222 
Records of the Australian Museum (2009) Vol. 61 
Table 2. Summary of groups proposed by Knight-Jones (1997) and subsequent authors, including combinations of characters 
not considered previously. Some taxa have been moved to different groups after examination of type material or re¬ 
interpretation of original descriptions and drawings. NSW: New South Wales, NT: Northern Territory, QLD: Queensland, 
VIC: Victoria, WA: Western Australia. 
group 
dorsal collar 
margins 
pockets 
subdistal 
radiolar eyes 
caruncle 
number species before 
this study 
species from Australia 
1A 
fused to 
faecal groove 
present 
most 
absent 
M. acrophthalmos 
M. circumspectum 
M. claparedii 
M. fauchaldi 
M. heterops 8 
M. lanigera b 
M. multioculatum 
M. pacifici 
M. pacificum 
M. perkinsi c 
M. suspiciens 6 
M. vesiculosum 
?M. vigilans 
M. phyllisae (VIC) 
M. cf. acrophthalmo (WA) 
Megalomma sp. 1 (QLD) 
present 
M. carunculata 
M. "de l’6tang de Thau” 
M. lobiferum 
IB 
1-3 dorsalmost 
absent 
M. cinctum 
M. coloratum 
M. mechamae 8 
M. modestum 
M. mushaenese f 
M. roulei 
M. splendidum 
M. inflata (NSW) 
1C 
dorsalmost and 
lateral 
present 
M. quadrioculatum 
2A 
not fused to 
present 
most 
absent 
(M. neapolitanicum) g 
2A2 
faecal groove 
dorsalmost 
absent 
M. kaikourense n 
2B 
absent 
one dorsalmost 
absent 
M. bioculatum 
M. gesae 
present 
M. pigmentum 
2C 
most 
absent 
M. trioculatum ' 
Megalomma sp. 2 (VIC) 
2D 
1-5 dorsalmost 
absent 
M. miyukiae 
M. cf. miyukiae (NT, QLD) 
2E 
present 
dorsalmost and 
lateral 
absent 
M. interrupta (QLD, WA, 
Indonesia) 
a Dorsal collar margins in Megalomma heterops have been interpreted herein as fused to faecal groove (Tovar-Hemandez & Salazar-Vallejo, 2006). 
b Megalomma lanigera is considered a valid species by Giangrande & Licciano (2008). 
c Dorsal collar margins in Megalomma perkinsi have been interpreted herein as fused to faecal groove (Tovar-Hemandez & Salazar-Vallejo, 2006). 
d After examination of type material we confirm that M. suspiciens does not possess a caruncle. 
e Megalomma “de l’etang de Thau” was recorded from southern France by Brunotte (1888), as Branchiomma and is considered a valid 
Megalomma species (Tovar-Hernandez & Salazar-Vallejo, 2008). 
f Megalomma mushaense and M. nechamae were allocated to Group 2C (Knight-Jones, 1997) and were described as possessing dorsal lappets, but 
as this feature is not possible without interpreting the dorsal collar margins as fused to faecal groove, these species should be moved to Group IB. 
g Megalomma neapolitanum is now considered a junior synonym of M. lanigera (Giangrande & Licciano, 2008), leaving only two species in 
Group 2B. 
h Megalomma kaikourense was described as possessing vestigial pockets (Knight-Jones, 1997). 
i After examination of paratypes, we find that the dorsal collar margins are not fused to faecal groove and pockets are absent. 
Key to Australian species of Megalomma 
1 Dorsal collar margins fused to the faecal groove . 2 
-Dorsal collar margins well separated. 4 
2 Dorsal collar lappets present. 3 
-Dorsal lappets absent . M. inflata n.sp. 
3 Lappets large, spatulate in shape . M. cf. acrophthalmos 
-Low lappets. Over 20 rows cells in radiolar skeleton. M. phyllisae n.sp. 
4 Subdistal eyes in dorsalmost and lateral radioles . M. interrupta n.sp. 
-Subdistal eyes present only in dorsal most radioles (1-3 pairs) . M. cf. miyukiae 
