Helgoländer Meeresuntersuchungen

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 369–390 | Cite as

Skeletal morphology of two controversial Poecilosclerid genera (Porifera, Demospongiae):Discorhabdella andCrambe

  • M. Maldonado
  • M. J. Uriz


The generaDiscorhabdella andCrambe are characterized by bearing uncommon spicule types, i.e. pseudoastrose acanthostyles and sphaeroclones, respectively. They have traditionally been considered to be unrelated taxa, but the present reexamination made evident that an important amount of skeletal features are shared by both. Some of these morphological features, such as the ornamentation on the point of the ectosomal subtylostyles, are reported for the first time. The study also revealed that a tuberose nature of the tyles of the main choanosomal megascleres could be a common ancestral condition in both genera. The morphology of the multi-toothed anchorate chelae showed a gradual transition across the species, suggesting that the morphological diversity in chelae was generated in these genera through a “palmate-anchorate-arcuate” evolutionary sequence. However, the forward or backward direction of this sequence remained unclear from the available evidence. Important levels of skeletal variability were found to affect many of the skeletal characters, especially in the genusCrambe. In some cases, this variability transgressed the limits theoretically defining a species, making evident that the traditional procedure just based on comparison of the skeletons becomes unreliable when tackling the taxonomy of these genera. Most of the skeletal variability seemed to correspond to genetic polymorphisms, except in the case ofC. acuata. In this taxon, the skeletal variability could be a result of the existence of a cryptic species, originated by a misconceived synonymy betweenC. acuata andC. chelastra. Besides the skeletal variability, the obscure taxonomic meaning of many skeletal features favored the existence of conflicting taxonomic proposals for the suprageneric location of these genera, depending on the author’s criteria. This study made evident that any subsequent attempt of phylogenetic inference should be based on an unweighted analysis of the available skeletal information.

Literature Cited

  1. Bibiloni, M. A., 1990. Fauna de esponjas de las Islas Baleares. Variación cualitativa y cuantitativa de la población de esponjas en un gradiente batimétrico. Comparación Baleares-Costa Catalana. Diss., Univ. Barcelona, 483 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Boury-Esnault, N., 1971. Spongiaires de la zone rocheuse de Banyuls-sur-Mer. II. Systématique. —Vie Milieu22, 287–350.Google Scholar
  3. Boury-Esnault, N., Pansini, M. & Uriz, M. J., 1992. A newDiscorhabdella (Porifera, Demospongiae), a new Tethyan relict of pre-Messinian biota? — J. nat. Hist.26, 1–27.Google Scholar
  4. Burton, M., 1929. Descriptions of South African sponges. Part II: The “Lithistidae”, with a critical survey of the desma-forming sponges. — Rep. Fish. mar. biol. Surv. S. Afr.7, 1–12.Google Scholar
  5. Dendy, A., 1924. Porifera. Part I: Non-Antarctic sponges. — Br. antarct. Terra Nova Exped. 1910–1913 (Zool.)6, (3), 269–392.Google Scholar
  6. Hajdu, E., Soest, R. W. M. van & Hooper, J. N. A., 1994. Proposal for a phylogenetic subordinal classification of poecilosclerid sponges. In: Sponges in time and space. Ed. by R. W. M. van Soest, Th. M. G. van Kempen & J. C. Braekman, Balkema, Rotterdam, 123–139.Google Scholar
  7. Hinde, G. J. & Holmes, W. M., 1892. On the sponge remains in the Lower Tertiary Strata near Oamaru, New Zealand. — J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.)24, 177–262.Google Scholar
  8. Laubenfels, M. W. de, 1936. A discussion of the sponge fauna of the Dry Tortugas in particular and the West Indies in general, with material for a revision of the families and orders of the Porifera. —Pap. Tortugas Lab.30 (467), 1–225.Google Scholar
  9. Laubenfels, M. W. de, 1955. Porifera. In: Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Part E. Ed. by R. C. Moore. Geol. Soc. Am., New York, 21–212.Google Scholar
  10. Lendenfeld, R. von, 1903. Tetraxonia. — Das Tierreich19, 1–168.Google Scholar
  11. Lévi, C., 1958. Résultats scientifiques des campagnes de la “Calypso”. Campagne 1951–1952 en Mer Rouge. Spongiaires de Mer Rouge. — Annls Inst. océanogr. Monaco34, 3–46.Google Scholar
  12. Lévi, C., 1960. Les spongiaires à desmes astéroïdes. — Bull. Inst. océanogr. Monaco57, (1179), 1–8.Google Scholar
  13. Lévi, C., 1961. Résultats scientifiques des campagnes de la “Calypso”. XIV. Campagne 1954 dans l’Océan Indien. 2. Les spongiaires de l’Île Aldabra. — Annls Inst. océanogr., Monaco39, 3–32.Google Scholar
  14. Lévi, C., 1963. Spongiaires d’Africa du Sud (1) Poecilosclerides. — Trans. R. Soc. S. Africa37 (1), 1–71.Google Scholar
  15. Lévi, C., 1973. Systématique de la classe des Demospongiaria (Démosponges). In: Traité de zoologie. T. 3, 1: Spongiaires: Anatomie, physiologie, systématique, écologie. Ed. by P. P. Grassé. Masson, Paris, 577–631.Google Scholar
  16. Lévi, C., 1991. Lithistid sponges from the Norfolk Rise. Recent and Mesozoic genera. In: Fossil and Recent sponges. Ed. by J. Reitner & H. Keupp. Springer, New York, 72–82.Google Scholar
  17. Maldonado, M. & Benito, J., 1991.Crambe tuberosa n. sp. (Demospongiae, Poecilosclerida): a new Mediterranean poecilosclerid with lithistid affinities. — Cah. Biol. mar.32, 323–332.Google Scholar
  18. Maldonado, M., 1993. Demosponjas litorales de Alborán. Faunística y biogeografía. Diss., Univ. Barcelona, 499 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Maldonado, M. & Uriz, M. J., 1995. Biotic affinities in a transitional zone between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean: an approach based on sponges. — J. Biogeography22, 89–110.Google Scholar
  20. Moret, L., 1925. Contribution à l’étude des spongiaires silicieus du Crétacé supérieur français. —Mém. Soc. géol. Fr.5, 1–303.Google Scholar
  21. Pulitzer-Finali, G., 1992. A collection of marine sponges from East Africa. — Annali Mus. civ. Stor. nat. Giacomo Doria89, 247–350.Google Scholar
  22. Reid, R. E. H., 1970. Tetraxons and demosponge phylogeny. — Symp. zool. Soc. London25, 63–89.Google Scholar
  23. Saether, O. A., 1979. Underlying synapomorphy and anagenetic analysis. — Zool. Scr.8, 305–312.Google Scholar
  24. Saether, O. A., 1983. The canalized evolutionary potential inconsistencies in phylogenetic reasoning. — Syst. Zool.32, 343–359.Google Scholar
  25. Sluys, R., 1989. Rampant parallelism: an appraisal of the use of nonuniversal derived character states in phylogenetic reconstruction. — Syst. Zool.38, 350–370.Google Scholar
  26. Schmidt, O., 1868. Die Spongien der Küste von Algier. Mit Nachträgen zu den Spongien des Adriatischen Meeres. Engelmann, Leipzig, 44 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Schmidt, O., 1879. Report on the Sponges. I. Spongien des Meerbusen von Mexico. Fischer, Jena, 32 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Soest, R. W. M. van & Stentoft, N., 1988. Barbados deep-water sponges. — Stud. Fauna Curaçao Caribb. Isl.122, 1–175.Google Scholar
  29. Templado, J., Guerra, A., Bedoya, J., Moreno, D., Remón, J. M., Maldonado, M. & Ramos, M. A., 1993. Fauna circalitoral del sur de la península ibérica. Resultados de la campaña oceanográfica “Fauna I”. C.S.I.C., Madrid, 133 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Topsent, E., 1892. Contribution a l’étude des spongiaires de l’Atlantique Nord. — Résult. Camp. scient. Prince Albert I2, 1–165.Google Scholar
  31. Topsent, E., 1925. Etude de spongiaires du golfe de Naples. — Archs Zool. exp. gén.63, 623–725.Google Scholar
  32. Topsent, E., 1928. Spongiaires de l’Atlantique et de la Méditerranée, provenant des croissières du Prince Albert I de Monaco. — Résult. Camp. scient. Prince Albert I74, 1–376.Google Scholar
  33. Uriz, M. J., 1988. Deep-water sponges from the continental shelf and slope of Namibia (South-West Africa): Classes Hexactinellida and Demospongia. — Monogr. Zool. mar.3, 9–157.Google Scholar
  34. Uriz, M. J. & Maldonado, M., 1995. A reconsideration of the relationship between polyaxonid and monaxonid spicules in Demospongiae (Porifera): new data from the generaCrambe andDiscorhabdella. (Porifera) — Biol. J. Linn. Soc.55, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Uriz, M. J., Rosell, D. & Martin, D., 1992. The sponge population of the Cabrera Archipelago (Balearic Islands): characteristics, distribution and abundance of the most representative species. — Mar. Ecol.13, 101–117.Google Scholar
  36. Vacelet, J. & Boury-Esnault, N., 1982. Une nouvelle éponge du genreCrambe (Demospongiae, Poecilosclerida) de Méditerranée,C. tailliezi n. sp. — Trav. scient. Parc. natn. Port-Cros8, 107–113.Google Scholar
  37. Vacelet, J., Vasseur, P. & Lévi, C., 1976. Spongiaires de la pente externe des récifs coralliens de Tuléar (Sud-Ouest de Madagascar). — Mém. Mus. natn. Hist. nat. Paris (Sér. A: Zool.)99, 1–116.Google Scholar
  38. Vosmaer, G. C. J., 1880. The sponges of the Leyden Museum. I. The family of the Desmacidinae. —Not. Leyden Mus. II,18, 99–154.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Biologische Anstalt Helgoland 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Maldonado
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. J. Uriz
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Marine Sciences, Department of Larval EcologyHarbor Branch Oceanographic InstitutionFort PierceUSA
  2. 2.Department of Aquatic EcologyCentro de Estudios Avanzados de Blanes (C.S.I.C.)BlanesSpain

Personalised recommendations