BATHYPELAGIC SQUID BATHYTEUTHIS 19 



Naef again listed the Bathyteuthidae as being- erected by Pfeffer in 

 1912 instead of 1900. In the first vohime of the monograph, Naef 

 (1921a, p. 48) listed the families and genera of cephalopods and gave 

 Benthoteuthidae Pfetfer, 1900, and Benthoteuthis Verrill, 1885. It is 

 curious tliat Naef always confused the dates of the familial synonyms. 



Naef emphasized that although Ctenopteryx and Bathyteuthis are 

 not close relatives, they show special relationships to each other that 

 are best expressed by retaining them in one family; together they 

 represent a common contrast to all other oegopsids. 



According to Naef, the characters of the family are partly juvenile 

 charactei-s, and in part they may be regarded as primitive for the entire 

 Oegopsida. In particular, Naef gave the shape of the gladius and the 

 subterminal fins as general juvenile characters, and the occurrence of 

 suckers on the buccal membrane and the suckers on the arms in four 

 rows and on the clubs in many rows as primitive characters in all 

 oegopsids. He gave a number of other cliaracters which, though less 

 clearly understood, indicated the primitive nature of the 

 Bathyteuthidae. 



Naef presented his ideas on the phylogeny of the Cephalopoda 

 in a phylogenetic bush (p. 795). He showed the Bathyteuthidae aris- 

 ing obscurely with the rest of the Oegopsida and coming off as the 

 oegopsid family closest to the Myopsida. Finally, Naef gave a sys- 

 tematic review of the dibranchiates (p. 809) in which he included the 

 Bathyteuthidae as the first family in the Oegopsida, with two genera 

 Bathyteuthis and Ctenopteryx. 



Odhner ( 1923) reported on the small collection of cephalopods taken 

 by the Swedish Antarctic Expedition, 1901-1903. He recorded one 

 damaged specimen of B. ahyssieola 50 mm long (total length?) which 

 "agreed in all details with the illustration of Chun." The specimen 

 was captured at 48°27'S, 42°36'W. He gave the range of the species 

 in the subantarctic area based on the Clmllenger, Valdivia. and Scotia 

 specimens. Although he gave no discussion, Odhner apparently based 

 his decision to use the name Bathyteuthh ahyssicola on the arguments 

 presented in Hoyle's rejection (1912) of Chun's state^ment of priority 

 for Benthoteuthh inegalops. 



A major report on the cephalopods collected by the Prince of Monaco 

 was published by Joubin in 1924. Three specimens of Benthotewthis 

 mega] ops were recorded from the Azores-Portugal region of the eastern 

 Atlantic. Again, Joubin added little to the description of the species 

 except the statement that the head is more darkly colored than illus- 

 trated by Chun. In addition, Joubin stated that the little white pearls 

 (photophores) at the bases of the arms are replaced by masses of dark 

 chromatophores. This character is quite variable, however, and de- 



