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).