Leucosolenia blanca var. bathybia Poléjaeff, 1883

Van Soest, Rob W. M., 2024, Correcting sponge names: nomenclatural update of lower taxa level Porifera, Zootaxa 5398 (1), pp. 1-122 : 92

Leucosolenia blanca var. bathybia Poléjaeff, 1883

( Fig. 10D )

Leucosolenia blanca var. bathybia Poléjaeff, 1883: 37 , pl. I fig. 2, pl. III fig. 3; Topsent 1892: 22, pl. V fig. 3.

The variety was described by Poléjaeff from off the Azores, Challenger Exped. Stat. 75, 38.6167°N 28,5°W, depth 823 m (type material not identified, presumably kept in BMNH). Miklucho-Maclay (1868: 222, pl. IV figs. 1–9, pl. V figs. 10–20) described Clathrina blanca (as Guancha ) from the intertidal zone of Arrecife, Lanzarote, Canary Islands, approximate coordinates 28,5°N 16.6667°W (type material not identified). One of the features distinguishing the present variety from the typical variety is the size of the specimens, up to 28 mm against less than 10 mm in the typical variety. Miklucho-Maclay’s specimens appear rather different from Poléjaeff’s description and according to Miklucho-Maclay its spicules are equiangular-equiactinal. Poléjaeff stated that the basal and paired actines differ in size (basal 1.2–1.5 x paired) and are thus parasagittal. However, parasagittal spicules are clearly also illustrated by Miklucho-Maclay (pl. V fig. 11) (also confirmed by Von Lendenfeld 1891: 219 and Imesek et al. 2014: 24, fig. 2d), so this cannot be considered a difference. Von Lendenfeld (1891: 218, pl. VIII fig. 3) considered the present variety as conspecific with the typical variety, but he only had Adriatic material.

Topsent (1936: 9–14, as Leucosolenia ) discussed various individuals, shapes, and spicules, and a.o. erected an additional variety (cf. below). Burton (1930c; 1963) also classed Miklucho-Maclay’s Guancha blanca as different from Poléjaeff’s Clathrina blanca var. bathybia , but assigned it to the synonymy of the Australian Clathrina macleayi ( Von Lendenfeld, 1885 as Ascetta ). This latter synonymy is not likely as blanca and bathybia are both from the North Atlantic.

Possibly, both varieties are conspecific, but in view of the depth range and shape differences it is prudent to keep them as distinct for the time being. Accordingly, I propose to elevate the variety to the rank of species as Clathrina bathybia ( Poléjaeff, 1883) .

Figures

FIGURE 10. A. Suberites microstomus var. stellatus Kirkpatrick, 1908: pl. XV figs. 10, 13, B. Suberites rugosa Kim & Sim, 2021: fig. 7, C. Suberites tortuosa var. austral Cuartas, 1986: fig. 14, D. Leucosolenia blanca var. bathybia Poléjaeff, 1883: pl. I fig. 2, E. Leucosolenia blanca var. brevicaulis Topsent, 1936: fig. 4, F. Grantia ciliata var. spinispiculum; Carter, 1884: pl. VIII, G–I. Leucandra donnani var. tenuiradiata Dendy, 1916, G–H. habitus pl. I figs. 4a–b, I. spicules pl. II figs. 9a–d, J. Leucandra gossei var. mahonica Topsent, 1937b: fig. 1, K. Leucandra regina var. regularis Brøndsted, 1927b: fig. 12.