118 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol.81 



in the season." My specimens doubtfully referred to this species 

 (collected intertidally in March), were bluish lavender. My speci- 

 mens clearly of this species, collected from a similar situation to 

 that of the holotype but in April, were drab. 



Oscules, few, apical, diameter 2 to 5 mm. Pores : There are open- 

 ings over the entire surface very irregular in size and shape, varying 

 at least from 60/a to 200ft in diameter. Surface, superficially hirsute, 

 on account of projecting fiber ends nearly 1 mm high. 



Ectosomal specialization, vague or lacking. Endosomal structure, 

 a fibrous reticulation with polygonal meshes about 75/x in diameter. 

 There is a groundwork of spicules in confusion amid the protoplas- 

 mic structures. Ascending fibers lOja to 20fx in diameter, cored by 

 4 to 7 rows of spicules. Accessory or transverse fibers lOju, to 20/x 

 in diameter, cored by 4 to 7 rows of spicules. 



Principal spicules, oxeas (fig. 71) ; size, usually about 5/i, by lOO/x; 

 a few much thinner ones are probably developmental stages. 



Remarks. — Linnaeus (1759) lists a Spongia 



oeulata that may well be the same species as 



^^^"^ that which Bowerbank in 1862 (p. 1126) made 



- — — - — -— ^ the type of his genus Chalina, namely C. ocu- 



FiGvm 71.— H aiiciona Jafa. This is a very common British sponge. 



eob^asis de Laubenfeis, q^^^^ enough Bowerbauk accredited the 



genus to Grant, though I can find no mention 

 of the name in Grant's writings. In 1841 (p. 5), however, Grant 

 erected a genus Haliclona for a species that he called occulata^ 

 obviously a misspelling of oeulata. His figure is an excellent repre- 

 sentation of the common oeulata. Tliis seems to be the first generic 

 name other than Linnaeus's all-inclusive Spongla to be applied to 

 this species, and it appears to have been mere oversight on the part 

 of the early spongologists that it has not been in use ever since. 

 Grant's Halin-a., a nomen nudcm.., has little or no bearing here. 



Against employment of Hallelona it may be argued that the orig- 

 inal description could have included Aeervochalina limhafa, or even 

 Isodietya palmata. It must be admitted that Grant would probably 

 have diagnosed either of these as Halicloim. There is no doubt, 

 however, that the well-known oeulata was included, and there is 

 grave question whether Grant had any specimens of the rarer species 

 resembling it. Grant's genus CUorm^ as he described it, might well 

 have included Thoosa, yet we should hardly drop it for that reason. 

 It seems quite as logical to employ Halielonu as to use CUona. 



As compared to the type of oeulata., echasw averages more spicules 

 to the fiber, and fiber less kinky. As compared to the type of 

 lirribata (made type species of the genus Aeervochalina Ridley, 

 1884), eehasis averages finer mesh, has less visible spongin, yet seems 



