BATHYPELAGIC SQUID BATHYTEUTHIS 21 



by the Discovery never appeared, so we have no additional details on 

 the structure of the male genitalia. Furthermore, wo have no clarifioa- 

 tion of Robson's statement (p. 375 ) , ". . . it will be seen that the speci- 

 mens obtained by the Discovery are probably not referable to 

 B. megalops, the single sj>ecies hitherto described." Since Robson's 

 Discovery specimens came from the same Antarctic localities (oa 55°S, 

 52°W) that have been thoroughly collected by the Eltanin as well, 

 it is doubtful if they represent anything other than Bathyteuthis 

 ahyssicola. 



Thiele (1935) listed the family Bathyteuthidae and gave a short 

 diagnosis for the family and for Bathyteuthis (with Benthoteuthis as 

 as synonym) and Ctenoyteryx. He mentioned Robson's (1921) Gh/uno- 

 teuthis minima as a bathyteuthid and Grimpe's (1922) subsequent 

 changing of the generic name to Indoteuthis. 



Allen (1945), reporting on the planlrtonic cephalopod larvae of 

 eastern Australia, split off the family Ctenopterygidae from the 

 Bathyteuthidae based on the literature and on one larval specimen 

 of Ctenopteryx sicula. Apparently, she had no specimens of Bathy- 

 teuthis and relied entirely on the description of this form in Hoyle's 

 Challenger report. Although Allen's decision was based on totally 

 irrelevant taxonomic characters, current information indicates that 

 she was correct in her elevation of Grimpe's subfamilial designation. 

 This is discussed in more detail in the section in which Ctenopteryx 

 and Bathyteuthis are compared. 



In a posthumous publication Robson (1948) reported on the cepha- 

 lopods caught during the Arcturus Expedition of 1925. Contrary to 

 his previous publications, Robson used the family name Bathyteuthidae 

 and listed ten specimens of B. abyssicolu taken around the Galapagos 

 and Cocos Islands of the eastern Pacific. He stated tliat he was in 

 agreement with Naef and GrLmpe in believing that Hoyle's B. ahys- 

 sicola had priority over Verrill's Benthoteuthis megalofs. 



Robson described one small specimen (mantle length 7.0 mm) as 

 Bathyteuthis sp. which he believed differed from B. ahyssicola in 

 "head and body-shape and in general proportions . . ." (p. 117). Then 

 he stated, "On the whole the features agree fairly well with abys- 

 sicolay Fortunately, on this occasion he was unwilling to base the 

 type of a new species on such a young and immature specimen. The 

 Bathyteuthis sp. probably falls within the normal range of variation 

 for ahyssicola, particularly if it differs only in shape and general pro- 

 portions, features that are readily altered by rigors of capture and 

 preservation. 



Voss (1956) reviewed the extensive collections made in the Gulf 

 of Mexico by the U.S. Bureau, of Commercial Fisheries R/V Oregon. 



