468 REVISION OF THE AXINELLID^, i., 



The specimens labelled by Lendenfeld are in a dried and 

 shrivelled condition, and look as if beach-worn, the more exposed 

 portions of the surface being more or less denuded of their dermal 

 la3^er and appearing as a consequence (owing to the projecting 

 ends of the skeletal fibres) hispid or slightly shaggy. Their 

 appearance is thus considerably different frona that of the other 

 two specimens, which are in alcohol and well preserved. As 

 regards the latter, it is to be noted that in one of them, as in 

 the two dried specimens, microstrongyla are present in great 

 abundance, whereas in the other, microstrongyla are exti'emely 

 scarce; but as both are exceedingly alike in other respects, and, 

 moreover, were collected in the same haul, it is impossible t(j 

 regard their differences as other than due to individual variation; 

 and it was perhaps owing to Lendenfeld's having examined a 

 specimen provided with only rare microstrongyla that no mention 

 is made of such microsclei'es in his description of the species. 



External fpahires. — The external habit is sufficiently portrayed 

 in the figures (PI. xxii., figs. 1, 2) illusti'ating the two better-pre- 

 served specimens, the larger of which measures 125 mm. in height. 

 The branches have a diameter of from 4 to 6 mm.; and the 

 peduncle is of about the same stoutness. The surface is smooth, 

 and glabrous or nearly so — the utmost effect occasioned bv the 

 impingement of the skeletal fibres upon it being (in the case of 

 the alcoholiq examples) a faintly granular appearance here and 

 there; should the sponge be removed from alcohol, however, and 

 allowed partially to dry, the surface assumes a minutely pustu- 

 lated appearance, much resembling (on a small scale) that of the 

 human tongue. The irregularly, and rather distantly scattered 

 oscula are never much greater than -^ mm. or thereabouts in 

 diameter. Some of the main exhalant canals, in the terminal 



and even the figures cannot alwaj's be trusted. In proof of the last asser- 

 tion, one need onlj' compare, for example, the description with the figure 

 in the cases of tlie following species: — Ce7'aocha/lna refephix (p.lSii; PL 

 xix., fig. 17); EurliulmopMs miii'ima (p. 816; PI. xviii., fig.3); CJia/iuodeii- 

 dron exii/itiim (p. 819; PI. xxvi., fig.Ho); CJtaUnodendron minimum (p. 820; 

 PI. xxvi., fig.Tl); and Chalinorhaphi-< diyitata (p.82'2; PI. xxvi., fig.62). 



