Acanthogorgia ceylonensis

Justification: These Indian records seem to be either invalid or unconfirmable: Thomas & George 1990: 421, pl. 1 D, fig. 1 f, 1 – 3 (off Bombay); Thomas et al. 1998: 163 – 164, fig. 1 C, 1 – 3 (off Quilon). Literature analysis: This species was described from Sri Lanka with just three sclerite figures — two crosses and a bow-shaped spindle. The holotype has never been redescribed so the species is essentially unrecognisable, but the text together with the shape of the colony and sclerites strongly suggest that it is not a species of Acanthogorgia. In fact, Stiasny (1947: 31) was of the opinion that the species was in the “ Muriceidae ”. Regardless of this, Thomas et al. (1998), when commenting on the polyps of their specimen, state they have “ Acanthogorgia type spicules projecting out at the tip of calyces {which} may give a characteristic appearance to the calyces ”, and Thomas & George (1990) similarly state “ the crown of spines is conspicuous … their presence gives a characteristic bristle-like appearance under magnification ”, and both papers figure typical crown-spine sclerites. In contrast, the original description simply says “ the spicules are arranged on the verrucae in 8 rows en chevron. ” It is impossible to know what species Thomas et al. (1998) or Thomas & George (1990) had before them, but it was in the genus Acanthogorgia and was not the same as what Thomson & Henderson (1905) had.