Chloeia pseudeuglochis Augener, 1922

Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), Zootaxa 5238 (1), pp. 1-134 : 96

Chloeia pseudeuglochis Augener, 1922

Chloeia pseudeuglochis Augener, 1922a: 39 ; Hartman 1959: 132; Yánez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo 2022: 524–526 , Figs 1C , 11 , 12 (redescr.).

Chloeia flava: Treadwell 1923: 2 (non (Pallas, 1766)).

Chloeia euglochis: Treadwell 1928: 450 ; Treadwell 1941: 18 (non Ehlers, 1887).

Chloeia viridis: Monro 1933: 9–11 , Textfig. 4; Berkeley & Berkeley 1939: 322–323; Hartman 1940: 205; Berkeley & Berkeley 1958: 399; Reish 1968: 73; Fauchald & Reimer 1975: 82; Kudenov 1975: 69; Fauchald 1977: 11 (non Schmarda, 1861).

Chloeia conspicua: Fauvel 1943: 7–8 (non Horst, 1910).

Chloeia rosea: Fauvel 1943: 7 (non Potts, 1909).

Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly; median antenna half as long as caruncle; anterior eyes slightly larger than posterior ones; middorsal band and parallel bands welldefined; notochaetae acicular and harpoon-shaped; neurochaetae furcates and acicular.

Remarks. Chloeia pseudeuglochis Augener, 1922 has been recently redescribed with specimens from the Eastern Pacific. It belongs in the group viridis by having a complex pigmentation pattern, and bippinate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly. Further, because its middorsal bands are heterogeneous with additional parallel bands, C. pseudeuglochis resembles C. meziane sp. n. described above from Western Africa. As indicated above, these species differ in three features: the relative size of eyes, the rate of median antenna to caruncle, and the type of neurochaetae. Thus, in C. pseudeuglochis the anterior eyes are slightly larger than posterior ones, its median antenna is half as long as caruncle, and its neurochaetae are acicular or furcates, whereas C. mezianei has anterior eyes 2–3× larger than posterior ones, median antenna as long as caruncle, or slightly shorter than it, and neurochaetae are acicular or spurred.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Living specimens of four Philippine species of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818. A. C. amphora Horst, 1910, dorsal view. B. C. bemisae sp. n., pink variant, dorsal view. C. Same, reddish and brownish variants, dorsal view. D. C. flava (Pallas, 1766), oblique right dorsal view. E. C. violacea Horst, 1910, oblique left dorsal view (scales not available; photos: Philippe Poppe; © Philippe & Guido Poppe – www.poppe-images.com).

FIGURE 11. Chloeia amphora Horst, 1910, non-type specimens (UF 4369). A. Dorsal view. B. Anterior end, dorsal view, after Shirlastain-A pigmentation. C. Chaetigers 10-12, dorsal view (left branchia of chaetiger 10 removed). D. Posterior end, ventral view. E. Another specimen, chaetiger 3, notochaeta (insets: notochaetal tips). F. Same, neurochaetal tips. G. Chaetiger 12, harpoon notochaetae. H. Same, neurochaetal tips. Scale bars: A, 1.5 mm; B, 0.5 mm; C, 0.4 mm; D, 0.7 mm; E, 110 μm; F, 70 μm; G, 160 μm; H, 40 μm.

FIGURE 12. Chloeia bemisae sp. n., holotype (UF 4388).A. Dorsal view. B. Anterior end, dorsal view. C. Left lateral view. D. Paratype (UF 4388b), ventral view. E. Same, chaetiger 4, notochaetal tips. F. Same, neurochaetal tips. G. Chaetiger 11, harpoon notochaetae. H. Same, neurochaetae. Scale bars: A, 1.8 mm; B, 0.5 mm; C, 2.3 mm; D, 1.6 mm; E, 110 μm; F, 25 μm; G, 90 μm; H, 100 μm.