CEPHALOPODS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 127 



groteuthis. These genera are well differentiated from Histioteuthis 

 which has a six-lobed buccal membrane, complete interbrachial web, 

 elongate light organs on the dorsal arms and other features. Cal- 

 liteuthis, Stigmatoteuthis, and Meleagroteuthis share in common a 

 seven-lobed buccal membrane, but show a great diversity in the 

 arrangement of light organs and in the degree of webbing between 

 the arms. 



Calliteuthis and Stigmatoteuthis are definitely synonymous. The 

 sole distinction of any value is the reported smooth tentacular sucker 

 rings in C. reversa. Studies of large series of young and adult Cal- 

 liteuthis clearly demonstrate that the tentacular suckers are finely 

 toothed in the young, but that in the smooth-ringed species (pre- 

 sumably C. meneghinii, not C. reversa) from the Mediterranean these 

 teeth eventually fuse into smooth rings with increasing age. I am 

 indebted to Dr. Morales of the laboratory at Blanes, Spain, for a 

 specimen of the Mediterranean form for direct comparison. This 

 character is clearly only of specific rank as was proposed by Chun 

 (1910). 



The name Meleagroteuthis was proposed by Pfefier in 1900 for 

 what seemed to be a very well characterized genus. The eight or 

 nine rows of light organs on the ventral arms, the cartilaginous tubercle 

 rows on the six upper arms and the tubercle row on the mantle, and 

 the very closely set light organs on the ventral surface of the mantle 

 and head all seemed to be very good criteria. However, in 1913 

 Berry named a new species from California, C. (M.) heteropsis which 

 had no tubercle rows on arms or mantle, and in 1918 he named another, 

 C. miranda from Australia which had tubercle rows but had only 

 four rows of light organs on the ventral arms and in which the light 

 organs are only sparsely located on mantle and head. To make 

 matters worse, Dell (1951) described a species, cookiana, which he 

 placed in the genus Histioteuthis for lack of a better place, even though 

 it had seven buccal membrane lobes instead of six. This species also 

 had four rows of light organs on the bases of the ventral arms but had 

 no cartilaginous tubercle rows on either arms or mantle. Inasmuch 

 as Dell had both males and females, his description disposes of the 

 point raised by Joubin (1924) that the presence or absence of tubercle 

 rows may be sex linked. 



These examples should suffice to show that, as Dell (1951) remarked, 

 there is no consistency to the generic characters used in the histio- 

 teuthids and especially so, as far as I can see, in those used for Melea- 

 groteuthis. There seems to be no recourse other than to place this 

 genus in the direct synonymy of Calliteuthis which has priority by 

 many years. It is even possible that future study may show that all 

 should be united under the genus Histioteuthis, but this step does not 



