Search

Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 is the largest genus in the Amphinomidae by including more species than other genera. Members of Chloeia species thrive in mixed substrates or sediments, mostly in tropical waters, and rarely reach deep water, or cold-temperate environments. A recent revision dealt with the species from tropical American seas and resulted in the redescription of five species, and the description of two other new ones. The objective for this additional contribution was to revise type and non-type specimens deposited in 12 of the largest world collections, and by applying a slightly modified approach from the precedent revision. Species were grouped herein after the type of branchiae, the first chaetiger with branchiae, and the dorsal pigmentation pattern. The results include the redescription of 16 species, with C. flava (Pallas, 1766) and C. fusca M’Intosh, 1885 being restricted, and three others reinstated: C. incerta de Quatrefages, 1866; C. fucata de Quatrefages, 1866, and C. pulchella Baird, 1868; 10 species are regarded as indeterminable: C. ancora Frickhinger, 1916; C. bengalensis Kinberg, 1867; C. candida Kinberg, 1857; C. egena Grube, 1855; C. furcigera de Quatrefages, 1866; C. macleayi Haswell, 1879; C. malaica Kinberg, 1867; C. nuda de Quatrefages, 1866; C. quatrefagesii Baird, 1868; and C. rupestris Risso, 1826. Further, 10 recently described species are being diagnosed and compared to their most similar species, but not redescribed; and 17 species are newly described: C. amoureuxi sp. n. from Madagascar, C. bemisae sp. n. from The Philippines, C. boucheti sp. n. from Indonesia, C. fauveli sp. n. from the Bay of Bengal, C. fiegei sp. n. from the Red Sea, C. gesae sp. n. from the Northeastern Atlantic, C. gilleti sp. n. from Western Africa, C. hutchingsae sp. n. from Australia, C. keablei sp. n. from Papua New Guinea, C. mezianei sp. n. from Western Africa, C. murrayae sp. n. from Australia, C. piotrowskiae sp. n. from The Philippines, C. poupini sp. n. from the French Polynesia, C. richeri sp. n. from New Caledonia, C. slapcisnkyi sp. n. from The Philippines, C wangi sp. n. from The Philippines, and C. zibrowii sp. n. from the French Polynesia. Keys to all archinomin genera and to all species of Chloeia are also included.

This is a contribution in a series of taxonomic publications on benthic fauna of polymetallic nodule fields in the eastern abyssal Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ). The material was collected during environmental surveys targeting exploration contract areas ‘UK-1’, ‘OMS’ and ‘NORI-D’, as well as an Area of Particular Environmental Interest, ‘APEI-6’. The annelid families Amphinomidae and Euphrosinidae are investigated here. Taxonomic data are presented for six species from 41 CCZ-collected specimens as identified by a combination of morphological and genetic approaches; of the six species, three are here described as new, one species is likely to be new but in too poor condition to be formalised and the two others likely belong to known species. Description of three new species Euphrosinella georgievaesp. nov., Euphrosinopsis ahearnisp. nov., and Euphrosinopsis hallisp. nov. increases the number of formally described new annelid species from the targeted areas to 21 and CCZ-wide to 52. Molecular data suggest that four of the species reported here are known from CCZ only, but within CCZ they have a wide distribution. In contrast, the species identified as Bathychloeia cf. sibogae Horst, 1910 was found to have a wide distribution within the Pacific based on both morphological and molecular data, using comparative material from the abyssal South Pacific. Bathychloeia cf. balloniformis Böggemann, 2009 was found to be restricted to APEI-6 based on DNA data available from CCZ specimens only, but morphological data from other locations suggest potentially a wide abyssal distribution. The genus Euphrosinopsis was previously known only from Antarctic waters, and Euphrosinella georgievaesp. nov. was recovered as a sister taxon to the Antarctic specimens of Euphrosinella cf. cirratoformis in our molecular phylogenetic analysis, strengthening the hypothesised link between the deep-sea and Antarctic benthic fauna.

Pherecardites parva Horst, 1912 (Fig. 1) Pherecardites parva Horst, 1912: 33, pl. 9, figs 17-19. — Bleeker & van der Spoel 1992: 152 (lectotype designation). TYPE MATERIAL. — Indonesia. Lectotype • 1 specimen; RV Siboga; Sta. 122; 01°58.5’N, 125°0.5’E; 1264- 1165 m depth; 17.VII.1899; ZMA V.Pol 1072.1.g. PARALECTOTYPES. — Indonesia • 1 specimen; RV Siboga; Sta. 139; 00°11’S, 127°25’E; 397 m depth; 4.VIII.1899; ZMA V.Pol. 1072.2 • 1 specimen; RV Siboga; Sta. 173; 03°27’S, 131°0.5’E; 567 m depth; 28.VIII.1889; ZMA V.Pol. 1072.3. DISTRIBUTION. — Indonesia, in sediments at 397-1264 m water depth. OBSERVATIONS Lectotype (ZMA V.Pol 1072.1) colorless, without posterior region, bent ventrally, breaking in two (Fig. 1A). Body about 10 mm long, 2.5 mm wide, 30 chaetigers. Prostomium (Fig. 1B) slightly eroded, left lateral antenna lost, right one present, inserted close to median antennal base. Median antenna thick, bent laterally, without tip. 2/3 as long as caruncle. Palps lost. Eyes not seen. Caruncle straight, with a median ridge and 4 digitate lateral lobes, directed posteriorly. Branchiae from chaetiger 1 lost; chaetiger 2 with 2 digitate filaments, in anterior chaetigers branchiae with about 5 filaments. Pharynx not exposed (Fig. 1C). Posterior end lost; pygidial features unknown. REMARKS Horst (1912: 33) did not see eyes in his specimens (longest one slightly more than 7 mm in length) but noted some black spots. Kudenov (1993: 96-97) noted in P. antarctica (Hartman, 1967) n. comb., specimens of different size (8-12 mm long) had eyes well developed and their pigments were retained despite being in ethanol for over 30 years, whereas in P. parva eyes were not seen. Horst (1912: 33) characterized the caruncle in the diagnosis for Pherecardites, and in the description of P. parva, as having a median ridge and lateral lamellae, directed posteriorly, extended along three segments. Branchiae were noted as starting in chaetiger 1 but the number of filaments was not given. Likewise, the presence of branchiae along posterior chaetigers was not indicated, nor the shape of the posterior end.

Pherecardites antarctica (Hartman, 1976) n. comb. (Fig. 2) Branchamphinome antarctica Hartman, 1967: 42, pl. 12, fig. A (anterior end). — Kudenov 1993: 95, figs 1, 2 (redescr.). TYPE MATERIAL. — Antarctica. Not seen (examined and redescribed by Kudenov 1993). ADDITIONAL MATERIAL. — Antarctica • 1 specimen; RV Eltanin; Sta. 1346; 54°49’ to 54°50’S, 129°48’ to 129°46’W; 549 m depth; 7.XI.1964; LACM. DISTRIBUTION. — Antarctic, in sediments at 333-1153 m water depth. OBSERVATIONS Non-type specimen (LACM, only one available) colorless, complete, oval (Fig. 2A), slightly bent ventrally, pharynx partially exposed (Fig. 2C). Body 8 mm long, 3.5 mm wide, 26 chaetigers. Prostomium (Fig. 2B) distorted due to eversion of pharynx, bent posteriorly; lateral antennae eroded, inserted ahead of anterior eyes; median antenna thin, tapered, longer than caruncle. Palps conical, directed laterally. Eyes dark brown, anterior and posterior eyes fused laterally; anterior eyes reniform, twice as large as posterior round eyes. Caruncle distorted, with a median ridge and 3-4 lateral digitate lobes directed posteriorly. Branchiae with digitate filaments from chaetiger 1, with about 10 filaments along anterior chaetigers, becoming less abundant medially and posteriorly, continued to last chaetigers (Fig. 2D). Pharynx with a short smooth basal ring, and a longer distal ring; a middorsal ridge visible in the aperture. Posterior end tapered; pygidium with anus terminal, anal plate round, without cirri. REMARKS Hartman (1967, pl. 12, fig. A) only included a schematic illustration of the anterior end. Her figure shows the lateral antennae are ahead of the anterior eyes, the median antenna is inserted behind the posterior eyes, and palps are directed laterally and inserted ahead of lateral antennae. The caruncle includes a median, longer ridge with six lateral lobes, with the proximal ones apparently arising from the posterior prostomial margin.The eyes were depicted as circular, slightly separate from each other, and the anterior eyes slightly larger than posterior ones. Kudenov (1993) proposed a lectotype, noted several differences regarding the original illustration, and consequently illustrated several specimens of different size. Kudenov also illustrated the ontogenetic changes of P. antarctica n. comb. regarding its prostomium and caruncle. He showed that smaller specimens (8 mm long) have eyes distinct, anterior eyes 2-3 times larger than posterior ones, and closer to each other, and the caruncle is a small blunt ridge with two pairs of short (about as long as wide), digitate lateral branches. In medium-sized specimens, the eyes remain distinct and with similar size proportions, but the caruncle changes with the median ridge becoming tapered, and the lateral branches grow into digitate long lobes (2-3 times longer than wide), becoming a palmate structure. Larger specimens have eyes coalescent into 8-shaped spots, with anterior eyes oval to reniform, and the caruncle now includes some additional short, digitate lobes, crowded along the posterolateral prostomial margins, whereas the lateral branches are retained in size and position. Kudenov (1993) also gave a detailed account of the types of chaetae and branchial branching pattern, and this explains why these features are not included in our observations. The only confusion was regarding the affinities to other amphinomid genera, because Pherecardites was not taken into account, but Branchamphinome was only compared to Benthoscolex Horst, 1912. Consequently, because most diagnostic features for Branchamphiome are also present in Pherecardites, and because the latter genus-group name has priority over Branchamphinome, we are regarding them as synonyms, retaining the older name, and have newly combined Hartman’s species in this genus.

KEY TO GENERA OF AMPHINOMINAE SAVIGNY IN LAMARCK, 1818 (MODIFIED FROM SUN & LI 2017) REMARKS Paramphinome Sars, 1869 is a nomen nudum because it was included in a species list (Sars 1869); the genus and species were published posthumously by his son (Sars 1872). 1. Caruncle present, variably developed; neuropodia lateral; neurochaetae non-retractile............................. 2 — Caruncle absent; neuropodia ventral; neurochaetae retractile..... Hipponoe Audouin & Milne-Edwards, 1830 2(1). Branchiae present on all chaetigers, starting from chaetiger 1................................................................... 3 — Branchiae missing in some chaetigers, starting from anterior chaetigers (not from the first)..................... 4 3(2). Caruncle with a median ridge, concealing lateral plates, never with digitate lobes; spurred neurochaetae without denticles............................................................................................ Eurythoe Kinberg, 1857 (partim) — Caruncle with a median ridge and up to four lateral digitate lobes directed posteriorly; spurred neurochaetae with denticles along inner side................................................................................................................................................................ Pherecardites Horst, 1912 (incl. Branchamphinome Hartman, 1967, see above) 4(2). Branchiae present from chaetiger 2-4; eyes commonly present................................................................. 5 — Branchiae present from chaetiger 6; eyes absent; caruncle with a median ridge and smooth lateral lobes.................................................................................................................................. Benthoscolex Horst, 1912 5(4). Chaetiger 1 dorsally continuous, complete............................................................................................... 6 — Chaetiger 1 dorsally discontinuous, incomplete....................................................................................... 7 6(5). Chaetiger 1 with stout, falcate notohooks; caruncle round, sessile, without free lateral wings; neurochaetae bifurcates; harpoon notochaetae with 1 row of denticles.......................... Paramphinome Sars in Sars, 1872 — Chaetiger 1 without notohooks; caruncle stalked, broadly triangular to chordate with free lateral wings; neurochaetae falcate, unidentate; harpoon notochaetae with up to 2 rows of denticles... Amphinome Bruguière, 1789 7(5). Caruncle small, not extended beyond one chaetiger................................................................................. 8 — Caruncle large, extended posteriorly beyond more than one chaetiger..................................................... 9 8(7). Branchiae present on almost all chaetigers.............. Cryptonome Borda, Kudenov, Bienhold & Rouse, 2012 — Branchiae restricted to anterior chaetigers................................................ Linopherus de Quatrefages, 1866 9(8). Caruncle narrow, longer than wide, with a median ridge....................................................................... 10 — Caruncle wide, often longer than wide, or wider than long; branchiae from chaetiger 1......................... 12 10(9). Caruncle median ridge concealing lateral lobes (visible in lateral view).................................................. 11 — Caruncle without lateral lobes; branchiae from chaetigers 2-3........................ Pareurythoe Gustafson, 1930 11(10).Bifurcate neurochaetae short, thick, shorter tine 0.5-4.0 times longer than handle width; branchiae present from chaetigers 2-4.................................................................................. Eurythoe Kinberg, 1857 (partim) — Bifurcate neurochaetae long, thin, shorter tine 10-15 times longer than handle width; branchiae present from chaetiger 4....................................................................................................... Alleurythoe Sun & Li, 2017 12(9). Caruncle as long as wide, with a median ridge, with series of foliose lateral lobes..... Pherecardia Horst, 1886 — Caruncle slightly longer than wide, without median ridge.................................. Hermodice Kinberg, 1857

Genus Pherecardites Horst, 1912 Pherecardites Horst, 1912: 33. Branchamphinome Hartman, 1967: 42 n. syn. TYPE SPECIES. — Pherecardites parva Horst, 1912, by monotypy. GENDER. — Feminine, after the epithet originally proposed for the type species, parva; Brown (1954: 590) indicates parvus is a Latin masculine adjective, meaning little or small (parva feminine, parvum neuter (see below). DIAGNOSIS. — Amphinominae with chaetiger 1 dorsally incomplete. Caruncle with a median ridge and separate, diverging lateral lobes. Branchiae from chaetiger 1. Neurochaetae spurred, with denticles along inner side. REMARKS Pherecardites Horst, 1912 was described without an illustration of the anterior end. Fauchald (1977) included Pherecardites Horst, 1912 in his key to all genera; however, Fauchald regarded the body shape of Branchamphinome as oval, whereas for Pherecardites it was assumed as rectangular. Nevertheless, Hartman (1967: 43) indicated the body shape of the type species, B. antarctica Hartman, 1967 changes during development: “Smaller individuals resemble the short Chloeia whereas longer ones are more like Eurythoe.” The latter has been regarded as having rectangular body. Consequently, Pherecardites and Branchamphinome have the same body shape and types of chaetae. What about the caruncle? Horst (1912: 33) indicated “caruncle consisting of a median axis and some lateral lamellae, directed backwards.” And in describing the type species, P. parva, a few lines below, he wrote: “its caruncle extends over three segments and consists of a median axis and four lateral lobes, directed backwards.” Hartman (1967: 43) indicated, in the description of the type species, B. antarctica, “the caruncle is tripartite, consisting of a larger, longer median lobe with lateral branches, and a pair of shorter lateral lobes […]” These two descriptions indicate a very similar shape, and after the study of type specimens, the two genera are herein regarded as synonyms. Pherecardites Horst, 1912 might be regarded as a name applied to fossils (ICZN 1999, Art. 20) and consequently, it could not “be used as the valid name of a taxon”. Further, as indicated in the example given for the same article, the genus-group name might be available if proposed “for genus-group of taxa of fossils […] and not merely to indicate fossil members of genera of extant animals”. Horst (1912) proposed Pherecardites, forming the name after Pherecardia Horst, 1886, but he was not referring to any fossil members of the same group. Consequently, it cannot be rejected as a valid name. There are a few instances where a similarly ending genus-group name has been regarded as valid, such as Tringites Cabanis in Gundlach, 1856 (Aves, Scolopacidae), or Oceanites Keyserling & Blasius, 1840 (Aves, Hydrobatidae).On the other hand, Read & Fauchald (2022) explained the etymology as: “The name of the genus is formed by the postposition of the suffix of Greek origin - ites, used to form adjectives, especially those to identify groups as ‘those belonging to’, to the name of the genus Pherecardia Horst, 1886, and seems to be used to indicate the resemblance of the new genus Pherecardites with Pheracardia.” On the other hand, the suffix - ites is “to be treated as masculine unless its author, when establishing the name, stated that it had another gender or treated it as such by combining it with an adjective species-group name in another gender form” (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.4.4). As indicated above, because Horst used the feminine (parva) species-group name, the gender of the genus must be treated as feminine. Hartman (1967) compared Branchamphinome with Benthoscolex Horst, 1912 because both have tripartite caruncle, and concluded they differ because the former has eyes, and branchiae from chaetiger 1, whereas the latter had no eyes, and branchiae from chaetiger 6. Kudenov (1993) modified the diagnosis but restricted the comparison to Benthoscolex. After Horst (1912) the presence of spurred neurochaetae with denticles along the inner side in Pherecardites resembles Hermodice, although some other genera also have this type of neurochaetae such as Benthoscolex, Linopherus de Quatrefages, 1866, Paramphinome Sars in Sars, 1872 and Pareurythoe Gustafson, 1930. Horst likely restricted the comparison to Hermodice and Pherecardia because they also have complex caruncle, as opposed to those present in the other genera. Benthoscolex, however, has a caruncle with three longitudinal lobes directed posteriorly, but they rise from the same point, not from a single median ridge, as is the case in Pherecardites. As currently redefined, Pherecardites Horst, 1912 includes Branchamphinome Hartman, 1967. Consequently, the species described in the latter genus must be newly combined such that Pherecardites includes P. antarctica (Hartman, 1967) n. comb., P. islandica (Detinova, 1968) n. comb., P. kohtsukai (Jimi in Jimi et al. 2021) n. comb., P. parva Horst, 1912, P. quinquemaculata Augener, 1927, and P. tropicalis (Barroso, Ranauro & Kudenov, 2017) n. comb. KEY TO SPECIES OF PHERECARDITES HORST, 1912 (modified after Jimi et al. 2021) 1. Prostomium with eyes, sometimes coalescent; first branchiae with 3 or more filaments............................ 2 — Prostomium with indistinct eyes; body pale; first branchiae with 1-2 filaments............................................................................................................................................................. P. parva Horst, 1912, Indonesia 2(1). Median segments branchiae with 15-20 filaments; body colorless................................................................................................. P. antarctica (Hartman, 1967) n. comb. (redescr. Kudenov 1993: 95), Antarctic Seas — Median segments branchiae with 4-12 filaments; body variable............................................................... 3 3(2). Body pale; eyes nearly coalescent, forming an 8-shaped spot............................................................................. P. islandica (Detinova, 1968) n. comb. (recorded as B. antarctica by Amoureux 1982: 34), NE Atlantic — Body with dorsal pigmentation; eyes separate, not coalescent................................................................... 4 4(3). Median branchiae with 4-8 filaments....................................................................................................... 5 — Median segments with about 12 filaments; dorsal pigmentation includes 5 spots, three dorsal and two interramal.............................................................................. P. quinquemaculata Augener, 1927, New Zealand 5(4). Venter of first four chaetigers broadly pigmented, following segments pale................................................................................................................................. P. kohtsukai (Jimi in Jimi et al., 2021) n. comb., Japan — Venter with similar pigmentation along body................................................................................................................................................. P. tropicalis (Barroso, Ranauro & Kudenov, 2017) n. comb., SW Atlantic

Bleeker, Joke, Harris, Leslie, Ten Hove, Harry A., Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I. (2023): Pherecardites Horst, 1912 and Branchamphinome Hartman, 1967 are synonyms (Annelida, Amphinomidae, Amphinominae). Zoosystema 45 (13): 435-443, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2023v45a13

KEY TO SUBFAMILIES OF AMPHINOMIDAE SAVIGNY IN LAMARCK, 1818 REMARKS Amphinomid subfamilies were proposed and defined by Borda et al. (2012, 2015). They were initially regarded as different clades, informally named after the body shape as fusiform vs rectangular (rectilinear). However, as indicated below, body shape changes during development and this explains why it is being regarded as an additional, non-diagnostic feature. The main difference relies in the type of branchiae, their stems, and branching pattern of branchial filaments. An additional relevant feature is the presence of cirriform branchiae along some anterior chaetigers, which is currently restricted to some archinomin genera. 1. Branchiae with single stem, branched, with filaments depressed or digitate, sometimes pinnate; single cirriform branchiae sometimes present in anterior chaetigers (body tapered or fusiform).... Archinominae Kudenov, 1991 — Branchiae with single or double stems, with filaments digitate, never pinnate; single cirriform branchiae absent (body rectangular)........................................................................ Amphinominae Savigny in Lamarck, 1818

Chloeia bengalensis Kinberg, 1867 Indeterminable Chloeia bengalensis Kinberg, 1867: 86 (nomen nudum); Hartman 1949: 38; Hartman 1959: 131. Remarks. The original proposal of the new name by Kinberg (1867: 86) does not comply with the code (ICZN 1999, Art. 13.1.1), and is a nomen nudum. Hartman (1949: 38) extended the diagnosis, noted that the type had branchiae from chaetiger 5, a pale dorsum with two longitudinal dark bands, and with some notochaetae with serrations, but regarded the species as indeterminable. She also indicated that the species “was never described or illustrated.” Fauvel (1953: 94) indicated in his key that C. fusca McIntosh, 1885 could have either a dark dorsum or with a couple of longitudinal thin purple stripes, and he illustrated this latter variation (Fauvel 1953, Fig. 46d). The pigmentation pattern, two longitudinal dark bands, is also present in C. bistriata Grube, 1868 which was fully described from the Red Sea. However, its description indicated it has smooth notochaetae, probably because it was described with a very small specimen (7.7 mm long). Consequently, C. bengalensis Kinberg, 1867 must be regarded as indeterminable and C. bistriata Grube, 1868 can be used for Western Indian Ocean specimens having a double longitudinal dorsal line, and blackish anterior area of prostomium with uncommon harpoon-chaetae. The fact that this Red Sea species had dorsally interrupted lines can also be explained by its small size, with larger specimens having complete dorsal double banding., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on page 31, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Kinberg, J. G. H. (1867) Om Amphinomernas systematik. Ofversigt af Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens F ˆ rhandlingar, Stockholm, 24 (3), 83 - 91.","Hartman, O. (1949) The marine annelids erected by Kinberg with notes on some other types in the Swedish State Museum. Arkiv f ˆ r Zoologi, 42 A, 1 - 137, pls. 1 - 18.","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)","Fauvel, P. (1953) The Fauna of India, including Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Malaya. Annelida Polychaeta. Indian Press, Allahbad, 507 pp."]}

Chloeia fucata de Quatrefages, 1866 reinstated Fig. 21 Chloeia fucata de Quatrefages, 1866: 390; Baird 1868: 232; Hartman 1959: 131; Solís-Weiss et al. 2004: S2. Type material. Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 80, Mascate (Muscat), Oman, M. Leclancher, coll., no further data. Diagnosis. Chloeia with tiny bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 3, gradually larger medially, progressively smaller posteriorly; middorsal spots subrectangular, longer than wide, sometimes wider medially; notochaetae furcates and harpoon-chaetae without spurs; neurochaetae furcates. Description. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 80) complete, with slight histolysis; body subrectangular, 43 mm long, 10 mm wide, 27 chaetigers. Holotype pale, chaetae golden (Fig. 21A); prostomium, cephalic appendages, dorsal and ventral cirri pale, from chaetiger 14 a middorsal dark spot oval, longer than wide (Fig. 21D), better defined along last 5–6 chaetigers. Spots displaced towards posterior segmental margin, barely wider medially. Venter pale. Prostomium anteriorly entire. Eyes blackish, small, anterior eyes slightly larger than posterior ones (Fig. 21B). Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, contracted, about half as long as caruncle, 2× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases very close to each other, about 2× longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2. Pharynx slightly exposed, smooth, with moderate histolysis, muscular wall very thin. Caruncle bent to the right, trilobed, tapered, reaching posterior margin of chaetiger 3 (Fig. 21C). Median ridge plicate, with about 23 vertical folds, almost completely concealing lateral lobes at least along half its length. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 20 vertical folds, posterior ones indistinct, fused to median ridge tip. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 3, continued throughout body. First pair of bipinnate branchiae small (Fig. 21C, asterisks); cirriform branchiae present in the same segment. Bipinnate branchiae directed posteriorly, more or less convergent along posterior chaetigers; branchiae progressively larger to chaetiger 10, and then slightly larger posteriorly, becoming longer than segmental length. Bipinnate branchiae with up to 7–8 lateral branches in median segments. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3, about as long as dorsal cirri in chaetiger 1, becoming half as long in chaetiger 3. Dorsal cirri slightly longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, becoming up to 2× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores and cirrostyles slightly longer than those present in adjacent chaetigers, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as one segment. Chaetae variably broken, distally covered by a mass of epizoic filamentous orgnisms. Complete chaetae with distal fragile hoods, usually eroded. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers furcate, major tines 5–6× longer than minor ones (Fig. 21E). Median chaetigers with 2 types of notochaetae: furcates with reduced minor tines, major ones 5–6× longer than shortest ones, and thicker harpoon-chaetae (Fig. 21F). Neurochaetae all furcates, in median chaetigers major tines 3–4× longer than minor ones (Fig. 21G). Posterior end tapered (Fig. 21H); pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri pale, subcylindrical, blunt, 7–8× longer than wide. Live pigmentation. Unknown; dorsal cirri originally described as turned into intense red. Remarks. The specific epithet (Latin fucatus, a, um means to stain in red; French fardée, made-up) was given because “the only specimen had all body appendages with their purple pigmentation turned into intense red” (de Quatrefages 1866: 390). In the Latin diagnosis, he indicated branchiae were medium-sized, and that the type was 4o mm long, 9 mm wide, with 27 segments. Chloeia fucata de Quatrefages, 1866 is unique by having bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 3, and by the presence of a discontinuous middorsal longitudinal band, slightly displaced towards the segmental posterior half, resembling middorsal oval spots. This pigmentation pattern is also present in C. pulchella Baird, 1868, reinstated, originally described from northeastern Australia, and its branchiae are rather short (after Horst 1912 and Fauvel 1953 illustrations), not as long as one complete segment length, as in C. fucata, although this might result of the contraction of the body, more muscular than branchial stems. Thus, heavily contracted specimens might have apparently longer branchiae, in comparison to segment length, than those specimens less contracted. Fauvel (1923: 134), and later Hartman (1959: 131) regarded C. fucata as a junior synonym of C. venusta de Quatrefages, 1866, described from the Mediterranean Sea, probably after the confusion by M’Intosh (1876: 395). However, M’Intosh hesitated about the species name and added a question mark after the name; his records include specimens collected in sediments from 81–230 m water depth in the Mediterranean Sea. The pigmentation pattern M’Intosh reported was a continuous brown middorsal band, and a similar band along the anterior part of each segment, thus rather approaching C. venusta instead. This might hardly be regarded as conspecific with the Omani species, as the comparison of the specimens has shown, and hence they are herein regarded as distinct species. Although uncommon, cirriform branchiae might be present in the first segment where bipinnate branchiae start (Yáñez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo 2022). The holotype of C. fucata has bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 3, together with cirriform branchiae. Solving the enigma about this early start whether this is an ontogenetic variant in a species having bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, must wait for additional specimens. An ongoing project in Oman has not found specimens of Chloeia so far (G. Paulay, 2022, pers. comm.). If additional specimens show the holotype of C. fucata differs from typical specimens by having supernumerary bipinnate branchiae in chaetiger 3, then C. fucata would have priority over C. pulchella. Distribution. Only known after the original description, from Muscat, Oman., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 50-51, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818","Baird, W. (1868) Contributions towards a monograph of the species of annelides belonging to the Amphinomacea, with a list of the known species, and a description of several new species (belonging to the group) contained in the National Collection of the British Museum. To which is appended a short account of two hitherto nondescript annulose animals of a larval character. The Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 10 (44), 215 - 250, pls. 4 - 6. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1868. tb 02233. x","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Solis-Weiss, V., Bertrand, Y., Helleouet, M. - N. & Pleijel, F. (2004) Types of polychaetous annelids at the Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris. Zoosystema, 26, 377 - 384, Supplement 21 pp.","Horst, R. (1912) Polychaeta errantia of the Siboga Expedition. Part 1. Amphinomidae. Siboga-Expeditie Uitkomsten op Zoologisch, Bonatisch, Oceanographisch en Geologisch gebied verzameld in Nederlandsch Oost-Indie 1899 - 1900, 24 a, 1 - 43, 10 pls.","Fauvel, P. (1953) The Fauna of India, including Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Malaya. Annelida Polychaeta. Indian Press, Allahbad, 507 pp.","Fauvel, P. (1923) Polychetes errantes. Faune de France, 5, 1 - 488.","M'Intosh, W. C. (1876) On the Annelida of the ' Porcupine' expeditions of 1869 and 1870. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 9, 395 - 416, pls. 71 - 73.","Yanez-Rivera, B. & Salazar-Vallejo, S. I. (2022) Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 from tropical American seas (Annelida. Amphinomidae). Zootaxa, 5128 (4), 503 - 537. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 5128.4.3"]}

Chloeia tumida Baird, 1868 Fig. 52 Chloeia incerta de Quatrefages, 1866: 388; Hartman 1959: 131; Solís-Weiss et al. 2004: S2; Salazar-Vallejo et al. 2014: 11 (list) (partim, syntype MNHN 246). Chloeia tumida Baird, 1868: 232–233, Pl. 4, Fig. 7a–d; Fauvel 1917: 191; Hartman 1959: 132; Barroso & Paiva 2011: 422, Tab. 1. Chloeia flava var. tumida: Monro 1931: 35. Chloeia rosea: Fauvel 1932: 57; Fauvel 1953: 97–98, Fig. 46h (non Potts, 1909; partim, RV Investigator, Sta. 242 only). Chloeia tumida?: Monro 1937: 253 (3 specimens Maldives). Type locality. India (Baird 1868: 238). Type material. Indian Ocean, India. Holotype (BMNH 1972.68), Leach collection, Leadbeater, coll. (no further data). No locality (probably Indian Ocean). Syntype of Chloeia incerta de Quatrefages, 1866 (MNHN IA-TYPE 246), Freycinet, coll. (body colorless, chaetal features match C. tumida; 140 mm long, 25 mm wide, 37 chaetigers). Additional material. Indian Ocean. One specimen (BMNH 1937.9.2.12 – 13), John Murray Expedition, HEMS Mabahiss, Sta. 147 (04°53´12″ S, 72°54´30″ E), Horsburgh Atoll, anchorage, 27 m, 2 Apr. 1934 (juvenile; pale completely; bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4; most chaetae soft, smooth, acicular or furcates, a single harpoonchaeta in posterior chaetigers with accessory tine; body 6 mm long, 1.3 mm wide, 17 chaetigers). One specimen (BMNH 1938.5.7.14), R.V. Investigator, Sta. 242 (17°27´N, 70°41´E), Arabian Sea, 101 m, 11 Oct. 1898 (date after Huys et al. 2014) (colorless, dorsal cirri purple; eyes minute; body bent ventrally, branchiae from chaetiger 4; neurochaetae with major tines 5–9× longer than minor ones; 26.5 mm long, 8 mm wide, 27 chaetigers). Red Sea. One specimen (UF 6285), Saudi Arabia, Wasaliyat Island (17.7828, 41.4358; 17°46´58.08″ N, 41°26´08.88″ E), patch reef, 10 m, 17 Oct. 2014, D. Uyeno, R, Lasley, & J. Moore, coll. (juvenile; pale; ocular area pink, eyes blackish, anterior eyes 2× larger than posterior ones; median antenna 2/3 as long as caruncle; body appendages pale; body 11 mm long, 2.5 mm wide, 17 chaetigers). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly; dorsum pale, without pigmentation pattern; anterior eyes slightly larger than posterior ones; caruncle with about 40 folds; notochaetae acicular, tapered and harpoon chaetae without spurs; neurochaetae acicular, subdistally constricted (not spurred). Description. Holotype (BMNH 1972.68) complete (Fig. 52A), pale; chaetae yellowish; venter pale; 148 mm long, 22 mm wide, 36 chaetigers. Prostomium anteriorly entire. Eyes blackish, small; anterior eyes slightly larger than posterior ones. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, 2/3 as long as caruncle, 2× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases close to each other, 2× longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2–3. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle pale, sigmoid, trilobed, tapered, reaching chaetiger 4. Median ridge plicate, with about 38 vertical folds, almost completely concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 33 vertical folds (difficult to count distally). Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4 (Fig. 52B), continued throughout body, mostly parallel along body; progressively larger to chaetiger 12–13, smaller in last 2–3 chaetigers. Median segments with 8–9 lateral branches per branchia. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3, 1/3–1/4 as long as dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri longer than bipinnate branchiae along most chaetigers, 2× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores slightly longer and wider, and cirrostyle about 2× longer than adjacent ones, directed laterally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as one subsequent segment in median chaetigers. Chaetae most complete, hoods most lost. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers acicular, tip asymmetric (Fig. 52D), accessory tines not seen. Median chaetigers with one type of notochaetae (Fig. 52F): harpoon chaetae without spurs, subdistally swollen chaetae damaged, inner features modified. Neurochaetae all spurred, anterior neurochaetae with major tines about 20× longer than spurs (Fig. 52E), in median chaetigers aciculars and spurred chaetae, tines 20× (or more) longer than spurs (Fig. 52G). Posterior end tapered; pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri whitish, digitate (Fig. 52H), 5× longer than wide. Live pigmentation. Unknown. Specimens collected by different people, using ethanol or formalin solution, were recorded as homogeneously pale; Monro (1937: 253) indicated in one of his three Maldives specimens, that median antenna was slightly purple, but the whole body was colorless. Remarks. Chloeia tumida Baird, 1868 was described from India; it belongs in the group tumida because it has no dorsal pigmentation pattern, bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, becoming progressively smaller posteriorly. Futher, because of its fusiform body, presence of acicular or spurred neurochaetae, and branchiae with lateral branches tapered, it resembles C. gilchristi McIntosh, 1924, redescribed above from South Africa. However, these two species differ in the body color, complexity of the caruncle, and type of neurochaetae; in C. tumida the body is pale, its caruncular median ridge has about 38 vertical folds, and all neurochaetae are spurred, whereas in C. gilchristi the body is brownish, the caruncular median ridge has 11 vertical folds, and neurochaetae are spurred along anterior segments, and acicular in median segments. The specific epithet (Latin tumidus, -a, -um: swollen) indicates either the swollen body, or that chaetae were subdistally swollen (Baird 1868: 232), and both features were included in the diagnosis. Further, eyes were described as minute, no dorsal pigmentation in the holotype, and branchiae from chaetiger 4. Chaetae were indicated as denticulate. Fauvel (1917: 191) recorded the species for northern Australia after a 120 mm long specimen; he noted the specimen was milky white, without any trace of pigmentation, resembling the type specimen, and confirmed the subdistal swollen region in chaetae. Monro (1931) recorded specimens up to 110 mm long, milky-white to pale brown, and he indicated that “the absence of colour is a character of the animal in life and is not due to fading and the action of the preservative” (Monro 1931: 35). A later report by Monro (1937:253) was made with hesitation after some specimens from the Maldives, but the doubt was after the small size of the specimens, the largest only 6 mm long. As indicated above, the swollen subdistal section in harpoon chaetae is an artifact. However, the presence of tiny accessory tines in neurochaetae is quite distinctive, especially in larger specimens. On the other hand, the median antennae is slightly shorter than caruncle in MNHN IA-TYPE 246 and in juveniles (UF 6285). Four damaged specimens from Singapore (three, BMNH 1931.10.8.3–4; one, BMNH 1961.11.1 –2) are pale, pinkish, or brownish, with a barely visible middorsal band along a few anterior chaetigers; bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, many notochaetae broken, harpoon-chaetae and aciculars remain. Because of the lack of pigmentation pattern, they resemble C. tumida but neurochaetae differ by having longer minor tines, and each tine with a large distal hood, about as long as wide (in three specimens). If this feature could be used to separate this specimen from C. tumida cannot be solved now, and it must wait for the study of better-preserved specimens. Another specimen (BMNH 1888.12.5.3) from the Gulf of Manaar, also resembles C. tumida but its anterior notochaetae are furcates with long minor tines, instead of having them reduced to spurs; its neurochaetae do not have clearly defined hoods, and these two specimens are not conspecific, but also for this latter one, its formal description requires better preserved specimens. Distribution. Red Sea to India and other Indian Ocean localities, in sediments at 10–101 m water depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 110-112, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Baird, W. (1868) Contributions towards a monograph of the species of annelides belonging to the Amphinomacea, with a list of the known species, and a description of several new species (belonging to the group) contained in the National Collection of the British Museum. To which is appended a short account of two hitherto nondescript annulose animals of a larval character. The Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 10 (44), 215 - 250, pls. 4 - 6. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1868. tb 02233. x","De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Solis-Weiss, V., Bertrand, Y., Helleouet, M. - N. & Pleijel, F. (2004) Types of polychaetous annelids at the Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris. Zoosystema, 26, 377 - 384, Supplement 21 pp.","Salazar-Vallejo, S. I., Carrera-Parra, L. F., Muir, A. I., de Leon-Gonzalez, J. A., Piotrowski, C. & Sato, M. (2014) Polychaete species (Annelida) described from the Philippine and China Seas. Zootaxa, 3842 (1), 1 - 68. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3842.1.1","Fauvel, P. (1917) Annelides polychetes de l'Australie meridionale. Archives de Zoologie Experimentale et Generale, 56, 159 - 277, pls. 4 - 8.","Barroso, R. & Paiva, P. C. (2011) A new deep-sea species of Chloeia (Polychaeta: Amphinomidae) from southern Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 91 (2), 419 - 423. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0025315410001499","Monro, C. C. A. (1931) On a collection of Polychaeta in the Raffles Museum, Singapore. Bulletin of the Raffles Museum, 5, 33 - 46.","Fauvel, P. (1932) Annelida Polychaeta of the Indian Museum, Calcutta. Memoirs of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, 12, 1 - 262.","Fauvel, P. (1953) The Fauna of India, including Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Malaya. Annelida Polychaeta. Indian Press, Allahbad, 507 pp.","Potts, F. A. (1909) The Percy Sladen Trust Expediton to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner, 20. Polychaeta of the Indian Ocean, Part 1. The Amphinomidae. The Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Series 2 Zoology, 12 (4), 355 - 371, pls. 45 - 46. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1909. tb 00147. x","Monro, C. C. A. (1937) Polychaeta. John Murray Expedition 1933 - 34, Scientific Reports, 4 (8), 243 - 321.","Huys, R., Low, M. E. Y., de Grave, S., Ng, P. K. L. & Clark, P. F. (2014) On two reports associated with James Wood-Mason and Alfred William Alcock published by the Indian Museum and the Indian Marine Survey between 1890 and 1891: implications for malacostracan nomenclature. Zootaxa, 3757 (1), 1 - 78. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3757.1.1","McIntosh, W. C. (1924) Notes from the Gatty Marine Laboratory, St. Andrews, 46: 1. The occurrence of opercular development in Mercierella enigmatica, Fauvel, a new British serpulid; 2. Preliminary notice of a second contribution to the marine Polychaeta of South Africa. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 9, 14 (79), 1 - 52. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222932408633091"]}

Chloeia ancora Frickhinger, 1916 Indeterminable Chloeia ancora Frickhinger, 1916: 234; Hartman 1959: 131. Remarks. The specific name was derived from the dorsal pigmentation: “a wide strip, that drags on in the middle of the strongly furrowed back over the animal by the whole length, sends out at the side two equally-wide wandered ribbons in each segment forward so that the picture of an anchor originates approximately in each segment” (Frickinger 1916: 234). The type material was deposited in the Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen, but it is now lost (Ruthenstein-er, Jun. 2021, email). Chloeia ancora Frickhinger, 1916 described from Japan was regarded as a junior synonym of C. flava (Pallas, 1766), described from the Bay of Bengal, by Imajima & Hartman (1964), probably after the record from Japan and comments by de Quatrefages (1866: 387). Imajima & Hartman (1964: 50) indicated that C. ancora has “a median longitudinal stripe with paired lateral branches on each segment.” This pattern rather resembles C. violacea Horst, 1910 because of the dorsal pattern resembles an inverted T, but Imajima & Hartman followed Monro (1924: 71) by disregarding the pigmentation differences as diagnostic for species. However, if the orientation of the body was reversed and the dorsal pattern was rather T- or Y-shaped, then C. ancora might be the same as C. incerta de Quatrefages, 1866. The confusion should be solved after the study of freshly collected specimens which were not available for this study. Distribution. Japan., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 27-29, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Frickhinger, H. W. (1916) Japanische Polychaten aus der Sammlung Doflein. Amphinomidae. Aphroditidae. Polynoidae. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 46, 233 - 238.","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Imajima, M. & Hartman, O. (1964) The polychaetous annelids of Japan, 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 26, 1 - 237, pls. 1 - 35.","De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818","Horst, R. (1910) On the genus Chloeia with some new species from the Malay Archipelago, partly collected by the Siboga-Expedition. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 32, 169 - 175.","Monro, C. C. A. (1924) On the Polychaeta collected by H. M. S. ' Alert', 1878 - 1882. Families Aphroditidae and Amphinomidae. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 36 (240), 65 - 77. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1924. tb 02208. x"]}

Chloeia maculata Potts, 1909 Figs 37, 38 Chloeia maculata Potts, 1910: 358, Pl. 45, Fig. 4, Pl. 46, Figs 1, 2, Horst 1912: 23 (footnote); Hartman 1959: 131. Chloeia natalensis Day, 1951: 7–8, Textfig. 1a, b; Fitzsimons et al. 1958: 2; Barroso & Paiva 2011: 422, Tab. 1. Chloeia flava: Day 1967: 124, Fig. 3.1.r (non (Pallas, 1766), but the figure matches the species). Type material. Indian Ocean, Mauritius, Saint Brandon Rocks. Holotype of Chloeia maculata Potts, 1909 (BMNH 1924.3.1.75), HMS Sealark, Sta. B15, 30 Aug. 1905, 54 m, J.S. Gardiner & M.A. Caius, coll. South Africa. Holotype of C. natalensis Day, 1951 (BMNH 1961.16.6), Natal, Station 140, shore, J.H. Day, coll. (Durban Bay in Day 1951: 7). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly; middorsal spots half-oval, displaced towards posterior segmental half; harpoon notochaetae with smooth tines, spurs, or without them; neurochaetae furcates. Description. Holotype of C. maculata (BMNH 1924.3.1.75), complete, chaetae soft; body fusiform (Fig. 37A), 13 mm long, 4.3 mm wide, 22 chaetigers. Holotype of C. maculata colorless; chaetae transparent; middorsal band purple from chaetiger 3 to end of body, becoming paler medially and posteriorly; each segment with spots longer than wide, half-oval in shape, barely visible along anterior segmental half, better defined in posterior half (Fig. 37C). Venter pale, midventral band single, pale. Prostomium anteriorly entire. Eyes blackish, small, anterior eyes 2× larger than posterior ones (right posterior eye reduced). Median antenna inserted in anterior caruncular margin, almost as long as caruncle (Fig. 37B), almost 2× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases separate from each other, 2× longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 3. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle pale, bent, trilobed, tapered, reaching chaetiger 5. Median ridge plicate, with about 21 vertical folds, partially concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 22 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, continued throughout body, parallel along body; progressively larger to chaetiger 12–13, smaller posteriorly along last few chaetigers. Branchiae in median segments with 7–8 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–4 (both types in chaetiger 4), half as long as dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri 2× longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, 3–4× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 2× longer and wider, and cirrostyle 2× longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as two subsequent segments. Chaetae most complete. Complete chaetae with distal fragile hoods, rarely eroded. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers furcates (Fig. 37D), major tines 3–4× longer than minor ones. Median chaetigers with two types of notochaetae: furcates with reduced minor tines, major tines 5× longer than minor ones, and harpoon-chaetae with a basal spur (Fig. 37E), denticulate tines 14–16× longer than smooth tines. Neurochaetae all furcates, major tines 3–4× longer than minor ones, more delicate in median chaetigers (Fig. 37F). Posterior region tapered; pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri pale, digitate, 5× longer than wide (Fig. 37G). Live pigmentation. The holotype was described about three years after being collected. The original description indicated unpigmented body with an interrupted, dark purple middorsal band, better defined along posterior segmental half. Median and lateral antennae colorless; dorsal cirri and palps pink. Chaetae colorless. A recently collected specimen (CAS 187535), has body pale, antennae and dorsal cirrostyles purple. Middorsal band blackish, half-oval shaped, displaced towards the posterior segment half, become wider in median chaetigers, thinner along anterior and posterior chaetigers; branchiae with pale stems and pinkish lateral branches; harpoon-chaetae with yellowish distal region. Anal cirri whitish. Variation. The holotype of C. natalensis Day, 1951 (BMNH 1961.16.6), was smashed in a shell vial smaller than its size, and segments are markedly contracted (Fig. 38A); its anterior and posterior ends are collapsed, the former is depressed, the latter is bent dorsally; most dorsal and ventral cirri lost. Body 42 mm long, 11 mm wide, 29 chaetigers. The dorsal pigmentation is a longitudinal, interrupted purple band, better defined along the posterior half of each segment (Fig. 38B), and darker along a few anterior segments; anterior surface of notopodia with a purple hue. Branchiae pale. Chaetae brownish. Venter pale, midventral band pale. Eyes blackish; anterior eyes slightly larger than posterior ones. Median antenna without tip, slightly shorter than caruncle, about 2× longer than lateral antennae. Caruncle twisted, reaching chaetiger 3 if gently pulled posteriorly. Branchiae from chaetiger 4, small, progressively larger to chaetiger 13–14, progressively decreasing posteriorly, as long as subsequent segment in median region, with 8–9 lateral branches. Chaetae flexible, variably damaged by acidic formalin dissolution. Anterior notochaetae furcates, major tines 4× longer than minor ones. Median chaetigers with harpoon-chaetae without spurs, most without most denticles after dissolution (Fig. 38C). Neurochaetae furcates, major tines 4–5× longer than minor ones. Posterior region tapered; pygidium with anus terminal, anal cirri pale, distorted dorsally after compression, digitate, 4× longer than wide (Fig. 38D). Remarks. Chloeia maculata Potts, 1909 was described from the Western Indian Ocean; it belongs in the group flava because its bipinnate branchiae start in chaetiger 4, becoming progressively smaller posteriorly, and its dorsal pigmentation pattern has oval spots. There are also oval spots, longer than wide, in C. pulchella Baird, 1868, reinstated (see below), described from Northeastern Australia. The main differences between these two species are in the shape of the dorsal spots, and in the type of notochaetae and neurochaetae. Thus, in C. maculata middorsal spots are half-oval, displaced towards posterior segmental half, its harpoon notochaetae have short smooth tines, and its neurochaetae have long minor tines, whereas C. pulchella has middorsal spots oval, central in each segment, its harpoon notochaetae lack spurs or smooth tines, and its neurochaetae are spurred or furcates with short minor tines. Chloeia maculata Potts, 1909 was described with a small specimen (13 mm long, 20 segments); furcate neurochaetae were remarkable by being described as having the inner margin denticulate. Because of this type of chaetae, Horst (1910: 23, footnote) regarded its belonging into Chloeia as questionable. However, this type of chaetae cannot be confirmed in the holotype; the irregular margin might be due to chemical dissolution after formalin preservation, although a similar damage can be noted in older, ethanol preserved specimens. Nevertheless, the surface roughness is not regular, as can be seen when a row of denticles is present, or even after some dissolution removes their distal portions. On the other hand, the holotype of C. maculata is likely a juvenile, and although it might be regarded as a juvenile of other more pigmented Indian Ocean species, the pigmentation pattern is unique and should be regarded as a distinct species. Day (1951: 7) described C. natalensis and diagnosed it as having branchiae from chaetiger 4, and ‘a median row of purple spots on dorsum, each amphora-like; dorsal bristles stout, serrated, but without spurs. Ventral bristles silky, with a spur but without serrations.’ He doubted about using the pigmentation pattern as a diagnostic feature, and this explains why he gave no further details about the shape and arrangement of the middorsal spots. The size proportions of cephalic appendages, as indicated by Day, are preserved in the specimen despite their current condition. Day (1967: 120) indicated the synonymy of C. natalensis with C. flava (Pallas, 1766), but that was incorrect, especially because the pigmentation patterns differ between these two species. Chloeia maculata Baird, 1868 resembles C. amphora described from Indonesia (see above), because in the latter, its middorsal spots are less defined in smaller specimens. However, a comparison of similar-sized specimens indicates that in C maculata the band is restricted to the posterior segmental half, even in larger specimens, whereas in C. amphora, even small specimens have spots well defined, at least in those of comparable size to the holotype of C. maculata, and the feature is retained in larger specimens. In C. amphora the spot extends along the segment length, not being restricted to the posterior segmental half as is the case in C. maculata Potts, 1909 and C. natalensis Day, 1951. The holotype of C. maculata is 18 mm long, whereas the type of C. amphora is 26 mm long, and it could be regarded that the middorsal spot progresses over the anterior segmental half in larger specimens, like in C. amphora. However, this is not consistent with what is shown in the type of C. natalensis, being 42 mm long, markedly larger than the types of the other species, but the dorsal spot is not extended anteriorly. Further, because the chaetal features are also similar, despite the fact of their surface dissolution, C. natalensis must be regarded as a junior synonym of C. maculata. They resemble both C. amphora, but the pigmentation pattern differs; the only difference between C. maculata and C. natalensis is that in the latter, the harpoon notochaetae lack any spur or accessory smooth tine; the difference can be relevant if confirmed in better preserved specimens, and likely useful for separating these two species, but additional specimens of the South African species are needed for clarifying if this difference is consistent throughout body. Distribution. Mauritius to South Africa, in sediments from the intertidal to 54 m water depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 81-84, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Potts, F. A. (1909) The Percy Sladen Trust Expediton to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner, 20. Polychaeta of the Indian Ocean, Part 1. The Amphinomidae. The Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Series 2 Zoology, 12 (4), 355 - 371, pls. 45 - 46. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1909. tb 00147. x","Horst, R. (1912) Polychaeta errantia of the Siboga Expedition. Part 1. Amphinomidae. Siboga-Expeditie Uitkomsten op Zoologisch, Bonatisch, Oceanographisch en Geologisch gebied verzameld in Nederlandsch Oost-Indie 1899 - 1900, 24 a, 1 - 43, 10 pls.","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Day, J. H. (1951) The polychaete fauna of South Africa, Part 1. The intertidal and estuarine Polychaeta of Natal and Mosambique. Annals of the Natal Museum, 12 (1), 1 - 67.","Fitzsimons, V., Codd, L. E., Janse, A. J. T., Munro, H. K., Pringle, J. A. & Vari, L. (1958) A list of zoological and botanical types preserved in collections in Southern and Eastern Africa. Vol. 1. Zoology. Part 1. South African Museums' Association, Pretoria, 152 pp.","Barroso, R. & Paiva, P. C. (2011) A new deep-sea species of Chloeia (Polychaeta: Amphinomidae) from southern Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 91 (2), 419 - 423. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0025315410001499","Day, J. H. (1967) A Monograph on the Polychaeta of Southern Africa, 1. Errantia. British Museum (Natural History) Publications, 656, 1 - 458. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 8596","Baird, W. (1868) Contributions towards a monograph of the species of annelides belonging to the Amphinomacea, with a list of the known species, and a description of several new species (belonging to the group) contained in the National Collection of the British Museum. To which is appended a short account of two hitherto nondescript annulose animals of a larval character. The Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 10 (44), 215 - 250, pls. 4 - 6. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1868. tb 02233. x","Horst, R. (1910) On the genus Chloeia with some new species from the Malay Archipelago, partly collected by the Siboga-Expedition. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 32, 169 - 175."]}

Chloeia entypa Chamberlin, 1919 Chloeia entypa Chamberlin, 1919: 30–31, Pl. 13, Figs 8, 9, Pl. 14, Figs 1, 2; Treadwell 1937: 147; Hartman 1939: 8; Hartman 1940: 205–206, Pl. 32, Figs 14–20; Hartman 1959: 131; Fauchald & Reimer 1975: 82; Fauchald, 1977: 11; Barroso & Paiva 2011: 422, Tab. 1; Yánez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo 2022: 511, Fig. 3 (redescr.). Chloeia pinnata: Monro 1933: 7–8, Textfig. 3 (non Moore, 1911). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly; dorsum colorless; caruncle blunt, pale; notochaetae furcates; neurochaetae furcates. Remarks. The species was described as having a yellowish dorsum with deep purple dorsal cirri, but it had been for about 30 years in ethanol by time it was studied by Chamberlin (1919). Extensive deep-water studies along Western Mexico (Fauchald 1972), or in the Gulf of California (Méndez 2007) were unsuccessful in collecting fresh specimens. Monro (1933: 7) indicated that the preserved specimens had a middorsal purplish-brown line, and that dorsal cirri were chocolate brown in living specimens. Fauchald & Reimer (1975: 82) indicated a single dorsal longitudinal red brownish band. This middorsal band was not reported by Chamberlin, such that there might be more than one species., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on page 41, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Chamberlin, R. V. (1919) The Annelida Polychaeta [Albatross Pacific Expeditions: 1891, 1899 - 1900, 1904 - 1905]. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 48, 1 - 514.","Treadwell, A. L. (1937) The Templeton Crocker Expedition, 8. Polychaetous annelids from the west coast of Lower California, the Gulf of California and Clarion Island. Zoologica, 22, 139 - 159, pls. 1 - 2. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / p. 184684","Hartman, O. (1939) The polychaetous annelids collected on the Presidential Cruise of 1938. Smithsonian Miscelaneous Collections, 98 (13), 1 - 22. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. part. 4785","Hartman, O. (1940) Polychaetous annelids, 2. Chrysopetalidae to Goniadidae. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions, 7 (3), 171 - 286, pls. 31 - 44.","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Fauchald, K. & Reimer, A. A. (1975) Clave de poliquetos panamenos con la inclusion de una clave para todas las familias del mundo. Boletin del Instituto de Oceanografia, Universidad de Oriente, 14, 71 - 94.","Barroso, R. & Paiva, P. C. (2011) A new deep-sea species of Chloeia (Polychaeta: Amphinomidae) from southern Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 91 (2), 419 - 423. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0025315410001499","Yanez-Rivera, B. & Salazar-Vallejo, S. I. (2022) Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 from tropical American seas (Annelida. Amphinomidae). Zootaxa, 5128 (4), 503 - 537. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 5128.4.3","Monro, C. C. A. (1933) The Polychaeta Errantia collected by Dr. C. Crossland at Colon, in the Panama Region, and the Galapagos Islands during the Expedition of the S. Y. ' St. George. ' Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1933, 1 - 96. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1933. tb 01578. x","Moore, J. P. (1911) The polychaetous annelids dredged by the U. S. S. '' Albatross' ' off the coast of Southern California in 1904, 3. Euphrosynidae to Goniadidae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 63, 234 - 318, pls. 15 - 21.","Fauchald, K. (1972) Benthic polychaetous annelids from deep water off Western Mexico and adjacent areas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Allan Hancock Monographs in Marine Biology, 7, 1 - 575.","Mendez, N. (2007) Relationships between deep-water polychaete fauna and environmental factors in the southeastern Gulf of California, Mexico. Scientia Marina, 71, 605 - 622. https: // doi. org / 10.3989 / scimar. 2007.71 n 3605"]}

Chloeia richeri sp. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 40D905E2-69E9-437C-874F-1E7F42E96671 Figs 48, 49 Type material. New Caledonia. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2053), and 10 paratypes (5 ECOSUR 308; 5 MNHN IA-TYPE 2054), RV Vauban, Sta. 169 (18°54.03´S, 163°11.20´E), 590 m (600 m after Richer de Forges 1990: 38), 17 Sep. 1985, B. Richer de Forges, coll. Additional material. New Caledonia. One specimen (ECOSUR), RV Vauban, Sta.202 (18°58.00´S, 163°10.50´E), 560 m (580 m after Richer de Forges 1990: 39), 20 Sep. 1985, B. Richer de Forges, coll. (damaged, many notochaetae broken; body 32 mm long, 11 mm wide, 31 chaetigers; anterior prostomial spot blackish, separated in two lateral halves, almost covering all prostomium; bipinnate branchiae with 11–12 lateral branches in median region). Two specimens (MNHN), RV Vauban, Sta. 157 (18°52.50´S, 163°16.90´E), 575 m, 15 Sep. 1985, B. Richer de Forges, coll. (damaged, many notochaetae broken; anterior prostomial spot blackish, separated in two lateral halves, almost covering all prostomium; bipinnate branchiae with 11–12 lateral branches in median region; body 33–38 mm long, 8–9 mm wide, 31–36 chaetigers). Indonesia. One specimen (ECOSUR), Campagne KARUBAR, RV Baruna Jaya I, Sta. DW3 (05°32´S, 132°51´E), 243– 230 m, Warén dredge, 26 Oct. 1991 (anterior fragment, reddish, most branchiae and chaetae lost; anterior prostomial area blackish; 14 mm long, 4 mm wide, 19 chaetigers). One specimen (ECOSUR), Campagne KARUBAR, RV Baruna Jaya I, Sta. CP24 (05°48´S, 132°13´E), 301– 278 m, Warén dredge, 22 Oct. 1991 (anterior fragment, reddish, most branchiae and chaetae lost; anterior prostomial area blackish; body 13 mm long, 7 mm wide, 11 chaetigers). One specimen (ECOSUR), Campagne KARUBAR, RV Baruna Jaya I, Sta. DW28 (05°31´S, 132°54´E), 448–467 m, Warén dredge, 26 Oct. 1991 (anterior fragment, reddish, most branchiae and chaetae lost; anterior prostomial area blackish; body 14 mm long, 4 mm wide, 14 chaetigers). One specimen (ECOSUR), Campagne KARUBAR, RV Baruna Jaya I, Sta. CP35 (06°08´S, 132°45´E), 390–502 m, beam trawl, 27 Oct. 1991 (reddish, anterior prostomial area blackish, separated in two lateral oval spots; body 40 mm long, 8 mm wide, 31 chaetigers). Philippines. One specimen (MNHN Musorstom 3), Sta. CP115 (12°32´S, 120°44´E), 794 m, beam trawl, 3 Jun. 1985 (anterior fragment, most chaetae broken; body reddish, 21 mm long, 5 mm wide, 18 chaetigers). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, basally pale; progressively smaller posteriorly, each with 11–12 lateral branches, tapered; anterior prostomial area blackish; dorsum without pigmentation pattern; notochaetae furcates; neurochaetae furcates and spurred. Description. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2053), complete, bent ventrally (Fig. 48A); body tapered, 37 mm long, 9 mm wide, 32 chaetigers. Holotype brownish; dorsum without pigmentation. Dorsal cirri pale. Interramal areas whitish along chaetigers 5–25, usually present in both sides. Bipinnate branchiae pale. Venter pale, with a midventral whitish band. Prostomium anteriorly entire, with a large black oval, wider than long spot almost completely covering anterior prostomial lobe (Fig. 48B). Eyes missing. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, pale, 1/3–1/4 as long as caruncle, almost 2× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases close to each other. Palps half as long as lateral antennae. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2–3. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle pale, trilobed, completely bent anteriorly, reaching chaetiger 3; middorsal ridge barely pigmented, with about 40 vertical folds. Lateral lobes narrow, barely visible, with about 30 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, continued throughout body, parallel along most body segments; progressively larger to chaetigers 13–18, diminishing in size in posterior chaetigers. In median segments each branchia with 10–12 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3, progressively smaller, 1/3–1/5 as long as dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri slightly longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, almost 2× longer in posterior ones. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 2× longer and wider than adjacent ones, and cirrrostyles 2× longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as two following segments in median region, up to three segments in posterior one. Chaetae many with broken tips. Complete chaetae with distal fragile hoods, often eroded. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers furcates (Fig. 48C), major tines 3–4× longer than minor ones. Median chaetigers with furcate notochaetae (Fig. 48E), major tines 3× longer than minor ones, without harpoon notochaetae. Neurochaetae all furcates, anterior neurochaetae with longer minor tines (Fig. 48D), in median chaetigers minor tines reduced to spurs (Fig. 48F); major tines 8—10× longer than minor ones. Posterior region tapered; pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri pale, digitate to tapered, 6–7× longer than wide. Live pigmentation. Unknown. Variation. Paratypes variably damaged, most with chaetae broken; body 36–44 mm long, 7–10 mm wide, 30– 33 chaetigers; anterior prostomial black spot as large as prostomia in 4 specimens, about half as large as prostomia in 3 specimens, one-quarter as larger in 1 specimens; large but barely pigmented in 2 specimens; caruncle turned anteriorly in all specimens; interramal whitish areas along chaetigers 3–31, diminishing posteriorly (less defined in more damaged specimens); bipinnate branchiae in median region with 11–13 lateral branches; midventral white band visible in all specimens. A non-type, complete specimen (ECOSUR) is less damaged, reddish (Fig. 49A), with black anterior prostomial area and caruncle with about 40 vertical folds (Fig. 49B); its posterior region has golden neurochaetae, and anal cirri tapered (Fig. 49C). Etymology. This species is named after Dr. Bertrand Richer de Forges, a French carcinologist living in New Caledonia, in recognition for his many and sustained efforts for organizing sampling expeditions along the Western Pacific for the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, including most of the so-called Musorstom Expeditions 4-10, which among the abundant materials, included the type specimens for this species. The derived name is a noun in the genitive case (ICZN 1999, Art. 31.1.2). Remarks. Chloeia richeri sp. n. is described with specimens from New Caledonia, Indonesia and The Philippines, and belongs in the group tumida by having its dorsum with no pigmentation pattern, and its bipinnate branchiae start in chaetiger 4 and are progressively smaller along posterior region. Due to the presence of a tapered body, and bipinnate branchiae with 11–12 tapered lateral branches, it resembles C. boucheti sp. n., described above from Indonesia. As indicated in the key above, the main differences lie in the pigmentation of the anterior prostomial area, the bases of bipinnate branchiae, and the type of notochaetae. Thus, C. richeri has a blackish anterior prostomial area, pale bipinnate branchial bases, and its notochaetae are only furcates, whereas in C. boucheti the anterior prostomial area is pale, its bipinnate branchiae have orange bases, and its notochaetae are furcates and harpoonchaetae. Distribution. New Caledonia to the Philippines and Indonesia, in sediments at 230–794 m water depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 104-106, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Richer de Forges, B. (1990) Les campagnes d'exploration de la faune bathyale dans la zone economique de la Nouvelle-Caledonie. Resultats des Campagnes Musorstom 6, Memoires du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Serie A, 145, 9 - 54.","ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)"]}

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., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 103-104, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Baird, W. (1868) Contributions towards a monograph of the species of annelides belonging to the Amphinomacea, with a list of the known species, and a description of several new species (belonging to the group) contained in the National Collection of the British Museum. To which is appended a short account of two hitherto nondescript annulose animals of a larval character. The Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 10 (44), 215 - 250, pls. 4 - 6. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1868. tb 02233. x","De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818"]}

Chloeia wangi sp. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 6814B35A-04BA-4FC6-B6BC-FF053F25AD60 Fig. 57 Type material. Philippines. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2055), Sta. DR137 (12°03´S, 122°06´E), rectangular dredge, 56 m (52 m in label), 6 Jun. 1985. Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, progressively smaller posteriorly, with a white basal spot; anterior prostomial area blackish; anterior eyes 5–6× larger than posterior ones; dorsum pale; notochaetae furcates; neurochaetae furcates. Description. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2055) complete, some notochaetae broken, many dorsal cirri lost; body fusiform, truncate anteriorly (Fig. 57A), slightly bent ventrally, tapered posteriorly, 9 mm long, 3 mm wide, 20 chaetigers. Holotype pale; dorsum pale; branchiae pale with a white basal spot; caruncle pale, dorsal cirri pale; chaetae transparent. Venter pale, with a whitish longitudinal midventral band. Prostomium anteriorly entire; anterior prostomial area blackish, barely separated into two lateral spots (Fig. 57B, C). Eyes reddish, anterior eyes 5–6× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, twisted, as long as caruncle, about 3× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases separate from each other, slightly longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetigers 2–3. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle pale, bent laterally, trilobed, reaching chaetiger 3. Median ridge plicate, with about 26 vertical folds, concealing right lateral lobe. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 24 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, continued throughout body, parallel throughout dorsum, progressively larger to chaetiger 7, progressively smaller posteriorly. In median segments, branchiae with 7–8 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–4, progressively smaller than dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri about as long as bipinnate branchiae along median segments, slightly longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores slightly larger and cirrostyles about 2× longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as one subsequent segment. Chaetae variably broken, especially notochaetae, most neurochaetae complete. Complete chaetae with distal fragile hoods, often projected distally. Notochaetae furcates, major tines 3–4× longer than minor ones in anterior (Fig. 57D), and median chaetigers (Fig. 57F); harpoon-chaetae not seen. Neurochaetae furcates, major tines 3× longer than minor ones in anterior chaetigers (Fig. 57E), 3–5× longer in median chaetigers (Fig. 57G). Posterior end tapered (Fig. 57H); pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri pale, ovoid, tapered, 2–3 longer than wide. Live pigmentation. Unknown. Etymology. The specific epithet is after Dr. Zhi (Albert) Wang, formerly in the Hong Kong Baptist University, and now in the State Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science, College of Ocean and Earth Sciences, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China, in recognition of his publications on polychaetes and especially after his joint publication of the last Western Pacific species of Chloeia. The derived name is a noun in the genitive case (ICZN 1999, Art. 31.1.2). Remarks. Chloeia wangi sp. n. is being described with a juvenile collected subtidally in The Philippines; it belongs in the group longisetosa because there is no dorsal pigmentation pattern, and its bipinnate branchiae start in chaetiger 5. Further, because harpoon notochaetae are rare in median segments, it resembles C. inermis de Quatrefages, 1866, redescribed above from New Zealand. These two species differ regarding the size of its median antenna to caruncle, the basal pigmentation of bipinnate branchial stems, and type of notochaetae. Thus, in C. wangi the median antenna is as long as caruncle, branchial stems have a basal white spot, and notochaetae are furcates with major tines 3–4× longer than minor ones, whereas C. inermis has median antenna shorter than caruncle, branchial stems without basal spots, and notochaetae are spurred or aciculars. Distribution. The Philippines, in sediments at 56 m water depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 119-120, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)","De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818"]}

Chloeia gesae sp. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: FD6C0A4E-4602-4B34-90EF-D4FC45687D91 Fig. 27 Chloeia viridis: Hartmann-Schr ̂der 1977: 66; Hartmann-Schr̂der 1979: 67–68; Hartmann-Schr̂der 1982: 2 (non Schmarda, 1861). Chloeia candida: Alós & Núñez 2012: 53–54, Fig. 17 (non Kinberg, 1857). Type material. Northeastern Atlantic. Holotype (ZMH P30428), and four paratypes (ZMH P30429), off Portugal, FS Meteor, Sta. 11 (37°41.5´N, 09°11.9´W), 500 m, 20 Jan. 1967, H. Thiel, coll. Additional material. Northeastern Atlantic. Six specimens (ZMH P17294), off Morocco, FS Meteor, Sta. 82b (31°35.0´N, 10°10.5´W), 360–375 m, 19 Jun. 1967, H. Thiel, coll. (complete, pinkish, some stiff others soft, some with white irregular spots; three bent ventrally, variably damaged, most notochaetae and cirri lost; three with pharynx partially exposed; median antenna 4/5 as long, or as long as caruncle; branchiae from chaetiger 4; one specimen with complete ventral cirri in chaetiger 2, 3× longer than adjacent ones; anal cirri 4–8× longer than wide; body 35–61 mm long, 8–10 mm wide, 30–34 chaetigers). One specimen (ZMH P17296), off Portugal, FS Meteor, Sta. 90a (37°22.8´N, 09°00.7´W), 150–170 m, 22 Jun. 1967, H. Thiel, coll. (complete, bent ventrally, most cirri and notochaetae lost, chaetae soft; middorsal area pale, parapodia brownish, interramal areas darker, reddish; venter brownish along median and posterior regions, midventral band pale; body 45 mm long, 10 mm wide, 30 chaetigers). Four specimens (ZMH P13713), off Morocco, FS Meteor, Sta. 25 (33°13.6´N, 09°15.2´W), 500 m, 30–31 Ene. 1967, H. Thiel, coll. (juveniles, pinkish; variably damaged, most notochaetae and cirri lost; eyes minute, anterior ones 2× larger than posterior ones; branchiae from chaetiger 4; body 17–19 mm long, 5 mm wide, 29–30 chaetigers). One specimen (ZMH P17295), Josephine Bank, FS Meteor, Sta. 132 (36°40.2´N, 14°17.5´W), 235–240 m, 4 Jul. 1967, H. Thiel, coll. (complete, colorless, many notochaetae broken; cirri lost; two median parapodia previously removed; body 14 mm long, 5.5 mm wide, 27 chaetigers). Six specimens (ZMH P17380), off Portugal, FS Meteor, Sta. 90d (37°21.5´N, 09°12.5´W), 320–385 m, 22 Jun. 1967, H. Thiel, coll. (complete, pinkish, bent ventrally, three with pharynx partially exposed; median antenna 4/5 as long as caruncle; eyes faded off, at least posterior ones; branchiae from chaetiger 4; anal cirri 3–8× longer than wide; body 38–46 mm long, 9–12 mm wide, 30–31 chaetigers). Two specimens (ZMH P17704), off Morocco, FS Meteor, Sta. 122, KD 173 (33º17.2´N, 08º34.5´W), 65 m, 10 Mar. 1975, H. Thiel, coll. (pinkish, slightly damaged, some cirri lost; slightly dried-out, bent ventrally, one with pharynx partially exposed; posterior eyes faded off; median antenna as long as caruncle; branchiae from chaetiger 4; ventral cirri as long as two subsequent chaetigers; body 28–29 mm long, 7–8 mm wide, 31–32 chaetigers). Eight specimens (ZMH P17707), off Western Sahara, FS Meteor, Sta. 96, ES 145 (25º30.2´N, 16º00.7´W), 409-417 m, 23 Feb. 1975, H. Thiel, coll. (juveniles, pinkish, 7 bent ventrally, one with pharynx slightly exposed; slightly damaged, notochaetae and cirri lost; some with anterior eyes or all eyes faded off; median antenna about as long as caruncle; caruncle reach chaetiger 4–6; branchiae from chaetiger 4; body 18–24 mm long, 4.5–5.8 mm wide, 29–30 chaetigers). Eight specimens (ZMH P17708), off Western Sahara, FS Meteor, Sta. 96, ES 145 (25º25.7´N, 15º56.8´W), 212-217 m, 22 Feb. 1975, H. Thiel, coll. (juveniles, almost colorless; most cirri lost; eyes faded off in most specimens, others with minute eyes, anterior ones 2 larger than posterior ones; bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4; body 13–25 mm long, 3.0– 5.5 mm wide, 24–30 chaetigers). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly, each with 8–9 blunt lateral branches; body tapered posteriorly; dorsum without spots; notochaetae aciculars and harpoon-chaetae without spurs; neurochaetae spurred. Description. Holotype (ZMH P30428), complete, straight, fusiform, most dorsal and ventral cirri lost (Fig. 27A); body 37 mm long, 10 mm wide, 33 chaetigers. Holotype pinkish, median segments with diffuse transverse banding, grayish anteriorly, darker medially, pinkish posteriorly (Fig. 27D); parapodia pale; dorsal cirri and branchiae pale. Chaetae golden to transparent. Venter pinkish, midventral band wide, paler. Prostomium anteriorly entire, colorless. Eyes reddish, anterior eyes 4× larger than posterior brownish ones (Fig. 27C). Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, ¾ as long as caruncle, 2× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases separate from each other, 2× longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle pale, trilobed, tapered, tip bent dorsally, reaching chaetiger 4. Median ridge plicate, colorless, with about 12 vertical folds, partially concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 14 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, continued throughout body, parallel along anterior and median segments, convergent along posterior chaetigers; progressively larger to chaetiger 15–16, smaller posteriorly. Median segments with 8–9 lateral blunt branches (Fig. 27D). Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3 lost; size relationship to dorsal cirri unknown. Dorsal cirri as long as bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, 2× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 2× longer and wider than adjacent ones, directed dorsally; cirrostyles lost. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as one subsequent segment. Chaetae most complete with hoods, rarely eroded. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers aciculars and furcates, major tines 3× longer than minor ones (Fig. 27E). Median chaetigers with two types of notochaetae: aciculars, and harpoon-chaetae with denticles partially dissolved (Fig. 27G). Neurochaetae all spurred, major tines 9–11× longer than minor ones in anterior chaetigers (Fig. 27F); median chaetigers with thick spurred neurochaetae (Fig. 27H), longer tines 15—28× longer than spurs, and capillary neurochaetae. Posterior region tapered (Fig. 27I); pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri bent ventrally, pale, tapered, 2–3× longer than wide. Live pigmentation. Unknown; the original description was 10 years after its collection and it was described as pinkish, as currently retained. Variation. Paratypes (ZMH P30429) complete, pinkish, bent ventrally, two with pharynx partially exposed, one with anterodorsal body wall fracture exposing gut; body 34–42 mm long, 7–10 mm wide, 31–34 chaetigers. Median antenna 4/5 as long as caruncle. Cirriform branchiae retained in two paratypes, in chaetigers 1–3. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4. Second ventral cirri cirrostyles 2× longer than adjacent ones. Anal cirri bent ventrally, pale, tapered, 4–5× longer than wide. One of the specimens (ZMH P17296) shows a different pigmentation pattern, by having pale middorsal areas, brownish parapodia and interramal areas reddish but its notochaetae are mostly lost, and neurochaetae are soft; it is herein regarded as conspecific after the tapered body shape and branchial development, pending the study of better preserved specimens. Etymology. The specific epithet is after Dr. Gesa Hartmann-Schr̂der, a distinguished and extremely productive German polychaetologist (Moore 2022), in recognition of her many publications on polychaete taxonomy, including the series of papers on the Meteor Expeditions along the Atlantic Ocean. The derived name is a noun in the genitive case (ICZN 1999, Art. 31.1.2). Remarks. Chloeia gesae sp. n. is described with specimens from several localities along the Northeastern Atlantic; the species is included in the group tumida because it has bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, decreasing in size posteriorly, and without dorsal pigmentation pattern. As indicated above, it resembles C. fiegei sp. n., described with specimens from a single locality in the Red Sea; these two species have a fusiform body, and their bipinnate branchiae have 8–9 lateral branches. The main differences between these species are the pigmentation of the anterior prostomial area and dorsum, the tips of branchial branches, and type of harpoon chaetae. Thus, C. gesae has a pale anterior prostomial area, pinkish body wall, blunt branchial tips, and harpoon chaetae without tines. On the contrary, C. fiegei has a blackish anterior prostomial area, whitish body wall, tapered branchial branches, and harpoon chaetae have distinctive smooth tines. One specimen (ZMH P17296) has been included with hesitation because it has some pigmented areas along body, but most notochaetae and cephalic and parapodial cirri are lost. The specimen is from shallower water than most other specimens, but its recognition as a different species must rely on better preserved specimens. The record of C. candida by Alós & Núñez (2012) is after Hartmann-Schr̂der (1977: 66) for Portugal. However, dorsal banding was not indicated by Hartmann-Schr̂der (1977), which would confirm its affinity with other West African, shallow-water records of C. viridis. Distribution. Portugal to off Northwestern Africa, in sediments at 150–500 m water depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 60-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Schmarda, L. K. (1861) Neue Wirbellose Thiere: Beobachted und Gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erdr 1853 bis 1857. In Turbellarien, Rotatorien und Anneliden. Erster Band, Zweite Halfte. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann. Leipzig. [unknown pagination]","Kinberg, J. G. H. (1857) Nya slagten och arter af Annelider. Ofversigt af Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens F ˆ rhandlingar, Stockholm, 14 (1), 11 - 14.","Moore, J. (2022) Obituary of Dr. habil. Gesa Hartmann-Schr ˆ der. Available from: https: // leibniz-lib. de / en / 2022 - 07 - 08 - obituary-hartmann-schroeder / (accessed 30 July 2022)","ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)"]}

Chloeia amoureuxi sp. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 127E69C7-CE39-480B-9CF1-23C188D34804 Figs 7, 8 Chloeia fusca: Bhaud 1972: 205–208, Figs 2, 3; Amoureux 1977: 1096 (collection data), 1103 (no further details) (non M’Intosh, 1885). Chloeia longisetosa: Amoureux 1977: 1095 (collection data) (non Potts, 1909). Type material. Indian Ocean, Madagascar. Holotype (MMSUCO Amp 2), near Tulear, unnumb. sta. (23°23´S, 43°36.5´E), 175 m, 20 Feb. 1973, A. Crosnier & C. Jouannic, coll. Additional material. Indian Ocean, Madagascar. One specimen (MNHN 860.1), off Nosy-Bé, Sta. 1(12°52´00″ S, 48°10´03″ E), 420–428 m, 4 Mar. 1971, A. Crosnier, coll. (data used below for epitoke). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller towards posterior region; middorsal spots expanded medially; harpoon notochaetae without spurs; neurochaetae spurred and furcates. Description. Holotype (MMSUCO Amp 2), with anterior end distorted by compression in small container (Fig. 7A); body fusiform, 60 mm long, 11 mm wide, 36 chaetigers. Body cream, middorsal spots reddish, wide irregular bands, in median segments anteriorly thinner, expanded posteriorly, laterally reaching branchial bases (Fig. 7C); branchial stems pale, margins and branches brownish; dorsal cirri dark purple; chaetae transparent to yellowish. Venter cream, midventral band thin, paler. Prostomium anteriorly entire, anterior area brownish. Eyes blackish, anterior eyes 2–3× larger than posterior ones (Fig. 7B). Antennae and palps dark purple, at least basally. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, 1/3 as long as caruncle, 2× larger than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases close to each other, slightly larger than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2/3. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle pale, straight, trilobed, tapered, reaching chaetiger 4. Median ridge pale, plicate, with about 38 vertical folds, partially concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 36 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, continued throughout body, alignment: parallel or convergent; progressively larger to chaetigers 15–16, smaller posteriorly. In median segments each branchia with 10–11 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3, most lost, 1/3 as long as dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri slightly longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, 2–3× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 4× longer and 3× wider, and cirrostyle 6× longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as one subsequent segment. Chaetae most complete with distal fragile hoods, rarely eroded. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers furcates, major tines 3–7× longer than minor ones (Fig. 7D). Median chaetigers with one type of notochaetae: harpoon-chaetae without spurs, core brownish, as long as denticulate tip (Fig. 7E). Neurochaetae all furcates, major tines 3–7× longer than minor ones (Fig. 7F), 6—12× longer in median chaetigers (Fig. 7G). Posterior region tapered; pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri cream, digitate, 4–5× longer than wide (Fig. 7H). Epitoke. One specimen (MNHN 860.1) is regarded as a pre-natatory epitoke, and conspecific with this species. Body wall delicate; body slightly bent laterally, 25 mm long, 6 mm wide, 28 chaetigers. Dorsum irregularly brownish, no banding distinct (Fig. 8A). Dorsal cirri dark purple. Branchiae pale. Caruncle brownish, median ridge dark purple. Chaetae yellowish to transparent. Venter cream, midventral band wide, paler. Prostomium anteriorly entire; anterior prostomial area swollen, blackish (Fig. 8B, C). Eyes blackish, anterior eyes oval, 8–10× larger than posterior round ones. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, convoluted, without tip, 1/3 as long as caruncle, about 2× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases separate from each other, slightly longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle darker than surrounding areas, sigmoid, trilobed, tapered, reaching chaetiger 4. Median ridge plicate, blackish, with about 27 vertical folds, partially concealing lateral lobes (Fig. 8C). Lateral lobes narrow, with about 26 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, left one detaching, right one lost, parallel throughout body, progressively larger to chaetiger 7–8, smaller posteriorly. Median segments with 7–8 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3, lost on right side, progressively shorter, about as long as dorsal cirri in chaetiger 1. Dorsal cirri convolute, slightly longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, 2–3× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 2× longer and wider than adjacent ones, cirrostyles lost, directed dorsally. Most other ventral cirri lost, directed ventrolaterally, as long as one subsequent segment. Chaetae most complete with hoods, rarely eroded. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers furcates, major tines 3–5× longer than minor ones. Median chaetigers with two types of notochaetae: furcates with major tines 3–4× longer than minor ones, and harpoon–chaetae with basal tines, denticulate tines 3–5× longer than smooth ones. Median chaetigers with furcate neurochaetae, major tines longer than in anterior chaetigers, up to 16× longer than minor tines. Posterior notopodia with abundant capillaries, and harpoon-chaetae with denticulate tines 4× longer than smooth ones, but both tines very thin. Posterior neurochaetae with abundant capillaries and furcates, major tines 10–20× longer than minor ones. Posterior region tapered with very long chaetae (Fig. 8D); anus terminal; anal cirri brownish, digitate, 3–4× longer than wide. Live pigmentation. A living specimen has a salmon background with the amphora-like middorsal spot with pigmentation more intense form the middle to the posterior margin in each segment, and a brownish band running along the anterior parapodial surface (Rendive 2010). Etymology. This species is being named after Dr. Louis Amoureux, from the Université Catholique de l’Ouest, Angers, France, in recognition of his many publications on taxonomy of polychaetes, and because he studied the type material. The specific epithet is a noun in the genitive case (ICZN 1999, Art. 31.1.2). Remarks. Chloeia amoureuxi sp. n. is described with specimens from Madagascar; it belongs in the group viridis, including those species having bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly, and with a complex pigmentation pattern. Thus, C. amoureuxi resembles those species having middorsal bands expanded medially or posteriorly, often decreasing towards anterior segmental margin such as C. gilleti sp. n. from Western Africa and C. violacea Horst, 1910 from Indonesia. However, C. amoureuxi differs from the latter two species because it has middorsal spots expanded medially, not as inverted Ts, whereas the two other species have middorsal spots as inverted T per segment. The specimen regarded as epitoke (MNHN 860.1) is half as long as the holotype; it shows both epitokal features indicated above: increasing the relative size of anterior eyes, and the abundance of capillary chaetae, or their equivalent in neuropodia, because the simple capillaries might correspond with aciculars in the notopodium, whereas in the neuropodium there are also very long, thin furcates, with a very small, but visible, minor tine. The body wall was damaged, as some other soft features such as dorsal or ventral cirri, and no further dissection was attempted. This might correspond with a pre-natatory epitoke because it was dredged in Madagascar, not caught with light traps. On the other hand, the harpoon notochaetae have accessory tines, unlike those present in the holotype where no accessory tines were noted, and the difference is regarded as size dependent, with larger specimens having reduced or no-accessory tines. Distribution. Madagascar, in sediments at 175–428 m water depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 20-23, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Bhaud, M. (1972) Identification des larves d'Amphinomidae (annelides polychetes) recueillies de Nosy-Be (Madagascar) et problemes biologiques connexes. Cahiers ORSTOM, Serie Oceanographie, 10 (2), 203 - 216. [https: // horizon. documentation. ird. fr / exl-doc / pleins _ textes / cahiers / oceanographie / 19633. pdf]","Amoureux, L. (1977) Annelides polychetes profondes de Madagascar. Description de deux nouvelles especes (collections Crosnier et Jouannie). Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 3 e Serie, Zoologie, 344 (495), 1093 - 1108.","M'Intosh, W. C. (1885) Report on the Annelida Polychaeta collected by H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873 - 1876. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873 - 76. Zoology, 12 (34), i - xxxvi + 1 - 554, pl. 1 - 55, 1 A - 39 A, & Annelida stations map.","Potts, F. A. (1909) The Percy Sladen Trust Expediton to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner, 20. Polychaeta of the Indian Ocean, Part 1. The Amphinomidae. The Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Series 2 Zoology, 12 (4), 355 - 371, pls. 45 - 46. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1909. tb 00147. x","Rendive (2010) Chloeia flava. wmv. YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = hstJFjQizec (accessed 14 July 2022)","ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)","Horst, R. (1910) On the genus Chloeia with some new species from the Malay Archipelago, partly collected by the Siboga-Expedition. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 32, 169 - 175."]}

Chloeia venusta de Quatrefages, 1866 Figs 53, 54 Chloeia venusta de Quatrefages, 1866: 391; Baird 1868: 232; von Marenzeller 1893: 26–28, Pl. 1, Fig. 1; Fauvel 1913: 32; Fauvel 1914: 90; Rioja 1918: 26–27, Fig. 6; Fauvel 1923: 134, Fig. 48d–h; Fauvel 1936: 18–19; Fauvel 1950: 347; Guy 1964: 178–180, Figs 4, 6; Hartman 1959: 132; Amoureux 1972: 71; Amoureux 1973a: 51; Amoureux 1973b: 435 (Sta. W418); Intes & le Loeuff 1975: 290; Kirkegaard 2001: 394; Solís-Weiss et al. 2004: S2; Barroso & Paiva 2011: 422, Tab. 1; Alós & Núñez 2012: 51–53, Fig. 16. Chloeia fucata: McIntosh 1876: 395–396, Pl. 71, Fig. 2 (non de Quatrefages, 1866). Chloeia modesta: Fauvel 1936: 19 (non Ehlers, 1887). Chloeia sp.: Wirtz 2020 (unnumbered pages or figures). Type material. Mediterranean Sea, Italy, Sicily, Palermo. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 99. Additional material. Mediterranean Sea, Algeria. One specimen (MNHN A54.1), 1868, no further data (middorsal band visible along a few anterior chaetigers; most notochaetae lost; body 30 mm long, 5 mm wide, 27 chaetigers). One specimen (MNHN A54.2), 1902, M. Pollany, coll., no further data (details in variation). Seven specimens (BMNH 1921.5.1.12–13), Porcupine Expedition (specimens apparently combined after the depth in label; not matching publication data), 81–288 m, M. Carpenter, coll. (almost completely dried-out, stiff; some with reddish marks, others with a longitudinal dark middorsal band; body 12–35 mm long, 3–6 mm wide, 29–30 chaetigers). Northeastern Atlantic. Seine Seamount. Two specimens (SMF 16746), RV Meteor, Sta. 758 60/ 1, 186 m, 4 Dec. 2003 (juveniles; some notochaetae broken; middorsal band visible along body; body bent ventrally, 9–12 mm long, 3.5–4.o mm wide, 22–24 chaetigers). One specimen (SMF 16748), RV Meteor, Sta. 756b MUC 8/ 2, 178 m, 4 Dec. 2003 (early juvenile, colorless; pharynx partially exposed; body bent ventrally, 6 mm long, 2 mm wide, 17 chaetigers). Morocco. One specimen (MNHN A397.1), no depth or date data, Dolfus, coll. (bent ventrally; middorsal band visible; dorsal cirri dark purple 2–3× longer than branchiae; branchiae pale; body 22 mm long, 6 mm wide, 25 chaetigers). One specimen (MNHN A438.1), Sta. 10 (29°54´N, 09°58´W), 110 m, 5 Jul. 1923 (middorsal band barely visible along posterior chaetigers; dorsal cirri and branchiae pale; body 25 mm long, 7 mm wide, 29 chaetigers). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly; anterior prostomial area pale; middorsal band regular; caruncle pale; notochaetae acicular and harpoon chaetae without spurs; neurochaetae spurred and furcates. Description. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 99) complete, markedly bent ventrally (Fig. 53A); body fusiform, 17 mm long, 5 mm wide, 26 chaetigers. Holotype pale, chaetae colorless, almost transparent; blackish middorsal line visible along chaetigers 3–7 (Fig. 53B); branchiae and dorsal cirri pale. Venter pale, a wide paler midventral band visible from chaetiger 6, continued to far posterior segments. Prostomium anteriorly entire. Eyes minute, blackish, anterior eyes slightly larger than posterior ones. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, without tip, slightly shorter than caruncle (Fig. 53C), 2× longer lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases separated (size variable?), slightly longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle pale, sigmoid, trilobed, tapered, slightly surpassing chaetiger 4. Median ridge plicate, with about 25 vertical folds, partially concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 15 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, not contracted, continued throughout body, parallel along most body segments; progressively larger to chaetiger 10, decreasing slightly posteriorly. Median segments with 7–8 lateral branches, each with a few secondary filaments. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3, shorter than dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, 2× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 2× longer and 3× wider, and cirrostyle 2.0–2.5× longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as two subsequent segments. Chaetae most broken or with broken tips. Complete chaetae with distal fragile hoods, mostly eroded. Anterior notochaetae not removed for avoiding further damage. Median chaetigers with two types of notochaetae: furcates with tapered tines (Fig. 53D), major tines 4–6× longer than minor ones, and smooth aciculars (Fig. 53E); harpoon chaetae lost. Neurochaetae all furcates (Fig. 53F), major tines 2.5× longer than minor ones. Posterior end tapered; pygidum with anus terminal; anal cirri pale, tapered, corrugated, bent ventrally (Fig. 53A), 6× longer than wide. Live pigmentation (after Le Bris & M̧ller 2019). Middorsal band reddish, with two adjacent oblique oval white areas per segment, continued throughout body; branchiae pale orange; caruncular median ridge and dorsal cirri dark purple, almost blackish; cirriform branchiae with dark tips. Variation. A slightly larger specimen (MNHN A54.2; 26 mm long, 7.5 mm wide, 28 chaetigers), is bent ventrally; middorsal band reddish (Fig. 54A), continued throughout body; dorsal cirri purplish, paler basally; anterior eyes 2× larger than posterior ones (Fig. 54B); caruncle pale, with median ridge brownish; branchiae from chaetiger 4, pale. Middorsal band slightly wider anteriorly (Fig. 54C). Anterior notochaetae mostly furcates (Fig. 54D), major tines 3–4× longer than minor ones, smaller notochaetae acicular; median chaetigers notochaetae include harpoonchaetae without basal spurs, and aciculars (Fig. 54F); neurochaetae spurred in anterior chaetigers (Fig. 54E), major tine 11—20× longer than spur; in median chaetigers with capillary furcate neurochaetae (Fig. 54G), major tine 5—8× longer than spur. Anal cirri with tips pinkish (Fig. 54H), tapered, 7–8× longer than wide. Remarks. Chloeia venusta de Quatrefages, 1866 was described from the Mediterranean Sea; it belongs in the group venusta by the presence of a middorsal regular band, continuous along each segment, and bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly. Further, after the presence of furcate notochaetae in anterior chaetigers, and harpoon notochaetae in median chaetigers, it resembles C. poupini sp. n., described above from the French Polynesia. These two species differ, however, after the pigmentation of the anterior prostomial area, and furcate neurochaetae. In C. venusta the anterior prostomial area is pale, and its neurochaetae have major tines 2× longer than minor ones, whereas in C. poupini the anterior prostomial area is blackish, and the neurochaetae have major tines 5–6× longer than minor ones. De Quatrefages (1866: 391) found the holotype beautiful, and hence the name (Latin venustus, -a, -um: beautiful, graceful, elegant, charming). The pigmentation pattern was not indicated, but the median antennae was as long as the caruncle, the branchiae were regarded as large, and chaetae were described as smooth. M’Intosh (1876: 395) used C. fucata de Quatrefages, 1866, with hesitation since this species was described from Oman, for his specimens from the Mediterranean and Northeastern Atlantic, but his specimens match C. venusta instead, although it would be interesting to study some deeper water specimens. He noted “some have a brownish median line on the dorsum, and a band of the same hue at the anterior part of each segment” (M’Intosh 1876: 396), and these features match C. venusta instead, although the middorsal purple line turns brownish in preserved specimens. Chloeia fucata de Quatrefages, 1866, described from Muscat, Oman, and C. venusta are herein regarded as distinct (see above). M’Intosh (1876) hesitation probably led Horst (1910), Fauvel (1914, 1923), and Hartman (1959: 131) to regard these two species as synonyms. On the other hand, Guy (1964) indicated some differences in chaetal tips between the Mediterranean and tropical West African specimens; the latter with notochaetae aciculars with tips slightly bent, against being straight, and neurochaetae with tapered tines, against being subcylindrical as illustrated by Fauvel (1923:135), or Alós & Núñez (2012: 52). The holotype has a few complete chaetae, and Fauvel’s figure, redrawn from Rioja (1918: 27, Fig. 6b), shows very thick, cylindrical tines, which might be explained because they were free-hand drawings. Distribution. Mediterranean Sea and Northeastern Atlantic localities including Maroc, in subtidal environments to 288 m water depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 113-115, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818","Baird, W. (1868) Contributions towards a monograph of the species of annelides belonging to the Amphinomacea, with a list of the known species, and a description of several new species (belonging to the group) contained in the National Collection of the British Museum. To which is appended a short account of two hitherto nondescript annulose animals of a larval character. The Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 10 (44), 215 - 250, pls. 4 - 6. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1868. tb 02233. x","von Marenzeller, E. (1893) Berichte der Commission f ¸ r Erforschung des Ostlichen Mittelmeeres, 6. Zoologische Ergebnisse, 2. Polychaten des Grundes, gesammelt 1890, 1891 und 1892. Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch- Naturwissenschftliche Classe, 60, 25 - 48, pls. 1 - 4.","Fauvel, P. (1913) Quatrieme note preliminaire sur les polychetes provenant des campagnes de l' Hirondelle et de la PrincesseAlice, ou deposees dans le Musee Oceanographique de Monaco. Bulletin de l'Institut Oceanographique, 270, 1 - 80.","Fauvel, P. (1914) Annelides polychetes non pelagiques provenant des campagnes de l' Hirondelle et de la Princesse-Alice (1885 - 1910). Resultats des Campagnes Scientifiques accomplies sur son Yacht par Albert 1 er, Prince Souverain de Monaco, 46, 1 - 432, pls. 1 - 31.","Rioja, E. (1918) Datos para el conocimiento de la fauna de anelidos poliquetos del Cantabrico (segunda parte). Trabajos del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Serie Zoologica, 37, 1 - 99.","Fauvel, P. (1923) Polychetes errantes. Faune de France, 5, 1 - 488.","Fauvel, P. (1936) Contribution a la faune des annelides polychetes du Maroc. Memoires de la Societe des Sciences Naturelles du Maroc, 43, 1 - 143.","Fauvel, P. (1950) Contribution a la faune des annelides polychetes du Senegal. Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d'Afrique Noire, Serie A, 12 (2), 335 - 394.","Guy, A. (1964) Contribution a l'etude des annelides polychetes de la Cote d'Ivoire. Recueil des Travaux de la Station Marine d'Endoume, Serie Bulletin, 34 (50), 167 - 210.","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Amoureux, L. (1972) Annelides polychetes recueillies sur les pentes du talus continental au large de la Galice (Espagne). Campagnes 1967 et 1968 de la \" Thalassa \". Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 13, 63 - 89.","Amoureux, L. (1973 a) Quelques annelides polychetes de l'Afrique occidental et equatoriale. Cahiers ORSTOM, Serie Oceanographie, 11, 41 - 65.","Amoureux, L. (1973 b) Annelides polychetes recueillis sur les pentes du talus continental au nord de la cote espagnole. Campagne 1970 de la \" Thalassa \". Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 14, 429 - 452.","Intes, A. & le Loeuff, P. (1975) Les annelides polychetes de Cote d'Ivoire, 1. Polychetes errantes - Compte rendu systematique. Cahiers ORSTOM, serie Oceanographie, 13, 267 - 321.","Kirkegaard, J. B. (2001) Deep-sea polychaetes from north-west Africa, including a description of a new species of Neopolynoe (Polynoidae). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 81, 391 - 397. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0025315401004003","Solis-Weiss, V., Bertrand, Y., Helleouet, M. - N. & Pleijel, F. (2004) Types of polychaetous annelids at the Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris. Zoosystema, 26, 377 - 384, Supplement 21 pp.","Barroso, R. & Paiva, P. C. (2011) A new deep-sea species of Chloeia (Polychaeta: Amphinomidae) from southern Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 91 (2), 419 - 423. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0025315410001499","Ehlers, E. (1887) Reports on the results of dredging, under the direction of L. F. Pourtales, during the years 1868 - 1870, and of Alexander Agassiz, in the Gulf of Mexico (1877 - 78), and in the Caribbean Sea (1878 - 79), in the U. S. Coast Survey steamer \" Blake \", Lieut-Com. C. D. Sigsbee, U. S. N. and Commander J. R. Bartlett, U. S. N., commanding. XXXI. Report on the Annelids. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 15, i - vi + 1 - 335. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 65639","Wirtz, P. (2020) A pictorial catalogue of some shallow water Amphinomidae of Madeira. Conference, 2020, 1 - 7 unnumbered pp. https: // doi. org / 10.13140 / RG. 2.2.19641.80485","M'Intosh, W. C. (1876) On the Annelida of the ' Porcupine' expeditions of 1869 and 1870. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 9, 395 - 416, pls. 71 - 73.","Horst, R. (1910) On the genus Chloeia with some new species from the Malay Archipelago, partly collected by the Siboga-Expedition. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 32, 169 - 175."]}

Chloeia slapcinskyi sp. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 89C0D1D1-4A1D-43F5-B1FA-D1036C5E8C08 Fig. 51 Type material. The Philippines. Holotype (UF 4353), Oriental Mindoro Province, Mindoro, Puerto Galera, Batangas Channel, "School Beach" (13.51688, 120.95983; 13°31´00.768″ N, 120°57´35.388″ E), 7–14 m, lagoon sand slope with sponges, 8 Apr. 2015, G. Paulay, coll. Two paratypes (UF 4296), Luzon Island, Calatagan, off Lago de Oro Hotel, night dive house reef, the Deep Blue (13.91763, 120.6039; 13°55´03.468″ N, 120°36´14.04″ E), 8–12 m, sand flat and patch reef, 17 May 2014, G. Paulay & D. Uyeno, coll. (one complete, the other without posterior end; data in variation). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, decreasing in size posteriorly; middorsal bands short, not running along full segment; anterior eyes 4× larger than posterior ones; caruncle tapered with about 20 vertical folds; notochaetae furcates and harpoon chaetae with short tines; neurochaetae furcates with blunt tips. Description. Holotype (UF 4353) complete, bent dorsally, left parapodia of chaetigers 11–14 removed for molecular analysis; body fusiform, 18 mm long, 3 mm wide, 23 chaetigers. Holotype pale, chaetae transparent to yellowish, with darker subdistal areas; dorsal cirri dark purple; branchiae pale (Fig. 51A). Venter pale, midventral band wide, pale. Prostomium anteriorly entire; anterior prostomial area blackish. Eyes brownish, anterior eyes 4× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, slightly longer than caruncle, 4× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases separated from each other, slightly longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2. Pharynx partially exposed; basal rings pale, smooth, central paired lobes greenish (Fig. 51B). Caruncle pale, sigmoid, trilobed, tapered, reaching chaetiger 5. Median ridge plicate, colorless, with about 20 vertical folds, partially concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 18 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, parallel throughout body, progressively larger to chaetiger 11–12, about as long as 1.3 succesive segment, progressively smaller thereafter. Branchiae in median segments with 7–8 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–4, 1/3–1/4 as long as dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri slightly longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, 2–3× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri 2× longer than adjacent ones, as long as one subsequent segment medially and posteriorly. Chaetae soft, most complete, distal hoods rarely eroded; noto- and neurochaetae of similar thickness. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers furcates, some with golden major tines, major tines 3–4× longer than minor ones (Fig. 50C). Median chaetigers with three types of notochaetae (Fig. 51E): typical furcates with major tines usually 3–4× longer than minor ones, epitokal furcates with major tines about 12× longer than minor ones, and harpoon chaetae with denticulate tines 4–10× longer than smooth ones. Neurochaetae all furcates, anterior chaetigers with major tines 4–5× longer than minor ones (Fig. 51D); median chaetigers with major tines 4–6× longer than minor ones (Fig. 51F). Posterior region tapered (Fig. 51G); pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri pale, digitate, blunt, distorted, 3× longer than wide. Etymology. This species is being named after Dr. John D. Slapcinsky, Malacology Collections Manager, in the University of Florida Natural History Museum, in recognition of his sampling efforts and support for my research activities. The specific epithet is a noun in the genitive case (ICZN 1999, Art. 31.1.2). Variation. Paratypes (UF 4296) with many chaetae yellowish, a few colorless or reddish, especially along anterior region, most about as long as body width; dorsal cirri with cirrophores reddish; eyes red, anterior eyes 4× larger than posterior ones; median antenna longer than caruncle complete 21 mm long, 5 mm wide, 25 chaetigers. Living pigmentation. Unknown, chaetae might have a more intense pigmentation with some banding of red and green, barely visible in early observations of the same specimens. Remarks. Chloeia slapcinskyi sp. n. is described from The Philippines; by having bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, and lacking dorsal pigmentation pattern, it belongs in the group longisetosa, together with C. longisetosa Potts, 1909, described from the Maldive Islands, and C. wangi sp. n., described below from The Philippine Islands. Because of the presence of harpoon notochaetae, C. slapcinskyi resembles C. longisetosa. However, they differ in three main features: the size of median antenna to caruncle, chaetae to body width, and branchiae. Thus, C. slapcinskyi has its median antenna as long as, or longer than caruncle, its chaetae are as long as body width, and branchiae are as long as two successive segments, whereas in C. longisetosa the median antenna is shorter than caruncle, its chaetae are markedly longer than body width, and its branchiae are as long as one successive segment. Distribution. The Philippines, in sediments at 7–14 m water depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 109-110, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)","Potts, F. A. (1909) The Percy Sladen Trust Expediton to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner, 20. Polychaeta of the Indian Ocean, Part 1. The Amphinomidae. The Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Series 2 Zoology, 12 (4), 355 - 371, pls. 45 - 46. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1909. tb 00147. x"]}

Chloeia fusca M’Intosh, 1885 restricted Figs 4, 22–26 Chloeia fusca M’Intosh, 1885: 14–15, Pl. 2, Figs 1, 2, Pl 1A, Figs 14, 15, Pl. 2A, Figs 1,2; Horst 1912: 22–24, Pl. 7, Fig. 7; Hartman 1959: 131. Chloeia flava: Treadwell 1906: 1164; Hartman 1966: 178–179; Bailey-Brock & Hartman 1987: 245 (non (Pallas, 1766)). Type material. Indonesia, Banda Sea, Banda Islands. Holotype (BMNH 1885.12.1.9), H.M.S. Challenger, unnumb. station, depth not indicated (in M’Intosh 1885: XXV; Admiralty Islands, Papua New Guinea but this is wrong, 36–54 m; after Tizard et al. 1885: 569), 1 Oct. 1874 (during these days, some people remained in Neira Island, whereas the ship was sent to Ceram trying to help another ship in trouble). Additional material. Indonesia, Banda Sea, Banda Islands. Six specimens (RMNH 1245), Maluku, RV Siboga Exped., Sta. 240 (Banda anchorage), 9–45 m, trawl + dredge + reef expl., black sand and coral, 22 Nov. – 1 Dec. 1899 (bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5; median antenna as long as caruncle (2/3–1/1); mouth in chaetiger 2; 11–22 mm long, 2.8–4.0 mm wide, 18–25 chaetigers). Three specimens (ZMA VPol 156.1), epitokes, Lesser Sunda Islands, RV Siboga Exped., Sta. 37, Paternoster Islands, Sailus Ketjil (Pulau Sailus Kecil), close to reef, 27 m, dredge, coral and coral sand, Monaco-trap in 100 m, close to reef, 30–31 Mar. 1899. Ten specimens (ZMA VPol 156.5), Maluku, RV Siboga Exped., Sta. 240 (Banda anchorage), 9–45 m, trawl + dredge + reef expl., black sand and coral, 22 Nov. – 1 Dec. 1899 (bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5; median antennae 4/5 as long as caruncle or slightly longer; mouth in chaetiger 2; 8–21 mm long, 2.5–5.0 mm wide, 18–24 chaetigers). One specimen (ZMA VPol 156.7), Maluku, RV Siboga Exped., Sta. 240 (Banda anchorage), 9–45 m, trawl + dredge + reef expl., black sand and coral, 22 Nov. – 1 Dec. 1899 (bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5; median antenna longer than caruncle; mouth in chaetiger 2; 15 mm long, 3.5 mm wide, 23 chaetigers). Indonesia. Three specimens (ZMA VPol 156.2), Sulawesi, RV Siboga Exped., Sta. 66 (Bank between islands of Bahuluwang and Tambolungan, S of Saleyer), 8–10 m, dredge, dead coral, Halimeda, Lithothamnion, 7–8 May 1899 (body dark purple; bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5; median antenna as long as caruncle in one specimen, broken in the others; mouth in chaetiger 2; 6.3–7.5 mm long, 1.5–2.0 mm wide, 17 chaetigers). One specimen (ZMA VPol 156.6), Maluku, RV Siboga Exped., Sta. 251 (05°28.4´S, 132°00.2´E), 204 m, trawl, coral + sand, 8 Dec. 1899 (dorsal bands blackish; body pale; bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5; median antenna as long as caruncle; mouth in chaetiger 2; 19 mm long, 4.5 mm wide, 24 chaetigers). Philippines. One specimen (CAS 187295), Hearst Philippine Biodiversity Expedition, Luzon, Batangas Province, Calumpan Peninsula, Mainit Bubbles dive site (13.69° N, 120.90° E; 13°41´24.00″ N, 120°54´00.00″ E), night dive, 0–19 m, 29 Apr. 2011, M. Weber, coll. (complete, with some medioposterior dissection for molecular studies; pigmentation pattern retained; body 20 mm long, 4 mm wide, 23 chaetigers). One specimen (CAS 214530), Verde Island Passage Expedition, Mindoro, Puerto Galera, Batangas Channel, School Beach (13.52° N, 120.96° E; 13°31´12.00″ N, 120°57´36.00″ E), 7–31 m, 8 Apr. 2015, C. Piotrowski, coll. (complete, chaetae bright yellowish, anterior eyes 2× larger than posterior ones; median antenna slightly shorter than caruncle; body 24 mm long, 4 mm wide, 26 chaetigers). One specimen (CAS 214561), Luzon Island, Batangas Province, Verde Island, Blackfish Corner dive site (13.57° N, 121.05° E; 13°34'12.00" N, 121°03'00.00" E), 8–33 m, 9 Apr. 2015, P.J. Aristorenas, coll. (complete, bent ventrally, dorsal bands discontinuous after extension after ventral bent, chaetae colorless, anterior eyes 6× larger than posterior ones; median antenna as long as caruncle; body 12 mm long, 3 mm wide, 24 chaetigers). Four specimens (CAS 218217), Visayas, Negros Island, Zamboanguita, off Bask Barangay (09°10´N, 123°21´E), 7–14 m, sand, 3 Apr. 2016, C. Piotrowski, coll. (complete; anterior eyes 3–4× larger than posterior ones, in darker areas in larger specimens; median antenna longer than caruncle; 27–48 mm long, 4–7 mm wide, 25–28 chaetigers). Seven specimens (UF 4368), Oriental Mindoro Province, Mindoro, Puerto Galera, off Sabang Beach (13.52207, 120.97522; 13°31´15.42″ N, 121°58´30.792″ E), gentle sand slope with reef heads, 4–6 m, 13 Apr. 2015, G. Paulay, coll. (all with pharynx partially exposed; anterior eyes 5–6× larger than posterior ones; longitudinal bands reddish, of similar width throughout dorsum; some specimens with dorsal oblique reddish bands continued towards parapodial anterior surface, usually covered by bipinnate branchiae; chaetae reddish to pale yellowish, sometimes with a wide median golden band; body 16–19 mm long, 4–5 mm wide, 22–23 chaetigers; one specimen dissected for anatomy). Two specimens (UF 4392), Oriental Mindoro Province, Mindoro, Puerto Galera, Sabang Beach (13.52095, 120.97439; 13°31´15.42″ N, 121°58´27.804″ E), sand, seagrass flat, 0–1 m, 23 Apr. 2015, G. Paulay, coll. (shorter without posterior end, showing branching gonads each branch slightly wider than corresponding blood vessel; larger complete, bent ventrally; anterior eyes 3–4× larger than posterior ones; black anterior prostomial area split in two halves; median antenna without tips, shorter than caruncle; 31–43 mm long, 6–7 mm wide, 18–27 chaetigers). One specimen (UF 4394), Oriental Mindoro Province, Mindoro, Puerto Galera, off Point West of Bayanan Beach (13.5118, 120.9088; 13°30'42.48" N, 120°54'31.68" E), 10–13 m, sand slope with few corals, 28 Apr. 2015, G. Paulay, coll. (atoke; thin transverse black intersegmental bands in addition to other typical banding; anterior eyes 3–4× larger than posterior ones; anterior prostomial area barely split; median antenna slightly longer than caruncle; 29 mm long, 6 mm wide, 26 chaetigers). Two specimens (ZMA VPol 156.3), Sulu Islands, anchorage off North Ubian, RV Siboga Exped., Sta. 99 (06°07.5’ N, 120°26’ E), 16–23 m, dredge and tow-net, lithothamnion bottom, 28–30 Jun. 1899 (bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5; median antenna longer than caruncle; mouth in chaetiger 2; 9–21 mm long, 2–4 mm wide, 17–24 chaetigers). One specimen (ZMA VPol 156.4), Sulu Islands, RV Siboga Exped., Sta. 104 (Sulu Harbour), 14 m, dredge, sand, 2–3 Jul. 1899 (pale purple, dorsal bands almost completely faded off; bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5; median antenna longer than caruncle; mouth in chaetiger 2; body 15 mm long, 3 mm wide, 21 chaetigers). Papua New Guinea. One specimen (NTM W5050), Horseshoe Reef, 10 m, Aug. 1980, N. Coleman, coll. (colorless; anterior prostomial area blackish; eyes black, anterior ones 3–4× larger than posterior ones; body 17.5 mm long, 4 mm wide, 22 chaetigers). Line Islands. One specimen (UF 576), Kiritimati, just N of main reef passage, West side of atoll, outer reef slope (1.9841, -157.4819; 01°59´02.76″ N, 157°28´54.84″ W), outer reef slope, 10–12 m, from Halimeda sample, 5 Aug. 2005, G. Paulay & N. Knowlton, coll. (without posterior end; median antenna twisted, about as long as caruncle; anterior eyes 3–4× larger than posterior ones; 13 mm long, 4 mm wide, 16 chaetigers). Loyalty Islands. Two specimens (MNHN Musorstom P1231), Sta. 1231 (20°31.2´S, 166°22.9´E), 23 m, 3 Sep. 1992 (slightly damaged, depressed; dorsal bands fading off; anterior eyes 6–8× larger than posterior ones; body 18–19 mm long, 3.5–4.0 mm wide, 22–24 chaetigers). French Polynesia. One specimen (UF 2921), Society Islands, Moorea Island, Moorea, off Motu Ahi, north of Afareitu Pass (-17.55258, -149.77347; 17°33´09.288″ S, 149°46´24.492″ W), deep reef slope, large rubble, 57 m, 27 Jan. 2012, R. Whitton, coll. (anterior fragment; anterior eyes 3× larger than posterior ones; two dorsal longitudinal bands; 3.5 mm long, 1.2 mm wide, 9 chaetigers). Hawai’i. One specimen (BM R3441), KOK Pisces V, Expedition HURL-09, Sta. P5-716, 22 Feb. 2009 (no further data; complete, juvenile, dorsal pigmentation with two irregular longitudinal lines, paler than in more recent specimens; dorsal cirri purple, bipinnate branchial tips purple; chaetae colorless; Prostomium with anterior brownish area as a half-moon; eyes blackish, anterior eyes about 6× larger than posterior ones; median antenna slightly longer than caruncle; 6 mm long, 2 mm wide, 17 chaetigers). One specimen (UF 418), Maui Island, Buzzs Wharf, caught swimming, 25 May 2005, C. Pittman & D. Kheler, coll. (epitoke, complete, chaetae yellowish; anterior eyes 7–8× larger than posterior ones; median antenna without tip, longer than caruncle; 55 mm long, 11 mm wide, 31 chaetigers). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, progressively smaller posteriorly; dorsum with two longitudinal bands; caruncle pale; lips darker than adjacent ventral areas; notochaetae include furcates and furcate harpoon-chaetae; neurochaetae furcates. Description. Holotype (BMNH 1885.12.1.9), almost without chaetae, with a midventral dissection along chaetiger 4–19, cut into two portions (Fig. 22A, D): anterior region 5 mm long, 4 mm wide, 8 chaetigers, and a median to posterior region 10.5 mm long, 4 mm wide, 14 chaetigers; body narrow fusiform, 15.5 mm long, 4 mm wide, 22 chaetigers (18 mm long, 23 segments in original description). Holotype brownish; anterior prostomial margin blackish; middorsal bands brownish, continued throughout body, slightly expanded medially (Fig. 22C). Dorsal cirri with cirrophores pale, cirrostyles dark purple. Venter pale with a midventral paler band. Prostomium anteriorly entire. Eyes blackish, separate, anterior eyes 3–4× larger than posterior ones (Fig. 22B). Median antenna pale, inserted at anterior caruncular margin, slightly longer than caruncle, 2× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae blackish, bases separate from each other, 2× longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle pale, sigmoid, trilobed, tapered, reaching chaetiger 5. Median ridge plicate, with about 18 vertical folds, partially concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 28 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, continued throughout body, partially eroded, parallel along body; progressively larger to chaetiger 9, about half as long as successive segments, decreasing in size posteriorly (becoming as long as successive segments); median segments with 5–6 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with purple cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–4, 2/3 as long as dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri 3–4× longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, 5–6× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 2× longer and wider, and cirrostyle 3× longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as 1.5× subsequent segments. Chaetae most broken, a few remaining (not removed for avoiding further damage). Complete chaetae (after largest topotype RMNH 1245) with distal hoods. Anterior notochaetae furcates (Fig. 22E), major tines 3—4× longer than minor ones; median chaetigers with harpoon-chaetae and furcates of two types (Fig. 22G), thinnest golden, with major tines 5–14× longer than minor ones, and wider with major tines 4× longer than minor ones. Harpoonchaetae with short, almost blunt denticles and smooth tines (denticulate tines 3–6× longer than smooth ones). Neurochaetae all furcates, major tines 4–6× longer than minor ones, anterior chaetigers with tines longer (Fig. 22F), than those present in median chaetigers (Fig. 22H). Posterior region tapered (Fig. 22D); pygidium with anus terminal, anal cirri lost. Epitokes Epitokes (ZMA VPol 156.1), complete, posterior end bent ventrally or laterally (Fig. 23), lateral antennae lost in largest epitoke; body fusiform, 16–35 mm long, 4–6 mm wide, 23–26 chaetigers. Largest epitoke (ZMA VPol 156.1) pale; anterior prostomial area grayish (Figs. 22A, 23A); middorsal bands purple (Fig. 23A, B); accessory lateral bands barely pigmented, continued along internotopodial space. Dorsal cirri blackish. Bipinnate branchiae with stems pale, lateral branches purple. Venter pale, midventral band shiny, slightly paler. Prostomium anteriorly entire. Eyes blackish, coalescent, anterior eyes 6× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna pale, inserted at anterior caruncular margin, half as long as caruncle, size relationship to lateral antennae unknown. Lateral antennae with blackish ceratophores, ceratostyles lost, bases separate from each other, size relationship to palps unknown. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle pale, straight, trilobed, tapered, reaching chaetiger 4. Median ridge plicate, with about 36 vertical folds, partially concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 34 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, continued throughout body, divergent along body; progressively larger to chaetiger 9–10, about half as long as successive segments, decreasing in size posteriorly (becoming as long as successive segments); median segments with 5–6 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with purple cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–4, half as long as dorsal cirri in chaetiger 1, progressively shorter becoming 1/3–1/4 as long in chaetiger 4. Dorsal cirri 2× longer than bipinnate branchiae along median and posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 2× longer and wider, and cirrostyle 2× longer than those present in chaetiger 3, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as subsequent segment. Chaetae most complete with distal hoods. Anterior notochaetae furcates (Fig. 23B), major tines about 4× longer than minor ones; median chaetigers with harpoon-chaetae and furcate capillaries with major tines about 12× longer than minor ones; harpoon notochaetae with short, almost blunt denticles and shorter tine, denticulate tines 3–6× longer than smooth ones (Fig. 23D). Neurochaetae all furcates; anterior chaetigers with major tines about 4× longer than minor ones (Fig. 24C); median chaetigers with furcates with major tines 5–12× longer than minor ones, and capillary furcates with major tines 7–15× longer than minor ones (Fig. 24E). Posterior region tapered; pygidium with anus terminal, anal cirri pale, digitate, 4–5× longer than wide. Live pigmentation of atokes (after freshly collected specimens UF 4368, Fig. 25, and Belle 2022b). Dorsum pale to pinkish; middorsal bands reddish, continued throughout body, each band slightly expanded towards lateral margins. Brownish to reddish lateral bands approaching middorsal bands, running towards anterior notopodial surfaces. Caruncle pale. Dorsal cirri dark purple to blackish. Branchiae pale brownish to reddish. Notochaetae and neurochaetae with a distal yellowish band, rarely with red bases. Venter with midventral band pale (Fig. 4A) Live pigmentation of epitokes. Recently collected specimens (CAS 218217) have dark brown to blackish longitudinal middorsal bands (Fig. 26A); in each segment, there are two thick orange-brownish thick bands, roughly parallel along anterior chaetigers, and in median chaetigers become divergent, connected laterally in darker wide bands, running along anterior parapodial surfaces, and another orange thinner band runs along the posterior parapodial surface (Fig. 26C). Prostomium grayish, anterior prostomial area pale. Eyes blackish, anterior eyes 4–6× larger than posterior ones, often in a dark area. Lateral antennae and palps purple, at least basally (Fig. 26B), median antennae colorless to pale orange, with a purple basal ring below the base, slightly longer than caruncle when complete. Caruncle brownish with median ridge darker. Cirriform branchiae and dorsal cirri purple. Branchiae with orange stems, pinnules purple to paler with reddish tips. Chaetae with a wide yellow band. Venter with longitudinal median pale band. Anal cirri whitish (Fig. 26D). Variation of atokes. Seventeen topotype specimens (RMNH 1245, ZMA VPol 156.5, ZMA VPol 156.7) complete, retaining pigmentation pattern. Body 10.5–23 mm long, 3–5 mm wide, 18–24 chaetigers. All with anterior prostomial area blackish; several specimens with darker lips, and a wide, diffuse brownish transverse ventral band, often displaced towards the anterior segmental half. Eyes blackish, separate; anterior eyes 3–4× larger than posterior ones, Median antenna pale, often long as caruncle, and even longer in some specimens, 2× longer than lateral antennae; lateral antennae and palps darker, often dark purple. Caruncle pale. Branchiae from chaetiger 5. Paired longitudinal bands dark purple, ill-defined along anterior chaetigers of smallest specimens (8–11 mm long, 2.5–2.8 mm wide), bands discontinuous with 1–2 wider areas per segment, becoming continuous and medially wider along posterior segments, band margins ill-defined. Median-sized specimens (13–17 mm long, 4–5 mm wide) with additional bands visible, brownish, roughly parallel to middorsal bands, continued laterally along anterior notopodial surfaces; longitudinal bands thin to wide, not depending on segment contraction. Longest specimens (18-22 mm long, 3–5 mm wide) with thinner brownish bands anteriorly, blackish posteriorly; lateral bands ill-defined, roughly parallel to middorsal bands. Lateral bands paler, parallel to middorsal ones, continued along anterior notopodial surfaces. Branchiae from chaetiger 5, with pale stems, lateral branches purple. Anal cirri fragile, easily detached, yellowish, ovoid to digitate, 2–4× longer than wide. Non topotype specimens from Indonesia (ZMA VPol 156.2, 156.6), and from the Philippines (ZMA VPol 156.3, 156.4) match the topotype specimens and are regarded as conspecific. Variation of epitokes. Smaller epitokes (ZMA VPol 156.1) complete, with darker pigmentation than described for the largest epitoke (Fig. 21C–F). Both with anterior prostomial area barely pigmented. Eyes blackish, coalescent, anterior eyes 6× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna pale to blackish basally, 2/3–4/5 as long as caruncle, 3 × longer than lateral antennae; lateral antennae bases separate from each other. Caruncle pale, reaching chaetiger 4. Mouth in chaetiger 2. Paired longitudinal bands dark purple to red, Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 52-60, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["M'Intosh, W. C. (1885) Report on the Annelida Polychaeta collected by H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873 - 1876. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873 - 76. Zoology, 12 (34), i - xxxvi + 1 - 554, pl. 1 - 55, 1 A - 39 A, & Annelida stations map.","Horst, R. (1912) Polychaeta errantia of the Siboga Expedition. Part 1. Amphinomidae. Siboga-Expeditie Uitkomsten op Zoologisch, Bonatisch, Oceanographisch en Geologisch gebied verzameld in Nederlandsch Oost-Indie 1899 - 1900, 24 a, 1 - 43, 10 pls.","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Treadwell, A. L. (1906) Polychaetous annelids of the Hawaiian Islands collected by the steamer Albatross in 1902. Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, 23 (1903), 3, 1145 - 1181.","Hartman, O. (1966) Polychaetous annelids of the Hawaiian Islands. Occasional Papers of Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 23 (11), 163 - 252.","Bailey-Brock, J. H. & Hartman, O. (1987) Class Polychaeta. In: Devaney, D. M. & Eldredge, L. G. (Eds.), Reef and Shore Fauna of Hawaii. Bishop Museum Special Publications, 64 (2 - 3), pp. 216 - 454","Tizard, T. H., Moseley, H. N., Buchanan, J. Y. & Murray, J. (1885) Narrative of the cruise of H. M. S. Challenger with a general accoung of the scientific results of the expedition. Results of the Voyage of H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873 - 76, Narrative, 1 (2), 511 - 1110.","Belle, J. (2022 b) Bristle worm (Chloeia fusca), Anilao, Philippines. Available from: https: // www. natureinstock. com / search / preview / bristle-worm-chloeia-fusca-anilao-philippines / 0 _ 10120610. html (accessed 31 July 2022)","Fauvel, P. (1953) The Fauna of India, including Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Malaya. Annelida Polychaeta. Indian Press, Allahbad, 507 pp.","Potts, F. A. (1909) The Percy Sladen Trust Expediton to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner, 20. Polychaeta of the Indian Ocean, Part 1. The Amphinomidae. The Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Series 2 Zoology, 12 (4), 355 - 371, pls. 45 - 46. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1909. tb 00147. x","Horst, R. (1917) A contribution towards our knowledge of the Polychaeta of South Africa. Zoologische Mededeelingen, 3, 285 - 288.","Naville, A. (1933) Quelques formes epitoques d'annelids polychetes nouveles ou peu connues pechees a la lumiere dans la baie de Banyuls. Annals des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, Series 10, 16, 171 - 208.","Charpin, F. (2022) Darklined fireworm. Available from: https: // reefguide. org / chloeiafusca. html (accessed 31 July 2022)"]}

Chloeia pocicola Barroso & Kudenov in Barroso et al. 2021 Chloeia pocicola Barroso & Kudenov in Barroso et al. 2021: 5–8, Figs. 2–4. Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, abruptly decreasing in size after a few segments; dorsal cirri dark purple along their basal half; notochaetae furcates and harpoon chaetae with tines or without them; neurochaetae furcates with longer tines smooth or denticulate along inner margin. Remarks. Chloeia pocicola Barroso & Kudenov in Barroso et al. (2021) was described from Brazil. Together with C. kudenovi Barroso & Paiva, 2011, also described from Brazil, they belong in the group kudenovi, because their bipinnate branchiae start in chaetiger 4, becoming abruptly shortened after a few chaetigers. These two species differ, as indicated above, because of the pigmentation of their dorsal cirri, and the type of furcate neurochaetae. In C. pocicola, the dorsal cirri are pigmented along their basal half, and its furcate neurochaetae are denticulate along the inner margin, whereas in C. kudenovi dorsal cirri are basally pigmented, and furcate neurochaetae have smooth tines. It is interesting that C. pocicola has neurochaetae furcates with major tines denticulate along inner margin, which are recorded only for C. pinnata but in this latter species they are present in notochaetae, are restricted to the first chaetiger, and their denticles are barely developed. It is likely that after the study of the type material, and an emendment of the diagnosis for Bathychloeia Horst, 1910 regarding the start of branchiae and their size proportions along body, C. pocicola might be transferred to Bathychloeia, but that is beyond my current objective., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on page 94, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Barroso, R., Kudenov, J. D., Shimbabukuro, M., Carrerette, O., Sumida, P. Y. G., Paiva, P. C. & Seixas, V. C. (2021) Morphological, molecular and phylogenetic characterization of a new Chloeia (Annelida: Amphinomidae) from a pockmark field. Deep-Sea Research, I, 171 (103499), 1 - 10. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. dsr. 2021.103499","Barroso, R. & Paiva, P. C. (2011) A new deep-sea species of Chloeia (Polychaeta: Amphinomidae) from southern Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 91 (2), 419 - 423. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0025315410001499","Horst, R. (1910) On the genus Chloeia with some new species from the Malay Archipelago, partly collected by the Siboga-Expedition. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 32, 169 - 175."]}

Chloeia candida sensu McIntosh, 1924 Chloeia candida: McIntosh 1924: 5; McIntosh 1925: 17–18, Pl. 1, Fig. 9 (non Kinberg, 1867). Type locality. Off NE Durban, 65 m water depth. Remarks. The Southern Africa record by McIntosh (1925: 17) indicated that “the dorsum is marked by two madder-brown lines which are boldest in front and get thinner posteriorly.” For the chaetal fine details, it was indicated “the absence of serrate bristles of any kind in this species is a feature of note, both dorsal and ventral being quite smooth” (McIntosh 1925: 17). These two features resemble C. bistriata Grube, 1868, described from the Red Sea, and in case some future specimens are examined, they should be compared against C. bistriata (see above)., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on page 38, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["McIntosh, W. C. (1924) Notes from the Gatty Marine Laboratory, St. Andrews, 46: 1. The occurrence of opercular development in Mercierella enigmatica, Fauvel, a new British serpulid; 2. Preliminary notice of a second contribution to the marine Polychaeta of South Africa. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 9, 14 (79), 1 - 52. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222932408633091","McIntosh, W. C. (1925) A second contribution to the marine polychaetes of South Africa. Union South African Fisheries Marine Biological Survey, Report, 5 (4), 1 - 93, pls. 1 - 10.","Kinberg, J. G. H. (1867) Om Amphinomernas systematik. Ofversigt af Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens F ˆ rhandlingar, Stockholm, 24 (3), 83 - 91."]}

Chloeia piotrowskiae sp. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 23EC1D3E-EF9A-459F-B3E7-05204F8DFF86 Fig. 43 Type material. Philippines. Holotype (CAS 186957), and two paratypes (CAS 186957 b), Hearst Philippine Biodiversity Expedition 2011, MV DA-BFAR, Lubang Islands, off Ambil Island (13.91° N, 120.35° E; 13°54’36.00” N, 120°21’00.00” E), mixed bottom, sand and rocks, 82–86 m, 2 Jun. 2011, R. Mooi et al., coll. (paratypes complete, stiff, many chaetae broken, body 27.5–45.0 mm long, 6–7 mm wide, 29–34 chaetigers). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, decreasing in size posteriorly; middorsal band single, wide, continuous, running throughout body; caruncle pale; anterior notopodia with furcate harpoon chaetae and aciculars, median chaetigers with aciculars and harpoon chaetae without spurs; neurochaetae spurred and furcates. Description. Holotype (CAS 186957) complete, stiff (fixed in 95% ethanol), slightly bent laterally, many chaetae broken, portions of venter along chaetigers 14–17 previously removed; body fusiform, 35 mm long, 6 mm wide, 31 chaetigers. Holotype colorful, chaetae colorless, almost transparent; middorsal band reddish present along body from chaetiger 4 (Fig. 43A), continued to last chaetiger; middorsal band homogeneously wide throughout body (Fig. 43C); chaetigers 1–3 with similar bands bordering caruncle. Branchiae with orange stems and paler to white lateral branches. Dorsal cirri and ventral cirri of chaetiger 2 dark purple. Anterior parapodial surfaces with yellowish band. Prostomium anteriorly entire, anterior prostomial area whitish (Fig. 43B). Eyes blackish, anterior eyes 3× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, 1/3 as long as caruncle, 2× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases separate, reddish medially, slightly longer than palps. Mouth vental on chaetiger 2. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle pale, tapered, bent laterally, reaching chaetiger 4. Median ridge plicate, with about 30 vertical folds, most marked by a blackish spot, partially concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 32 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, roughly parallel along body, progressively larger to chaetigers 10–14, decreasing in size posteriorly. Median segments with 14–16 lateral branches, each with a few secondary filaments. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3, shorter progressively. Dorsal cirri longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, 2–3× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 3–4× wider, and cirrostyles 3–4× longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterallly, as long as one subsequent segment. Chaetae generally broken in holotype, observed in largest paratype for avoiding further damage. Complete chaetae without distal hoods, probably eroded. Anterior notochaetae a few aciculars and many harpoon-chaetae, a few without spurs, others with spurs 1/3–1/5 as long as denticulate (Fig. 43F). Median chaetigers with a few short aciculars and longest harpoon-shaped chaetae without spurs (Fig. 43H). Neurochaetae mostly furcates and spurred chaetae, furcates with major tines thinner in anterior chaetigers (Fig. 43G), major tines about 4× longer than minor one; posterior chaetigers (Fig. 43I) with furcates, major tines 3—6×longer than minor ones. Posterior region tapered (Fig. 43D); pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri unknown, lost in holotype and paratypes. Live pigmentation (after C. Piotrowski notes after collecting). Middorsal longitudinal band and branchiae red. Median caruncular rigde with black spots, Dorsal cirri, and ventral cirri of chaetiger 2 dark purple. Etymology. This species is named after M. Sc. Christina Piotrowski, Collection Manager, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, in recognition of her long-term efforts in collecting polychaetes from many tropical localities all over the world, and especially by her support to my research activities. The derived name is a noun in the genitive case (ICZN 1999, Art. 31.1.2). Variation. Most morphological features are present in paratypes. The middorsal reddish band has faded off in last few chaetigers. Anterior eyes are 4× as long as posterior ones in the smallest paratype, 3× as long in the longest one (Fig. 41E). The median antenna is ¼–1/3 as long as caruncle. Remarks. Chloeia piotrowskiae sp. n. is described with specimens from The Philippines; it belongs in the group venusta because it has a middorsal band, bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, decreasing in size posteriorly. Because the middorsal band is regular, continuous throughout complete segments, it resembles C. gilchristi Mc-Intosh, 1924 from South Africa, redescribed above, C. poupini sp. n. from the French Polynesia described below, and C. venusta de Quatrefages, 1866 from the Mediterranean Sea, redescribed below. However, C. piotrowskiae separates from these species because it is the only species having harpoon notochaetae in anterior parapodia. Distribution. The Philippines, in sediments at 82–86 m water depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 93-94, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)","De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818"]}

Chloeia pinnata Moore, 1911 Chloeia pinnata Moore, 1911: 239–243, Pl. 15, Figs 1–6; Berkeley & Berkeley 1939: 323; Hartman 1940: 206–207, Pl. 31, Figs 10–13; Hartman 1959: 132; Hartman 1963: 8; Loi 1980: 127; Kudenov 1995: 209–213, Figs 7.1, 7.2; Barroso & Paiva 2011: 422, Tab. 1; Yánez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo 2022: 521–523, Figs 1B, 2, 10 (redescr.). Chloeia rosea?: Fauvel 1943: 7 (non Potts, 1909). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, colorless, progressively smaller posteriorly; anterior eyes 2× larger than posterior ones; caruncle with about 10 folds; notochaetae furcates, without harpoon chaetae; neurochaetae spurred. Remarks. Chloeia pinnata Moore, 1911 was described from Southern California, and it has been redescribed elsewhere (Yáñez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo 2022). It belongs in the group tumida by having bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly, and no pigmentation pattern. It resembles C. keablei sp. n., described above with specimens from The Philippines to Australia, because both species have a tapered caruncle, and colorless bipinnate branchiae. However, these two species can be separated by the relative size of eyes, type of harpoon notochaetae, and neurochaetae. In C. pinnata, the anterior eyes are 2× larger than posterior ones, its harpoon notochaetae have spurs, and neurochaetae are spurred, whereas in C. keablei, anterior eyes are 4× larger than posterior ones, harpoon notochaetae have no spurs or smooth tines, and its neurochaetae are all furcates with small minor tines., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on page 92, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Moore, J. P. (1911) The polychaetous annelids dredged by the U. S. S. '' Albatross' ' off the coast of Southern California in 1904, 3. Euphrosynidae to Goniadidae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 63, 234 - 318, pls. 15 - 21.","Berkeley, E. & Berkeley, C. (1939) On a collection of Polychaeta chiefly from the west coast of Mexico. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 11, 3, 321 - 346. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 03745481.1939.9723608","Hartman, O. (1940) Polychaetous annelids, 2. Chrysopetalidae to Goniadidae. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions, 7 (3), 171 - 286, pls. 31 - 44.","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Hartman, O. (1963) Submarine canyons of Southern California, 3. Systematics: Polychaetes. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions, 27, 1 - 193.","Loi, T. - N. (1980) Catalogue of the types of polychaete species erected by J. Percy Moore. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciencies, Philadelphia, 132, 121 - 149.","Kudenov, J. D. (1995) Family Amphinomidae Lamarck, 1818. In: Blake, J. A., Hilbig, B., Scott, P. H. (Eds), Taxonomic Atlas of the Benthic Fauna of the Santa Maria Basin and Western Santa Barbara Channel. Vol. 5. The Annelida. Part 2. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California, pp. 207 - 215.","Barroso, R. & Paiva, P. C. (2011) A new deep-sea species of Chloeia (Polychaeta: Amphinomidae) from southern Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 91 (2), 419 - 423. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0025315410001499","Yanez-Rivera, B. & Salazar-Vallejo, S. I. (2022) Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 from tropical American seas (Annelida. Amphinomidae). Zootaxa, 5128 (4), 503 - 537. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 5128.4.3","Fauvel, P. (1943) Annelides polychetes de Californie recueillies par L. Diguet. Memoires du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Nouvelle Serie, 18, 1 - 32.","Potts, F. A. (1909) The Percy Sladen Trust Expediton to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner, 20. Polychaeta of the Indian Ocean, Part 1. The Amphinomidae. The Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Series 2 Zoology, 12 (4), 355 - 371, pls. 45 - 46. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1909. tb 00147. x"]}

Key to genera of Archinominae Kudenov, 1991 (modif. Fauchald 1977a) 1 Notopodia with single dorsal cirri (cirrophore well-defined).................................................... 2 – Notopodia with ‘two dorsal cirri’ (one with cirrophore well-defined, the other is a cirriform branchia), at least along a few anterior chaetigers.................................................................................... 4 2(1) Caruncular lateral plates barely developed; first branchiae from chaetiger 2, all branching; notochaetae all furcates, harpoonchaetae missing................................................................. Archinome Kudenov, 1991 – Caruncular lateral plates distinct; first complex branchiae from chaetiger 3–5, anterior chaetigers with cirriform branchiae; complex branchiae mostly bipinnate; notochaetae include harpoon furcates with denticles along outer margin............ 3 3(2) Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, first pair markedly larger than following ones; neurochaetae furcates, major tines with denticles along inner margin; eyes absent.............................................. Bathychloeia Horst, 1910 – Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4 or 5, progressively smaller along posterior region; neurochaetae usually furcates, major tines smooth, rarely with small spurs, or without them (acicular chaetae); eyes present...................................................................................................... Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 4(1) Caruncle with high central ridge, lateral plates wide.......................................................... 5 – Caruncular lateral plates small, hidden under central ridge, or absent............................................. 6 5(4) Branchiae of similar size along body, or decreasing posteriorly.............................. Notopygos Grube, 1855 – First branchiae markedly larger than following ones............................... Bathynotopygos Kucheruk, 1981 6(4) Caruncle wedge-shaped, annulated, without crest and folds; notochaetae harpoon furcates with denticles along a short inner distal margin........................................................................ Sangiria Horst, 1911 – Caruncle with crest and folds........................................................................... 7 7(6) Caruncle high, loosely plaited and rugose; notochaetae include harpoon furcates with denticles along outer or inner margins............................................................................. Chloenopsis Fauchald, 1977 – Caruncle low, narrowly plaited with a crenulated plate; notochaetae include harpoon furcates with denticles along a short inner distal margin..................................................................... Parachloeia Horst, 1912, Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 16-17, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Kudenov, J. D. (1991) A new family and genus of the order Amphinomida (Polychaeta) from the Galapagos Hydrothermal vents. Ophelia Supplement, 5, 111 - 120.","Fauchald, K. (1977 a) The polychaete worms: Definitions and keys to the orders, families and genera. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Series 2, 28, 1 - 188.","Horst, R. (1910) On the genus Chloeia with some new species from the Malay Archipelago, partly collected by the Siboga-Expedition. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 32, 169 - 175.","Lamarck, J. B. (1818) Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vertebres, presentant les caracteres generaux et particuliers de ces animaux, leur distribution, leurs classes, leurs familles, leurs genres, et la citation des principales especes qui s'y rapportent; precedes d'une Introduction offrant la determination des caracteres essentiels de l'Animal, sa distinction du vegetal et desautres corps naturels, enfin, l'Exposition des Principes fondamentaux de la Zoologie. Vol. 5. Deterville, Paris, 612 pp.","Grube, A. E. (1855) Beschreibungen neuer oder wenig bekannter Anneliden. Archiv f ¸ r Naturgeschichte, Berlin, 21 (1), 81 - 136, pls. 3 - 5. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. part. 13989","Kucheruk, N. V. (1981) K zakonomernostyam geograficheskogo pasprostraneniya abissalinykh Polychaeta Vostotchnogo pogerezh'ya Tikhogo Oceana. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii, Akademiya Nauk, SSSR, 115, 37 - 52.","Horst, R. (1911) On the genus Notopygos, with some new species from the Malay-Archipelago collected by the Siboga-Expedition. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 33 (4), 241 - 247.","Horst, R. (1912) Polychaeta errantia of the Siboga Expedition. Part 1. Amphinomidae. Siboga-Expeditie Uitkomsten op Zoologisch, Bonatisch, Oceanographisch en Geologisch gebied verzameld in Nederlandsch Oost-Indie 1899 - 1900, 24 a, 1 - 43, 10 pls."]}

Chloeia nuda de Quatrefages, 1866 indeterminable Fig. 42 Chloeia nuda de Quatrefages, 1866: 390–391; Hartman 1959: 131; Solís-Weiss et al. 2004: S2; Salazar-Vallejo et al. 2014: 11 (list). Type material. Indonesia. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 81), Moluccas Islands, Amboina, Expédition d’Urville (probably collected in October 1827 after Dumont d’Urville 1830: 51), Hombron & Jacquinot, coll. (after the label), no further data. Description. Holotype (MNHN 81 complete, without most appendages and chaetae (Fig. 42A). Body blunt at both ends, subcylindrical, slightly wider anteriorly; 50 mm long, 8 mm wide, 33 chaetigers. Prostomium anteriorly entire (Fig. 42B, C). Eyes blackish, small, anterior eyes 2× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna lost, base in anterior caruncular margin, relative length to caruncle or lateral antennae unknown. Lateral antennae bases close to each other, right lateral antenna slightly longer than right palp, both damaged. Mouth ventral on chaetigers 2–3. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle damaged, without epidermis, sigmoid, trilobed, tapered posteriorly, tip lost, reaching chaetiger 3. Median ridge eroded, with about 21 vertical folds, partially concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 18 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, continued throughout body, some segments with parallel, others with convergent branchial stems; progressively larger to distal body third, smaller thereafter. Six to seven lateral branches in median segments. Parapodia biramous, cirriform branchiae lost, presence along anterior chaetigers and relative size to dorsal cirri unknown. Dorsal cirri mostly lost, a few remaining longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, apparently as long as branchiae in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri lost; size relation to adjacent cirri and orientation unknown. A few complete ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as one subsequent segment. Chaetae almost all broken; some remaining without tips. Chaetal types unknown. Anus terminal; left anal cirrus on site, digitate, 7–8× longer than wide. Live pigmentation. Unknown. Preserved specimen pale, chaetae mostly lost, few remaining transparent; body almost completely without pigmentation including prostomium, and dorsal cirri. Dorsum with a thin longitudinal dark line along chaetigers 3–8; venter pale. Remarks. Because of the almost complete lack of chaetae, de Quatrefages (1866: 391) named this species as naked. The specimen was very damaged; he noted almost all remaining chaetae were broken. Horst (1910: 172) regarded C. nuda as indeterminable; his conclusion is herein confirmed., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 90-91, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Solis-Weiss, V., Bertrand, Y., Helleouet, M. - N. & Pleijel, F. (2004) Types of polychaetous annelids at the Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris. Zoosystema, 26, 377 - 384, Supplement 21 pp.","Salazar-Vallejo, S. I., Carrera-Parra, L. F., Muir, A. I., de Leon-Gonzalez, J. A., Piotrowski, C. & Sato, M. (2014) Polychaete species (Annelida) described from the Philippine and China Seas. Zootaxa, 3842 (1), 1 - 68. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3842.1.1","Dumont d'Urville, J. (1830) Voyage de la Corvette L'Astrolabe execute par Ordre du Roi, pendant les annees 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829. Histoire du Voyage. Tome Premier. Tastu, Paris, 528 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 2132","Horst, R. (1910) On the genus Chloeia with some new species from the Malay Archipelago, partly collected by the Siboga-Expedition. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 32, 169 - 175."]}

Chloeia amphora Horst, 1910 Figs 1A, 9–11 Chloeia amphora Horst, 1910: 172–173, 1912: 21–22, Pl. 7, Fig. 6, Pl. 8, Figs 6, 7; Fauvel 1932: 56, 1953: 96–97, Fig. 46c; Hartman 1959: 131; Bleeker & van der Spoel 1992: 127 (design. lectotype); Barroso & Paiva 2011: 422, Tab. 1; SalazarVallejo et al. 2014: 11 (list). Type material. Indonesia, Lectotype (ZMA V.Pol 149.4), designated by Bleeker & van der Spoel (1992), Maluku, RV Siboga Exped., Stat. 240 (Banda anchorage), 9–45 m, trawl + dredge + reef expl., black sand and coral, 22 Nov. – 1 Dec. 1899 (Bleeker & van der Spoel 1992: 127 indicated the lectotype was their lot V.Pol 149.1 but the label is in V.Pol 149.4). One paralectotype (ZMA V.Pol 149.1), Lesser Sunda Islands, RV Siboga Exped., Stat. 303 (Samau Isl., Haingsisi), 36 m, dredge, reef expl., 2–5 Feb. 1900 (20 mm long, 6 mm wide, 25 chaetigers). Additional material. Philippines. One specimen (CAS 187535), Hearst Biodiversity Expedition 2011, Luzon Islands, Batangas Province, Tingloy, Maricaban Island, Cemetery Beach (13.68° N, 120.83° E; 13°40´47.9994″ N, 120°49´47.9994″ E), 19 May 2011, D. de la Rosa, coll. (complete, slightly bent laterally; anterior eyes 2× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna without tip, 2/3 as long as caruncle; body 30 mm long, 6 mm wide, 25 chaetigers). One specimen (CAS 217699), Verde Island Passage Expedition 2016, Visayas, Negros Island, Negros oriental, Dauin, San Miguel dive site (09.20° N, 123.28° E; 9°11´59.9994″ N, 123°16´48″ E), 6.5 m, 2 Apr. 2016, T.M. Gosliner, coll. (complete, pigmentation retained, middorsal band with roughly parallel sides; a small ventral section removed for molecular studies; body 40 mm long, 10 mm wide, 27 chaetigers). One specimen (CAS 217701), Verde Island Passage Expedition 2016, Visayas, Negros Island, Negros oriental, Dauin, VIP Resort House reef (09.20° N, 123.27° E; 9°11´59.9994″ N, 123°16´11.9994″ E), 6–32 m, 6 Apr. 2016, J. Comendador, coll. (pigmentation retained; a few chaetae broken; body 34 mm long, 8 mm wide, 24 chaetigers). One specimen (CAS 217710), Verde Island Passage Expedition 2016, Visayas, Negros Island, Negros oriental, Pyramid dive site (09.17 N, 123.25 E; 9°10´11.9994" N, 123°15´0" E), 3–27 m, sand, 7 Apr. 2016, J. Comendador, coll. (complete; middorsal bands subrectangular in median segments, tapered along posterior ones; oval shaped; paler bands along anterior notopodial surfaces. Anterior neurochaetae along median and posterior chaetigers reddish. Median antenna 4/5 as long as caruncle; body 32 mm long, 7.5 mm wide, 24 chaetigers). One specimen (CAS 217726), Verde Island Passage Expedition 2016, Visayas, Negros Island, Negros oriental, Dauin, San Miguel dive site (09.20° N, 123.28° E; 9°11´59.9994″ N, 123°16´48″ E), 6–32 m, 9 Apr. 2016, C. Piotrowski, coll. (bent ventrally; pigmentation retained; some chaetae broken; body 30 mm long, 8 mm wide, 24 chaetigers). Three specimens (CAS 218219), Verde Island Passage Expedition 2016, Visayas, Negros Island, Negros oriental, Zamboanguita, off Basak Barangay (09.10° N, 123.21° E; 9°5´59.9994″ N, 123°12´35.9994″ E), 6–27 m, sand, 4 Mar. 2016, C. Piotrowski, coll. (complete, pigmentation retained in one specimen; some chaetae broken; body 26–41 mm long, 6.5–7.5 mm wide, 23–26 chaetigers). Two specimens (UF 4369), Oriental Mindoro Province, Mindoro, Puerto Galera, off Sabang Beach (13.52207, 120.97522; 13°31´19.4514″ N, 120°58´30.7914″ E), gentle sand slope with some reef blocks, 4–6 m, 13 Apr. 2015, G. Paulay, coll. (complete 16 mm long, 4.5 mm wide, 24 chaetigers; pigmentation almost completely faded off, middorsal band modified; details in variation). One specimen (ZMA V.Pol 149.2), Sulu Islands, RV Siboga Exped., Sta. 104 (Sulu Harbour), 14 m, dredge, sand, 2–3 Jul. 1899 (12 mm long, 3 mm wide, 21 chaetigers). Two specimens (ZMA V.Pol 149.3), Sulu Islands, RV Siboga Exped., Sta. 104 (Sulu Harbour), 14 m, dredge, sand, 2–3 Jul. 1899 (18–21 mm long, 5–6 mm wide, 24 chaetigers). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly; middorsal spots amphora-like, slightly wider anteriorly, thinner medially, rounded posteriorly, surrounded by a pale thin band; harpoon notochaetae with spurs; neurochaetae spurred and furcates. Description. Lectotype (ZMA V.Pol 149.4), complete, slightly damaged, many chaetae broken; left notopodia of chaetigers 4–7, and right notopodia of chaetigers 13, 14 previously removed (Fig. 9A). Body fusiform, 27 mm long, 7 mm wide, 24 chaetigers Lectotype brownish; middorsal spots with anterior half brownish, better defined along anterior to median segments, posterior half blackish (Fig. 9B); paler halo along lateral and posterior margins better defined along anterior to median chaetigers. Lateral bands along anterior notopodial surface better defined along anterior to median segments (Fig. 9C). Dorsal cirri blackish. Chaetae transparent to golden. Venter with pairs of irregular large darker areas per segment, midventral band paler along body. Prostomium anteriorly entire. Eyes blackish, anterior eyes about 2× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, in a paler area, without tip, ¾ as long as caruncle (2/3 as long in ZMA V.Pol 149.1), lateral antennae lost, size relationship to median antenna unknown (2× longer than laterals in ZMA V.Pol 149.1). Lateral antennae bases close to each other, size relationship to palps unknown (2× longer in ZMA V.Pol 149.1). Mouth ventral on chaetiger 3. Pharynx barely exposed, basal smooth rings short; outer ring visible in its tip, not exposed (ZMA V.Pol 149.1 with pharynx fully exposed, turned upwards; two muscular rings, dorsally reduced, followed by a long basal ring with transverse series of thin ridges; distal ring separated in two lateral halves, each with transverse series of continuous warts or verrucae, converging in pharynx opening). Caruncle pale, sigmoid, trilobed, tapered, reaching chaetiger 4. Median ridge plicate, with a brownish band, about 17 vertical folds (25 in ZMA V.Pol 149.1), partially concealing lateral lobes (almost completely concealing them in ZMA V.Pol 149.1). Lateral lobes narrow, with about 18 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, continued throughout body, parallel along body; progressively larger to chaetiger 10–11, smaller posteriorly, slightly longer than following segments in median chaetigers, each with 8–9 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3, ½ as long as dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri 2× longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, 3× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 2× longer and wider, and cirrostyle 2× longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as two subsequent segments. Chaetae many broken. Complete chaetae with distal hoods, rarely eroded. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers furcate, major tines golden, 3–4× longer than minor ones (Fig. 9D). Median chaetigers with aciculars and harpoon notochaetae, some with golden medial area, smooth tines 2–9× longer than wide, others without spurs (Fig. 9F). Neurochaetae all furcates, major tines 2–5× longer than minor ones in anterior chaetigers (Fig. 9E), 3—4× longer in posterior chaetigers (Fig. 9G). Posterior region tapered (Fig. 9H), pygidium with anus terminal, anal cirri pale, tapered, 6–7× longer than wide. Live pigmentation (after recently collected specimens CAS 217699, 217726, 218219, Figs 1A, 10G, H, Rendive (2010), and Castello (2019)). Dorsum pale orange, parapodia paler. Pigmentation pattern with discontinuous middorsal dark purple spots, each amphora-like, anterior half paler, often brownish, posterior half blackish. Amphora-like spots surrounded by a thin pale band, rarely with roughly parallel sides, or thin whitish halo along lateral and posterior margins, surrounded by two darker thin bands, forming a large circular spot including the amphoralike spots, or dark encircling areas in orange or barely developed. Lateral bands brownish, dark purple along anterior notopodial lobes, diverging V-shaped along anterior chaetigers, becoming transverse in median and posterior chaetigers continued along anterior prostomial surfaces. Dorsal cirri dark purple. Bipinnate branchial stems pale, lateral branches purplish to reddish. Chaetae whitish to yellowish. Variation. Paralectotypes variably damaged; some features of the best preserved one were added in description above. Paralectotypes with body 12–21 mm long, 3–6 mm wide, 21–25 chaetigers. The pigmentation pattern is less defined in the smallest lectotype (ZMA V.Pol 149.2, Fig. 10A, B); the middorsal spots are not fully developed and the pale surrounding halo is not visible. The middorsal spots become progressively better defined and the paler halo is visible in median segments of 18 mm long specimens, each spot becoming progressively wider with the pale halo visible (Fig. 10C, D), and in slightly larger specimens (ZMA V.Pol 149.3), being 21 mm long, median segments have a better-defined amphora-like spot with its paler halo (Fig. 11E, F). However, the anterior part might fade, often simultaneously with other pigments, resulting in a longitudinal band, truncate anteriorly, posteriorly tapered, extended along half a segment. Two other specimens (UF 4369) show a marked reduction of overall pigmentation including dorsal cirri, and additional banding pigmentation (Fig. 11A), and median ridge of caruncle (Fig. 10B); even the middorsal spots are also modified, such that the anterior, usually paler anterior portion completely disappears, and the posterior one becomes shorter, and its posterior margin is blunt, not tapered (Fig. 11C). There are no differences in anal cirri (Fig. 11D), or chaetae in anterior (Fig. 11E, F), or median chaetigers (Fig. 11G, H). Remarks. Chloeia amphora Horst. 1910 belongs in the group viridis by having bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly, and a complex pigmentation pattern. Horst (1910: 172) chose the specific epithet because “each segment shows a violet spot, somewhat resembling a roman amphora, surrounded by a white band.” He also noted that “in the anterior segments an oblique (purple) band is visible, running over the front-side of the parapodium.” Chloeia amphora resembles C. maculata Baird, 1868 described from Saint Brandon Rocks (Cargados Carajos), Indian Ocean (see below), because in the former, the middorsal spots are less defined in smaller specimens. However, a comparison of specimens of similar size confirms that in C. amphora the spots are not well defined in smallest specimens, about the same size as the holotype of C. maculata, but continue to be in larger specimens, whereas in C maculata the band is restricted to the posterior segmental half, even in larger specimens. Further, the holotype of C. maculata (13 mm long) is markedly wider than the smallest paralectotype of C. amphora (12 mm long), which might imply that it was longer and became contracted after fixation, such that it should be compared with larger specimens of C. amphora. Chloeia amphora also resembles C. bimaculata Wang, Zhang, Xie & Qiu, 2019 described from Hong Kong, because the latter has dorsal spots varying from an amphora like spot along chaetigers 3–7, and then each spot becomes separated, as indicated in the specific epithet. Despite the fact Wang et al. (2019) did not include comparisons with other species, these two species differ, although slightly regarding the shape of spots, and especially in some chaetal features. In C. amphora, the anterior notochaetae are furcates with golden tines, and harpoon notochaetae have a well-developed spur, whereas C. bimaculata has anterior notochaetae spurred, barely pigmented or pale, and its harpoon notochaetae are smooth, or have a tiny spur. Distribution. Indonesia to the Philippines, in sediments from the intertidal to 45 m water depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 23-27, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Horst, R. (1910) On the genus Chloeia with some new species from the Malay Archipelago, partly collected by the Siboga-Expedition. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 32, 169 - 175.","Horst, R. (1912) Polychaeta errantia of the Siboga Expedition. Part 1. Amphinomidae. Siboga-Expeditie Uitkomsten op Zoologisch, Bonatisch, Oceanographisch en Geologisch gebied verzameld in Nederlandsch Oost-Indie 1899 - 1900, 24 a, 1 - 43, 10 pls.","Fauvel, P. (1932) Annelida Polychaeta of the Indian Museum, Calcutta. Memoirs of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, 12, 1 - 262.","Fauvel, P. (1953) The Fauna of India, including Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Malaya. Annelida Polychaeta. Indian Press, Allahbad, 507 pp.","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Bleeker, J. & van der Spoel, S. (1992) Catalogue of the Polychaeta collected by the Siboga Expedition and type specimens of Polychaeta in the Zoological Museum of Amsterdam. Bulletin Zo ˆ logischen Museum, Universiteit van Amsterdam, 13, 121 - 166.","Barroso, R. & Paiva, P. C. (2011) A new deep-sea species of Chloeia (Polychaeta: Amphinomidae) from southern Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 91 (2), 419 - 423. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0025315410001499","Rendive (2010) Chloeia flava. wmv. YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = hstJFjQizec (accessed 14 July 2022)","Castello, J. R. (2019) Amphora fire worm (Chloeia amphora), Anilao (Philippines). YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = RTen 571 CbGw (accessed 14 July 2022)","Baird, W. (1868) Contributions towards a monograph of the species of annelides belonging to the Amphinomacea, with a list of the known species, and a description of several new species (belonging to the group) contained in the National Collection of the British Museum. To which is appended a short account of two hitherto nondescript annulose animals of a larval character. The Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 10 (44), 215 - 250, pls. 4 - 6. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1868. tb 02233. x","Wang, Z., Zhang, Y., Xie, Y. J. & Qiu, J. - W. (2019) Two species of fireworms (Annelida: Amphinomidae: Chloeia) from Hong Kong. Zoological Studies, 58 (22), 1 - 12. https: // doi. org / 10.6620 / ZS. 2019.58 - 22."]}

Chloeia inermis de Quatrefages, 1866 Figs 33, 34 Chloeia inermis de Quatrefages, 1866: 389; Baird 1868: 232; Benham 1915: 206–207; Augener 1924: 258–259; Benham 1916: 390–391, Figs 6–11 (descr.); Benham 1927: 84–85 (size variation; syn.); Monro 1936: 80; Knox 1960: 80; Hartman 1959: 131; Barroso & Paiva 2011: 422, Tab. 1; Read 2011: 101, 3 unnumb. figs. Chloeia spectabilis Baird, 1868: 234. Chloeia australis Kudenov, 1993: 99–100, Figs 3, 6; Barroso & Paiva 2011: 422, Tab. 1. Type material. New Zealand. Holotype of Chloeia inermis de Quatrefages, 1866 (MNHN IA-TYPE 95), J.R.C. Quoy & J.P. Gaimard, coll. (no further data; Oct. – Dec. 1826 after Dumont d’Urville 1830: 113 & following pp; type not listed by Solís-Weiss et al. 2004). Holotype of C. spectabilis Baird, 1868 (BMNH 53.4.7.7), Capt. Stokes, coll., no further data (left neuropodium, of chaetiger 9 and left notopodium of chaetiger 14 previously removed; other data used for variation). Paratype of C. australis Kudenov, 1993 (USNM 139106), USNS Eltanin, Sta. 368 (43°16´S, 175°23´E to 43°21´S, 175°22´E), 84 m, 19 Nov. 1966 (data used for variation). Additional material. New Zealand. One specimen (BMNH 1928.2.29.171), British Antarctic Terra Nova Expedition, Sta. 134, Spirits Bay, near North Cape, shelly bottom, 20–36 m, 31 Aug. 1911 (pale, including branchiae; median antenna 4/5 as long as caruncle; dorsal cirri purple; pharynx exposed, rings smooth; bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5; some parapodia previously removed; dorsal cirri dark purple; branchiae from chaetiger 5; body bent ventrally, 15 mm long, 4.5 mm wide, 24 chaetigers). One specimen (BMNH 1936.2.8.20), RRS Discovery II, Sta. 939 (35°49.6´S, 173°27´E to 35°51.6´S, 173°28.9´E), 87 m, 18 Aug. 1932 (juvenile; pale, fusiform, several parapodia previously removed; anterior eyes 2–3× larger than posterior ones; body bent ventrally 9 mm long, 2.5 mm wide, 23 chaetigers). One specimen (ZMH V9448), Colville Channel, Auckland, T. Mortensen, coll. (slightly bent ventrally, colorless; dorsal cirri dark purple, cirrophores darker; 28 mm long, 7 mm wide, 28 chaetigers). Australia. One specimen (AM E5225), FIS Endeavour 1909–1910, Sta. not specified, Tasmania, off South Cape (43°38' S, 146°42' E), 135 m (data used for variation). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, progressively smaller posteriorly, stems basally pale; notochaetae spurred and acicular, rarely harpoon chaetae without spurs; neurochaetae acicular and spurred. Description. Holotype of C. inermis (MNHN IA-TYPE 95) complete, many notochaetae broken (Fig. 33A); body fusiform, slightly bent ventrally, tapered in both ends, posterior end distorted by compression; 34 mm long, 10 mm wide, 33 chaetigers. Holotype homogeneously pale after ca. 200 years in ethanol (Fig. 33B), chaetae yellowish; some median and posterior segments with violet dorsal cirrophores; venter pale. Prostomium anteriorly entire. Eyes blackish, anterior eyes 3–4× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, twisted, 2/3 as long as caruncle (Fig. 33C), 2× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases close to each other, slightly longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetigers 2–3. Pharynx barely exposed, pale. Caruncle pale, tapered, curved to the left, trilobed, reaching chaetiger 4. Median ridge plicate, with about 27 vertical folds, partially concealing right lateral lobe. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 24 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, continued throughout body, parallel throughout body; progressively larg-er to chaetiger 10, smaller in last 10 chaetigers. Median segments with 10–12 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–4, damaged, shorter than dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers and posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 2× longer and wider, and cirrostyle 2× longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as two subsequent segments. Chaetae variable broken, hoods mostly eroded, especially notochaetae, most neurochaetae complete. Complete chaetae with distal fragile hoods, most eroded completely. Notochaetae in all chaetigers acicular, smooth, without furcates; a very few harpoon chaetae with minute denticles (Fig. 33D). Neurochaetae aciculars, smooth (Fig. 33E). Posterior region tapered; pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri bent dorsally, pale, digitate, 4–5× longer than wide. Live pigmentation (after Dav (2015), Morris (2010) and Marriott (2022)). Body with dorsum pink, with a middorsal whitish longitudinal band; caruncular median ridge whitish; branchiae reddish; dorsal cirri dark purple or blackish. Variation. The holotype of C. spectabilis (BMNH 53.4.7.7) is pale, barely fusiform (Fig. 34A); its anterior eyes are 3× larger than posterior ones. Its median antenna is broken. The caruncle is twisted, pale, reaching chaetiger 3. Cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–4. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, without cirriform branchiae. Cirrostyles distally pigmented along few anterior and posterior chaetigers (Fig. 34B); venter with abundant surface whitish disks; body bent ventrally; body 57 mm long, 10 mm wide, 32 chaetigers. Harpoon chaetae not found. Posterior region tapered (Fig. 34C); anal cirri digitate, whitish, about 4 longer than wide. The paratype of C. australis (USNM 139106) is an epitoke; pigmentation pattern reduced to purple dorsal cirri, often only cirrostyles purple; its anterior eyes almost 3× larger than posterior ones. Its median antenna is as long as caruncle. The caruncle is contracted, appears smooth, tapered, reaching chaetiger 3. Cirriform branchiae in chaetigers 1 and 2, other ones lost. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, without cirriform branchiae. Harpoon-chaetae not found, most notochaetae acicular, but anterior and posterior neuropodia with long natatory spurred capillaries. Body slightly bent ventrally, 53 mm long, 13 mm wide, 34 chaetigers. Another specimen (AM E5225) is included because it was studied by Benham; body bent laterally; colorless (Fig. 34D); anterior eyes slightly larger than posterior ones; branchiae from chaetiger 5; anterior chaetigers with spurred notochaetae (Fig. 34E) and neurochaetae (Fig. 34F), spurs barely visible; median chaetigers with acicular notochaetae (Fig. 34G), and neurochaetae, spurs not visible (Fig. 34H); body 42 mm long, 10 mm wide, 28 chaetigers. Remarks. Chloeia inermis de Quatrefages, 1866, originally described from New Zealand, it resembles species in the group longisetosa by having bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, but it differs from those species by having a white middorsal longitudinal band. In the key above, it resembles C. wangi sp. n., described below from The Philippines because harpoon notochaetae are rare to nill in median segments. However, these species differ in three features: the size of its median antenna to caruncle, basal pigmentation of bipinnate branchial stems, and type of notochaetae. Thus, in C. inermis the median antenna is shorter than caruncle, its branchial stems do not have basal spots, and notochaetae are spurred or aciculars, whereas C. wangi has a median antenna as long as caruncle, its branchial stems have a basal white spot, and notochaetae are furcates (major tines 3–4× longer than minor ones). The specific epithet selected by de Quatrefages (1866: 389, Latin diagnosis; 388) refers to the presence of smooth chaetae, instead of being denticulate (Latin inermis, e: unarmed, without spines), as indicated by Benham (1916: 390). However, there are a few harpoon notochaetae in the damaged holotype of C. inermis, but most notochaetae are acicular. De Quatrefages also indicated his new species could be identical to C. egena Grube, 1855, described with a damaged specimen, without locality, that has been regarded as indeterminable (see above). In the description of C. spectabilis, Baird (1868: 231, 234) indicated that it resembled C. inermis de Quatrefages, 1866 and C. egena Grube, 1855, and that C. spectabilis “differs from both in minor details” but he did not indicate what the differences were. The holotype of C. spectabilis has no relevant differences with the holotype of C. inermis, thus becoming synonyms. Horst (1910: 172) regarded the three above species as indeterminable. Benham (1915, 1916), Augener (1924), McIntosh (1925: 18), and Monro (1936) provided more details for recognizing C. inermis as distinct, besides having chaetae without serrations and with tips entire, sometimes with tiny spurs; for the pigmentation pattern they noted there is a middorsal paler band, purple median antennae and dorsal cirri, and branchiae from chaetiger 5. These features are present in the types of C. inermis and C. spectabilis, but the former has priority. Kudenov (1993: 100) described C. australis from the Campbell Plateau (500 km South off New Zealand); the specific name was selected to emphasize the southern, subantarctic distribution of the species. His description detailed a dorsal surface with a middorsal pale longitudinal stripe, that notochaetae were smooth, and branchiae begin in chaetiger 5. Kudenov (2020 in email) indicated his species is a junior synonym of C. inermis de Quatrefages, 1866. After the study of one of his paratypes, his synonymy proposal is herein confirmed. Kudenov (1993: 100) noted the abundant, long capillary neurochaetae with tiny spurs which would indicate the specimens having them are prenatatory epitokes. Distribution. Australia to New Zealand, Chatham Islands, Chatham Rise, Campbell Plateau, west of Antipodes and Bounty islands, in sediments at 20–183 m depth (Kudenov 1993: 100)., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 75-77, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818","Baird, W. (1868) Contributions towards a monograph of the species of annelides belonging to the Amphinomacea, with a list of the known species, and a description of several new species (belonging to the group) contained in the National Collection of the British Museum. To which is appended a short account of two hitherto nondescript annulose animals of a larval character. The Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 10 (44), 215 - 250, pls. 4 - 6. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1868. tb 02233. x","Benham, W. B. (1915) Report on the Polychaeta obtained by the F. I. S. \" Endeavour \" on the coasts of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. Fisheries, Zoological Results of the Fishing Experiments carried on by the F. I. \" Endeavour, \" 1909 - 14, 3, 171 - 237, pls. 38 - 45.","Augener, H. (1924) Papers from the Dr. Th. Mortensen's Pacific Expedition 1914 - 1916, 18. Polychaeta 2: Polychaeten fon Neuseeland, 1. Errantia. Videnskabelige meddelelser fra den Naturhistoriske forening i KObenhavn, 75, 241 - 441.","Benham, W. B. (1916) Notes on New Zealand Polychaeta, 2. Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 48, 386 - 396.","Benham, W. B. (1927) Polychaeta. British Antarctic Terra Nova Expedition 1910, Natural History Reports, Zoology, 7 (2), 47 - 182, pls. 1 - 4.","Monro, C. C. A. (1936) Polychaete worms, 2. Discovery Reports, 12, 59 - 198.","Knox, G. A. (1960) Biological results of the Chatham Islands 1954 Expedition, 3. Polychaeta Errantia. Bulletin of the New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, 139 (3), New Zealand Oceanographic Institute Memoir, 6, 73 - 143.","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Barroso, R. & Paiva, P. C. (2011) A new deep-sea species of Chloeia (Polychaeta: Amphinomidae) from southern Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 91 (2), 419 - 423. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0025315410001499","Read, G. (2011) Phylum Annelida: Bristle worms, leeches. In: Tracey, D. M., Anderson, O. F. & Naylor, J. R. (Eds.), A Guide to Common Deepsea Invertebrates in New Zealand Waters. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report, 86, pp. 97 - 105.","Kudenov, J. D. (1993) Amphinomidae and Euphrosinidae (Annelida: Polychaeta) principally from Antarctica, the Southern Ocean, and Subantarctic regions. Antarctic Research Series, Biology of the Antarctic Seas, 22, 58, 93 - 150. https: // doi. org / 10.1029 / AR 058 p 0093","Dumont d'Urville, J. (1830) Voyage de la Corvette L'Astrolabe execute par Ordre du Roi, pendant les annees 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829. Histoire du Voyage. Tome Premier. Tastu, Paris, 528 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 2132","Solis-Weiss, V., Bertrand, Y., Helleouet, M. - N. & Pleijel, F. (2004) Types of polychaetous annelids at the Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris. Zoosystema, 26, 377 - 384, Supplement 21 pp.","Dav, J. (2015) Fireworm: Chloeia inermis Amphinomidae. YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = PFCZebzpWOs (accessed 14 July 2022)","Morris, R. (2010) Fireworm (Chloeia inermis). Available from: https: // www. rodmorris. co. nz / New-Zealand-Seashore / New-Zealand-Seashore / i-Bx 6 GtWL / A (accessed 30 July 2022)","Marriott, P. (2022) Fireworm. Available from: https: // www. royalsociety. org. nz / major-issues-and-projects / taxonomy / weird-andwonderful-creatures / fireworm / (accessed 30 July 2022)","Grube, A. E. (1855) Beschreibungen neuer oder wenig bekannter Anneliden. Archiv f ¸ r Naturgeschichte, Berlin, 21 (1), 81 - 136, pls. 3 - 5. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. part. 13989","Horst, R. (1910) On the genus Chloeia with some new species from the Malay Archipelago, partly collected by the Siboga-Expedition. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 32, 169 - 175.","McIntosh, W. C. (1925) A second contribution to the marine polychaetes of South Africa. Union South African Fisheries Marine Biological Survey, Report, 5 (4), 1 - 93, pls. 1 - 10."]}

Chloeia hutchingsae sp. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 9F7BC066-948C-45FE-959C-ADD15D972430 Fig. 30 Type material. Philippines. Holotype (CAS 185386), Hearst Philippine Biodiversity Expedition 2011, M/V DABFAR, near Simo Banks (14.07° N, 120.17° E), 223–369 m, sand, 3 Jun. 2011, R. Mooi, et al., coll. Additional material. Australia. Anterior fragment (AM W6526), New South Wales, east of Malabar (33°57' S, 151°19' E), Shelf Benthic Survey, Sta. 20, 11.6 m, 18 Jan. 1973 (middorsal band expanded anteriorly, and two illdefined wide lateral bands expanded laterally beyond branchiae. Eyes blackish, anterior eyes 2× larger than posterior ones. Caruncle with 36 folds; median ridge reddish. Bipinnate branchiae with 6–7 lateral branches by chaetiger 10. Many chaetae broken; 31 mm long, 12 mm wide, 16 complete chaetigers). Vanuatu. One specimen (MNHN Musorstom 8-1040), RV Alis, Sta. CP 1040 (16°48.74´S, 168°30.17´E), 472– 464 m, 30 Sep. 1994, B. Richer de Forges, coll. (complete, slightly bent; notochaetae almost all lost; caruncle with middorsal ridge blackish, with 40 vertical folds; bipinnate branchiae in chaetiger 10 with 7 lateral branches; posterior end with anus terminal, anal cirri digitate, 6× longer than wide; 60 mm long, 13 mm wide, 37 chaetigers). Diagnosis. Chloeia with branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly, each with 6–7 lateral branches; middorsal bands T- or Y-shaped, without lateral bands; harpoon notochaetae with short smooth tines; neurochaetae spurred and furcates. Description. Holotype (CAS 185386), bent ventrally, some chaetae broken; body 105 mm long, 15 mm wide, 34 chaetigers. Holotype with dorsum purplish, middorsal band expanded anteriorly in each segment, and two ill-defined wide lateral bands expanded laterally beyond branchiae, continued between parapodia (Fig. 30A); dorsal cirri purple, at least basally; branchial stems and bases of lateral branches purplish, branches tips pale. Venter cream, midventral band indistinct. Prostomium anteriorly entire. Eyes blackish, anterior eyes 2–3× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna pale, inserted at anterior caruncular margin, without tip, 1/8 as long as caruncle, size proportions to lateral antennae unknown. Lateral antennae bases separate, slightly wider than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2. Pharynx barely exposed. Caruncle grayish, sigmoid, trilobed, tapered, reaching chaetiger 4 (Fig. 30B). Median ridge continuous, not plicate, dark purple, with about 34 vertical folds, partially concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 30 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, parallel throughout body, several lost (segment 16 branchiae removed), progressively larger to chaetiger 12–14, progressively smaller posteriorly. By chaetiger 15, branchiae with 6–7 lateral branches (Fig. 30C). Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–4, 1/3–1/4 as long as dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri colorless along chaetigers 1–5, following segment with cirrostyle purple, cirrophores pale, slightly longer than branchiae in median segments, 2× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 2× longer and wider, and cirrostyle 2× longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as one subsequent segment. Chaetae brittle, many broken, complete with distal hoods, rarely eroded. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers furcates, major tines 6–12× longer than minor ones (Fig. 30D). Median chaetigers with two types of notochaetae: furcates with reduced minor tines, major ones 5–8× longer than minor ones, and harpoon-chaetae with denticulate tines 6–7× longer than smooth ones (Fig. 30F). Neurochaetae furcates and spurred, major tines 5-7× longer than minor ones, of similar proportions in anterior (Fig. 29E) and median chaetigers (Fig. 30G). Posterior region tapered (Fig. 30H); anus terminal, anal cirri whitish, bent dorsally, 5–6× longer than wide. Live pigmentation (after C. Piotrowski notes after collecting one specimen). Middorsal band purple. Caruncle blackish, median ridge grayish. Dorsal cirri dark purple basally, tips whitish. Branchiae red. Australian specimens with red pigmentation (Fig. 30I). Etymology. The specific epithet is after Dr. Pat Hutchings, from the Australian Museum, Sidney, in recognition of her abundant, relevant publications in taxonomy of polychaetes and those dealing with proposals for improving funding and professional conditions of taxonomists in general. The derived name is a noun in the genitive case (ICZN 1999, Art. 31.1.2). Remarks. Chloeia hutchingsae sp. n. is described with specimens from The Philippines to Australia and Vanuatu; by having a complex pigmentation pattern, and bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly, it belongs in the group viridis. Because of the presence of a well-defined middorsal band, without lateral bands, C. hutchingsae resembles C. zibrowi sp. n. described below from the French Polynesia; they are also similar after the size of eyes and the type of chaetae. However, these two species differ especially in the pigmentation of caruncle, its vertical folds, and in the number of branchial lateral branches in median segments. In C. hutchingsae caruncle is pale, with blackish median ridge, with 34 vertical folds, and its branchiae are delicate, each with 11–12 lateral branches, whereas in C. zibrowii caruncle is blackish, with 24 vertical folds, and its branchiae are massive, with 6–7 lateral branches. Distribution. The Philippines to Australia and Vanuatu, in sediments at 12–472 m water depth; however, the shallow water anterior fragment (AM W6526) differs and it is herein included with hesitation Better preserved specimens would help clarify its affinities., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 68-70, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)"]}

Chloeia fauveli sp. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: CCCE704E-661C-420B-9EE3-D2DC5FFAD2E2 Fig. 17 Chloeia rosea: Fauvel 1932: 57; Fauvel 1953: 97–98, Fig. 46h (partim, RV Investigator, Sta. 242 is C. tumida Baird, 1868; non Potts, 1909). Type material. Bay of Bengal. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2049), and paratype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2051), RIMS Investigator, Sta. XX (no coordinates available; see Anonymous 1914 in Huys et al. 2014), 117 m, 1885 (paratype data in variation). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate massive branchiae from chaetiger 4, stems basally purplish, progressively smaller posteriorly; dorsum pale; anterior chaetigers with harpoon notochaetae, without spurs; neurochaetae spurred and furcates. Description. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2049), complete, slightly bent ventrally, body 29 mm long, 9 mm wide, 28 chaetigers. Holotype pale; dorsum without pigmentation pattern (Fig. 17A); dorsal cirri purplish; branchiae pale, pink in posterior region; anterior prostomial area grayish; chaetae transparent to yellowish. Venter cream, midventral band wide, paler. Prostomium anteriorly entire, anterior region grayish. Eyes black, anterior eyes 8–10× larger than posterior ones (Fig. 17B, C). Median antenna complete, pale, inserted at anterior caruncular margin, 1/3 as long as caruncle, slightly longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases separated from each other, slightly longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle pale, sigmoid, trilobed, tapered, reaching chaetiger 5. Median ridge plicate, pale, with about 30 vertical folds, almost completely concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 30 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, parallel or slightly divergent along body, progressively larger to chaetiger 13–14, smaller posteriorly; in median segments branchiae with 12–13 lateral branches (Fig. 17D). Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3, progressively shorter, ½–1/3 as long as dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri slightly longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, 2× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 3× longer and wider, and cirrostyle 2–3× longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, slightly longer than one subsequent segment. Chaetae most complete with hoods, rarely eroded. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers include a few furcates, major tines 4–6× longer than minor ones, and harpoon-chaetae, with or without smooth tines (Fig. 17E). Median chaetigers with one type of notochaetae: harpoon-chaetae without tines (Fig. 17G). Neurochaetae furcates and spurred, major tines 5–12× longer than minor ones, a few with spurs (major tines over 10× longer than minor ones) along anterior (Fig. 17F) and median chaetigers (Fig. 17H). Posterior region tapered (Fig. 17I); pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri lost. Live pigmentation. Unknown. Its pink body was probably used for identifying it as C. rosea; likely more intense in living specimens. Etymology. The species name is after the late Dr. Pierre Fauvel in recognition of his many publications on polychaetes, and especially because he studied the type specimens included in the above description. The derived name is a noun in the genitive case (ICZN 1999, Art. 31.1.2). Variation. Paratype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2051) complete, bent ventrally, body 27 mm long, 9 mm wide, 27 chaetigers; dorsal cirri and ventral cirri of chaetiger 2 purplish; branchial stems purplish; anterior eyes 5–6× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna with ceratostyle broken. Branchiae large, massive, completely covering dorsum along median and posterior chaetigers. Anal cirri lost. Remarks. Chloeia fauveli sp. n. is described after some specimens collected in the Bay of Bengal. It belongs in the group tumida because it lacks a dorsal pigmentation pattern, and has bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly. Further, by having caruncle tapered and pigmented dorsal cirri and branchiae, C. fauveli resembles C. murrayae sp. n. from Australia. The main differences between these two species are in the size of anterior and posterior eyes, development of bipinnate branchiae, and type of notochaetae in anterior chaetigers. Thus, C. fauveli has anterior eyes 8–10× larger than posterior ones, branchiae massive, and harpoon notochaetae in chaetiger 3, whereas in C. murrayae anterior eyes 3–4× larger than posterior ones, branchiae are delicate, and there are no harpoon notochaetae in anterior chaetigers. Fauvel (1932) identified as C. rosea Potts, 1909 the type specimens. However, C. rosea is unique by having branchiae pinnate, not bipinnate, starting from chaetiger 5, and it was found on a purple alcyonarian in substrates at 54 m water depth. These specimens have massive bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, and were dredged from sediments at 117 m water depth. The handwritten label by Fauvel has a question mark for the species name. He also indicated the species was abundant and followed Potts who had noted that “It is very noticeable how closely this species adheres to the C. fusca type. The only differences from the original species are but trifling, viz., the coloration, structure, and arrangement of gills and the absence of a single type of chaetae” (Potts 1909; 358) Fauvel concluded by indicating “it is probably a young form of C. fusca, or a colour variety” (Fauvel 1932:57, 1953: 97). These conclusions and perspectives cannot be sustained and consequently, C. fauveli is different from C. rosea. Distribution. Bay of Bengal, in sediments at 117 m water depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 43-44, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Fauvel, P. (1932) Annelida Polychaeta of the Indian Museum, Calcutta. Memoirs of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, 12, 1 - 262.","Fauvel, P. (1953) The Fauna of India, including Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Malaya. Annelida Polychaeta. Indian Press, Allahbad, 507 pp.","Baird, W. (1868) Contributions towards a monograph of the species of annelides belonging to the Amphinomacea, with a list of the known species, and a description of several new species (belonging to the group) contained in the National Collection of the British Museum. To which is appended a short account of two hitherto nondescript annulose animals of a larval character. The Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 10 (44), 215 - 250, pls. 4 - 6. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1868. tb 02233. x","Potts, F. A. (1909) The Percy Sladen Trust Expediton to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner, 20. Polychaeta of the Indian Ocean, Part 1. The Amphinomidae. The Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Series 2 Zoology, 12 (4), 355 - 371, pls. 45 - 46. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1909. tb 00147. x","Huys, R., Low, M. E. Y., de Grave, S., Ng, P. K. L. & Clark, P. F. (2014) On two reports associated with James Wood-Mason and Alfred William Alcock published by the Indian Museum and the Indian Marine Survey between 1890 and 1891: implications for malacostracan nomenclature. Zootaxa, 3757 (1), 1 - 78. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3757.1.1","ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)"]}

Chloeia rosea Potts, 1909 Fig. 50 Chloeia rosea Potts, 1909: 357–358, Pl. 45, Fig. 3; Fauvel 1932: 57; Fauvel 1953: 97–98, Fig. 46h (partim, RV Investigator, Sta. 242 is C. tumida Baird, 1868); Hartman 1959: 132. Chloeia tumida?: Monro 1937: 253 (3 small juveniles from Maldives). Type material. Indian Ocean, Amirante Islands. Holotype (BMNH 1924.3.1.145), HMS Sealark, station not indicated, associated with a purple alcyonarian, 54 m, Oct. 1905, J.S. Gardiner, coll. (Note: Cooper (1909) recorded three species of Antipathes Pallas, 1766b for the Amiral Islands from the same expedition). Diagnosis. Chloeia with pinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, progressively smaller posteriorly; dorsum pink, without pigmentation pattern; anterior eyes slightly larger than posterior ones; caruncle with about 10 folds; notochaetae furcates and harpoon chaetae without spurs; neurochaetae furcates. Description. Holotype (BMNH 1924.3.1.145), with body fusiform, 10.5 mm long, 3 mm wide, 20 chaetigers. Holotype whitish, including chaetae (Fig. 50A); anterior prostomial margin blackish; dorsal cirri and branchiae pale. Venter brownish, midventral band paler, double; lips inner surface greenish. Prostomium anteriorly entire. Eyes blackish, anterior eyes slightly larger than posterior ones. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, as long as caruncle (Fig. 50B), 3× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases separate from each other, slightly longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle pale, sigmoid, trilobed, tapered, reaching chaetiger 4. Median ridge plicate, with about 12 vertical folds, partially concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 16 vertical folds. Pinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, continued throughout body, convergent towards posterior region; progressively smaller posteriorly, longer than following segments in anterior (Fig. 50C) and median segments; in posterior segments as long as 1.5× successive segments. Median segments with 6–7 lateral branches (all without secondary branches, hence pinnate, not bipinnate). Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–4, ¼–1/2 as long as dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri slightly longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, 2–3× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores slightly longer and wider, and cirrostyle slightly longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as one subsequent segment. Chaetae soft, most complete; distal fragile hoods and chaetal cortex variably eroded. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers furcates (Fig. 50D), major tines 4—5× longer than minor ones. Median chaetigers with 2 types of notochaetae (Fig. 50F): furcates with smooth tines, major tines 3× longer than minor ones, and harpoon-chaetae with bifurcation region pigmented, denticulate tine 3—4× longer than smooth ones. Neurochaetae all furcates, anterior chaetigers with major tines 4× longer than minor ones (Fig. 50E); median chaetigers with furcates and furcate capillaries (Fig. 50G), major tines 3–5× longer than minor ones. Posterior region tapered; pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri lost (color, shape and size unknown). Live pigmentation (from original description). Body reddish including chaetae. No other pigmentation features were given in the description. Remarks. Chloeia rosea Potts, 1909 was described from the Indian Ocean; it is unique among Chloeia species by having pinnate branchiae, instead of being bipinnate like in the other species. There are three other species having branchiae from chaetiger 5, and without dorsal pigmentation pattern: C. longisetosa Potts, 1909 from the Indian Ocean, C. slapcinskyi sp. n., and C. wangi, the two latter ones from The Philippines. However, these three species have bipinnate branchiae, not pinnate, as in C. rosea. The species was described with a small specimen (11 mm long, 20 segments) with reddish pink pigmentation, and it was found associated with a purple alcyonarian (Potts 1909: 358). Regretfully, there were not enough details about the potential symbiont in the narrative for the expedition (Gardiner & Cooper 1907a, b), nor in the account of the alcyonarians (Cooper 1909). The relationship between these two species groups is quite interesting because most Chloeia species are regarded as free living, digging in sediments. From the original description, it was indicated that branchiae were convergent and long enough as to touch each other dorsally, and the illustration shows them with lateral branches tapered, clearly separated from each other, and this is confirmed in the holotype. Distribution. Only known from the Admiral Islands, Indian Ocean, associated with alcyonarians, in substrates at 54 m depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 106-108, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Potts, F. A. (1909) The Percy Sladen Trust Expediton to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner, 20. Polychaeta of the Indian Ocean, Part 1. The Amphinomidae. The Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Series 2 Zoology, 12 (4), 355 - 371, pls. 45 - 46. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1909. tb 00147. x","Fauvel, P. (1932) Annelida Polychaeta of the Indian Museum, Calcutta. Memoirs of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, 12, 1 - 262.","Fauvel, P. (1953) The Fauna of India, including Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Malaya. Annelida Polychaeta. Indian Press, Allahbad, 507 pp.","Baird, W. (1868) Contributions towards a monograph of the species of annelides belonging to the Amphinomacea, with a list of the known species, and a description of several new species (belonging to the group) contained in the National Collection of the British Museum. To which is appended a short account of two hitherto nondescript annulose animals of a larval character. The Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 10 (44), 215 - 250, pls. 4 - 6. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1868. tb 02233. x","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Monro, C. C. A. (1937) Polychaeta. John Murray Expedition 1933 - 34, Scientific Reports, 4 (8), 243 - 321.","Cooper, C. F. (1909) The Percy Sladen Trust Expediton to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner, 17. Antipatharia. Transactions of the Linnean Society, London, Series 2, Zoology, 12, 301 - 321, pl. 4.","Pallas, P. S. (1766 b) Elenchus zoophytorum sistens generum adumbrationes generaliores et specierum cognitarum succintas descriptiones, cum selectis auctorum synonymis. Fransiscum Varrentrapp, Hagae, 451 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 6595","Gardiner, J. S. & Cooper, F. F. (1907 a) The Percy Sladen Trust Expediton to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner, 1. Description of the Expedition. Transactions of the Linnean Society, London, Series 2, Zoology, 12, 1 - 55, pls. 1 - 10. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1907. tb 00507. x"]}

Chloeia flava (Pallas, 1766) restricted Figs 1D, 19, 20 Aphrodita flava Pallas, 1766a: 97–102, Pl. 8, Figs 7–11. Amphinome capillata Bruguière, 1789: 45–46 (unnecessary repl. name). Chloeia capillata: Savigny 1822: 58–59; Milne-Edwards 1837, Pl. 9, Fig. 1. Terebella flava: Milne-Edwards 1837:31. Chloeia flava: de Quatrefages 1866: 386–388, Pl. 17, Fig. 4; Willey 1905: 244–245, Pl. 1, Figs 1, 2 (syn.); Kinberg (1910: 33, Pl. 11, Fig. 1); Augener 1926: 436; Fauvel 1932: 55; Fauvel 1953: 96, Fig. 46d, i; Hartman 1959: 131; Amoureux et al. 1978: 73; Barroso & Paiva 2011: 422, Tab. 1 (partim); Yáñez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo 2022: 516–517, Fig. 6. Chloeia ceylonica Grube, 1874: 326. Type locality. Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal, Punducherry, India, after neotype MNHN 247. Type material. Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal, India. Neotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 247), Punducherry (Pon-dicherry, 11°55′N 79°49′E), Leschenault, coll. (no further data). Paraneotype (MNHN 252), Ennore (13°13′03″ N, 80°19′17.58″ E) (no further data). Additional material. India. One specimen (MNMH 399.1), Andaman, Port Blair, caught with a fishing line baited with meat, no date or collector data, from the Indian Museum (middorsal spots dark purple, circular along anterior and median chaetigers, oval, longer than wide in posterior region; lateral bands continued along anterior parapodial surfaces; dorsal cirri colorless; branchial stems pale, branches purplish; caruncle median ridge dark purple; chaetae with yellowish band distally; anterior end damaged by compression; body 85 mm long, 15 mm wide, 39 chaetigers). Burma. One specimen (BMNH 1938.5.7.12), RV Investigator, Sta. number unknown, Mergui, no further data (whitish, middorsal spots purple, circular along most chaetigers from chaetiger 4, oval to elongate along last 9 chaetigers; bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, whitish; body 56 mm long, 16 mm wide, 37 chaetigers). One specimen (ZMA VPol 151), no further data (bent ventrally; middorsal spots purple, oval; branchiae pale, from chaetiger 4; pharynx exposed; anal cirri subcylindrical, blunt, 6–7× longer than wide; body 74 mm long, 21 mm wide, 37 chaetigers). Thailand. One specimen (CAS 188790), Vanderbilt Gulf of Thailand Survey, Ban Aantong Bay, Goh Samui Island, anchoring (09°30´03″ N, 99°56´00″ E), intertidal, collected swimming at surface at 16:30, 7 Nov. 1957, Fehlman & Rofen, coll. (bent ventrally, branchiae and notochaetae obliterating middorsal circular spots; eyes black, minute, anterior eyes larger than posterior ones; W. Light regarded it as a possible new variety, 1 Aug. 1968, probably after the tiny eyes and being caught swimming; body 82 mm long, 19 mm wide, 40 chaetigers). Singapore. One specimen (RMNH 1227), 1907, P. Buittendijk, no further data (complete, pharynx exposed, anterior end distorted by compression in small container; middorsal spots circular, roughly rectangular in last 7 chaetigers; body 63 mm long, 17 mm wide, 34 chaetigers). Indonesia. One specimen (ZMA VPol 155b), Batavia (Jakarta), Java, Mar. 1911, Buittendijk, coll. (body straight; middorsal spots oval long anterior body third, circular in median and posterior regions; 30 mm long, 6 mm wide, 29 chaetigers). New Guinea. One specimen (RMNH 1224), Fak-Fak, 19 Sep. 1908, P. van den Broek, coll. (posterior end bent dorsally; middorsal spots circular, oval in last 7 chaetigers; body 64 mm long, 17 mm wide, 35 chaetigers). Taiwan. One specimen (ZMH V7217), Hai-gia-kang, Takao, 29 Apr. 1907, H. Santer, coll. (complete; anterior end distorted by exposed pharynx; middorsal spots circular, reddish, barely defined; dorsal cirri reddish; branchial stems pink; chaetae golden; body 34 mm long, 9 mm wide, 28 chaetigers). Australia. One specimen (AM V998), Queensland, Bewick Island, Barrier Reef (14° 25´S, 144° 48´E), 5 Oct 1923 (complete; middorsal spots circular, margins diffuse; anterior end collapsed by compression in smaller container; chaetae golden; body 150 mm long, 25 mm wide, 40 chaetigers). One specimen (AM W24643), Western Australia, Admiralty Gulf (14°23´S, 125°48´E), Otter trawl, Apr. 1978, C. O’Conner, coll. (middorsal dark purple spots circular along body; dorsal cirri with purplish cirrophores; branchiae pale; body 94 mm long, 22 mm wide, 41 chaetigers). One specimen (ZMH V12088), Port Alina, Queensland, Jun. 1921, H. v. d. Poel, coll. (complete, bent dorsally, pharynx exposed by fracture of dorsal body wall, distorting anterior end; middorsal spots circular, dark purple, along anterior and median chaetigers, oval, purple along posterior chaetigers; dorsal cirrophores dark purple along inner surface; branchiae pale; chaetae with tips yellowish-green, especially along anterior chaetigers; venter pale, midventral band narrow, pale; body 117 mm long, 26 mm wide, 42 chaetigers). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly; middorsal spots black, circular; notochaetae furcates and harpoon-chaetae with spurs; neurochaetae furcates. Description. Neotype (MNHN 247) complete, pharynx partially exposed (Fig. 19A), with an anterior ventral dissection; body fusiform, 120 mm long, 23 mm wide, 39 chaetigers. Neotype with chaetae golden to yellowish; anterior prostomial margin brownish; dorsum with circular black spots middorsally, one per segment, blunt shield-like to circular along anterior and median chaetigers (Fig. 19C), oval to blunt rectangular along posterior chaetigers, displaced posteriorly on each segment; an anterior darker area visible in several segments; branchiae with pale stem, brownish lateral branches, especially thinner ones; dorsal cirri with blackish ceratophores, dorsal ceratostyles and ventral cirri pale. Venter pale. Prostomium anteriorly entire. Eyes blackish, anterior eyes slightly larger than posterior ones. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, 1/3 as long as caruncle, slightly longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases separated from each other, slightly longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 3, distorted by dissection. Pharynx partially exposed, smooth basal rings partially shown. Caruncle pale, slightly twisted, trilobed, tapered, reaching chaetiger 5 (Fig. 19B). Median ridge plicate, blackish, with about 35 vertical folds, partially concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 38 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, continued throughout body, alignment, mostly parallel, convergent in a few chaetigers; progressively larger up to chaetigers 11–12, of similar size in posterior segments, shorter in far posterior segments. Median segments with 9–10 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3, 1/3–1/4 as long as dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri as long as bipinnate branchiae along a few anterior chaetigers, becoming longer than bipinnate branchiae along median and posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores and cirrostyles slightly longer than those present in adjacent ones, not directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as one subsequent segment. Chaetae most without tips. Complete chaetae with distal fragile brownish to pale hoods. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers furcate, major tines 2–3× longer than minor ones. Median chaetigers with two types of notochaetae: spurred harpoon chaetae, and furcates with reduced minor tines, major ones 8–9× longer than minor ones; neurochaetae all furcates, major tines 4–5× longer than minor ones. Posterior region tapered; pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri brownish, digitate, 5–7× longer than wide (Fig. 19D). Paraneotype (MNHN 252) complete, 47 mm long, 13 mm wide, 35 chaetigers (Fig. 20A). Dorsum and venter whitish; middorsal spots circular along chaetigers 5–13, following chaetigers with oval spots up to chaetiger 28, slightly longer than wide, far posterior chaetigers with longer than wide spots (Fig. 20C), last ones blunt rectangular. Spots usually covering half segmental length, displaced posteriorly. Chaetae whitish; venter pale. Eyes blackish, anterior ones 2× larger than posterior ones. Median and lateral antennae with tips blackish (Fig. 20B); median antennae half as long as caruncle, about 2× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae slightly longer than palps. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, stems pale, lateral branches purple; branchiae largest by chaetigers 7–8, about as long as successive segments, mostly parallel along body. Median segments with 8–9 lateral branches per branchia. Anterior furcate notochaetae with major tines 4× longer than minor ones (Fig. 20D); anterior furcate neurochaetae with major tines 3× longer than minor ones (Fig. 19E). Median chaetigers with harpoon notochaetae (Fig. 20F), with a very small basal spur (inner complex structure); neurochaetae furcates with major tines 2—4× longer than minor ones (Fig. 20G). Posterior region tapered; pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri pale, digitate, 5–6× longer than wide (Fig. 20H). Variation. Pigmentation pattern is modified after preservation, and most specimens retaing the middorsal circular spots along median segments, becoming oval along anterior and posterior regions. Live pigmentation. No photos available from Indian Ocean specimens. Photos from Singapore (WildSingapore 2022) and Philippine specimens (Fig. 1D) show a pink dorsum with large black round spots per segment, each with a white halo, and wide purplish bands running laterally. Caruncle pale with blackish median ridge. Bipinnate branchiae red; dorsal cirri dark purple. Chaetae golden. A recently washed up on beach specimen shows middorsal black spots and their white halo over an orange background; bipinnate branchiae with dark purple lateral branches tips, and golden banding in notochaetae, and brownish in neurochaetae. This is the species most frequently shown in internet videos (Japan 2012, Muhmuh1091 2012, Man 2016, Tigersgoochan 2017, Tsujita 2018, Ameblo 2020, Tsujita 2022, GMT 2021, Senja 2021, Maverick 2022). Remarks. Chloeia flava (Pallas, 1766) has been regarded as a well-known species, with a wide distribution from the Indian Ocean to Japan, the Philippines and Australia. The type locality is the Bay of Bengal, but it seems that the type specimens, one from the Bay of Bengal, the other from Amboina, were not deposited. The lack of type specimens in an apparently widely distributed species emphasizes the need for the proposal of a neotype for delineating the species (ICZN 1999, Art. 75.3). The neotype proposed above will clarify the taxonomic status and the type locality of C. flava (ICZN 1999, Art. 75.3.1). The diagnosis and description include the characters that separates this species from similar ones (ICZN 1999, Art. 75.3.2, 75.3.3). There are no type specimens in Leiden (J. Blekker, in litt.), nor in Saint-Petersburg (S. Gagaev, 2021, in litt), where some other Pallas’ specimens were deposited or transferred (ICZN 1999, Art. 75.3.4). The neotype matches the original description and illustrations (ICZN 1999, Art. 75.3.5), and was collected in the Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean, where the original specimen was found (ICZN 1999, Art. 75.3.6). Further, the neotype, and the neoparatype are deposited in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (ICZN 1999, Art. 75.3.7). As herein restricted, C. flava is characterized by having circular middorsal spots in median segments; it belongs in the group flava by having bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly, and dorsal spots oval to circular. There are two other species in the same group: C. pulchella Baird, 1868 reinstated, characterized by having oval dorsal spots (longer than wide), in median segments, and described from Northeastern Australia, and C. maculata Potts, 1909, characterized by having half-oval dorsal spots, and described from the Western Indian Ocean. Consequently, C. flava is the only species in the group having circular dorsal spots. Pallas (1766: 101) emphasized the yellow color of the chaetae, and hence the selection of the Latin adjective (flavus, a, um: yellow). One of the original illustrations (Pl. 8, Fig. 7) shows a series of middorsal round, dark spots per segment, each about 1/2–2/3 segment length. M’Intosh (1885, Pl. 3, Fig. 1) made an additional figure after a specimen from Japan, showing the dorsal spots are circular along most segments, becoming oval in the far posterior ones, and of similar size as illustrated by Pallas. He also indicated (Pallas 1766: 97–98) he studied two specimens, one was caught adhered to the anchor in the Bay of Bengal, and another smaller specimen from Amboina. Because the description and illustrations were based upon the largest specimen, Bengal Bay is regarded as the type locality, although Hartman (1959) gave the Indian Ocean as the type locality. Milne-Edwards (1837, Pl. 9) illustrated the features of the species, and it seems he used both specimens which are herein selected as neotype and paraneotype for his figures. For example, the anterior end and the branchiae match the neotype, whereas the complete specimen in dorsal view resembles the paraneotype. De Quatrefages (1866: 388) regarded his C. incerta as very similar to C. flava (Pallas, 1766) and he followed Milne-Edwards (1837) figures, which were copied from those provided by Pallas (1766) in the original description. Because of the confusion between what de Quatrefages (1866) regarded as C. incerta de Quatrefages, 1866 (see below), and of its similarities with C. flava, Baird (1868: 231) proposed C. quatrefaguesii for those specimens included by de Quatrefages as C. flava from the Seas of China “without any of the synonyms quoted by him.” Grube (1874: 326) questionably regarded his C. ceylonica as a variety of C. flava, and later he regarded it as a juvenile (Grube 1878: 11), although he noted some differences between the specimens. Willey (1905: 244) confirmed that C. ceylonica is a junior synonym of C. flava. Kinberg (1910, Pl. 11, Fig. 1G) showed the complex inner structure of harpoon-chaetae, including a small spur over the opposite side of denticles. This feature was confirmed in the paraneotype, as indicated above. M’Intosh (1885: 9) regarded C. pulchella Baird, 1868 as a synonym of C. flava without any detail about his conclusion. He might have thought that because the former was described with smaller specimens (44–45 mm long), against the larger ones used for describing C. flava (100 mm), then it could be possible that the middorsal oval spots in C. pulchella might become circular during development. This is not the case as shown below, because the largest specimens available (102 mm long, ZMA VPol 155) retain the oval middorsal spots. Ventrally bent specimens of C. flava show a distorted middorsal spot, from a circular to an oval shape, it must be emphasized that there are no size-dependent modifications for the middorsal spots. Consequently, as indicated below, C. pulchella is reinstated. Several records did not include descriptions or illustrations, such that the specific identity cannot be confirmed (Horst 1886, Moore 1903, Fauvel 1917, Ehlers 1920, Hoagland 1920, Treadwell 1920, Monro 1931, Monro 1934, Fauvel 1935, Holly 1935, Treadwell 1936, Fauvel 1937, Takahashi 1938, Fauvel 1939, Imajima & Hartman 1964, Imajima 2001, Imajima 2003). Some non-Indian Ocean records missing illustrations or other details can be confirmed after the study of several specimens. For example, Grube (1877: 509) for Salawatti and Amboina; Horst (1912: 18–19, Pl. 7, Fig. 2) for Indonesia. Distribution. Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean, to Australia, in sandy or sandy-mud substrates, in shallow water., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 45-49, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Pallas, P. S. (1766 a) Miscellanea zoologica. Quibus novae imprimis atque obscurae animalium species describuntur et observationibus iconibusque illustrantur. Petrum van Cleef, Hagae Comitum, xii + 224 pp., 14 pls. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 69851","Bruguiere J. G. (1789 - 1792) s. n. In: Encyclopedie Methodique ou par Ordre de Matieres. Histoire Naturelle des Vers. Vol. 1. Pancoucke, Paris, pp. 1 - 344 (June 1789] + 345 - 758 (13 February 1792]. [dates after Evenhuis, 2003, Zootaxa, 166: 37; Zootaxa, 207].","Milne-Edwards, H. (1837) Les Annelides, avec un Atlas. In: G. Cuvier Le Regne Animal distribue d'apres son Organisation, pour servir de Base a l'Histoire Naturelle des Animaux et d'Introduction a l'Anatomie Comparee. Edition accompagneie de Planches Graveies, repreisentant les Types de tous les Genres, les CaracteIres Distinctifs des divers groupes et les Modifications de Structure sur lesquelles repose cette Classification; par une reiunion de disciples de Cuvier, MM. Audouin, Blanchard, Deshayes, Alcide D'Orbigny, DoyeIre, DugeIs, Duvernoy, Laurillard, Milne Edwards, Roulin et Valenciennes. Deterville, Paris, 15, 1 - 54, 16 (pls.), 1 - 26. [date fixed for the first part after Cowan, C. F. (1976), on the disciple's edition of Cuvier's Regne Animal. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 8, 32 - 64, https: // www. euppublishing. com / doi / pdfplus / 10.3366 / jsbnh. 1976.8.1.31]","De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818","Willey, A. (1905) Report on the Polychaeta collected by Professor Herdman, at Ceylon, in 1902. Ceylon Pearl Oyster Fisheries, Supplementary Reports, 4 (30), 243 - 319, pls. 1 - 8.","Kinberg, J. G. H. (1910) Annulater. Kongliga Svenska Fregatten Eugenies resa omkring Jorden under befal af C. A. Virgin, Anen 1851 - 1853. Vetenskapliga Iakttagelser pa Oscar den F ˆ rstes befallning. Svenska Vetenskapsakademien, Andra Delen, Zoologi, 3, 1 - 78, pls. 1 - 29 [pp. 76 indicates pp. 1 - 32 and pls. 1 - 8 were issued in 1858; other materials in 1910]","Augener, H. (1926) Ceylon-Polychaten. (Fauna et Anatomia Ceylanica 4, Nr. 2). Jenaische Zeitschrift f ¸ r Naturwissenschaft, 62, 435 - 472.","Fauvel, P. (1932) Annelida Polychaeta of the Indian Museum, Calcutta. Memoirs of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, 12, 1 - 262.","Fauvel, P. (1953) The Fauna of India, including Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Malaya. Annelida Polychaeta. Indian Press, Allahbad, 507 pp.","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Amoureux, L., Rullier, F. & Fishelson, L. (1978) Systematique et ecologie d'annelides polychetes de la Presqu'il du Sinai. Israel Journal of Zoology, 27, 57 - 163.","Barroso, R. & Paiva, P. C. (2011) A new deep-sea species of Chloeia (Polychaeta: Amphinomidae) from southern Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 91 (2), 419 - 423. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0025315410001499","Yanez-Rivera, B. & Salazar-Vallejo, S. I. (2022) Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 from tropical American seas (Annelida. Amphinomidae). Zootaxa, 5128 (4), 503 - 537. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 5128.4.3","Grube, A. E. (1874) Descriptiones Annulatorum novorum mare Ceylonicum habitantium ab honoratissimo Holdsworth collectorum. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 42 (1), 325 - 329. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1874. tb 02492. x","Japan, M. C. (2012) Chloeia flava. YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = 3 Or 4 PqgBVYE & t = 3 s (accessed 14 July 2022)","Man, O. (2016) AMzing fireworm catch today. YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = pZVyruuU-DI. (accessed 14 July 2022)","Tigersgoochan. (2017) Fire worm (Chloeia flava). YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = KOfhSNC 5 tFw (accessed 14 July 2022)","Tsujita, S. (2018) Fireworm Chloeia flava. YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = Ej 3 twRs 7 R 40 (accessed 14 July 2022)","Ameblo (2020) Dangerous creature of the sea (Chloeia flava). YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = cW 7 eat _ 0 wWQ (accessed 14 July 2022)","Tsujita, S. (2022) Fireworm Chloeia flava. YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = KjblbFf _ ovI (accessed 14 July 2022)","GMT (2021) Golden Bristle Worm (Chloeia flava) - Washed up on the beach at Inskip Point, Queensland, Australia. YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = 5 qQgwHeHUc 8 (accessed 14 July 2022)","Senja, K. (2021) Ulat bulu laut beracun (Chloeia flava). YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = m 3 I 3 Ci WB 1 Wo & t = 44 s (accessed 14 July 2022)","Maverick, D. (2022) Golden fireworm (Chloeia flava) consumes injured anchovy (Engraulis japonica). YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = l 3 Nzj 3 j-WoM (accessed 14 July 2022)","ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)","Baird, W. (1868) Contributions towards a monograph of the species of annelides belonging to the Amphinomacea, with a list of the known species, and a description of several new species (belonging to the group) contained in the National Collection of the British Museum. To which is appended a short account of two hitherto nondescript annulose animals of a larval character. The Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 10 (44), 215 - 250, pls. 4 - 6. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1868. tb 02233. x","Potts, F. A. (1909) The Percy Sladen Trust Expediton to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner, 20. Polychaeta of the Indian Ocean, Part 1. The Amphinomidae. The Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Series 2 Zoology, 12 (4), 355 - 371, pls. 45 - 46. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1909. tb 00147. x","M'Intosh, W. C. (1885) Report on the Annelida Polychaeta collected by H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873 - 1876. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873 - 76. Zoology, 12 (34), i - xxxvi + 1 - 554, pl. 1 - 55, 1 A - 39 A, & Annelida stations map.","Grube, A. E. (1878) Annulata Semperiana. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Annelidenfauna der Philippinen nach den von Herrn Prof. Semper mitgebrachten Sammlungen. Memoires de l'Academie Imperiale des Sciences de St. - Petersbourg, 7 eme Serie, 25 (8), 1 - 300, pls. 1 - 15. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 85345","Horst, R. (1886) Contributions towards the knowledge of the Annelida Polychaeta, 1. Amphinomidae. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 8, 157 - 174.","Moore, J. P. (1903) Polychaeta from the coastal slope of Japan and from Kamchatka and Beting Sea. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 55, 401 - 490, pls. 23 - 27.","Fauvel, P. (1917) Annelides polychetes de l'Australie meridionale. Archives de Zoologie Experimentale et Generale, 56, 159 - 277, pls. 4 - 8.","Ehlers, E. (1920) Polychaeten von Java und Amboina. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der malaiischen Strandfauna. Abhandlungen K ˆ niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G ˆ ttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, Neue Folge, 10 (7), 1 - 73, pls. 1 - 3.","Hoagland, R. A. (1920) Polychaetous annelids collected by the United States Fisheries Steamer \" Albatross \" during the Philippine Expedition of 1907 - 1909. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 100, (1), 9, 603 - 634, pls. 46 - 52.","Treadwell, A. L. (1920) Polychaetous annelids collected by the United States Fisheries Steamer \" Albatross \" in the waters adjacent to the Philippine Islands in 1907 - 1920. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 100, 1 (8), 587 - 602. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 23987","Monro, C. C. A. (1931) On a collection of Polychaeta in the Raffles Museum, Singapore. Bulletin of the Raffles Museum, 5, 33 - 46.","Monro, C. C. A. (1934) On a collection of Polychaeta from the coast of China. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 10, 13, 353 - 380. [https: // www. tandfonline. com / doi / abs / 10.1080 / 00222933408654824] https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222933408654824","Fauvel, P. (1935) Annelides polychetes de l'Annam. Memoria della Pontificia Accademia Nuovi Lincei, Roma, Serie 3, 2, 279 - 354.","Holly, M. (1935) Polychaten von den Philippinen, 2. Zweite Mitteilung ¸ ber Polychaten. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 111, 96 - 100.","Treadwell, A. L. (1936) Polychaetous annelids from Amoy, China. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 83, 261 - 279. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 00963801.83 - 2984.261","Fauvel, P. (1937) Annelides polychetes du Japon. Memoirs of the College of Science, Kyoto Imperial University, Series B, 12, 41 - 92.","Takahashi K. (1938) Polychaetous annelid (sic) of Izu Peninsula, 1. Polychaeta, collected by the \" Misago \" during the Zoological Survey around the Izu Peninsula. Scientific Reports Tokyo, Bunrika Daigaku, Section B, 3 (57), 193 - 220, pl. 20.","Fauvel, P. (1939) Annelides polychetes de l'Indochine recueillies par M. C. Dawydoff. Commentationes della Pontificia Academia Scientiarum, Vaticano, 3, 243 - 368.","Imajima, M. & Hartman, O. (1964) The polychaetous annelids of Japan, 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 26, 1 - 237, pls. 1 - 35.","Imajima, M. (2001) Deep-sea benthic polychaetous annelids of Tosa Bay, southwestern Japan. National Science Museum Monographs, 20, 31 - 100.","Imajima, M (2003) Polychaetous annelids from Sagami Bay and Sagami Sea collected by the Emperor Showa of Japan and deposited at the Showa Memorial Institute, National Science Museum, Tokyo (2). National Science Museum Monographs, 23, 1 - 221.","Grube, A. E. (1877) Anneliden-Ausbeute S. M. S. Gazelle. Monatsberichte der K ˆ niglich Preussischn Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1877, 509 - 554.","Horst, R. (1912) Polychaeta errantia of the Siboga Expedition. Part 1. Amphinomidae. Siboga-Expeditie Uitkomsten op Zoologisch, Bonatisch, Oceanographisch en Geologisch gebied verzameld in Nederlandsch Oost-Indie 1899 - 1900, 24 a, 1 - 43, 10 pls."]}

Chloeia paulayi Yáñez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo, 2022 Chloeia paulayi Yáñez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo 2022:519–521, Figs. 8, 9. Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly; dorsum pale; eyes minute; caruncle tapered, pale; notochaetae acicular and spurred, without harpoon chaetae; neurochaetae spurred and furcates. Remarks. Chloeia paulayai Yáñez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo, 2022 was described with specimens from the Gulf of Mexico. It belongs in the tumida group because its dorsum has no pigmentation pattern, and its bipinnate branchiae start in chaetiger 4, becoming progressively smaller posteriorly. Further, as indicated in the key above, it separates from the 10 other species in the group because it has tiny eyes, and its neurochaetae are spurred or furcates. This species has been described recently and no additional specimens have been found., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on page 92, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Yanez-Rivera, B. & Salazar-Vallejo, S. I. (2022) Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 from tropical American seas (Annelida. Amphinomidae). Zootaxa, 5128 (4), 503 - 537. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 5128.4.3"]}

Chloeia egena Grube, 1855 Indeterminable Chloeia egena Grube, 1855: 23–24; de Quatrefages 1866: 391–392; Hartman 1959: 131. Remarks. Chloeia egena Grube, 1855 was proposed with a poorly preserved specimen deposited in Saint-Petersburg, Russia. The specific name, egena, means deprived of, missing, poor. The name might be derived of the lack of dorsal pigmentation of the type specimen, as indicated in the description (Grube 1855: 91), or because of the lack of denticulation of notochaetae (Grube 1855: 92). However, this smoothness was just apparent because all notochaetae were broken. This would probably explain why Horst (1910: 172) regarded C. egena as indeterminable, or that Benham (1916: 392) concluded that “it would be better to drop this latter name entirely” and Augener (1924: 259) shared this perspective. Because the type locality is unknown, there is no means to solve this, and the species name must be regarded as indeterminable., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on page 41, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Grube, A. E. (1855) Beschreibungen neuer oder wenig bekannter Anneliden. Archiv f ¸ r Naturgeschichte, Berlin, 21 (1), 81 - 136, pls. 3 - 5. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. part. 13989","De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Horst, R. (1910) On the genus Chloeia with some new species from the Malay Archipelago, partly collected by the Siboga-Expedition. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 32, 169 - 175.","Benham, W. B. (1916) Notes on New Zealand Polychaeta, 2. Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 48, 386 - 396.","Augener, H. (1924) Papers from the Dr. Th. Mortensen's Pacific Expedition 1914 - 1916, 18. Polychaeta 2: Polychaeten fon Neuseeland, 1. Errantia. Videnskabelige meddelelser fra den Naturhistoriske forening i KObenhavn, 75, 241 - 441."]}

Chloeia longisetosa Potts, 1909 Fig. 36 Chloeia longisetosa Potts, 1909: 357, Pl. 45, Fig. 5; Hartman 1959: 131. Type locality. Indian Ocean, South Suvadiva, Maldive Islands. Type material. Indian Ocean, Maldive Islands. Holotype (BMNH 1924.3.1.25), South Sudavida Atoll (0.50536°, 73.30147°; 00°30´19″ N, 73°18´05″ E), 81 m, mud, 1899, J.S. Gardiner, coll. Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, branchiae as long as one successive segment, progressively smaller posteriorly; dorsum pale; median segments with chaetae markedly longer than body width; harpoon notochaetae with smooth tines; neurochaetae furcates. Description. Holotype (BMNH 1924.3.1.25) complete, left parapodium of chaetiger 8 previously removed (Fig. 36A); body fusiform 11 mm long, 4 mm wide, 21 chaetigers. Holotype pale; chaetae transparent, with irregular banding after coagulation of inner chaetal contents; dorsal cirri purple; branchiae pale. Venter pale, midventral band wide, pale. Prostomium anteriorly entire (Fig. 36B). Eyes blackish, anterior eyes 2× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, 1/3 as long as caruncle, 2× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases close to each other, slightly longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 3. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle pale, sigmoid, trilobed, tapered, reaching chaetiger 6 (Fig. 36C). Median ridge plicate, with faint purple spots on top of each vertical fold, about 16 vertical folds, partially concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 15 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5 (chaetiger 4 with a smaller supernumerary branched branchia on the right side, and cirriform branchia), parallel throughout body, progressively larger to chaetiger 10–11, about as long as successive segment, progressively smaller thereafter. Branchiae in median segments with 7–8 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–4, ¼–1/5 as long as dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri 5–6× longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, dorsal cirri broken in posterior chaetigers, size relationships to branchiae unknown. Second ventral cirri slightly longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as two subsequent segments, especially along posterior chaetigers. Chaetae soft, with irregular inner bodies giving an irregular banding, most chaetae complete, distal hoods rarely eroded; noto- and neurochaetae of similar thickness. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers furcates, major tines 3–4× longer than minor ones (Fig. 36D). Median chaetigers with two types of notochaetae: furcates with major tines 7× longer than minor ones, and harpoon-chaetae with denticulate tines 4× longer than smooth ones (Fig. 36E). Neurochaetae all furcates, major tines 3× longer than minor ones (Fig. 36F). Posterior region tapered; pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri pale, cylindrical, truncate, directed dorsally, 2–3× longer than wide (Fig. 36G). Live pigmentation. Unknown. The description was less than 10 years after being collected. Body pale, purple spots in caruncle (still visible); dorsal cirri deep purple (still visible). Remarks. Chloeia longisetosa Potts, 1909 was described from the Maldive Islands; because it has bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 5, and lacks any dorsal pigmentation pattern, it belongs in the group longisetosa, together with C. slpacinskyi sp. n. described below, and C. wangi sp. n. also described below, both from The Philippine Islands. By having harpoon notochaetae it resembles C. slapcinskyi; these two species differ especially after the relative size of median antenna to caruncle, chaetae, and branchiae. In C. longisetosa its median antenna is shorter than caruncle, the chaetae are markedly longer than body width, and its branchiae are short, as long as one successive segment, whereas in C. slapcinskyi median antenna is as long as, or longer than caruncle, the chaetae are as long as body width, and branchiae are long, as long as two successive segments. Chloeia longisetosa was described having long and wide chaetae along posterior chaetigers, and the only feature illustrated was the posterior end. Because of its long chaetae, it has been regarded as an epitoke of C. fusca sensu Potts (Fauvel 1953: 97, Hartman 1959: 131) because of their general similarity, and C. fusca was also recorded from the same archipelago. However, the median antenna is half as long as caruncle, eyes are small, and neurochaetae are thick, actually as thick as notochaetae, and not as thin furcate capillaries as would be expected during epitoky. Consequently, the species is herein regarded as distinct, and not an epitoke after its small eyes. The record by Amoureux (1977: 1103), belongs elsewhere (see above under C. amoureuxi sp. n.). Distribution. Maldive Islands, in mud, at 81 m water depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 79-81, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Potts, F. A. (1909) The Percy Sladen Trust Expediton to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner, 20. Polychaeta of the Indian Ocean, Part 1. The Amphinomidae. The Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Series 2 Zoology, 12 (4), 355 - 371, pls. 45 - 46. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1909. tb 00147. x","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Fauvel, P. (1953) The Fauna of India, including Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Malaya. Annelida Polychaeta. Indian Press, Allahbad, 507 pp.","Amoureux, L. (1977) Annelides polychetes profondes de Madagascar. Description de deux nouvelles especes (collections Crosnier et Jouannie). Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 3 e Serie, Zoologie, 344 (495), 1093 - 1108."]}

Chloeia euglochis Ehlers, 1887 Chloeia euglochis Ehlers, 1887: 18–21, Pl. 1, Figs 1, 2, Pl. 2, Figs 1–5, Pl. 3, Figs 1, 2, 4; Augener 1906: 96; Hartman 1938: 6 (syn.); Hartman 1959: 131; Yánez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo 2022: 512–516, Figs 1A, 4, 5C–F (redescr., reinst.). Chloeia modesta Ehlers, 1887: 21–24, Pl. 2, Figs 6–8, Pl. 3, Fig. 3. Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly; middorsal longitudinal bands crossed by transverse bands (cross-shaped spots); notochaetae harpoon-shaped, without spurs; neurochaetae spurred. Remarks. Ehlers (1887) informally described C. modesta with smaller specimens and concluded it was the juvenile of C. euglochis (Ehlers 1887: 21), but without the rich pigmentation pattern found in the larger C. euglochis in body and chaetae. As indicated elsewhere (Yáñez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo 2022: 514–515), C. modesta is a junior synonym of C. euglochis Ehlers, 1887. Pigmentation patterns are shown elsewhere (ARC 2016, Baer 2016, Artmedia 2020). There are two records of C. modesta for Funchal, Madeira, and a third one from Morocco. Von Marenzeller (1893: 27) had two specimens (37–42 mm long) with strongly furcate chaetae in chaetigers 1–3 but gave no further details. Fauvel (1914: 90) did not indicate the size of his specimens, but indicated that notochaetae were slightly yellowish, and neurochaetae were longer, whitish. However. Fauvel changed his mind because in his monograph on Moroccan polychaetes and after the study of three specimens from three localities (75–122 m water depth), he indicated (Fauvel 1936: 19): “this species differs slightly from C. venusta and probably it is just a variety of it.” The study of his specimen from station 10 confirms his suspicion (see C. venusta de Quatrefages, 1866 below)., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on page 42, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Ehlers, E. (1887) Reports on the results of dredging, under the direction of L. F. Pourtales, during the years 1868 - 1870, and of Alexander Agassiz, in the Gulf of Mexico (1877 - 78), and in the Caribbean Sea (1878 - 79), in the U. S. Coast Survey steamer \" Blake \", Lieut-Com. C. D. Sigsbee, U. S. N. and Commander J. R. Bartlett, U. S. N., commanding. XXXI. Report on the Annelids. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 15, i - vi + 1 - 335. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 65639","Augener, H. (1906) Reports on the results of dredging, under the supervision of Alexander Agassiz, in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, and on the East coast of the United States, 1877 to 1880, by the U. S. Coast Survey Steamer \" Blake, \" Lieut. Commander C. D. Sigsbee, U. S. N., and Commander J. R. Bartlett, U. S. N., commanding. Westindische Polychaeten. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, 43, 89 - 196, pls. 1 - 8.","Hartman, O. (1938) Annotated list of the types of polychaetous annelids in the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, 85, 1 - 31, pls. 1 - 3.","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Yanez-Rivera, B. & Salazar-Vallejo, S. I. (2022) Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 from tropical American seas (Annelida. Amphinomidae). Zootaxa, 5128 (4), 503 - 537. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 5128.4.3","ARC [Atlantic Reef Conservation) (2016) Reef red-tipped fireworm (similar to bearded fireworm). YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = Fnl 7 XsL-Czg (accessed 14 July 2022)","Baer, J. (2016) Chloeia, red-tipped fireworm, Virginia Key beach. YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = qU 9 HFhDSe 3 g (accessed 14 July 2022)","Artmedia (2020) Ini hewan berbahaya jangan berani pegang. YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = nZop 9 XdTxx 0 (accessed 14 July 2022)","von Marenzeller, E. (1893) Berichte der Commission f ¸ r Erforschung des Ostlichen Mittelmeeres, 6. Zoologische Ergebnisse, 2. Polychaten des Grundes, gesammelt 1890, 1891 und 1892. Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch- Naturwissenschftliche Classe, 60, 25 - 48, pls. 1 - 4.","Fauvel, P. (1914) Annelides polychetes non pelagiques provenant des campagnes de l' Hirondelle et de la Princesse-Alice (1885 - 1910). Resultats des Campagnes Scientifiques accomplies sur son Yacht par Albert 1 er, Prince Souverain de Monaco, 46, 1 - 432, pls. 1 - 31.","Fauvel, P. (1936) Contribution a la faune des annelides polychetes du Maroc. Memoires de la Societe des Sciences Naturelles du Maroc, 43, 1 - 143.","De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818"]}

Chloeia viridis Schmarda, 1861 Fig. 2 Chloeia viridis Schmarda, 1861: 144–146, Pl. 35, Figs 295–305; de Quatrefages 1866: 392; Baird 1868: 232; Augener 1925: 20–21 (syn. C. euglochis Ehlers, 1887 and C. modesta Ehlers, 1887); Hartman 1949: 37–38 (syn.); Hartman 1951: 29; Rioja 1958: 225; Nonato & Luna 1970: 65, Figs 1, 2; Day 1973: 15; Gathof 1984: 37.8–37.10, Figs 37.5, 37.6; Amaral & Nonato 1994: 372–374, Figs 15, 16; Barroso & Paiva 2011: 422, Tab. 1; Yánez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo 2022: 526–530, Figs 1D, 5A, B, 13, 14 (redescr., restricted). Chloeia euglochis: Treadwell 1902: 194 (pigm.) (non Ehlers, 1887). Additional material. Jamaica. Three specimens (BMNH 1931.6.22.16–18), West side Kingston Harbor, St. Vincent, A. Totton, coll. (two with middorsal spots reddish-brown, lateral bands paler; the other with middorsal spots blackish, lateral bands dark green; branchiae removed from a median chaetiger for illustrating pigmentation pattern; 25–31 mm long, 4–5 mm wide, 25–26 chaetigers). Brazil. One specimen (ZMH 667), Laguna, 10 Jun, 1890, H. Kuns, coll. (bent ventrally, anterior end damaged, probably after removal of fishing hook; dorsal longitudinal spots barely visible along anterior chaetigers; body 54 mm long, 10 mm wide, 32 chaetigers). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly; middorsal bands T-shaped, tapered posteriorly, and two oblique lateral bands; anterior ones 2× larger than posterior ones; caruncle with about 10 folds; notochaetae furcates and harpoon chaetae, without spurs; neurochaetae furcates and spurred. Remarks. Chloeia viridis Schmarda, 1861 was recently redescribed (Yáñez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo, 2022). It belongs in the group viridis by having a complex pigmentation pattern, and bippinate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly. Because C. viridis also has additional dorsal oblique lateral bands, it resembles C. incerta de Quatrefages, 1866 (see above); further, these two species have middorsal bands with lateral expansions along anterior segmental margin. However, the principal difference between these two species relies on the shape of the middorsal spots; thus, C. viridis has dorsal spots T-shaped and the middorsal band is similar width along each segment, whereas for C. incerta middorsal spots are Y-shaped to subtriangular, with the middorsal band progressively thinner along each segment. These topotype specimens allow a clarification for the pigmentation details. Body pale with middorsal bands reddish to blackish (Fig. 2A, D), T-shaped, not reaching the posterior segmental margin; lateral bands paler, oblique with projections divergent, thinner (Fig. 2B, E), paler ones to lateral tips of middorsal spots, and transverse laterally continued into a darker band running along anterior notopodial surface. Notopodial lobe with a dark band along anterior surfaces, separate from anterior surface band. Prostomium anterior area pale. Eyes blackish, anterior ones about 2× larger than posterior ones. Antennae and palps brownish to blackish, at least along posterior surface. Medi-an antenna almost as long as caruncle in one specimen (broken in the others), 2× longer than lateral antennae; lateral antennae 2× longer than palps. Caruncle pale, reaching chaetiger 4, median ridge reddish or brownish, with about 18 vertical folds; lateral lobes with about 18 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, cirriform branchiae in chaetigers 1–4; branchial stems pale, branches (6–7 in median chaetigers) reddish to dark green. Pygidium with anal cirri whitish, subcylindrical, blunt to barely pointed (Fig. 2C, F), 4–7× longer than wide. The record of Chloeia sp. by Gardiner (1975: 101–103) was based on small specimens without pigmentation pattern, although one juvenile had a middorsal purple stripe and purple dorsal cirri; he hesitated about identifying them as C. virids pending better preserved specimens. Distribution. Western Atlantic, from Florida to Brazil, in mixed substrates in shallow waters., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on page 118, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Schmarda, L. K. (1861) Neue Wirbellose Thiere: Beobachted und Gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erdr 1853 bis 1857. In Turbellarien, Rotatorien und Anneliden. Erster Band, Zweite Halfte. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann. Leipzig. [unknown pagination]","De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818","Baird, W. (1868) Contributions towards a monograph of the species of annelides belonging to the Amphinomacea, with a list of the known species, and a description of several new species (belonging to the group) contained in the National Collection of the British Museum. To which is appended a short account of two hitherto nondescript annulose animals of a larval character. The Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 10 (44), 215 - 250, pls. 4 - 6. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1868. tb 02233. x","Augener, H. (1925) Uber Westindische und einige andere Polychaeten-Typen von Grube (Oersted), Kroyer, M ˆ rch und Schmarda. Publikationer fra Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, KObenhavn, 39, 1 - 47.","Ehlers, E. (1887) Reports on the results of dredging, under the direction of L. F. Pourtales, during the years 1868 - 1870, and of Alexander Agassiz, in the Gulf of Mexico (1877 - 78), and in the Caribbean Sea (1878 - 79), in the U. S. Coast Survey steamer \" Blake \", Lieut-Com. C. D. Sigsbee, U. S. N. and Commander J. R. Bartlett, U. S. N., commanding. XXXI. Report on the Annelids. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 15, i - vi + 1 - 335. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 65639","Hartman, O. (1949) The marine annelids erected by Kinberg with notes on some other types in the Swedish State Museum. Arkiv f ˆ r Zoologi, 42 A, 1 - 137, pls. 1 - 18.","Hartman, O. (1951) The littoral marine annelids of the Gulf of Mexico. Publications of the Institute of Marine Science, University of Texas, 2, 7 - 124.","Rioja, E. (1958) Estudios anelidologicos, 22. Datos para el conocimiento de la fauna de anelidos poliquetos de las costas orientales de Mexico. Anales del Instituto de Biologia, UNAM, 29, 219 - 301.","Nonato, E. F. & Luna, J. A. C. (1970) Anelideos poliquetas do nordeste do Brasil, 1. Poliquetas bentonicos da costa de Alagoas e Sergipe. Boletim do Instituto Oceanografico de Sao Paulo, 19, 57 - 130. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 0373 - 55241970000100004","Day, J. H. (1973) New Polychaeta from Beaufort, with a key to all species recorded from North Carolina. NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular, 375, 1 - 140. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 62852","Gathof, J. M. (1984) Family Amphinomidae Savigny, 1818. In: Uebelacker, J. M. & Johnson, P. G. (Eds.), Taxonomic guide to the polychaetes of the Northern Gulf of the Mexico. Vol. 5. Barry A. Vittor and Associates, Mobile, pp. 37.1 - 37.12.","Amaral, A. C. Z. & Nonato, E. F. (1994) Anelideos poliquetos da costa Brasileira, 5. Pisionidae, Chrysopetalidae, Amphinomidae e Euphrosinidae. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 11, 361 - 390. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 0101 - 81751994000200022","Barroso, R. & Paiva, P. C. (2011) A new deep-sea species of Chloeia (Polychaeta: Amphinomidae) from southern Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 91 (2), 419 - 423. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0025315410001499","Yanez-Rivera, B. & Salazar-Vallejo, S. I. (2022) Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 from tropical American seas (Annelida. Amphinomidae). Zootaxa, 5128 (4), 503 - 537. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 5128.4.3","Treadwell, A. L. (1902) The polychaetous annelids of Porto Rico. Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, 20 (2), 181 - 210."]}

Chloeia gilchristi McIntosh, 1924 reinstated Fig. 28 Chloeia gilchristi McIntosh, 1924: 5; McIntosh 1925: 15–16, Pl. 1, Figs 7, 8; Day 1934: 27–29, Fig. 4; Hartman 1959: 131. Chloeia inermis: Day 1960: 295; Day 1967: 123–124, Fig. 3.1.l–q (non de Quatrefages, 1866). Type material. Indian Ocean, South Africa. Neotype (BMNH 1934.1.19.41), Durban, sandy mud, without depth or date, Mr. Bevin, coll. Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly; middorsal bands regular, not constricted posteriorly; caruncle pale; harpoon notochaetae without basal tine; neurochaetae acicular and spurred. Description. Neotype (BMNH 1934.1.19.41), bent ventrally, severely damaged, anterior end previously cut off, several parapodia or chaetal fascicles removed, many branchiae torn off, most chaetae broken, most cirrostyles lost (Fig. 28A); body fusiform, 54(6+48) mm long, 12 mm wide, 35(5+30) chaetigers. Neotype brownish, chaetae transparent, soft; dorsal and ventral cirri pale; branchiae pale. Venter pale, midventral band barely paler than surrounding areas. Prostomium anteriorly entire. Eyes blackish, anterior eyes slightly larger than posterior ones. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, tip broken, 2/3 as long as caruncle (Fig. 28B), slightly longer than right lateral antenna (left one lost). Lateral antennae bases separate from each other, palps broken, size relationship to antennae unknown. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 3. Pharynx partially exposed; lips darker, basal ring smooth, exposing three longitudinal (vertical) lobes. Caruncle pale, bent laterally, trilobed, tapered, posterior region broken, reaching chaetiger 3. Median ridge plicate, with about 11 vertical folds remaining, almost completely concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 12 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, continued throughout body, parallel along body, many broken (Fig. 28C); progressively larger posteriorly (many lost), largest by chaetiger 24–25, progressively smaller thereafter. Chaetigers 24–25 with 8–9 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3 (only one left in left notopodium of chaetiger 3), about 1/3 as long as dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri (few remaining) slightly longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, size relationship unknown in posterior chaetigers (dorsal cirri lost). Second ventral cirri (left) with cirrophores 2× longer and wider, and cirrostyle 2× longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Median ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as one subsequent segment. Chaetae most broken. Complete chaetae with distal fragile hoods, often eroded. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers aciculars, some spurred with tiny spur (Fig. 28D), major tines 10–20× longer than spurs. Median chaetigers with two types of notochaetae: aciculars with tips tapered, mostly broken or partially dissolved (Fig. 28F), and harpoon-chaetae (illustrated by Day 1934, not seen). Neurochaetae all aciculars of three different widths, all with tips mucronate; a few with minute spurs, barely visible in some anterior chaetigers (Fig. 28E), major tines about 10–20× longer than spurs, indistinct in median chaetigers (Fig. 28G). Posterior region tapered; pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri pale, subcylindrical, blunt, 4× longer than wide (Fig. 28H). Live pigmentation. Unknown; Day (1934) indicated dorsum was homogeneously grayish brown, without dorsal spots. Remarks. Chloeia gilchristi McIntosh, 1924 was briefly described with a 50 mm long specimen collected in mud at 270 m depth, off Durban; because there is no dorsal pigmentation pattern, and by having bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, becoming progressively smaller posteriorly, it belongs in the group tumida. In addition, after its fusiform body, acicular or spurred neurochaetae, and branchiae with lateral branches tapered, it resembles C. Baird, 1868 from India, redescribed below. These two species differ, however, in three features: body color, complexity of the caruncle, and neurochaetae; C. gilchristi has a brownish body, its caruncular median ridge has 11 vertical folds, and there are spurred neurochaetae along anterior segments, and acicular onwa in median segments, whereas in C. tumida the body is pale, the caruncular median ridge has about 38 vertical folds, and all neurochaetae are spurred. After McIntosh (1924: 5), the holotype had brownish chaetae having “the tips simple pointed,”, as opposed to being furcates, with neurochaetae having “no trace of serrations or of a spur was present in any.” A more complete description and illustrations were added in a subsequent publication, including some details for smaller specimens. The body was described as dull brownish with yellow to golden chaetae, dorsal cirri were dark brown along their distal half (McIntosh 1924: 5; 1925: 15–16), and a harpoon-chaetae and a neurochaetae were illustrated. However, there was no indication for the start of branchiae. He compared C. gilchristi with C. inermis de Quatrefages, 1866 and C. tumida Baird, 1868, the former with few or no harpoon chaetae, the latter with small spurs in neurochaetae, and concluded that “the fact that here (in C. gilchristi) few serrated, and no bifid bristles occur, differentiates this (C. gilchristi) from the ordinary … Chloeia.” However, the comparison was incomplete because no further differences were indicated from C. tumida. Baird (1868: 232) noted that C. tumida was white and illustrated its (harpoon) notochaetae as subdistally swollen, whereas other notochaetae were tapered. On the contrary, C. gilchristi was brownish and its notochaetae are blunt, not tapered; further, the subdistal swell in harpoon notochaetae is an artifact. Consequently, the two species are herein regarded as different after the pigmentation of their body wall, the complexity of the caruncular median ridge, and the type of neurochaetae. Day (1934: 28), after the study of the herein proposed neotype, clarified several features. He indicated the dorsum is grayish without marks; median antennae ¾ as long as caruncle; eyes of similar size; branchiae from chaetiger 4, each with 5–6(10) lateral branches; notochaetae smooth and finely denticulate; neurochaetae spurred; anal cirri cylindrical, about 4× longer than wide. However, he hesitated about using chaetal features for clarifying its specific status because “it is impossible to say how much the form of the bristles has been modified by the strong formalin in which the specimens had been preserved.” After regarding it likely identical with C. euglochis Ehlers, 1887, described from Florida, he concluded “until the bristles and coloration of a well-preserved specimen have been examined it is as well to keep them separate.” Day (1960: 295, 1967: 120) listed C. gilchristi McIntosh, 1925 as a junior synonym of C. inermis de Quatrefages, 1866 (see below), described from New Zealand, and referred that “the setae agree perfectly with Monro’s description.” The latter had indicated (Monro 1936: 80) “the chaetae show no trace of serrations.” This synonymy must be rejected because Day (1960: 295) noted that there was a middorsal purple line, and that branchiae start in chaetiger 4. However, there is no colored line in C. inermis, but a pale one is visible in fresh specimens, but most important, their bipinnate branchiae start in chaetiger 5. Further, Day (1967: 123) noted that the local specimens have no dorsal color markings but living or recently collected specimens of C. inermis have a pale longitudinal middorsal band throughout the body, over a pinkish background. After all this information it is obvious C. gilchristi is different from C. inermis, and the taxonomic status of the former must be defined by proposing a neotype and fulfilling the qualifying conditions (ICZN 1999, Art. 75.3) as follows: The current synonymy, after Day (1960, 1967), must be rejected and the taxonomic status of C. gilchristi must be defined by proposing a neotype because the species delineation has been confused, although the species name is valid and deserves to be reinstated, and this procedure is an exceptional need for improving the taxonomy in the group (ICZN 1999, Art. 75.3.1). Consequently, the neotype has been diagnosed, described and illustrated for clarifying the differences with similar taxa, and for ensuring the recognition of the specimen designated (ICZN 1999, Art. 75.3.2–3). The material including the type specimens were sent to Dr. McIntosh during the early 1920s. However, the specimens were not returned to any South African museum, because the type material for C. gilchristi is missing in the corresponding catalogue (SAMA 1958), it is not in the Iziko Museums of South Africa (J. Kara 2021, in litt.), and they were not deposited in the Natural History Museum, where most of McIntosh type material is deposited (E. Sherlock 2021, in litt.). Consequently, the type material is regarded as lost or destroyed (ICZN 1999, Art. 75.3.4). The neotype was collected in the same South African region, and it was compared to the original description by Day (1934), who used another specimen, herein proposed as neotype, and found some additional features for completing the original description, but the neotype matches the original specimens in having most chaetae unidentate, as opposed to being furcate, and it is herein regarded as conspecific (ICZN 1999, Art. 75.3.5–6). The neotype has been deposited in the Natural History Museum, London, and it has a long-standing tradition in curating and making their collections available for study (ICZN 1999, Art. 75.3.7). After some West African specimens recorded as C. euglochis Ehlers, 1887, or especially as C. viridis Schmarda, 1861, some authors have regarded C. venusta de Quatrefages, 1866 as a junior synonym. This idea was proven wrong by Guy (1964: 178) and he emphasized the differences in chaetae; his comments on C. viridis match C. gilchristi instead, especially after the neurochaetal furcates with tiny spurs. Distribution. Off South Africa, in subtidal sediments., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 63-65, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["McIntosh, W. C. (1924) Notes from the Gatty Marine Laboratory, St. Andrews, 46: 1. The occurrence of opercular development in Mercierella enigmatica, Fauvel, a new British serpulid; 2. Preliminary notice of a second contribution to the marine Polychaeta of South Africa. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 9, 14 (79), 1 - 52. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222932408633091","McIntosh, W. C. (1925) A second contribution to the marine polychaetes of South Africa. Union South African Fisheries Marine Biological Survey, Report, 5 (4), 1 - 93, pls. 1 - 10.","Day, J. H. (1934) On a collection of South African Polychaeta, with a catalogue of the species recorded from South Africa, Mosambique, and Madagascar. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, London, 39, 15 - 82. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1934. tb 00259. x","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Day, J. H. (1960) The polychaet (sic) Fauna of South Africa, 5. Errant species dredged off Cape coasts. Annals of the South African Museum, 45, 261 - 373.","Day, J. H. (1967) A Monograph on the Polychaeta of Southern Africa, 1. Errantia. British Museum (Natural History) Publications, 656, 1 - 458. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 8596","De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818","Baird, W. (1868) Contributions towards a monograph of the species of annelides belonging to the Amphinomacea, with a list of the known species, and a description of several new species (belonging to the group) contained in the National Collection of the British Museum. To which is appended a short account of two hitherto nondescript annulose animals of a larval character. The Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 10 (44), 215 - 250, pls. 4 - 6. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1868. tb 02233. x","Ehlers, E. (1887) Reports on the results of dredging, under the direction of L. F. Pourtales, during the years 1868 - 1870, and of Alexander Agassiz, in the Gulf of Mexico (1877 - 78), and in the Caribbean Sea (1878 - 79), in the U. S. Coast Survey steamer \" Blake \", Lieut-Com. C. D. Sigsbee, U. S. N. and Commander J. R. Bartlett, U. S. N., commanding. XXXI. Report on the Annelids. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 15, i - vi + 1 - 335. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 65639","Monro, C. C. A. (1936) Polychaete worms, 2. Discovery Reports, 12, 59 - 198.","ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)","SAMA (South Africa Museums Association). (1958) A list of zoological and botanical types preserved in collections in Southern and East Africa, 1. Zoology, Part 1. Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, 147 pp.","Schmarda, L. K. (1861) Neue Wirbellose Thiere: Beobachted und Gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erdr 1853 bis 1857. In Turbellarien, Rotatorien und Anneliden. Erster Band, Zweite Halfte. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann. Leipzig. [unknown pagination]","Guy, A. (1964) Contribution a l'etude des annelides polychetes de la Cote d'Ivoire. Recueil des Travaux de la Station Marine d'Endoume, Serie Bulletin, 34 (50), 167 - 210."]}

Chloeia boucheti sp. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 379696D1-12B7-4E11-A099-82C2C2A6D01F Fig. 15 Type material. Indonesia. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2048) and paratype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2050), RV Baruna Jaya I, Sta. CP85 (09°22´S, 131°14´E), 245– 240 m, beam trawl, 4 Nov. 1991 (paratype darker; anterior eyes reddish, minute, posterior ones not seen; caruncle grayish, median ridge blackish; branchial bases orange; anal cirri pale orange; body markedly bent ventrally; 46 mm long, 12 mm wide, 33 chaetigers). One paratype (ECOSUR 307), RV Baruna Jaya I, Sta. CP84 (09°23´S, 131°09´E), 275– 246 m, beam trawl, 4 Nov. 1991 (paratype bent ventrally, many chaetae broken; bipinnate branchiae with orange bases; body 25 mm long, 8 mm wide, 31 chaetigers). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bippinate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly, branchial bases orange, with 11–12 tapered, lateral branches; anterior prostomial area pale; dorsum without middorsal spots; notochaetae furcates and harpoon-chaetae; neurochaetae furcates. Description. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2048) complete, bent ventrally; body tapered, 44 mm long, 13 mm wide, 34 chaetigers. Holotype pale; dorsum without pigmentation (Fig. 15A). Dorsal cirrophores orange, cirrostyles pale. Bipinnate branchiae pale, bases orange (Fig. 15H). Venter pale, with a midventral whitish band. Prostomium anteriorly entire, anterior prostomial area pale. Eyes reddish, anterior ones minute, posterior ones not seen. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, pale, ¼ as long as caruncle, about 2× longer than lateral antennae. Lateral antennae bases close to each other. Palps 2/3 as long as lateral antennae. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle grayish, trilobed, straight, tapered, reaching chaetiger 4 (Fig. 15B); middorsal ridge blackish, with about 46 vertical folds. Lateral lobes narrow, barely visible, with about 40 vertical folds. Bippinate branchiae from chaetiger 4, continued throughout body, parallel along most body segments, with bases orange (Fig. 15C, H); progressively larger to chaetigers 10–16, diminishing in size in posterior chaetigers. In median segments each branchia with 11–12 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3, progressively smaller, ¼–1/5 as long as dorsal cirri. Dorsal cirri with cirrophores orange distally, cirrostyles pale, cirri slightly longer than branchiae along anterior chaetigers, about 3× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 2× longer, and cirrostyles almost 3× longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, 2× as long as following segments in median and posterior regions. Chaetae very abundant, many with broken tips. Complete chaetae with distal fragile hoods, rarely eroded. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers furcates, major tines brownish, 4–8× longer than minor ones, (Fig. 15D). Median chaetigers with furcates and abundant harpoon-chaetae, both with short spurs (Fig. 15F). Neurochaetae all furcates, tips brownish, major tines 2–3× longer than minor ones in anterior chaetigers (Fig. 15E), 2—5× longer in median chaetigers (Fig. 15G). Posterior region tapered; pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri pale orange (Fig. 15C), digitate, 4× longer than wide. Live pigmentation. Unknown. Bipinnate branchial bases and dorsal cirrophores orange. Etymology. The specific epithet is derived after Dr. Philippe Bouchet, a taxonomist of marine molluscs from the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, in recognition of his many publications on molluscs, and especially because he participated in the Karubar Expedition (Crosnier et al. 1997), which collected the type material for this species. The derived name is a noun in the genitive case (ICZN 1999, Art. 31.1.2). Variation. The paratype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2050) is more colorful than the holotype, especially regarding bases of bipinnate branchiae, and tips of dorsal cirrophores. The other paratype (ECOSUR 307) is paler, orange pigmentation barely seen along bipinnate branchiae bases; eyes indistinct, and its anal cirri are 6–7× longer than wide. Remarks. Chloeia boucheti sp. n. is being described with specimens from Indonesia and belongs in the group tumida because its dorsum has no pigmentation pattern, and its bipinnate branchiae start in chaetiger 4 and are progressively smaller posteriorly. By having a tapered body, and bipinnate branchiae with 11–12 tapered lateral branches, it resembles C. richeri sp. n. from New Caledonia. The main differences are the pigmentation of the anterior prostomial area, the coloration of bipinnate branchiae bases, and the type of notochaetae. In C. boucheti, the anterior prostomial area is pale, its bipinnate branchiae have orange bases, and its notochaetae are furcates and harpoon-chaetae, whereas in C. richeri, the anterior prostomial area is blackish, its branchial bases are pale, and only has furcate notochaetae. Distribution. Indonesia, in sediments at 240–275 m water depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 36-37, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Crosnier, A., Richer de Forges, B. & Bouchet, P. (1997) La campagne KARUBAR en Indonesie au large des iles Kai et Tanimbar. Resultats des campagnes Musorstom 16. Memoires du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 172, 9 - 26.","ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)"]}

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., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 31-32, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Wang, Z., Zhang, Y., Xie, Y. J. & Qiu, J. - W. (2019) Two species of fireworms (Annelida: Amphinomidae: Chloeia) from Hong Kong. Zoological Studies, 58 (22), 1 - 12. https: // doi. org / 10.6620 / ZS. 2019.58 - 22.","Horst, R. (1910) On the genus Chloeia with some new species from the Malay Archipelago, partly collected by the Siboga-Expedition. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 32, 169 - 175."]}

Chloeia zibrowii sp. n. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 98C45DCE-49BF-4F8B-83A1-9733ECC7C771 Figs 58, 59 Type material. French Polynesia, Marquesas Islands. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2056), RV Alis, Sta. DR1298 (08°57.4´S, 140°01.9´W), off Nuku Hiva Island, rock dredge, 305 m, 9 Sep. 1997. Five paratypes (3: MNHN IA-TYPE 2057; 2: ECOSUR 310), RV Alis, Sta. DR 1197 (08°57.4´S, 140°01.9´W), off Nuku Hiva Island, rock dredge, 350 m, 27 Aug. 1997 (complete MNHN paratype used for description; MNHN paratypes anterior fragments, one with most chaetae broken; 22–32 mm long, 10–13 mm wide, 12–17 chaetigers; ECOSUR paratypes one complete, markedly bent laterally, with most chaetae broken, 60 mm long, 17 mm wide, 33 chaetigers; an anterior fragment 30 mm long, 9 mm wide, 17 chaetigers; some features used for variation). One paratype (ECOSUR 311), RV Alis, Sta. DR1298 (08°49.1´S, 140°17.1´W), off Nuku Hiva Island, rock dredge, 305 m, 9 Sep. 1997 (without posterior end; caruncle black; eyes reddish; median antenna half as long as caruncle; cirriform branchiae with tips blackish; bipinnate branchiae with brownish lateral branches; middorsal bands almost faded; body 64 mm long, 16 mm wide, 27 chaetigers). Additional material. French Polynesia, Marquesas Islands. Two specimens (1: MNHN; 1: ECOSUR), RV Alis, Sta. CP1176 (08°44.8´S, 140°14.5´W), off Nuku Hiva Island, bean trawl, 260 m, 25 Aug. 1997 (complete; dorsum pale; median antenna 1/3 as long as caruncle, caruncle blackish; eyes blackish; cirriform branchiae with tips blackish; body 64–78 mm long, 15–18 mm wide, 33–34 chaetigers). Five specimens (3 MNHN, 2 ECOSUR), RV Alis, Sta. CP1251 (09°47.2´S, 139°38.2´W), Dumont d’Urville Deep, 500–650 m, beam trawl, 2 Sep. 1997 (colorless, many chaetae broken; complete, anterior fragment 30 mm long, 11 mm wide, 15 chaetigers; smaller complete specimens with anal cirri 6–7× longer than wide, 5× in larger specimens; 22–67 mm long, 5–12 mm wide, 29–32 chaetigers). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, decreasing in size posteriorly, each with 11–12 lateral branches in median segments; middorsal band wide, tapered posteriorly; caruncle blackish, with about 24 folds; notochaetae harpoon shaped with spurs; neurochaetae spurred and furcates. Description. Holotype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2056) an anterior fragment, 40 mm long, 17 mm wide, 21 chaetigers. Complete paratype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2057) complete, bent laterally; body tapered, 53 mm long, 9 mm wide, 32 chaetigers. Holotype with an ill-defined T-shaped brownish dorsal band, with paler core in a few anterior chaetigers (Fig. 58A), solid along following ones; lateral bands poorly defined, paler; caruncle black, middorsal ridge with 26 vertical folds (Fig. 58B); eyes reddish, in a slightly darker area, anterior eyes 2–3× larger than posterior ones; cirriform branchiae with black tips; bipinnate branchiae brownish with darker lateral branches, each with 6–7 filaments per side, with darker tips (Fig. 58C); many chaetae broken. Venter brownish, with a pale midventral band. Complete paratype (MNHN IA-TYPE 2057) pale. Dorsum without pigmentation (Fig. 59A). Dorsal cirri pale. Interramal areas pale. Bipinnate branchiae pale. Venter paler, with a whitish band (Fig. 59C). Prostomium anteriorly entire, anterior prostomial area pale (Fig. 59B). Eyes reddish, anterior eyes 2–3× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna inserted at anterior caruncular margin, pale, almost half as long as caruncle (4/5 as long in one additional specimen), apparently 2× longer than laterals (without tips). Lateral antennae bases close to each other. Palps broken, slightly narrower than lateral antennae. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle blackish, trilobed, slightly curved, reaching chaetiger 4; middorsal ridge black, with 24 vertical folds. Lateral lobes narrow, barely visible, with about 30 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, continued throughout body, parallel along most body segments, progressively larger to chaetigers 13–16, diminishing in size in posterior chaetigers. In median segments each branchia with 11–12 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3, progressively smaller, 4/5–1/3 as long as dorsal cirri; one complete with black tip. Dorsal cirri about 2× longer than branchiae in median and posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores 2–3×longer and wider than adjacent ones, and cirrostyles 2× longer than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as two segments in median region, up to three segments in posterior ones. Chaetae whitish to golden, neurochaetae with a pale green hue (observed in one paratype). Complete chaetae with distal fragile hoods. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers spurred and furcates (Fig. 59D), major tines 5–12× longer than minor ones. Median chaetigers with spurred, harpoon-chaetae (Fig. 59F), denticulate tines 9—12× longer than smooth ones. Neurochaetae spurred and furcates with tiny minor tines, anterior chaetigers with major tines 5—8× longer than minor ones (Fig. 59E), median chaetigers with major tines 4–10× longer than minor ones (Fig. 59G). Posterior region tapered (Fig. 59H); pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri whitish, digitate, 5–6× longer than wide. Live pigmentation. Unknown. Variation. Incomplete paratypes (MNHN IA-TYPE 2057) with body wall darker than complete paratype. Eyes reddish, anterior eyes 2–3× larger than posterior ones. Caruncles darker than in complete paratype, one incomplete paratype with cirriform branchiae complete, all with black tips. Bipinnate branchiae with lateral branches darker than in complete paratype, resembling those in holotype. Etymology. The specific epithet is after Dr Helmut Zibrowius, a specialist of serpulid polychaetes and deep-sea ecologist that worked in the Station Marine d’Endoume, Marseille, France, in recognition of his many publications on polychaetes, and especially because he participated in the Musorstom 9 cruise to the Marquesas Archipelago (Richer de Forges et al. 1999), which included the collection of the type material for this species. The derived name is a noun in the genitive case (ICZN 1999, Art. 31.1.1) after regarding the last name as Latin. Remarks. Chloeia zibrowii sp. n. is described with specimens from several localities in the French Polynesia; it belongs in the group viridis because it has a complex pigmentation pattern, and its bipinnate branchiae start in chaetiger 4, becoming progressively smaller posteriorly. It resembles C. hutchingsae sp. n. described above from The Philippines to Australia and Vanuatu, because both species have a well-defined middorsal band, without lateral bands. Additional similarities are found in the size of eyes and type of chaetae. These species differ, however, after their caruncles (pigmentation and number of vertical folds), and in the relative development of bipinnate branchiae, including the number of lateral branches in median segments. In C. zibrowii the caruncle is blackish, with 24 vertical folds, and the branchiae are massive, with 6–7 lateral branches. On the contrary, C. hutchingsae has a pale caruncle, with blackish median ridge, and 34 vertical folds, and its branchiae are delicate, each has 11–12 lateral branches. Distribution. French Polynesia, in sediments at 260–650 m water depth. General discussion Pigmentation patterns. In two species, specimens can have a pigmentation pattern mostly reddish, against being dark purple or blackish. This was shown for C. viridis from Jamaica, and for C. fusca from Indonesia; the former species was treated elsewhere (Yáñez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo 2022), whereas the latter needs some explanations. Thus, C. fusca was described from Indonesia, and has been confirmed for Papua New Guinea, and distant archipelagos like the French Polynesia, the Loyalty Islands, and Hawai’i. Because the only difference was in the color of the pigmentation pattern (reddish against dark purple or blackish), the different populations were regarded as conspecific, pending a further analysis including molecular or genetic indicators. A different issue regards to the loss of additional banding, such that only the middorsal spots remain. In at least three colorful species, C. amphora, C. flava and C. pulchella, the additional dorsal bands can fade off completely. This has been regarded as an effect of the specimens being left in ethanol for a long time, some pigment damage due to light, or both. However, there are some videos available in internet showing living specimens with a pale dorsum and only the middorsal spots present (Iromongara 2009, Senja 2021, 0:00 C. flava, 0:28 + 1:27 C. pulchella). This would imply either a large, likely clinal variation, or the presence of more than a single biological species. The distribution data are as follows: C. amphora was described from Indonesia and ranges to the Philippine Islands from the intertidal to 45 m depth; C. flava was described from India, and extends to Queensland, Australia, in intertidal to 50 m depth; and C. pulchella was described from northeastern Australia and has been found from India to Japan from the intertidal to 22 m water depth. Assessing the geographic or depth variation in pigmentation patterns is an interesting research focus for colleagues interested in genetics of pigmentation (Alvarado 2020, Orteu & Jiggins 2020, vonHoldt et al. 2021), a field that has made spectacular progresses in other colorful marine organisms, especially regarding fishes (Behrens et al. 2021, Parichi 2021), or benthic invertebrates, including some molluscs (Korshunoa et al. 2020, Neuhaus et al. 2021). On the basis of morphological features, the different populations were regarded as conspecific, pending a further analysis including molecular or genetic indicators. The reason for this perspective is that most marine species are limited to certain geographic areas, and this applies for both, shallow water (Costello et al. 2017, Costello & Chaudhary 2017) and deep-sea species (Watling et al. 2013). Species groups. The species of Chloeia can be grouped after several features such as the type of branchiae (pinnate or bipinnate), the start of branchiae (chaetigers 3–5), the dorsal pigmentation pattern (single middorsal bands, single middorsal spots, double longitudinal bands, complex patterns, or none), and some chaetal features. As indicated above, after the combination of these features, the groups are listed in Table 1. 1. Branchiae pinnate (a single species). 2. Branchie bipinnate. 2.1 Branchiae from chaetiger 3 (a single species). 2.2 Branchiae from chaetiger 4. 2.2.1 Branchiae progressively smaller posteriorly 2.2.1.1 Middorsal spots 2.2.1.2 Middorsal bands 2.2.1.3 Complex patterns 2.2.1.4 Dorsum without pigmentation pattern. 2.2.2 Branchiae abruptly smaller after a few chaetigers. 2.3 Branchiae from chaetiger 5. 2.3.1 Middorsal bands 2.3.1.1 Single middorsal bands 2.3.1.2 Double middorsal bands 2.3.2 Dorsum without pigmentation pattern. It must be kept in mind that for those species having pale pigmentation, or even for those having a colorful body, once the pigments are faded off, they might be included in the colorless groups, but fresh specimens would clarify their correct assignation. Taxonomic decisions. After the previous information, it must be emphasized that the taxonomic criteria ruling the assignation of specimens to known or undescribed species has depended on a certain combination of morphological features. When a different set of different data is available, as molecular indicators, a different set of conclusions can be reached upon. Of course, some of the conclusions of the future studies might disagree with the current situation, but that is just the way that Science proceeds. Large scale sampling for molecular purposes, especially for those species having a large or very large distribution such as C. flava, C. fusca, C. incerta, or C. pulchella might be especially revealing. Of course, this is not the final study on Chloeia, and the conclusions presented above are just working taxonomic hypothesis. Symbiosis. The only species that has been recorded as associated with a sessile invertebrate is C. rosea from the Indian Ocean, being found on a subtidal soft coral. The species is also unique by having pinnate, not bippinate, branchiae, but it has not been collected after its original description. It would be useful for future studies that collectors make notes about where the Chloeia specimens were found; most have been regarded as free living, and they are depicted in a few photos or short videos in internet, as indicated above for the different species, but some species might have a closer affinity to other invertebrates. This is another interesting perspective for continuing collecting Chloeia specimens, and for making better observations of what specimens do and what could be their symbionts., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 120-124, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Richer de Forges, B., Poupin, J. & Laboute, P. (1999) La campagne Musorstom 9 dans l'archipel des iles Marquises (Polynesie francaise). Compte rendu et liste des stations. Resultats des Campagnes Musorstom 20. Memoires du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 180, 9 - 29.","ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)","Yanez-Rivera, B. & Salazar-Vallejo, S. I. (2022) Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 from tropical American seas (Annelida. Amphinomidae). Zootaxa, 5128 (4), 503 - 537. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 5128.4.3","Iromongara. (2009) Umikemushi. YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = PGLLgLJJG-Y (accessed 14 July 2022)","Senja, K. (2021) Ulat bulu laut beracun (Chloeia flava). YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = m 3 I 3 Ci WB 1 Wo & t = 44 s (accessed 14 July 2022)","Alvarado, S. G. (2020) Molecular plasticity in animal pigmentation: emerging processes undelying color changes. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 60 (6), 1531 - 1543. https: // doi. org / 10.1093 / icb / icaa 142","Orteu, A. & Jiggins, C. D. (2020) The genomics of colorations provides insights into adaptive evolution. Nature Reviews, Genetics, 21, 461 - 475. https: // doi. org / 10.1038 / s 41576 - 020 - 0234 - z","Behrens, K. A., Girasek, Q. L., Sickler, A., Hyde, J., & Buonaccorsi, V. P. (2021) Regions of genetic divergence in depth-sepa- rated Sebastes rockfish species pairs: Depth as a potential driver of speciation. Molecular Ecology, 30 (17), 4259 - 4275. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / mec. 16046","Parichi, D. M. (2021) Evolution of pigment cells and patterns: recent insights from teleost fishes. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development, 69, 88 - 96. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. gde. 2021.02.006","Neuhaus, J., Rauch, C., Bakken, T., Picton, B., Pola, M. & Malaquias, M. A. E. (2021) The genus Jorunna (Nudibranchia: Discodorididae) in Europe: a new species and a possible cause of incipient speciation. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 87 (eyab 028), 1 - 31. https: // doi. org / 10.1093 / mollus / eyab 028","Costello, M. J. & Chaudhary, C. (2017) Marine biodiversity, biogeography, deep-sea gradients, and conservation. Current Biology, 27, R 511 - R 527. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. cub. 2017.04.060","Watling, L., Guinotte, J., Clark, M. R. & Smith, C. R. (2013) A proposed biogeography of the deep ocean floor. Progress in Oceanography, 111, 91 - 112. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. pocean. 2012.11.003"]}

Chloeia conspicua Horst, 1910 Fig. 16 Chloeia conspicua Horst, 1910: 173, 1912: 20–21, Pl. 7, Fig. 5, Pl. 8, Figs 4, 5; Fauvel 1953: 95, Fig. 46g; Hartman 1959: 131; Gibbs 1971: 131; Barroso & Paiva 2011: 422, Tab. 1; Salazar-Vallejo et al. 2014: 11 (list); Yáñez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo 2022: 509 (diagn.). Chloeia flava pulchella: Sabith et al. 2022: 21–24, Figs 2, 3 (non Baird, 1868). Type material. Indonesia, Java. Syntype (RMNH Ver 1246), Dirk de Vries Bay, South coast of Java, Dec. 1909, P.N. van Kampen, coll. One slide (RMNH 10660) made with chaetal bundles from an anterior parapodium of a specimen from another lot; slide with thicker furcate notochaetae and thinner furcate neurochaetae (this would explain the lack of harpoon chaetae in Horst 1912 illustrations; type material not listed by Bleeker & van der Spoel 1992). Additional material. Indonesia, Java. Two specimens (ZMA V.Pol 150), West coast of Atjeh, depth not indicated (largest specimen caught with a fishing hook), Jun. 1895, W. Baerts, coll. Hong Kong. One specimen (AM V24650), Pin Chau (22°28´N, 114°20´E), Flat Island, Hoi Hawan, 7 m, boulders, 52% coral cover, 17 Apr. 1986, P. Hutchings, coll. (bent laterally; middorsal band thin, lateral bands surrounding it, fused anteriorly and posteriorly, projected laterally along notopodial anterior surface, another band connecting branchiae and running behind notochaetal bundles; median antenna and dorsal cirri purplish; caruncular median ridge purplish; branchial stems blackish, branches pale; anterior eyes diffuse, 3–4× larger than posterior ones; body 75 mm long, 12 mm wide, 34 chaetigers). 10 specimens (AM W24651), Pin Chau (22°28´N, 114°20´E), Flat Island, Hoi Hawan, 7 m, 17 Apr. 1986, P. Hutchings, coll. (almost colorless, a few with thin middorsal band, and lateral bands visible, along anterior chaetigers; bent ventrally; dorsal cirri purplish; branchiae brownish; venter pale, midventral band indistinct; body 46–52 mm long, 18–22 mm wide, 32–35 chaetigers). Papua New Guinea. One specimen (UF 3965), Madang Province, Madang, Bode Point (-5.2073, 145.8012; 05°12´26.2800″ S, 145°48´04.3200″ E), 23–25 m, 6 Nov. 2012, no collector data (complete, pigmentation reduced to middorsal band; left median segments removed for molecular studies; pharynx partially exposed; body bent ventrally, 30 mm long, 5 mm wide, 31 chaetigers). Solomon Islands. One specimen (BMNH 1970.215), New Georgia Group, Marovo Lagoon, Sta. 196, silty sand, 2 m, Oct. – Nov. 1965, P.E Gibbs, coll. (splendid specimen; branchiae from chaetiger 4; 27 mm long, 5 mm wide, 28 chaetigers). Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly; middorsal band medially constricted, surrounded by anterior expansions of lateral dark bands; median notochaetae acicular and harpoon chaetae without spurs; neurochaetae spurred and furcates. Description. Syntype (RMNH Ver 1246), complete (Fig. 16A); most notochaetae broken; branchiae of chaetiger 13 removed; body subrectangular, 48 mm long, 11 mm wide, 36 chaetigers. Syntype pale, pigmentation pattern blackish; middorsal bands roughly rectangular up to chaetiger 7 (Fig. 16B), thereafter slightly expanded anteriorly and with a median constriction throughout body, last five chaetigers with a posteriorly tapered, anteriorly swollen bar; oblique lateral bands without anterior expansions to chaetiger 7, thereafter with larger, roughly circular widened areas, expanded anteriorly up to chaetiger 25, almost fused with middorsal spots. Segments with two lateral bands; anterior band running along notopodial anterior surface, posterior band running to branchiae, slightly interrupted, continued along notopodia ahead of notochaetal fascicles (Fig. 16D). Dorsal ceratophores with blackish posterior surfaces, ceratostyles blackish. Branchial stems with blackish inner surfaces. Venter brownish, midventral band slightly paler, with darker lining. Prostomium anteriorly entire; anterior prostomial area blackish. Eyes blackish, small, anterior eyes 2× larger than posterior ones (Fig. 16C). Median antenna lost (blackish in largest additional specimen ZMA V.Pol 150), inserted at anterior caruncular margin (without tip, half as long as caruncle, 2× longer than lateral antennae in ZMA V.Pol 150). Lateral antennae pale, bases separate from each other, 2× longer than palps. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 2. Pharynx not exposed. Caruncle pale, slightly bent laterally, reaching chaetiger 4; median ridge smooth, blackish, with about 24 vertical folds, partially concealing lateral lobes. Lateral lobes narrow, with about 20 vertical folds. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, parallel throughout body; progressively larger to chaetiger 10–11, smaller posteriorly, about as long as one successive segment; in median chaetigers each with 6–7 lateral branches. Parapodia biramous, notopodia with cirriform branchiae along chaetigers 1–3, ½–1/3 as long as dorsal cirri (in chaetigers 2–3; others lost). Dorsal cirri slightly longer than bipinnate branchiae along median chaetigers, 2–3× longer in posterior chaetigers. Second ventral cirri with cirrophores and cirrostyles slightly longer and wider than adjacent ones, directed dorsally. Other ventral cirri directed ventrolaterally, as long as one subsequent segment. Notochaete broken in almost all chaetigers; neurochaetae most complete. Notochaetae in anterior chaetigers (in ZMA V.Pol 150) acicular or spurred, major tines 4–9× longer than minor ones (Fig. 16E). Median chaetigers with harpoon chaetae without spurs or tines, and shorter aciculars (Fig. 16G), some with a subdistal constriction (in ZMA V.Pol 150). Neurochaetae spurred to furcates, major tines 4× longer than minor ones, often slightly incurved, shorter in anterior chaetigers (Fig. 16F), than in median chaetigers (Fig. 16H). Posterior region tapered; pygidium with anus terminal; anal cirri pale, digitate, 5–6× longer than wide (Fig. 16I). Live pigmentation (after one internet photo from Indonesian specimen by Offermans 2022, and video by Senja 2021, 0:48). Body yellowish with blackish dorsal cirri, central branchial stems, and complex dorsal pigmentation pattern; middorsal spots longer than wide, often with a median constriction, and two oblique lateral blackish bands running towards anterior notopodial surfaces, lateral bands sometimes widened close to middorsal spots. Branchial lateral branches whitish. Chaetae yellowish to transparent. Another photograph from an undefined locality, now unavailable, showed a pinkish body background, with dorsal cirri and middorsal spots blackish, medially constricted; oblique lateral bands and branchial stems brownish; lateral bands widened medially into circular spots. Chaetae brownish to transparent. Variation. Additional specimens (ZMA V.Pol 150) complete, largest one with a piece of thread coming out from the mouth, indicating its capture with a fishing hook, anterior region stiff, swollen, posterior region depressed; body depressed, 38–74 mm long, 7–16 mm wide, 31–37 chaetigers. Larger specimen with middorsal spots roughly rectangular up to chaetiger 10, thereafter with a median constriction throughout body, last two chaetigers with a rectangular bar; oblique lateral bands without lateral expansions to chaetiger 7, thereafter with larger, roughly circular widened areas, expanded anteriorly up to chaetiger 25, almost fused with middorsal spots, following chaetigers without anterior expansions, narrower, continued to last chaetigers. Branchiae with blackish stems along anterior two-thirds of body, posterior third with blackish pigmentation restricted to inner stem surfaces. Venter brownish, midventral band slightly paler. Eyes blackish, small, anterior eyes 2× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna blackish, without tip, half as long as caruncle. Mouth ventral on chaetiger 3–4. Caruncle pale, strongly bent laterally, reaching chaetiger 4. Bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, parallel throughout body; progressively larger to chaetiger 10–11, smaller posteriorly, about as long as one successive segment; in median chaetigers each with 6–7 lateral branches. Chaetae with hoods rarely eroded. Anterior notochaetae furcate, major tines 4–9× longer than minor ones. Median chaetigers with harpoon chaetae without spurs or tines, some with a subdistal constriction. Neurochaetae all furcates, major tines 4× longer than minor ones, often slightly incurved. Anal cirri pale, digitate, 4× longer than wide. Smaller specimen with middorsal spots roughly rectangular along chaetigers 4–6, 8-shaped to chaetiger 17–18, faded off in following chaetigers, ill-defined along last chaetigers; oblique lateral bands visible to chaetiger 19, none with circular expanded areas. Branchiae with blackish stems along anterior body half, posteriorly paler, lateral branches brownish. Chaetae brownish. Venter pale, midventral band barely defined. Eyes partially decolored, anterior eyes 2× larger than posterior ones. Median antenna brownish, without tip, 2/3 as long as caruncle, 2× longer than lateral antennae; lateral antennae 2× longer than palps. Branchiae as long as one successive segment, with 6–7 lateral branches in median segments. Anterior notochaetae furcate, major tines 4–6× longer than minor ones. Median chaetigers with harpoon-chaetae, subdistally constricted. Neurochaetae furcates, major tines 3–4× longer than minor ones. Anal cirri pale, tapered, 6–7× longer than wide. Remarks. Chloeia conspicua Horst, 1910 belongs in the group viridis by having a complex pigmentation pattern, bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller towards posterior end. By having middorsal bands medially constricted, it resembles C. amphora Horst, 1910 described from Indonesia and C. bimaculata Wang, Zhang, Xie & Qiu, 2019 from Hong Kong. The main difference lies in the dorsal banding pattern because in C. conspicua the segmental middorsal band is surrounded by anterior expansions of lateral dark bands, whereas in the two other species the middorsal band is surrounded by a pale area, without lateral bands or, if present, are barely pigmented. On the other hand, C. conspicua resembles C. incerta de Quatrefages, 1866 (C. parva Baird, 1868) described from Sulawesi, by having a large middorsal band and oblique lateral bands continued to anterior parapodial surfaces. These two species were described from nearby localities, but they differ after their pigmentation pattern. In C. conspicua the middorsal band is rectangular to 8-shaped, with lateral bands often swollen into circular spots close to middorsal spots, whereas in C. incerta the middorsal spots are wider anteriorly and narrower posteriorly, and the lateral bands never expand into forming circular spots. Brown (1954: 229) indicates the Latin word conspicuus means manifest, visible, prominent. Horst (1910) did not explain the etymology, but the pigmentation pattern might explain why he found it prominent: “each segment shows a violet longitudinal stripe, somewhat narrower in the middle of its length and interrupted in the intersegmental grooves. On both sides this stripe is accompanied with a>-shaped band, including thus a rhomboid area on the middle of the back, from which a dark band emerges, running along the anterior side of the parapodium” (Horst 1910: 173). On the other hand, there is a difference regarding the number of lots and specimens that Horst studied. Horst (1910: 173) listed three specimens in two lots; one from the West coast of Atjeh, Java, with two specimens collected in August 1893, and the other from the South coast of Java, with one specimen collected in 1909. These two lots and its three specimens must be regarded as syntypes (ICZN 1999, Art. 72.1.1, 73.2). In his next publication, Horst (1912) included another lot (ZMA V.Pol 150) with two specimens collected from the West coast of Atjeh in 1895; these two specimens were not included in the original description and cannot be regarded as syntypes. However, one of the original lots is lost (J. Bleeker 2021 in litt.), and the other is the only remaining syntype. Further, the species has not been found after the original description and subsequent illustrations (Horst 1910, 1912); the other record by Fauvel (1953) only includes the original figure for the dorsal pigmentation pattern, but no specimens had been found. The syntype described above is not designated as a lectotype because it is the only specimen of the type series available; other specimens were not found and are presumed lost (J. Bleeker 2021 in litt.). Despite the fact the species was not found after the original description, the additional specimens indicated above match the original description and the current redescripton; consequently, the specific status is not problematic or needing any clarification which are formal requirements for proposing a lectotype. Distribution. Indonesia, Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, in sediments at 2–25 m water depth., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on pages 38-41, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Horst, R. (1910) On the genus Chloeia with some new species from the Malay Archipelago, partly collected by the Siboga-Expedition. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 32, 169 - 175.","Horst, R. (1912) Polychaeta errantia of the Siboga Expedition. Part 1. Amphinomidae. Siboga-Expeditie Uitkomsten op Zoologisch, Bonatisch, Oceanographisch en Geologisch gebied verzameld in Nederlandsch Oost-Indie 1899 - 1900, 24 a, 1 - 43, 10 pls.","Fauvel, P. (1953) The Fauna of India, including Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Malaya. Annelida Polychaeta. Indian Press, Allahbad, 507 pp.","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Gibbs, P. E. (1971) The polychaete fauna of the Solomon Islands. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), 21, 101 - 211. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. part. 10154","Barroso, R. & Paiva, P. C. (2011) A new deep-sea species of Chloeia (Polychaeta: Amphinomidae) from southern Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 91 (2), 419 - 423. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0025315410001499","Salazar-Vallejo, S. I., Carrera-Parra, L. F., Muir, A. I., de Leon-Gonzalez, J. A., Piotrowski, C. & Sato, M. (2014) Polychaete species (Annelida) described from the Philippine and China Seas. Zootaxa, 3842 (1), 1 - 68. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3842.1.1","Yanez-Rivera, B. & Salazar-Vallejo, S. I. (2022) Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 from tropical American seas (Annelida. Amphinomidae). Zootaxa, 5128 (4), 503 - 537. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 5128.4.3","Sabith, K. K. D. B., Shivashankar, V., Narshimulu, G. & Mohan, P. M. (2022) Occurrence of Chloeia flava pulchella Baird, 1868, from Off Junglighat, South Andaman, India. Open Journal of Marine Science, 12, 19 - 25. https: // doi. org / 10.4236 / ojms. 2022.121002","Baird, W. (1868) Contributions towards a monograph of the species of annelides belonging to the Amphinomacea, with a list of the known species, and a description of several new species (belonging to the group) contained in the National Collection of the British Museum. To which is appended a short account of two hitherto nondescript annulose animals of a larval character. The Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 10 (44), 215 - 250, pls. 4 - 6. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1868. tb 02233. x","Bleeker, J. & van der Spoel, S. (1992) Catalogue of the Polychaeta collected by the Siboga Expedition and type specimens of Polychaeta in the Zoological Museum of Amsterdam. Bulletin Zo ˆ logischen Museum, Universiteit van Amsterdam, 13, 121 - 166.","Offermans, R. (2022) Bristleworm (Chloeia sp) can cause painful wounds, Lembeh Strait, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Available from: https: // www. mindenpictures. com / stock-photo-bristleworm-chloeia-sp-can-cause-painful-wounds-lembeh-strait-nature-","Senja, K. (2021) Ulat bulu laut beracun (Chloeia flava). YouTube. Available from: https: // www. youtube. com / watch? v = m 3 I 3 Ci WB 1 Wo & t = 44 s (accessed 14 July 2022)","Wang, Z., Zhang, Y., Xie, Y. J. & Qiu, J. - W. (2019) Two species of fireworms (Annelida: Amphinomidae: Chloeia) from Hong Kong. Zoological Studies, 58 (22), 1 - 12. https: // doi. org / 10.6620 / ZS. 2019.58 - 22.","De Quatrefages, A. (1866 (1865 )) Histoire naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annelides et Gephyriens. Vol. 1. Librarie Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris, 588 pp. [publication date after Wright, E. P. (1866). Section 6 (Annelida, etc.). Zoological Record, 1866, 578 - 600] https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 122818","ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)"]}

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., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on page 96, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Augener, H. (1922 a) Ueber litorale Polychaeten von Westindien. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschende Freunde zur Berlin, 1922 (3 - 5), 38 - 53.","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Yanez-Rivera, B. & Salazar-Vallejo, S. I. (2022) Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 from tropical American seas (Annelida. Amphinomidae). Zootaxa, 5128 (4), 503 - 537. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 5128.4.3","Treadwell, A. L. (1923) Polychaetous annelids from Lower California with descriptions of new species. American Museum Novitates, 74, 1 - 11. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 00963801.64 - 2499.1","Treadwell, A. L. (1928) Polychaetous annelids from the Arcturus Oceanographic Expedition. Zoologica, 8, 449 - 489. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / p. 190372","Treadwell, A. L. (1941) Eastern Pacific Expeditions of the New York Zoological Society, 23. Polychaetous annelids from the west coast of Mexico and Central America. Zoologica, 26 (1), 16 - 24. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / p. 203580","Ehlers, E. (1887) Reports on the results of dredging, under the direction of L. F. Pourtales, during the years 1868 - 1870, and of Alexander Agassiz, in the Gulf of Mexico (1877 - 78), and in the Caribbean Sea (1878 - 79), in the U. S. Coast Survey steamer \" Blake \", Lieut-Com. C. D. Sigsbee, U. S. N. and Commander J. R. Bartlett, U. S. N., commanding. XXXI. Report on the Annelids. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 15, i - vi + 1 - 335. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 65639","Monro, C. C. A. (1933) The Polychaeta Errantia collected by Dr. C. Crossland at Colon, in the Panama Region, and the Galapagos Islands during the Expedition of the S. Y. ' St. George. ' Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1933, 1 - 96. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1933. tb 01578. x","Berkeley, E. & Berkeley, C. (1939) On a collection of Polychaeta chiefly from the west coast of Mexico. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 11, 3, 321 - 346. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 03745481.1939.9723608","Hartman, O. (1940) Polychaetous annelids, 2. Chrysopetalidae to Goniadidae. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions, 7 (3), 171 - 286, pls. 31 - 44.","Berkeley, E. & Berkeley, C. (1958) Some notes on a collection of Polychaeta from the Northeast Pacific south of latitude 32 ° N. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 36, 399 - 407. https: // doi. org / 10.1139 / z 58 - 034","Reish, D. J. (1968) A biological survey of Bahia de Los Angeles, Gulf of California, Mexico, 2. Benthic polychaetous annelids. Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History, 15, 67 - 106. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. part. 12054","Fauchald, K. & Reimer, A. A. (1975) Clave de poliquetos panamenos con la inclusion de una clave para todas las familias del mundo. Boletin del Instituto de Oceanografia, Universidad de Oriente, 14, 71 - 94.","Kudenov, J. D. (1975) Errant polychaetes from the Gulf of California, Mexico. Journal of Natural History, 9, 65 - 91. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222937500770061","Schmarda, L. K. (1861) Neue Wirbellose Thiere: Beobachted und Gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erdr 1853 bis 1857. In Turbellarien, Rotatorien und Anneliden. Erster Band, Zweite Halfte. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann. Leipzig. [unknown pagination]","Fauvel, P. (1943) Annelides polychetes de Californie recueillies par L. Diguet. Memoires du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Nouvelle Serie, 18, 1 - 32.","Horst, R. (1910) On the genus Chloeia with some new species from the Malay Archipelago, partly collected by the Siboga-Expedition. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 32, 169 - 175.","Potts, F. A. (1909) The Percy Sladen Trust Expediton to the Indian Ocean in 1905, under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner, 20. Polychaeta of the Indian Ocean, Part 1. The Amphinomidae. The Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Series 2 Zoology, 12 (4), 355 - 371, pls. 45 - 46. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1909. tb 00147. x"]}

Chloeia nuriae Yáñez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo, 2022 Chloeia nuriae Yáñez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo, 2022: 518–519, Fig. 7 Diagnosis. Chloeia with bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly; dorsum with middorsal bands irregular, posteriorly constricted, extended along each segment; caruncle blackish; notochaetae furcates, without harpoon chaetae; neurochaetae furcates. Remarks. Chloeia nuriae Yáñez-Rivera & Salazar-Vallejo, 2022 was described from the Eastern Pacific. It belongs in the group venusta by having a middorsal band, bipinnate branchiae from chaetiger 4, progressively smaller posteriorly. Because its middorsal band runs through the complete segment, but each band is truncate anteriorly and constricted posteriorly, C nuriae separates from the five other species in the group, as indicated in the key above. This species has been described recently and no additional specimens have been found., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on page 92, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Yanez-Rivera, B. & Salazar-Vallejo, S. I. (2022) Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 from tropical American seas (Annelida. Amphinomidae). Zootaxa, 5128 (4), 503 - 537. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 5128.4.3"]}

Chloeia malaica Kinberg, 1867 Indeterminable Chloeia malaica Kinberg, 1867: 86; Hartman 1959: 131. Remarks. Hartman (1949: 39) indicated that there were no type specimens for C. malaica, described from the Malaca Sound, and that the species “was never described or illustrated; it remains indeterminable.” This is a nomen nudum (ICZN 1999, Art. 12.1)., Published as part of Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I., 2023, Revision of Chloeia Savigny in Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Amphinomidae), pp. 1-134 in Zootaxa 5238 (1) on page 84, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5238.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7621793, {"references":["Kinberg, J. G. H. (1867) Om Amphinomernas systematik. Ofversigt af Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens F ˆ rhandlingar, Stockholm, 24 (3), 83 - 91.","Hartman, O. (1959) Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the World. Part 1. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 23, 1 - 353.","Hartman, O. (1949) The marine annelids erected by Kinberg with notes on some other types in the Swedish State Museum. Arkiv f ˆ r Zoologi, 42 A, 1 - 137, pls. 1 - 18.","ICZN (International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature). (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 rd Edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, London. Available from: https: // code. iczn. org (accessed 22 June 2022)"]}