Chloeia viridis Schmarda, 1861

Yáñez-Rivera, Beatriz & Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2022, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 from tropical American seas (Annelida, Amphinomidae), Zootaxa 5128 (4), pp. 503-537 : 526-530

publication ID

publication LSID


persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Chloeia viridis Schmarda, 1861


Chloeia viridis Schmarda, 1861 restricted

Figs 1D View FIGURE 1 , 5A, B View FIGURE 5 , 13 View FIGURE 13 , 14 View FIGURE 14

Chloeia viridis Schmarda, 1861: 144–146 , Pl. 35, Textfigs 295–305; Augener 1925: 20–21; Hartman 1949: 37–38; Nonato & Luna 1970: 65, Figs 1 View FIGURE 1 , 2 View FIGURE 2 ; Amaral & Nonato 1994: 372–374, Figs 15, 16; Barroso & Paiva 2011: 422, Tab. 1 View TABLE 1 ; Humann et al. 2013: 85 (alive specimens).

Chloeia euglochis: Treadwell 1902: 194 (pigm.); Treadwell 1939: 176–177, Fig. 10 View FIGURE 10 (non Ehlers, 1887).

Type material. Jamaica. Two syntypes ( NHMW 442 View Materials ), without field data .

Additional material. Western Atlantic. Gulf of Mexico. México, Campeche Bank IMCA IV, Sta. 58 (18°49’ N, 92°16’ W), Oct. 1989, 16 m, 26° C, 34‰, 1.250 OM, mud. GoogleMaps Florida. [ USNM 4532 View Materials ] Pensacola (30°25’ N, 87°13’ W), S. Stearns, coll. (7) GoogleMaps . [ USNM 16490 View Materials ], Miami , R/ V Eolis, 110 m, 1912, J.B. Henderson, coll. Georgia. [ USNM 19643 View Materials ], Savannah , Tompkins, I. R., coll. [ USNM 23926 View Materials ], Cumberland Island, Camden County, no further data. [ USNM 32385 View Materials ], Sapelo Sound , 11 m, 31 Jan. 1962, M. Gray, coll. Bahamas. [ USNM 24534 View Materials ] Bimini Island , W. Andrew, coll. [ USNM 24535 View Materials ], Bimini Island , W. Andrew, coll. Puerto Rico [ USNM 15919 View Materials ], Playa de Ponce, R/ V Fish Hawk, Sta. 3170 (18°13’ N, 66°32’ W), 1898 (2). [ USNM 41565 View Materials ], Aguadilla, Crashboat Basin , 12 m, 24 Jul. 1965, J. Randall, coll. GoogleMaps [ USNM 42757 View Materials ] Puerto Rico, 23 m, 1963, N.C. Hulings & D.E. Feray, coll. (7) . [ USNM 52575 View Materials ] Puerto Rico, Magueyez Island, Boat Pier , 29 Aug. 1974, R.J. Larson, coll. Colombia [ UMML 22.913 View Materials ], R/ V Pillsbury, Cruise 6607, Sta. 365 (09°31’ N, 76°16’ W), 57 m, Jul. 1966, (3). [ USNM 98522 View Materials ], Cartagena, 25 m, J.J. Laverde-Castillo, coll. GoogleMaps

Diagnosis. Chloeia with ventral cirri of similar size throughout body; bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4; dorsum with a dark longitudinal band, with an anterior expansion (T-shaped) in each segment; chaetal bundles homogeneously pale.

Description. Syntypes (NMW 442) complete, 39–43 mm long, 10–12 mm wide; pigmentation pattern visible, including purple dorsal cirri, and dark spots along anterior parapodial surfaces. Largest syntype ( Fig. 13A View FIGURE 13 ) with all parapodia; middorsal longitudinal band better defined along anterior and posterior chaetigers; anterior end slightly bent ventrally, caruncle slightly twisted to the right ( Fig. 13B View FIGURE 13 ). Smallest syntype without a right parapodium of an anterior chaetiger ( Fig. 13C View FIGURE 13 ); middorsal longitudinal band visible throughout body; anterior end with caruncle slightly twisted to the left; prostomium visible with large, blackish eyes ( Fig. 13D View FIGURE 13 ).

Best preserved specimen (USNM 42757) 9 mm long, 4 mm wide, 21 chaetigers,. Body fusiform with one longitudinal, middorsal violet band surrounded by a yellowish area, and violet dorsal cirri ( Fig. 14C, D View FIGURE 14 ). Each longitudinal violet band expanded anteriorly in each segment, T-shaped; anterior part of each band sometimes hidden after body contraction.

Live dorsal pigmentation pattern on each segment includes two brownish or dark orange bands directed laterally, two brownish diverging bands, enlarged posteriorly, and a middorsal blackish band, Y- or T-shaped; branchiae pale, antennae, palps and dorsal cirri violet or blackish ( Fig. 14A View FIGURE 14 ). Other specimens with a similar pattern but with middorsal band bluish, lateral bands transverse, olive green, and lateral bands dark purple or blackish; branchiae greenish, or paler along anterior branchial surface and darker, brownish to blackish along posterior branchial surface ( Fig. 1D View FIGURE 1 ).

Prostomium semicircular with four black eyes, anterior ones 2× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna arising from anterior margin of caruncle (1 mm long), longer than lateral antennae (0.6 mm) and palps (0.4mm). Mouth ventral on chaetiger 3.

Caruncle tapered into a narrow posterior margin (1 mm long, 0.5 mm wide). Median lobe with about 11 folds. Roundish projections between each pair of folds along longitudinal mid-line ( Fig. 14B View FIGURE 14 ), mid-line brown in live specimens. Lateral basal lobes narrow. Branchiae from chaetiger 4, continuing throughout body.

Parapodia biramous, notopodium with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3, as long as cirrophores; in chaetiger 4 dorsal cirri reduced, cirriform branchiae violet papilla continued to chaetigers 7 or 8. Second ventral cirri (1.1 mm long) about 2× longer than adjacent ones (0.4 to 0.5 mm).

Noto- and neurochaetae furcates in first chaetigers; proportion between tines 1:2–1:3 ( Fig. 14E View FIGURE 14 ). Neurochaetae in median and posterior chaetigers include long and short furcates; shorter chaetae with a small, spur-like tine, proportion between tines 1:7 ( Fig. 14F View FIGURE 14 ); longer chaetae with size proportion of tines about 1:3 ( Fig. 14G View FIGURE 14 ). Notochaeta of posterior chaetigers include furcates and harpoon chaetae ( Fig. 14H–I View FIGURE 14 ).

Juveniles. Specimens 10 mm long already have a middorsal band running throughout body ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ), and the dorsal pattern starts along a few anterior or distal segments, and median segments have two posteriorly convergent bands ( Fig. 5B View FIGURE 5 ); antennae and palps dark purple, and anterior surfaces of parapodia have a blackish hue; chaetae are homogeneously pale.

Remarks. Hartman (1938) overlooked Schmarda’s (1861) original description and illustrations ( Fig. 14C View FIGURE 14 ), and based her identifications of C. viridis after Monro’s (1933) characterization. As indicated above, Monro followed Augener (1925) conclusion. Hartman, consequently, described the pigmentation pattern as consisting of three longitudinal dorsal bands (this pattern corresponds to C. pseudeuglochis ; see above). In addition, she emphasized the presence of violet cirri, which is shared by several species in the genus ( Table 1 View TABLE 1 ). As indicated above, C. viridis differs from C. euglochis even in small specimens (see figure 5C–F). In the original description, Schmarda (1861) emphasized that the greenish pigmentation in live specimens turned violet when preserved in alcohol. In fact, the white greenish pigmentation together with the orange-brown coloration are lost in preserved specimens, but the main violet middorsal band remains. The other reason for regarding C. viridis a juvenile was because the type was 29 mm long and would presumably turn into the colorful adult C. euglochis was rejected after finding 10 mm long specimens of C. euglochis having red-banded notochaetae and complex dorsal pigmentation. Additional evidence was provided by Nonato & Luna (1970) by describing larger specimens. They noted their material, being 28–52 mm long, had (translated) a middorsal wide (violet) band, expanded in the anterior margin of each segment, and the rest of the back was uniformly white-yellowish. Schmarda (1861) described and illustrated notochaeta from median chaetigers as serrated, while in anterior chaetigers the notochaetae and neurochaetae are furcate.

The type material is labeled as cotypes ( Fig. 12E View FIGURE 12 ), and the term is equivalent to syntypes ( ICZN 1999, Art. 73.2.1). Further, the locality was indicated as Yamaika, but it was Jamaica, as indicated in the original description ( Schmarda 1861: 146). Some records do not have details about pigmentation, often because their specimens were small, and its specific affinities cannot be confirmed ( Rioja 1958; Day 1973; Gathof 1984).

On the other hand, a nomenclatural note is needed for clarifying the status of Chloeia candida Kinberg, 1857 , from the Virgin Islands, which could have priority over C. viridis , and of C. pallida Kinberg, 1867 , from northern Brazil.

Hartman (1949: 37) indicated that the type of C. candida is 13 mm long, with 22 chaetigers. The specimen is a juvenile which did not have any color at all, and it was described as having bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 2, but Hartman noted them from chaetiger 4. In the original description ( Kinberg 1857: 11), no pigmentation was noted. The original description was repeated, and one plate was published later (Kinberg 1910: 33, Pl. 11, Fig. 2A View FIGURE 2 ), and the whole specimen in dorsal view shows a hint of middorsal pigmentation, but because it was not indicated as a black longitudinal band, it might be the remains of the dorsal blood vessel. This feature, together with the fact that the chaetae do not show a reddish banding, has moved some authors to regard it as the same as C. viridis , including Hartman (1949: 38), and consequently C. candida would have priority over C. viridis . Regretfully, the smaller specimens Ehlers (1887) studied and informally named as C. modesta are of similar size as C. candida , being 12–16 mm long and with 22–25 chaetigers. These specimens also lack dorsal pigmentation pattern and their chaetae do not show the colorful bands typically seen in larger specimens. Consequently, on the basis of the information provided by the holotype, which is a juvenile, Chloeia candida Kinberg, 1857 must be regarded as indeterminable. A reversal of precedence, as indicated in the Code of Zoological Nomenclature ( ICZN 1999, Art. 23.9), cannot be applied because C. candida was recently used as a valid name ( Alós & Nüñez 2012: 53), and because they regarded it as the senior synomy of C. viridis and C. euglochis ( Parapar et al. 2012: 388) , they extended their distribution to the Eastern Pacific, Western and Eastern Atlantic ( Alós & Nüñez 2012: 53). We disagree with their conclusion and think that species have a more restricted distribution to the Western Atlantic. The Eastern Atlantic species belongs elsewhere.

On the other hand, Chloenea pallida Kinberg, 1867 is a nomen nudum because only the name was made available in the original publication ( ICZN 1999, Art. 12). Hartman (1949: 38) studied the holotype and noted it was another juvenile of a Chloeia species, having only 18 chaetigers. However, this does not make the name available.

Distribution. Caribbean region to northern Brazil, in shallow water.














Chloeia viridis Schmarda, 1861

Yáñez-Rivera, Beatriz & Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I. 2022

Chloeia euglochis: Treadwell 1902: 194

Treadwell, A. L. 1939: 176
Treadwell, A. L. 1902: 194

Chloeia viridis

Humann, P. & Deloach, N. & Wilk, L. 2013: 85
Barroso, R. & Paiva, P. C. 2011: 422
Amaral, A. C. Z. & Nonato, E. F. 1994: 372
Nonato, E. F. & Luna, J. A. C. 1970: 65
Hartman, O. 1949: 37
Augener, H. 1925: 20
Schmarda, L. K. 1861: 146