Justification: These Indian records seem to be either invalid or unconfirmable: Thomas & George 1986: 105 – 106, fig. 1 l, 1 – 5; Thomas & Jacob 1987: 25 – 26, fig. 1 h, 2 b (SW and SE coast); Mary & Lazarus 2004: 37, fig. 13 (SW coast )); Fernando 2011: 56 – 57, pl. 33, fig. 1 – 1 d (East and NW coast); Fernando et al. 2017: 119, pl. 54, fig. 1 – 1 d (East and NW coast). Literature analysis: The sclerite descriptions and rudimentary drawings in the accounts by Thomas & George (1986), Thomas & Jacob (1987) and Mary & Lazarus (2004) are virtually the same. The leafclubs are described as having “ several leaf-like expansions ” whereas in Nutting’s original description these sclerites are described as having more “ folia ” than found in any other species in his report, which is supported by the image of the rosettelike sclerite in his plate 21, fig. 11. The Indian illustrations also include sketches of large leafy blocks, a form not mentioned at all in Nutting’s description of this species. The descriptions of the Indian material by Fernando (2011) and Fernando et al. (2017) are identical, but the sclerites include thornscales that are completely different from the foliaceous sclerites in the holotype. Thomas & George (1987) just list the species, while Varghese et al. (2007) lists the species as a commercial resource and figure a colony that has quite a different structure to that figured by Nutting (and also in the other Indian papers). Kumar et al. (2016: PY-P) list the species and provide a figureo of a colony.
Sumber: The taxonomy of Indian gorgonians: an assessment of the descriptive records of gorgonians (Anthozoa: Octocorallia: Alcyonacea) recorded as occurring in the territorial waters of India, along with neighbouring regions and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and the highlighting of perceived unethical practice