Lophogorgia lutkeni Wright & Studer, 1889: 150, pl. 30, fig. 1, 1a; pl. 34, fig. 1 (Prince Edward Island).
Leptogorgia lutkeni Bielschowsky 1918: 30; Williams & Lindo 1997: 511–513, figs. 5, 9, 10A; Williams & Vennam 2001: 89–90.
Opinion: This species does not occur in the region.
Justification:
These Indian records seem to be either invalid or unconfirmable: Thomson & Henderson 1906: 264–265 (Andamans); Thomson & Simpson 1909: 264–265 (Andamans); Thomson & Crane 1909: 132–133, fig. 11 (Beyt Island); Thomson & Crane 1909a: 365 (Beyt Island—same material); Fernando 2011: 91–91, pl. 59, fig. 1–1c (Pamban); Fernando et al. 2017: 191–192, pl. 87, fig. 1–1c (Pamban).
Literature analysis: This species was first obtained from Sub-Antarctic waters and was originally placed in Lophogorgia but was later transferred to Leptogorgia by Bielschowski (1918) when revising the genus— Lophogorgia is a junior synonym of Leptogorgia. Bielschowski stated that the Indian and Sri Lankan specimens identified as Leptogorgia l¸tkeni by Thomson & Henderson (1906), Thomson & Simpson (1909) and Thomson & Crane (1909, 1909a) are not this species, which is not surprising as it was first collected off Prince Edward Island at a depth of over 550 m. The specimens these authors described were probably all species of Pseudopterogorgia (Williams & Lindo 1997), and that Thomson & Henderson’s (1905) was probably a new species (Williams & Vennam 2001).
The accounts provided by Fernando (2011) and Fernando et al. (2017) are identical and headed “ Pseudopterogorgia l¸tkeni (Wright & Studer, 1889)”. Their list of synonyms include “ Pseudopterogorgia l¸tkeni Williams & Lindo, 1997 ” and “ Pseudopterogorgia l¸tkeni Williams & Vennam, 2001 ”, when in fact both of these publications recognised the species as a Leptogorgia. As the authors commented, the growth form of their material looks more like that of a species of Lophorgorgia but the sclerites include poorly developed scaphoids, however, the images are very small and the sclerites differences between Leptogorgia and Pseudopterogorgia can be very subtle (Williams & Lindo 1997). It is not until the end of their ‘Remarks’ section that the authors state their specimen is not the same as Lophogorgia l¸tkeni. Rao & Devi (2003) and Venkataraman et al. (2004) just listed the species.