Aricidea suecica Eliason, 1920: 52 –55, figs. 14–15; Strelzov 1968: 82 –84, fig. 4 A–H; Hartman 1969: 65 –66, figs. 1–5; Kirkegaard 1996: 26 –28, fig. 9.
Aricidea (Aricidea) suecica.— Pettibone 1963: 307, fig. 80 f–g.
Aricidea (Allia) suecica.— Hartley 1981: 138, fig. 3 A–B; Gaston 1984: 2.18–2.20, fig. 2.16; Hartmann-Schröder 1996: 382, fig. 179.
Aricidea (Strelzovia) suecica.—Aguirrezabalaga 2011: 216–220, figs 91–92.
Aricidea (Allia) nolani (non Webster and Benedict, 1887). Strelzov 1973: 85 –88, fig. 36.
Material examined. ZISP 20/37913; Barents Sea; 71.2916°N-50.0250°E; 140 m; 06.09.1959; one specimen. 3353 Kvitebjørn KV–14R; 61.1226°N–2.3972°E; 188 m; 02.06.2005; one specimen. 5390 G7122/7-1; 71.05°N- 22.05°E; 340 m; 08.09.2015; 13 specimens. 5390 E7122/4-1; 71.05°N-22.05°E; 340 m; 10.09.2015; 35 specimens. 5390 S7220/10-1; 71.05°N-22.05°E; 340 m; 10.09.2015; one specimen.
Diagnosis. Antenna long, reaching third chaetiger. Secondary ciliary organs present. Three prebranchial segments. Dorsal podial lobes of chaetiger 1 cirriform, similar in length to those of remaining prebranchial chaetigers. Branchiae numbering 15–30 pairs; stout and tapering uniformly to a blunt tip. Modified notochaetae absent. Modified neurochaetae abruptly tapering, with slender terminal spine.
Distribution. Eastern Atlantic, from East Greenland (Wesenberg-Lund 1953) and Northern Norway (Oug 2000) to Iberian Peninsula (Aguirrezabalaga 2012), western Atlantic, from Western Greenland (Blake & Dean 1973) and New England (Pettibone 1963) to Caribbean Sea (Díaz-Díaz et al. 2009). Arctic Ocean: Canadian Arctic (Conlan et al. 2008), Jan Mayen (Bakken et al. 2010). California (Hartman 1969).
Remarks. In his thorough revision of the family Paraonidae, Strelzov (1973) compared material assigned to A. suecica with the original descriptions of this species (Eliason, 1920) and of A. nolani (Webster & Benedict, 1887). Although he failed to examine any of the type materials, he came to the conclusion that characters separating the two species were irrelevant, and that A. nolani should be preferred after priority rule. However, Hartley (1981) published as personal communication the conclusions of M. H. Pettibone, who examined the type series of A. nolani and found it to be formed of anterior fragments of three incomplete specimens, apparently pertaining to at least two different species (Gil 2011). It rendered A. nolani as an unidentifiable species and A. suecica a valid one, opinion followed subsequently by several authors such as Gaston (1984), Hartley (1984), Hartmann-Schröder (1996) or Aguirrezabalaga (2012) (but see Jirkov, 2001).