REVISION OF FRESHWATER SPONGES OF SPONGILLIDAE 81 



and Southern Hemisphere; some others ranging from southern tem- 

 perate climates to and beyond the tropics. 



Discussion. — The status of the generic name Ephydatia 

 Lamouroux, particularly since its restoration by Gray (1867), has 

 been an ever recurring problem to the many spongiUid systematists 

 of the past. Carter's (1881a) fully unjustified rejection of Gray's 

 system, and in particular the former author's replacement of Ephydatia 

 by Meyenia, has had its most regrettable consequences right to the 

 present day. Although the great majority of subsequent authors 

 followed Carter's system in all other respects, the genus Ephydatia 

 remained in common use by all European, South American, and Asian 

 workers, w^hereas Meyenia was used by almost all systematists of 

 North America. 



De Laubenfels (1936), in his attempt to solve this problem in a 

 legalistic way, pointed to the fact that the spongillid genus Tvpha 

 Oken had priority of one year over Ephydatia Lamouroux, so that 

 the latter must fall into synon3Tny with Oken's genus. De Laubenfels 

 therefore restored Carter's genus Meyenia, with M. fluviatilis Carter 

 as the type species, an arrangement which was foUow^ed by Jewell 

 (1952). However, according to Opinion 417, the International Com- 

 mission on Zoological Nomenclature (1956, Opin. Decl. Int. Comm. 

 Zool. Nomencl., vol. 14, pp. 1-42) rejected for nomenclatorial pur- 

 poses Oken's 1815-1816 Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, vol. 3, and 

 placed it on the Official Index. This opinion states that "no name 

 pubUshed in the foregoing volume (vol. 3) of the above work (Oken, 

 1815-1816) acquired the status of availabihty by reason of having 

 been so pubUshed." Since the genus Tupha Oken can therefore be 

 conveniently ignored as being without a status in nomenclature, 

 Ephydatia Lamouroux must now be considered the next available 

 generic name, and Meyenia Carter relegated to its synonymy, an 

 arrangement in common use by the great majority of spongillid 

 taxonomists. 



Apparently a type species of Ephydatia has never been designated, 

 although Annandale (1911c) mentioned Spongilla fluviatilis Auct. as 

 the type of this genus. De Laubenfels (1936) and Jewell (1952), who 

 rightfully claim that no such species had been described in 1816 when 

 Lamouroux established his genus, suggest that Annandale probably 

 meant Spongia fluviatilis Linnaeus, which they both consider un- 

 recognizable. However, if their criticism were strictly applied even 

 Meyenia fluviatilis Carter would also have to be considered as un- 

 recognizable, since Carter made no distinction between the two 

 species E. fluviatilis Auct. and E. millleri (Lieberkiihn) in his material. 



The recognition of most species nominated by early workers cer- 

 tainly remains highly problematic, particularly in the case of such 



