12 



specimen of this sponge in the British Museum, presented in 1862. = Hymeniacidon pulvinatus ; Bk., 



on a small specimen of the same species presented in 1872 It is still undescribed; but 



there are many specimens of it in the British Museum under my running n° 457, the two largest 

 of which are flat species, registered n os 66. 5. 24. 12 and — 13, labelled 'Spongia Dysoni\ the 

 former in size 20 X 25 X 4 l / 2 , and the latter 33 a / 2 X 2j x \* X 8 inches in their greatest dimensions". 

 My number B. M. 4 refers to the latter. 



Obviously Carter ascribes the name Spongia dysoni to Bowerbaxk ; however, as far as 

 I know Bowerbank never published this name, but called the sponge Hymeniacidon pulvinatus 

 (Cf. supra). The fragments I examined on the spicules, both of S. dysoni (B. M. 4) and 

 H. pulvinatus (B. M. 7) show slight differences (PI. XI, fig. 3 and 4). Both sponges came 

 from Belize. The question is whether the fragments belonged to one or to two specimens. That 

 they are specifically identical seems to me beyond doubt. Moreover, since I believe both to 

 represent gigantic specimens of Spirastrella purpurca, the question is of less importance. 



VII. Suberites capensis. 



1882 Carter p. 350. 



1886 Carter p. 1 14. 

 1889 («) Dendy p. 23. 



The sponge is described by Carter in 1882; but as the same author in 1886 states 

 that "it can hardly be considered more than a variety of the latter", viz. Spirastrella cunctatrix, 

 we may safely accept this. 



VIII. Spirastrella congenera. 



1884 Ridley pp. 375, 469 — 470 ; PI. XLIII, fig. d — d'. 

 1905 Dendy p. 122. 



The type of Ridley's Spirastrella congenera is registered in the British Museum 

 '81. 10. 21. 257; I will designate it as B.M. 20- According to Dexdy it is "probably a mere 

 variety" of 5". vagaóunda-, Ridley himself said that it is "undoubtedly nearly related to it". 

 The difference lies in the fact that the spicules are larger in the former than in the latter. I 

 agree, however, with Dexdy that there is 110 difference of specific value. Indeed, if we conrp.are 

 fig. 5 on PI. XI, representing spicules of Ridley's type-specimen of 5". vagaóunda with fig. 1 

 on PI. XII, illustrating those of the type of 5. congenera there is rather a difference in size. 

 If we take, however, into consideration 5. vagaóunda var. gallensis (PI. XI, fig. 6), we find 

 this specimen forming a transition between the two extremes, which makes it hardly possible 

 to distinguish "species". A comparison of B.M. 20 with S. E. 948 a-f only strengthens me in 

 my view. 



IX. Spirastrella decumbens. 



1884 Ridley pp. 375, 470 — 471, 624; PI. XLIII, fig. c. 



1887 Ridley & Dendy pp. 229 — 230, 247, 256; PI. XLV, fig. 12 — \2g. 

 1891 Keiler pp. 5, 12; PI. I, fig. 6 — 7. 



1891 [») Keiler pp. 323—324, 367; PI. XVIII. figs. 27, 2S, 32, 33. 

 1897 Lendenfeld p. 55. 



