Sponges of Palau, I — BERGQUIST 
139 
claimed to have observed just such a chamber 
structure as Lendenfeld figured for Druinella 
rotunda. Examination of the type, and only, 
specimen of C. camera (usnm 22405) shows 
it to be a poorly preserved sponge containing 
quantities of filamentous blue-green algae and 
having normal spongin fibres. The cell struc- 
ture of the sponge is largely dissociated. Those 
traces of flagellate chambers which remain in- 
dicate that the chambers were quite large (40- 
60g) and possibly eurypylous. Cacospongia 
camera does not belong in Druinella , and should 
be pronounced unrecognizable. 
Thiele (1899) identified a sponge from the 
Celebes as Druinella ramosa. He stated that he 
had not been able to study the flagellate cham- 
bers and that the identification was based on 
similarity of habit and fibre structure. Burton 
(1934, 1959) has referred sponges to D. ram- 
osa; preparations of both of these have been 
examined and clearly neither belongs to Dru- 
inella. The two sponges belong to different gen- 
era. One (bm 1930.8.13.201) is possibly a Dac- 
tylospongia but certainly belongs to the Spon- 
giidae; the other (bm 1930.3.4.155) is probably 
a Cacospongia, but the fragments examined 
were too small to allow further identification. 
Only one other sponge has been described in 
the genus Druinella, namely tyroeis de Lauben- 
fels. This sponge is identical with the speci- 
mens of Psammaplysilla purpurea from Palau 
except that it is more compact; the endosome 
is extremely compressed and full of Spongin A 
and the aphodal canals show clearly. No struc- 
ture comparable with that described for D. 
rotunda can be found in the holotype (USNM 
23052). 
Burton (1934) referred Aplysina purpurea 
Carter to Druinella as Druinella purpurea and, 
presuming Carter’s original specimen to be 
lost, named Dendy’s specimen from the Gulf 
of Manaar as neotype. The reasons for referring 
this sponge to Druinella rather than Psamma- 
plysilla were not given but were certainly not 
based on histological study of Druinella ro- 
tunda. In the text of the same work Burton 
refers Aplysina purpurea Carter (1881) from 
Ceylon and Australia to Psammaplysilla in con- 
tradiction to his reference in the synonymy, 
where it is placed in Druinella purpurea. Bur- 
ton differentiates Carter’s later specimens (1881) 
from the type specimen (Carter, 1880) and 
that described by Dendy (1905) by stressing 
the fasciculate fibre network in the former, a 
structure identical to that figured by Keller 
(1889) for Psammaplysilla arabica. There is 
nothing in Carter’s original description or in 
Dendy’s account of his specimen to give basis 
to the assumption that such a skeletal structure 
is absent. On the contrary, all accounts of the 
skeleton of this sponge agree remarkably, and 
Dendy specifically describes 'compound fibres.’' 
The type specimen of Druinella rotunda has 
been lost; it is not at the British Museum; the 
Australian Museum, Sydney; or the National 
Museum of Victoria, Melbourne. Since, first, 
the only specimen of the type species (D. ro- 
tunda) is lost; second, the type description is 
poor and could easily refer to Psammaplysilla 
purpurea; and third, all subsequent records of 
Druinella are referable to Psammaplysilla, it is 
suggested that the genus Druinella be consid- 
ered unrecognizable and that the genus Psam- 
Fl G. 6d. Psammaplysilla purpurea (Carter) . Photo- 
micrograph showing the reticulate structure of the 
fibres. 
