Acanthogorgia

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 : 35-36

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5236.1.1

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:796FF9F5-E71F-4C69-92CC-CF4D6752BD77

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7640881

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0388B641-7B34-FF8F-FF56-F94FFC3AFDD6

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Acanthogorgia
status

 

Genus: Acanthogorgia View in CoL View at ENA

Preliminary remarks: Like a number of other groups, species of Acanthogorgia and the related genera Anthogorgia and Muricella are extremely difficult to identify, and many experienced researchers avoid working on them at all. To attempt to bring some order to Acanthogorgia , species have been divided into groups based on polyp morphology, but the groups overlap and taxonomist are constantly presented with frustrating problems when working on these animals. As Grasshoff (1999: 20) stated, “Species within these groups are very similar and their differentiation is unclear. Facts are puzzling, e.g., two species on the reef may be clearly distinct by growth form and color in life, but their polyp structures and sclerites are so similar that a distinction alone by these characters would be impossible and even doubts could arize about the growth forms, as they could be taken for a mere variation within the species. Under these circumstances, it is quite unclear what the small differences between the New Caledonian species and others mean.” The problem is magnified by the variation between polyps of different sizes, the low number of sclerite images figured in most descriptions, and the general poor quality of those images. The result is that very few descriptions approach the quality needed. There are more than 50 nominal species and adequate descriptions of the holotypes are exceedingly rare. But when taking into account Grasshoff’s comments on colonies that might look different in the wild, but “their polyp structures and sclerites are so similar that a distinction alone by these characters would be impossible”, there would still be huge problems even if good holotype descriptions were common.

Basing identifications on the literature as it is at the moment is probably unlikely to produce a correct result unless the species possesses some highly distinctive traits. Given the current state of the taxonomy of this group it may be possible to tell if an Indian record is invalid, but not if it is valid.

GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF