1908.] 



APKICAN CALCAREOUS SPONGES. 



435 



The collection consists of 25 specimens belonging to 14 species, 

 5 of which are new, as shown in the following list : — • 



Grade. 



'Family. 



G-enus. 



Species. 



No. of 

 Specimens. 



Homocoela ... 

 Heterocoela ... 



Clatlirinidae 



Leucosoleuiidee 

 Sycettidse 



Grantiidse 



Heteropidaj 



Amphoriscidae ... 



Clathrina 



Leucosolenia 

 Svcon 



priinordialis (ff.). 

 darwinii (if.), 

 contorta {Min.). 

 blanca (Mik.). 

 irregularis, sp. n. 



ciliatum Fabr. 

 ampullum (if.). 

 munitwn, sp. n. 

 ananas (if.). 

 simplex, sp. n. 

 zanzibaris, sp. n. 

 nodus gordii (Pol.). 

 floridiana {H.). 

 wasinensis , sp. n. 



2 

 3 

 3 



1 

 1 



2 

 1 

 3 



1 

 2 

 1 

 3 



1 

 1 



Leucandra ... 

 Grantessa 



Heteropegma 

 Leucilla 









Total specimens .. 



... 25 



The classification is that proposed by Polejaeff (2) for the 

 Homocoela, and by Dendy (3) for the Heterocoela, with slight 

 modifications by Minchin (4). 



The identification of calcareous sponges is very diflicult and 

 unsatisfactory in the present state of our knowledge. Haeckel 

 in his great work (1) laid down hard and fast definitions of the 

 difierent species, which if they accorded with the facts would 

 make identification very easy, but unfortunately actual specimens 

 very seldom fall within his definitions. This has led to a useless 

 multiplication of species, since each specimen which did not 

 exactly comply with Haeckel's definition has been called by a 

 new name, Haeckel has also omitted to mention many sti'iking 

 features of his species, such as the subgastral quadriradiates in 

 miany of the Sycandra, the characteristic dermal spicules of some 

 species, and the hair-spicules in most of the species in which they 

 occur (e. g. in Sycandra ciliata). He has also made numerous 

 wrong identifications (see Minchin 5). Under these circumstances 

 no identification can be considered as certain and nothing very 

 satisfactory can be done till Haeckel's work has been revised. 



The specimens iu the Crossland Collection are unfortunately 

 not in a good state of preservation. It therefore seemed better 

 to place the specimens among existing species, even if the iden- 

 tification was doubtful, rather than to make new species based on 

 single specimens in a poor state of preservation. This has been 

 done as far as possible, but there remained six specimens belong- 

 ing to five species which could not be classed in this way; to 

 these new names have been given. 



