Spongia linteiformis Lamarck, 1814

(Figs. 2 I-J)

Spongia linteiformis Lamarck, 1814: 456–457 .

Cacospongia linteiformis; Topsent 1933: 8, pl. I fig. 8; Fattorusso et al. 1992: 6923 (identified as ‘cf.’).

Not: Spongia linteiformis Esper, 1797: 205, pl. LVIII, figs. 1–2.

Lamarck’s species name is a junior primary homonym of Spongia linteiformis Esper (1797: 205, pl. LVIII) (here reproduced in Fig. 2J), although Lamarck did mention Esper’s name with a question mark. Topsent’s (1933: 8, pl. I fig. 8) redescription and illustration of the type specimen in MNHN, registration not currently known (reproduced here in Fig. 2I) make it amply clear that the two are different species, and also their localities are from different oceans (Lamarck’s specimen was from Puerto Rico, Esper’s from the Indian Ocean). Although the identity of Esper’s sponge is uncertain (it is not even certain that it concerns a sponge), Lamarck’s name must be replaced (ICZN art. 59.1) and I propose Scalarispongia lamarcki nom.nov., because from Topsent’s redescription I deduce that it is a member of genus Scalarispongia Cook & Bergquist, 2000 .

Fattorusso et al. (1992) reported biochemical information (unprecedented sesterterpenes) from a specimen from the Bahamas of this species identified with some uncertainty.

According to Topsent (1933: 9), Lamarck’s collection contained two additional specimens labeled Spongia linteiformis, one being Echinochalina favosa (Lamarck, 1814), currently Echinochalina (Echinochalina) barba (Lamarck, 1814), and one (labeled ‘var.’) being Ircinia gigantea Von Lendenfeld, 1888, currently Ircinia irregularis (Poléjaeff, 1884), a species from Australia.