ART. 4 SPONGES OF CALIFORNIA de LAUBENFELS 27 



conspicuous. The whole range can be found within a single speci- 

 men, though not in every specimen. 



Remarks. — In his work on the Geodidae, Lendenfeld (1910) de- 

 scribed as new 11 species from the west coast of North America. The 

 10 specimens from California he placed in 5 new species. According 

 to these standards, I would have needed two new species for my four 

 specimens, continuing the average of a new species for each two 

 specimens. This probably does not represent the true state of affairs. 

 It is possible that we have here but one Geodia^ exhibiting a consid- 

 erable range of variability. Table 1 (p. 28) gives the spicule meas- 

 urements of my four specimens and Lendenfeld's five species, based 

 on his figures. Since each spicule goes through all intermediate sizes 

 before attaining its maximum and since it may require a very long 

 time in accomplishing this growth, many specimens might lack maxi- 

 mum sizes. I believe this table gives good grounds for merging all 

 these into one species. Are there any grounds for splitting them into 

 more than one? -; 



In discussing mesotriaena., Lendenfeld emphasized the meso- 

 triaenes. They are specified in his other four species. It seems that 

 the frequence and development of this type of spicule do distinguish 

 the California Geodias from those of, say, Asia or Europe. It is 

 practically the only difference from some East Indian Geodias, but 

 can not be used to separate our local forms into species. 



Lendenfeld does not set forth differences between mesotriaena and 

 agmsizii^ though his tables show the latter to have somewhat smaller 

 mesotriaenes. The mesotriaenes typically protrude from the sur- 

 face and may be broken off by animals crawling over the sponge, 

 or by jostling in the dredge as it comes up. Furthermore, the longest 

 ones are the most likely to be lost. The differences Lendenfeld shows 

 are probably due to the fact that some specimens receive somewhat 

 rougher treatment in collecting than the others. 



G. mesotriaeneUa is based upon one specimen that had none of the 

 larger sizes of spicules. In view of the probability that this is but 

 a younger specimen (it was only 1.5 by 2 cm), no species should be 

 made for it. 



G. hrevlana is established for a specimen that Lendenfeld says had 

 anatriaenes with much shorter clads than the other specimens. His 

 illustration shows no conspicuous difference in this respect, and the 

 agreement of other characteristics leads one to believe this was but 

 a very slightly aberrant individual. 



For ovIh Lendenfeld emphasizes its very thick spicule fur and 

 mentions its very small as well as very large anatriaenes. These 

 smaller ones may be merely a new crop beginning to form. Prac- 

 tically all its other spicules, including many of the anatriaenes, are 

 somewhat larger than in the others, and it has expanded laterally 



