Ellisella filiformis (Toeplitz in Kükenthal, 1919)

Scirpirella moniliforme Wright & Studer, 1889: 156, pl. 34, fig. 8.

Nicella moniliforme Simpson 1910: 368–369 figs. 117&118.

Scirpearia filiformis Toeplitz, MS. In: Kükenthal, 1919: 924 (nom nov).

Opinion: There is no evidence that this species occurs in the region.

Justification:

These Indian records seem to be either invalid or unconfirmable: Thomson & Henderson 1906: 82; Thomas & George 1986: 111, fig. 1u, 1–3, w (Kanyakumari); Thomas et al. 1995: 141 (NE coast); Mary & Lazarus 2004: 42, fig. 26 (SW coast).

Literature analysis: In 1889, Wright & Studer erected the name Scirpirella moniliforme for material from Ambon. In the manuscript for the 1929 paper “Die Gorgonarien Westindiens. Kap. 7. The Familie Gorgonellidae, zugleich eine Revision”, Toeplitz proposed the name be changed to— Scirpearia filiformis n.n.—assigning a different specific epithet because of the existence of Scirpearia moniliformis (Lamarck, 1816) . Kükenthal published the replacement name in 1919 citing Toeplitz’ MS as the source.

Thomson & Henderson (1906) reported the species from the Andamans as Scirpirella moniliforme without any illustrations and as such the record is unconfirmable. Simpson (1910) reassigned the species as Nicella moniliforma, illustrated the holotype and a few sclerites, and placed Thomson & Henderson’s material as a junior synonym of Scirpearella profunda Wright & Studer, 1989 . It is not possible to determine what Thomas & George (1986) had as the sclerite drawings are rudimentary and do not look like they are from an ellisellid colony. Also, the polyps in their small colony illustration are very different from those illustrated by Simpson.

Thomas & George (1987) just listed the species, and Thomas et al. (1995) reported it again but only referred to the 1986 publication. Rao & Devi (2003) just list it and Mary & Lazarus (2004) rehash the 1986 description, just adding a few more rudimentary sclerite images.