NOTE ON SUBEIIITES FRUTICOSUS AND 

 SUEERITES CR4MBE OF OSCAR SCHMJDT. 



G. C. J. VOSMAER. 



Id N° 440 of the »Zoologischer Anzeiger", von Lendenfeld ^) 

 writes that be was » nicht wenig überrascht zu finden, dass [S. 

 fruticosus] kein Suberites uud überhaupt keiu monactinellider 

 Schwamm, sondern eine Lithistide sei". I daresay von Lendenfeld 

 was not the ouly spongiologist to be astonished at the last con- 

 clusion. At least I am so still. But I do hope he is the only one, 

 who , studying this sponge , was and reraained astonished at the 

 first part of his sentence. The fact is that already fourteen years 

 ago ^) I wrote : — » I have had occasion to examine the original 

 specimens of Schmidt preserved in Graz, and I have found both 

 Suberites crambe and fruticosus to be identical". I believed the 

 chelae to belong to the sponge and placed it accordingly among 

 the »Desmacidinae". As of course a new generic name was wan- 

 ted , I took Crambe. It was perhaps a mistake of me to create 

 a new specific name. According to one of the Strickland rules 

 a new specific name must be given to a species when its old 

 specific name is being used for the genus. This was here only 

 partly the case, as there existed two specific uames viz. crambe 



1> Tetranthella, eine neue Lithistide. Zool. Anz. XVII. Jahrg. p. 49—51. 

 2) In: — Notes from the Leyden Museum II, p. 135. — Cf. also Bronn; Porifera 

 p. 350—351. 



