148 
a dermal skeleton, but Bowerbank (1865:373) 
distinctly mentions the dermal skeleton in this 
sponge. If Bowerbank’s description is correct 
then Acervochalina cannot be synonymous with 
Haliclona; one can only assume that Burton, 
having access to Bowerbank’s specimens, has 
checked this point. 
Copious slime production is the character 
used by de Laubenfels (1954) to distinguish 
between Acervochalina and Haliclona but this, 
as Burton (1934) points out, is hardly ground 
for generic distinction. 
It is probable that de Laubenfels’ statement 
regarding Ridley’s specimens of Acervochalina 
finimita (Schmidt) is correct, and that the 
North Australian specimens should be synony- 
mized with A. velinea de Laubenfels. Only one 
statement in Ridley’s description leaves this in 
doubt; he mentions stout primary fibres, but 
gives no measurements. Only reference to Rid- 
ley’s specimens can decide this synonymy, but 
in terms of distribution, de Laubenfels’ sug- 
gestion seems very likely to be correct. 
DISTRIBUTION: Marshall Islands (de Lauben- 
fels); Torres Strait, Queensland (Ridley). 
Haliclona koremella de Laubenfels 
Haliclona koremella de Laubenfels, 1954, p. 
59, fig. 34. 
OCCURRENCE: Sta. 10, 35. 
REMARKS: The two specimens differ from 
the holotype in the dimensions of the fibres 
and in the number of spicule rows incorporated 
in primary and secondary fibres (Table 1). 
DISTRIBUTION: Palau Islands (de Laubenfels). 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, Vol. XIX, April 1965 
GENUS Crihrochalina Schmidt 
Crihrochalina olemda de Laubenfels 
Fig. 13 
Crihrochalina olemda de Laubenfels, 1954, p. 
77, fig. 47, pi. IV, fig. a. 
OCCURRENCE: Sta. 135. 
remarks: De Laubenfels (1954) empha- 
sized the difficulty of being certain that Crihro- 
chalina olemda is not synonymous with some 
earlier described sponge since, in many early 
works, characters of the skeleton were described 
poorly, if at all, the tubular shape often be- 
ing considered sufficient for identification. C. 
olemda appears, however, to be sufficiently dis- 
tinct from such similar species as Spinosella 
infundihuliformis Lendenfeld to be considered 
a new species. 
The single Palau specimen conforms closely j 
to the type description. De Laubenfels was in , 
some doubt as to the correct generic position j 
of this sponge. Topsent (1920) has redescribed I 
the type of Crihrochalina, C. infundibula \ 
Schmidt, and when his description is combined 
with Schmidt’s type description, Crihrochalina \ 
emerges as a cup or funnel-shaped sponge, with 
concentric finest on the internal surface, having 
a complex multispicular network of vertical 
fibres, a well-defined system of subdermal cavi- 
ties, and a protoplasmic dermal membrane con- 
taining no dermal skeleton. 
C. olemda answers perfectly to this redefini- 
tion of Crihrochalina, having a faint pattern of 
concentric lines on the inner face of the tube, 
fasciculate fibres, protoplasmic dermis, and sub- 
dermal cavities. (This feature is not mentioned 
TABLE 1 
SPECIMEN 
DIAMETER OF FIBRES 
NO. SPICULE ROWS IN FIBRES 
Primary 
Connecting 
Primary 
Connecting 
Sta. 10 
32-87/* 
12-50 
10-20 rows 
7-12 rows 
(63/*) 
(29/*) 
Sta. 35 
18-50/* 
10-32 
6-16 rows 
3-12 rows 
(25/*) 
(16/*) 
usnm 23129 
100/* 
15/* 
4-7 rows 
usually none 
