PORIFERA OF THE L.M.B.C. DISTRICT. 35 
Schmidt’s definition agrees in general with that of Nardo. 
The characters are: from the narrow base of the sponges 
of the genus Raspailia branches are given off which may 
be simple or dichotomous. The spicules are arranged in 
two different ways—some lie in bundles in the vertical 
axis, the others are placed horizontally and project through 
the ectoderm. The bases of the spicules are imbedded in 
ceratose. The colour of the sponges is a dark yellow. 
Schmidt describes three species of this genus, two of which 
are of special interest to us: Raspailia viminalis, S. (with 
large and small styli and spined styli), and Raspailia 
stelligera, 8. (with large and small styli and spherasters). 
Bowerbank, when he published the first two volumes of 
his “British Spongiade,” took no notice of Schmidt’s 
researches, and so it came to pass that many species which 
had been already described by Schmidt, were re-described 
by Bowerbank as new species, and were christened once 
more. ‘To those privileged sponges belonged the genus 
Raspailia, Nardo. Bowerbank’s error was first pointed 
out by O. Schmidt, in his second supplement to the above 
mentioned work, and he stated that the sponges of the 
genus Dictyocylindrus, B., belong either to Raspailia, 
Nardo, or to Aximella, S., and that Dictyocylindrus stuposus, 
B., is identical with Raspailia stelligera, 8. Consequently 
we find in Ridley and Dendy’s classification the genera 
Raspailia, Nardo, and Azimella, 8., instead of Dictyo- 
cylindrus, B. But their definition of Raspailia does not 
quite agree with that of Nardo and Schmidt, as they have 
added the negative character ‘‘no microsclera.’”’ Now 
Raspailia stelligera, 8., could not come under the genus 
Raspailia as defined by Ridley and Dendy, for this species 
has microsclera. And it becomes still more difficult to find 
a place for Raspailia stelligera, 8.,in Ridley and Dendy’s 
system, when we read on page xxi. of their “‘ Introduction” 
5-2 
