Chloeia quatrefaguesii Baird, 1868

Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), Zootaxa 5238 (1), pp. 1-134 : 103-104

Chloeia quatrefaguesii Baird, 1868 indeterminable

Chloeia flava: de Quatrefages 1866: 386–388 , Pl. 17, Figs 4 , 5 (non (Pallas, 1766)).

Chloeia quatrefagesii Baird, 1868: 231 .

Non-type material. ‘Mers de la Chine’. One specimen ( MNHN A54 81), without further data.

Observations. The only specimen found ( MNHN A54 81) is complete, barely pigmented, right parapodia of chaetigers 1–3 previously dissected. Body 65 mm long, 16 mm wide, 37 chaetigers. Dorsum barely pigmented, remaining spots oval, longer than wide, better defined along anterior chaetigers. Eyes blackish, anterior ones 2× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna without tip, 1/3 as long as caruncle, 2× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae with bases close to each other, slightly longer than palps. Chaetae damaged, soft, many broken, others showing dissolution of inner features. Anterior notochaetae capillaries and furcates, tapered, major tines 4× longer than minor ones; neurochaetae furcates with major tines 3× longer than mior ones. Median notopodia with harpoon chaetae, and furcate neurochaetae, mostly broken, major tines 4× longer than minor ones. Trifid neurochaetae not found. Anal cirri digitate, 6–7× longer than wide.

Remarks. Baird (1868: 231) introduced the name for those specimens recorded as C. flava from the China Seas by de Quatrefages (1866: 387). A question mark was inserted with the name, and in a parenthesis, he restricted the new name for Chinese Seas specimens ‘without any of the synonyms quoted by him (de Quatrefages).’ Baird (1868:231) did not indicate any diagnostic feature, and the only one given by de Quatrefages (1866:388) was that neurochaetae had sometimes trifid tips. The corresponding illustration ( de Quatrefages 1866, Pl. 17, Fig. 5c ) shows the trifid tip, and a subdistal swollen region, but the latter is an artifact due to chaetal condition. Consequently, the potential diagnostic feature (trifid neurochaetae) cannot be confirmed, and C. quatrefagesii must be regarded as indeterminable.

On the other hand, the pigmentation pattern resembles C. pulchella Baird, 1868 , described from Northeastern Australia, but given the condition of the specimen, no further conclusion can be reached.

Figures

FIGURE 4. Chloeia fusca M’Intosh, 1885, non-type specimen (UF 4368). A. Ventral view. B. Ventral view after body wall removed. C. Same, after Methyl Green staining. D. Same, lower half of digestive tube removed. (AI, anterior intestine; MB, midventral band (nerve chord); MR, muscular ridge; Oe, oesophagus; PI, posterior intestine; R, rectum; St, stomach). All scale bars: 1 mm.

FIGURE 5. Chloeia bemisae sp. n., paratype, anterior fragment (UF 4388b). A) Chaetiger 3, right parapodium, posterior view, cirriform branchia cut (insets matched: 1, branchial cut tip; 2, branchial basal region; 3, dorsal cirrophore; 4, dorsal cirrostyle tip). B) Chaetiger 5, right parapodium, posterior view (insets matched: 1 and 2, branchial filament tip; 3, dorsal cirrostyle tip) (Br: branchia, DCs: dorsal cirrostyle). Scale bars: A, 0.20 mm; B: 0.38 mm.