Gorgoniapolynoe Pettibone, 1991

Britayev, Temir A., Gil, João, Altuna, Álvaro, Calvo, Marta & Martín, Daniel, 2014, New symbiotic associations involving polynoids (Polychaeta, Polynoidae) from Atlantic waters, with redescriptions of Parahololepidella greeffi (Augener, 1918) and Gorgoniapolynoe caeciliae (Fauvel, 1913), Memoirs of Museum Victoria 71, pp. 27-43 : 34-35

Genus Gorgoniapolynoe Pettibone, 1991

Type species. Gorgoniapolynoe bayeri Pettibone, 1991

Diagnosis. Body dorso-ventrally flattened, with up to about 60 segments; elytra leaving mid-dorsum uncovered, except in anterior-most segments. 15 pairs of elytra on chaetigers 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 29, and 32. First 1-2 pairs of elytra modified, with translucent, chitinous central area. Prostomium wider than long, with rounded lobes and three antennae; cephalic peaks absent or present; lateral antennae latero-ventral to median antenna. Two pairs of eyes. Parapodia with elongate acicular lobes, with noto- and neuroacicula penetrating epidermis; tip of neuropodia extending to supraacicular process. Notochaetae few (0–7), stout, with blunt tip; neurochaetae few, but more numerous (7-15), of same width as notochaetae, usually bidentate. Prominent glandular area on bases of ventral cirri starting from chaetigers 11-18.

Remarks. This diagnosis agrees in general with that of Pettibone (1991a) and Barnich et al. (2013). The former paper included nine species in Gorgoniapolynoe , among which seven fit well with the generic diagnosis thus forming a compact species group. However, Gorgoniapolynoe corralophila ( Day, 1960) and Gorgoniapolynoe pelagica Pettibone, 1991a differ in several features. Both species have more numerous noto- and neurochaetae; G. corralophila has three pairs of modified elytra and notochaetae with widely spaced rows of spines and long bare tips. The single known specimen of G. pelagica is small, has twelve pairs of elytra and notochaetae of two kinds: long, stouter than neurochaetae, and short, of the same width as neurochaetae. This suggests that it could be a juvenile of another species. Accordingly, we propose that G. corralophila should be referred to a different genus and that G. pelagica could be a juvenile and thus the species should be considered as nomen dubium.