Melithaea rubeola
Creators: name: Ramvilas, Ghosh
name: Alderslade, Philip
name: Ranjeet, Kutty
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2023
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Cnidaria
Anthozoa
Alcyonacea
Melithaeidae
Melithaea
Melithaea rubeola

description: Melithaea rubeola (Wright & Studer, 1889)
Melitodes rubeola Wright & Studer, 1889: 176, pl. 40 fig. 7 (Arafura Sea).
Mopsella spongiosa Nutting, 1911: 50, pl. 8 fig. 1, pl. 12 fig. 7 (Aru Islands).
Mopsella rubeola (part) Hickson 1937: 135–139, 1 text fig., pl. 14, fig 3.
Mopsella rubeola Ofwgen 2000: 291–295, figs. 5–7, tbl. 2.
Not Acabaria rubeola Ofwegen 1987: 23–27 (Philippines).
Opinion: There is no evidence that this species occurs in the region.
Justification:
These Indian records seem to be either invalid or unconfirmable: Fernando 2011: 22–23, pl. 4, fig. 2–2d (Yerwadi); Kumar et al. 2014a: 98, pl. 46, fig. A–D (S Andaman); Fernando et al. 2017: 37, pl. 14, fig. A–D (Yerwadi; S Andaman).
Literature analysis: This species was originally described as Melitodes rubeola from the Arafura Sea north of Australia, but is not possible to determine the detailed characteristics of the material from the original descriptive text and inadequate sclerite illustrations. Hickson (1937) examined the type and reassigned the species it to the genus Mopsella with several simplistic sclerite drawings. Ofwegen (1987) reassigned the species to the genus Acabaria and gave a comprehensive description, but negated this identification later in Ofwegen et al. (2000) when placing the species back in the genus Mopsella and illustrating sclerites from the holotype.
In the account of the species (as Mopsella rubeola) in Fernando (2011) and (as Melithaea rubeola) in 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 (as Mopsella rubeola) in Kumar et al. (2014a) and (as Melithaea rubeola) in Fernando et al. (2017) the text is different, but the illustrations are identical even though the material examined is different. Curiously, in the Kumar et al. (2014a) publication the stated distribution includes Midway reef, Alaska.
Only the Kumar et al. (2014a) publication includes a description in the text, but virtually all of the section on the sclerites is taken word-for-word from Ofwegen (2000: 291), including the exact sclerite dimensions! This plagiarising has resulted in the figures of the sclerites bearing little resemblance to those described in their text or to those of the holotype. Interestingly, the sclerites figured in the earlier Fernando (2011) publication are much closer to those of the holotype: however, the unilateral processes are not thin, leaf-like and disorganised as in the type, but are rounded and more-or-less uniserial, which indicates they represent a different species.
Kumar et al. (2015) lists the species and provides a colony image, and Kumar et al. (2018 a, 2019) list the species and give references.
description: Published as part of 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, pp. 1-124 in Zootaxa 5236 (1) on page 32, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5236.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7639327