1161 
and that not too much value was to be attached to the occurrence 
of the irregular “Kieselkörperchen” (Script). TuierE afterwards 
(1899 «) arrived at the same conclusion. It struck him that the 
enigmatic corpuscles were very irregular and very variable in size. 
He could never trace an axial thread in the prolongations (“Fort- 
sätze”); ouly in the centre he saw a “sternförmige Hohlraum” in 
the full-sized specimens, whereas juvenile specimens resemble irregular 
asters as occur eg. in Thenea. ““Darnach ist es unmöglich, diese 
Kieselkörper für ‘tetracrepide Desmen’ zu erklären, vielmehr werden 
sie für eigenartig entwickelte Aster, also Microsclere, gelten müssen. 
Damit stimmt auch ihre absolute Grösse, die bedeutend hinter 
derjenigen der gewöhnliehen Lithistiden-Desmen zuriickbleibt”. And 
further on Tiene correctly remarks (l. ec. p. 90): “Auch die Lage 
der fraglichen Kieselkörper, die man als Desmoide wird bezeichnen 
können, ist ja doeh so ganz verschieden von derjenigen der Lithistiden, 
dass schon dieser Umstand ihre Homologie ausschliessen muss’. 
THieLn never observed that the extremities of the desmoids possessed 
many tubercles by which neighbouring spicules were fixed together as 
LENDENFELD asserted having seen. Triep, consequently, said : “Ich 
bin also der Ansicht, dass die Desmoide von Crambe nur die 
Bedeutung von accessorischen Microscleren haben, demnach für die 
Stellung der Gattung von untergeordneter Bedeutung sind”. Although 
I maintain my old opinion and so far agree with THIELR’s conclusion, 
the following observations may be made. 
Trier uses the term “Desmoide” *) in order to emphasize that 
the spicules under consideration are different from the desmas of 
Lithistids. He does so, on account of the fact that the corpuscles 
often show more than four axes and are rather to be derived from 
asters. SOLLAs and later Mincain derive certain desmas from 
calthrops, which, according to SoLLas, are also a form of asters. 
And on the other band Sorras says (1888 p. LX—LXI): “In one 
group of Lithistids.... the desma does not form upon a crepis, 
at least not a spicular erepis; it presents a massive centrum 
with what appears to be a large nucleus, and which may indeed 
actually be the nucleus of a erepidial scleroblast, which has ceased 
to secrete its sclere; variable numbers of actines proceed from the 
centrum, usually four to twelve; when, as is usual, only four or 
five are present, they proceed from one face of the centrum....” 
It follows that there is no special reason so far for the new term 
desmoid. However, if the spicules are desmas, this does: not involve 
the sponge in which they are found belonging to the Lithistida. 
1) Cf. Topsenr 1894 (3) p. 314. 
Hee 
or 
