Justification: These Indian records are either unconfirmable or seem to be invalid: Thomas & George 1986: 104, fig. 1 j, 1 – 5; Mary & Lazarus 2004: 36, fig. 10 & 11 (SW coast); Varghese et al. 2007: 15, fig. 4 (SW coast); Fernando 2011: 61, pl. 37, fig. 1 – 1 e (Gujarat, Kerala, and east coast); Sivaleela & Padmanaban 2015: 26 (Hare Is.): Fernando et al. 2017: 127, pl. 58, fig. 1 – 1 e (Gujarat, Kerala and east coast). iterature analysis: Very few details of this very old species were known until Bayer (1958) published drawings of 7 sclerites taken from unknown regions of Esper’s original specimen, which did not include any of the polyp armature. Thomas & George (1986; 1987) just listed the species as one that was used for commercial purposes; Mary & Lazarus (2004) gave very rough outline drawings of sclerites that bear some resemblance to Bayer’s images; Varghese et al. (2007) just presented a photograph of a colony. Fernando (2011) and Fernando et al. (2017) described their material as having trifoliate thorn scales “ of the typical echinogorgian type ” with the median spine largely expanded into a “ thin ” leaf. The leaves drawn are actually quite thick and do bear some resemblance to what Bayer illustrated, although the sizes stated for the thorn scales and the unilaterally spined spindles are much larger than those in Bayer’s figure — the spindles x 2. Unless a full description of Esper’s material can be made, this species will remain unidentifiable.
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