Suberites inconstans var. digitata Dendy 1887
Creators: name: Van Soest, Rob W. M.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2024
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Porifera
Demospongiae
Suberitida
Suberitidae
Suberites
Suberites inconstans
Suberites inconstans var. digitata dendy, 1887

description: Suberites inconstans var. digitata Dendy, 1887
(Fig. 8F)
Suberites inconstans var. digitata Dendy, 1887: 155, pl. IX fig.2.
The variety was described by Dendy as the third of three varieties of Suberites inconstans Dendy, 1887, all from the same locality off Rameswaram Island, Gulf of Mannar, approximate coordinates 13.08°N 80.3°E (lectotype BMNH 1887.8.4.3 designated by Vosmaer (1911: 19), with paralectotype BMNH 1887.8.4.4 and an additional paralectotype in the Madras Museum, now Government Museum, Chennai). Dendy overlooked the presence of spirasters in his specimens, but Thiele (1900: 71, footnote) recognized this omission and transferred Dendy’s specimens to Spirastrella inconstans. Dendy’s first mentioned variety, Suberites inconstans var. globosa (cf. below) is indicated here as the nominotypical variety and following the rules of the ICZN it should be renamed S. inconstans var. inconstans (ICZN art. 46-47). It is proposed below to be merged with the second variety, S. inconstans var. maeandrina (cf. below) because the two are closely similar. However, even Vosmaer (1911) in his review of the genus Spirastrella where he proposed an unprecedented synonymization of 30 described species of Spirastrella into a single species, recognized that S. inconstans var. digitata differed considerably from the other two varieties in texture and skeletal arrangement. He assigned them to two different ‘tropi’ (a type of infraspecific taxon, seven of which were created by Vosmaer), tropus ‘tubulifera’ for the present variety and tropus ‘glaebosa’ for the varieties globosa and meandrina. I confirm here that the var. digitata appears different from the other two varieties and since all were from the same locality I propose to give it the status of a valid species to be named Spheciospongia digitata (Dendy, 1887). There is already a different species named Spirastrella digitata Hentschel, 1909, which is also currently assigned to Spheciospongia. Thus, with the above proposed transfer I create a junior secondary homonym for Hentschel’s species (cf. ICZN art. 59.1), and accordingly I rename this species Spheciospongia hentscheli nom. nov. to remove the homonymy.
The taxonomy of the Indo-Pacific members of the genus Spheciospongia remains understudied and comparison of described species and subspecies is highly necessary. The present species appears similar to Spheciospongia vagabunda (Ridley, 1884 as Spirastrella) in shape and skeletal details as some authors pointed out in the past. For completeness sake, I mention here that Burton (1959: 208), inspired by Vosmaer’s (1911) proposals, synonymized all the above and still following ‘ Spirastrella ’ species under a single species name, Spirastrella cuspidifera (Lamarck, 1815 as Alcyonium). Like Vosmaer’s proposals, this was not acknowledged by most of the contemporary and subsequent sponge taxonomists. Alcyonium cuspidifera is currently assigned to a separate genus Cervicornia Ŗtzler & Hooper, 2000.
description: Published as part of Van Soest, Rob W. M., 2024, Correcting sponge names: nomenclatural update of lower taxa level Porifera, pp. 1-122 in Zootaxa 5398 (1) on page 77, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5398.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/10494167