Lamyctes Meinert, 1868

= Lamyctinus Silvestri, 1909

= Metalamyctes Verhoeff, 1941

= Remylamyctes Attems, 1951, n. synonymy

Type species: Lamyctes fulvicornis Meinert, 1868 [= L. emarginatus (Newport, 1844)].

Assigned species: See Edgecombe & Giribet (2003: 2–3) for complete list.

Discussion: Synonymy of Remylamyctes with Lamyctes is proposed herein based on restudy of the type species, R. straminea .

Some characters that Attems (1951) cited as diagnostic of Remylamyctes are descriptive errors. Most notably, the genus was said to have spiracles on only three segments, 5, 10 and 12, but the specimens consistently show the seven pairs of spiracles diagnostic of Henicopini (spiracles on segments 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 14). Several specimens have spiracles on the supposed spiracle­free segments as prominent as those on segments 5, 10 and 12. A lack of distal spinose projections on any tibiae was cited as another diagnostic character of Remylamyctes . Attems’ types demonstrate that R. straminea in fact has a slender, spine­like, sclerotised projection in the usual henicopid postion on the tibiae of legs 1–11 (Fig. 23). The labral sidepiece was diagnosed and figured (Attems 1951: fig. 24) as having just a single spinule (the transverse seta that projects across the midpiece: Fig. 14); Attems (1951: 184) described the labral sidepieces with “pas d’autres poils”, alluding to the absence of a fringe of branching bristles that is seen in all other Lithobiomorpha . In fact, a fringe of branching bristles projects beyond the labral margin (Fig. 15).

Lamyctes straminea is typical of Lamyctes in its tergite shapes (all tergites lacking projections: Fig. 1), tarsal segmentation (tarsi of legs 1–12 undivided, those of legs 13–15 in two parts: Figs. 4–7), the narrow, curved dental margin of the maxillipede coxosternum (Fig. 12), and conical, seta­like pseudoporodont in addition to two teeth on each dental margin (Fig. 13). Structure of the pretarsal claws is identical to other Lamyctes, including such distinctive characters as a long posteroventral spine (Fig. 8) with a short subsidiary spine (Fig. 9), divergence of the accessory claws relative to the main claw (Fig. 11), and a lack of rimmed pores beneath the base of the accessory claws (see Edgecombe 2004a: figs. 3A, 7B for L. coeculus). The mandible possesses an autapomorphic character of Lamyctes, multifurcating, scale­like accessory denticles on the dorsal mandibular tooth (Figs. 18, 19). Mandibular fine structure is identical to that of L. coeculus (Brölemann, 1889) (Edgecombe et al. 2002: fig. 6D; Edgecombe 2004b: fig. 38E), including the number of aciculae and the form of the pinnules along their margins (Fig. 17), and the smooth, scale­like region between the accessory denticles and furry pad (Fig. 19). A lack of ocelli is likewise observed in Lamyctes coeculus and L. hellyeri Edgecombe & Giribet, 2003 . These blind species of Lamyctes further resemble L. straminea in being parthenogenetic throughout most ( L. coeculus) or all (single locality for L. hellyeri) of their geographic ranges.

The specific synonymy of Lamyctes straminea and L. coeculus is argued below. Remylamyctes falls into junior subjective synonymy with Lamyctes .