identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03EC4719FFCEE55B66D0FAA3FB686233.text	03EC4719FFCEE55B66D0FAA3FB686233.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chaetacanthus Seidler 1922	<div><p>Chaetacanthus Seidler, 1922</p><p>Chaetacanthus Seidler, 1922: 301; Seidler 1924: 97.</p><p>Type species. Iphione magnifica Grube, 1876, by monotypy.</p><p>Diagnosis. Lepidonotinae with 26 segments. Prostomium Lepidonotinae-type, bilobed, without cephalic peaks, facial tubercle well-developed. Two pairs of circular eyes on posterior prostomial half, anterior eyes area often bulked. Three antennae, median antenna with ceratophore inserted frontally, style smooth, slender, subdistally swollen. Lateral antennae with ceratophores inserted terminally, style smooth, subdistally swollen. Palps thick with longitudinal rows of large papillae. Pharynx with 12 pairs of marginal, bottle-shaped papillae; jaws with cutting edge smooth. Tentacular segment not visible dorsally, tentaculophores with a few chaetae, tentacular cirri similar to antennae. Segment two projected over prostomium as a short nuchal lobe. Twelve pairs of elytra completely covering dorsum; elytra inserted on segments 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23; first pair almost circular, following oval, outer posterior margins with long fimbriae, and a distinctive bundle on posterior border. Elytral surface with numerous spinous microtubercles and macrotubercles, sometimes with distinctive groups of ambercolour, honeycomb-like macrotubercles. Parapodia biramous. Neuropodia thick, longer than notopodia, truncate. Branchial filaments attached to lateral sides of notopodia. Dorsal cirri with thick cirrophores, cirrostyles resembling antennae. Cirrigerous segments without pseudelytra. Ventral cirri and venter smooth. Nephridial papillae of similar size throughout body. Notochaetae abundant; slender, long; neurochaetae unidentate, upper region short, with a few rows of subdistal spines.</p><p>Remarks. Seidler (1922) proposed Chaetacanthus and newly combined Iphione magnifica as Chaetacanthus magnificus (Grube, 1876), as its type species. In the same contribution, he redefined Euphione McIntosh, 1885 . He later (Seidler 1924: 15) regarded Chaetacanthus Seidler, 1922 and Euphione McIntosh, 1885 as resembling each other by having similar numbers of segments and pairs of elytra, and branchial filaments on parapodia. These genera were separated because in Chaetacanthus neurochaetae are spinulose, with a few spread separate spines, and the dorsum does not have parelytrophores or pseudelytra, whereas in Euphione neurochaetae are fringed, with abundant thin spines, and the dorsum has parelytrophores or pseudelytra. The latter are well-defined, smooth, dorsal plate-like structures, visible in cirrigerous segments of Euphione species.</p><p>After Fauchald (1977), Chaetacanthus groups with eight other lepidonotin genera by having well-developed palps, 12 pairs or elytra, and 26 segments. However, only three genera have branchial filaments in interparapodial spaces: Euphione McIntosh, 1885, Euphionella Monro, 1936, and Chaetacanthus . These three genera can be separated by the presence of dorsal plates, or pseudelytra, and by the type of neurochaetae. Fauchald (1977) keyed these genera out by indicating that Euphionella has pseudoelytra, whereas the two other genera lack them, although Day (1967: 43; key to genera) indicated pseudelytra are present in Euphione, and they are visible in a photo of the type species available in the internet (Natural History Museum 2014). The presence of pseudoelytra is uncertain; they were not mentioned by Imajima (1997) and in recent publications they have not been well illustrated. However, the relevant differences among these genera are in the neurochaetae; these three genera can be separated by their type of neurochaetae because they are completely smooth, without rows of spines in Euphionella (Monro 1936); spinulose, with a few rows of spines in Chaetacanthus, and hirsute with long and fine spines in Euphione (Imajima 1997) .</p><p>As herein redefined, Chaetacanthus Seidler, 1922 includes two groups of species regarding elytral ornamentation. The first group has large amber-colour macrotubercles, sclerotized, arranged in a honeycomb-like group, and includes the type species, herein included in the senior synonym, C. brasiliensis (de Quatrefages, 1866) from the Grand Caribbean, and C. ornatus n. sp. from the Eastern Pacific. The other group does not have these honeycomblike groups of macrotubercles and includes C. harrisae n. sp., C. pilosus (Treadwell, 1937) n. comb., reinstated, and C. pomareae (Kinberg, 1856) from the South Central Pacific. It is interesting that Chaetacanthus has not been recorded from the Western African or Indian Ocean localities, but their low abundance, combined with the fact that they are apparently cryptic, living inside rock crevices, might explain the lack of records.</p><p>There are other types of branchiae among polynoids, especially in those living in hydrothermal vent environments. However, their branchiae are more complex and arise along elytrophoral margins; again, at least after their position, they are unlikely homologous with those present in lepidonotinae . Wehe (2006: 47) indicated that they can be globular, plicate in Branchiplicatinae Pettibone, 1985a, or arborescent in Branchinotogluminae Pettibone, 1985b and Branchipolynoinae Pettibone, 1984 . It is interesting that despite the differences in branchiae, and on the extent of elytral cover along dorsum, the two former subfamilies have been merged with Lepidonotopodinae Pettibone, 1983 after molecular studies (Zhang et al. 2018; Bonifácio &amp; Menot 2019; Hatch et al. 2020).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EC4719FFCEE55B66D0FAA3FB686233	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Salazar-Silva, Patricia;López-Sánchez, Daniel A.;Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I.	Salazar-Silva, Patricia, López-Sánchez, Daniel A., Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I. (2020): Revision of Chaetacanthus Seidler, 1922 (Annelida, Phyllodocida, Polynoidae). Zootaxa 4885 (3): 395-422, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4885.3.5
03EC4719FFCFE55166D0FA30FBA864E7.text	03EC4719FFCFE55166D0FA30FBA864E7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chaetacanthus brasiliensis (de Quatrefages 1866) Salazar-Silva & López-Sánchez & Salazar-Vallejo 2020	<div><p>Chaetacanthus brasiliensis (de Quatrefages, 1866) n. comb.</p><p>Figures 1–6, 7, 8, 13 D–F</p><p>Polynoe brasiliensis de Quatrefages, 1866: 246–247 .</p><p>Iphione magnifica Grube, 1876: 51 .</p><p>Polynoe branchiata Treadwell, 1901:186; Horst 1922: 197–198, Fig. 1.</p><p>Lepidonotus (Physalidonotus) barbatus Augener 1910: 244–246, Figs 4–6.</p><p>Lepidonotus (Physalidonotus) magnificus: Augener 1922: 40 .</p><p>Lepidonotus brasiliensis: Seidler 1924: 37 (n. comb.); Amaral &amp; Nonato 1982: 25; de Assis et al. 2015: 65 (Tabl. 1), 68.</p><p>Physalidonotus magnificus: Seidler 1921: 87 (n. comb.).</p><p>Chaetacantus magnificus: Seidler 1922: 301; Seidler 1924: 97 (n. comb., syn.); Amaral &amp; Nonato 1982: 18 –19, Figs 24–31; de Brito et al. 2013: 27–29, Figs 1–6.</p><p>Euphione (Chaetacanthus) magnificus: Augener 1927: 43–44 .</p><p>Lepidonotus branchiatus Treadwell, 1939: 183–184, Fig. 16.</p><p>Lepidonotus pilosus: Treadwell 1941: 26 (specimen not seen; non Treadwell, 1937).</p><p>Type material. Brazil. Holotype of Polynoe brasiliensis de Quatrefages, 1866, MNHN 78, Bahía, 1868 . Trinidad. Holotype of Iphione magnifica Grube, 1876, ZMB 1059, Schilling leg. (plus one slide made by Seidler). Puerto Rico. Holotype of Polynoe branchiata Treadwell, 1901, USNM 16006, Harbor Mayaguez, Bahía Boquerón, United States Fish Commission Steamer Fish Hawk, Sta. 6065, 8– 10 m, 20 Jan. 1899.</p><p>Additional material. Brazil. UMML 4215, R/V Oregon, Cruise 84, Sta. 4215 (00°27’ N, 47º09’ W), 22 m, 26 Feb. 1963 [3.5 cm long, 1.2 cm wide, 26 segments]. Caribbean Panama. Four specimens (ECOSUR P3100), Bocas del Toro, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-47.15&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=0.45" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -47.15/lat 0.45)">Islote Manglar</a>, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-47.15&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=0.45" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -47.15/lat 0.45)">off Isla Bastimento</a>, 2 m, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-47.15&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=0.45" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -47.15/lat 0.45)">dead Agaricia coral</a>, 2 m depth, 12 Jul. 2018, O. Molina, coll. [2.5–4.5 mm long, 0.7–1.5 mm wide (without chaetae), 26 segments; nephridial lobes from segment 7] .</p><p>Diagnosis. Chaetacanthus with branchial filaments distally bifurcated; elytral surface with digitiform papillae and numerous spinous globular microtubercles from third pair of elytra with macrotubercles amber colour, sclerotized, depressed in honeycomb like groups; outer area with macrotubercles fusiform mucronate, marginal ones hemispherical; inner area with abundant, dark microtubercles conical with thick spines.</p><p>Redescription. Holotype of Polynoe brasiliensis (MNHN 78) complete, dehydrated, 1.5 cm long (20–22 mm long in original description), 0.4 cm wide, 26 segments.</p><p>Prostomium bilobed, facial tubercle rounded; median antenna with long ceratophore inserted frontally, style dried; lateral antennae inserted terminally with long thin ceratophores, styles dried-out; palps papillate; pharynx not everted.</p><p>Tentacular segment not visible dorsally; segment two projected on prostomium as rounded lobe; tentaculophores thin with few thin chaetae.</p><p>First pair of elytra circular, following ones oval, wide, imbricate, margins with long abundant fimbriae along posterolateral and external margins, and a bundle of long filiform papillae along inner posterolateral margin. Surface of two anterior elytra with hemispherical macrotubercles spinous over elytrophoral area arranged in a C-shaped row. Following elytra with macrotubercles ambercolour, depressed, densely packed in honeycomb like groups in elytral centre (Fig. 1A). Outer elytral region with macrotubercles covered by small spines (Fig. 1B, C), marginal ones hemispherical, other numerous fusiform with sharp tips, surface spinulose (Fig. 1D), markedly larger along posterolateral external area, inner elytral area with abundant microtubercles, conical spinous (Fig. 1D).</p><p>Parapodia biramous. Notopodia short with abundant notochaetae; neuropodia thick, truncate, with a short acicular projection. Branchial filaments along notopodial anterior and posterior surfaces. Cirrigerous segments with dorsal cirri thin, subdistally swollen, tips long filiform. Ventral cirri thick, short. Notochaetae thin, brownish, shorter than neurochaetae, surface spinulous, tips sharp. Neurochaetae markedly thicker, amber, short, tips unidentate, slightly falcate, with a few subdistal thick spines and striae (Fig. 1 E–G). Segment 2 with neurochaetae markedly thinner, with several rows of long spines.</p><p>Variation. The holotype of Iphione magnifica Grube, 1876 (ZMB 1059), and the holotype of Polynoe branchiata Treadwell, 1901 (USNM 16006) have the same diagnostic features for prostomia, elytra, and parapodia, with the sole exception that the former does not have its median antenna. Anterior eyes on the widest prostomial area; posterior eyes partially hidden by nuchal lobe (Figs 2B; 3B; 4A; 6B). Elytra with fringe of long papillae (Figs 2C; 3C; 5; 12 A–C); spinous globular macrotubercles on first elytra (Figs 2C, D; 3B, F; 4B); from the third pair of elytra macrotubercles are sclerotized, depressed, packed in honeycomb groups (Figs 2A, E; 3D; 4D; 6A), with conical microtubercles (Fig. 3G, H), and fusiform macrotubercles with acute tips (Figs 3E; 5C). Parapodia with branchial filaments (Figs 3H; 5D; 6A), and neurochaetae with tips unidentate (Figs 3I; 5E; 6C). These features are also present in the additional material (UMML 078). Antennae, tentacular and dorsal cirri thin, smooth, subdistally swollen, tips filiform; median antenna longer than prostomium; lateral antennae half as long as prostomium, palps papillated; pygidium thick, long, anal cirri resembling dorsal cirri, subdistally swollen, tips filiform. Elytral ornamentation has been indicated above; the colour of the neurochaetae can vary from light brownish to dark, and the notochaetae are slender and long.</p><p>Augener (1927: 44) noted that the elytra of the C. brasiliensis specimens (as Euphione (Chaetacanthus) magnificus) smaller than 20 mm in length do not show the honeycomb like patch of large macrotubercles. He further added that Treadwell (1901) specimens of P. branchiata were 20–25 mm long, and that because of their small size these patches of elytral macrotubercles were barely developed.</p><p>In our new material, elytral shape and ornamentation change along the body. The first elytra are almost circular (Fig. 7A); the subsequent ones are elongated, almost oval, medially narrower, and wider laterally, inserted obliquely and imbricate, posterior and lateral margins with fringe. In first and second pair of elytra, the macrotubercles start as an irregular, oblique row (Fig. 7A), often with a bent section, resembling a “C”, “J” or half-moon shaped, and there are other large globular macrotubercles along the margin. By segment 9, the macrotubercles are arranged as an ovoid group with individual round and larger macrotubercles (Fig. 7B), and the group expands laterally covering about one-fourth of elytral surface (Fig. 7C). Elytra of posterior segments show two modifications because macrotubercles become larger although the covered elytral surface is about the same (Fig. 7D). Other large macrotubercles are fusiform, truncate basally, distally mucronate, abundant on the outer lateral surface. On the internal elytral areas, the conical spinous microtubercles can be dark. Fimbriae are well-developed along most elytral margins, often loaded with foreign materials, and form a distinct bundle in the inner, posterior elytral region, although they can be eroded by excessive brushing off.</p><p>The honeycomb-like group of macrotubercles varies with body size as noted by comparing C. brasiliensis specimens of different size (2.5 cm long vs. 3.5 cm long). The first elytra shows that whereas in smaller specimens (Fig. 8A) the central macrotubercles are arranged into a row barely turned around, in larger specimens (Fig. 8D), the row turns around quite distinctly resembling an inverted “J”. As indicated above, by segment 9 in smaller specimens the macrotubercles are round, smaller (Fig. 8B) than those present in larger specimens (Fig. 8E), where they are also polygonal instead of round. In posterior segments, the smaller specimens have more macrotubercles but they are less pigmented, and the group extends over a slightly smaller elytral surface (Fig. 8C), whereas in larger specimens, the macrotubercles are larger, darker, and extended over a larger area (Fig. 8F).</p><p>Remarks. Polynoe brasiliensis de Quatrefages, 1866 is newly combined into Chaetacanthus Seidler, 1922 as C. brasiliensis (de Quatrefages, 1866) . The original description was based upon a single specimen, hence the holotype, although its type status was regarded as syntype (Solís-Weiss et al. 2004: S14).</p><p>Despite the fact that the original description of P. brasiliensis does not include illustrations, and that the holotype is dehydrated, it is a complete specimen and some diagnostic features were observed: elytral surfaces, and the presence of branchiae are visible between parapodia, close to cirrophores. These features match the diagnosis of Chaetacantus and it explains the new combination. The presence of branchial filaments was overlooked by de Quatrefages (1866), and Seidler (1924) only translated the original description, but the latter transferred the species and newly combined it into Lepidonotus . In that combination, it has been reported in a faunistic note and in a compilation (Amaral &amp; Nonato 1982, de Assis et al. 2015).</p><p>The study of the holotype of Polynoe branchiata Treadwell, 1901 from Puerto Rico, indicated that this species is a junior synonym of C. magnificus as well, as already indicated by Seidler (1924: 97), Augener (1927: 43), and Hartman (1959: 99). We confirm this synonymy, but the senior species name is C. brasiliensis (see below). For instance, the publication date for the paper by Treadwell on Puerto Rican polychaetes has been cited as 1900, 1901, or 1902; however, the correct publication date is 4 October 1901 (Evermann 1902).</p><p>Chaetacanthus brasiliensis and C. magnificus refer to a rare biological entity. It is rarely collected and most collections have just a few specimens, if any at all, with the sole exception of Augener (1927) who reported 30 specimens. Consequently, there are several publications using C. magnificus, and a few ones listing P. brasiliensis . This could make us propose a reversal of precedence and retain the junior synonym instead of the senior one, following article 23.9 of the code (ICZN 1999). This means that because the senior species-group name has been used less frequently than the junior one, the older name should be regarded as a nomen oblitum, and the other more frequently used, nomen protectum. Nevertheless, this violates two essential conditions in 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2 of the Code, because the senior synonym has been used as a valid name after 1899, and the junior synonym has not been used in at least 25 works published by 10 different authors during the last 50 years. Consequently, there is no need to reverse precedence, and we newly combine it as C. brasiliensis, and confirm it as the senior synonym over C. magnificus (Grube, 1876) .</p><p>As explained by Seidler (1924), and herein confirmed, the type specimen of Iphione magnifica Grube, 1876 lacks the median antenna, which probably caused Grube to place it in Iphione Kinberg, 1856 . Despite the fact of this missing appendage, and a superficial similarity in elytral appeareance, the species does not match with Iphione, and it is why Seidler (1924) proposed it as the type species for his new genus Chaetacanthus .</p><p>Members of C. brasiliensis resemble C. ornatus n. sp. because their elytra have large macrotubercles in honeycomb-like groups, and a comparison of specimens of similar size indicate some differences (Fig. 13). In C. brasiliensis macrotubercles are smaller, usually polygonal, and extend over smaller elytral areas (Fig. 13 D–F) than in C. ornatus n. sp. whose macrotubercles are usually larger, globular, and extended over larger elytral areas (Fig. 13 A–C). On the other hand, Puerto Rican specimens were recorded with ripe oocytes in November (Allen 1957).</p><p>Lepidonotus pilosus Treadwell, 1937, described from Western Mexico, was also regarded as a junior synonym of C. magnificus by Hartman (1939a: 29; 1956: 253), and by de Brito et al. (2013). However, this is a different species (see below), and it is herein redescribed. On the other hand, Lepidonotus brasiliensis laevis Rullier &amp; Amoreux, 1979 was described with two specimens dredged about 300 km E off Mar del Plata in sediments between 220–270 m depth. The description was restricted to details of elytra and chaetae, and provided illustrations for them. Elytra has large champagne cork-, or mushroom-shaped macrotubercles with finely spinous heads, and long marginal fimbriae; neurochaetae were described and illustrated as blackish, smooth, unidentate. The subspecies was retained in Lepidonotus by de Assis et al. (2015), but its neurochaetae differ from those present in members of this genus and, after this feature, the subspecies does not belong in this genus. Regretfully, branchial filaments were not indicated in the original description, but after Fauchald (1977) key to genera, there would be only two options for transferring this subspecies after the presence of smooth neurochaetae: Euphionella Monro, 1936 if it has branchial filaments, Dilepidonotus Hartman, 1967 if they are missing. For the former, the most similar species might be E. besnardi Amaral &amp; Nonato, 1982 dredged in muddy sands off Rio Grande do Sul, in 200 m depth. For the latter, the only known species, D. falklandicus Hartman, 1967 has blackish unidentate neurochaetae, but macrotubercles are sparser and markedly smaller. Nevertheless, despite Rullier &amp; Amoureux (1979: 152) indicated the type was deposited in the Paris museum (AK 229), it was not included in the type catalogue (Solís-Weiss et al. 2004). In conclusion, L. brasiliensis laevis does not belong in Lepidonotus nor Chaetacanthus by having smooth neurochaetae; its generic affiliation cannot be solved until the type material is found, or some topotypes are found and carefully compared. This is beyond our current objectives.</p><p>Type locality. Bahia, Brazil .</p><p>Distribution. Puerto Rico to Panamá, Curaçao, Trinidad, Bahia and Paraíba, Brazil.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EC4719FFCFE55166D0FA30FBA864E7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Salazar-Silva, Patricia;López-Sánchez, Daniel A.;Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I.	Salazar-Silva, Patricia, López-Sánchez, Daniel A., Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I. (2020): Revision of Chaetacanthus Seidler, 1922 (Annelida, Phyllodocida, Polynoidae). Zootaxa 4885 (3): 395-422, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4885.3.5
03EC4719FFC7E55466D0F9F6FCD36283.text	03EC4719FFC7E55466D0F9F6FCD36283.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chaetacanthus harrisae Salazar-Silva & López-Sánchez & Salazar-Vallejo 2020	<div><p>Chaetacanthus harrisae n. sp.</p><p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: E304CEF1-D40F-404C-89D3-710D8087C618</p><p>Figure 9</p><p>Lepidonotus pomareae panamensis Hartman 1939a: 44–46, Pl. 6, Figs 70–77 (partim).</p><p>Lepidonotus panamensis: Hartman 1948: 28 (n. status, partim).</p><p>Type material. Pacific Panama. Holotype LACM 245-34, Pacora Island, Panama, 27–45 m, R/ V Velero III, Sta. 245-34, 07°44’19” N, 81°35’23”W, dredged off <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-81.58972&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=7.738611" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -81.58972/lat 7.738611)">North West Point Rock</a>, large shells and nullipores, 21 Jul. 1934.</p><p>Diagnosis. Chaetacanthus with branchial filaments single, thick lobes; elytra with pale to brownish round spinous macrotubercles; microtubercles bulbous up to three times longer than wide, spinous surface extended along ½– 2 / 3 basal length; elytra without large, amber-colour macrotubercles arranged in honeycomb like groups.</p><p>Description. Holotype (LACM 245-34) 5.5 cm long, 1.35 cm wide, 26 segments. Prostomium bilobed with facial tubercle prominent, acute. Two pairs of eyes, anterior pair on widest prostomial area, posterior pair hidden under anterior projection of second segment. Median antenna with ceratophore inserted frontally, style long, subdistally swollen. Lateral antennae with ceratophores inserted frontally, styles similar to median antennal one. Palps with rows of thick papillae. Pharynx not everted.</p><p>Tentacular segment not visible dorsally. Tentaculophores thin, tentacular cirri similar to median antenna. Second segment with anterior border projected over prostomium as a short round nuchal lobe.</p><p>Elytral margin with fringe of long abundant, filiform papillae (Fig. 9A), some with globular tips, including a distinctive bundle of papillae. Elytral surface verrucose with abundant globular, non-sclerotized spinous macrotubercles (Fig. 9G), and clavate micropapillae (Fig. 9B). First pair of elytra with scattered microtubercles along its whole surface, globular macrotubercles close to elytrophoral plug area (Fig. 9A, G). On middle and posterior elytra globular macrotubercles scarce (Fig. 9F), spinous surface extended along ½– 2 / 3 basal length, microtubercles numerous, bulbous with long peaks (Fig. 9 B–E).</p><p>Parapodia biramous. Notopodia thick with acicular tips emergent. Neuropodia distally truncate, acicular tips emergent. Branchial filaments present between successive parapodia. Dorsal cirri thin, long, reaching neurochaetal tips, cirri subdistally swollen, resembling antennae. Cirrophores robust. Nephridial papillae long, thick.</p><p>Notochaetae thin capillaries, long, with spinous surface, lower notochaetae shorter, slightly curved, serrated. Neurochaetae with upper region short, subdistally with long thin spines, tips entire, long, acute.</p><p>Etymology. This species is named after Mrs. Leslie Harris, our long-term friend and teacher, in recognition of her efforts supporting taxonomy of polychaetes, and especially because she has been very generous by housing us during repetitive visits to Los Angeles during the last 20 years.</p><p>Remarks. Hartman (1939a) described Lepidonotus pomareae panamensis and indicated its differences from the nominal form by having elytra “conspicuously covered with numerous large headed, high tubercles, the sixth pair of elytra is rectangular, not triangular, and the total length is over 35 mm as against 13 mm specified for L. pomareae .” As indicated below, the holotype of this subspecies, later raised to species level as L. panamensis, is regarded as a junior synonym of C. pilosus (Treadwell, 1937) . However, the specimen investigated here belongs neither to L. pilosus nor to L. pomareae, and is described here as C. harrisae n. sp. The material was erroneously referred from station 254-34, but it comes from station 245-34.</p><p>Further, C. harrisae n. sp. differs from C. pilosus because its elytra do not have pedunculated tubercles, in the first pair of elytra of C. harrisae the macrotubercles are mainly globular, scarce and concentrated along the area corresponding to the elytrophoral plug. In elytra of median and posterior segments, the macrotubercles are smaller, and the microtubercles bear long, tapered peaks.</p><p>On the other hand, members of C. harrisae n. sp. also differ from members of C. pomareae (Kinberg, 1856) in that the latter lacks the long conical tubercles scattered along the posterior elytral half area, and only the anterior elytra have long macrotubercles.</p><p>Type locality. Pacora Island, Panamá, in 27–90 m depth .</p><p>Distribution. Only known from the original record.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EC4719FFC7E55466D0F9F6FCD36283	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Salazar-Silva, Patricia;López-Sánchez, Daniel A.;Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I.	Salazar-Silva, Patricia, López-Sánchez, Daniel A., Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I. (2020): Revision of Chaetacanthus Seidler, 1922 (Annelida, Phyllodocida, Polynoidae). Zootaxa 4885 (3): 395-422, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4885.3.5
03EC4719FFC0E54866D0F9A0FF306596.text	03EC4719FFC0E54866D0F9A0FF306596.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chaetacanthus ornatus Salazar-Silva & López-Sánchez & Salazar-Vallejo 2020	<div><p>Chaetacanthus ornatus n. sp.</p><p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 8D720EB8-0DEE-4090-816F-1B22BDF989C3</p><p>Figures 10–12, 13 A–C</p><p>Chaetacanthus magnificus: Monro 1928: 558; Hartman 1939a: 28–29 (non Grube, 1876).</p><p>Chaetacanthus cf. magnificus: Hernández-Moreno 2011: 28–32, Fig. 9 A–O, Pls. 5D, 6F (non Grube, 1876).</p><p>Type material. Eastern Pacific. Holotype ECOSUR 233, Puerto Escondido, Oaxaca, México, 10, associated with algae on thorny bivalve ( Spondylus Sowerby, 1847), 4 Jul. 2004, S. García, coll.</p><p>Diagnosis. Chaetacanthus with branchial filament digitiform with septate appearance; anterior eyes area bulky; elytral macrotubercles globular, amber-colour, sclerotized in large honeycomb like groups, outer area with fusiform macrotubercles distally blunt; numerous microtubercles dark, conical with thick spines on overlapping medially area.</p><p>Description. Holotype (ECOSUR 233) 2.9 cm long, 1.1 cm wide, 26 segments (Fig. 10A). Prostomium bilobed, facial tubercle small, round. Two pairs of dark eyes; anterior pair on widest prostomial bulky area; posterior pair near posterior prostomial margin; posterior eyes much smaller than anterior ones (Fig. 10B). Median antenna with thick, long ceratophore inserted frontally between prostomial lobes, style long, 1.5 times longer than prostomial length, thick, subdistally clavate, tip filiform, surface smooth, with pigmentation rings medially and subdistally. Lateral antennae with ceratophores inserted terminally on frontal prostomial border, brownish, styles similar in shape and pigmentation to median antenna. Palps robust, dark, taper into thin tips, surface with long rows of papillae. Pharynx everted with soft marginal papillae, 12 dorsally and 13 ventrally (Figs 10A, B; 11A, B).</p><p>Tentacular segment not visible dorsally. Tentaculophores basally thick, inserted laterally to prostomium. Tentacular cirri with similar shape and pigmentation as median antenna. Segment two projected anteriorly over prostomium as a small round lobe (Fig. 10B). First pair of elytrophores long, not covering tentaculophores. Segment three narrower than successive segments.</p><p>All elytra with fringe of abundant, long papillae, and a bundle of long papillae in posterior inner margin (Fig. 12 A–D). First pair of elytra with abundant hemispherical microtubercles along its surface, each with surface spinulose; globular macrotubercles arranged in a curved J-shaped row, smaller along posterior border (Fig. 12A) some pedunculated. From third segment, elytra bear globular macrotubercles with minute spines, mainly along posterior border, and sclerotized on central area forming a honeycomb patch (Fig. 12 B–D). Towards dorsal midline, each elytron has dark microtubercles conical with thick peaks; fusiform macrotubercles long, thin, with short spines along their surface; along outer region numerous fusiform macrotubercles distally rounded.</p><p>Parapodia biramous; branchial filaments digitate, abundant, some appearing septate (Fig. 10C). Notopodia short with acicular tips emerging. Neuropodia distally truncate, acicular tips slightly projected. Elytrophores wide, dorsal tubercles inconspicuous. Dorsal cirri short, not reaching neurochaetal tips, distally clavate with cirrophores short, swollen. Ventral cirri thick, short with filiform tips. Nephridial papillae present from segment 11, cylindrical, long. Pygidium with two anal cirri, similar to dorsal cirri.</p><p>Notochaetae abundant, thin, short, as long as half neurochaetal length, tips filiform, surface with rows of denticles (Fig. 10C). Neurochaetae dark amber (Fig. 10C), thick, slightly curved, slender along first two segments (Fig. 10C, inset), markedly larger and thicker thereafter; median segments with upper bundle with shorter chaetae, subdistally with scarce spines, tips entire.</p><p>Variation. Elytral variation will be better understood in a comparison between C. ornatus n. sp. and C. brasiliensis . Chaetacanthus ornatus has swollen macrotubercles and larger honeycomb-like groups than those present in C. brasiliensis . In first elytra, C. ornatus macrotubercles are about twice as large and mostly arranged in a single row (Fig. 13A), whereas in C. brasiliensis they are smaller, arranged in a row with 1–2 macrotubercles (Fig. 13D). By segment 9 in C. ornatus, the honeycomb groups are 3–4 times larger and occupy about ¼ elytral surface (Fig. 13B), whereas in C. brasiliensis they extend for about 1 / 6 of elytral surface and macrotubercles are smaller (Fig. 13E). In segment 24, the individual macrotubercles in C. ornatus have enlarged about 3–4 times more than in segment 9, and now they extend for about 1 / 3 elytral surface (Fig. 13C), whereas in C. brasiliensis the macrotubercles have doubled their size and expanded over elytra such that now they occupy about ¼ elytral surface (Fig. 13F).</p><p>Etymology. The specific epithet is derived from the Latin word ornatus (masculine), meaning furnished, equipped, adorned, or decorated, in reference to the large honeycomb group of macrotubercles on elytral surfaces.</p><p>Remarks. Members of Chaetacanthus ornatus n. sp. were compared with the type material of C. brasiliensis; C. ornatus n. sp. differs because its dorsal cirri are short, the facial tubercle is short and round, not elongate. The globular tubercles present on first pair of elytra are similar in shape to those of middle and posterior elytra; each is globular with spinous surface. Further, C. ornatus differs from C brasiliensis because the macrotubercles of the central patch are not depressed and the patch is wider, covering a region larger than the elytrophoral plug. The long fusiform tubercles are distally blunt, without a sharp tip, and the microtubercles along the inner surface have thicker peaks.</p><p>Monro (1928) recorded C. magnificus from Coiba and Gorgona Islands, in the Eastern Pacific, and indicated his accounts were the first records for the Caribbean species into the Pacific Ocean. Monro materials were not examined, but they are regarded as conspecific with C. ornatus . Hartman (1939a) recorded C. magnificus for the Pacific with specimens from Ecuador, Panamá and México, The specimens from Socorro Island, Colima (sta. 132-34), and from Petatlan Bay, Guerrero (sta. 264-34) require corroboration, but might also belong to this new species.</p><p>Type locality. Puerto Escondido, Oaxaca, México .</p><p>Distribution. Puerto Escondido, Oaxaca, México; probably also present in Coiba, Panama; Isla Gorgona, Colombia.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EC4719FFC0E54866D0F9A0FF306596	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Salazar-Silva, Patricia;López-Sánchez, Daniel A.;Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I.	Salazar-Silva, Patricia, López-Sánchez, Daniel A., Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I. (2020): Revision of Chaetacanthus Seidler, 1922 (Annelida, Phyllodocida, Polynoidae). Zootaxa 4885 (3): 395-422, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4885.3.5
03EC4719FFDCE54B66D0FCD4FCB466B7.text	03EC4719FFDCE54B66D0FCD4FCB466B7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chaetacanthus pilosus (Treadwell 1937) Salazar-Silva & López-Sánchez & Salazar-Vallejo 2020	<div><p>Chaetacanthus pilosus (Treadwell, 1937)</p><p>Figures 14–16</p><p>Lepidonotus pilosus Treadwell, 1937: 141–143, Pl. 1, Figs. 1–7.</p><p>Lepidonotus pomareae panamensis Hartman, 1939a: 44–46, Pl. 6, Figs. 70–77 (partim).</p><p>Lepidonotus panamensis: Hartman 1948: 28 (n. status, partim).</p><p>Chaetacanthus magnificus: Salazar-Vallejo et al. 1990: 215, Fig. 37 (non Grube, 1876).</p><p>Chaetacanthus pilosus: Salazar-Silva 2006: 146 (reinst.).</p><p>Type material. Eastern Pacific. Holotype of Lepidonotus pilosus Treadwell, 1937, AMNH 3531, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-109.4&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=23.483334" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -109.4/lat 23.483334)">Arena Bank</a>, Gulf of California, Sta. 136, D-13 (23°29’ N 109° 24’ W), 20 Apr. 1936 . Holotype of Lepidonotus pomareae panamensis Hartman, 1939a, LACM 3, AHF-5, Poly 0039, Bahía Honda, Panama, off North Island, R / V Velero III, Sta. 863- 38, 54–90 m, 1 Mar.1938 .</p><p>Additional material. <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-81.593056&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=7.759722" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -81.593056/lat 7.759722)">Eastern Pacific</a>, Panama. One specimen, LACM 863-38, off Bahía Honda, 54–90 m, rock sand mud, R/ V Velero, Sta. 863-38, 07°45’35” N, 81°35’35” W, 26 Jan. 1939, identified as Lepidonotus pomareae panamensis but separated from holotype .</p><p>Diagnosis. Chaetacanthus with branchial filaments digitiform, bifurcated; elytra with abundant pedunculated macrotubercles and microtubercles, spinous, hemispherical, amber in colour, larger over the elytrophore and on first pair of elytra.</p><p>Description. Holotype of Lepidonotus pilosus (AMNH 3531) robust, 2.5 cm long, 1.3 cm wide, 26 segments; body homogeneously yellowish without spots, integument wrinkled.</p><p>Prostomium longer than wide, slightly retracted into segment two; prostomial lobes laterally expanded. Two pairs of eyes, circular, dark, anterior pair on widest prostomial area, posterior pair hidden under anterior projection of segment two (Fig. 14A). Facial tubercle long, slender. Median antenna with ceratophore thick, long, inserted frontally, at same level of lateral antennae, style missing. Lateral antennae with ceratophores thick, long, inserted frontally on prostomial lobes, styles missing. Palps robust, long, two times longer than prostomial length, tapered into filiform tips, surface with rows of papillae. Pharynx not everted.</p><p>Tentacular segment not visible dorsally. Tentaculophores thick, long, inserted laterally to prostomium, with several chaetae; tentacular cirri missing. Second segment projected anteriorly over prostomium as a wide round lobe. First pair of elytrophores expanded laterally over tentaculophores, with large elytral scar. Segment three narrower than following ones.</p><p>Elytral margin with fringe of abundant long papillae (Fig. 14B), all with a distinctive bundle of papillae on posterior margin. Elytral surface with abundant spinous macrotubercles, and microtubercles. Macrotubercles pedunculate, distally hemispherical with abundant small spines, mostly scattered along elytral surface, but in first pair of elytra macrotubercles prominent, concentrated in elytral plug area (Fig. 14C, D). Microtubercles hemispherical or tapered, tips subconical.</p><p>Parapodia biramous, robust. Notopodia short. Neuropodia short, truncated, with acicular tips emergent (Fig. 14E, F). Notopodia with abundant brachial filaments (Fig. 14F), dorsally and laterally, each filament swollen, appearing septate, tips bifurcate. Dorsal cirri thin, long, slightly clavate, tips filiform. Cirrophores bulbous basally, elongate; elytrophores wide with large elytral scars. Ventral cirri short, not reaching neuropodial tips. Nephridial papillae thick, long.</p><p>Notochaetae abundant, thin, spinous capillaries, thinner and shorter than neurochaetae (Fig. 14E, F). Neurochaetae thick, dark amber (Fig. 14F), upper fascicle with shorter chaetae with long entire tips, lower ones curved, subdistally with short spines.</p><p>Remarks. Although Hartman (1939a) did not examine the type material of L. pilosus, she correctly regarded it as belonging to Chaetacantus but as a junior synonym of C. magnificus (Grube, 1876) . Type material of both species was examined. Treadwell (1937) described and illustrated the type of L. pilosus indicating it has parapodial branchial filaments, and this confirms its belonging into Chaetacanthus . However, C. pilosus differs from C. magnificus (Grube, 1876), herein synonymized with C. brasiliensis (de Quatrefages, 1866) . The main difference is that the elytra of C. pilosus do not have the prominent patch of sclerotized, amber macrotubercles arranged in honeycomb like patches, because of this difference C. pilosus is redescribed.</p><p>The nominal species, Lepidonotus pomareae, and the subspecies, L. p. panamensis, both have branchial filaments between successive parapodia (Fig. 16F). However, because the features of L. pomarae panamensis are the same as those shown by C. pilosus in prostomium (Fig. 16A), elytral ornamentation (Figs 15 A–D; 16B–E), notochaetae and neurochaetae (Fig. 16G, H), the subspecies deserved to be raised in status as a full species, as correctly indicated by Hartman (1948) as C. panamensis (Hartman, 1939) . Nevertheless, this species shares the same morphological pattern with C. pilosus (Treadwell, 1937) and it is herein regarded as a junior synonym of the latter.</p><p>Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in the USNM in Washington (USNM 47981), there is another specimen incorrectly labeled as the holotype of Lepidonotus panamensis Hartman, 1939, collected in Honda Bay, near Coiba Island (R/V Velero III, Sta. 861-38). Hartman (1939: 44) included three specimens for her Lepidonotus pomareae panamensis, two from Station 863-38, and one from station 254-34, with no specimen from any other locality (station 861-38). Consequently, that additional USNM specimen cannot be the holotype (ICZN 1999, Art. 73.1).</p><p>It must be indicated that in C. pomareae (Kinberg, 1856), elytra of median segments only have bulbous microtubercles with thick tips, whereas in posterior elytra the prominent conical macrotubercles are basally spinous with long, smooth tips (see below), and these macrotubercles are not present in C. pilosus .</p><p>Type locality. Arena Bank (23°29’ N, 109°24’ W), <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-109.4&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=23.483334" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -109.4/lat 23.483334)">Gulf</a> of California .</p><p>Distribution. Gulf of California and Bahía Honda, Panama.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EC4719FFDCE54B66D0FCD4FCB466B7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Salazar-Silva, Patricia;López-Sánchez, Daniel A.;Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I.	Salazar-Silva, Patricia, López-Sánchez, Daniel A., Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I. (2020): Revision of Chaetacanthus Seidler, 1922 (Annelida, Phyllodocida, Polynoidae). Zootaxa 4885 (3): 395-422, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4885.3.5
03EC4719FFD8E54E66D0FF01FD266627.text	03EC4719FFD8E54E66D0FF01FD266627.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chaetacanthus pomareae (Kinberg 1856)	<div><p>Chaetacanthus pomareae (Kinberg, 1856)</p><p>Figures 17, 18</p><p>Lepidonotus pomareae Kinberg, 1856: 383; Kinberg 1858: 10, Pl. 3, Fig. 9, Pl. 10, Fig. 47; Seidler 1924: 20 (key), 32–33. Chaetacanthus pomareae: Hartman 1948: 27–29, Pl. 3, Figs 13, 14.</p><p>Type material. Central South Pacific, French Polynesia. Holotype of Lepidonotus pomareae Kinberg, 1856, SMNH 395, Tahiti, 20°S, 150° W, Freg. Eugenie Exped. 1851–53.</p><p>Diagnosis. Chaetacanthus with branchial filaments single, thick lobes; elytra with globular micropapillae and microtubercles; round macrotubercles larger on first pair of elytra; conical macrotubercles in following elytra, macrotubercles up to five times longer than wide, basally spinous, tips long, smooth; elytra without large, amber-colour macrotubercles arranged in honeycomb like groups.</p><p>Description. Holotype in poor condition, without posterior end, 1.2 cm long, 0.3 cm wide, 23 segments. Data from description and illustrations by Kinberg (1858) given in parentheses.</p><p>Prostomium bilobed, hexagonal, as long as wide; two pairs of eyes, without pigmentation; anterior pair on middle part, posterior pair near to posterior margin (Fig. 17A). Facial tubercle prominent, pointed. Median antenna with ceratophore long, inserted frontally, style long, expanded subdistally, tip filiform (slightly longer than laterals). Lateral antennae with ceratophores inserted terminally, styles thin, shorter than median antenna, similar in shape to median antenna (Fig. 17A). Palps with stout papillae, tapered, as long as median antenna. Pharynx missing (previously removed; 12 pairs of marginal papillae; jaws with smooth cutting edge).</p><p>Tentacular segment not visible dorsally; tentaculophores long, thin, with chaetae; tentacular cirri similar in shape to antennae. Segment two dorsally projected on prostomium as a nuchal rounded lobe (Fig. 17A).</p><p>Elytra with fringe of short papillae; surface granular with numerous microtubercles, and digitiform papillae (Fig. 17G). First pair of elytra with microtubercles and macrotubercles spherical or hemispherical, spinous (Figs 17B, C; 18A, F), larger in elytrophoral plug area (Fig. 18B). Elytra of median and posterior segments oval with fringe of slender papillae (Figs 17F; 18C, E), surface with numerous conical macrotubercles, amber incolour, sclerotized, basally spinous, tips long (Figs 17D, E; 18D, E, G, H), larger macrotubercles over elytrophoral plug area.</p><p>Parapodia biramous, with branchial filaments laterally to eytrophores, cirrophores and between neuropodia. Notopodia shorter than neuropodia. Neuropodia with postchaetal rounded lobe, prechaetal lobe with a small acicular lobe, acicular tips slightly projected. Dorsal cirri short, thin, smooth, with subdistal swelling, tips filiform. Cirrophores short. Ventral cirri thin, short, tips filiform. Nephridial papillae from segment seven.</p><p>Notochaetae abundant, long, slender, with minute rows of spines. Neurochaetae thicker than notochaetae; upper bundle with shorter chaetae, tips with subdistal spines. Pygidium with anal cirri long, similar to dorsal cirri, anus terminal in last segment.</p><p>Remarks. The specific epithet given by Kinberg most probably refers to Queen Animata Pômare, who reigned in Tahiti from 1827 to 1877, an account of whom is given by O’Brien (2006). The type specimen is the only known record.</p><p>The holotype of C. pomareae (Kinberg, 1856) is about half as long as the critical size indicated by Augener (1927), and herein confirmed; however, instead of having many globular macrotubercles densely packed, there are just a few, and they have very long, conical macrotubercles in the elytrophoral plug area. Consequently, we are confident about using the type, size, and density of globular macrotubercles as diagnostic features, and that C. pomareae differs from its congeners by having a low density of globular macrotubercles, and many conical macrotubercles.</p><p>Type locality. <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-150.0&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-20.0" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -150.0/lat -20.0)">Tahiti</a>, French Polynesia (20°S, 150° W) .</p><p>Distribution. Only known from the locus typicus.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EC4719FFD8E54E66D0FF01FD266627	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Salazar-Silva, Patricia;López-Sánchez, Daniel A.;Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I.	Salazar-Silva, Patricia, López-Sánchez, Daniel A., Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I. (2020): Revision of Chaetacanthus Seidler, 1922 (Annelida, Phyllodocida, Polynoidae). Zootaxa 4885 (3): 395-422, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4885.3.5
03EC4719FFDAE54E66D0FE05FA4064DA.text	03EC4719FFDAE54E66D0FE05FA4064DA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Chaetacanthus Seidler 1924	<div><p>Key to species of Chaetacanthus Seidler, 1924</p><p>1 Elytra of middle and posterior segments with large, amber macrotubercles packed in a sclerotized honeycomb group...... 2</p><p>– Elytra of middle and posterior segments without honeycomb group amber macrotubercles........................... 3</p><p>2(1) Prostomial anterior eyes area bulky; sclerotized macrotubercles of honeycomb group globular, surface with minute spines; macrotubercles of outer area blunt, fusiform, without acute mucrons.. .................. C. ornatus n. sp. Eastern Pacific</p><p>– Prostomial anterior eyes area non-bulky laterally; sclerotized macrotubercles like honeycomb depressed, surface without minute spines; macrotubercles of outer area fusiform, with acute mucrons................................................................... C. brasiliensis (de Quatrefages, 1866) n. comb. Grand Caribbean to Ubatuba, S„o Paulo, Brazil</p><p>3(1) Branchial filaments single, thick lobes ..................................................................... 4</p><p>– Branchial filaments bifurcated; elytra with pedunculated microtubercles and macrotubercles hemispherical............................................................................. .. C. pilosus (Treadwell, 1937) Eastern Pacific</p><p>4(3) Elytra of middle and posterior segments with conical macrotubercles (up to five times longer than wide, basally spinous, long tip); microtubercles round and spinous............................ C. pomareae (Kinberg, 1856) South Central Pacific</p><p>– Elytra of middle and posterior segments with globular macrotubercles; microtubercles globular with long tips. ..................................................................................... C. harrisae n. sp. Eastern Pacific</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EC4719FFDAE54E66D0FE05FA4064DA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Salazar-Silva, Patricia;López-Sánchez, Daniel A.;Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I.	Salazar-Silva, Patricia, López-Sánchez, Daniel A., Salazar-Vallejo, Sergio I. (2020): Revision of Chaetacanthus Seidler, 1922 (Annelida, Phyllodocida, Polynoidae). Zootaxa 4885 (3): 395-422, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4885.3.5
