Acanthogorgia breviflora Whitelegge, 1897: 309, pl. 16, fig. 6–10 (Funafuti).
Not Acanthogorgia breviflora Grasshoff 1976: 164, figs. 6–7 (Sinai, Eilat); 1999: 20, figs. 21–23 (New Caledonia); 2000: 40–41, figs. 64–67, 74 (Red Sea).
Opinion: There is no evidence that this species occurs in the region.
Justification:
These Indian records seem to be either invalid or unconfirmable: Kumar et al. 2014a: 50–51, pl. A–D (Munak Gate); Fernando et al. 2017: 45, pl. 17, fig. A–D (Munak Gate).
Literature analysis: This species was first recorded from Funafuti in the central west Pacific with just a few simple sclerite drawings. The holotype has never been redescribed and so the exact form of the sclerites is unknown, but Whitelegge described the coenenchyme as containing only longitudinally arranged spindles with acute points and a few distant blunt spines, and being up to 0.7 mm long.
The descriptions given by Kumar et al. (2014a) and Fernando et al. (2017) are identical and they assign material from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to this species, but the true identity of their specimens is unknown as their short descriptive text is copied from that of Grasshoff (1999: 20). Although the close-up illustration of a branch fragment shows the polyps appear to be non-retractile, they are not typical of Acanthogorgia. Instead of the polyp body having the sclerites arranged en chevron and there being a terminal crown of projecting spines (as described in the text), the polyps are squat and dome-like with large sclerites arranged transversally on the body and longitudinally and converging on the base of the tentacles. These traits indicate the material would probably be a species of Muricella or perhaps Anthogorgia, but the illustrated sclerites look like those found in Acanthogorgia, in some species of which the crown spines are absent or very reduced, for example: Acanthogorgia ildibaha, A. isoxya and A. augusta (all Grasshoff, 1999), and also see Fabricius & Alderslade (2001:184), but the polyps of the Indian material look quite different and its identity is uncertain.
Additionally, these authors describe the sclerites of the coenenchyme as including many thornstars, in contrast to the holotype, along with only a few spindles, the latter being far shorter than those reported for the species. The situation is similar in Grasshoff’s (1976, 1999, 2000) reports. Kumar et al. (2015) just lists the species and provides an illustration of the specimen in Kumar et al. (2014a) and Fernando et al. (2017).