14 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 291 



(The value of these characters for determining relationships between 

 the hipjher taxa is discussed below.) Finally Chun a^eed that Pfeffer's 

 placement of Ctenopteryx and Benth/)teufhh'^ in the same family should 

 be upheld. 



Hoyle's (1910) list of generic names included BafhyteufJiis with 

 BenthoteuthU as its synonym. In a footnote Hoyle gave the sources 

 and dates of publication for the two monotypic genera. 



Hoyle (1912) reported on the cephalopods captured by the Scottish 

 National Antarctic Expedition's vessel Scotia. A single specimen of 

 Bathyteuthis was taken off Coats Land at 71°22'S, 18°15'W. Hoyle 

 listed the locality information and previous records but did not de- 

 scribe the specimen. Instead, he attempted to settle the nomenclatural 

 disharmony that had persisted since Bathyteuthis dbyssiccla Hoyle 

 and Benthoteuthis megalopH Verrill had been erected in 1885. He chided 

 Chun (1910) for using the sheet (signature) date, April 1885, to 

 determine priority for Verrill's name, but he emphasized that if sheet 

 dates are to be used, then Bathyteuthh would still have priority be- 

 cause the date on sheet 34 in which Batliyteuthis abyssicoI'O. was de- 

 scribed is "1884." Hoyle apparently made an extensive investigation 

 to determine that Verrill's paper was not released as separate signa- 

 tures in April, May, and June but that it came out as a single unit 

 in June or, more probably, in July 1885. 



Pfeffer's extensive monograph ( 1912) , based primarily on the Plank- 

 ton-Expedition cephalopod material, gave a key to the families of the 

 Oegopsida that included the family Benthoteuthidae. This key is more 

 detailed than the one given in his synopsis (1900), although the basic 

 arrangement and the characters used are the same. Pfeffer gave a 

 detailed diagnosis of the family and discussed the similarities and 

 differences of Benthoteuthis and Ctenopteryx; he concluded that the 

 strong differences that exist between the adults are small or non- 

 existent in the young stages, and that these genera form a unit distinct 

 from all other oegopsids. 



At no point in the text did Pfeffer mention that he was altering the 

 family name to Benthoteuthidae, nor did he give Bathyteuthidae as a 

 synonym. In fact, even in his section on history and synonymy, he 

 failed to mention the erection of the family Bathyteuthidae 12 years 

 earlier in his "Synopsis der Oegopsiden Cephalopden." 



Pfeffer, in a short sentence following his diagnosis of the genus 

 Benthoteuthis (p. 324), casually stated that it need only be mentioned 

 that, as Chun had determined, the generic name Benthoteuthis Verrill 

 is one month older than Bathyteuthis Hoyle. Pfeffer apparently did 

 not make his own investigation into the matter of priority but simply 

 accepted the authority of Chun. (Perhaps this is understandable judg- 



