identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03A187A3D71FFFC29DEAF973C5C7A157.text	03A187A3D71FFFC29DEAF973C5C7A157.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Leptosastra Topsent 1904	<div><p>Leptosastra Topsent, 1904, ( Hemiasterellidae) is a poecilosclerid with hemiasterellid traits</p><p>Leptosastra Topsent is a monotypic demosponge genus with morphological characteristics diagnostic for a placement into different orders (see Hooper 2002a). Leptosastra forms thin, plaque-like crusts on hard substrates, characterised by erect acanthostyles embedded in basal spongin, which contribute to a hymedesmioid skeleton. It strongly resembles the choanosomal skeletons of Poecilosclerida, to which Topsent (1904) initially classified it, alongside the current Myxillidae, Coelosphaeridae and Hymedesmiidae (subfamily Dendoricinae).</p><p>In contrast, Leptosastra’s ectosomal skeleton consists of a dense, cortex-like crust of oxyspheraster euasters, reinforced with thin rhabds (or tornotes) in sparse bundles (see inset in Figure 1). The presence of euasters suggests a phylogenetic position that is distant from Poecilosclerida . Since Dendy (1922), asterose microscleres have been regarded as a distinct character indicating deep splits in demosponge classifications, leading to the subsequent separation of “tetractinomorph” (aster-bearing) from “ceractinomorph” orders, which included Poecilosclerida (for a historic overview, see Boury-Esnault 2006; Erpenbeck et al. 2012a). Consequently, Hooper (2002a) tentatively placed Leptosastra into the family Hemiasterellidae, but noted the need for further data to elucidate its correct phylogenetic position. This classification has been held upright by several subsequent works on heteroscleromorph classifications (e.g., Morrow &amp; Cardenas, 2015).</p><p>To confirm the phylogenetic placement of Lepostastra, we analysed molecular material collected in 2005 from a box core sampling on the Rockall Bank, where two specimens were collected (ZMA Por.21277b and ZMA Por.21276b). Unfortunately, the holotype for L. constellata (MNHN DT 1033), type species of Leptosastra, was not available for this study (see also Hooper 2002a), but SEM analysis clearly identify the examined specimens as L. constellata (see inset in Figure 1). For both specimens 28S D3-D5 (634 bp), and CO1 (584 bp, for ZMA Por.21276b only) were amplified and sequenced.</p><p>Phylogenetic reconstructions of both markers recover Leptosastra distant from Hemiasterellidae (or other taxa of its order Tethyida) but support its placement within the order Poecilosclerida . The internal classification of Poecilosclerida is still awaiting revision after its suborders were abandoned (Morrow &amp; Cárdenas 2015). However, our CO1 (Fig. 1) and 28S D3-D5 reconstructions (Supplementary Data A) suggest Leptosastra as member of a clade containing predominantly hymedesmiid taxa. Here, Leptosastra falls in a clade of sequences from hymedesmiid Phorbas, Duchassaing &amp; Michelotti, 1864, Kirkpatrickia Topsent, 1912, Hamigera Gray, 1867, Hemimycale Burton, 1934, Plocamionida Topsent, 1927, and Spanioplon Topsent, 1890 . It also contains members of Family Crellidae ( Crella Gray, 1867), a potential sister to Hymedesmiidae (see Van Soest 2002). This clade is furthermore consistent with 18S rDNA data published by Redmond et al. (2013).</p><p>Consequently, Leptosastra can be classified as a poecilosclerid, with its hymedesmoid skeleton being homologous to that of other hymedesmiids. The euaster microscleres, in turn, resemble other asterose skeletal elements found in several poecilosclerids, which are considered to be convergent developments due to their occurrence with chelae microscleres, an autapomorphic feature of Poecilosclerida . Notable examples of this include the astroclone desma corpuscles found in Crambe tuberosa Maldonado &amp; Benito, 1991 and C. chilensis Esteves, Lôbo-Hajdu &amp; Hajdu, 2007 . Additionally, there are mace-shaped tylostyle pseudoasters that bear remarkable similarities to euasters in Discorhabdella Dendy, particularly in D. pseudaster Vacelet &amp; Cárdenas, 2018 (see discussion in Vacelet &amp; Cárdenas 2018), and the strongly modified, aster-like spined chelae in Acanthancora Topsent. Based on the genetic analysis, we hereby transfer L. constellata to the Order Poecilosclerida .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A187A3D71FFFC29DEAF973C5C7A157	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Erpenbeck, Dirk;Voigt, Oliver;Möx, Andreas;Galitz, Adrian;Gölitz, Sebastian;Lüter, Carsten;Patzelt, Tanja;Hofe, Theresa Vom;Wendel, Sarah;Wörheide, Gert;Van Soest, Rob W. M.	Erpenbeck, Dirk, Voigt, Oliver, Möx, Andreas, Galitz, Adrian, Gölitz, Sebastian, Lüter, Carsten, Patzelt, Tanja, Hofe, Theresa Vom, Wendel, Sarah, Wörheide, Gert, Van Soest, Rob W. M. (2026): Classification of several demosponge (Demospongiae, Porifera) taxa reevaluated with DNA barcodes of type (and other) specimens. Zootaxa 5763 (1): 138-150, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5763.1.6, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5763.1.6
03A187A3D71DFFC29DEAFAEAC4B6A3B4.text	03A187A3D71DFFC29DEAFAEAC4B6A3B4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Clathria faviformis Lehnert and Van Soest 1996	<div><p>Clathria faviformis Lehnert and Van Soest, 1996, is a Raspailiidae</p><p>Clathria (Clathria) faviformis ( Microcionidae: Poecilosclerida) was described as a Clathria Schmidt with a growth form “unique among Clathria species of the region” and morphological overlaps with Raspailiidae (Lehnert &amp; Van Soest 1996) . At that time, Raspailiidae was classified as a further family within Microcionina, but is now placed in the order Axinellida (Morrow &amp; Cárdenas 2015) . Lehnert and Van Soest noted that C. faviformis differs from other Clathria species by possessing thin, curved oxeas instead of the typical ectosomal subtylostyles, and by lacking microscleres—both characteristics commonly found in raspailiids. Furthermore, diagnostic ectosomal skeletal features for raspailiids—namely, single styles surrounded by bouquets of small styles or anisoxeas (Hooper 2002b)—could not be found in this species, which precluded its placement within Raspailiidae .</p><p>We sequenced and analysed the 28S-C region of the C. faviformis holotype (ZMA Por.11334; collected in 1993, sequence length: 495 bp). The resulting phylogenetic reconstruction (Fig. 2) places this specimen within Raspailiidae in a clade of sequences published as Aulospongus Norman. While Aulospongus is characterised by rhabdostyles as its structural megascleres (Hooper et al. 2008), some species, including Aulospongus similiaustralis Hooper et al. (2008, see Figure 2), exhibit a slight curvature of their structural styles, resembling those of C. faviformis . Likewise, ectosomal anisoxeas occur in both Aulospongus and C. faviformis . In this respect, the molecularly inferred phylogenetic placement of C. faviformis as a further species of Aulospongus (or in its close relationship) is not contradicted by skeletal morphology. However, reallocation to Aulospongus awaits confirmation by genetic data of the type species, A. tubulatus (Bowerbank, 1873) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A187A3D71DFFC29DEAFAEAC4B6A3B4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Erpenbeck, Dirk;Voigt, Oliver;Möx, Andreas;Galitz, Adrian;Gölitz, Sebastian;Lüter, Carsten;Patzelt, Tanja;Hofe, Theresa Vom;Wendel, Sarah;Wörheide, Gert;Van Soest, Rob W. M.	Erpenbeck, Dirk, Voigt, Oliver, Möx, Andreas, Galitz, Adrian, Gölitz, Sebastian, Lüter, Carsten, Patzelt, Tanja, Hofe, Theresa Vom, Wendel, Sarah, Wörheide, Gert, Van Soest, Rob W. M. (2026): Classification of several demosponge (Demospongiae, Porifera) taxa reevaluated with DNA barcodes of type (and other) specimens. Zootaxa 5763 (1): 138-150, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5763.1.6, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5763.1.6
03A187A3D71BFFC79DEAFF23C74FA5C7.text	03A187A3D71BFFC79DEAFF23C74FA5C7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Leucophloeus lewisi Van Soest and Stentoft 1988	<div><p>Support of Leucophloeus lewisi Van Soest and Stentoft, 1988, classification as Axinyssa</p><p>Leucophloeus Carter was erected (by monotypy) for the species Leucophloeus massalis Carter, 1883 . Subsequently, Van Soest and Stentoft (1988) described anotherspecies from the Caribbean, Leucophloeus lewisi Van Soest &amp; Stentoft, 1988, but noted that the generic allocation of the species remained uncertain due to major differences in the choanosomal architectures compared to the type species, L. massalis . In the course of Van Soest et al’s revision of Halichondriidae (1990), Leucophloeus was synonymized with Ciocalypta Bowerbank, and later, L. lewisi with Axinyssa ambrosia (de Laubenfels, 1936) (Diaz et al. 1993; Van Soest et al. 1990), and subsequently with Axinyssa yumae (Pulitzer-Finali, 1986) (see Zea et al. 2013).</p><p>We sequenced the 28S-C region of the holotype of L. lewisi (ZMA Por.5401, INV-POR 0514, collected in 1964, sequence length 486 bp). The resulting phylogenetic reconstruction supports the classification outside Ciocalypta and to Axinyssa (Fig. 3; see Gutekunst et al. 2018 for a detailed discussion on the problematic classification of both genera among Suberitida), and further distinguishes this species from A. ambrosia . Unfortunately, sequence data for A. yumae is currently not available to further resolve synonymisation of both taxa. That said, the species Leucophloeus lewisi is transferred to the genus Axinyssa and should be referred to as Axinyssa lewisi (Van Soest and Stentoft, 1988)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A187A3D71BFFC79DEAFF23C74FA5C7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Erpenbeck, Dirk;Voigt, Oliver;Möx, Andreas;Galitz, Adrian;Gölitz, Sebastian;Lüter, Carsten;Patzelt, Tanja;Hofe, Theresa Vom;Wendel, Sarah;Wörheide, Gert;Van Soest, Rob W. M.	Erpenbeck, Dirk, Voigt, Oliver, Möx, Andreas, Galitz, Adrian, Gölitz, Sebastian, Lüter, Carsten, Patzelt, Tanja, Hofe, Theresa Vom, Wendel, Sarah, Wörheide, Gert, Van Soest, Rob W. M. (2026): Classification of several demosponge (Demospongiae, Porifera) taxa reevaluated with DNA barcodes of type (and other) specimens. Zootaxa 5763 (1): 138-150, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5763.1.6, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5763.1.6
03A187A3D718FFC69DEAFC42C7F0A553.text	03A187A3D718FFC69DEAFC42C7F0A553.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ciocalapata almae Carballo, Uriz & Garcia-Gomez 1996	<div><p>Ciocalapata almae Carballo, Uriz &amp; García-Gómez, 1996, is misplaced in Halichondria</p><p>Ciocalapata de Laubenfels is a genus characterised by a halichondroid skeleton with oxea, as well as an additional category of large true styles, which distinguishes this genus from other Halichondriidae (Erpenbeck &amp; Van Soest 2002) . Ciocalapata almae was described by Carballo et al. (1996) with the notion that it is closest to the type species Ciocalapata amorphosa (Ridley &amp; Dendy, 1886), despite differences in spicule shapes and ectosomal skeleton arrangement. Erpenbeck and Van Soest (2002), however, considered the differences in shape, spicule size, skeletal arrangement, and habitat of this species to be too deviating from C. amorphosa . They interpreted the styles as modified oxeas rather than true monactines and placed the species into Halichondria Fleming.</p><p>We have sequenced the 28S-C region of the C. almae (= H. almae) schizoholotype (MNCN1.01/9; collected 1992, sequence length: 348 bp) and compared it against other Halichondriidae sequences, including those published in NCBI GenBank. As the genus Halichondria is probably polyphyletic (e.g., Alvarez et al. 2000; Castellanos et al. 2003), sequences of the type species Halichondria panicea (Pallas) are required as reference points for Halichondria sensu stricto . However, two different H. panicea 28S-C genotypes are currently available in GenBank, differing by three nucleotide positions. We therefore sequenced the H. panicea neotype BMNH 1964.6.8.6 (collected in 1963 in Southeastern England, designated in Erpenbeck &amp; Van Soest 2002) in order to establish a definitive [28SC] molecular reference for the genus Halichondria (see also Turner et al. 2025 for interpretation). However, only unambiguous 77 bp of the 5' end and 130 bp of the 3' end could be retrieved despite multiple rounds of optimization. Additionally, we successfully obtained a 28S-C sequence of the Halichondria (Halichondria) prostrata Thiele holotype (ZMB Por 3310; collected before 1905; sequence length 411 bp) as part of our museum type barcoding tests. These sequences were incorporated into the data set to inform the relationship of H. prostrata to H. panicea .</p><p>The resulting phylogenetic reconstruction (Figure 4) recovers a monophyletic clade of Halichondria sensu stricto (including H. panicea, Halichondria bowerbanki Burton, Halichondria coerulea Bergquist, and H. prostrata). The H. panicea neotype sequence differs from the H. panicea genotype published in Chombard et al. (1998, from Northern France) and Schuster et al. (2021, from Southern Ireland), but matches with samples from Northern Ireland (Morrow et al. 2012) and the Netherlands (this study). The C. almae (= H. almae) holotype sequence falls outside this Halichondria clade, rejecting the genus transfer from Ciocalapata to Halichondria . Instead, C. almae is recovered with style-bearing Halichondriidae, including Amorphinopsis Carter or Hymeniacidon Bowerbank, corroborating Carballo’s initial morphological interpretation of the spicular components as styles. While no sequence data is available for C. amorphosa to further refine the phylogenetic affinity of C. almae, the phylogenetic distance to Halichondria provided in this study supports its reclassification back to Ciocalapata (see de Voogd et al. 2023 and “Notes” within).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A187A3D718FFC69DEAFC42C7F0A553	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Erpenbeck, Dirk;Voigt, Oliver;Möx, Andreas;Galitz, Adrian;Gölitz, Sebastian;Lüter, Carsten;Patzelt, Tanja;Hofe, Theresa Vom;Wendel, Sarah;Wörheide, Gert;Van Soest, Rob W. M.	Erpenbeck, Dirk, Voigt, Oliver, Möx, Andreas, Galitz, Adrian, Gölitz, Sebastian, Lüter, Carsten, Patzelt, Tanja, Hofe, Theresa Vom, Wendel, Sarah, Wörheide, Gert, Van Soest, Rob W. M. (2026): Classification of several demosponge (Demospongiae, Porifera) taxa reevaluated with DNA barcodes of type (and other) specimens. Zootaxa 5763 (1): 138-150, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5763.1.6, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5763.1.6
03A187A3D718FFC79DEAFE6EC25BA7EB.text	03A187A3D718FFC79DEAFE6EC25BA7EB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eurypon laughlini Diaz, Alvarez & van Soest 1987	<div><p>Genus transfer of Eurypon laughlini Díaz,Alvarez &amp; van Soest, 1987, to Prosuberites Topsent is supported by holotype data</p><p>Diaz et al. (1987) described Eurypon laughlini ( Axinellida: Raspailiidae) as an “atypical Eurypon because of the absence of acanthostyles”. They subsequently suggested classification as Prosuberites ( Agelasida: Hymerhabdiidae) as a further possibility. In 2005, E. laughlini was published as Prosuberites for the first time (Nichols 2005, based on a “personal communication” to one of the co-authors (RvS)), followed by Rützler et al. (2014) and Van Soest (2017, see also for further details).</p><p>We sequenced 460 bp of the 28S-C region of the holotype (F.C.L.R. 110 / ZMA Por.06176, collected in 1983), and the resulting phylogenetic reconstruction (Figure 3) confirms its placement distant from Eurypon Gray ( Axinellida: Raspailiidae), and with Prosuberites ( Agelasida: Hymerhabdiidae), supporting the correct genus transfer of the species. Based on genetic analysis of the holotype, we hereby transfer Eurypon laughlini to Prosuberites, and it should be referred to as Prosuberites laughlini (Díaz, Alvarez &amp; Van Soest, 1987)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A187A3D718FFC79DEAFE6EC25BA7EB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Erpenbeck, Dirk;Voigt, Oliver;Möx, Andreas;Galitz, Adrian;Gölitz, Sebastian;Lüter, Carsten;Patzelt, Tanja;Hofe, Theresa Vom;Wendel, Sarah;Wörheide, Gert;Van Soest, Rob W. M.	Erpenbeck, Dirk, Voigt, Oliver, Möx, Andreas, Galitz, Adrian, Gölitz, Sebastian, Lüter, Carsten, Patzelt, Tanja, Hofe, Theresa Vom, Wendel, Sarah, Wörheide, Gert, Van Soest, Rob W. M. (2026): Classification of several demosponge (Demospongiae, Porifera) taxa reevaluated with DNA barcodes of type (and other) specimens. Zootaxa 5763 (1): 138-150, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5763.1.6, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5763.1.6
