Chloeia conspicua Horst, 1910

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 : 509

Chloeia conspicua Horst, 1910

Chloeia conspicua Horst, 1910: 173 ; Horst 1912: 20–21, Pl. 7, Fig. 5 ; Pl. 8, Figs 4 , 5 ; Barroso & Paiva 2011: 422, Tab. 1 ; Salazar-Vallejo et al. 2014: 11 (list).

Diagnosis. Chloeia with ventral cirri of similar size throughout body; bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4; middorsal spots with a median constriction, surrounded by a circular pale area over a darker background, projected as lateral bands; chaetal bundles homogeneously pale.

Remarks. No specimens were studied; Horst type specimens are deposited in Leiden, but this type was not listed in the corresponding catalogue ( Bleeker & van der Spoel 1992). However, the original description provides complete details and illustration of the pigmentation pattern, which resembles a horseshoe with a middorsal line medially constricted on each segment. No specimens from tropical American seas show this pigmentation pattern. However, Fauvel (1943: 7) recorded C. conspicua for the Gulf of California and he indicated that (transl.) “the dorsal surface has two thin longitudinal pale bands separating three other wider, brown reddish bands, that are modified in each segment into a slightly wider medial band ahead of two slightly oblique lateral bands, and more or less fused basally below the median band. This outlook is very similar to the dorsal pattern of a Chloeia from Taboga illustrated by Monro (1933: 9, Fig. 4 )”. As indicated below, Monro’s record corresponds with C. pseudeuglochis Augener, 1922 , and Fauvel’s record is listed under that species.

Distribution. The species was described with specimens from Sumatra and Java in the Western Pacific, in shallow water (1–12 m depth).

Figures

FIGURE 4. Chloeia euglochis Ehlers, 1887, reinstated. A. Syntype complete (MCZ ANNa-720), dorsal view. B. Same, illustration from Ehlers (1887). C. Same, extract from Haeckel’s plates (1904, Pl. 96). D. Another syntype (MCZ ANNa-3), oblique lateral view. E. Notochaeta. F, G. Neurochaetae (from Ehlers 1887) (Photo: D, Elizabeth Borda).

FIGURE 5. Chloeia euglochis Ehlers, 1887, reinstated, and C. viridis Schmarda, 1861, restricted. A. Juvenile of C. viridis (UF 4308), dorsal view. B. Same, close-up of middorsal pigmentation pattern. C. Juvenile of C. euglochis (UF 4308a), dorsal view. D. Same, close-up of middorsal pigmentation pattern. E.Another juvenile of C. euglochis (UF 682), anterior region, dorsal view, most chaetae broken. F. Another juvenile of C. euglochis (UF 4350), greenish variant, anterior region, dorsal view. Scale bars: A, 1.3 mm; B, 0.5 mm, C, 1.4 mm; D, 0.7 mm; E, 1.5 mm; F, 1.2 mm.