Siphonochalina tubulosa ( Linnaeus, 1759 )

Van Soest, Rob W. M., 2025, Typification of Porifera described in the 10 edition of Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae, volume II, 1759, Zootaxa 5638 (1), pp. 1-65 : 28-32

Siphonochalina tubulosa ( Linnaeus, 1759)

Figs 15A–F , 16 , 17

Spongia tubulosa Linnaeus, 1759: 1348 , sp. 6; Linnaeus 1767: 1297, sp. 6; Ellis & Solander 1786: 188, pl. 58 fig. 7; Gmelin in

Linnaeus 1791: 3819, sp. 6; Esper 1796: pl. LIV figs 1–2, 1797: 196 (text); Bosc 1802: 141. Spongia fastigiata Pallas, 1766: 392 , sp. 241 (also Boddaert 1768: 494 and Wilkens 1787: 228, fig. 75). Spongia bullata var. β; Lamarck 1814: 437. Siphonochalina tubulosa ; Ehlers 1870: 19; Ridley 1884: 401; Stephens 1915: 457, pl. XL fig. 10; Burton 1926: 79; Topsent

1932: 78. Phylosiphonia tubulosa ; Von Lendenfeld 1887: 796 (listed only, authorship assigned to Ehlers 1870).? Phylosiphonia (Anatoxius) pumila Von Lendenfeld, 1887: 799 (synonymy suggested by Hooper & Wiedenmayer 1994: 105,

but judged here unlikely). Callyspongia tubulosa ; Burton 1936: 141. Callyspongia (Callyspongia) tubulosa ; Samaai & Gibbons 2005: 83, figs 5O, 59A–B; Van Soest et al. 2020: 61. [not: Spongia tubulosa sensu Pallas 1766: 383 , sp. 229; nec: Scypha tubulosa sensu Gray 1821: 357 = both Grantia compressa

( Fabricius, 1780)]

Original description: ‘ Spongia tubulosa ramosa’ (i.e. ramose tubular sponge).

Type material: Unknown. I propose as neotype Scottish National Museum NMS.Z.1921.143.1461.2.1, collected by the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition at stat. 478, Table Bay, South Africa, approximate coordinates 33.9°S 18.45°E, May 1904; with this designation the unknown type locality (cf. below) is fixed .

The Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany still holds a collection of 13 slides of Esper’s specimen of Spongia tubulosa from Cape of Good Hope ( ZMB Por 4576). The slides are labelled as ‘TYPE’ and were made from a dried specimen described by Ehlers (1870: 19). The Ehlers material, originally kept in Erlangen, was donated to the museum in Munich. From Munich some of the Ehlers specimens, including Siphonochalina tubulosa sensu Ehlers , were subsequently sent to Berlin by Thiele in 1902. The S. tubulosa sections were made in Berlin by Wilhelm Weltner and survived until today, but the specimen from which they were made is so far not identified in the Berlin collection (information provided in litteris by Dr Carsten Lüter, June 28, 2023). The slides are important as testimony of the likely affiliation of Linnaeus’ species, but they cannot serve as type material because the Linnaeus material has not survived (as the slides were made from Esper’s material). The slides as a possible remnant of the first ‘hypotype’ of Linnaeus’ tubulosa could collectively be eligible for designation of a neotype, but this is not demanded by the Code. I prefer to designate the specimen chosen here as neotype representing a well-preserved ‘wet’entire specimen.

Molecular sequences: none.

Remarks: The first report of the present species is by Boerhaave 1727: 9 as ‘ Spongia ramosa fistulosa millepora’ (i.e. ramose fistular sponge with many holes). The next description is by Van Royen (1740: 522) who gave the same description as Linnaeus 1753b: 1170, and 1759. Linnaeus 1753b added that the sponge originated in ‘Indiis’ (East Indies).

Pallas [1766: 383, see also Boddaert (1768) and Wilkens (1787)] used the combination without referring to Linnaeus (nor to Boerhaave and Van Royen, or any other author) and described under this name a clearly different sponge: ‘ Spongia compressa sessilis rigidula flavescens, tubulis longitudinalibus porosa’ (i.e. flatly compressed stiff yellowish sponge with longitudinal tubules). In his further comments, Pallas stated that the flat bodies were lying on the rocks and that they occurred in ‘Mare Americanum’. Because the description and the locality do not match with the data provided by Boerhaave, Van Royen, and Linnaeus, the combination is a junior homonym (see further below).

Pallas (1766: 392, sp. 241) described a different zoophyte, Spongia fastigiata , for which he gave Linnaeus’ 1759 Spongia tubulosa as a synonym (thus again changing the name of an already described sponge). He referred to Seba’s (1758: 185, pl. CXVII fig. 2, here reproduced as Fig. 15A , ‘ Spongia densa , fungosa, tubulosis ex parte ramis’ (i.e. dense mold-like sponge with branched tubes), see also Wilkens, 1787 fig. 75, a clear copy of Seba’s figure). Both images show a likely zoanthid, not a sponge.

Linnaeus (1767) and Gmelin in Linnaeus (1791) maintained Spongia tubulosa as a valid species, changing the definition slightly to ‘ Spongia tubulosa ramosissima fastigiata tenax’ (i.e. a strongly branched firm tubular sponge), listing Pallas’ Spongia fastigiata as a junior synonym, but also erroneously adopting Seba’s pl. XCVII fig 2 as an image representing S. tubulosa .

Houttuyn (1772: 441, pl. CXXXV fig. 1, here reproduced as Fig. 15B ) reported the species from Ceylon, but he was puzzled by Pallas’ description and it is not clear that this specimen is conspecific with Linnaeus’ species. It certainly deviates from images provided by later authors, cf. below. His specimen remains unidentified.

Ellis & Solander (1786: pl. 58 fig. 7, here reproduced as Fig. 15C ) described Spongia tubulosa (‘Pipy sponge’) citing only Linnaeus 1767 as reference. They report a tubular firmly elastic hollow sponge with reticulated surface, yellow to orange coloured, which was brought to them from Batavia (= Jakarta, Indonesia) by a William Webber.

Esper [1796: pl. LVI, 1797: 196 (text)] discussed the species citing only Linnaeus (1767, not 1759), gave all the references known at that time (including Spongia fastigiata Pallas ) and provided the image of pl. LVI (here reproduced in Fig. 15D ). He also included an image (pl. LV) of what he thought was Spongia tubulosa sensu Pallas 1766 (not Linnaeus), which he assigned to Spongia compressa Fabricius, 1780 , but this assignment is a clear mistake. The latter is a small calcareous sponge, currently named Grantia compressa ( Fabricius, 1780) , whereas Esper’s image is a coarse fan-shaped sponge with a row of large oscules along the upper rim. Ehlers (1870: 20) redescribed Esper’s compressa and assigned it to the genus Homoeodictya , currently Isodictya , as a species from South African waters, cf. Van Soest et al. 2020: 17 (case 19). Spongia tubulosa sensu Pallas, 1766 is thus a senior synonym of Spongia compressa Fabricius, 1780 , but as Pallas’ name is a junior homonym of S. tubulosa Linnaeus, 1759 , it needed to be replaced and Fabricius’ name is a convenient replacement name. Spongia compressa sensu Esper, 1796 is in turn a junior homonym of Fabricius’ S. compressa and Van Soest et al. 2020 proposed to invoke ICZN art. 23.9.5 to conserve Esper’s combination as the two are phylogenetically distant ( Calcarea genus Grantia vs. demosponge genus Isodictya ). This will need to be confirmed by the Commission of the ICZN. See more details in Van Soest et al. 2020: 60–61 (case 107).

Olivi (1792: 263) reported Spongia tubulosa sensu Pallas with question mark as common in the Northern Adriatic, but it is unclear which species he observed. He was apparently unaware of Linnaeus’ earlier use of the name combination,

Gray (1821) assigned S. tubulosa to his multiform genus Scypha and referred it to Ellis & Solander’s S. tubulosa and to S. fastigiata Pallas , but his remarks on shape and habitat make it unclear which species he meant, possibly he was confused by Pallas’ mistakes.

The affiliation of the present species is derived from the images provided by Ellis & Solander (1786) of a specimen from Indonesia, and by Esper (1796) of a specimen from South Africa. The Indonesian origin of Ellis & Solander’s specimen is possibly debatable, because transport in that time of the sponge material from Indonesia to Europe was usually by way of Cape of Good Hope. The Esper specimen was redescribed by Ehlers (1870: 19) and he reassigned it to Siphonochalina Schmidt, 1868 , followed by Stephens (1915) who gave a clear redescription of what she considered Esper’s species, failing to acknowledge that Esper assigned his specimens to Linnaeus. Esper’s specimen has since been considered lost, but see above for the presence of slides in the Berlin museum.

Von Lendenfeld (1887: 796) assigned the species to his genus Phylosiphonia the type species of which is currently classified as belonging to the genus Chalinula Schmidt, 1868 , but Hooper & Wiedenmayer (1994: 105) assigned P. tubulosa to Callyspongia Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864 . Additionally, Hooper & Wiedenmayer (1994: 105) considered Phylosiphonia pumila Von Lendenfeld, 1887: 799 (the habitus is here reproduced in Fig. 15E ) a junior synonym of the present species, but spicule size and shape differ decidedly from those described by Ehlers and Stephens.

The species is currently named Callyspongia (Callyspongia) tubulosa , cf. Samaai & Gibbons 2005: 83, but the descriptions by Ehlers and Stephens are not indicative of the genus Callyspongia , the genus to which Ehlers’ specimen and later, Stephens’ specimens were referred - without explanation – by Burton (1936: 141) followed by Hooper & Wiedenmayer (1994) and Samaai & Gibbons (2005). In all descriptions cited here there is no mention of a tangential double-meshed ectosomal skeleton, which is the typical feature of the genus Callyspongia (cf. Desqueyroux-Faúndez & Valentine 2002). The species is here returned to genus Siphonochalina Schmidt, 1868 .

Species diagnosis: (after Stephens 1915: 457–459, pl. XL fig. 10). A thin base on which a group of coalesced tubes are situated. Size (length x width x height) up to 18 x 13 x 7 cm. Tubes conical, 15–20 mm at the base and narrowing to up to 7 mm at the tip, with the oscula measuring 2–7 mm. Colour in situ beige with purple patches, yellowish brown in alcohol. Skeleton a rectangular skeleton of spicule tracts cemented by ample spongin, 60–100 µm in thickness, with mesh diameter 200–400 µm. The ascending tracts end at the surface in short spicule brushes, but there is no ectosomal tangential double network. Connecting tracts thinner, 50–70 µm in thickness, with less spicules than in the main fibres. Spicules are oxeas 110–150 x up to 13 µm.

An image of the neotype specimen is here figured in Fig. 16A . On non-deck image of a recently collected specimen from South Africa reproduced from Samaai & Gibbons 2005 is here provided in Fig. 15F .

Distribution ( Fig. 16B ). South Africa, probably wider Indo-West Pacific; Burton’s record of the species from the Northern Red Sea is unsubstantiated; Australian occurrence reported by Hooper & Wiedenmayer (1994) is also unsubstantiated.

Figures

FIGURE 15. Images assigned to Siphonochalina tubulosa by various authors (originally as Spongia). A. Seba’s ‘Spongia densa, fungosa, tubulosisexparteramis’ (1758:185, pl.CXVII fig.2,recognized subsequently as a zoanthid,not a sponge); B. Houttuyn’s Spongia tubulosa ‘Zeehandschoen’ from Ceylon (1772: 441, pl. CXXXV fig. 1, species not identified); C. Ellis & Solander’s Spongia tubulosa ‘Pipy sponge’, specimen from Batavia, (1786: pl. 58 fig. 7); D. Esper’s Spongia tubulosa from Cape of Good Hope, South Africa (1796: pl. LVI), redescribed by Ehlers (1870: 18); E. Von Lendenfeld’s habitus photo of Phylosiphonia (Anatoxius) pumila (1887: 799, pl. XXIII fig. 52), reassigned (likely unjustified) to the synonymy of Callyspongia tubulosa by Hooper & Wiedenmayer (1994: 105); F. Samaai & Gibbons’ on deck photo of a specimen of Callyspongia (Callyspongia) tubulosa collected in South Africa (2015: 83, fig. 5O).

FIGURE 16. A. Neotype of Siphonochalina tubulosa (Linnaeus, 1759 as Spongia), designated herein, reg. nr. Scottish National Museum NMS.Z.1921.143.1461.2.1 (photo © Scottish National Museum, courtesy Ms Fiona Ware); B. distribution of Siphonochalina tubulosa (L.), dots are WPD data, squares are OBIS data (image downloaded from the World Porifera Database, cf. De Voogd et al. 2023, as Callyspongia (Callyspongia) tubulosa).

FIGURE 17. Images assigned to Callyspongia (Cladochalina) aculeata by various authors (originally as Spongia). A. Sloane’s ‘Spongia dura seu spuria, superficie apicibus acutis extantibus aspera intus cavernosa’ from Jamaica (1707: pl 23 fig. 4); B. Wilkens’ Spongia villosa, ‘Der Haarzottenschwamm’ (1787: pl. XXVI fig. 76); C. Plukenet’s ‘Spongia marina fistulosa maxima muricata’ (1691: pl. CXII fig. 4); D. Petiver’s ‘Spongia typhoides muricata’ from the American Sea (1712: pl. 19 fig. 9); E. Rumphius’ ‘Chirotheca marina’ from Indonesia (1750: pl. 90 fig. 2); F1. Esper’s erroneously labeled ‘Spongia muricata’ (1790: pl. VII fig. 1); F2. Esper’s correctly labeled Spongia aculeata (1790: pl. VIIA fig. 2 fig. 1); G. Turgot’s ‘Éponge composée de plusieurs tuyaux’ from East and West Indies (1758: 136, pl. XXIV fig. B); H. in situ photo of Callyspongia (Cladochalina) aculeata in the Curaçao reefs, photo M.J. de Kluijver.