BATHYPELAGIC SQUID BATHYTEUTHIS 9 



Verrill gave detailed descriptions of the new genus and species, ac- 

 companied by a single illustration "of one of the types."' Apparently 

 this is the female, mantle length 57 mm, to which he referred several 

 times in the text. I have examined the remains of the type in the U.S. 

 National Museum ; it bears the catalog number 39968, and it is a mature 

 female. No additional mention is made in Verrill's text of the other 

 specimen, number 39967. 



Verrill mentioned (p. 402) that BentlioteutMs displays "marked em- 

 bryonic or primitive characters,*' ty]:)ified in the young stages of Loligo 

 and Ommastrephes, that "are seen especially in the small size, posterior 

 position and form of the fins; in the form of the body, head and 

 mantle; in the small short arms, with the dorsal pair shortest; in the 

 small simple suckers; in the want of differentiation of the tentacular 

 club and the uniformity of its minute suckers.'" 



Verrill thought that the affinities of the genus probably lay with the 

 Ommastrephes group because of the "distinct eye lids and sinus, and 

 by the character of the connective cartilages of the mantle." He also 

 noted that the pen was like that of Loligo, but that the pen is appar- 

 ently of little value in determining relationships of squids. It is curious 

 that he should choose for showing affinities such a general and inde- 

 cisive character in the oegopsids as the eyelid and such a singularly 

 decisive familial character as the mantle-connective cartilages of Om>- 

 maMrcphes. Nowhere in Verrill's description is there an indication that 

 the locking apparatus in B e/nthoteuthis resembles the strong, inverted 

 T-structure of ommastrephids. 



Shortly after the diagnosis on the Challenger cephalopods appeared, 

 Hoyle published his preliminary report (1885b), which was identical 

 to the earlier diagnosis (1885a) except for the inclusion of an intro- 

 duction, a generic diagnosis, and a description of B. nhyssieola. In 

 addition, he gave a footnote (p. 282) : "This {B athyteutMs'] seems to 

 be at all events congeneric with a form which Professor Verrill has 

 recently dredged in the North Atlantic, and named BenthoteutMs 

 megalop^iy 



In the generic synonymy Hoyle (p. 308) listed Bathyteuthis Hoyle, 

 May 1885 and, a.s a synonym, BenthoteutMs Verrill, July 1885. This 

 is the first mention of these two genera after their original descrip- 

 tions. In synonymizing Benthoteuthu^ Hoyle had to determine the 

 month of publication ; apparently he felt that no future conflict would 

 exist over the dates, for he did not discuss the point in the text. 



The generic characterization emphasized the blunt body shape, the 

 small, rounded, subterminal fins, the simple, elongate mantle-connec- 

 tive, the large, very broad head with prominent eyes, the short arms 

 with minute suckers in two rows, the large 7-pointed buccal membrane 



