Keroeides gracilis Whitelegge, 1897

Ramvilas, Ghosh, Alderslade, Philip & Ranjeet, Kutty, 2023, 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, Zootaxa 5236 (1), pp. 1-124 : 34-35

Keroeides gracilis Whitelegge, 1897

Keroeides gracilis Whitelegge, 1897: 308 , pl. 16, fig. 1–5 (Funafuti).

? Keroeides gracilis Grasshoff 1999: 18 , figs. 19–20 ( New Caledonia).

? Keroeides pallida Hiles, 1899: 201 , pl. 22, figs. 12–16.

Opinion: There is not enough evidence that this species occurs in the region.

Justification:

These Indian records seem to be either invalid or unconfirmable: Thomson & Henderson 1906: 22–23, pl. 4, fig. 1–3 (Andamans); Fernando 2011: 26, pl. 7, fig. 1&1d (SE coast); Fernando et al. 2017: 42, pl. 16, fig. 1–1d (SE coast).

Literature analysis: This species was originally described from Funafuti in the central west Pacific with very minimal illustrations. Later, Hiles (1899: 201) reported it from New Guinea without having seen the holotype and just relying on the original inadequate description. Thomson & Henderson’s (1906) description of material from the region does not appear to represent this species. Indeed, those authors pointed out a number of considerable morphological differences from the holotype, such as: the length, arrangement and form of the coenenchymal sclerites; the low height of the calyces (only half the original); and the different arrangement and type of sclerite in the calyces. Their illustration of a branch fragment is also very different from that given by Grasshoff (1999), who, however, had also not seen the holotype. Grasshoff cites Muricella grandis Nutting, 1910 as a synonym after having seen the holotype of that species. As it is not possible to recognise that species from Nutting’s description where only a single sclerite was figured, it is valuable to know it can be compared with the description of Grasshoff’s material.

There are notable differences between Whitelegge’s description and the two identical descriptions of an Indian specimen by Fernando (2011) and Fernando et a l. (2017). For example: (presented in the order Fernando / Whitelegge) axial sclerites 0.2 mm / 0.5 mm; coenenchymal spindles to 2.6 mm / to 1.2 mm; calyx sclerites 0.26 mm / 0.6 mm; tentacle sclerites 0.1 mm / 0.2 mm. These are quite substantial differences and probably not simply due to variability. Rao & Devi, (2003) just list the species.