The same species that I had previously labelled as being an undescribed order. The discovery of actual 10 legged adults, instead of 9 legged subadults I assumed to be adults, as well as a review of all the relevant literature has changed my view. These are not as different from Millotauropus as I had initially thought; Millotauropus has the same unusual head shape with a ventrally directed mouth, although that was not pointed out as important in Scheller's verbal diagnoses of the group. The segmentation is the same as well; adults have a total of 12 tergites and 12 or maybe 13 segments. Scheller claims that Millotauropus has 12 tergites and 12 segments, but actual figures of the animals show 12 tergites in addition to a collum, which lacks a tergite. The fact that Scheller describes the last segment as being apodous despite the animal having 11 legs indicates to me that Millotauropus actually have 13 segments, and that Scheller just occluded the collum for some reason. The only way in which this species differs from Millotauropus in terms of sementation and legs then is that the last two segments are apodous, and not just the last. In Millotauropus, there is often a small structure present at the base of the antennae, which Scheller describes as being similar to a globulus. The actual figures of these structures, however, which I did not have access to at the time, look nothing like a globulus. I was unable to find any such structure on the subadults, but they are easily visible on the adults.
The differences between this species and Millotauropus then, include the following: Temporal organ egg shaped, truncated anteriorly [Nearly perfectly circular]; Antennae 4 segmented [5 segmented]; Antenna with sensillum in the form of stalked bracts surrounding an inner trio of appendages [stalked trio of appendages]; Antennal branch st without raised prominence [with raised prominence that bears the anterior flagellum]; Trochanter with 1-2 unspecialized setae [trochanter with 1 folioform seta and an optional unspecialized seta]; Bodily setae short, spine-like [short and linear or spatulate]; First pair of tracheae rudimentary [well developed]; First pair of trichobothria on trunk segment 4 [trunk segment 3]; Pygidium sternite larger than tergite [reversed]; Pygidium with partly fused anal plate [anal plate distinct]; Pygidium sternite with 8, maybe sometimes 7 setae [3]
A note on the antennae; I disagree with both Remy and Scheller who describe the antennae of Millotauropus as being 6 segmented. In Millotauropus, there are 5 clear basal segments, a small branch (branch r) stemming from the 5th segment, a 6th segment, and an apparent branch (branch r') stemming from the 6th segment. However, the branch r' is described as being basally fused to the 6th segment and not clearly articulated in M. temporalis by Huther. Scheller, notably, does not discount this description outright but simply states that he could not find any difference in this character between M. temporalis and the rest of the genus. Scheller also describes M. acostae, a species in which r' is very short, very wide, and according to Scheller's figures not much more than a lump, in contrast to the cylindrical protrusion which the r' is in some of the original African species of the genus. In addition, the 6th segment bears both the specialized sensillum and a large seta, designated p'. p' seems very clearly homologous to the posterior flagellum seen in this species and Tetramerocerata, and the specialized sensillum now seems clearly homologous with the globulus of Tetramerocerata in view of the transitional structure discovered on this species. It seems quite obvious that the 6th antennal segment of Millotauropus is homologous to the antennal branch st of Tetramerocerata. Remy's species from Africa are a little more difficult to adress in this regard, as the branch r' as figured by him does seem to be quite well developed and perhaps capable of articulation. Based on the same situation of the setae and sensilla of the 6th antennal segment, however, the homology seems still to apply and the branch r' should turn out to be just a pronounced subsegmentation of the antennal branch st. By my interpretation Millotauropus have 5 segmented antennae, a tergal and sternal antennal branch, and 3 flagella.
The differences between this species and Millotauropus are still pretty drastic, but by my estimation nowhere near capable of justifying a seperate order. The description of a new family and a rediagnosis of Hexamerocerata seems more reasonable, especially taking future phylogenetic studies into mind. Millotauropus and this species should prove to be representatives of a much more primitive body plan, the extinct members of which may be among the transition from other Myriapoda to modern Pauropoda. Splitting them between two orders equal in rank to Tetramerocerata would probably be the creation of a polyphyly.
Currently in the process of describing these.