i6 



1900 Mac Munn p. 337 — 349; PI. 16. 



1903 Cotte p. 504. 



1906 (j3) Topsent p. 570 — 571. 



There are several specimens of Suberites wilsoni in the British Museum. I found two 

 specimens from Port Phillip Heads. As the type of Carter is taken the larger one, registered 

 '86. 12. 15. 107; this corresponds to my number B.M. 33- The other specimen, which may be 

 considered as a co-type I numbered B.M. 32; it is registered '86. 12. 15. 108. In 1886 Carter 

 described a var. albidus, which "only seems to differ from Suberites Wilsoni in the absence of 

 colour". This specimen is registered in the British Museum '86. 12. 15. 256; it corresponds to 

 my number B.M. 15- In the fourth place I examined a specimen registered '86. 12. 15. 255, 

 to which I have given number B. M. 22- 



Carter says (1885 p. 114): "This is the species to which I have alluded in the 'Annals' 

 for 1882 (Vol. XI, p. 350) l ) as being 'without flesh-spicule', thus differing, among other things, 



from the specimen of Alcyonium purpureum Lam " What are these "other things"? Carter 



does not speak about it, and I can only find a difference in shape. Comparing Alcyonium 

 purpureum (B.M. 12) with Suberites wilsoni (B.M. 32 and B.M. 33) I find a striking resemblance 

 in texture, surface and color. I think we all agree that the shape — ceteris paribus — is 

 hardly of specific value in this case ; the more so as A. purpureum is only known in fragments. 

 Of more value is the difference in spiculation. However, it is not true, that S. tvilsoni is without 

 "flesh-spicules", for I did find spinispirae in specimen B.M. 32 (Pk X, fig. 5), although I did 

 not find them in B.M. 33- In the "variety" albidus Carter did not find spinispirae either, but I 

 did. I likewise found them, though scantily, in B.M. 22- For these reasons I consider Suberites 

 zuilsoni identical with Alcyonium purpureum. There seems to be no ground for calling Suberites 

 wilsoni "plus exactement" Cliona wilsoni as Topsent suggests, unless one wishes to unite the 

 genera Spirastrella and Cliona. Comparing the various specimens one certainly finds differences 

 in spiculation. Especially the size and frequency of the spinispirae are variable. B. M. 32 possesses 

 comparatively large spinispirae (PI. X, fig. 5). Those of B.M. 15 are small and slender (PI. XII. 

 fig. 3), those of B.M. 22 (Pb XII, fig. 4) on the contrary rather compact, resembling more 

 the spinispirae of Lamarck's type (PI. VIII, fig. 7). Taking into account what other specimens 

 of Spirastrella taught me, I consider the above differences not of specific value. 



In many respects the specimens 1045, 426 a, 426 b and 426 c resemble Suberites wilsoni, 

 in others they differ considerably. But we saw above how very variable S. wilsoni is-, and yet 

 Carter did not separate the specimens specifically. The variability goes so far that the spinispirae 

 may disappear entirely as in B. M. 33- The same variability we observe in the Siboga specimens 

 mentionëd above-, in all I found spinispirae, but these are exceedingly variable in size and 

 also in frequency. On the whole the spicules in the Siboga specimens are larger than those 

 in the specimens of S. wilsoni. However, I find transitions in ig88- All this suggests a specific 

 identity between them. 



[Cf. Spirastrella massa and areolata]. 



1) Misprint for Vol. IX. 



