Subergorgia rubra Thomson, 1905

Subergorgia rubra Thomson, 1905: 172, fig. 4 (Sri Lankan seas); Stiasny 1937: 107, pl. 8, figs. 49–52, text fig. II; Grasshoff 1999: 15, fig. 17a (New Caledonia); Grasshoff 2000: 7, figs. 6–7 (Red Sea); Fernando, 2011: 18–19, pl. 2, fig. 2–2e (Cuddalore).

Opinion: There is evidence that this species occurs in the region.

Justification:

These Indian records seem to be either invalid or unconfirmable: Kumar et al. 2014a: 106, pl. 50, fig. A–D (South Andaman); Fernando et al. 2017: 17, pl. 3, fig. A–D (Cuddalore).

Literature analysis:

This species was erected by Thomson (1905) for a specimen from Sri Lankan waters, but the description, with no sclerite figures, is totally inadequate to characterise this species. Grasshoff (1999) stated that he had examined a fragment of the holotype to confirm the species occurs in the Maldives and said that the description by Stiasny (1937) is correct.

In the account of the species in Fernando (2011) and Fernando et al. (2017) the text is identical, but the illustrations are different even though the material examined is the same. But, in the account of the species in Fernando et al. (2017) and Kumar et al. (2014a) the text is different, but the illustrations are identical even though the material examined is different.

The specimen figured by Fernando (2017) and Kumar et al. (2014a) with its secund branching and secondary dichotomy is quite different from the colony in their underwater photograph and also very different from the irregularly-pinnate/laterally-branched colony illustrated by Stiasny. Likewise, the figured spindles with their large warts, some in girdles, bear little resemblance to the densely warted, robust spindles and ovals figured by Stiasny and also by Grasshoff. However, the colony and the sclerites illustrated with the description by Fernando (2011) do look very much like Subergorgia rubra . Kumar et al. (2015) lists the species and provides the colony figure from the 2014 and 2017 publications above.