Ulva anandii Amjad & Shameel, 1993a: 6–8, figs. 1a, 2 (type locality: Buleji, Karachi, Pakistan).—Amjad & Shameel, 1993b: 115.— Shameel, 1993: 18.
Ulva indica P. Anand, 1940: 3, 4, 5, 18, figs. 3C–F, pl. II: fig. 3 (type locality: Manora, Karachi, Pakistan).—Salim, 1965: 194, 197.— K. Srinivasan, 1965: 203.— S. Dixit, 1968: 12.— Saifullah & Nizamuddin, 1977: 522, figs. 3, 4, pl. I:A.— Shameel, 1980a: 77–79, figs. 1, 2.— Shameel, 1980b: 195–198, fig. 1.— Zahid, Hasni, & Bawani, 1983: 156, figs. 1, 2.— R. Qasim & Barkati, 1985: 130, 132, table 2.— Shameel, 1987a: 512.— Shameel & Afaq Hussain, 1987: 293.— Tewari & H. Joshi, 1988: 394, 395, table VIII.— Shameel, Afaq-Husain, & Shahid-Husain, 1989: 178.— Shameel & Khan, 1990: 39, 41, table 1.— Shameel & J. Tanaka, 1992: 19.
INDIAN OCEAN DISTRIBUTION: Pakistan.
Note: The binomial Ulva anandii was first used by Shameel & Khan (1991: 501, table I). They attributed the name to Amjad & Shameel but did not provide a description. It was also used in a list of species by Naqvi et al. (1992: 131). Anand's description of Ulva indica encompassed two forms. Amjad & Shameel (l.c.) referred the large form to U. bifrons Ardré and redescribed the small form as U. anandii. They abandoned the name U. indica because it was considered invalidly published, lacking a Latin diagnosis and a type specimen. In fact, the name was validly published, the English description being sufficient for algae prior to 1958 and indication of a type not being required for any plant prior to 1958. Nonetheless, the name U. indica P. Anand is not usable because it is a later homonym of U. indica Roth (1806). It is uncertain whether the various records of U. indica P. Anand are referable to U. bifrons, U. anandii, or both.