Gelliodes benedeni var. fortior Topsent, 1917

(Fig. 3G)

Gelliodes benedeni var. fortior Topsent, 1917: 75, pl. II fig. 1, pl. VI fig. 22; Burton 1929: 421; Burton 1932: 272; Desqueyroux 1975: 73.

Gellius benedeni var. fortior: Koltun 1964: 105.

Microxina benedeni var. fortior; Burton 1932: 271 (as junior synonym of M. benedeni). Microxina benedeni fortior; Hooper & Wiedenmayer 1994: 321 (as jun. syn. of M. benedeni); Desqueyroux-Faúndez & Valentine 2002b: 886.

The variety was described by Topsent from the Antarctic Peninsula, 64. 8333°S 63.6167°W, depth 92 m (two cylindrical syntypes, MNHN DT 699 and DT 700). The specimens are similar to the typical variety in shape and possess trichodragmas. Burton (1929: 423) stated the raphides/microxeas were rare, so probably foreign, and he synonymized the variety with Gelliodes benedeni Topsent, 1901 . Subsequently, Burton (1932: 271) alleged that in some specimens of a series of specimens collected by the Discovery Expedition sigmas may have deformed to become crooked microxeas, and he also reported raphides in one specimen. It remains to be established whether this large variation in microsclere shapes and categories is part of a variable spicule complement. For the time being I propose to keep the two varieties as separate taxa, and in view of the sympatric occurrence, it appears prudent to recognize them as valid species, the present variety to be named Gelliodes fortior Topsent, 1917 . Membership of Gelliodes benedeni of genus Microxina Topsent, 1901, as intimated by Burton (1932) and implicitly also by Hooper & Wiedenmayer (1994) and Desqueyroux-Faúndez & Valentine (2002b) is questioned by Ĝcke & Janussen 2013: 80, as G. benedeni appears to lack the synapomorphy for the genus (microxeas). Likewise, membership of the present species, G. fortior appears unclear as its trichodragmas are unlike the microxeas of Microxina .