Sponge

Main menu

Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Create account
Log in

Personal tools

Contents
(Top)
Etymology

Overview

Distinguishing features

Basic structure

Vital functions

Ecology

Systematics

Evolutionary history

Notable spongiologists

Use

See also
References
Further reading
External links
Sponge

Article
Talk

Read
View source
View history

Tools

Appearance
Text

Small
Standard
Large

Width

Standard
Wide

This is a good article. Click here for more information.

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the phylum of aquatic animal. For the porous cleaning tool, see Sponge (tool). For other
uses, see Sponge (disambiguation).
Sponges
þÿTemporal range: Ediacaran-present; probable Cryogenian record,[1] 650 0 Ma
Pha.
Proterozoic
Archean
Had.
A stove-pipe sponge
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Porifera
Grant, 1836
Classes

Calcarea
Demospongiae
Hexactinellida
Homoscleromorpha
þÿ Archaeocyatha
þÿ "Heteractinida" (paraphyletic)
þÿ Stromatoporoidea

Synonyms

Parazoa/Ahistozoa (sans Placozoa)[2]

þÿSponges (also known as sea sponges), the members of the phylum Porifera[3] (/pYÈrjfYrYÌ pTÐ-/ pYr-IF-Yr-Y,
por-; meaning 'pore bearer'),[4] are a basal animal clade as a sister of the diploblasts.[5][6][7][8][9][excessive
citations] They are multicellular organisms that have bodies full of pores and channels allowing water to
circulate through them, consisting of jelly-like mesohyl sandwiched between two thin layers of cells.

Sponges have unspecialized cells that can transform into other types and that often migrate between the main
cell layers and the mesohyl in the process. Sponges do not have complex nervous,[10] digestive or circulatory
systems like humans. Instead, most rely on maintaining a constant water flow through their bodies to obtain
food and oxygen and to remove wastes. Believed to be some of the most basal animals alive today, sponges
were possibly the first to branch off the evolutionary tree from the last common ancestor of all animals, which
would make them the sister group of all other animals.[5]

The branch of zoology that studies sponges is known as spongiology.[11]

Etymology

þÿThe term sponge derives from the Ancient Greek word ÃÀ̳³¿Â spóngos.[12]
Overview

This section may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it
understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (May 2024) (Learn how and when to
remove this message)
Sponge biodiversity and morphotypes at the lip of a wall site in 60 feet (20 m) of water. Included are the yellow
tube sponge, Aplysina fistularis, the purple vase sponge, Niphates digitalis, the red encrusting sponge,
Spirastrella coccinea, and the gray rope sponge, Callyspongia sp.

Sponges are similar to other animals in that they are multicellular, heterotrophic, lack cell walls and produce
sperm cells. Unlike other animals, they lack true tissues[13] and organs.[14] Some of them are radially
symmetrical, but most are asymmetrical. The shapes of their bodies are adapted for maximal efficiency of water
flow through the central cavity, where the water deposits nutrients and then leaves through a hole called the
osculum. The single-celled choanoflagellates resemble the choanocyte cells of sponges which are used to drive
their water flow systems and capture most of their food. This along with phylogenetic studies of ribosomal
molecules have been used as morphological evidence to suggest sponges are the sister group to the rest of
animals.[15] A great majority are marine (salt-water) species, ranging in habitat from tidal zones to depths
exceeding 8,800 m (5.5 mi), though there are freshwater species. All adult sponges are sessile, meaning that
they attach to an underwater surface and remain fixed in place (i.e., do not travel) while in larval stage of life
they are motile.

Many sponges have internal skeletons of spicules (skeletal-like fragments of calcium carbonate or silicon
dioxide), and/or spongin (a modified type of collagen protein).[13] An internal gelatinous matrix called
mesohyl functions as an endoskeleton, and it is the only skeleton in soft sponges that encrust such hard surfaces
as rocks. More commonly, the mesohyl is stiffened by mineral spicules, by spongin fibers, or both. 90% of all
known sponge species that have the widest range of habitats including all freshwater ones are demosponges that
use spongin; many species have silica spicules, whereas some species have calcium carbonate exoskeletons.
Calcareous sponges have calcium carbonate spicules and, in some species, calcium carbonate exoskeletons, are
þÿrestricted to relatively shallow marine waters where production of calcium carbonate is easiest.[16]: 179 The
fragile glass sponges, with "scaffolding" of silica spicules, are restricted to polar regions and the ocean depths
where predators are rare. Fossils of all of these types have been found in rocks dated from 580 million years
ago. In addition Archaeocyathids, whose fossils are common in rocks from 530 to 490 million years ago, are
now regarded as a type of sponge.

þÿAlthough most of the approximately 5,000 10,000 known species of sponges feed on bacteria and other
microscopic food in the water, some host photosynthesizing microorganisms as endosymbionts, and these
alliances often produce more food and oxygen than they consume. A few species of sponges that live in
food-poor environments have evolved as carnivores that prey mainly on small crustaceans.[17]

Most sponges reproduce sexually, but they can also reproduce asexually. Sexually reproducing species release
sperm cells into the water to fertilize ova released or retained by its mate or "mother"; the fertilized eggs
þÿdevelop into larvae which swim off in search of places to settle.[16]: 183 185 Sponges are known for
regenerating from fragments that are broken off, although this only works if the fragments include the right
types of cells. Some species reproduce by budding. When environmental conditions become less hospitable to
the sponges, for example as temperatures drop, many freshwater species and a few marine ones produce
gemmules, "survival pods" of unspecialized cells that remain dormant until conditions improve; they then either
þÿform completely new sponges or recolonize the skeletons of their parents.[16]: 120 127
Cells of the protist choanoflagellate clade closely resemble sponge choanocyte cells. Beating of choanocyte
flagella draws water through the sponge so that nutrients can be extracted and waste removed.[18]

The few species of demosponge that have entirely soft fibrous skeletons with no hard elements have been used
by humans over thousands of years for several purposes, including as padding and as cleaning tools. By the
1950s, though, these had been overfished so heavily that the industry almost collapsed, and most sponge-like
materials are now synthetic. Sponges and their microscopic endosymbionts are now being researched as
possible sources of medicines for treating a wide range of diseases. Dolphins have been observed using sponges
as tools while foraging.[19]
Distinguishing features
Further information: Cnidaria and Ctenophore

Sponges constitute the phylum Porifera, and have been defined as sessile metazoans (multicelled immobile
animals) that have water intake and outlet openings connected by chambers lined with choanocytes, cells with
þÿwhip-like flagella.[16]: 29 However, a few carnivorous sponges have lost these water flow systems and the
þÿchoanocytes.[16]: 39 [20] All known living sponges can remold their bodies, as most types of their cells can
move within their bodies and a few can change from one type to another.[20][21]

þÿEven if a few sponges are able to produce mucus which acts as a microbial barrier in all other animals no
sponge with the ability to secrete a functional mucus layer has been recorded. Without such a mucus layer their
þÿliving tissue is covered by a layer of microbial symbionts, which can contribute up to 40 50% of the sponge
wet mass. This inability to prevent microbes from penetrating their porous tissue could be a major reason why
they have never evolved a more complex anatomy.[22]

Like cnidarians (jellyfish, etc.) and ctenophores (comb jellies), and unlike all other known metazoans, sponges'
bodies consist of a non-living jelly-like mass (mesohyl) sandwiched between two main layers of cells.[23][24]
Cnidarians and ctenophores have simple nervous systems, and their cell layers are bound by internal
connections and by being mounted on a basement membrane (thin fibrous mat, also known as "basal
lamina").[24] Sponges do not have a nervous system similar to that of vertebrates but may have one that is quite
different.[10] Their middle jelly-like layers have large and varied populations of cells, and some types of cells
in their outer layers may move into the middle layer and change their functions.[21]
Sponges[21][23] Cnidarians and ctenophores[24]
Nervous system No/Yes Yes, simple
Cells in each layer bound together No, except that Homoscleromorpha have basement membranes.[25] Yes:
inter-cell connections; basement membranes
Number of cells in middle "jelly" layer Many Few
Cells in outer layers can move inwards and change functions Yes No
Basic structure
Cell types

Mesohyl
Pinacocyte
Choanocyte
Lophocyte
Porocyte
Oocyte
Archeocyte
Sclerocyte
Spicule
Water flow
Main cell types of Porifera[26]

A sponge's body is hollow and is held in shape by the mesohyl, a jelly-like substance made mainly of collagen
and reinforced by a dense network of fibers also made of collagen. 18 distinct cell types have been
identified.[27] The inner surface is covered with choanocytes, cells with cylindrical or conical collars
surrounding one flagellum per choanocyte. The wave-like motion of the whip-like flagella drives water through
the sponge's body. All sponges have ostia, channels leading to the interior through the mesohyl, and in most
sponges these are controlled by tube-like porocytes that form closable inlet valves. Pinacocytes, plate-like cells,
form a single-layered external skin over all other parts of the mesohyl that are not covered by choanocytes, and
the pinacocytes also digest food particles that are too large to enter the ostia,[21][23] while those at the base of
the animal are responsible for anchoring it.[23]

Other types of cells live and move within the mesohyl:[21][23]

Lophocytes are amoeba-like cells that move slowly through the mesohyl and secrete collagen fibres.
Collencytes are another type of collagen-producing cell.
Rhabdiferous cells secrete polysaccharides that also form part of the mesohyl.
 Oocytes and spermatocytes are reproductive cells.
Sclerocytes secrete the mineralized spicules ("little spines") that form the skeletons of many sponges and in
some species provide some defense against predators.
In addition to or instead of sclerocytes, demosponges have spongocytes that secrete a form of collagen that
polymerizes into spongin, a thick fibrous material that stiffens the mesohyl.
Myocytes ("muscle cells") conduct signals and cause parts of the animal to contract.
"Grey cells" act as sponges' equivalent of an immune system.
Archaeocytes (or amoebocytes) are amoeba-like cells that are totipotent, in other words, each is capable of
transformation into any other type of cell. They also have important roles in feeding and in clearing debris that
block the ostia.

Many larval sponges possess neuron-less eyes that are based on cryptochromes. They mediate phototaxic
behavior.[28]

Glass sponges present a distinctive variation on this basic plan. Their spicules, which are made of silica, form a
scaffolding-like framework between whose rods the living tissue is suspended like a cobweb that contains most
of the cell types.[21] This tissue is a syncytium that in some ways behaves like many cells that share a single
external membrane, and in others like a single cell with multiple nuclei.
Water flow and body structures
Asconoid
Syconoid
Leuconoid
Pinacocytes
Choanocytes
Mesohyl
Water flow
Porifera body structures[29]

Most sponges work rather like chimneys: they take in water at the bottom and eject it from the osculum ("little
mouth") at the top. Since ambient currents are faster at the top, the suction effect that they produce by
Bernoulli's principle does some of the work for free. Sponges can control the water flow by various
combinations of wholly or partially closing the osculum and ostia (the intake pores) and varying the beat of the
flagella, and may shut it down if there is a lot of sand or silt in the water.[21]

Although the layers of pinacocytes and choanocytes resemble the epithelia of more complex animals, they are
not bound tightly by cell-to-cell connections or a basal lamina (thin fibrous sheet underneath). The flexibility of
these layers and re-modeling of the mesohyl by lophocytes allow the animals to adjust their shapes throughout
þÿtheir lives to take maximum advantage of local water currents.[21]: 83

The simplest body structure in sponges is a tube or vase shape known as "asconoid", but this severely limits the
size of the animal. The body structure is characterized by a stalk-like spongocoel surrounded by a single layer
of choanocytes. If it is simply scaled up, the ratio of its volume to surface area increases, because surface
increases as the square of length or width while volume increases proportionally to the cube. The amount of
tissue that needs food and oxygen is determined by the volume, but the pumping capacity that supplies food and
oxygen depends on the area covered by choanocytes. Asconoid sponges seldom exceed 1 mm (0.039 in) in
diameter.[21]
Diagram of a syconoid sponge

Some sponges overcome this limitation by adopting the "syconoid" structure, in which the body wall is pleated.
The inner pockets of the pleats are lined with choanocytes, which connect to the outer pockets of the pleats by
ostia. This increase in the number of choanocytes and hence in pumping capacity enables syconoid sponges to
grow up to a few centimeters in diameter.

The "leuconoid" pattern boosts pumping capacity further by filling the interior almost completely with mesohyl
that contains a network of chambers lined with choanocytes and connected to each other and to the water
intakes and outlet by tubes. Leuconid sponges grow to over 1 m (3.3 ft) in diameter, and the fact that growth in
any direction increases the number of choanocyte chambers enables them to take a wider range of forms, for
example, "encrusting" sponges whose shapes follow those of the surfaces to which they attach. All freshwater
and most shallow-water marine sponges have leuconid bodies. The networks of water passages in glass sponges
are similar to the leuconid structure.[21] In all three types of structure the cross-section area of the
choanocyte-lined regions is much greater than that of the intake and outlet channels. This makes the flow
slower near the choanocytes and thus makes it easier for them to trap food particles.[21] For example, in
Leuconia, a small leuconoid sponge about 10 centimetres (3.9 in) tall and 1 centimetre (0.39 in) in diameter,
water enters each of more than 80,000 intake canals at 6 cm per minute. However, because Leuconia has more
than 2 million flagellated chambers whose combined diameter is much greater than that of the canals, water
flow through chambers slows to 3.6 cm per hour, making it easy for choanocytes to capture food. All the water
is expelled through a single osculum at about 8.5 cm per second, fast enough to carry waste products some
distance away.[30]
Sponge with calcium carbonate skeleton.[21]

Pinacocyte
Choanocyte
Archeocytes and other cells in mesohyl
Mesohyl
 Spicules
Calcium carbonate
Seabed / rock
Water flow

Skeleton

In zoology a skeleton is any fairly rigid structure of an animal, irrespective of whether it has joints and
irrespective of whether it is biomineralized. The mesohyl functions as an endoskeleton in most sponges, and is
the only skeleton in soft sponges that encrust hard surfaces such as rocks. More commonly the mesohyl is
stiffened by mineral spicules, by spongin fibers or both. Spicules, which are present in most but not all
species,[31] may be made of silica or calcium carbonate, and vary in shape from simple rods to
three-dimensional "stars" with up to six rays. Spicules are produced by sclerocyte cells,[21] and may be
separate, connected by joints, or fused.[20]

Some sponges also secrete exoskeletons that lie completely outside their organic components. For example,
sclerosponges ("hard sponges") have massive calcium carbonate exoskeletons over which the organic matter
forms a thin layer with choanocyte chambers in pits in the mineral. These exoskeletons are secreted by the
pinacocytes that form the animals' skins.[21]
Vital functions
Spongia officinalis, "the kitchen sponge", is dark grey when alive.
Movement

Although adult sponges are fundamentally sessile animals, some marine and freshwater species can move
þÿacross the sea bed at speeds of 1 4 mm (0.039 0.157 in) per day, as a result of amoeba-like movements of
pinacocytes and other cells. A few species can contract their whole bodies, and many can close their oscula and
ostia. Juveniles drift or swim freely, while adults are stationary.[21]
Respiration, feeding and excretion
Euplectella aspergillum, a glass sponge known as "Venus' flower basket"

þÿSponges do not have distinct circulatory, respiratory, digestive, and excretory systems instead, the water flow
system supports all these functions. They filter food particles out of the water flowing through them. Particles
larger than 50 micrometers cannot enter the ostia and pinacocytes consume them by phagocytosis (engulfing
þÿand intracellular digestion). Particles from 0.5 ¼m to 50 ¼m are trapped in the ostia, which taper from the outer
to inner ends. These particles are consumed by pinacocytes or by archaeocytes which partially extrude
themselves through the walls of the ostia. Bacteria-sized particles, below 0.5 micrometers, pass through the
ostia and are caught and consumed by choanocytes.[21] Since the smallest particles are by far the most
common, choanocytes typically capture 80% of a sponge's food supply.[32] Archaeocytes transport food
packaged in vesicles from cells that directly digest food to those that do not. At least one species of sponge has
internal fibers that function as tracks for use by nutrient-carrying archaeocytes,[21] and these tracks also move
inert objects.[23]

It used to be claimed that glass sponges could live on nutrients dissolved in sea water and were very averse to
silt.[33] However, a study in 2007 found no evidence of this and concluded that they extract bacteria and other
micro-organisms from water very efficiently (about 79%) and process suspended sediment grains to extract
such prey.[34] Collar bodies digest food and distribute it wrapped in vesicles that are transported by dynein
"motor" molecules along bundles of microtubules that run throughout the syncytium.[21]

Sponges' cells absorb oxygen by diffusion from water into cells as water flows through body, into which carbon
dioxide and other soluble waste products such as ammonia also diffuse. Archeocytes remove mineral particles
that threaten to block the ostia, transport them through the mesohyl and generally dump them into the outgoing
water current, although some species incorporate them into their skeletons.[21]
Carnivorous sponges
The carnivorous ping-pong tree sponge, Chondrocladia lampadiglobus[35]

In waters where the supply of food particles is very poor, some species prey on crustaceans and other small
animals. So far only 137 species have been discovered.[36] Most belong to the family Cladorhizidae, but a few
members of the Guitarridae and Esperiopsidae are also carnivores.[37] In most cases, little is known about how
they actually capture prey, although some species are thought to use either sticky threads or hooked
spicules.[37][38] Most carnivorous sponges live in deep waters, up to 8,840 m (5.49 mi),[39] and the
development of deep-ocean exploration techniques is expected to lead to the discovery of several more.[21][37]
þÿHowever, one species has been found in Mediterranean caves at depths of 17 23 m (56 75 ft), alongside the
more usual filter-feeding sponges. The cave-dwelling predators capture crustaceans under 1 mm (0.039 in) long
by entangling them with fine threads, digest them by enveloping them with further threads over the course of a
few days, and then return to their normal shape; there is no evidence that they use venom.[39]

Most known carnivorous sponges have completely lost the water flow system and choanocytes. However, the
genus Chondrocladia uses a highly modified water flow system to inflate balloon-like structures that are used
for capturing prey.[37][40]
Endosymbionts

Freshwater sponges often host green algae as endosymbionts within archaeocytes and other cells and benefit
from nutrients produced by the algae. Many marine species host other photosynthesizing organisms, most
commonly cyanobacteria but in some cases dinoflagellates. Symbiotic cyanobacteria may form a third of the
total mass of living tissue in some sponges, and some sponges gain 48% to 80% of their energy supply from
these micro-organisms.[21] In 2008, a University of Stuttgart team reported that spicules made of silica conduct
light into the mesohyl, where the photosynthesizing endosymbionts live.[41] Sponges that host
photosynthesizing organisms are most common in waters with relatively poor supplies of food particles and
often have leafy shapes that maximize the amount of sunlight they collect.[23]

A recently discovered carnivorous sponge that lives near hydrothermal vents hosts methane-eating bacteria and
digests some of them.[23]
"Immune" system

Sponges do not have the complex immune systems of most other animals. However, they reject grafts from
other species but accept them from other members of their own species. In a few marine species, gray cells play
the leading role in rejection of foreign material. When invaded, they produce a chemical that stops movement of
other cells in the affected area, thus preventing the intruder from using the sponge's internal transport systems.
If the intrusion persists, the grey cells concentrate in the area and release toxins that kill all cells in the area. The
"immune" system can stay in this activated state for up to three weeks.[23]
Reproduction
Asexual
The freshwater sponge Spongilla lacustris

Sponges have three asexual methods of reproduction: after fragmentation, by budding, and by producing
gemmules. Fragments of sponges may be detached by currents or waves. They use the mobility of their
pinacocytes and choanocytes and reshaping of the mesohyl to re-attach themselves to a suitable surface and
then rebuild themselves as small but functional sponges over the course of several days. The same capabilities
þÿenable sponges that have been squeezed through a fine cloth to regenerate.[21]: 239 A sponge fragment can
only regenerate if it contains both collencytes to produce mesohyl and archeocytes to produce all the other cell
þÿtypes.[32] A very few species reproduce by budding.[21]: 90 94

Gemmules are "survival pods" which a few marine sponges and many freshwater species produce by the
thousands when dying and which some, mainly freshwater species, regularly produce in autumn. Spongocytes
make gemmules by wrapping shells of spongin, often reinforced with spicules, round clusters of archeocytes
þÿthat are full of nutrients.[21]: 87 88 Freshwater gemmules may also include photosynthesizing
symbionts.[42] The gemmules then become dormant, and in this state can survive cold, drying out, lack of
oxygen and extreme variations in salinity.[21] Freshwater gemmules often do not revive until the temperature
drops, stays cold for a few months and then reaches a near-"normal" level.[42] When a gemmule germinates,
the archeocytes round the outside of the cluster transform into pinacocytes, a membrane over a pore in the shell
bursts, the cluster of cells slowly emerges, and most of the remaining archeocytes transform into other cell
types needed to make a functioning sponge. Gemmules from the same species but different individuals can join
þÿforces to form one sponge.[21]: 89 90 Some gemmules are retained within the parent sponge, and in spring it
can be difficult to tell whether an old sponge has revived or been "recolonized" by its own gemmules.[42]
Sexual

Most sponges are hermaphrodites (function as both sexes simultaneously), although sponges have no gonads
(reproductive organs). Sperm are produced by choanocytes or entire choanocyte chambers that sink into the
mesohyl and form spermatic cysts while eggs are formed by transformation of archeocytes, or of choanocytes in
some species. Each egg generally acquires a yolk by consuming "nurse cells". During spawning, sperm burst
out of their cysts and are expelled via the osculum. If they contact another sponge of the same species, the water
flow carries them to choanocytes that engulf them but, instead of digesting them, metamorphose to an ameboid
form and carry the sperm through the mesohyl to eggs, which in most cases engulf the carrier and its
þÿcargo.[21]: 77

A few species release fertilized eggs into the water, but most retain the eggs until they hatch. By retaining the
eggs, the parents can transfer symbiotic microorganisms directly to their offspring through vertical
transmission, while the species who release their eggs into the water has to acquire symbionts horizontally (a
combination of both is probably most common, where larvae with vertically transmitted symbionts also acquire
others horizontally).[43][44] There are four types of larvae, but all are lecithotrophic (non-feeding) balls of cells
with an outer layer of cells whose flagella or cilia enable the larvae to move. After swimming for a few days the
larvae sink and crawl until they find a place to settle. Most of the cells transform into archeocytes and then into
þÿthe types appropriate for their locations in a miniature adult sponge.[21]: 77 [45]

Glass sponge embryos start by dividing into separate cells, but once 32 cells have formed they rapidly transform
into larvae that externally are ovoid with a band of cilia round the middle that they use for movement, but
internally have the typical glass sponge structure of spicules with a cobweb-like main syncitium draped around
and between them and choanosyncytia with multiple collar bodies in the center. The larvae then leave their
parents' bodies.[46]
Meiosis

The cytological progression of porifera oogenesis and spermatogenesis (gametogenesis) is very similar to that
of other metazoa.[47] Most of the genes from the classic set of meiotic genes, including genes for DNA
recombination and double-strand break repair, that are conserved in eukaryotes are expressed in the sponges
(e.g. Geodia hentscheli and Geodia phlegraei).[47] Since porifera are considered to be the earliest divergent
animals, these findings indicate that the basic toolkit of meiosis including capabilities for recombination and
DNA repair were present early in eukaryote evolution.[47]
Life cycle
Sponges in temperate regions live for at most a few years, but some tropical species and perhaps some
deep-ocean ones may live for 200 years or more. Some calcified demosponges grow by only 0.2 mm (0.0079
in) per year and, if that rate is constant, specimens 1 m (3.3 ft) wide must be about 5,000 years old. Some
sponges start sexual reproduction when only a few weeks old, while others wait until they are several years
old.[21]
Coordination of activities

Adult sponges lack neurons or any other kind of nervous tissue. However, most species have the ability to
perform movements that are coordinated all over their bodies, mainly contractions of the pinacocytes, squeezing
the water channels and thus expelling excess sediment and other substances that may cause blockages. Some
species can contract the osculum independently of the rest of the body. Sponges may also contract in order to
reduce the area that is vulnerable to attack by predators. In cases where two sponges are fused, for example if
there is a large but still unseparated bud, these contraction waves slowly become coordinated in both of the
"Siamese twins". The coordinating mechanism is unknown, but may involve chemicals similar to
neurotransmitters.[48] However, glass sponges rapidly transmit electrical impulses through all parts of the
syncytium, and use this to halt the motion of their flagella if the incoming water contains toxins or excessive
sediment.[21] Myocytes are thought to be responsible for closing the osculum and for transmitting signals
between different parts of the body.[23]

Sponges contain genes very similar to those that contain the "recipe" for the post-synaptic density, an important
signal-receiving structure in the neurons of all other animals. However, in sponges these genes are only
activated in "flask cells" that appear only in larvae and may provide some sensory capability while the larvae
are swimming. This raises questions about whether flask cells represent the predecessors of true neurons or are
evidence that sponges' ancestors had true neurons but lost them as they adapted to a sessile lifestyle.[49]
Ecology
Habitats
See also: Sponge ground and Sponge reef
Euplectella aspergillum is a deep ocean glass sponge; seen here at a depth of 2,572 metres (8,438 ft) off the
coast of California

Sponges are worldwide in their distribution, living in a wide range of ocean habitats, from the polar regions to
the tropics.[32] Most live in quiet, clear waters, because sediment stirred up by waves or currents would block
their pores, making it difficult for them to feed and breathe.[33] The greatest numbers of sponges are usually
found on firm surfaces such as rocks, but some sponges can attach themselves to soft sediment by means of a
root-like base.[50]
Sponges are more abundant but less diverse in temperate waters than in tropical waters, possibly because
organisms that prey on sponges are more abundant in tropical waters.[51] Glass sponges are the most common
in polar waters and in the depths of temperate and tropical seas, as their very porous construction enables them
to extract food from these resource-poor waters with the minimum of effort. Demosponges and calcareous
sponges are abundant and diverse in shallower non-polar waters.[52]

The different classes of sponge live in different ranges of habitat:

Class Water type[23] Depth[23] Type of surface[23]

Calcarea Marine less than 100 m (330 ft) Hard
Glass sponges Marine Deep Soft or firm sediment
Demosponges Marine, brackish; and about 150 freshwater species[21] Inter-tidal to abyssal;[23] a
carnivorous demosponge has been found at 8,840 m (5.49 mi)[39] Any

As primary producers

Sponges with photosynthesizing endosymbionts produce up to three times more oxygen than they consume, as
well as more organic matter than they consume. Such contributions to their habitats' resources are significant
along Australia's Great Barrier Reef but relatively minor in the Caribbean.[32]
Defenses
Holes made by clionaid sponge (producing the trace Entobia) after the death of a modern bivalve shell of
species Mercenaria mercenaria, from North Carolina
Close-up of the sponge boring Entobia in a modern oyster valve. Note the chambers which are connected by
short tunnels.

Many sponges shed spicules, forming a dense carpet several meters deep that keeps away echinoderms which
would otherwise prey on the sponges.[32] They also produce toxins that prevent other sessile organisms such as
bryozoans or sea squirts from growing on or near them, making sponges very effective competitors for living
space. One of many examples includes ageliferin.

A few species, the Caribbean fire sponge Tedania ignis, cause a severe rash in humans who handle them.[21]
Turtles and some fish feed mainly on sponges. It is often said that sponges produce chemical defenses against
such predators.[21] However, experiments have been unable to establish a relationship between the toxicity of
chemicals produced by sponges and how they taste to fish, which would diminish the usefulness of chemical
defenses as deterrents. Predation by fish may even help to spread sponges by detaching fragments.[23]
However, some studies have shown fish showing a preference for non chemically defended sponges,[53] and
another study found that high levels of coral predation did predict the presence of chemically defended
species.[54]

Glass sponges produce no toxic chemicals, and live in very deep water where predators are rare.[33]
Predation
See also: Spongivore

Spongeflies, also known as spongillaflies (Neuroptera, Sisyridae), are specialist predators of freshwater
sponges. The female lays her eggs on vegetation overhanging water. The larvae hatch and drop into the water
where they seek out sponges to feed on. They use their elongated mouthparts to pierce the sponge and suck the
fluids within. The larvae of some species cling to the surface of the sponge while others take refuge in the
sponge's internal cavities. The fully grown larvae leave the water and spin a cocoon in which to pupate.[55]
Bioerosion

The Caribbean chicken-liver sponge Chondrilla nucula secretes toxins that kill coral polyps, allowing the
sponges to grow over the coral skeletons.[21] Others, especially in the family Clionaidae, use corrosive
substances secreted by their archeocytes to tunnel into rocks, corals and the shells of dead mollusks.[21]
Sponges may remove up to 1 m (3.3 ft) per year from reefs, creating visible notches just below low-tide
level.[32]
Diseases

Caribbean sponges of the genus Aplysina suffer from Aplysina red band syndrome. This causes Aplysina to
develop one or more rust-colored bands, sometimes with adjacent bands of necrotic tissue. These lesions may
completely encircle branches of the sponge. The disease appears to be contagious and impacts approximately 10
percent of A. cauliformis on Bahamian reefs.[56] The rust-colored bands are caused by a cyanobacterium, but it
is unknown whether this organism actually causes the disease.[56][57]
Collaboration with other organisms

In addition to hosting photosynthesizing endosymbionts,[21] sponges are noted for their wide range of
collaborations with other organisms. The relatively large encrusting sponge Lissodendoryx colombiensis is
most common on rocky surfaces, but has extended its range into seagrass meadows by letting itself be
surrounded or overgrown by seagrass sponges, which are distasteful to the local starfish and therefore protect
Lissodendoryx against them; in return, the seagrass sponges get higher positions away from the sea-floor
sediment.[58]

Shrimps of the genus Synalpheus form colonies in sponges, and each shrimp species inhabits a different sponge
species, making Synalpheus one of the most diverse crustacean genera. Specifically, Synalpheus regalis utilizes
the sponge not only as a food source, but also as a defense against other shrimp and predators.[59] As many as
16,000 individuals inhabit a single loggerhead sponge, feeding off the larger particles that collect on the sponge
as it filters the ocean to feed itself.[60] Other crustaceans such as hermit crabs commonly have a specific
species of sponge, Pseudospongosorites, grow on them as both the sponge and crab occupy gastropod shells
until the crab and sponge outgrow the shell, eventually resulting in the crab using the sponge's body as
protection instead of the shell until the crab finds a suitable replacement shell.[61]
Bathymetrical range of some sponge species.[62] Demosponge Samus anonymus (up to 50 m), hexactinellid
þÿScleroplegma lanterna (~100 600 m), hexactinellid Aulocalyx irregularis (~550 915 m), lithistid demosponge
þÿNeoaulaxinia persicum (~500 1700 m)
Generalised food web for sponge reefs[63]
Sponge loop

Most sponges are detritivores which filter organic debris particles and microscopic life forms from ocean water.
In particular, sponges occupy an important role as detritivores in coral reef food webs by recycling detritus to
higher trophic levels.[64]

The hypothesis has been made that coral reef sponges facilitate the transfer of coral-derived organic matter to
their associated detritivores via the production of sponge detritus, as shown in the diagram. Several sponge
species are able to convert coral-derived DOM into sponge detritus,[65][66] and transfer organic matter
produced by corals further up the reef food web. Corals release organic matter as both dissolved and particulate
mucus,[67][68]</ref>[69][70] as well as cellular material such as expelled Symbiodinium.[71][72][64]

Organic matter could be transferred from corals to sponges by all these pathways, but DOM likely makes up the
largest fraction, as the majority (56 to 80%) of coral mucus dissolves in the water column,[68] and coral loss of
fixed carbon due to expulsion of Symbiodinium is typically negligible (0.01%)[71] compared with mucus
release (up to ~40%).[73][74] Coral-derived organic matter could also be indirectly transferred to sponges via
bacteria, which can also consume coral mucus.[75][76][77][64]
Sponge loop hypothesis. Steps of the sponge loop pathway: (1) corals and algae release exudates as dissolved
organic matter (DOM), (2) sponges take up DOM, (3) sponges release detrital particulate organic matter
(POM), (4) sponge detritus (POM) is taken up by sponge-associated and free-living detritivores.[64][66][78]
The sponge holobiont. The sponge holobiont is an example of the concept of nested ecosystems. Key functions
carried out by the microbiome (colored arrows) influence holobiont functioning and, through cascading effects,
subsequently influence community structure and ecosystem functioning. Environmental factors act at multiple
scales to alter microbiome, holobiont, community, and ecosystem scale processes. Thus, factors that alter
microbiome functioning can lead to changes at the holobiont, community, or even ecosystem level and vice
versa, illustrating the necessity of considering multiple scales when evaluating functioning in nested
ecosystems.[79] (DOM: dissolved organic matter, POM: particulate organic matter, DIN: dissolved inorganic
nitrogen)
Sponge holobiont

Besides a one to one symbiotic relationship, it is possible for a host to become symbiotic with a microbial
consortium, resulting in a diverse sponge microbiome. Sponges are able to host a wide range of microbial
communities that can also be very specific. The microbial communities that form a symbiotic relationship with
the sponge can amount to as much as 35% of the biomass of its host.[80] The term for this specific symbiotic
relationship, where a microbial consortia pairs with a host is called a holobiotic relationship. The sponge as well
as the microbial community associated with it will produce a large range of secondary metabolites that help
protect it against predators through mechanisms such as chemical defense.[81]

Some of these relationships include endosymbionts within bacteriocyte cells, and cyanobacteria or microalgae
found below the pinacoderm cell layer where they are able to receive the highest amount of light, used for
phototrophy. They can host over 50 different microbial phyla and candidate phyla, including
Alphaprotoebacteria, Actinomycetota, Chloroflexota, Nitrospirota, "Cyanobacteria", the taxa Gamma-, the
candidate phylum Poribacteria, and Thaumarchaea.[81]
Systematics
Taxonomy

Carl Linnaeus, who classified most kinds of sessile animals as belonging to the order Zoophyta in the class
Vermes, mistakenly identified the genus Spongia as plants in the order Algae.[82][further explanation needed]
For a long time thereafter, sponges were assigned to subkingdom Parazoa ("beside the animals") separated from
the Eumetazoa which formed the rest of the kingdom Animalia.[83] They have been regarded as a paraphyletic
phylum, from which the higher animals have evolved.[84] Other research indicates Porifera is
monophyletic.[85]

The phylum Porifera is further divided into classes mainly according to the composition of their
skeletons:[20][32]

Hexactinellida (glass sponges) have silicate spicules, the largest of which have six rays and may be
individual or fused.[20] The main components of their bodies are syncytia in which large numbers of cell share
a single external membrane.[32]
Calcarea have skeletons made of calcite, a form of calcium carbonate, which may form separate spicules or
large masses. All the cells have a single nucleus and membrane.[32]
Most Demospongiae have silicate spicules or spongin fibers or both within their soft tissues. However, a few
also have massive external skeletons made of aragonite, another form of calcium carbonate.[20][32] All the
cells have a single nucleus and membrane.[32]
Archeocyatha are known only as fossils from the Cambrian period.[83]
In the 1970s, sponges with massive calcium carbonate skeletons were assigned to a separate class,
Sclerospongiae, otherwise known as "coralline sponges".[86] However, in the 1980s it was found that these
were all members of either the Calcarea or the Demospongiae.[87]

So far scientific publications have identified about 9,000 poriferan species,[32] of which: about 400 are glass
sponges; about 500 are calcareous species; and the rest are demosponges.[21] However, some types of habitat,
vertical rock and cave walls and galleries in rock and coral boulders, have been investigated very little, even in
shallow seas.[32]
Classes

Sponges were traditionally distributed in three classes: calcareous sponges (Calcarea), glass sponges
(Hexactinellida) and demosponges (Demospongiae). However, studies have now shown that the
Homoscleromorpha, a group thought to belong to the Demospongiae, has a genetic relationship well separated
þÿfrom other sponge classes.[16]: 153 154 Therefore, they have recently been recognized as the fourth class of
sponges.[88][89]

Sponges are divided into classes mainly according to the composition of their skeletons:[23] These are arranged
in evolutionary order as shown below in ascending order of their evolution from top to bottom:

Class Type of cells[23] Spicules[23] Spongin fibers[23] Massive exoskeleton[32] Body for
Hexactinellida Mostly syncytia in all species Silica
May be individual or fused Never Never Leuconoid
Demospongiae Single nucleus, single external membrane Silica In many species In some species
Made of aragonite if present.[20][32] Leuconoid
Calcarea Single nucleus, single external membrane Calcite
May be individual or large masses Never Common.
Made of calcite if present. Asconoid, syconoid, leuconoid or solenoid[90]
Homoscleromorpha Single nucleus, single external membrane Silica In many species Never
or leuconoid

Evolutionary history
Fossil record
"Primitive Sponge" redirects here. Not to be confused with Sponge (material) § History.
Raphidonema faringdonense, a fossil sponge from the Cretaceous of England
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1: Gap 2: Central cavity 3 Internal wall 4: Pore (all walls have pores) 5 Septum 6 Outer wall 7 Holdfast
Archaeocyathid structure
Nevadacoelia wistae, a fossil anthaspidellid demosponge from the early Ordovician of Nevada.

Although molecular clocks and biomarkers suggest sponges existed well before the Cambrian explosion of life,
silica spicules like those of demosponges are absent from the fossil record until the Cambrian.[91] An
unsubstantiated 2002 report exists of spicules in rocks dated around 750 million years ago.[92] Well-preserved
fossil sponges from about 580 million years ago in the Ediacaran period have been found in the Doushantuo
Formation.[93] These fossils, which include: spicules; pinacocytes; porocytes; archeocytes; sclerocytes; and the
internal cavity, have been classified as demosponges. Fossils of glass sponges have been found from around
540 million years ago in rocks in Australia, China, and Mongolia.[94] Early Cambrian sponges from Mexico
belonging to the genus Kiwetinokia show evidence of fusion of several smaller spicules to form a single large
spicule.[95] Calcium carbonate spicules of calcareous sponges have been found in Early Cambrian rocks from
about 530 to 523 million years ago in Australia. Other probable demosponges have been found in the Early
Cambrian Chengjiang fauna, from 525 to 520 million years ago.[96] Fossils found in the Canadian Northwest
Territories dating to 890 million years ago may be sponges; if this finding is confirmed, it suggests the first
animals appeared before the Neoproterozoic oxygenation event.[97]
Oxygen content of the atmosphere over the last billion years. If confirmed, the discovery of fossilized sponges
dating to 890 million years ago would predate the Neoproterozoic Oxygenation Event.

Freshwater sponges appear to be much younger, as the earliest known fossils date from the Mid-Eocene period
about 48 to 40 million years ago.[94] Although about 90% of modern sponges are demosponges, fossilized
remains of this type are less common than those of other types because their skeletons are composed of
relatively soft spongin that does not fossilize well.[98] The earliest sponge symbionts are known from the early
Silurian.[99]

A chemical tracer is 24-isopropylcholestane, which is a stable derivative of 24-isopropylcholesterol, which is

said to be produced by demosponges but not by eumetazoans ("true animals", i.e. cnidarians and bilaterians).
Since choanoflagellates are thought to be animals' closest single-celled relatives, a team of scientists examined
the biochemistry and genes of one choanoflagellate species. They concluded that this species could not produce
24-isopropylcholesterol but that investigation of a wider range of choanoflagellates would be necessary in order
to prove that the fossil 24-isopropylcholestane could only have been produced by demosponges.[100] Although
a previous publication reported traces of the chemical 24-isopropylcholestane in ancient rocks dating to 1,800
million years ago,[101] recent research using a much more accurately dated rock series has revealed that these
biomarkers only appear before the end of the Marinoan glaciation approximately 635 million years ago,[102]
and that "Biomarker analysis has yet to reveal any convincing evidence for ancient sponges pre-dating the first
globally extensive Neoproterozoic glacial episode (the Sturtian, ~713 million years ago in Oman)". While it has
been argued that this 'sponge biomarker' could have originated from marine algae, recent research suggests that
the algae's ability to produce this biomarker evolved only in the Carboniferous; as such, the biomarker remains
strongly supportive of the presence of demosponges in the Cryogenian.[103][104][105]

Archaeocyathids, which some classify as a type of coralline sponge, are very common fossils in rocks from the
Early Cambrian about 530 to 520 million years ago, but apparently died out by the end of the Cambrian 490
million years ago.[96] It has been suggested that they were produced by: sponges; cnidarians; algae;
foraminiferans; a completely separate phylum of animals, Archaeocyatha; or even a completely separate
kingdom of life, labeled Archaeata or Inferibionta. Since the 1990s archaeocyathids have been regarded as a
distinctive group of sponges.[83]
= skin
= aragonite
= flesh
Halkieriid sclerite structure[106]

It is difficult to fit chancelloriids into classifications of sponges or more complex animals. An analysis in 1996
concluded that they were closely related to sponges on the grounds that the detailed structure of chancellorid
sclerites ("armor plates") is similar to that of fibers of spongin, a collagen protein, in modern keratose (horny)
demosponges such as Darwinella.[107] However, another analysis in 2002 concluded that chancelloriids are not
sponges and may be intermediate between sponges and more complex animals, among other reasons because
their skins were thicker and more tightly connected than those of sponges.[108] In 2008, a detailed analysis of
chancelloriids' sclerites concluded that they were very similar to those of halkieriids, mobile bilaterian animals
that looked like slugs in chain mail and whose fossils are found in rocks from the very Early Cambrian to the
Mid Cambrian. If this is correct, it would create a dilemma, as it is extremely unlikely that totally unrelated
organisms could have developed such similar sclerites independently, but the huge difference in the structures
of their bodies makes it hard to see how they could be closely related.[106]
Relationships to other animal groups
A choanoflagellate
Simplified family tree showing calcareous sponges as closest to more complex animals[109]
Opisthokonta
Fungi

Choanoflagellates
Metazoa

Glass sponges

Demosponges

Calcareous sponges
Eumetazoa

Comb jellies

Placozoa

Cnidaria
(jellyfish, etc.)

other metazoans
Simplified family tree showing Homoscleromorpha as closest to more complex animals[110]
Eukaryotes
Plants

Fungi
Metazoa

Most demosponges

Calcareous sponges

Homoscleromorpha
Eumetazoa

Cnidaria
(jellyfish, etc.)

other metazoans

In the 1990s, sponges were widely regarded as a monophyletic group, all of them having descended from a
common ancestor that was itself a sponge, and as the "sister-group" to all other metazoans (multi-celled
animals), which themselves form a monophyletic group. On the other hand, some 1990s analyses also revived
the idea that animals' nearest evolutionary relatives are choanoflagellates, single-celled organisms very similar
þÿto sponges' choanocytes which would imply that most Metazoa evolved from very sponge-like ancestors and
therefore that sponges may not be monophyletic, as the same sponge-like ancestors may have given rise both to
modern sponges and to non-sponge members of Metazoa.[109]

Analyses since 2001 have concluded that Eumetazoa (more complex than sponges) are more closely related to
particular groups of sponges than to other sponge groups. Such conclusions imply that sponges are not
monophyletic, because the last common ancestor of all sponges would also be a direct ancestor of the
Eumetazoa, which are not sponges. A study in 2001 based on comparisons of ribosome DNA concluded that the
most fundamental division within sponges was between glass sponges and the rest, and that Eumetazoa are
more closely related to calcareous sponges (those with calcium carbonate spicules) than to other types of
sponge.[109] In 2007, one analysis based on comparisons of RNA and another based mainly on comparison of
spicules concluded that demosponges and glass sponges are more closely related to each other than either is to
the calcareous sponges, which in turn are more closely related to Eumetazoa.[94][111]

Other anatomical and biochemical evidence links the Eumetazoa with Homoscleromorpha, a sub-group of
demosponges. A comparison in 2007 of nuclear DNA, excluding glass sponges and comb jellies, concluded
that:

Homoscleromorpha are most closely related to Eumetazoa;

calcareous sponges are the next closest;
the other demosponges are evolutionary "aunts" of these groups; and
the chancelloriids, bag-like animals whose fossils are found in Cambrian rocks, may be sponges.[110]

The sperm of Homoscleromorpha share features with the sperm of Eumetazoa, that sperm of other sponges
lack. In both Homoscleromorpha and Eumetazoa layers of cells are bound together by attachment to a
carpet-like basal membrane composed mainly of "typ IV" collagen, a form of collagen not found in other
þÿsponges although the spongin fibers that reinforce the mesohyl of all demosponges is similar to "type IV"
collagen.[25]
A comb jelly

The analyses described above concluded that sponges are closest to the ancestors of all Metazoa, of all
multi-celled animals including both sponges and more complex groups. However, another comparison in 2008
of 150 genes in each of 21 genera, ranging from fungi to humans but including only two species of sponge,
suggested that comb jellies (ctenophora) are the most basal lineage of the Metazoa included in the
sample.[112][113][114][115] If this is correct, either modern comb jellies developed their complex structures
independently of other Metazoa, or sponges' ancestors were more complex and all known sponges are
drastically simplified forms. The study recommended further analyses using a wider range of sponges and other
simple Metazoa such as Placozoa.[112]

However, reanalysis of the data showed that the computer algorithms used for analysis were misled by the
presence of specific ctenophore genes that were markedly different from those of other species, leaving sponges
as either the sister group to all other animals, or an ancestral paraphyletic grade.[116][117] 'Family trees'
þÿconstructed using a combination of all available data morphological, developmental and molecular
concluded that the sponges are in fact a monophyletic group, and with the cnidarians form the sister group to
the bilaterians.[118][119]
A very large and internally consistent alignment of 1,719 proteins at the metazoan scale, published in 2017,
þÿshowed that (i) sponges represented by Homoscleromorpha, Calcarea, Hexactinellida, and Demospongiae
are monophyletic, (ii) sponges are sister-group to all other multicellular animals, (iii) ctenophores emerge as the
second-earliest branching animal lineage, and (iv) placozoans emerge as the third animal lineage, followed by
cnidarians sister-group to bilaterians.[7]

In March 2021, scientists from Dublin found additional evidence that sponges are the sister group to all other
animals,[120] while in May 2023, Schultz et al. found patterns of irreversible change in genome synteny that
provide strong evidence that ctenophores are the sister group to all other animals instead.[121]
Notable spongiologists

Stephen Hillenburg

Céline Allewaert
Patricia Bergquist
James Scott Bowerbank
Maurice Burton
Henry John Carter
Max Walker de Laubenfels
Arthur Dendy
Édouard Placide Duchassaing de Fontbressin
Randolph Kirkpatrick
Robert J. Lendlmayer von Lendenfeld
Edward Alfred Minchin
Giovanni Domenico Nardo
Eduard Oscar Schmidt
Émile Topsent

Use
Sponges made of sponge gourd for sale alongside sponges of animal origin (Spice Bazaar at Istanbul, Turkey)
By dolphins

A report in 1997 described use of sponges as a tool by bottlenose dolphins in Shark Bay in Western Australia. A
dolphin will attach a marine sponge to its rostrum, which is presumably then used to protect it when searching
for food in the sandy sea bottom.[122] The behavior, known as sponging, has only been observed in this bay
and is almost exclusively shown by females. A study in 2005 concluded that mothers teach the behavior to their
daughters and that all the sponge users are closely related, suggesting that it is a fairly recent innovation.[19]
By humans
Main articles: Sea sponge aquaculture and Sponge diving
Natural sponges in Tarpon Springs, Florida
Display of natural sponges for sale on Kalymnos in Greece
Skeleton
Main article: Sponge (material)

The calcium carbonate or silica spicules of most sponge genera make them too rough for most uses, but two
þÿgenera, Hippospongia and Spongia, have soft, entirely fibrous skeletons.[16]: 88 Early Europeans used soft
sponges for many purposes, including padding for helmets, portable drinking utensils and municipal water
filters. Until the invention of synthetic sponges, they were used as cleaning tools, applicators for paints and
ceramic glazes and discreet contraceptives. However, by the mid-20th century, overfishing brought both the
animals and the industry close to extinction.[123]

Many objects with sponge-like textures are now made of substances not derived from poriferans. Synthetic
sponges include personal and household cleaning tools, breast implants,[124] and contraceptive sponges.[125]
Typical materials used are cellulose foam, polyurethane foam, and less frequently, silicone foam.

The luffa "sponge", also spelled loofah, which is commonly sold for use in the kitchen or the shower, is not
derived from an animal but mainly from the fibrous "skeleton" of the sponge gourd (Luffa aegyptiaca,
Cucurbitaceae).[126]
Antibiotic compounds

Sponges have medicinal potential due to the presence in sponges themselves or their microbial symbionts of
chemicals that may be used to control viruses, bacteria, tumors and fungi.[127][128]
Other biologically active compounds
Main article: Sponge isolates
Halichondria produces the eribulin precursor halichondrin B

Lacking any protective shell or means of escape, sponges have evolved to synthesize a variety of unusual
compounds. One such class is the oxidized fatty acid derivatives called oxylipins. Members of this family have
been found to have anti-cancer, anti-bacterial and anti-fungal properties. One example isolated from the
Okinawan plakortis sponges, plakoridine A, has shown potential as a cytotoxin to murine lymphoma
cells.[129][130]
See also
 Lists of sponges
Sponge Reef Project
3-Alkylpyridinium, compounds found in marine Haplosclerida sponges

References

Zumberge JA, Love GD, Cárdenas P, Sperling EA, Gunasekera S, Rohrssen M, et al. (November 2018).
"Demosponge steroid biomarker 26-methylstigmastane provides evidence for Neoproterozoic animals". Nature
þÿEcology & Evolution. 2 (11): 1709 1714. Bibcode:2018NatEE...2.1709Z. doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0676-2.
PMC 6589438. PMID 30323207.
þÿPajdziDska A (2018). "Animals die more shallowly: they aren't deceased, they're dead. Animals in the polish
þÿlinguistic worldview and in contemporary life sciences". Ethnolinguistic. 29: 147 161.
doi:10.17951/et.2017.29.135.
"Porifera". World Register of Marine Species. Flanders Marine Institute. 2024. Retrieved 8 May 2024.
"porifera". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Retrieved 2024-05-12.
Feuda R, Dohrmann M, Pett W, Philippe H, Rota-Stabelli O, Lartillot N, et al. (December 2017). "Improved
Modeling of Compositional Heterogeneity Supports Sponges as Sister to All Other Animals". Current Biology.
þÿ27 (24): 3864 3870.e4. Bibcode:2017CBio...27E3864F. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.11.008. PMID 29199080.
Pisani D, Pett W, Dohrmann M, Feuda R, Rota-Stabelli O, Philippe H, et al. (December 2015). "Genomic data
do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals". Proceedings of the National Academy of
þÿSciences of the United States of America. 112 (50): 15402 7. Bibcode:2015PNAS..11215402P.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1518127112. PMC 4687580. PMID 26621703.
Simion P, Philippe H, Baurain D, Jager M, Richter DJ, Di Franco A, et al. (April 2017). "A Large and
Consistent Phylogenomic Dataset Supports Sponges as the Sister Group to All Other Animals" (PDF). Current
þÿBiology. 27 (7): 958 967. Bibcode:2017CBio...27..958S. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.02.031. PMID 28318975.
Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
Giribet G (1 October 2016). "Genomics and the animal tree of life: conflicts and future prospects". Zoologica
þÿScripta. 45: 14 21. doi:10.1111/zsc.12215. ISSN 1463-6409.
Laumer CE, Gruber-Vodicka H, Hadfield MG, Pearse VB, Riesgo A, Marioni JC, et al. (2017-10-11).
"Placozoans are eumetazoans related to Cnidaria". bioRxiv 10.1101/200972.
Moroz LL, Romanova DY (23 December 2022). "Alternative neural systems: What is a neuron? (Ctenophores,
sponges and placozoans)". Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology. 10: 1071961.
doi:10.3389/fcell.2022.1071961. PMC 9816575. PMID 36619868.
"Spongiology". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Retrieved 27 December 2017.
þÿLiddell HG, Scott R (1940). "ÃÀ̳³¿Â". A Greek-English Lexicon. Archived from the original on 5 September
þÿ2021. Retrieved 5 September 2021 via Perseus.
Hooper J (2018). "Structure of Sponges". Queensland Museum. Archived from the original on 26 September
2019. Retrieved 27 September 2019.
Thacker RW, Díaz MC, Kerner A, Vignes-Lebbe R, Segerdell E, Haendel MA, et al. (8 September 2014). "The
Porifera Ontology (PORO): enhancing sponge systematics with an anatomy ontology". Journal of Biomedical
Semantics. 5 (1): 39. doi:10.1186/2041-1480-5-39. PMC 4177528. PMID 25276334.
Collins AG (December 1998). "Evaluating multiple alternative hypotheses for the origin of Bilateria: an
analysis of 18S rRNA molecular evidence". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
þÿStates of America. 95 (26): 15458 63. Bibcode:1998PNAS...9515458C. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.26.15458. PMC
28064. PMID 9860990.
Bergquist P (1978). Sponges. London: Hutchinson. ISBN 978-0-520-03658-1.
Vacelet J, Duport E (2004). "Prey capture and digestion in the carnivorous sponge Asbestopluma hypogea
þÿ(Porifera: Demospongiae)". Zoomorphology. 123 (4): 179 190. doi:10.1007/s00435-004-0100-0. S2CID
24484610.
Clark MA, Choi J and Douglas M (2018) Biology 2e[permanent dead link], page 776, OpenStax. ISBN
978-1-947172-52-4.
Krützen M, Mann J, Heithaus MR, Connor RC, Bejder L, Sherwin WB (June 2005). "Cultural transmission of
tool use in bottlenose dolphins". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
þÿAmerica. 102 (25): 8939 43. Bibcode:2005PNAS..102.8939K. doi:10.1073/pnas.0500232102. PMC 1157020.
PMID 15947077.
Hooper JN, Van Soest RW, Debrenne F (2002). "Phylum Porifera Grant, 1836". In Hooper JN, Van Soest RW
(eds.). Systema Porifera: A Guide to the Classification of Sponges. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. pp.
þÿ9 14. ISBN 978-0-306-47260-2.
þÿRuppert RE, Fox RS, Barnes RD (2004). Invertebrate Zoology (7th ed.). Brooks / COLE Publishing. pp. 76 97.
ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1.
Bakshani CR, Morales-Garcia AL, Althaus M, Wilcox MD, Pearson JP, Bythell JC, et al. (2018-07-04).
"Evolutionary conservation of the antimicrobial function of mucus: a first defence against infection". npj
Biofilms and Microbiomes. 4 (1): 14. doi:10.1038/s41522-018-0057-2. PMC 6031612. PMID 30002868.
Bergquist PR (1998). "Porifera". In Anderson DT (ed.). Invertebrate Zoology. Oxford University Press. pp.
þÿ10 27. ISBN 978-0-19-551368-4.
Hinde RT (1998). "The Cnidaria and Ctenophora". In Anderson DT (ed.). Invertebrate Zoology. Oxford
þÿUniversity Press. pp. 28 57. ISBN 978-0-19-551368-4.
Exposito JY, Cluzel C, Garrone R, Lethias C (November 2002). "Evolution of collagens". The Anatomical
þÿRecord. 268 (3): 302 16. doi:10.1002/ar.10162. PMID 12382326.
Ruppert EE, Fox RS, Barnes RD (2004). Invertebrate Zoology (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. p. 82. ISBN
978-0-03-025982-1.
Musser JM, Schippers KJ, Nickel M, Mizzon G, Kohn AB, Pape C, et al. (November 2021). "Profiling cellular
þÿdiversity in sponges informs animal cell type and nervous system evolution". Science. 374 (6568): 717 723.
Bibcode:2021Sci...374..717M. doi:10.1126/science.abj2949. PMC 9233960. PMID 34735222.
Rivera AS, Ozturk N, Fahey B, Plachetzki DC, Degnan BM, Sancar A, et al. (April 2012). "Blue-light-receptive
cryptochrome is expressed in a sponge eye lacking neurons and opsin". The Journal of Experimental Biology.
þÿ215 (Pt 8): 1278 86. doi:10.1242/jeb.067140. PMC 3309880. PMID 22442365.
Ruppert EE, Fox RS, Barnes RD (2004). Invertebrate Zoology (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. p. 78. ISBN
978-0-03-025982-1.
Hickman CP, Roberts LS, Larson A (2001). Integrated Principles of Zoology (11th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill. p. 247. ISBN 978-0-07-290961-6.
"Marine Species Identification Portal: Halisarca dujardini". species-identification.org. Archived from the
original on 2020-10-17. Retrieved 2019-08-02.
Bergquist PR (2001). "Porifera (Sponges)". Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
doi:10.1038/npg.els.0001582. ISBN 978-0-470-01617-6.
Krautter M (1998). "Ecology of siliceous sponges: Application to the environmental interpretation of the Upper
þÿJurassic sponge facies (Oxfordian) from Spain" (PDF). Cuadernos de Geología Ibérica. 24: 223 239. Archived
from the original (PDF) on March 19, 2009. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
Yahel G, Whitney F, Reiswig HM, Eerkes-Medrano DI, Leys SP (2007). "In situ feeding and metabolism of
glass sponges (Hexactinellida, Porifera) studied in a deep temperate fjord with a remotely operated
þÿsubmersible". Limnology and Oceanography. 52 (1): 428 440. Bibcode:2007LimOc..52..428Y. CiteSeerX
10.1.1.597.9627. doi:10.4319/lo.2007.52.1.0428. S2CID 86297053.
Van Soest RW, Boury-Esnault N, Vacelet J, Dohrmann M, Erpenbeck D, De Voogd NJ, et al. (2012). "Global
diversity of sponges (Porifera)". PLOS ONE. 7 (4): e35105. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...735105V.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035105. PMC 3338747. PMID 22558119.
"4 new species of 'killer' sponges discovered off Pacific coast". CBC News. April 19, 2014. Archived from the
original on April 19, 2014. Retrieved 2014-09-04.
Vacelet J (2008). "A new genus of carnivorous sponges (Porifera: Poecilosclerida, Cladorhizidae) from the deep
þÿN-E Pacific, and remarks on the genus Neocladia" (PDF). Zootaxa. 1752: 57 65.
doi:10.11646/zootaxa.1752.1.3. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2008-09-06. Retrieved 2008-10-31.
Watling L (2007). "Predation on copepods by an Alaskan cladorhizid sponge". Journal of the Marine Biological
þÿAssociation of the United Kingdom. 87 (6): 1721 1726. Bibcode:2007JMBUK..87.1721W.
doi:10.1017/S0025315407058560. S2CID 86588792.
þÿVacelet J, Boury-Esnault N (1995). "Carnivorous sponges". Nature. 373 (6512): 333 335.
Bibcode:1995Natur.373..333V. doi:10.1038/373333a0. S2CID 4320216.
Vacelet J, Kelly M (2008). "New species from the deep Pacific suggest that carnivorous sponges date back to
the Early Jurassic". Nature Precedings. doi:10.1038/npre.2008.2327.1.
Brümmer F, Pfannkuchen M, Baltz A, Hauser T, Thiel V (2008). "Light inside sponges". Journal of
þÿExperimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 367 (2): 61 64. Bibcode:2008JEMBE.367...61B.
doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2008.06.036.
 Matt Walker (10 November 2008). "Nature's 'fibre optics' experts". BBC News. Archived from the original
on 17 December 2008. Retrieved 11 November 2008.

Smith DG, Pennak RW (2001). Pennak's Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States: Porifera to Crustacea (4
þÿed.). John Wiley and Sons. pp. 47 50. ISBN 978-0-471-35837-4.
Díez-Vives C, Koutsouveli V, Conejero M, Riesgo A (April 10, 2022). "Global patterns in symbiont selection
and transmission strategies in sponges". Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 10.
doi:10.3389/fevo.2022.1015592.
Carrier TJ, Maldonado M, Schmittmann L, Pita L, Bosch TC, Hentschel U (May 2022). "Symbiont
transmission in marine sponges: reproduction, development, and metamorphosis". BMC Biology. 20 (1): 100.
doi:10.1186/s12915-022-01291-6. PMC 9077847. PMID 35524305.
Riesgo A, Taboada S, Sánchez-Vila L, Solà J, Bertran A, Avila C (April 10, 2015). "Some like it fat:
comparative ultrastructure of the embryo in two demosponges of the genus Mycale (order Poecilosclerida) from
Antarctica and the Caribbean". PLOS ONE. 10 (3): e0118805. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1018805R.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118805. PMC 4365022. PMID 25785444.
Leys SP, Cheung E, Boury-Esnault N (April 2006). "Embryogenesis in the glass sponge Oopsacas minuta:
þÿFormation of syncytia by fusion of blastomeres". Integrative and Comparative Biology. 46 (2): 104 17.
doi:10.1093/icb/icj016. PMID 21672727.
Koutsouveli V, Cárdenas P, Santodomingo N, Marina A, Morato E, Rapp HT, et al. (December 2020). "The
Molecular Machinery of Gametogenesis in Geodia Demosponges (Porifera): Evolutionary Origins of a
þÿConserved Toolkit across Animals". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 37 (12): 3485 3506.
doi:10.1093/molbev/msaa183. PMC 7743902. PMID 32929503.
Nickel M (December 2004). "Kinetics and rhythm of body contractions in the sponge Tethya wilhelma
þÿ(Porifera: Demospongiae)". The Journal of Experimental Biology. 207 (Pt 26): 4515 24.
doi:10.1242/jeb.01289. PMID 15579547.
Sakarya O, Armstrong KA, Adamska M, Adamski M, Wang IF, Tidor B, et al. (June 2007). "A post-synaptic
scaffold at the origin of the animal kingdom". PLOS ONE. 2 (6): e506. Bibcode:2007PLoSO...2..506S.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000506. PMC 1876816. PMID 17551586.
Weaver JC, Aizenberg J, Fantner GE, Kisailus D, Woesz A, Allen P, et al. (April 2007). "Hierarchical assembly
of the siliceous skeletal lattice of the hexactinellid sponge Euplectella aspergillum". Journal of Structural
þÿBiology. 158 (1): 93 106. doi:10.1016/j.jsb.2006.10.027. PMID 17175169.
Ruzicka R, Gleason DF (January 2008). "Latitudinal variation in spongivorous fishes and the effectiveness of
þÿsponge chemical defenses" (PDF). Oecologia. 154 (4): 785 94. Bibcode:2008Oecol.154..785R.
doi:10.1007/s00442-007-0874-0. PMID 17960425. S2CID 1495896. Archived from the original (PDF) on
2008-10-06.
Gage JD, Tyler PA (1996). Deep-sea Biology: A Natural History of Organisms at the Deep-Sea Floor.
þÿCambridge University Press. pp. 91 93. ISBN 978-0-521-33665-9.
Dunlap M, Pawlik JR (1996). "Video-monitored predation by Caribbean reef fishes on an array of mangrove
þÿand reef sponges". Marine Biology. 126 (1): 117 123. Bibcode:1996MarBi.126..117D.
doi:10.1007/bf00571383. ISSN 0025-3162. S2CID 84799900.
Loh TL, Pawlik JR (March 2014). "Chemical defenses and resource trade-offs structure sponge communities on
Caribbean coral reefs". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111
þÿ(11): 4151 6. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.4151L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1321626111. PMC 3964098. PMID
24567392.
Piper R (2007). Extraordinary Animals: An Encyclopedia of Curious and Unusual Animals. Greenwood
Publishing Group. p. 148. ISBN 978-0-313-33922-6.
Gochfeld DJ, Easson CG, Slattery M, Thacker RW, Olson JB (2012). Steller D, Lobel L (eds.). "Population
Dynamics of a Sponge Disease on Caribbean Reefs". Diving for Science 2012. Proceedings of the American
Academy of Underwater Sciences 31st Symposium. Archived from the original on 2015-09-04. Retrieved
2013-11-17.
Olson JB, Gochfeld DJ, Slattery M (July 2006). "Aplysina red band syndrome: a new threat to Caribbean
þÿsponges". Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 71 (2): 163 8. doi:10.3354/dao071163. PMID 16956064. Lay
summary in: Clarke M (2006-10-17). "New disease threatens sponges". Practical Fishkeeping. Archived from
the original on 2007-09-26.
Wulff JL (June 2008). "Collaboration among sponge species increases sponge diversity and abundance in a
þÿseagrass meadow". Marine Ecology. 29 (2): 193 204. Bibcode:2008MarEc..29..193W.
doi:10.1111/j.1439-0485.2008.00224.x.
Duffy JE (1996). "Species boundaries, specialization, and the radiation of sponge-dwelling alpheid shrimp".
þÿBiological Journal of the Linnean Society. 58 (3): 307 324. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1996.tb01437.x.
Murphy RC (2002). Coral Reefs: Cities Under The Seas. The Darwin Press, Inc. p. 51. ISBN
978-0-87850-138-0.
Sandford F (2003). "Population dynamics and epibiont associations of hermit crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda:
þÿPaguroidea) on Dog Island, Florida" (PDF). Memoirs of Museum Victoria. 60 (1): 45 52.
doi:10.24199/j.mmv.2003.60.6. ISSN 1447-2554. S2CID 86167606. Archived (PDF) from the original on
2018-07-19. Retrieved 2022-01-24.
þÿAukowiak M (18 December 2020). "Utilizing sponge spicules in taxonomic, ecological and environmental
reconstructions: a review". PeerJ. 8: e10601. doi:10.7717/peerj.10601. PMC 7751429. PMID 33384908.
Archer SK, Kahn AS, Thiess M, Law L, Leys SP, Johannessen SC, et al. (24 September 2020). "Foundation
Species Abundance Influences Food Web Topology on Glass Sponge Reefs". Frontiers in Marine Science. 7.
Frontiers Media SA. doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.549478. ISSN 2296-7745. Material was copied from this source,
which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Archived 2017-10-16 at the
Wayback Machine.
Rix L, de Goeij JM, van Oevelen D, Struck U, Al-Horani FA, Wild C, et al. (February 2018). "Reef sponges
facilitate the transfer of coral-derived organic matter to their associated fauna via the sponge loop". Marine
þÿEcology Progress Series. 589: 85 96. Bibcode:2018MEPS..589...85R. doi:10.3354/meps12443. Material was
copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Archived 2017-10-16 at the Wayback Machine
Rix L, de Goeij JM, Mueller CE, Struck U and others (2016) "Coral mucus fuels the sponge loop in warm- and
coldwater coral reef ecosystems". Sci Rep, 6: 18715.
Rix L, de Goeij JM, van Oevelen D, Struck U, Al-Horani FA, Wild C, et al. (March 2017). "Differential
recycling of coral and algal dissolved organic matter via the sponge loop". Functional Ecology. 31 (3):
þÿ778"789. Bibcode:2017FuEco..31..778R. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12758.
Crossland CJ (July 1987). "In situ release of mucus and DOC-lipid from the corals Acropora variabilis and
þÿStylophora pistillata in different light regimes". Coral Reefs. 6 (1): 35"42. Bibcode:1987CorRe...6...35C.
doi:10.1007/BF00302210.
Wild C, Huettel M, Klueter A, Kremb SG, Rasheed MY, Jørgensen BB (March 2004). "Coral mucus functions
þÿas an energy carrier and particle trap in the reef ecosystem". Nature. 428 (6978): 66 70.
Bibcode:2004Natur.428...66W. doi:10.1038/nature02344. PMID 14999280.
Tanaka Y, Miyajima T, Umezawa Y, Hayashibara T, Ogawa H, Koike I (September 2009). "Net release of
dissolved organic matter by the scleractinian coral Acropora pulchra". Journal of Experimental Marine Biology
þÿand Ecology. 377 (2): 101"106. Bibcode:2009JEMBE.377..101T. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2009.06.023.
Naumann M, Haas A, Struck U, Mayr C, El-Zibdah M, Wild C (September 2010). "Organic matter release by
þÿdominant hermatypic corals of the Northern Red Sea". Coral Reefs. 29 (3): 649"659.
Bibcode:2010CorRe..29..649N. doi:10.1007/s00338-010-0612-7.
Hoegh-Guldberg O, McCloskey LR, Muscatine L (April 1987). "Expulsion of zooxanthellae by symbiotic
þÿcnidarians from the Red Sea". Coral Reefs. 5 (4): 201"204. Bibcode:1987CorRe...5..201H.
doi:10.1007/BF00300964.
Baghdasarian G, Muscatine L (December 2000). "Preferential expulsion of dividing algal cells as a mechanism
þÿfor regulating algal-cnidarian symbiosis". The Biological Bulletin. 199 (3): 278 86. doi:10.2307/1543184.
JSTOR 1543184. PMID 11147708.
Crossland CJ, Barnes DJ, Borowitzka MA (December 1980). "Diurnal lipid and mucus production in the
þÿstaghorn coral Acropora acuminata". Marine Biology. 60 (2 3): 81 90. Bibcode:1980MarBi..60...81C.
doi:10.1007/BF00389151.
Tremblay P, Grover R, Maguer JF, Legendre L, Ferrier-Pagès C (April 2012). "Autotrophic carbon budget in
coral tissue: a new 13C-based model of photosynthate translocation". The Journal of Experimental Biology. 215
þÿ(Pt 8): 1384 93. doi:10.1242/jeb.065201. PMID 22442377.
Ferrier-Pagès C, Leclercq N, Jaubert J, Pelegri SP (March 2000). "Enhancement of pico-and nanoplankton
þÿgrowth by coral exudates". Aquatic Microbial Ecology. 21 (2): 203 209. doi:10.3354/ame021203.
Wild C, Niggl W, Naumann MS, Haas AF (July 2010). "Organic matter release by Red Sea coral reef
þÿorganisms potential effects on microbial activity and in situ O2 availability". Marine Ecology Progress Series.
þÿ411: 61"71. Bibcode:2010MEPS..411...61W. doi:10.3354/meps08653.
Tanaka Y, Ogawa H, Miyajima T (August 2011). "Production and bacterial decomposition of dissolved organic
þÿmatter in a fringing coral reef". Journal of Oceanography. 67 (4): 427 437. Bibcode:2011JOce...67..427T.
doi:10.1007/s10872-011-0046-z.
de Goeij JM, van Oevelen D, Vermeij MJ, Osinga R, Middelburg JJ, de Goeij AF, et al. (October 2013).
"Surviving in a marine desert: the sponge loop retains resources within coral reefs". Science. 342 (6154). New
þÿYork, N.Y.: 108 10. Bibcode:2013Sci...342..108D. doi:10.1126/science.1241981. PMID 24092742.
Pita L, Rix L, Slaby BM, Franke A, Hentschel U (March 2018). "The sponge holobiont in a changing ocean:
from microbes to ecosystems". Microbiome. 6 (1): 46. doi:10.1186/s40168-018-0428-1. PMC 5845141. PMID
29523192. Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License Archived 2017-10-16 at the Wayback Machine.
Egan S, Thomas T (2015). "Editorial for: Microbial symbiosis of marine sessile hosts- diversity and function".
Frontiers in Microbiology. 6: 585. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2015.00585. PMC 4468920. PMID 26136729.
Webster NS, Thomas T (April 2016). "The Sponge Hologenome". mBio. 7 (2): e00135-16.
doi:10.1128/mBio.00135-16. PMC 4850255. PMID 27103626.
"Spongia Linnaeus, 1759". World Register of Marine Species. Archived from the original on 27 March 2016.
Retrieved 18 July 2012.
Rowland SM, Stephens T (2001). "Archaeocyatha: A history of phylogenetic interpretation". Journal of
þÿPaleontology. 75 (6): 1065 1078. doi:10.1666/0022-3360(2001)075<1065:AAHOPI>2.0.CO;2. JSTOR
1307076.
Sperling EA, Pisani D, Peterson KJ (January 1, 2007). "Poriferan paraphyly and its implications for
þÿPrecambrian palaeobiology" (PDF). Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 286 (1): 355 368.
Bibcode:2007GSLSP.286..355S. doi:10.1144/SP286.25. S2CID 34175521. Archived from the original (PDF)
on May 9, 2009. Retrieved 2012-08-22.
Whelan NV, Kocot KM, Moroz LL, Halanych KM (May 2015). "Error, signal, and the placement of
Ctenophora sister to all other animals". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
þÿof America. 112 (18): 5773 8. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.5773W. doi:10.1073/pnas.1503453112. PMC
4426464. PMID 25902535.
Hartman WD, Goreau TF (1970). "Jamaican coralline sponges: Their morphology, ecology and fossil relatives".
þÿSymposium of the Zoological Society of London. 25: 205 243. (cited by MGG.rsmas.miami.edu). Archived
2018-08-18 at the Wayback Machine
Vacelet J (1985). "Coralline sponges and the evolution of the Porifera". In Conway Morris S, George JD,
Gibson R, Platt HM (eds.). The Origins and Relationships of Lower Invertebrates. Oxford University Press. pp.
þÿ1 13. ISBN 978-0-19-857181-0.
Gazave E, Lapébie P, Renard E, Vacelet J, Rocher C, Ereskovsky AV, et al. (December 2010). "Molecular
phylogeny restores the supra-generic subdivision of homoscleromorph sponges (Porifera, Homoscleromorpha)".
PLOS ONE. 5 (12): e14290. Bibcode:2010PLoSO...514290G. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014290. PMC
3001884. PMID 21179486.
Gazave E, Lapébie P, Ereskovsky AV, Vacelet J, Renard E, Cárdenas P, et al. (May 2012). "No longer
Demospongiae: Homoscleromorpha formal nomination as a fourth class of Porifera" (PDF). Hydrobiologia.
þÿ687: 3 10. doi:10.1007/s10750-011-0842-x. S2CID 14468684. Archived (PDF) from the original on
2019-08-01. Retrieved 2019-08-01.
Cavalcanti FF, Klautau M (2011). "Solenoid: a new aquiferous system to Porifera". Zoomorphology. 130 (4):
þÿ255 260. doi:10.1007/s00435-011-0139-7. S2CID 21745242.
Sperling EA, Robinson JM, Pisani D, Peterson KJ (January 2010). "Where's the glass? Biomarkers, molecular
clocks, and microRNAs suggest a 200 Myr missing Precambrian fossil record of siliceous sponge spicules".
þÿGeobiology. 8 (1): 24 36. Bibcode:2010Gbio....8...24S. doi:10.1111/j.1472-4669.2009.00225.x. PMID
19929965. S2CID 41195363.
þÿReitner J, Wörheide G (2002). "Non-lithistid fossil Demospongiae origins of their palaeobiodiversity and
highlights in history of preservation". In Hooper JN, Van Soest RW (eds.). Systema Porifera: A Guide to the
Classification of Sponges (PDF). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Plenum. Archived (PDF) from the original
on 2008-12-16. Retrieved November 4, 2008.
Li CW, Chen JY, Hua TE (February 1998). "Precambrian sponges with cellular structures". Science. 279 (5352):
þÿ879 882. Bibcode:1998Sci...279..879L. doi:10.1126/science.279.5352.879. PMID 9452391.
Müller WE, Li J, Schröder HC, Qiao L, Wang X (2007). "The unique skeleton of siliceous sponges (Porifera;
Hexactinellida and Demospongiae) that evolved first from the Urmetazoa during the Proterozoic: a review".
þÿBiogeosciences. 4 (2): 219 232. Bibcode:2007BGeo....4..219M. doi:10.5194/bg-4-219-2007.
McMenamin MA (2008). "Early Cambrian sponge spicules from the Cerro Clemente and Cerro Rajón, Sonora,
þÿMéxico". Geologica Acta. 6 (4): 363 367.
Li CW, Chen JY, Hua TE (February 1998). "Precambrian sponges with cellular structures". Science. 279 (5352):
þÿ879 82. Bibcode:1998Sci...279..879L. doi:10.1126/science.279.5352.879. PMID 9452391. S2CID 38837724.
Turner EC (August 2021). "Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reefs". Nature.
þÿ596 (7870): 87 91. Bibcode:2021Natur.596...87T. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03773-z. PMC 8338550. PMID
34321662.
"Demospongia". University of California Museum of Paleontology. Berkeley, CA: U.C. Berkeley. Archived
from the original on October 18, 2013. Retrieved 2008-11-27.
Vinn O, Wilson MA, Toom U, Mõtus MA (2015). "Earliest known rugosan-stromatoporoid symbiosis from the
þÿLlandovery of Estonia (Baltica)". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 31: 1 5.
Bibcode:2015PPP...431....1V. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2015.04.023. Archived from the original on 2024-04-10.
Retrieved 2015-06-18.
Kodner RB, Summons RE, Pearson A, King N, Knoll AH (July 2008). "Sterols in a unicellular relative of the
metazoans". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 105 (29):
þÿ9897 9902. Bibcode:2008PNAS..105.9897K. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803975105. PMC 2481317. PMID 18632573.
Nichols S, Wörheide G (April 2005). "Sponges: New views of old animals". Integrative and Comparative
þÿBiology. 45 (2): 333 334. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.598.4999. doi:10.1093/icb/45.2.333. PMID 21676777.
Love GD, Grosjean E, Stalvies C, Fike DA, Grotzinger JP, Bradley AS, et al. (February 2009). "Fossil steroids
þÿrecord the appearance of Demospongiae during the Cryogenian period" (PDF). Nature. 457 (7230): 718 721.
Bibcode:2009Natur.457..718L. doi:10.1038/nature07673. PMID 19194449. S2CID 4314662. Archived from
the original (PDF) on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2019-08-01.
Antcliffe JB (2013). Stouge S (ed.). "Questioning the evidence of organic compounds called sponge
þÿbiomarkers". Palaeontology. 56 (5): 917 925. Bibcode:2013Palgy..56..917A. doi:10.1111/pala.12030.
Gold DA (September 2018). "The slow rise of complex life as revealed through biomarker genetics". Emerging
þÿTopics in Life Sciences. 2 (2): 191 199. doi:10.1042/ETLS20170150. PMID 32412622. S2CID 90887224.
Gold DA, Grabenstatter J, de Mendoza A, Riesgo A, Ruiz-Trillo I, Summons RE (March 2016). "Sterol and
genomic analyses validate the sponge biomarker hypothesis". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
þÿof the United States of America. 113 (10): 2684 2689. Bibcode:2016PNAS..113.2684G.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1512614113. PMC 4790988. PMID 26903629.
Porter SM (2008). "Skeletal microstructure indicates Chancelloriids and Halkieriids are closely related".
þÿPalaeontology. 51 (4): 865 879. Bibcode:2008Palgy..51..865P. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2008.00792.x.
Butterfield NJ, Nicholas CJ (1996). "Burgess Shale-type preservation of both non-mineralizing and "shelly"
Cambrian organisms from the Mackenzie Mountains, northwestern Canada". Journal of Paleontology. 70 (6):
þÿ893 899. Bibcode:1996JPal...70..893B. doi:10.1017/S0022336000038579. JSTOR 1306492. S2CID
133427906.
Janussen D, Steiner M, Zhu MY (2002). "New well-preserved scleritomes of Chancelloridae from the early
Cambrian Yuanshan Formation (Chengjiang, China) and the middle Cambrian Wheeler Shale (Utah, USA) and
þÿpaleobiological implications". Journal of Paleontology. 76 (4): 596 606. Bibcode:2002JPal...76..596J.
doi:10.1666/0022-3360(2002)076<0596:NWPSOC>2.0.CO;2. S2CID 129127213. free text at Janussen D
(2002). "(full text without images)". Journal of Paleontology. Archived from the original on December 10,
2008. Retrieved 2008-08-04.
Borchiellini C, Manuel M, Alivon E, Boury-Esnault N, Vacelet J, Le Parco Y (January 2001). "Sponge
þÿparaphyly and the origin of Metazoa". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 14 (1): 171 179.
doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00244.x. PMID 29280585.
Sperling EA, Pisani D, Peterson KJ (2007). "Poriferan paraphyly and its implications for Precambrian
þÿpaleobiology" (PDF). Journal of the Geological Society of London. 286 (1): 355 368.
Bibcode:2007GSLSP.286..355S. doi:10.1144/SP286.25. S2CID 34175521. Archived from the original (PDF)
on May 9, 2009. Retrieved 2008-11-04.
Medina M, Collins AG, Silberman JD, Sogin ML (August 2001). "Evaluating hypotheses of basal animal
phylogeny using complete sequences of large and small subunit rRNA". Proceedings of the National Academy
þÿof Sciences of the United States of America. 98 (17): 9707 12. Bibcode:2001PNAS...98.9707M.
doi:10.1073/pnas.171316998. PMC 55517. PMID 11504944.
Dunn CW, Hejnol A, Matus DQ, Pang K, Browne WE, Smith SA, et al. (April 2008). "Broad phylogenomic
þÿsampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life". Nature. 452 (7188): 745 9.
Bibcode:2008Natur.452..745D. doi:10.1038/nature06614. PMID 18322464. S2CID 4397099.
Hejnol A, Obst M, Stamatakis A, Ott M, Rouse GW, Edgecombe GD, et al. (December 2009). "Assessing the
root of bilaterian animals with scalable phylogenomic methods". Proceedings. Biological Sciences. 276 (1677):
þÿ4261 70. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0896. PMC 2817096. PMID 19759036.
Ryan JF, Pang K, Schnitzler CE, Nguyen AD, Moreland RT, Simmons DK, et al. (December 2013). "The
genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution". Science. 342 (6164):
1242592. doi:10.1126/science.1242592. PMC 3920664. PMID 24337300.
Moroz LL, Kocot KM, Citarella MR, Dosung S, Norekian TP, Povolotskaya IS, et al. (June 2014). "The
þÿctenophore genome and the evolutionary origins of neural systems". Nature. 510 (7503): 109 14.
Bibcode:2014Natur.510..109M. doi:10.1038/nature13400. PMC 4337882. PMID 24847885.
Pisani D, Pett W, Dohrmann M, Feuda R, Rota-Stabelli O, Philippe H, et al. (December 2015). "Genomic data
do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals". Proceedings of the National Academy of
þÿSciences of the United States of America. 112 (50): 15402 15407. Bibcode:2015PNAS..11215402P.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1518127112. PMC 4687580. PMID 26621703.
Berwald J (2017). Spineless: the science of jellyfish and the art of growing a backbone. Riverhead Books.[page
needed]
Schierwater B, Eitel M, Jakob W, Osigus HJ, Hadrys H, Dellaporta SL, et al. (January 2009). "Concatenated
analysis sheds light on early metazoan evolution and fuels a modern "urmetazoon" hypothesis". PLOS Biology.
7 (1): e20. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000020. PMC 2631068. PMID 19175291.
Kapli P, Telford MJ (December 2020). "Topology-dependent asymmetry in systematic errors affects
phylogenetic placement of Ctenophora and Xenacoelomorpha". Science Advances. 6 (50): eabc5162.
Bibcode:2020SciA....6.5162K. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc5162. PMC 7732190. PMID 33310849.
Redmond AK, McLysaght A (March 2021). "Evidence for sponges as sister to all other animals from
partitioned phylogenomics with mixture models and recoding". Nature Communications. 12 (1): 1783.
Bibcode:2021NatCo..12.1783R. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22074-7. PMC 7979703. PMID 33741994.
Schultz DT, Haddock SH, Bredeson JV, Green RE, Simakov O, Rokhsar DS (June 2023). "Ancient gene
þÿlinkages support ctenophores as sister to other animals". Nature. 618 (7963): 110 117.
Bibcode:2023Natur.618..110S. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05936-6. PMC 10232365. PMID 37198475.
Smolker RA, Richards AF, Connor RC, Mann J, Berggren P (1997). "Sponge-carrying by Indian Ocean
þÿbottlenose dolphins: Possible tool-use by a delphinid". Ethology. 103 (6): 454 465.
doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1997.tb00160.x. hdl:2027.42/71936.
þÿMcClenachan L (2008). "Social conflict, Over-fishing and Disease in the Florida Sponge Fishery, 1849 1939".
In Starkey DJ, Holm P, Barnard M (eds.). Oceans Past: Management Insights from the History of Marine
þÿAnimal Populations. Earthscan. pp. 25 27. ISBN 978-1-84407-527-0.
Jacobson N (2000). Cleavage. Rutgers University Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-8135-2715-4.
"Sponges". Cervical Barrier Advancement Society. 2004. Archived from the original on January 14, 2009.
Retrieved 2006-09-17.
þÿPorterfield WM (1955). "Loofah The sponge gourd". Economic Botany. 9 (3): 211 223.
doi:10.1007/BF02859814. S2CID 27313678.
Imhoff JF, Stöhr R (2003). "Sponge-Associated Bacteria". In Müller WE (ed.). Sponges (Porifera): Porifera.
þÿSpringer. pp. 43 44. ISBN 978-3-540-00968-9.
Teeyapant R, Woerdenbag HJ, Kreis P, Hacker J, Wray V, Witte L, et al. (1993). "Antibiotic and cytotoxic
activity of brominated compounds from the marine sponge Verongia aerophoba". Zeitschrift für Naturforschung
þÿC. 48 (11 12): 939 45. doi:10.1515/znc-1993-11-1218. PMID 8297426. S2CID 1593418.
Takeuchi S, Ishibashi M, Kobayashi J, Plakoridine A (1994). "Plakoridine A, a new tyramine-containing
pyrrolidine alkaloid from the Okinawan marine sponge Plakortis sp". Journal of Organic Chemistry. 59 (13):
þÿ3712 3713. doi:10.1021/jo00092a039.

Etchells LL, Sardarian A, Whitehead RC (18 April 2005). "A synthetic approach to the plakoridines modeled
þÿon a biogenetic theory". Tetrahedron Letters. 46 (16): 2803 2807. doi:10.1016/j.tetlet.2005.02.124.

Further reading

Hickman C, Roberts L, Larson A (2003). Animal Diversity (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN
978-0-07-234903-0.
Ereskovsky AV (2010). The Comparative Embryology of Sponges. Russia: Springer Science+Business
Media. ISBN 978-90-481-8575-7.
Wörheide G (April 2008). "A hypercalcified sponge with soft relatives: Vaceletia is a keratose demosponge".
þÿMolecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 47 (1): 433 8. Bibcode:2008MolPE..47..433W.
doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2008.01.021. PMID 18321733.

External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Porifera.
Wikispecies has information related to Porifera.
The Wikibook Dichotomous Key has a page on the topic of: Porifera
Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article "Sponges".

þÿ Water flow and feeding in the phylum Porifera (sponges) Flash animations of sponge body structures, water
flow and feeding
Carsten's Spongepage, Information on the ecology and the biotechnological potential of sponges and their
associated bacteria.
History of Tarpon Springs sponge industry, Tarpon Springs, Florida
Nature's 'fibre optics' experts
The Sponge Reef Project
 Queensland Museum information about sponges
Queensland Museum Sessile marine invertebrates collections
Queensland Museum Sessile marine invertebrates research
Sponge Guide for Britain and Ireland Archived 2008-12-08 at the Wayback Machine, Bernard Picton,
Christine Morrow & Rob van Soest
World Porifera database, the world list of extant sponges, includes a searchable database.
Sponges: World production and markets // Food and Agriculture Organisation

vte

Extant Porifera classes

vte

Extant animal phyla

vte

Extant life phyla/divisions by domain

Portals:

Marine Life
icon Animals
Earth sciences

Taxon identifiers
Porifera

Wikidata: Q18960 Wikispecies: Porifera ADW: Porifera AFD: Porifera BioLib: 14929 BOLD: 24818 CoL:
P2R EoL: 3142 EPPO: 1PORIP Fauna Europaea: 15402 Fauna Europaea (new):
43fb5f94-7c92-41f8-8ac6-877561663015 GBIF: 105 iNaturalist: 48824 IRMNG: 190 ITIS: 46861 NCBI: 6040
NZOR: a0111dea-7d6c-429f-a0aa-912624fd28c4 Open Tree of Life: 67819 Paleobiology Database: 2894 uBio:
230492 WoRMS: 558

Authority control databases: National Edit this at Wikidata

France BnF data Germany Israel United States Latvia Japan Czech Republic
Categories:

SpongesAquatic animalsEdiacaran first appearancesParazoa

This page was last edited on 14 June 2024, at 18:22 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered
trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Code of Conduct
Developers
Statistics
Cookie statement
Mobile view

Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki