Haliclona (Rhizoniera) dancoi Topsent 1901

Haliclona (Rhizoniera) dancoi (Topsent, 1901) (Fig. 23, Tab. 19) Haliclona dancoi (Topsent, 1901): Burton 1934: 6. Koltun 1964: 97, pl. 15, figs. 5, 6, 1976: 196. Synonymy: Chalina dancoi (Topsent, 1901): Burton 1929: 420. Reniera dancoi Topsent, 1901: 12, pl. 2, fig. 1, pl. 3, fig. 3. Kirkpatrick 1...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Göcke, Christian, Janussen, Dorte
Format: Text
Language:unknown
Published: Zenodo 2013
Subjects:
Online Access:https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145367
https://zenodo.org/record/6145367
id ftdatacite:10.5281/zenodo.6145367
record_format openpolar
institution Open Polar
collection DataCite Metadata Store (German National Library of Science and Technology)
op_collection_id ftdatacite
language unknown
topic Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Porifera
Demospongiae
Haplosclerida
Chalinidae
Haliclona
Haliclona dancoi
spellingShingle Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Porifera
Demospongiae
Haplosclerida
Chalinidae
Haliclona
Haliclona dancoi
Göcke, Christian
Janussen, Dorte
Haliclona (Rhizoniera) dancoi Topsent 1901
topic_facet Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Porifera
Demospongiae
Haplosclerida
Chalinidae
Haliclona
Haliclona dancoi
description Haliclona (Rhizoniera) dancoi (Topsent, 1901) (Fig. 23, Tab. 19) Haliclona dancoi (Topsent, 1901): Burton 1934: 6. Koltun 1964: 97, pl. 15, figs. 5, 6, 1976: 196. Synonymy: Chalina dancoi (Topsent, 1901): Burton 1929: 420. Reniera dancoi Topsent, 1901: 12, pl. 2, fig. 1, pl. 3, fig. 3. Kirkpatrick 1908: 53, pl. 18, fig. 3. Hentschel 1914: 134. Material. Several fragments of probably 2 different specimens from station 048- 1 (SMF 11802, 11842), 602.1 m, 70 ° 23.94 ' S, 8 ° 19.14 ' W, 12.01. 2008. Description. Specimens (Fig. 23 A) fragmentary. Some of whitish-beige color in ethanol (SMF 11802), others of darker, brownish color (SMF 11842), possibly representing two different specimens. Shape of living sponges unkwon. Fragments lamellar, about 5 mm in thickness. Surface hispid from protruding spicule tufts. In topview, triangular honeycomb structures between spicule tufts visible. Surface bearing several pores, larger ones probably oscules, about 2 to 4 mm in width, quite regularly arranged at distances of about 5 to 10 mm. Between these, smaller pores of about 0.5 to 1 mm diameter. Texture soft and fragile. Skeleton: Skeleton a rather regular anisotropic reticulation (Fig. 23 B). Primary tracts built of about 4 oxeas in thickness, running from the sponges base towards surface, which they penetrate, forming short spicule tufts. Primary tracts interconnected by oxea, which mainly occur single or pairwise, only rarely forming longer, more consistent tracts. Ectosomal skeleton absent. In some parts of sponge, high amounts of sand grains present. Spiculation (Tab. 19): Spicules almost straight, slender oxeas (fig. 23 C–E) of 610 to 820 x 15 to 29 µm. Microscleres absent. Remarks. This species is characterized by rather few, weak characters. Still, the identification seems unquestionable. Topsent (1901) reported oxeas of 615–630 x 18–20 µm, which are in a similar range to the ones reported here. Topsent's (1901) specimens also showed similar characters in skeleton and structure of the surface. Most of his specimens, due to the sponge’s soft texture and fragility, were fragments, like ours. For some specimens, he reported a cylindrical growth. Those specimens are remarkably smaller than the ones we sampled. The SYSTCO-specimens therefore might be larger adult representatives of the species, although the exact shape of these sponges, as stated above, cannot be reconstructed. The specimens of Topsent (1901) showed significantly fewer oscules than ours, which were smaller (1 mm) and not regularly distributed. Still, this might as well be caused by the small growth of his sponges. Koltun (1964) reported tubular specimens with an inner cavity, thus differing from the massive types of Topsent (1901). Those hollow sponges therefore show some distinct similarity to our fragmentary specimens. Koltun (1964) did not give the sizes of his sponges, but like our new ones, might have been larger adult counterparts of the small, probably juvenile specimens of Topsent (1901). Interestingly, Koltun’s (1964) specimens had oxeas with a minimum size of 343 µm, therefore being much smaller than the usual ones and especially the larger oxeas of our new specimens. : Published as part of Göcke, Christian & Janussen, Dorte, 2013, Demospongiae of ANT XXIV / 2 (SYSTCO I) Expedition — Antarctic Eastern Weddell Sea, pp. 28-101 in Zootaxa 3692 (1) on pages 89-91, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3692.1.5, http://zenodo.org/record/249019
format Text
author Göcke, Christian
Janussen, Dorte
author_facet Göcke, Christian
Janussen, Dorte
author_sort Göcke, Christian
title Haliclona (Rhizoniera) dancoi Topsent 1901
title_short Haliclona (Rhizoniera) dancoi Topsent 1901
title_full Haliclona (Rhizoniera) dancoi Topsent 1901
title_fullStr Haliclona (Rhizoniera) dancoi Topsent 1901
title_full_unstemmed Haliclona (Rhizoniera) dancoi Topsent 1901
title_sort haliclona (rhizoniera) dancoi topsent 1901
publisher Zenodo
publishDate 2013
url https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145367
https://zenodo.org/record/6145367
long_lat ENVELOPE(166.733,166.733,-72.550,-72.550)
geographic Antarctic
Weddell Sea
Weddell
Burton
geographic_facet Antarctic
Weddell Sea
Weddell
Burton
genre Antarc*
Antarctic
Weddell Sea
genre_facet Antarc*
Antarctic
Weddell Sea
op_relation http://zenodo.org/record/249019
http://publication.plazi.org/id/FFD6FFA8CD3388028029FF93FFE4FFE9
http://table.plazi.org/id/DF39664ECD0C883D80BEFE6FFEAAFDBD
http://zoobank.org/136660B8-7DCC-490E-AB79-46546CC18E40
https://zenodo.org/communities/biosyslit
https://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3692.1.5
http://zenodo.org/record/249019
http://publication.plazi.org/id/FFD6FFA8CD3388028029FF93FFE4FFE9
https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.249042
http://table.plazi.org/id/DF39664ECD0C883D80BEFE6FFEAAFDBD
http://zoobank.org/136660B8-7DCC-490E-AB79-46546CC18E40
https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145368
https://zenodo.org/communities/biosyslit
op_rights Open Access
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
cc0-1.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
op_rightsnorm CC0
op_doi https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145367
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3692.1.5
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.249042
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145368
_version_ 1766099152945545216
spelling ftdatacite:10.5281/zenodo.6145367 2023-05-15T13:37:53+02:00 Haliclona (Rhizoniera) dancoi Topsent 1901 Göcke, Christian Janussen, Dorte 2013 https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145367 https://zenodo.org/record/6145367 unknown Zenodo http://zenodo.org/record/249019 http://publication.plazi.org/id/FFD6FFA8CD3388028029FF93FFE4FFE9 http://table.plazi.org/id/DF39664ECD0C883D80BEFE6FFEAAFDBD http://zoobank.org/136660B8-7DCC-490E-AB79-46546CC18E40 https://zenodo.org/communities/biosyslit https://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3692.1.5 http://zenodo.org/record/249019 http://publication.plazi.org/id/FFD6FFA8CD3388028029FF93FFE4FFE9 https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.249042 http://table.plazi.org/id/DF39664ECD0C883D80BEFE6FFEAAFDBD http://zoobank.org/136660B8-7DCC-490E-AB79-46546CC18E40 https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145368 https://zenodo.org/communities/biosyslit Open Access Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode cc0-1.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess CC0 Biodiversity Taxonomy Animalia Porifera Demospongiae Haplosclerida Chalinidae Haliclona Haliclona dancoi article-journal ScholarlyArticle Taxonomic treatment Text 2013 ftdatacite https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145367 https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3692.1.5 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.249042 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6145368 2022-04-01T11:00:22Z Haliclona (Rhizoniera) dancoi (Topsent, 1901) (Fig. 23, Tab. 19) Haliclona dancoi (Topsent, 1901): Burton 1934: 6. Koltun 1964: 97, pl. 15, figs. 5, 6, 1976: 196. Synonymy: Chalina dancoi (Topsent, 1901): Burton 1929: 420. Reniera dancoi Topsent, 1901: 12, pl. 2, fig. 1, pl. 3, fig. 3. Kirkpatrick 1908: 53, pl. 18, fig. 3. Hentschel 1914: 134. Material. Several fragments of probably 2 different specimens from station 048- 1 (SMF 11802, 11842), 602.1 m, 70 ° 23.94 ' S, 8 ° 19.14 ' W, 12.01. 2008. Description. Specimens (Fig. 23 A) fragmentary. Some of whitish-beige color in ethanol (SMF 11802), others of darker, brownish color (SMF 11842), possibly representing two different specimens. Shape of living sponges unkwon. Fragments lamellar, about 5 mm in thickness. Surface hispid from protruding spicule tufts. In topview, triangular honeycomb structures between spicule tufts visible. Surface bearing several pores, larger ones probably oscules, about 2 to 4 mm in width, quite regularly arranged at distances of about 5 to 10 mm. Between these, smaller pores of about 0.5 to 1 mm diameter. Texture soft and fragile. Skeleton: Skeleton a rather regular anisotropic reticulation (Fig. 23 B). Primary tracts built of about 4 oxeas in thickness, running from the sponges base towards surface, which they penetrate, forming short spicule tufts. Primary tracts interconnected by oxea, which mainly occur single or pairwise, only rarely forming longer, more consistent tracts. Ectosomal skeleton absent. In some parts of sponge, high amounts of sand grains present. Spiculation (Tab. 19): Spicules almost straight, slender oxeas (fig. 23 C–E) of 610 to 820 x 15 to 29 µm. Microscleres absent. Remarks. This species is characterized by rather few, weak characters. Still, the identification seems unquestionable. Topsent (1901) reported oxeas of 615–630 x 18–20 µm, which are in a similar range to the ones reported here. Topsent's (1901) specimens also showed similar characters in skeleton and structure of the surface. Most of his specimens, due to the sponge’s soft texture and fragility, were fragments, like ours. For some specimens, he reported a cylindrical growth. Those specimens are remarkably smaller than the ones we sampled. The SYSTCO-specimens therefore might be larger adult representatives of the species, although the exact shape of these sponges, as stated above, cannot be reconstructed. The specimens of Topsent (1901) showed significantly fewer oscules than ours, which were smaller (1 mm) and not regularly distributed. Still, this might as well be caused by the small growth of his sponges. Koltun (1964) reported tubular specimens with an inner cavity, thus differing from the massive types of Topsent (1901). Those hollow sponges therefore show some distinct similarity to our fragmentary specimens. Koltun (1964) did not give the sizes of his sponges, but like our new ones, might have been larger adult counterparts of the small, probably juvenile specimens of Topsent (1901). Interestingly, Koltun’s (1964) specimens had oxeas with a minimum size of 343 µm, therefore being much smaller than the usual ones and especially the larger oxeas of our new specimens. : Published as part of Göcke, Christian & Janussen, Dorte, 2013, Demospongiae of ANT XXIV / 2 (SYSTCO I) Expedition — Antarctic Eastern Weddell Sea, pp. 28-101 in Zootaxa 3692 (1) on pages 89-91, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3692.1.5, http://zenodo.org/record/249019 Text Antarc* Antarctic Weddell Sea DataCite Metadata Store (German National Library of Science and Technology) Antarctic Weddell Sea Weddell Burton ENVELOPE(166.733,166.733,-72.550,-72.550)