242 " EXDEAYOUR " SCIENTIFIC RESULTS. 



accord with the present specimens, his whole diagnosis is so 

 brief, mthal so deficient in its mention of truly critical points, 

 that one cannot really be sm'e of even the generic position 

 of his species, though I think it will very likely prove to be a 

 Nofotodarus. In view of these facts, science can surely gain 

 nothing from a too hasty " lumping " of the various species. 

 In the meanwhile Gray's type in the British Museum should 

 be re-examined, re-described in detail, and adequately 

 figured at the earliest opportunity. Pfeffer's statement on 

 p. 459 (op. cit.) that '" Es ist schliesslich die Moglichkeit nicht 

 von der Hand zu weisen, class die Form 0. Sloavei Sloanei gar 

 keine einheitliche systematische Einheit darstellt, sondern in 

 sich mehrere verschiedene Formen beherbergt," I think may 

 veiy likely prove to strike at the real crux of the matter. I 

 have always been rather more inclined to split up the various 

 Pacific races of Ommastrej)hidce than most writers, yet it is 

 now evident that the Japanese 0. pacificus Steenstrup and 

 apparently also the latety described 0. volatilis Sasaki are 

 perfectly distinct species, having far less relationship with 

 the other Pacific forms than even I have formerly conceded 

 (cf., in the case of pacificus, Berry, 1912, pp. 436-437 ; 1914, 

 pp. 340-341). 



Apparently the nearest known relative of N. govldi of 

 which we can be certain from the literature is Pfeffer's 

 remarkable sjiecimen from New Zealand, which he identifies 

 with Ommastrephes insignis Gould, and b}'' reason of which 

 he erects the genus Nototodarus (Pfefter, 1912, p. 434, pi. 31). 

 Whether or not this specimen be actually the same as that 

 described by Gould, its simpler hectocotylus indicates it to 

 be sufficiently distinct from McCoy's species. Another inter- 

 esting point to consider is the apparently close relationship 

 evinced also by females of iV. gouldi and my Ommastrephes 

 hawaiiensis (Berry, 1912, pp. 434, 437 ; 1914, p. 338, text- 

 fig. 38-39, pi. 54, fig. 2). The significance of this is, no doubt, 

 that the discovery of males of hawaiiensis will necessitate its 

 removal from Ommastrephes to Nviotodarns. Although I no 

 longer have any specimens of the latter species available for 

 direct comparison, there appear to be certain small but 

 constant characters sufficient to separate even female speci- 

 mens from those of N. gouldi, notably the toothing of the 

 horny rings. The rings of the larger sessile arm suckers 

 ■(Fig. 24) are toothed all around with. 19 to 21 teeth, occa- 

 sional minute denticles appearing interpolated among the 

 latter along the upper margin of the ring. The upper median 

 tooth is much larger with respect to the other teeth than in 

 the case of N. gouldi. The larger tentacular suckers (Fig. 



