WoRMS name details

Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorHaliclona rubens (sensu Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864)

605441  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:605441)

Unaccepted: synonym, or anything that is not accepted unaccepted (genus transfer and synonym)
Species
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
recent only
Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorTaxonomy Wiedenmayer (1977) (Sponges of the Western...  
Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorTaxonomy Wiedenmayer (1977) (Sponges of the Western Bahamas) studied and discussed the status of Spongia rubens and Haliclona rubens, so if you want more information you can consult his work (pp.82-84). The problem with old names like Spongia rubens Pallas is that there is no type material left. In fact, Pallas simply named and described specimens from pictures in books (such as Seba, 1734-65). The pictures he indicated as belonging to his Spongia rubens came from four different works and according to Wiedenmayer these were all different species and also different genera, although none of these specimens survived. For instance the Seba picture almost certainly concerns a Agelas species judging from his plate (but no specimen is left to investigate whether that is indeed the case). The description of Pallas is so general that almost any ramose sponge with reddish color would fall within the variation. Usually, in such cases a neotype is assigned. Duchassaing & Michelotti (1864) used the name Spongia rubens for a species that is now considered an Amphimedon. Their specimens (which survived in Torino and Amsterdam collections) were found to belong to the same species as Duchassaing & Michelotti's Amphimedon compressa, and this precluded a reason for assigning their Spongia rubens as a neotype because the type material of A. compressa is still extant. Wiedenmayer proposed to adopt this name for what was called Haliclona rubens by the various previous authors (de Laubenfels, Hechtel, Hartman) and many authors followed this proposal.
The matter is further complicated by Linnaeus' 1759 Spongia nodosa, quoted by Pallas as synonym of Spongia rubens. S. nodosa is also unrecognizable and no material is extant, but technically it would have to be recognized as a senior synonym of Spongia rubens. This has not been picked up by any modern author, and is best left as unrecognizable. [details]
van Soest, R. (2012). Haliclona rubens (sensu Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864). In: Van Soest, R.W.M; Boury-Esnault, N.; Hooper, J.N.A.; Rützler, K.; de Voogd, N.J.; Alvarez, B.; Hajdu, E.; Pisera, A.B.; Manconi, R.; Schönberg, C.; Klautau, M.; Picton, B.; Kelly, M.; Vacelet, J.; Dohrmann, M.; Díaz, M.-C.; Cárdenas, P.; Carballo, J. L.; Rios, P.; Downey, R. (2017). World Porifera database. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=605441 on 2017-12-13

Date
action
by
2012-07-08 10:42:31Z
created

Creative Commons License The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License


additional source Burton, M. 1954. Sponges. Pp. 215-239, pl. 9. In: The 'Rosaura' Expedition. Part 5. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology, 2(6).
page(s): 223 [details]  OpenAccess publication 

additional source Hartman, W.D. 1955. A collection of sponges from the west coast of the Yucatan Peninsula with descriptions of two new species. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean 5(3): 161-189.
page(s): 167-168 [details]  OpenAccess publication 

additional source 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. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication. 467 (Tortugas Laboratory Paper 30) 1-225, pls 1-22.
page(s): 40-42; pl 7 fig 2 & pl 8 fig 1 [details]  Available for editors  PDF available [request] 

additional source Laubenfels, M.W. de. (1949). Sponges of the western Bahamas. American Museum Novitates. 1431: 1-25.
page(s): 9 [details]  OpenAccess publication 

additional source Laubenfels, M.W. de. (1953). Sponges from the Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean. 2(3): 511-557.
page(s): 519 [details]  OpenAccess publication 

additional source Hechtel, G.J. 1965. A systematic study of the Demospongiae of Port Royal, Jamaica. Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 20: 1-103.
page(s): 18-19 [details]  OpenAccess publication 

additional source Little, F.J. Jr. (1963). The sponge fauna of the St. George’s Sound, Apalache Bay, and Panama City Regions of the Florida Gulf Coast. Tulane Studies in Zoology 11(2): 31-71.
page(s): 39 [details]  OpenAccess publication 

additional source Pallas, P. S. (1766). Elenchus zoophytorum sistens generum adumbrationes generaliores et specierum cognitarum succintas descriptiones, cum selectis auctorum synonymis. Fransiscum Varrentrapp, Hagae. pp. 451., available online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/29190#page/12/mode/1up [details]  OpenAccess publication 
 
 Present  Inaccurate  Introduced: alien 
 

From editor or global species database
Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorTaxonomy Wiedenmayer (1977) (Sponges of the Western Bahamas) studied and discussed the status of Spongia rubens and Haliclona rubens, so if you want more information you can consult his work (pp.82-84). The problem with old names like Spongia rubens Pallas is that there is no type material left. In fact, Pallas simply named and described specimens from pictures in books (such as Seba, 1734-65). The pictures he indicated as belonging to his Spongia rubens came from four different works and according to Wiedenmayer these were all different species and also different genera, although none of these specimens survived. For instance the Seba picture almost certainly concerns a Agelas species judging from his plate (but no specimen is left to investigate whether that is indeed the case). The description of Pallas is so general that almost any ramose sponge with reddish color would fall within the variation. Usually, in such cases a neotype is assigned. Duchassaing & Michelotti (1864) used the name Spongia rubens for a species that is now considered an Amphimedon. Their specimens (which survived in Torino and Amsterdam collections) were found to belong to the same species as Duchassaing & Michelotti's Amphimedon compressa, and this precluded a reason for assigning their Spongia rubens as a neotype because the type material of A. compressa is still extant. Wiedenmayer proposed to adopt this name for what was called Haliclona rubens by the various previous authors (de Laubenfels, Hechtel, Hartman) and many authors followed this proposal.
The matter is further complicated by Linnaeus' 1759 Spongia nodosa, quoted by Pallas as synonym of Spongia rubens. S. nodosa is also unrecognizable and no material is extant, but technically it would have to be recognized as a senior synonym of Spongia rubens. This has not been picked up by any modern author, and is best left as unrecognizable. [details]