CEPHALOPODA. — BERRY. 267 



Remarks. — I have been unable to identify this Uttle species 

 either mth any of the previously recorded Australian fonns 

 or with such of those from other regions wliich by descriptions 

 or figures have been available to me for comparison. It is 

 unfortunate that the formalin used as a preserving medium 

 has so corroded the calcareous sepiostaires that not one of 

 the specimens retains this organ in recognisable condition, 

 thus depriving us at the outset of a most important aid in 

 determining the relationships of the species and defeating 

 any possible attempt to identify it with any of the named 

 forms heretofore known from the shell alone. We are left 

 with the alternative of establisliing a new name. Since next 

 to nothing is known of the limits of variation in these puzzling 

 forms, while so many of those named have been very incom- 

 pletely described, I adopt this choice with the utmost diffi- 

 dence. The Australian Sepias are in need of a thorough 

 overhauling, but any permanent revision will necessitate 

 abundant material from the entire circumference of the 

 continent. 



In the possession of numerous small suckers of practically 

 similar aspect on the tentacle clubs, the present species recalls 

 not only *S'. hedleyi but also the descriptions of such species 

 as *S'. elliptica Hoyle, S. cultrata Steenstrup, S. indica d'Orbigny 

 S. smithii Hoyle, and S. rosfrata d'Orbigny, but in most 

 characters, with the exception of the unknown cuttlebone, 

 it stands apparently nearest to S. elliptica. They can scarcely 

 be identical, however, since the latter is not only from a 

 different faunal area, but is described as having subequal 

 arms and only eight series of tentacular suckers, the horny 

 rings of which are smooth. 



The radula of very few species of Sepia has been illus- 

 trated, but the few figures before me do not encourage the 

 belief that the organ undergoes any very valuable amount 

 of specific differentiation. That of S. tubercukita as figured 

 by Hoyle (1910, text fig. 10), except for its relatively shorter 

 third laterals, is in most essentials similar to the one here 

 described, though I cannot see that the two species are 

 particularly near to one another in other features. The same 

 is true of S. arahica (cf. Massy, 1916, pi. 24, fig. 10). Miss 

 Massy's figure of this organ in Sepiella inermis (1916, pi. 23, 

 fig. 6), on the other hand, is so utterly different from this, yet 

 similar to that of the various species of Loligo, that I cannot 

 avoid wondering whether the figure may not have suffered 

 interchanging with that of Loligo indica on the succeeding 

 plate. Our present ignorance is, however, scarcely sufficient 



