Ellisella rubra
Creators: name: Ramvilas, Ghosh
name: Alderslade, Philip
name: Ranjeet, Kutty
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2023
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Cnidaria
Anthozoa
Alcyonacea
Ellisellidae
Ellisella
Ellisella rubra

description: Ellisella rubra (Wright & Studer, 1889)
Scirpearella rubra Wright & Studer, 1889: 157–158, pl. 34, fig. 5 (Hyalonema ground, Japan).
Scirpearia profunda (part) Simpson 1910: 312–314, fig. 27. (Hyalonema ground, Japan).
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: 129, pl. 92, figs. 1–1d (SE coast); Fernando et al. 2017: 302, pl. 142, fig. 1–1e (SE coast).
Literature analysis: This species was collected in Japan and described under the genus name Scirpearella rubra by Wright & Studer (1889) and included a figure of sclerites that are quite stylised and would not be an accurate record. Scirpearella, in the sense of those authors, is a synonym of Viminella Gray (see Bayer & Grasshoff, 1994: 30), although the WoRMS database still has the species as Ellisella rubra. Treatment of the species has had a complex history.After stating he had seen the types, Simpson (1910) reassigned Scirpearella profunda Wright & Studer, 1889 to the genus Scirpearia Cuvier (which actually applied to a sea pen), with figures of some sclerites, and assigned Scirpearella rubra as a junior synonym of that species (along with material identified as Scirpearella moniliforme Wright & Studer by Thomson & Henderson (1906)). However, Kükenthal (1924) reassigned Scirpearella profunda as a junior synonym of Scirpearia candida (Ridley, 1882).
Kükenthal (1924) also used the binomial Scirpearia rubra, but placed Simpson’s Scirpearia profunda (part), as a junior synonym of Scirpearia rubra along with Scirpearella rubra (part) of Nutting (1910d). But he also placed “part” of Nutting’s treatment of Scirpearella rubra as a junior synonym of Scirpearia alba (= Scirpearella alba Thomson & Henderson, 1906), which is a Viminella. Nutting did not figure any sclerites or give dimensions. His material was unbranched and probably a Viminella but there is little evidence for it to be conspecific with Scirpearella rubra.
The treatments of this taxon by Fernando (2011) and Fernando et al. (2017) are more-or-less identical, while also confusing and full of errors. They reassigned the species to the genus Nicella but cited it as “ Nicella rubra (Nutting, 1910) ” instead of Nicella rubra (Wright & Studer, 1889). The synonymic list comprised just “ Scirpearella rubra Wright and Studer, 1889 ” and “ Nicella rubra Nutting, 1910 ”, whereas Nutting’s account was for Scirpearella rubra. Their intention was possibly to make the new combination Nicella rubra (Wright & Studer, 1889). However, Nicella is a short-branched, flabellate genus with flattened, cigar- or spindle-shaped sclerites 2–4 times the length of the associated double-heads, and quite unlike the sclerites that they figured. Fernando’s material would seem to be a Viminella but it does not seem possible to establish its relationship to Wright & Studer’s species. The holotype of Scirpearella rubra has never been redescribed, so its characteristics are unknown. On the other hand, if Simpson’s synonymising of that species with Scirpearella profunda is correct, then the sclerite images he published (Simpson 1910: fig. 27) could be a guide, but the sclerite images figured by Fernando are far too small to compare, and their dimensions are not given. Nutting also gave no sclerite dimensions or even figures.
The original material was collected in Japanese waters at a depth of 621 m and it would seem unlikely that it would occur in the region.
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 91, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5236.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7639327