8 Spong. 
XVII. SPOXGI.E. 
British Coasts , North Sea. —Allen (1) mentions two species of Clavulina 
from the Eddystone grounds. Chun (5) dwells on the richness in Sponges 
in the region of the cold current near the Faroe Islands where several 
Hexactinellids and over 400 specimens of Thenea muricata were taken 
by the “Valdivia.” Topsent (43) gives a list of 33 sponge-species from 
the Belgian coast. 
Mediterranean. —Lo Bianco (24) enumerates 32 species of Sponges from 
the Bay of Naples. 
Arctic Sea. —Schulze (33) enumerates 3 species of Hexactinellids from 
the Arctic sea, north of Spitzbergen. Schaudinn (32) mentions the 
occurrence of Calcarea and Hexactinellida in the Arctic Sea. 
Tropical Atlantic.— Johnson (19) describes five species of boring Clavu¬ 
lina from Madeira. 
American waters (Pacific and Atlantic).— Schulze (34) describes 66 
species of Hexactinellids from American waters. The American Hexacti- 
nellid fauna shows no peculiarities. All the known recent families of 
Hexactinellids occur in them and none are peculiar to them. 
South Atlantic. —Pratt (29) describes 2 species of Calcarea from the 
Falkland Islands. 
Indian Ocean. —Chun (5) describes a Hexactinellid with enormous 
peduncle spicule from the Somal coast of Africa. 
Northern Pacific. —Gravier (15) describes 10 species of Hexactinellids 
from Japan. 
Central Pacific. —Thiele (41) describes 31 species of Tetraxonia from 
Celebes (Kema). Thompson (42) describes a Hexactinellid from the 
Kermadec Islands. 
Antarctic Ocean.-— Chun (5) found Hexactinellids in the Antarctic Ocean 
in a depth of 4636 metres. 
3. GEOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION [cf. Titles 2, 6, 17, 18, 36, 38]. 
Senonian. —Schrammen (36). 
Carboniferous. —Kansas, Beede (2) ; Nebraska, Clarke (6); Derbyshire, 
Sollas (38). 
Palceozoic generally. —Victoria, Hall (17); North America, Hall & 
Clarke (18). 
4. PHYTOGENY and CLASSIFICATION [ cf. Titles 7, 8, 10, 13, 30]. 
In the discussion concerning the position of sponges in the animal 
kingdom (7) carried on at the Cambridge Zoological Congress the following 
opinions were expressed : Delage thinks that the reversion of the em¬ 
bryonic layers which is peculiar to Sponges entirely separates them from 
all other poly- and lietero-cellular animals. He says “The Spongidae are a 
main, although a small branch arising directly from the stem of the 
genealogical tree, independently of the branches of the Ccelenterata and of 
the other Metazoa.’’ Minchin considers it “most probable that no 
comparison is possible between either the larvae or the adult” sponges 
and the Cnidaria and “that they are to be regarded as independently 
developed from Choanoflagellata.” Vosmaer is “thoroughly convinced 
that it is not possible to say more than—we do not know.” Saville 
Kent considers it desirable that living collar-cells of Sponges should be 
more carefully studied. He thinks that only in this way the relationship 
of Sponges can be clearly made out. Apparently he is still inclined to 
consider them as Protozoa. Schulze doubts the possibility of determining 
the systematic position of sponges by means of the embryonic data 
known at present and thinks that the sponges should be placed in the 
radial Ccelenteria side by side with the Cnidaria, 
