512 MR. B. W. SIIANN ON 



the veiTucre. Wright and Stnder (1889) clesciibed a specimen 

 under the name 8'pongodes npyphthyccforinis, concerning wliich 

 they observe: — " Tlie entire habit of the colony i-ecalls much 

 more that of Nephthya than that of Spongodes, and this im- 

 pression is strengthened by the slight development of the spicules 

 surmounting the little heads, whence the colony does not appear 

 so prickly as other species .... The species must be referi-ed to 

 the genus Spnngodes, because the polyps are placed sideways 

 within a bundle of spicules, although these only project slightly." 

 That is to say, Wright and Studer recognised on the anthocodiaj 

 of Sp. nejihthyceformis the presence of what is now known as a 

 " Stiitzbiindel," and here we have the starting-point of the 

 difficulty of discriminating between the genera Bpongodes and 

 Nephthya. Holm (1895) faced the problem of reconstructing 

 the genus Spongodes in the light of the knowledge which had 

 accumulated since Lesson first described the genus in 1834. 

 This author pointed out that Spongodes nephthyceformis W. & St. 

 is identical with JSfephthya chabrolii Audouin, and added that 

 J^. chabrolii differs from jSpongodes in many characters, such as 

 the branching of the colony and the arrangement of the polyps : 

 on these characters one can establish two geneia, but it is 

 necessary then to add to the genus Nephiliya many species 

 hitherto included in the genus Sjyongodes, including the tj^pe 

 Sp. celosia. Though Holm shrank from submitting a well-known 

 type like Sp>ongodes celosia to such treatment, he proceeded 

 fearlessly to include all the species of Nephthya, including the 

 type JSf. chabrolii, within the genus Spongodes ; he retained 

 Nephthya, however, as a subgenei-ic title. Here was a step in 

 the direction of elucidation ; Nephthya and Spongodes, as hitherto 

 defined, were shown to be synonymous ; but Holm's solution of 

 the problem threw too great a burden on SjMngodes. Klikenthal 

 (1895), writing during the year in which Holm's paper was 

 published, accepted the genus Spongodes in its new distended 

 form ; but the term Spongodes had become so obviously cumber- 

 some that this author (Kiikenthal), in a later paper *, reinstated 

 Nephthya with full generic honours. In this paper Kiikenthal gave 

 a summary of the family Nephthyidte, and divided the Various 

 genera into two groups as they possessed or lacked a " Stiitz- 

 biindel"; he summed up his remarks as follows: — "Innerhalb 

 der Familie der Nephthyiden ist als wichtigstes Merkmal zu 

 betrachten, ob die Polypenkcipfchen terminal auf ihrem unteren 

 Telle, dem Stiele, sitzen oder seitlich davon. Letzterer Fall tritt 

 stets dann ein, wenn sich auf einer Seite, der oberen, ein Biindel 

 Spicula besonders stark entwickelt : das Stiitzbiindel." The 

 genei-a possessing a " Stiitzbiiiidel " were distinguished from one 

 another by the disposition of the polyps on the colony, as Holm 

 (1895) had already suggested; the imnie Nephthya was applied 

 to forms resembling the original type N. chabrolii Audouin, in 

 which the polyps are collected on branchlets, the latter being 

 arranged in catkins or lappets, and the name Spongodes was 



* Abh. Senckenb. Ges. Frankfurt, vol. xxiii. p. 88 (1896). 



