Chloeia bimaculata Wang, Zhang, Xie & Qiu, 2019

Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), Zootaxa 5238 (1), pp. 1-134 : 31-32

Chloeia bimaculata Wang, Zhang, Xie & Qiu, 2019

Chloeia bimaculata Wang, Zhang, Xie & Qiu, 2019: 4–5 , Figs 1 , 2 , 5 , Tables 1, 2.

Additional material. Hong Kong. One specimen ( ECOSUR), slightly bent ventrally, collected during night dive, 26 Aug. 2019, J. Xie, coll. (body grayish, dorsal pigmentation includes a blackish middorsal 8-shaped band, anterior region wider than posterior one, waist very thin, surrounded by two curved bands (parenthesis-like), and lateral bands running from the posterior third along anterior parapodial surfaces, and a shorter interramal blackish spot; dorsal cirri blackish; branchiae grayish, with stems black along their lower half; caruncle with median ridge blackish; 70 mm long, 11 mm wide, 33 chaetigers).

Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly; middorsal spots band-shaped, constricted medially, separated into two spots in median segments; prenotopodial dark band narrow; harpoon notochaetae without spurs; neurochaetae spurred and furcates.

Remarks. Chloeia bimaculata Wang, Zhang, Xie & Qiu, 2019 resembles C. amphora Horst, 1910 described from Indonesia, because it has dorsal spots varying from an amphora like spot along chaetigers 3–7, although in following segments spots have a median constriction or waist, becoming thinner along median and posterior chaetigers, and in some only two larger spots remain, hence the specific name. Wang et al. (2019) made no comparison with any other species, but these two species differ in the type of spots, and also in some chaetal features. Thus, in C. bimaculata anterior notochaetae are spurred, pale, and harpoon notochaetae are smooth, or have a tiny spur, whereas in C. amphora anterior notochaetae are furcates with golden tines, and most harpoon notochaetae have a well-developed spur.

Distribution. Only known from Hong Kong shallow water sediments.

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 2. Chloeia viridis Schmarda, 1861, non-type specimens (BMNH 1931.6.22.16-18). A. Black form, anterior region, dorsal view. B. Same, chaetigers 10-12, dorsal view (branchiae removed from chaetiger 11). C. Same, posterior region, dorsal view. D. Red form, anterior region, dorsal view. E. Same, chaetigers 12-14, dorsal view (branchiae removed from chaetiger 13). F. Same, posterior region, dorsal view. Scale bars: A, F, 0.9 mm; B, E, 0.7 mm; C, 1 mm; D, 1.2 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.