Subergorgia suberosa
Creators: name: Ramvilas, Ghosh
name: Alderslade, Philip
name: Ranjeet, Kutty
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2023
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Cnidaria
Anthozoa
Alcyonacea
Subergorgiidae
Subergorgia
Subergorgia suberosa

description: Subergorgia suberosa (Pallas, 1766)
Gorgonia suberosa Pallas, 1766: 191–192 (South African Sea & Indian Ocean); Esper 1791 –1797: 170–173 + pl. 49 in atlas.
Pterogorgia suberosa (new comb.) Milne Edwards (& Haime) 1857: 169–170.
Subergorgia suberosa (new comb.) Gray 1857: 159; Gray 1857a: 288; Stiasny 1937: 87–93, pl. 6, fig. 46, text fig. CC; Ofwegen & Vennam 1991: 143; Grasshoff 1999: 15, fig. 17b: Grasshoff 2000: 6–7, figs. 4–5.
Sclerogorgia suberosa (new comb.) Kolliker 1865: 142, pl. 19, fig. 13.
Subergorgia appressa Nutting, 1911: 28, pl. 5, figs. 1, 1a, pl.11, fig. 7.
Subergorgia pulchra Nutting, 1911: 30, pl. 6, figs. 1, 1a, pl.11, fig. 9.
Opinion: There is some evidence that this species occurs in the region.
Justification:
These Indian records may be valid: Fernando 2011: 19–20, pl.3, fig. 1–1e (SW coast); Kumar et al. 2014a: 108, pl. 51, fig. A–D (Andaman and Nicobar Islands); Kumar et al. 2014 b: 51–52, pl. 2, fig. A–E (Gulf of Kutch) (PY-P): Sivaleela & Padmanabhan 2015: 26, pl. 2, fig. 9 (Vedalai); Fernando et al. 2017: 19, pl. 4, fig. A–D (SW coast).
These Indian records seem to be either invalid or unconfirmable: Thomas & George 1986: 98, fig. 1b, 1–2, 2b (SW coast); Thomas et al. 1995: 135–136, fig. 2a 1, 2; Mary & Lazarus 2004: 34, fig. 4&5 (SW coast); Varghese et al. 2007: 15, fig. 1 (Gulf of Mannar); Bhagirathan et al. 2008: fig. 3a (Veraval);
Literature analysis:
This very common species was described by Pallas as Gorgonia suberosa. It was reassigned to the genus Pterogorgia by Milne Edwards (& Haime) (1857), Gray (1857) made it the type species for his new genus Subergorgia, and Kolliker (1864) suggested it should be placed in Sclerogorgia. The form of the sclerites in the original material are unknown but there is one common taxon that fits the accepted concept of the species, which, like Annella reticulata, most authors base on Stiasny’s (1937) account.
The material described by Thomas & George (1986) does not appear to be this species. Their sclerite drawings are quite inadequate and they describe the coenenchyme as being thin and easily peeled off and the coenenchymal sclerites are quite small for this species with no large spindles. The report by Mary & Lazarus (2004) is similar regarding sclerite sizes, with only oval forms with two girdles of warts being depicted. The report by Thomas et al. (1995) also describes the coenenchyme as being thin and easily peeled off, but this is in the older colony parts and the coenenchymal sclerites are larger, and Ofwegen & Vennam (1991) identified material collected from the Laccadives based on the description by Stiasny. The colony figured by Varghese et al. (2007) is really too small to assess properly and it does not look quite right, but the fragment figured by Bhagirathan et al. (2008) is certainly not this species. The report of the species by Kumar et al. (2014 b) (PY-P) appears to be this species.
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 close-up images of the specimens described by Fernando (2011) look to be this species, although the sclerite figures seem to show long pointed spindles with a several prominent girdles of warts instead of more stout, robust forms with crowded warts. In contrast, some of the sclerite figures given by Kumar et al. (2014a) and Fernando et al. (2017) are like those expected for this species, but the polyp sclerites are shown as short spindles instead of being long, flat and smooth (see Fabricius & Alderslade 2001: 166) and probably come from the rim of the polyp aperture. Additionally, Subergorgia suberosa colonies show a slight but distinctive flattening of the branches and large polyps arranged biserially either side of a definite medial groove, but it is not possible to see these features in their colony images.Also, the growth form of this species is flabellate and not bushy as described by these authors. The account given by Sivaleela & Padmanabhan (2015) could represent this species but there are no illustrations. Thomas & George (1987) just listed the species as did Venkataraman et al. (2004). Kumar et al. (2015) provide the specimen image from Fernando et al. (2017) and Kumar et al. (2014a), whereas Kumar et al. (2016: PY-P) just lists the species
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 pages 23-24, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5236.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7639327