36 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 2 72 



spicule fibers; spongin moderately abundant. Consistency of preserved 

 sponge firm and compact. 



Megascleres stout and comparatively large amphistrongyla, ranging 

 to abruptly pointed cylindrical amphioxea, entirely smooth; length 

 range 300-460 ii, width range 18-30 /x- 



Microscleres absent. 



Gemmoscleres feebly curved to straight amphioxea, entu-ely covered 

 Mdth minute spines; tips of scleres often rounded to appear as amphi- 

 strongyla; length range 76-122 /x, width range 4-6 /x- 



Gemmules not very abundant, scattered freely in skeletal meshes, 

 spherical; diameter ranging 440-590 /x; pneumatic layer thick and 

 consisting of large polygonal air spaces; gemmoscleres, few in number, 

 embedded in this layer tangentially; foramen provided with a moder- 

 ately long, and sUghtly curved porus tube. 



Distribution. — Known under this specific name only from Africa. 



Color in life. — Not yet reliably recorded; preserved specimens are 

 yellowish brown (Arndt) . 



Discussion. — E. nitens has been considered a species restricted to 

 the African Continent. However, in view of the close similarity of 

 E. geei to this species, it is possible that it ranges into Asia, probably 

 displaying some morphological variations and modifications in distant 

 populations. The criteria separating E. nitens from E. geei are few 

 and chiefly restricted to the shghtly difi'ering shape of the megascleres, 

 as well as the differing consistency of the skeleton, in both species. 

 Although it is very Hkely that these two species will have to be united, 

 following a future detailed comparison, they are here fisted separately 

 in order not to obscure possible taxonomic evidence. The original 

 description of Carter (1881a) refers to amphistrongyles as the meg- 

 ascleres typical for E. nitens. However, Arndt's (1933c) work and the 

 present studies found true amphistrongyles to be rare in this species, 

 and the majority of its scleres must be considered as very abruptly 

 pointed amphioxea, just as those found in E. geei. Further detailed 

 comparative studies involving both these as well as other closely 

 related species are therefore extremely desirable. 



Eunapius sinensis (Annandale, 1910) 



Plate 3, figures 3, 4 



Spongilla (Stratospongilla) sinensis Annandale, 1910a, p. 183; 1911c, p. 53; 1918a, 

 p. 201.— Stephens, 1919, p. 99.— Gee and Wu, 1925b, p. 567.— Gee, 1926c, 

 p. 110; 1927b, p. 57; 1927a, p. 1; 1928, p. 225; 1930e, p. 27; 1931e, p. 49; 

 1932d, p. 53; 1932c, p. 41. 



Spongilla sinensis Penney, 1960, p. 29. 



Spongilla (Stratospongilla) stanleyi Annandale, 1916, p. 50; 1918a, p. 201. — Gee 

 and Wu, 1925b, p. 609.— Gee, 1926c, p. 110; 1927c, p. 184; 1928, p. 225; 

 19306, p. 27; 1931e, p. 49; 1932d, p. 54; 1932c, p. 41.— Rezvoj, 1930, p. 175. 



Spongilla stanleyi Penney, 1960, p. 29. 



