CEPHALOPODS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 133 



Berry (1918) in his report on the Endeavour cephalopods, gave a 

 detailed analysis of gouldi (placed in sloani sloani by Pfeffer) and main- 

 tained it as a separate species, placing it ia the genus Nototodarus, 

 type 0. insignis (actually 0. sloani). He remarked that its closest 

 relative was N. insignis of Pfeffer from New Zealand and 0. hawaiien- 

 sis, which, kno\vn only from females, he considered also to be in the 

 genus Nototodarus. 



Dell (1952) has well characterized the species from New Zealand 

 and has shown that only one species, N. sloani sloani, occurs in those 

 waters. He distinguished it from the Australian forms which he called 

 A^. sloani gouldi. Sasald (1929) gave a detailed account of Ommastre- 

 phes sloani pacificus (which Dell apparently was ignorant of) and 

 showed that only a single ventral arm was hectocotylized. This 

 removes it from Nototodarus and places it as an independent species 

 in the genus Todarodes. The history of this name wiU be noted below. 



The present specimen, especially the larger one, presents certain 

 differences from all the others. It is most closely related to A^. sloani 

 hawaiiensis and appears to lie intermediate to it and N. sloani gouldi. 

 It is quite different from Todarodes pacificus of Japan. 



Both from the geographical standpoint and because of the remarked 

 differences, Martialia hyadesi should remain distinct. 



There appears to be a distinct cline within the species N. sloani, 

 following a curve from New Zealand through Australia, the Philip- 

 pines, and Hawaii. Along this curve are sloani sloani in New Zealand, 

 sloani gouldi in Austraha, sloani philippinensis in the Philippines and 

 sloani haivaiiensis in the Central Pacific and Hawaii. 



Todarodes pacificus Steenstrup poses a nomenclatural problem. 

 Steenstrup (1880) originally placed this in the genus Todarodes, 

 recognizing its affinity with T. sagittatus from Europe. Hoyle also 

 used the genus Todarodes but in his later works reversed himseff and 

 used the genus Ommastrephes. Adam (1939c) discussed the whole 

 problem of the use of Ommastrephes versus Todarodes for the species 

 sagittatus, and there appears to be no question that Ommastrephes has 

 priority over Sthenoteuthis VerrUl and is properly applied to 0. bartrami 

 and 0. fteropus and that sagittatus is the type species of Todarodes. 

 As a result, at the present status of our knowledge, pacificus is united 

 with sagittatus in the genus Todarodes. T. pacificus is genericaUy 

 distinct from Nototodarus sloani and its subspecies. The name 

 Ommastrephes sloani pacificus is presently in wide use in Japan but 

 is incorrect both biologically and nomenclaturaUy and its continued 

 use is to be deplored. 



Distribution. — Luzon, Jolo Island, Philippines. 



