16 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETENT 291 



4500 m and stated that only one other sample, the original material 

 from America, was known. Apparently Joubin was unaware of Chun's 

 (1910) Valdivm specimens and of the nomenclatural controversy that 

 persisted concerning BentJwteuthis and Bathyteuthh. 



Massy (1916) listed some cephalopods from the Irish Atlantic 

 Slope; the small collection contained a young specimen of B. abysswola 

 that was taken at 55°22'N, 11°40'W in 700^750 fathoms. This locality 

 constitutes the northernmost record of B. abys»icola. 



Massy (1916a) recorded B. ahyssicola in her report on the cephalo- 

 pod collections of the Indian Museum. Two small specimens (about 5 

 and 12 mm mantle length) were captured in the Bay of Bengal by 

 the Investigator. The brief description noted the following features: 

 2 rows of suckers on arm IV, 3 to 4 irregular rows of suckers on arms 

 I-III (2 rows on all of the arms of the larva) ; 4 blunt, widely sepa- 

 rated teeth on the club suckers, 5 to 6 teeth on the arm suckers (4 to 5 

 in the larva) ; distinct photophores and pigment. Measurements are 

 given for the larger specimen. 



In his work on the paleobiology of dibranchiate cephalopods, nearly 

 half of which concerns living forms as well, Abel (1916) mentioned 

 Bathyteuthis and Benthoteuthis in his discussion of retention of larval 

 characters in adult forms. In a number of highly specialized species of 

 oegopsids that inhabit the deep sea, the terminal fin is divided even in 

 the adult, whereas in almost all known young stages of Oegopsida the 

 terminal fins are divided only during the larval life. The comments 

 by Abel, a paleontologist, are undoubtedly based on the suggestions 

 and observations of Verrill, Hoyle, Chun, and Pfeffer. 



Naef (1916) listed the family Benthoteuthidae Pfeffer, 1900, and 

 Ctenoptei^x sicula. In his incorrect assignment of the family name, 

 Naef erred in one of two ways. He intended to use either Bathy- 

 teuthidae Pfeffer, 1900, or Benthoteuthidae Pfeffer, 1912. It was not 

 until 1912 that Pfeffer, without explanation but apparently following 

 Chim's decision that Benthoteuthis had priority, made the unwar- 

 ranted change in the family name. In his 1921 survey of Mediter- 

 ranean dibranchiate cephalopods, Naef correctly listed the family 

 Bathyteuthidae but erroneously referred it to Pfeffer's 1912 work, 

 which included only Benthoteuthidae. This work again lists Cteno- 

 pteryx Appellof and adds Bathyteuthis Hoyle, probably on the basis 

 of Pfeffer's (1912) record from the Mediterranean. 



Berry (1917) listed Hoyle's Scotia specimen of B. ahyssicola as a 

 representative of the Antarctic cephalopod fauna in the historical sec- 

 tion of his report of the Cephalopoda captured during the Australian 

 Antarctic Expedition, 1911-1914. 



Joubin (1920) reported on the cephalopods captured during the 



