ABSTRACT. The general morphology, reproduction and development of the family Onuphidae are reviewed and supplemented with new observations, emphasizing ontogenetic changes. The following features were found to be associated with the juvenile state: distinctive colour pattern, ceratophores of antennae with few rings, absence of frontal palps and tentacular cirri, presence of eyes, smaller number of modified setigers, lesser developed branchiae, early occurrence of sub acicular hooks', presence of compound falcigers in anterior and far posterior setigers.Five new genera are described, bringing the number of recognized genera in the family to 22. A key, diagnoses and illustrated definitions to all genera are given.The relationships within the family are analyzed using morphological, ecological and life history characters. Two subfamilies: Hyalinoeciinae, n. subf., and Onuphinae are erected. The two subfamilies differ in the presence or absence of notosetae, position of sub acicular hooks and lower limbate setae, number of anal cirri, primary envelope of oocytes and arrangement of their nurse cells. Two groups of genera are recognized in each subfamily. The Hyalinoeciinae includes the Nothria group (consisting of Nothria and Anchinothria, n. gen.) and the Hyalinoecia group (consisting of Hyalinoecia; Leptoecia; Neonuphis; HyalospiniJera). The Onuphinae includes the Diopatra group (consisting of Notonuphis; Paradiopatra; Diopatra; Epidiopatra; Brevibrachium, n. gen.; Longibrachium, n. gen.; Rhamphobrachium; Americonuphis) and the Onuphis group (consisting of Australonuphis; Hartmanonuphis, n. gen.; Hirsutonuphis, n. gen.; Aponuphis; Kinbergonuphis; Mooreonuphis; Onuphis; Heptaceras).It is hypothesized that the Onuphidae have a southern centre of origin and radiated from epifaunal habitats to world-wide distributions from the shallowest to the deepest depths. PAXTON, HANNELORE, 1986. Generic revision and relationships of the family Onuphidae (Annelida: Polychaeta). Records of the Australian Museum 38(1): 1-74. CONTENTS

Eunicida have a complex jaw apparatus with a fossil record dating back to the latest Cambrian. Traditionally, Eunicidae, Onuphidae, and Lumbrineridae were considered closely related families having labidognath maxillae, whereas Oenonidae with prionognath type maxillae were thought to be derived. Molecular phylogenies place Oenonidae with Eunicidae/Onuphidae, and Lumbrineridae as the most basal taxon. Re-evaluation of the jaw types based on morphology and ontogeny demonstrated that the labidognaths Eunicidae and Onuphidae have a closer relationship to the prionognath Oenonidae than was previously thought. Lumbrineridae are neither labidognath nor prionognath; therefore a new type, Symmetrognatha, is proposed. Homologies of jaw elements and considerations of functional aspects of the jaw apparatus are explored to present a hypothesis of the Eunicida phylogeny. The earliest fossils are of placognath and ctenognath types, lacking maxillary carriers. While the former are extinct, the latter are represented by the extant Dorvilleidae. The interpretation of relationships between the carrier-bearing families depends on whether the carriers are thought to have evolved once only or twice independently. The similarity of the carrier structure and their associated muscles suggests the former, placing the Lumbrineridae as sister to Eunicidae/Onuphidae and Oenonidae. However, the ontogeny of the eunicid/onuphid apparatus as well as its adult structure differ greatly from those of lumbrinerids, indicating that the lumbrinerid carriers may have evolved independently and earlier than in eunicids/onuphids and oenonids.

Background: The Great Australian Bight (GAB) comprises the majority of Australia's southern coastline, but to date its deep water fauna has remained almost unknown. Recent issuing of oil and gas leases in the region has highlighted this lack of baseline biological data and established a pressing need to characterise benthic abyssal fauna. Methods: From 2013 to 2017, six large-scale systematic surveys of the GAB were conducted from 200 to 5000 m depth, constituting the deepest systematic biological sampling in Australia. Sampling was conducted on soft sediment and hard substrates, both at predetermined depth intervals along north-south transect lines and at sites of interest identified by multibeam sonar. Results: A total of 66,721 invertebrate specimens were collected, comprising 1267 species, with 401 species (32%) new to science. In addition to the novelty of the fauna, there was a high degree of rarity, with 31% of species known only from single specimens. Conclusions: In this paper, we provide an annotated checklist of the benthic invertebrate fauna of the deep GAB, supplemented with colour photos of live specimens and commentary on taxonomy, diversity and distributions. This work represents an important addition to knowledge of Australia's deep sea fauna, and will provide the foundation for further ecological, biogeographical and systematic research.

No abstract