Mr, H. J. Carter on new Sponges. 101 
question that they should be grouped together in the same 
genus”’ (p. 161). But it is equally “ unfortunate” that Dr. 
Bowerbank should have called it “‘ Desmacidon ;” for who 
with his diagnosis of the genus Desmacidon (1. c. before 
quoted) could find out Oceanapia by it? or why has Dr. 
Bowerbank used the term ‘ Rhaphiodesma” for “ British” 
sponges (viz. our Ksperina) in which, if any thing, the pre- 
sence of spiculose fibre is even more characteristic than in his 
type specimen, Desmacidon fruticosa? 'That he knew both 
possessed such fibre is evident ; for the terms Desmacidon and 
Rhaphiodesma etymologically mean the same thing. 
If, then, neither Dr. Bowerbank’s nor Mr. Norman’s names 
are satisfactory, and we look for another, viz. one which is 
but a ‘mere fortuitous combination of letters” indicating 
nothing, such as “ Biemna,” given by the late Dr. J. EH. 
Gray to Desmacidon Jeffreysii in 1867 (‘ Notes on the Ar- 
rangement of Sponges,” Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1867, pp. 538, 
539), it will be observed that, in point of priority, it precedes 
Mr. Norman’s; but it includes a number of other species 
which have nothing to do with Oceanapia; and as for the 
description of this sponge, first given by Dr. Bowerbank 
under the name ot “ Jsodictya robusta,” this will be seen to just 
precede “ Biemna” under the generic name of ‘ Gellius”’ (!). 
Under such circumstances I can see no other course to follow 
but to accept Mr. Norman’s generic appellation, viz. “‘ Ocea- 
napia.”’ It may not be desirable to call sponges generically 
after their form, as before stated; but this has the merit of 
being graphically expressive externally, and almost equally 
applies to the fibrous often mixed up with the pulpy isodic- 
tyal structure internally, so that on the whole the term ‘‘ Ocea- 
napia”’ is not only most appropriate, but most acceptable to 
me generally, as | know of no other sponge with which its 
characteristics could be confounded. 
Hitherto, with the exception of Dr. Bowerbank’s conjectured 
(7. e. “ apparently) permanent orifice” in the termination of the 
tubular extensions of Oceanapia, already mentioned, no vents 
have been noticed; while in a fragment of some pieces which 
Mr. Norman kindly sent mein 1876 there is an entire branch 
whose termination neither has nor ever had any ; it is simply 
rounded like the finger of a glove; and in one subsequently 
found by Dr. Bowerbank, which was “ well preserved” and 
‘6 three and a half inches in height, the distal termination was 
in the form of a blunt cone, very thin, and rather coarsely 
reticulated”? (B. S. vol. ii. p. 159). My own observations 
on a species that will be mentioned hereafter accord with Dr. 
Bowerbank’s statement; so that it may fairly be interred that 
