CEPHALOPODS OF WESTERN NORTH AMERICA. 



303 



one sharp teeth , one tooth of each quadrant larger than its neighbors (text fig. 11); homy rings of lateral 

 suckers much deeper on the upper side and with but sixteen to seventeen teeth (text fig. 12). 



Buccal membrane conspicuously seven-pointed; rugose within, but bearing no suckers. 



Radula and gladius not examined. 



Color in life unknow-n; in alcohol dark purplish above, pale below; everj-where punctate with small 

 chromatophores not appreciably larger than those occurring in vastly smaller animals. 



The chief dimensions of the only specimen available are as follows: 



Measurements of Dosidicus gigas. 



mm. 



Total length, including tentacles i, 24s 



Excluding tentacles i- r^ 



Length of mantle (dorsal) 63S 



Width of mantle i6j 



Length of fins (extreme) 33° 



Along line of attachment 300 



Width across fins ; 5'S 



Of head 160 



Length of dorsal arms 42s 



Second arm 44* 



Third arm 4So 



Ventral arm 375 



Tentacle 49S 



TenUcleclub "S 



Diameter of large sucker from second arms 13 



From tentacle ir 



Distribution: North Queensland, New South Wales, and Lord Howe Island, Australasia (Brazier); 

 Chile (d'Orbigny, Gray, Martens, Steinhaus, Pfcffcr); Peru (d'Orbigny). California — Monterey Bay, 

 Santa Rosa Island (Yates), San Clemente Island (Carpenter), San Diego 

 (Kelsey). 



The single specimen examined is a finely preser\'ed adult in the 

 possession of the University of California (no. 72 of the author's register). L ~"-/Ol_^ 



In the foregoing description I have purposely entered into consider- 

 able detail, as the species seem somewhat unusual in collections, and Vljii,,, 

 the above-mentioned specimen is in such excellent 



state as to render the possibility of misstatement F^c- ti.—Doudiius gigas, horny 

 comparatively remote. It should be added here, ring from a median sucker of the 



•^ , , ... . , tentacle club. X 5- Ija-I 



however, that the apparent rarity of the animal 



seems to be due rather to the dilTiculties attendant upon its capture and preser- 



f' "" ^:^ k vation than to its actual scarcity in our waters, for as a matter of fact the species 



would seem to be not an uncommon one. It has appeared rather frequently 



in local lists, usually under tlie cognomen of Ommastrephes gigas, and I have at 



Fig. 11— Dosidicus hand a number of impublished records of instances where creatures of undoubt- 



gigas, horny rmg edly the Same form have been stranded on the beaches near Pacific Grove, 



from a lateral sucker ^ ,-e  j • ^ 



of the tentacle club. California, dunng storms. 



X J [j2.] Once its salient characteristics are noted, D. gigas can not be confounded 



with any other species of cephalopod now known; yet until the present specimen 



was reported upon (Berr>', 1911a, p. 304) its identification from this region can not be said to have 



been unquestionably established. The assumption now is, however, that in this instance the old 



records were correct. 



In identifying the Ommastrephes gigas of d'Orbigny with the Dosidicus eschrichiii of .Steenstrup, I 

 have followed Pfefler, whose course in the matter seems to me a very logical one, although I have not had 

 the opportunity to examine all the statements of the various authors involved nor any further material. 

 The recorded distribution is somewhat remarkable, but not particularly to be wondered at, considering 



