Aplysina fistularis ( 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 : 25-28

Aplysina fistularis ( Linnaeus, 1759)

Figs 13A–E , 14A–B .

Spongia fistulosa Linnaeus, 1759: 1348 , sp. 5; Bowerbank 1864: 210; 1866: 15; Wiedenmayer 1977: 64.

Spongia fistularis Pallas, 1766: 385 , sp. 232 (also Boddaert 1768; 495 and Wilkens 1787: 222); Linnaeus, 1767: 1298, sp. 4; Gmelin in Linnaeus 1791: 3818, sp. 4; Esper 1791c: pls XX–XXIA, 1794: 228 (text); Lamarck 1814: 435.

Spongia tubaeformis Lamarck, 1814: 435 .

Aplysina fistularis ; Topsent 1932: 71, pl. III fig. 7; Wiedenmayer 1977: 63; Pinheiro et al. 2007: 10 , figs 3C, 5–6.

Aplysina fistularis fistularis ; Van Soest 1978: 56, pl. X fig. 4.

Original description: ‘ Spongia simplex tubulosa’ (i.e. single-tubed sponge).

Type material: De Laubenfels (1948: 82) designated Spongia fistularis sensu Lamarck 1814: 435 as the neotype for the species sensu Pallas 1766. This assignment gave cause for discussion, see Wiedenmayer 1977: 64 and Pinheiro et al. 2007: 10. The problem was that De Laubenfels failed to indicate which of the three specimens described by Lamarck under this name he meant to be the neotype, which effectively renders the neotype designation void. Pinheiro et al. 2007 corrected the neotype assignment to one of Lamarck’s specimens, MNHN LBIM DT 598 (originally named Spongia tubaeformis Lamarck, 1814: 435 , nr. 64, redescribed by Topsent (1932: 71, pl. III fig. 7) as Aplysina fistularis ). Despite the irregularities I confirm that the latter designation is valid.

Molecular sequence information: there are no sequences of the dried neotype.

Remarks: The original species name, Spongia fistulosa is problematic for three reasons: Linnaeus’ 10 th edition of the Systema Naturae (i.e. Linnaeus, 1759) is the only time he used the name, as he dropped the name entirely in the 12 th and the 13 th editions, presumably because Pallas (1766) assigned the name as a synonym of his Spongia fistularis (currently accepted as the common Caribbean species Aplysina fistularis ). In contrast with Spongia nodosa (cf. above), which is a similar case of Pallas replacing a Linnaeus name with one of his own, Linnaeus apparently accepted Pallas’ name without further resistance. The second problem is that Pallas insisted that Spongia fistularis (including Linnaeus’ S. fistulosa ) occurred in the ‘Mare Americanum’, whereas Linnaeus changed this locality in the later editions (1767 and 1791) and stated that it occurred in the ‘Oceano indico’. The third problem is that the name is a senior secondary homonym of Euspongia irregularis var. fistulosa Von Lendenfeld, 1889 .

The first mention of the species is found in Linnaeus (1737b: 480), with the definition ‘ Spongia simplex tubulosa’, which is in contrast with the two-tubed image in the reference he gives for it, viz. Sloane (1707: 62, pl. 23 fig. 2, here reproduced in Fig. 13A ) with ‘description’ as ‘ Spongia dura sive spuria major alba fistulosa, fibris crassioribus‘ (i.e. a hard sponge with whitish fistules and thick fibers) from Jamaica, still preserved in the Natural History Museum, London, as Sloane Vegetable Substance no. 185. The Sloane reference was repeated in Van Royen (1740: 522). Ditto in Linnaeus (1753b: 1170), but here Linnaeus added the name Spongia fistulosa and he noted ‘Habitat in mari ad Antillas’.

Pallas (1766: 385, sp. 232) changed the name to S. fistularis and the definition to ‘ Spongia tubulosa simplex attenuata rigida, extus tuberculosa’ (i.e. single tubular sponge, hard and narrow, with external tubercles). He cited Sloane (1707), but a different specimen (‘ Spongia dura seu spuria maxima ramosa fistulosa’, i.e. a hard or spurious sponge with very large ramose fistules) and a different image (pl. 24 fig. 1, here reproduced as Fig. 13B ) compared to Linnaeus’ (1737b), specimen still preserved in the Natural History Museum, London, as Sloane Vegetable Substance no. 128. He also cited Linnaeus 1759 and Seba (1758: pl. 95 figs 1 and 7, here reproduced in Figs 13C 1– 2 ). More images were published by Esper (1791c) (here reproduced as Figs 13D 1–4 ) and these were discussed in Ehlers (1870: 13). Pallas’ descriptive notes and cited images leave little doubt that this sponge is what is currently understood as Aplysina fistularis . This is definitely not a species that is known to occur in the East Indies, whereas for unknown reasons Linnaeus (1767) and (1791) - using S. fistularis and omitting the name S. fistulosa - insisted that its habitat was the Indian Ocean.

Perhaps because of Linnaeus’ inconsistency, subsequent authors listing and describing this sponge, used the combination Spongia fistularis and ignored the combination Spongia fistulosa . Some exceptions were found: Bowerbank (1864: 209) erected a genus Verongia , of which the type species was cited as Spongia fistulosa Lamarck, 1814 , a misprint for Spongia fistularis sensu Lamarck 1814: 435 . Wiedenmayer (1977: 64) gave Spongia fistulosa the verdict nomen nudum. This latter qualification is undeserved as Linnaeus gave an - admittedly very short – descriptive definition and cited a reference with clear image in his pre-1759 work. The name is available according to ICZN art. 11 and meets the requirements of art. 12. Nevertheless, Linnaeus’ acceptance of Pallas’ renaming of this species must be construed as an admission of misspelling of the originally intended name, even though it is not explained by Linnaeus. ICZN art. 33.2.3.1 stipulates that the corrected name fistularis when it is in prevailing use can be maintained if authorship is attributed to the original author and year. Thus, the species name Aplysina fistularis is not to be attributed to Pallas but to Linnaeus 1759.

Euspongia irregularis var. fistulosa Von Lendenfeld, 1889: 249 from the Bahamas, if transferred to Spongi a (because Euspongia is a junior synonym of Spongia ), becomes a junior secondary homonym of the present species. Since both are no longer considered congeneric, no new name is required (ICZN art. 59.2). There is no image and there are no comments on the identity of this variety in the literature. The online catalogue of the Natural History Museum, London (accessed in 2023) does not list material of Lendenfeld’s variety, despite Von Lendenfeld’s statement that it was in the BMNH collection. Von Lendenfeld (l.c. p. 250) suggested that his new variety was close to Spongia tubulifera Lamarck, 1814 , so for the time being until a close comparative study can be made, I propose to assign this variety as a junior synonym to Lamarck’s species.

Species diagnosis: (after Pinheiro et al. 2007: 10, figs 3C, 5–6, Table III). Cylindrical tubes with large apical pseudoscule provided with ‘iris-type’diaphragm in life, growing singly or in groups, reaching lengths of 1 m or more and with a width of up to 9–10 cm. Surface generally irregular (occasionally more or less smooth), with shallow-ridges, folds, and with digitiform processes. Colour yellow or ochre in situ, turning purple or dark brown in alcohol and black in dried condition. Consistency firm. Skeleton a dense network of fibres, 37–275 µm in thickness, forming irregular polygonal meshes of up to 1 mm in size. Fibres with yellow-coloured laminated bark, dark amber pith occupying up to 70% of fibre thickness (usually less).

The image of the neotype specimen is here reproduced in Fig. 13F , from Topsent (1932: 71, pl. III fig. 7). An in situ image of the species growing on the reefs of Curaçao is reproduced in Fig. 14A .

Distribution ( Fig. 14B ). Greater Caribbean, including Florida, Bahamas and Bermuda, North and East Brazil.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Pages reproduced from A. Van Royen 1740 (pp. 521–522) treating Spongia species. Note that only 10 species were listed (Spongia fluviatilis was omitted compared to Linnaeus 1753b cf. Fig. 2) and the order of presentation is different.

FIGURE 2. Pages reproduced from C. Linnaeus’ 1753b ‘Species plantarum’ (pp. 1169–1171) treating Spongia species. Note that the genus was assigned to the Cryptogamia order Algae, but curiously S. lacustris and S. fluviatilis were assigned to order Fungi. Note also, that according to ICZN art. 3.2. no names published before January 1 1758 enter zoological nomenclature, making the Spongia name combinations of 1753 unavailable.

FIGURE 3. Pages from Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae, 10th edition, vol. II, left the title page, right p. 1348 containing the list and ‘descriptions’ of Spongia. All Spongia species were assigned to the order Algae, but they remain available as animals according to ICZN art. 10.5. Note that the individual descriptions were copied verbatim from A. van Royen (Fig. 1) and from Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum’ (Fig. 2).

FIGURE 4. Images assigned to Spongia (Spongia) officinalis by various authors, A. Tournefort’s ‘Spongia ad usum praestantissima’ (1700, pl. 342, lower image, specimen of unknown origin, probably used as an example for the genus rather than for the species); B. Ellis (1766: pl. X figs D–E), lobate fragment and cross section of the ‘common officinal sponge’, likewise no locality mentioned; C. Esper (1791b, pl. XV), specimen of Spongia officinalis from undisclosed origin; D. Euspongia officinalis adriatica, various growth forms from the Adriatic depicted by Schulze (1879: pl. XXIV figs 1–7), figs 5–7 are from E. (S.) exigua, both subspecies are junior synonyms of S. (S.) officinalis; E. photo of outer- and inner side of the neotype BMNH 1883.12.4.28 of Spongia officinalis copied from De Laubenfels 1948: figs. 1–2.

FIGURE 13. Images assigned to Aplysina fistularis by various authors (originally as Spongia fistulosa). A. Sloane’s ‘Spongia dura sive spuria major alba fistulosa, fibris crassioribus‘ (1707: 62, pl. 23 fig. 2, from Jamaica); B. Sloane’s ‘Spongia dura seu spuria maxima ramosa fistulosa’ (1707: 62, pl. 24 fig. 1, from Jamaica); C1–2. Seba’s ‘Spongia fistulata simplex’ (1758: 183, pl. 95 figs 1, 7); D1–4. Esper’s Spongia fistularis (1791c: pls XX–XXI); E. Lamarck’s Spongia tubaeformis, redescribed as Aplysina fistularis by Topsent (1932: 72, pl. III fig. 7), neotype designated by Pinheiro et al. 2007.

FIGURE 14. A. In situ image of Aplysina fistularis growing on the Curaçao reefs, photo E. Westinga (see also Van Soest 1978: pl. X fig. 2), B. distribution of Aplysina fistularis (L.), dots are WPD data, squares are OBIS data (image downloaded from the World Porifera Database, cf. De Voogd et al. 2023).