BY E. P. KALLMANN. 399 



artica^ Frstdt., 3/. placoides Cart., M. murrayi R. & D., and 

 M. dendyi Row ; and for this group, of which M. lingua would be 

 considered the type, the name Raphiodesma Bow.(l) stands avail- 

 able. Also it is probable, in virtue of the peculiarities of their 

 chela\ tliat M. parasitica Cart., and the closely related M. ancorina 

 Wlitlg.(57), ~ for the former of which Carter(8) introduced the 

 genus Pseudoesperia — are entitled to subgeneric distinction. A 

 figure of a chela, that undoubtedly came from a Pse^idoesperia- 

 species, is given in Bowerbank's Monograph(Vol. i., fig. 135; with 

 the information, ''from a circular group on the interstitial mem- 

 branes of an undescribed species of Hymeniacidon, from Fre- 

 mantle, Australia." For this undescribed sponge, although known 

 to him only from a single spicule, Gray(17) proposed the generic 

 name Grapelia; and this, being of older date than Pseudoesperia, 

 would perhaps require to be employed if the subgenus were 

 adopted. Another possibly admissible subgenus of Mycale is Pro- 

 toesperia, proposed by Czerniavsky (10) for certain species from 

 the Black Sea; and, as I have lately made known (18), it was for 

 a species of Mycale, of somewhat divergent type, that Lendenfeld 

 introduced the genus Arenochalina. 



In the event of its being considered advisable to establish other 

 subgenera, the possible validity of certain names proposed by Gray 

 (e.g., Coryhas for M. lobata, Aegagropila for M. aeqagropiJa^ and 

 Carmia for M. macilenta) should receive consideration. 



I might here record the fact that Cladorhiza waitei Whtlg.'57) 

 belongs to the genus Mycale. 



* M. lingua Bow., var. artica Fristedt, which, as it differs from M. 

 lingua in the dimensions of its spicules, must be an independent species 

 according to Lundbeck(31a). 



fl am acquainted with a species from Port Philhp (provided, like M. 

 ancorina, with anisochele-rosettes of two kinds) which I formerl}' believed 

 to be M. parasitica, having assumed that the non-mention of the occurrence 

 of rosettes of a second kind in Carter's and in Dendy's account of that 

 species was due to an omission. But recently Hentschel(20) has described, 

 from Western Australia, Mycale parasitica var. arenosa, in which, also, 

 rosettes of one kind only are said to be present. It is possible, therefore, 

 that M. parasitica has been correctly described in regard to its spiculation, 

 and that the species above referred to is a new one. 



