Knowledge of the Spongida. 361 



.oul 



i 



Normania 



crassa (see Dr. Bowerbank's illustrations, vol. iii. pis. ix. and 



1 " , » 1 \ 1.1 1 • . • /* . 1 rt * * 



lxxxi. respectively) ; and the description of the former having 

 been published in 1866 (Mon. B. S. vol. ii. p. 55), while 

 that of Normania crassa was not published until 1874 (ib. ib. 

 vol. iii, pi. lxxxi. &c.). 



It may now be asked, If Normania crassa, Bk., and Hyme- 

 niacidon placentula, Bk., of 1874, are but repetitions oiEcio- 

 nemia compressa, Bk., of 1866, and are to be placed in the 

 group " Theneanina," what is to become of Ecionemia 

 ponderosa, Bk., of 1866? The genus, founded by Dr. 

 Bowerbank on a foreign sponge in the museum of the 

 Royal College of Surgeons, had, according to his statement, 

 then no u British species " (Mon. B. S. vol. i. p. 174), but 

 Schmidt, who examined it in 1866 (Spong. Adriat. Meeres, 



2nd 

 whose 



Suppl. S. 12), identified it with his genus "Stelletta, 11 

 e diagnosis he had published in 1862 (ib. p. 46). Bower- 

 bank must have subsequently received the two species 

 which are described in the first vol. of his Monograph (pp. 55 

 and 56), viz. Ecionemia compressa from Shetland and E. pon- 

 derosa from Guernsey, the former of which I have identified 

 with Normania crassa^ also from Shetland, and the latter with 

 my Stelletta aspera from the shore-rocks of this place, which 

 is on the coast of the English Channel, nearly opposite 

 Guernsey. Hence, then, in matter of priority we must give 

 Schmidt's name to Bowerbank's Ecionemia ponder osa and call 

 it u Stelletta ponderosa " Dr. Bowerbank subsequently pub- 

 lished an illustrated description of the sponge in the museum 

 of the Royal College of Surgeons under his originally MS. 

 name of Ecionemia acervus (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1873, p. 322). 

 So much for dates and nomenclature ! 



We now come to the structure of Bowerbank's Ecionemia 

 ponderosa, whereon it may be asked how he came to ally it 

 on the one hand to his Ecionemia comjiressa and on the other 



to Ecionemia acervus. 



Probably on account of the flesh-spicule being like the spi- 

 nispirula of the former, and the rest of the spiculation like 

 that of B. acervus) for it is a fact that the small flesh-spicule 

 of Ecionemia ponderosa is very much like that of Ecionemia 

 compressa ; wherefore, in my description of Ecionemia ponde- 

 rosa {' Annals,' 1871, vol. viii. p. 8), I have pointed out the 

 difference between it and the spinispirula of Tethea muricata ; 

 but from its being so small and delicate, having been coarsely 

 represented by myself (L c), and worse by l)r. Bowerbank 

 (Mon. vol. iii. pi. viii. fig. 14), I cannot satisfy myself now, 

 even with a high power, whether the shaft of the flesh-spicule 



Ann. & Mag. N. Hist. Sen 5. Vol xi. 25 



