BATHYPELAGIC SQUID BATHYTEUTHIS 15 



ing from Chun's contemporary prominence and stature as a scientist.) 

 Pfeflfer did include his use in 1900 of Bathyteuthis and B. ahyssicola 

 in the synonymy of Benthoteuthis and B. megalo'ps. 



Pfeffer's unexplained substitution of Benthoteuthidae for Bathy- 

 teuthidae is considered improper and not in the best interests of sta- 

 bility in nomenclature. It is generally regarded that a familial 

 name, once properly erected, as the Bathyteuthidae was by Pfeffer 

 himself in 1900, should not be changed because of subsequent altera- 

 tions to the generic name (International Code, Art. 40). Of course, the 

 problem in this case is resolved with the establishment of priority for 

 Bathyteuthis. 



Pfeffer presented a comparison of previously described and illus- 

 strated specimens, analyzed and explained the inconsistencies, and 

 concluded that all specimens represent the same species which has 

 nearly a worldwide distribution. Pfeffer gave a very detailed descrip- 

 tion of his specimens, which came from the western North Atlantic at 

 40.4°N, 57°W, the South Equatorial Current at 05.1°S, 14.1°W, and 

 the Mediterranean. Apparently no details of the Mediterranean speci- 

 men are available except that it was deposited in the Hamburg Museum 

 and apparently came from Messina. The validity of the record has 

 been questioned by some subsequent compilers (e.g., Grimpe, 1922) 

 of the Mediterranean cephalopod fauna. Pfeffer's plate 27, figures 

 12-15, presents illustrations of the specimens, but Pfeffer's caption tx) 

 the figures is ^^Benthotcuth/s ahy.'<sieola Verrill," an unfortunate com- 

 bination of names. The specimen from Messina in the Hamburg Mu- 

 seum (figs. 14 and 15) has a mantle length of only 3 mm and does not 

 resemble Bathyteuthis; it looks veiy much like the larva of Cteno- 

 pteryx illustrated by Naef (1928, figs. 116, 117). Since this specimen 

 is the first of two doubtful records of Bathyteuthis in the Mediterran- 

 ean and since Ctenopteryx is so common there, it is very probable that 

 this larva has been misidentified. This matter is considered in detail 

 in the discussion of Joubin's 1920 work. Figures 12 and 13 are the 

 Atlantic specimens and look like Bathyteuthis larvae with mantle 

 lengths of about 3 mm and 4.5 mm. 



Berry (1912) presented some nomenclatural changes in the Ceph- 

 alopoda and discussed briefiy the problem of priority for Bathyteuthis 

 or Benthoteuthis. He accepted Chun's reasoning that Benthoteuthidae 

 should be the familial designation. Apparently Berry had not seen 

 Hoyle's discussion (1912) that appeared in May, seven months prior 

 to Berry's paper. 



Joubin (1912) noted some of the more interesting cephalopods that 

 were captured during the 1911 cruise of the Princesse- Alice. He re- 

 corded one specimen of Benthoteuthis megalops caught between and 



