BATHYPELAGIC SQUID BATHYTEUTHIS 17 



cruises of the Princesse- Alice from 1898-1910. One small specimen of 

 Benthotcuthis me gal ops, only 7.5 mm fix)m "moutli" to posterior end 

 of body, was taken between the Azores and northern Portugal. 

 Joubin's description was brief and dealt primarily with color obser- 

 vations. Another specimen, only 3.5 mm in length, was taken in the 

 western Mediterranean and, according to Joubin. very closely resem- 

 bled the specimen illustrated by Pfeffer (1912) on plate 27, figures 

 14 and 15. Joubin's specimen was smaller than Pfeffer's and Joubin 

 felt that it belonged in the same series but listed it only as Bentho- 

 teuthls sp. in the event of a future reconsideration. Judging from 

 the illustration it appears that Joubin's specimen, like Pfelffer's, is 

 a larva of Ctenopteryx. Therefore, the only two records of supposed 

 Bathyteuthis (reported as Benthoteuth/s) in the Mediterranean ac- 

 tually represent Ctenopteryx larvae. 



Further verification of this is found in Naef's (1923) discussion 

 and illustrations of the juvenile stages of Ctenopteryx siculus. Joubin's 

 Benthoteuthis sp. (pi. 12, fig. 9) and Pfeffer's Benthoteuthis megalops 

 (mislabeled as ^''Benthoteuthis ahysslcola, Verrill," pi. 27, figs. 14 and 

 15) very closely resemble Naef's illustrations of the larvae of Cteno- 

 pteryx siculus (p. 253, figs. 116 and 117). In addition, all of these 

 specimens come from the western Mediterranean, Messina, and Naples. 

 The larvae illustrated by the three authors range in size from less 

 than 2 mm to about 3.5 mm in mantle length and, taken together, rep- 

 resent a good growth series of larval Ctenopteryx. 



Robson ( 1921) described Chunoteuthis minima^ a new genus and spe- 

 cies, which he placed in the family Benthoteuthidae. The description 

 of the new genus and species is based upon a single larval specimen 

 only 3 mm in length from the apex of the mantle to the base of the 

 arms. Nothing in the description would lead one to believe that this 

 form was a bathyteuthid instead of the larva of any number of other 

 Oegopsida. Robson admitted that the specimen was the source of 

 considerable trouble because it was very shriveled and many of the 

 external features were obliterated. He could not align it with any 

 known genus, and furthermore, "even its family relationships are 

 very doubtful." Nevertheless, he saw fit (p. 432) to "assign it to the 

 Benthoteuthidae on the strength of its general superficial appear- 

 ance" ! Robson's entire presentation is the absolute epitome of the 

 fallacious belief held by some earlier workers that every specimen 

 in a collection, regardless of size or condition, must have a name 

 applied to it. 



Nothing can be ascertained from the description concerning the 

 true identity of this larval form. The type in the British Museum 



