Actually I can't see any reason why this fossil genus can't go into Aphroditidae. So I've moved it!
Hope everybody is happy. The original authors were confident of their assignment as Javier said.
From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu [mailto:annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Read
Sent: Tuesday, 5 November 2013 3:14 p.m.
To: Javier Luque; annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu
Subject: RE: [Annelida] Fossil Aphroditid-like Polychaetes
Hi Javier & list members,
A comment on " *Palaeoaphrodite* is considered in WoRMS webpage as Polychaeta incertae sedis."
At genus and below Palaeoaphrodite Alessandrello & Teruzzi, 1986 and its five species are considered as valid in WoRMS. As are most of the other fossil-only taxa. We have an informally named higher grouping "Polychaeta fossils incertae sedis" (of uncertain taxonomic position) as an artificial holding device (but which also happens to be 'valid' in itself in WoRMS-speak) which gets around the difficulty of placing fossils into the hierarchy of extant fauna, but has no bearing on the validity of the fossil genera and species grouped here, which are valid unless otherwise stated. So don't read too much into it other than that we've put most of the fossils into one handy place.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd.