal setae (see [14]).Distribution.Hallett Peninsula, Antarctica [5].Remarks.Chaetotaxy of holotype differs significantly from that in original description by Gless [5].The most apparent seems to be the discrepancy in genital chaetotaxy, i.e., six genital setae in original description and undoubtedly five in holotype female (Figures 10A and 13C).On one hand, this can be attributable to misfortunate arrangement of the last pair of eugenital setae (eu4) which is everted outward the progenital chamber and supplants, (evidently lacking) last pair of genital setae (g6).On the other hand, the depicted body ventral side of a female and genital region of a male in the original paper (Figures 32 and 33 in [5]) clearly show six pairs of genital setae in both    Remarks.Chaetotaxy of holotype differs significantly from that in original description by Gless [5].The most apparent seems to be the discrepancy in genital chaetotaxy, i.e., six genital setae in original description and undoubtedly five in holotype female (Figures 10A and 13C).On one hand, this can be attributable to misfortunate arrangement of the last pair of eugenital setae (eu 4 ) which is everted outward the progenital chamber and supplants, (evidently lacking) last pair of genital setae (g 6 ).On the other hand, the depicted body ventral side of a female and genital region of a male in the original paper (Figures 32 and 33 in [5]) clearly show six pairs of genital setae in both sexes.As no other specimens of N. paulinae are available for this study, it is impossible to decide if it is a both-sided anomaly in holotype or typical state of the species, and thus this character is excluded from the couplet No. 4 of the key.
Species formerly listed as, but not belonging to the genus Neoprotereunetes according to the newly proposed diagnosis: margin of coxae I-III present.Genital aperture postero-ventral, flanked by five pairs of aggenital setae (ag 1-5 ).Genital valves bearing six pairs of genital setae (g 1-6 ) of which anterior first is longer than second and second is longer than remaining ones.All setae g in single row and none more lateral than others.Internal genital structures consisting of two pairs of genital papillae and six pairs of eugenital setae (eu 1-6 ) set on protuberances.Anal opening terminal, flanked by three pairs of pseudanal setae: ps 1, 2 , posteriorly and shorter ps 3 , anteriorly.No anal setae (an) on anal valves.One pair of ventral lyrifissures (ih) present.
Legs.Legs I and IV longer than II and III, but all shorter than body.Femora of I and II leg undivided.Femora III and IV divided.All apoteles consist of pad-like empodium with dense setulae arranged in bands on lateral margins and pair of hooked claws with short outgrows on its ventral surface.Integument with striate-spiculate ornamentation.All setae setose except weakly barbed supracoxal seta el.Solenidia and famuli.Leg I. Genu with one dorsomedial erect solenidion σ.Tibia with one anterior complex of short ellipsoid rhagidial organ ϕ and weakly furcate famulus κ, and one proximal short erect solenidion.Tarsus with two L-shaped rhagidial organs (ω) and one small weakly stellate famulus ε, tandemly in separated depressions.Leg II.Genu without solenidion.Tibia with one ellipsoid rhagidial organ ϕ and one proximal erect solenidion.Tarsus with three L-shaped rhagidial organs and with weakly furcate famulus ε, arranged alternately, i.e., anterior and posterior rhagidial organs situated antiaxially, whereas medial one-paraxially, each in separated depression.Leg III.Genu without solenidion.Tibia with proximal erect solenidion ϕ.Tarsus without rhagidial organs.Leg IV.Genu without solenidion.Tibia with proximal erect solenidion ϕ.Tarsus without rhagidial organs.
Differential diagnosis.The new genus is similar to Pseudoeupodes Khaustov, 2014 because of legs shorter than body, femora IV not enlarged, short dorsal setae, and number and location of genital setae.It differs from Pseudoeupodes by internal vertical setae located in bothridia (in common areolae in Pseudoeupodes), coxisternal formula: 3-1-3-2 (3-1-4-2 in Pseudoeupodes) and three pairs of pseudanal setae (two in Pseudoeupodes).It resembles also Neoprotereunetes Fain et Camerik, 1994 in having short dorsal setae, same number and location of genital setae, all legs shorter than body, and not enlarged femora IV.It differs from Neoprotereunetes in internal vertical setae located in bothridia (in common areolae in Neoprotereunetes), coxisternal formula: 3-1-3-2 (3-1-4-3 in Neoprotereunetes) and in presence of one rhagidial organ and one erect solenidion on both tibiae I and II (two rhagidial organs in Neoprotereunetes).

Gnathosoma (Figures
The type material of F. filistellatus is lost (courtesy of Prof. Andrzej J. Zawal, former superior of Dr. Katarzyna Jesionowska), and thus only newly collected material along with the original description by Jesionowska [4] were used to compare the species with holotype of N. lapidarius.

Discussion
The family Eupodidae is composed mostly of monotypic genera, e.g., Claveupodes, Caleupodes, Aethosolenia.Two non-monotypic genera, i.e., Pseudopenthaleus and Echinoeupodes, have two species each, but in both cases, only one of them is accurately described.The remaining two non-monotypic genera, i.e., Eupodes and Benoinyssus are highly heterogenous.It is, therefore, hard to establish diagnostic characters at the generic level.We decided not to base generic diagnoses on leg setal patterns until more data on intra-generic variability in this respect will be collected.Body dimensions and shape are also excluded from diagnoses as these characters are contingent on age and condition of an individual as well as specimen treatment and preparation technique and may even change with an age of the slide.
In the present study, six species were classified within the genus Neoprotereunetes.Though the Arctic species differ slightly from Antarctic and sub-Antarctic congeners (mostly in genital and leg chaetotaxy), we decided not to divide them into separate genera or subgenera until the intrageneric variability in eupodid genera is better understood.However, to express these differences, two species groups were proposed: one, boerneri, containing N. boerneri, and another one, minutus, containing N. crozeti, N. exiguus, N. minutus, N. parvus and N. paulinae, based on type or newly collected material as well as original descriptions and redescriptions.Additionally, seven species that were described in or transferred to Protereunetes are not included in Neoprotereunetes.The first one was originally described by Oudemans [34] as Ereunetes lapidarius (Ereynetidae).In [35], the description of this species, with the (then) corrected generic name (Ereynetes), was extended and supplied with pictures by the same author.Next Oudemans [36] moved E. lapidarius to the family Eupodidae, without reference to its generic rank.Subsequently, Thor [7] transferred E. lapidarius to the genus Protereunetes.Finally, this species was designated as a type species of Neoprotereunetes Fain et Camerik, 1994.However, after the present examination of the holotype, it turned out that Neoprotereunetes lapidarius is the senior synonym of Filieupodes filistellatus Jesionowska, 2010 (Cocceupodidae).The second one, P. maudae, described as a congener of N. minutus by Strandtmann [29], is designated as a type species of the new genus Antarcteupodes on the basis of its unique combination of character states, not present in any hitherto described eupodid genus, including the most reduced coxisternal and leg chaetotaxy among the family Eupodidae.The third one, Protereunetes turgidus Shiba, 1978, was transferred by Khaustov [26] to the genus Echinoeupodes Khaustov, 2017.The fourth, Protereunetes villosus Shiba, 1978, possesses long and slender setae f 1 (presumably trichobothrial) and characteristic solenidiotaxy of tarsi I and II (each with two rhagidial organs, of which distal one is much smaller than proximal one), suggesting its affiliation to Benoinyssus Fain, 1958.The fifth species, Protereunetes perforatus Shiba, 1978, resembles Caleupodes reticulatus Baker, 1987 with respect to its reticulated body ornamentation and almost smooth setae.These characters are extremely rare in the family Eupodidae and might suggest a close relationship between these two species.Even if so, P. perforatus slightly differs from C. reticulatus in the solenidiotaxy of tarsus II (three rhagidial organs, instead of two) and the tibiae (one rhagidial organ, instead of two), and also in terms of its much larger body.The last species, Protereunetes striatellus (C.L. Koch, 1838) was originally described in Eupodes and then transferred by Thor and Willmann [8] to Protereunetes.As the description of this species is insufficient to determine its generic affiliation, and the type material probably does not exist, it is considered a species inquirenda.To confirm the above proposals, the type material should be examined, if (or when) available.
In reply to the transfer of Protereuntes (junior synonym of Ereynetes) back to Ereynetidae by Fain [9], Strandtmann [10] moved one of his species (P.minutus) to the genus Eupodes without reference to the second one (P.maudae).Although in subsequent papers Strandtmann was still using the name Protereunetes in relation to eupodoid mites, the usage of Eupodes sensu [10] was widely accepted by other authors [13][14][15].However, in our opinion, the six species assigned herein to Neoprotereunetes possess a set of characters sufficient to constitute a separate genus.They have short and plumose dorsal body setae (long and lightly plumose in Eupodes); normal setae f 1 (sometimes trichobothrial in Eupodes); all legs shorter than body (legs I and II longer than body in Eupodes); femur IV slender (usually swollen in Eupodes) short and plumose leg setae (long and pilose in Eupodes); two or three L-shaped or T-shaped rhagidial organs on tarsi I and II (always two L-shaped rhagidial organs in Eupodes); two rhagidial organs on tibiae I and II (one rhagidial organ and one erect solenidion in Eupodes).Eupodes is still a highly heterogeneous taxon demanding a major revision.Nevertheless, the abovementioned characters enable the separation of Neoprotereunetes from Eupodes.
According to the Principle of Priority [38], the synonymy of original type species of Neoprotereunetes, namely Ereunetes lapidarius Oudemans, 1906 with Filieupodes filistellatus Jesionowska, 2010 implies that Neoprotereunetes is the valid genus-level name and should replace Filieupodes as its senior synonym.This, however, does not resolve the problem of the lack of a replacement for the genus-level name Protereunetes-the primary aim of creating Neoprotereunetes by Fain and Camerik [16].As the descriptions, redescriptions and original figures of E. lapidarius [33][34][35] do not imply that this species belongs to the family Cocceupodidae, only the present examination of the type could demonstrate that.As the type species fixation of the genus Neoprotereunetes was based on a misidentification (even at the time of its inception it did not meet its own diagnosis) for the sake of nomenclatural stability, we suggest retaining the name Filieupodes for the genus in the family Cocceupodidae (in line with the original proposal by Jesionowska [4]) and Neoprotereunetes for the genus in the family Eupodidae (as used by Khaustov [17]).
Thus, because the designation of new type species for Neoprotereunetes becomes necessary, we propose establishing Protereunetes boerneri Thor, 1934 (the oldest known species after E. lapidarius listed by Thor and Willamnn [8]) as the type species of the newly diagnosed genus.
Such practices are justified and encouraged by ICZN [38], as expressed in its initial chapter "Introduction.Development of underlying principles" (p.14) by the following statement: "Also when individual zoologists discover that the type species had been misidentified when a genus or subgenus was established, they are given the power to fix as the type species either the species actually nominated by the original author or the nominal species in conformity with the name in use".
The representatives of Neoprotereunetes thus far have been found only in the high latitudes of either hemisphere.The boerneri species group is restricted to the Arctic (Svalbard, Severnaya Zemlya, Arctic Alaska) and sub-Arctic (sub-Arctic Alaska) locations, whereas the minutus species group is restricted to the Antarctic (e.g., Antarctic Peninsula, South Orkney Islands, South Shetland Islands) and sub-Antarctic (Crozet Islands, Prince Edward Islands) locations.Additionally, N. minutus has also been recorded in Dunedin, New Zealand.Apart from the latter, all the locations are characterized by harsh climate and low yearly temperatures that seem to be favorable to eupodoid mites.Among terrestrial Prostigmata, Eupodoidea dominate in the Antarctic (36 species described) are one of the dominating groups in the Arctic.

Conclusions
Establishing Neoprotereunetes as a replacement for Protereunetes constitutes an important step in dividing the large and highly heterogeneous eupodid genus Eupodes and contributes to increasing the stability within Eupodidae.Even though Neoprotereunetes displays no unique characters specific only to this genus, it can be easily defined by a combination of characters.This might be one of the reasons that it remained so poorly defined for such a long time.

Figure 9 .
Figure 9. Neoprotereunetes paulinae (Gless, 1972), holotype female.Body, ventral view.Scale bar: 100 µm.Differential diagnosis.N. paulinae resembles N. parvus by lack of seta on trochanter IV and short, globular proximal rhagidial organs on tibiae I and II.It differs from N. parvus in number of genital setae (five instead of six) and number of rhagidial organs on tarsus II (three instead of two).Distribution.Hallett Peninsula, Antarctica[5].

Figure 18 .
Figure 18.Antarcteupodes maudae (Strandtmann, 1967), holotype female.(A) Tarsus, tibia and genu of left leg I, dorsal view; (B) tarsus of left leg I, ventral view; (C) femur and trochanter of left leg I, dorsal view; (D) left leg II, dorsolateral view.Scale bar: 50 µm.Remarks.The species is characterized by the unique combination of character states, not present in any hitherto described eupodid genus, including the most reduced coxisternal and leg chaetotaxy among the family Eupodidae, and sufficient to represent a separate genus.Family: Cocceupodidae Jesionowska, 2010 Filieupodes Jesionowska, 2010 Type species: Filieupodes filiformis Jesionowska, 2010 by original designation.

Figure 25 .
Figure 25.Filieupodes lapidarius (Oudemans, 1906), holotype female.(A) Tarsus, tibia and genu of right leg III, lateral view; (B) femur and trochanter of right leg III, lateral view; (C) tarsus and tibia of left leg IV, lateral view; (D) genu, femur and trochanter of left leg IV, lateral view.Scale bar: 50 µm.Solenidia and famuli.Leg I. Tarsus with two parallel T-shaped rhagidial organs in confluent depression and one stellate famulus ɛ well moved antiaxially to the lateral side.Posterior, dorsolateral rhagidial organ (ω1) reaching half of the length of anterior, dorsal one (ω2).Tibia with one distal (φ1) and one medial rhagidial organ φ2, both T-shaped, tandemly in separated depressions.Leg II.Tarsus with three parallel T-shaped rhagidial organs in separated depressions, of which the smallest anterior one (ω3) oblique antiaxially and flanked by two bigger posterior ones (ω1 and ω2).Spiniform famulus ɛ not

Figure 25 .
Figure 25.Filieupodes lapidarius (Oudemans, 1906), holotype female.(A) Tarsus, tibia and genu of right leg III, lateral view; (B) femur and trochanter of right leg III, lateral view; (C) tarsus and tibia of left leg IV, lateral (D) genu, femur and trochanter of left leg IV, lateral view.Scale bar: 50 µm.Differential diagnosis.F. lapidarius is similar to F. shepardi Strandtmann, 1971 because of naso delimited dorsally and the same number of aggenital and genital setae.It differs from F. shepardi in short dorsal hysterosomal setae (long in F. shepardi) and parallel arrangement of rhagidial organs on tarsi I and II (tandem in F. shepardi).
visible.Tibia with two T-shaped rhagidial organs (anterior φ1 and medial φ2), in separated depressions.Leg III and IV without solenidia.