252 Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. 



Spirastrella papulosa, Ridley and Dendy. 



? Spirastrella cunctatrix, Carter, pars, A.M.N. H., February, 

 1886, p. 114. 



Spirastrella cunctatrix, var. porcata, Carter, A.M.N. H., Febru- 

 ary, 1886, p. 115. 



Spirastrella papulosa, Ridley and Dendy, A.M.N.H., December, 

 1886, p. 491. 



Spirastrella papulosa, Ridley and Dendy, Challenger Monaxo- 

 nida, p. 232, pi. xli., tig. o ; pi. xlv., tigs. 11-1 1^. 



Sponge massively lobose, compressed or subcylindrical, usually 

 with more or less warty but otherwise smooth and subglabrous 

 surface. Agents variable in size, may be large, grouped on 

 prominent parts. Texture firm, compact, corky, but penetrated 

 by many large oscular tubes. Colour in spirit usually dark 

 grey throughout. The surface is sometimes much infested by a 

 parasitic Actinozoon. 



Skeleton, in the deeper parts dense and confused, composed 

 of abundant interlacing spicules, sometimes subfibrous and sub- 

 reticulate. Dermal skeleton of abundant similar but smaller 

 spicules, radially disposed, sometimes in pretty distinct brushes. 



Megascleres, in the main skeleton rather long and slender, 

 straight or slightly curved, with inconspicuous or fairly distinct, 

 ovoid or rounded heads, with blunt or sharp apex ; averaging 

 about 046 by O0083 mm. In the dermal skeleton similar, 

 though perhaps with proportionally larger heads, but of much 

 smaller size, averaging say 02 by - 004 mm. 



Microscleres, spirasters of ordinary form, but as usual very 

 variable. Mostly rather long and slender, with three or four 

 slight bends, abundantly spinose, say about O05 by 0-012 mm., 

 including the spines; varying to subglobostellate, up to 0"03 

 mm. in diameter. Scattered throughout, but most abundant at 

 the surface. 



The skeleton arrangement and spiculation agree well with the 

 specimen of Spirastrella cunctatrix, var. porcata, in the British 

 Museum. To judge from B.M. d. 120, Mr. Carter has given the 

 length of the megascleres in his "Spirastrella cunctatrix" nearly 

 twice what it should be. In spite of a little difference in the 

 size of the megascleres, I think there can be no doubt of the 



