Chloeia bengalensis

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. 46 d). 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.