Anthogorgia glomerata

Justification: These Indian records seem to be either invalid or unconfirmable: Fernando 2011: 31 – 32, pl. 10, fig. 2 – 2 c (Cuddalore); Fernando et al. 2017: 57, pl. 22, fig. 1 – 1 c (Cuddalore). Literature analysis: This species was originally described from the region but lacked any sclerite illustrations and as the holotype has never been redescribed, the species is essentially unrecognisable. However, the authors stated that the coenenchyme only contained spindles and included a drawing of a branch fragment with polyp clusters to support this. Consequently, the identical accounts given by Fernando (2011) and Fernando et al. (2017), which describe and figure numerous “ 4 radiated capstans ” is not conspecific. Also, the spindles in species of Anthogorgia occur in very large numbers and have conspicuously large warts, which does not match the illustrations in the Indian publications. Rao & Devi (2003) just listed the species and provide no new record.