22 



Dendy says that in spirit the surface is "more or less areolated or at least warty", and that 

 in the dry specimen "the areolation is extremely distinct, especially where the cortex is least 

 contracted . . . ." And further: "Where tlve surface is much contracted the polygonal outlines 

 between the areolae became much less distinct, and the surface may even appear simply warty". 

 In comparing this specimen with Suberites wilsoni var. albidus (B. M. 15) and the Spirastrella 

 cunctatrix (B. M. 13) we see that the multangular ridges which are visible on the greater part 

 of the surface of B.M. 2, are not quite absent in B.M. 15- Only there is not such a regularity; 

 we observe on some places an irregular network of ridges and a few more tubercles than in 

 B. M. 2- Finally in B. M. 13 we observe a quantity of tubercles or warts, whereas in some 

 parts of the surface hardly anything uneven is to be seen. To a certain extent we find the 

 same in another specimen of S. cunctatrix, viz. B. M io- In other respects Spirastrella areolata 

 stands between cunctatrix and zvilsoni, e. g. in consistence and in spiculation. In icilsoni the 

 spinispirae are small and slender (B.M. 15) or somewhat stouter (B.M. 22); in areolata I find 

 between small-sized spinispirae a few which are five or six times as long and stouter; in some 

 specimens of cunctatrix the large-sized spinispirae differ still more from the small-sized (B. M. 16): 

 in others finally, the large-sized are really gigantic compared to the small-sized (B. M. 3). All 

 these reasons are for me sufficiënt to consider the three "species" as specifically identical. 



XXIII. Spirastrella carnosa. 



1897 Topsent pp. 425, 441 — 442. 

 1900 (z) Kirkpatrick pp. 12S, 134. 



Topsent described a "new species", "Spirastrella carnosa" without, however, giving 

 any illustration. This makes it rather difficult to judge whether we have really to do with a 

 new species. Two other species are mentioned from the same locality (Amboina), viz. S. solida 

 and .S'. decumbens. The "new species" S. carnosa "se distingue des autres espèces du genre par 

 sa mollesse, par la faiblesse relative de ses tylostyles, par la rareté et 1'exiguité de ses spirasters". 

 All these characteristics are of a relative nature, express only a more or less of a certain 

 character. In some specimens of u Subcrites inconstans" there are plenty, in others only a few 

 spinispirae, again in others these spicules seem to be even quite absent. Some are brittle, others 

 are tough or hard like cork or wood. Such characters are not sufficiënt for specific distinction. 



Kirkpatrick believed to have found back Topsent's 5. carnosa-, he described a specimen, 

 which is registered in the British Museum '98. 12. 20. 22 and which I will mark B.M. 35. In 

 this specimen the tylostyli and spinispirae are somewhat larger, but the latter are likewise "rare 

 and very fine". This specimen is certainly not specifically distinct from say S. solida, which 011 

 its turn is identical with .S'. vagabunda. 



XXIV. Spirastrella robusla. 



1897 Dendy p. 253^ — 254. 



The name Spirastrella robusta is simply made for S. cunctatrix var. robusta of Carter. 

 It follows from what I wrote above that I fail to see the necessity of rising this "variety" to 

 a "species". 



