Spongia (Spongia) officinalis, sensu Esper, 1791

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 : 49-53

Spongia (Spongia) officinalis

A neotype fragment BMNH 1883.12.4.28 was sequenced by Agne et al. (2022: GenBank accession nrs. OP045591 and OP082411 , ITS and 28SrRNA sequences). The obtained sequences were not closely similar to those of fresh material of the species, no doubt because of shortness of the obtained sequences: Grenier et al. ’s (2023) 28SrRNA sequence (Genbank accession nr. OR291351) was only for 95% similar to those of Agne et al. (2022). Grenier et al. (2023) also provided COI sequences (Genbank accession nrs. OR297970–73), not available for the neotype. Previous to these studies, non-type sequences were reported by Borchiellini et al. (2004) from a specimen from the NW Mediterranean (18SrRNA, GenBank accession nr. AY348888 , and 28SrRNA Genbank accession nrs. AY348900 , apparently of a different 28SrRNA domain from that of the neotype). Ditto, a 28SrRNA sequence deposited in Genbank by Galitz (2020).

TABLE 3. Molecular sequence information of neotype specimens or reliably identified specimens of species described by Linnaeus 1759.

For each species representative sequences with their GenBank accession numbers are presented in the order: ITS, 28SrRNA, COI and 18SrRNA, if available, followed by the reference and the Marine Ecoregion of its origin, if specified.

* = neotype specimen.

......continued on the next page

TABLE 3. (Continued)

......continued on the next page

TABLE 3. (Continued)

Further COI sequences were reported by Dailianis et al. (2011), GenBank accession nrs. HQ830362 –4, from all over the Mediterranean. Erpenbeck et al. (2012) provided COI sequences, GenBank accession nr. JQ082842 , from a voucher ZMA Por. 14396 from Elba, Italian Mediterranean, collected by J. Hjort. Castritsi-Catharios et al. (2017) obtained COI sequences, GenBank accession nr. KY856937 , from Kalymnos, Greece. The latter sequence did not appear to be closely similar to the other COI sequences, possibly because its length was shorter.

Grenier et al. (2023) suggested the differences observed in the molecular sequence results by various authors necessitate a molecular revision of S. (S.) officinalis and its congeners. I support this suggestion, but their rejection of the sequences of the neotype as a tool in this revision appears counterproductive because a neotype has the function of an objective anchor for such a revision. There is a need to compare the neotype results of Agne et al. with those of fresh specimens.