Save for a few specimens that seem to have grown on substrates that no longer exist, the material as a whole suggests colonization following the death and decomposition of the sponges. The living sponges we examined did not bear any attached, clinging or otherwise trapped foraminifera, in contrast to previous reports to the contrary (Lutze and Thiel 1989; Klitgaard 1995) of deep-sea living sponges bearing many species of attached foraminifera. Postmortem colonization is suggested also by the fact that foraminifera are more abundant on meshwork that is stained by oxides. Staining by oxides takes place in open water and implies that the dead sponge fragments stood for a while above the sediment; the foraminifera probably colonized them during that time, the suspension feeders almost certainly did.

There is a definite resemblance with the deep-sea encrusting, mostly arenaceous assemblages mentioned above (Jonasson and Schröder-Adams1996; Resig and Glenn 1997; Gooday and Haynes 1983) and also with the faunas observed by Dugolinsky et al. (1977) and Mullineaux (1987) on manganese nodules, which include Cibicides, Placopsilina, Crithionina, Tolypammina, Telammina, and Thurammina, as well as many simple tubular forms such as Saccorhiza and Rhabdammina (Table 5). The faunal composition may vary from paper to paper depending on the kind of stress exerted locally, for example changing temperatures and low pH around hydrothermal vents, and low dissolved oxygen in the case of phosphatic hardgrounds. In environments where physical and chemical stress is high, diversities are less and calcareous taxa are few or absent - perhaps suggesting dissolution occurred. In all cases, the substrate is always hard and stable and free of clastic sedimentation. Assemblages closest to our own and, to a certain extent, to Jurassic sponge fragments, are found at sites where stress is least. The most abundant species in our material, Placopsilina spongiphila, grows on sponge fragments (hard substrate) that most probably stood above the sediment and often have been stained or even encrusted with oxides. There is no particular chemical stress. Species otherwise known as free are observed as attached (example: K. bradyi, G. subglabrata, Reophax sp., etc.) though this is often achieved by engulfing part of the meshwork.

Hughes and Gooday (2004) reported on foraminifer assemblages living on dead xenophyophores in the deep North Atlantic. As a habitat, this can be compared with dead sponge fragments: a meshwork lying above the sediment/water interface. However, the rods of the xenophyophore meshwork are actually tubes that contain a characteristic assemblage of Allogromiids and Chilostomella, which we do not see in sponges. In addition, the authors report an attached fauna and a fauna from the mud trapped between the branches. The attached fauna is quite different from ours, in part because of the presence of Cibicides wuellerstorfi, a typical deep-sea species absent on the British Columbia shelf. Also, Hughes and Gooday (2004) do not mention trapped or impaled foraminifera. As to the assemblage from the trapped mud, it consists, like our own "loose" fauna, of the same species as found in the surrounding sediment. In addition to suggesting that xenophyophores can provide habitat for suspension feeders and deposit feeders, they propose that they serve as refuge from predators. The presence of some species inside the sponge meshwork, in particular Ramulina siphonifera, which occurs nowhere else, might be explained in the same way.

King et al. (1998) found evidence that fine pore space within deep-sea laminated diatom mats was limiting the size of the endobenthic population and favouring small taxa. The assemblage they report is the equivalent to our loose fauna. With sponge fragments, mesh size is not a limitation, at least for some taxa, as they will grow to the point of engulfing the mesh rods.