SPONGES OF BEAUFORT (N. C.) HARBOR AND VICINITY. 155 
We had at first decided to inscribe this sponge under Dendy’s recent genus Psam- 
mochela, the diagnosis (Dendy, 1916, p. 126) of which reads: “‘Reticulate skeleton 
composed of sandy and sometimes partly spicular fibers. Magascleres styli or strongyla, 
or both. Microscleres isochele, which may be very minute and with vestigial teeth; 
to which sigmata may be added.”’ But we now feel, for the following reasons, that the 
subdivision of the Phoriospongine into Phoriospongia, Chondropsis, and Psammochela 
is not satisfactory. 
The distinction between Phoriospongia and Chondropsis (Sigmatella) is arbitrary. 
Lendenfeld (1888, 1889) based the distinction especially on the sigmata. Forms with 
large sigmata, 30 to 504 long, were put in Phoriospongia, those with very small sigmata, 
5 to row long (Lendenfeld’s figure indicates that the 1 » given in the text as the length 
of the sigma in Chondropsis australis is a misprint for 10 w. Vide Lendenfeld, 1889, 
p. 611.), or with none, in Chondropsis (Sigmatella). 
Dendy (1894, p. 250) found it necessary to change Sigmatella (preoccupied) to 
Chondropsis, and further pointed out that the size of the sigmata could not justly be 
used as a mark by which to distribute the species of the subfamily. In recorded species 
the sigmata measure 54, 10M, 164, 30m, 35M, 50 in length, thus forming a fairly con- 
tinuous series. Dendy nevertheless retains the two generic names Phoriospongia and 
Chondropsis, and would assign to the former species with monactinal megascleres, 
and to the latter those with diactinal megascleres. Hence, several forms listed by 
Lendenfeld under Phoriospongia are shifted by Dendy to Chondropsis. 
But Dendy’s basis for the distinction between the two genera can not be thought 
of as satisfactory since the character of the magascleres is variable in these sponges, 
as is borne out by the following: Lendenfeld (1889) records that the megascleres in 
Chondropsis (Sigmatella) australis are chiefly strongyles but in part styles and tylotes; 
in C. turbo they are strongyles with some styles; in C. corticata strongyles but also in 
part oxeas and styles. In Dendy’s new addition to the subfamily, Psammochela (Dendy, 
1916, p. 126), the megascleres are styles or strongyles or both. It seems therefore 
necessary to merge Chondropsis into Phoriospongia. 
As to Psammochela, its distinction from Phoriospongia rests on the presence of 
chele. It does not seem justifiable, however, to separate from Phoriospongia forms 
like the Beaufort species in which the chele are so scarce as to be easily overlooked. 
Rather we may conclude with a good deal of probability that actual search will reveal 
a scanty number of chelz in some, at any rate, of the forms hitherto listed under Phorio- 
spongia and Chondropsis and supposed to be without these spicules. Further, it may 
be recalled that in one of the specimens of Ridley’s Phoriospongia fibrosa (Ridley, 1884, 
P- 439) chele were found to be scarce, in the other abundant. This indicates that it 
is not rational to separate the forms with abundant chele from those with few or none. 
Phoriospongia should therefore be emended to include forms both with monactinal 
and diactinal megascleres, and those in which chelz persist either abundantly or in small 
number. It thus becomes coextensive with the subfamily, and some artificial grouping 
of the species may be desirable as facilitating reference to them. 
As to the position of the genus, Lendenfeld (1888, 1889) made his Phoriosponginz 
a subfamily of the Spongelide. Dendy (1894, p. 250) and Topsent (1894), p. 5) trans- 
ferred the genera to the Monaxonida, placing them near their supposedly closest rela- 
tives, the Gellius-like sponges. Dendy more recently (1916, p. 126) utilizing the data 
