Table 9. — Distribution of sponges by area from collections made in 1955-57 



off the Florida coast- -Continued 



[•indicates probable new species.] 



Total number of stations per area: Area A, 10; area B, 13; area C & D, '.'; area E, 14; area F, 8; area G, 11. 

 T indicates that this species was only taken by Tierney during the Marine Laboratory Gulf of Mexico Expedi- 

 tions in 1947 and 1948 (de Laubenfels, 1953). 



3 The numbers in the area columns indicate the number of stations in the area at which the sponge was taken and 

 recorded. 



^ UMML (University of Miami Marine Laboratory) numbers are catalog numbers of specimens and indicate those 

 specimens identified by Willard Hartman. These sponges are preserved in the museum collection. The identification 

 of a number of other species was confirmed by Hartman, 



^ Specimens indicated by UMML numbers 4.257 and 4.259 could only be identified to family and order. 



^ UN-IML number 4,278 was identified as Callyspongia near ramosa, a sponge found in the waters of Australia 

 and New Zealand but not as yet described from Florida or the West Indies, 



'^ UMML number 4.280 in Halidona near simulans a sponge most like the European simulans and likewise not as 

 yet described from Florida and the West Indies. 



8 UMML number 4.284, Microciona juniperina is a very common small bright red sponge which is found in a 

 number of forms, either uniformly ranxsse or leaflike. At least eight form variations were collected and are repre- 

 sented by separate specimens in the museum collection. When it is possible to collect a large enough series of 

 these forms, several species may be identified. 



^ UMML number 4,261 is Thinacophora funiformis. This record may be the first since it was originally taken by 

 the Challenger Expedition off Bahia, Brazil. 

 ■'■'-' UMML number 4.272, Stellettinopsis detostea has heretofore only been recorded from Bermuda waters. 



investigation. Any sponges that could not be 

 identified readily or about which the identifica- 

 tion was at all doubtful were sent to Willard 

 Hartman, of the Peabody Museum of Natural 

 History, The preliminary but detailed exami- 

 nation of the specimens submitted to him in- 

 dicates that at least 13 probable new species 

 of sponges were collected (table 9). 



A comparison was made between the species 

 of sponges collected during the present investi- 

 gation and those recorded by the 1948 survey 

 of the sponge beds and identified by de Lauben- 

 fels (1953), In the northernmost range, area A, 

 only four of the stations reported in -the 1948 



survey lay within the same general area as that 

 of the present investigation. Twenty-four 

 species of sponges were collected in area A in 

 1948. Of these, 18 were retaken in the same 

 area during the present survey, with all but 4 

 of the 24 being recorded from other areas. The 

 velvet sponge was one of these four, while the 

 other three were similar to those described by 

 de Laubenfels as being new species taken for 

 the first time. 



In the Florida Keys and Ten Thousand 

 Islands areas, 35 species of sponges were 

 recorded by the 1948 survey. Seven of these, 

 were not taken during the present survey, and 



43 



