﻿SPONGES.-HALLMANN. OQ" 



Echinochalina, and at the same time has fixed upon T. typica 

 as the type of Thalassodendron. Unfortunately no specimens 

 identifiable with either of these species occur in the present 

 collection of the Australian Museum, and since the description 

 of 7'. lypica is insuflRcient, we are left in doubt as to the precise 

 connotation of the name Thalassudeudroti. Whitelet^gcl has 

 indeed published a short account of a sponge regarded by him 

 as the type-specimen of T. typica, but it is so little in agree- 

 ment with the original description that hesitation might well 

 have been felt in accepting its implication as a final verdict. 

 An examination of this specimen has shown — what is indeed 

 immediately obvious even from external comparison — that it 

 is an example of Echinodictyum [Kalykenteron) elegans, Len- 

 denfeld,2 a sponge with which W'hitelegge was apparently 

 not well acquainted. One can therefore only conclude that the 

 specimen investigated by VVhitelegge was mislabelled, as was 

 also the specimen which he at first mistook'^ for Tlialus- 

 sodcndron viniinalis. So far as one can judge from Lenden- 

 feld's description of T. typica, Thalassodendron mav for the 

 present be looked upon as a synonym of Wilsonctla {q.v.). 



T. viniinalis is an Ophlitaspon^ia.'^ With regard to the 

 remaining species I find, in disagreement with Whitelegge 

 who regarded them as individual variations of a single species, 

 that T. hrevispina is a variety of Rhaphidophlus typictis, 

 Carter; that T. rubens var. lamella and T. paucispina are 

 identical {Rhaphidophlus paiicispinus) ;. and that T. nibens 

 var. dura is a Clathria {(' . ruhcns). Owing to the unsatis- 

 factory nature of the descriptions of these species, a further 

 and more extended account of them has been included in the 

 present paper. 



Genus Pleciispa, Eendenjeld. 



1888. Plecttspa, Lendenfeld, Descr. Cat. Sponges Austr. 

 Mus., 1888, p. 225. 



The description which Whitelegge has given of Lendenfeld 's 

 three species of Pleciispa, viz., P. elr<;ans, P. arborea, and 

 P. macropora are so little in agreement with those of Lenden- 

 feld as to render inevitable the conclusion that the specimens 

 invesigated were mislabelled. How completely at \ ariancc 

 are the two accounts of these species, will be evident from a 

 comparison of the following summaries of them. 



1 Whitelegr?e~Rec. Austr. Mus., iv.. 2, 1901. p. 86 



2 Lendenfeld— Cat. Sponges Austr. Mus.. 1888. p. 216. This species, which 

 is proliahlv identical with K. bilamellatum, Lamk., is described herein, 

 p. 171. 



3 Whitelegge— Rec. Austr. Mus., iv.. 2. 1901, p. 87; and 5. 1902. p. 214. 



4 O. siihhispiihi. Carter, var. riniimilis, Lendf. iti.i\) 



