Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:39:41.758Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Hemimycale columella (Bowerbank): a short description and history of the species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

G. R. Forster
Affiliation:
The Plymouth Laboratory

Extract

These notes arise from the difficulty met with in identifying a pinkish encrusting sponge which has been frequently collected by hand from rocks at 5–10 fathoms. The sponge was at first identified, by a process of elimination, with the deep water genus Inflatella. Fortunately some preparations were shown to Dr Lévi at Roscoff to whom the species was at once familiar as Stylotella columella (Bowerbank). It was then found that this species had been described originally by Bowerbank from an Exmouth specimen, and subsequendy by Topsent from both south and west coasts of France. Topsent found the unusual, if not unique, character of this sponge in possessing, besides siliceous spicules, a great abundance of calcareous granules. These granules are almost certainly the ‘gemmules’ described and figured by Bowerbank. De Laubenfels in 1928 collected one specimen from Plymouth Sound which he identified as Stylotella columella; but proposed (1932) that the species should be included in the genus Prianos Gray. Burton in 1934 renamed the species Hemimycale columella, figuring the spicules as styles. Arndt (1935) returned to Stylotella and retained Burton's figure of the spicules. As the styles have been found, so far, only as a small minority amongst the spicules, it has been thought worth while to provide a further description; and to discuss the differing views on the systematic position of the species.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arndt, W., 1935. Porifera. Tierwelt N.- u. Ostsee, Teil 3 a 1, pp. 1102 (Lief. 27).Google Scholar
Bowerbank, J. S., 1874. A monograph of the British Spongiadae. Ray Soc. Publ., Vol. 3. 367 pp.Google Scholar
Burton, M., 1934. Sponges. Sci. Rep. Gr. Barrier Reef Exped., Vol. 4, pp. 513621.Google Scholar
Gray, J. E., 1867. Notes on the arrangement of sponges, with the description of some new genera. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., 1867, pp. 492588.Google Scholar
Hallman, E. F., 1914. A revision of the monaxonid species described as new in Lendenfeld's catalogue of the sponges in the Australian Museum. Part II. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. 4, pp. 327446.Google Scholar
De Laubenfels, M. V., 1932. The marine and freshwater sponges of California. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., Vol. 81, pp. 1140.Google Scholar
Von Lendenfeld, R., 1885. Catalogue of the Sponges in the Australian Museum, Sydney, 196 pp. London.Google Scholar
Lévi, C., 1950. Inventaires de la faune marine de Roscoff. Spongiaires. Trav. Sta. biol. Roscoff, T. 1, suppl. 2, pp. 128.Google Scholar
Schmidt, O., 1862a. Die Spongien des adriatischen Meeres. 88 pp. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Schmidt, O., 1862b. Supplement to Die Spongien des adriatischen Meeres. 48 pp. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Topsent, E., 1891. Essai sur la faune spongiaire de Roscoff. Arch. Zool. exp. gen., Ser. 2, T. 9, pp. 523–54.Google Scholar
Topsent, E., 1892. Contribution à l'étude des spongiaires de 1'Atlantic Nord. Résult. Camp. sci. Monaco, Fasc. 2, 165 pp.Google Scholar
Topsent, E., 1925. Étude de Spongiaires de Golfe de Naples. Arch. Zool. exp. gén., T. 63, pp. 623725.Google Scholar
Topsent, E., 1934. Éponges observées des parages de Monaco. Bull. Inst. océanogr. Monaco, No. 650, 42 pp.Google Scholar
Vosmaer, G. C. J., 1885. Porifera. Bronns Tierreich, Bd. 2, 496 pp. Leipzig.Google Scholar