356 Mr. A. Hancock on the Excavating Sponges. 
preliminary to the discussion on the mode by which the excava- 
tions are effected ;—the principal object of my paper beimg to 
show a similarity in this respect between Cliona and the excava- 
ting Mollusca. 
Dr. Grant, whose opinion I quoted in my paper, and who 
wrote on the subject many years previous to the appearance of 
Dr. Nardo’s memoir, seems to be the first to have asserted the pro- 
bability of Cliona forming its own abode. He says, “ It may be 
questioned whether the sharp siliceous spicula and constant cur- 
rents of its papillz do not exert some influence in forming or en- 
larging the habitation of this zoophyte.” Mr. Wm. M ‘Calla, too, 
was quoted as having stated that Cliona was “very destructive 
to the shells that: came within its reach.” And from the fact 
that M. Duvernoy had named a species ferebrans, it was inferred 
that he also was convinced that these sponges formed the cham- 
bers they occupy, though I knew no more of what he had written 
on the subject than appears in the ‘ Microscopic Journal. It 1s 
therefore pretty evident that I had no pretension to the discovery 
of the fact that Cliona has the power of burying itself in hard 
calcareous bodies ; though I found it necessary to put this matter, 
so far as I was able, beyond a doubt. In this respect the re- 
searches of Nardo and Michelin are of the greatest value ; for 
confirmation is still required, as it appears all are not yet satisfied 
that a sponge can penetrate shell and stone. It would have been 
well, therefore, if Mr. Morris had given the abstract at greater 
length. 
It may be questioned, however, how far the Italian naturalist 
is Justified in discarding the name given to these sponges by 
Dr. Grant, merely because that gentleman did not fully under- 
stand the nature of the production he described. Were such a 
principle to be admitted, nomenclature would be for ever fluctua- 
ting, and hundreds of names used by the early writers might be 
at once superseded. Dr. Grant’s description is excellent, full and 
clear; so that even the species may be determined. Why then 
should he be stripped of the honour of his discovery? Had 
there been any obscurity,—any difficulty in determining what 
was meant, then there might have been some plea for adopting 
the generic appellation of a subsequent observer ; but even Nardo 
himself does not appear to doubt that his genus is identical with 
the Clona of Grant. 
Neither can I at present assent to Mr. Morris’s opinion, that 
my two species C. Fryeri and C. spinosa are identical with Vioa 
Nardina and V. Michelini. This there is reason to doubt. I 
have certainly not seen the figures referred to, but the descrip- 
tions are not full enough for identification ; and indeed, so far 
as they go, do not very well agree with my species. The charac- 
