296 "ENDEAVOUR" SCIENTIFIC EESULTS. 



points of resemblance to certain species of Raspailid, possesses 

 characters sufficiently dislincti\e to justif\ the retention of 

 Clathriodendron as an independent genus. As regards the 

 two remaining species, I can offer no positi\ e opinion, since in 

 the existing collection of the Australian Museum no specimen 

 occurs which satisfies the description of either ; but, accepting 

 Lendenfeld's statement that C. irregularis is similar, both in 

 "skeleton and spiculations," to ('. arbuscuJa, this one of them 

 we may reckon provisionally as likewise belonging to Clathrio- 

 dendron. As for the other, C. nigra, ^ there is reason to sus- 

 pect that its description is inaccurate, and that its proper place 

 is in the genus Raspailia. 



I ha\e examined well-preserved spirit-specimens^ of ('. 

 arhuscula, and find that the surface of the sponge is perfectly 



1 Included amongst the small pieces of British Museum sponges which 

 Prof. Dendy has placed at the disposal of the Australian Museum, is one 

 labelled Clnth riodeiidruii nigra, Lendenfeld. It is a small portion of a 

 slender branch, quite black in colour, and in external attributes, accord- 

 ingly harmonises with the species whose name it carries; moreover, its 

 identification as such is understood to be due to Lendenfeld himself. One 

 is quite at a loss, therefore, on finding that its spicular characters are 

 not in accordance with requirements, to decide whether the specimen is 

 wrongly named or the species wrongly described. In the description of 

 C. nigra, the only spicules mentioned are the tylostyli, ".7 mm. long and 

 .017 mm. thick," and the "comparatively very scarce" acanthostyli, ".1 

 mm. long and .01 mm. thick, with very small spines." In this reputed 

 example of the species, I note, as regards the spicules, the following 

 particulars : — The tylostyli attain a maximum size of 2000 x 25 ji, and the 

 acanthostyli. which are fairly abundant and are provided with moderate- 

 sized spines, have a range in length from 75 to 130 ji, with a maximum 

 stoutness of 12 ji. Large tylostyli project singly Ijeyond the siirface of 

 the sponge and are surrounded at their point of emergence each by a 

 divergent tuft of slightly fusiform styli which vary in length from about 

 300 to 380 (1 and attain a maximum stoiitness of 9 y but are seldom of 

 greater size than 345 x 4.5 ji. Finally, slender asymmetrical oxea, 200 to 

 380 p in length and at most 4.5 n in diameter, are sparsely scattered in 

 the ground substance. Owing to the dry, much-shrunken condition of 

 the fragment, I am unable to determine what was the pattern of the 

 skelton; but it appears to have been reticular and devoid of any well- 

 marked "axial condensation," resembling in these respects that of 

 Clathriodendron and of Baspaiiiu pnrado.ra, Hentschel. 



2 Although I consider it beyond doubt that these specimens are genuine 

 examples (if not the actual type-specimens) of C. arbusruhi 1 think it only 

 right to mention— inasmuch as I have to remark the incorrectness, in 

 some particulars, of Lendenfeld's description of the species— that the 

 documentary proof of their identity is not complete. The specimens are 

 labelled (in Lendenfeld's handwriting) only with the manuscript name, 

 '' Ceraospina aibuscii!((," and a reference number; and I find, on consult- 

 ing the key-list of Lendenfeld's manuscript names (vide Whitelegge, Eec. 

 Austr. Mus., iv., 2. 1901. p. 64), that, for this particular name (and num- 

 i)er), no synonym is given. 



I might here mention that the name " Ceraospina arbiiscidu" also occurs 

 under number 307 of the key-list, and in this instance is stated to be a 

 synonym of Echinoucnui nncliur<ttuni var. ranwsa. Lendenfeld. This in- 

 formation, however, is wrong, and has led to an error on the part of 

 Whitelegge; for the only specimen in the Australian Museum labelled 

 "Ceraospina arbusculd. No. 307"— that which Whitelegge (Rec. Austr. 

 Mus., iv., ii., 1901, p. 81) has erroneously (and. I must add, not quite 

 correctly) described under the name of Echinonemu anchoratum rar. 

 ramo.sd— proves to he. in point of spiculation, skeleton pattern and sur- 

 face conulation, the counterpart of Clailtriodendron arbuscula. It differs 

 to some extent from the other specimens of this species, however, in 

 habit and texture, and so may be another species; but since it is of 

 small size and is preserved in a dry state, the probability is that these 

 differences are due merely to differences of age and state of preservation. 



