312 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



From the foregoing descriptions it will at once be seen that the two large specimens from the Puget 

 Sound region differ strikingly in several very important particulars from Gonatus fabricii as represented 

 by the Albatross collection or as understood and described (or misdescribed) by the array of authors 

 cited at length in the s>'nonymy. The most notable divergence appears in the extraordinary- structure 

 of the tentacles, which I am utterly unable to bring into correlation with that of the smaller animals. 

 This difference, if it shall later prove to be not ontogenetic and more than superficial, will certainly 

 warrant their recognition as a verj- remarkable new species, even if the other characters noted (e. g., 

 the shape of the fins, etc.) fail. However, the Albatross specimens, while coinciding with very fair 

 exactness with the diagnoses and figures of Steenstrup, Verrill, and Hoyle, have nevertheless an obvious 

 appearance of immaturity, and exhibit variation of such a nature as to indicate that development to 

 the adult stage might well be productive of still greater changes. 



All these considerations lead me to believe that it would be unsafe to risk further confusion of the 

 already appalling synonymy by the addition of another name, and that it will be better to await the 

 discovery of specimens intermediate in size. Examination of such material should quickly prove or 

 disprove the possibility that the Puget Sound animals are but adults which have lost the hooks and 

 definite arrangement of the suckers so characteristic of the young. One important item of evidence 

 weighing against this hypothesis should not, however, be overlooked. The tentacles of the large speci- 

 mens described by Verrill (1881, p. 391, pi. lv, fig. i) and Pfeffer (1908, p. 72) agree with those of the 

 Albatross specimens and are totally different from those of the two in the Stanford collection. The 

 entire question is a momentous one which I do not feel competent to decide without a more complete 

 series than is now at hand, especially in the absence of any Atlantic material for comparison. 



The smaller specimens, at any rate, seem without doubt to be true Gonatus fabricii and greatly extend 

 the already wide range of the species in the Pacific. 



In the hope of performing some small service to the next worker who endeavors to elucidate the 

 puzzling history of this interesting species, I have given as extended a list of references as the literature 

 at my command will allow. 



Family ONYCHOTEl'THID.€ Gray, 1847. 



Genus ONYCHOTEUTHIS Lichtenstein, 1818. 



Onychoteuthis Lichtenstein, iSiS. p. 1591. 

 Lichtenstein, 1818a. p. 223. 

 Pfeffer. 1900. p. 156. 158. 



Body of moderate size, cylindrical, tapering, with broad sagittate fins. Head moderate. Arms 

 stout; suckers in two rows showing no modification into hooks. Tentacles stout and rather long; the 

 club armed with two rowsof hooks on the central part; fixing apparatus a very definite, compact, rounded 

 group of small suckers and pads on the carpal region. No hectocotylization. Gladius showing through 

 the mantle as a well-defined dark streak. (For a further discussion of the genus see Pfeffer, 1900, p. 158, 

 and Hoyle, 1904, p. 18.) 



The occurrence of photophores within the mantle cavity has been reported by Doctor Hoyle. 



Type, Onychoteuthis bergii Lichtenstein, 1818 (=Onychoieuthis banksii (Leach, 1817) Ferussac), a 

 tropical species of wide dissemination. 



Two alleged species of Onychoteuthis have been reported to occur off the Pacific coast of the United 

 States, but the exact status of neither can be taken as yet to be established. There is another well- 

 recognized species, however— the O. banksii of Leach— the distribution of which is so cosmopolitan that 

 we need not be surprised to find specimens within our limits. 



Onychoteuthis lobipennis Dall, 1872. 



Onychoteuthis ? lobipennis DaII» 1872, p. 96. 

 Onychoteuthis lobipennis Verrill, 18S0, p. 252 (mere note). 



Verrill. 1882a, p. 281 (71), (mere note). 



Hoyle, 18S6, p. 39 (merely listed). 



Hoyle, i8S6a, p. 250 (46), (merely listed). 



