Spongia (Spongia) officinalis 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 : 10-13

Spongia (Spongia) officinalis Linnaeus, 1759

Figs 4A–E , 5A–C .

Spongia officinalis Linnaeus, 1759: 1348 , sp. 1; Pallas 1766: 387, sp. 234 [also Boddaert 1768: 437 (Dutch translation), and

Wilkens 1787: 225 (German translation)]; Linnaeus 1767: 1298, sp. 8; Houttuyn 1772: 446; Schreber in Linnaeus 1782: 31;

Ellis & Solander 1786: 183; Poiret 1789: 60; Gmelin in Linnaeus 1791: 3820, sp. 8; Olivi 1792: 262; Esper 1791b: pl. XV,

1794: 218 (text); Bosc 1802: 142; Pronzato & Manconi 2011: 320 (not: Müller 1776: 256, Norway).? Spongia lacinulosa Lamarck, 1814: 370 (see discussion in Topsent 1931: 12). Spongia adriatica Schmidt, 1862: 20 , pl. II fig. 1. Spongia quarnerensis Schmidt, 1862: 22 , pl. II fig. 2, pl. III fig. 1. Euspongia officinalis var. adriatica ; Schulze 1879: 619, pl. XXIV figs 1–4. Euspongia officinalis var. exigua ; Schulze 1879: 620, pl. XXXIV figs. 5–7, pl. XXXV fig. 8, pl. XXXVI figs. 8–11, XXXVII figs. 9–10; Van Soest 2024: 16. Spongia (Spongia) officinalis ; Cook & Bergquist 2001: 35.

Original description: ‘ Spongia tenax subramosa, ramis difformibus pertusis’ (i.e. a tenacious sub-branched sponge, with deformed branches pierced). Later editions of the Systema Naturae slightly changed the definition by including that there are holes in the surface (‘perforatis’, ‘foraminulata’).

Type material: Neotype of Spongia (Spongia) officinalis BMNH 1883.12.4.28, identified by Schulze (1879) as Euspongia officinalis var. adriatica , designated by Burton (1934: 574), image from De Laubenfels 1948: figs. 1–2, here reproduced as Fig. 4E , see also below.

Molecular sequences of the neotype material were obtained by Agne et al. (2022) (see further information in the molecular chapter and Table 3).

Remarks: Linnaeus’ original description is based on pre-1758 works, cited in Van Royen (1740: 521) and in his own: Linnaeus (1749: 185, Materia Medica nr. 527) and Linnaeus (1753b:’Species Plantarum’ vol. II: 1169). Their sources were manifold: Imperato (1599: 727 as ‘ Spongia globosa’, ‘ Spongia compressa’, and ‘ Spongia compressa schiaciattae’); J. Bauhinus vol. 3 (1623: 814), and C. Bauhinus (1651: 368), citing ditto names; Ray (1686: 80, ditto names); Tournefort (1700: vol. I (text: 575), vol. III (pl. 342 lower image, here reproduced in Fig. 4A ) and Boerhaave (1727: 8), both as ‘ Spongia ad usum praestantissima’ and several Imperato names cited above. Curiously, Linnaeus (1753b) recorded the locality for this sponge as ‘Oceano australiore’. Most if not all pre-Linnean localities mentioned by the various authors report the species only from the Mediterranean, so Linnaeus’ locality is likely to be interpreted as ‘southern sea’ (not as Australian Sea), similar to some other Van Royen/Linnaeus records, e.g. the alga Plocamium cartilagineum ( Linnaeus, 1753b, as Fucus ) (cf. Algae Base, Guiry & Guiry 2021).

Ellis (1766: 285) in a letter to Solander described and pictured (pl. X figs D–E) lobate fragments of Spongia officinalis (named by him ‘common officinal sponge’, here reproduced as Fig. 4B ). In the later paper of Ellis & Solander (1786: 183–184) they expanded on this description and mentioned that the species was very common in the ‘Archipelago in the Mediterranean Sea’, presumably meaning the Greek Islands.

Pallas (1766: 387) cited an almost cosmopolitan distribution for the species (‘Mare Mediterraneum, Rubrum & forte Indicum atque Americanum’), whereas Linnaeus (1767: 1298) and Schreber in Linnaeus (1782: 31) restricted the species to the Mediterranean only. Gmelin in Linnaeus (1791: 3820) took an intermediate position by adding question marks to regions other than the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

Esper (1791b: pl. XV, 1794: 218) followed Pallas in this (his pl. XV is here reproduced as Fig. 4C ), mentioning the Red Sea and the American Sea. As we know now the records of Spongia officinalis from the Red Sea concern other closely related species, as do the records from the Caribbean and Indian Ocean.

Müller (1776) reported the species from Scandinavian waters, but this is likely a misapplication for Spongionella pulchella ( Sowerby, 1806) .

Nevertheless, these poorly substantiated distribution records from widespread oceanic regions were the reason for Schmidt (1862) to reject the name Spongia officinalis as a name for the Mediterranean bath sponge. He erected the combination Spongia adriatica for the common bath sponge of the Adriatic Sea, as well as additional local species, Spongia quarnerensis (currently a junior synonym), and Spongia mollissima (currently considered a valid species). Spongia adriatica was assigned to the status of a subspecies of Spongia officinalis by Schulze (1879 as Euspongia ), whose images of subsp. adriatica (figs 1–4) are here reproduced as Fig. 4D . Schulze’s action, as De Laubenfels (1948) justly remarked, caused it to become then the nominotypical subspecies to be renamed Spongia officinalis subsp. officinalis (ICZN art. 47.1). Schmidt’s Spongia adriatica is still represented by a syntype series of 4 specimens in the Graz Museum, LMJG 15384, (wet), 15404 (dried) (both from Sebenico, Croatia), 15474 (wet) from Quarnero, Croatia (mentioned in Schmidt’s text), and 15949 (dried) from Zlarin, Croatia) (cf. Desqueyroux-Faúndez & Stone 1882: 19). There are additional syntype specimens in London, BMNH 1867.7.26.31, see Pronzato & Manconi (2008: 152, Fig. 4C ).

Topsent (1931: 12) stated that Schmidt’s S. adriatica was a junior synonym of Lamarck’s Spongia lacinulosa , but in the absence of a specimen in Lamarck’s collection, this is difficult to prove.

The choice of the neotype ( Fig. 4E ) by Burton(1934: 575) is rather irregular as he discussed the representativeness of a specimen of Spongia officinalis sensu Esper, 1791b in the Erlangen University (named Euspongia officinalis var. quarnerensis by Ehlers 1870: 12) for Linnaeus’ species. Esper’s specimen was since then considered lost (cf. Stone & Valentine’s (1986) list of ‘Unlocated collections’, but recently some of the Esper specimens were relocated (C. Lüter in litteris). Perhaps with premonition (or coincidence) Burton instead picked one of the presumed Schmidt specimens from Lesina, Croatia, sent (as a gift?) to the Natural History Museum, London, by Schulze, then residing at LMJG. No specimens are currently registered in LMJG from Lesina, and Schmidt did not mention this particular locality in his description, but Lesina is certainly one of the places from which Schmidt obtained his specimens, rendering the neotype choice of Burton valid. Hooper & Wiedenmayer (1994: 393) suggested that the irregularities would possibly make neotype status ‘unjustified’, but I confirm here in accordance with Pronzato & Manconi (2008) that neotype status is correct. Burton also selected this specimen as lectotype of Spongia officinalis adriatica Schmidt, 1862 , so if for some unknown reason neotype status would be revoked in the future, the BMNH specimen is part of a syntype series and as such it maintains its type status.

Species diagnosis: (after Pronzato & Manconi 2011: 320, figs 173–174, with comprehensive synonymy; also the online document by Pronzato & Manconi 2018). Massive lobate sponge with finely conulose surface and wide oscules on top of the lobes. Colour light grey to black. Consistency compressible. Skeleton of uncored secondary fibres of 20–35 µm diameter, carrying the ectosome and connecting parallel primary fibres of 50–100 µm diameter, cored with spicule debris. Non-type material is shown here ( Figs 5A–B ) as representative in situ specimens from the Mediterranean. The species is a bath sponge of high quality, with threatened conservation status.

Distribution ( Fig. 5C ): Mediterranean, and nearby Eastern Atlantic (Northwestern Spain, Portugal, Canary Islands), cf. de Voogd et al. 2023.

Figures

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 5. A–B. In situ images of Spongia (Spongia) officinalis, A. specimen from the Italian Mediterranean, photo Pronzato & Manconi 2011: pl. Xd; B. specimens from the Aegean Sea, photo courtesy Prof. Eleni Voultsiadou, University of Thessaloniki; C. distribution records of Spongia (Spongia) officinalis, dots are WPD data, squares are OBIS data (image downloaded from the World Porifera Database, cf. De Voogd et al. 2023).