[2] Sabroux et al. 2024 redescribed this genus alongside other Hunsrück pycnogonid fossils, by using both X-ray and RTI method they discover some new details, mostly those of the cephalic structures.

[2] In the redescription by Sabroux et al. 2024, it was re-interpreted as having no eyes, with the purported eye-like structures representing either just tubercles or lateral sense organs.

The distal section (beyond the fourth segment/femur, which is unusually short for a pycnogonid) was flatten, lined with marginal setae and terminated by a robust, hook-like claw.

In comparison, the second to fourth legs have 5 flatten distal segments that narrow towards the end and possess double rows of long ventral setae.

Based on the purported large eyes, Bergström et al. 1980 suggest it rely on visual cues to find preys, with associated stalked crinoid (sea lily) as a possible target.

[2] This was questioned by Sabroux et al. 2024, as they re-interpreted it as blind and the association with crinoid was limited only to juvenile specimens.

[3] While some analysis placing them within Pantopoda (crown-group pycnogonids),[13] this result is questionable as they have low support value and based on outdated reconstrution of the fossil taxa.