352 PROF. E. A. MINCHIN ON THE BRITISH [DeC. 13, 



Grant's genus Leuconia for nivea, and placed hotryoides in a new 

 genus Leucosolenia. In making these changes Bowerbank acted 

 with perfect correctness, according to accepted modern rules of 

 nomenclature ; and it is clear that for the species hotryoides the 

 generic name Leucosolenia has the priority over all other generic 

 names for it, or for other species associated with it generically. 

 Leucolosenia is, in short, the first generic name put forward which 

 has an undoubted Ascon as the type species. 



Bowerbank added various species to his genus Leucosolenia, 

 amongst them forms which, in my opinion, cannot be associated 

 generically with hotryoides, and therefore do not belong to the 

 genus Leucosolenia as here understood, but to that section of the 

 Ascons for which I employ the generic name Clathrina (Gray, 

 1867). Moreover, Bowerbank did not properly understand the 

 distinctions between the different species which he dealt with, so 

 that different species are found confused together in his monograph 

 in an extraordinary manner, and his descriptions are sometimes 

 quite incorrect. Thus the speciraen described and figured as 

 L. hotryoides in vol. i. of his monograph (p. 164, figs. 347, 348, 

 pi. xxvi.) does happen to be a genuine specimen of hotryoides. 

 This can be seen at once from his figure 348, which is extremely 

 charactei'istic, and I have been able to examine this specimen and 

 have figured its spicules (text-fig. 98, figs. 27 a-g, p. 390). On 

 the other hand, the specimen figured as L. hotryoides, in vol. iii. 

 pi. iii, fig. 1 , is a specimen of the species described by Haeckel 

 under the specific name variabilis, and the description given by 

 Bowerbank of the triradiate spicules as " equiangular " (vol. ii. 

 p. 28, vol. iii. p. 7) can be seen, even from his figures, to be in- 

 correct. Bowerbank fvirther described a new species under the 

 name " Leitcosolenia conto?-ta." I hope to discuss the rather com- 

 plicated question of the characters and synonymy of this species 

 in another memoir, the true contorta being a Clathrina. I will 

 only say here that amongst specimens identified by Bowerbank as 

 contorta I have found a Clathrina species mixed up with speci- 

 mens of Leucosolenia complicata and variabilis. Bowerbank 

 himself considered (vol. ii. pp. 30, 31) that his species contorta 

 might be synonymous with Montagu's species complicata, but 

 was more inclined to regard Montagu's figure of the latter as 

 being " a very characteristic figure of Spongia hotryoides Ellis & 

 Solander," and thought it better under the circumstances to reject 

 the term complicata altogether. Finally, in vol. iii. of his mono- 

 graph, Bowerbank described and figured a sponge found in 

 Brighton Aquarium under the name of Leuconia somesii (pp. 334- 

 332, pi. xci. figs. 6-17). A glance at his figures makes it obvious 

 that this sponge is a Leucosolenia, but his description is inade- 

 quate for determination of the species. Having been able to 

 examine Bowerbank's types of this species in the British Museum, 

 I found them to be merely aberrant specimens of Leucosolenia 

 va7'iabilis (Haeckel), as Topsent had already suspected, charac- 

 terised by the great development in the number and length of 



