42 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 291 



Discussion. — I have examined the holotypes of both Bathyteuthw 

 abyssicola Hoyle, 1885, and Benthoteuthis megalofs Verrill, 1885. 

 Hoyle's type in the British Museum (NH) is in fair condition only, 

 but no particular points are in question about this specimen from the 

 Southern Ocean. Light organs cannot now be detected at the bases of 

 the arms, but, as mentioned in the preceding description in reference 

 to recently preserved material, this is a feature of preservation and is 

 not due to the absence of the photophores. 



The type of Benthoteuthis megalo'ps^ deposited in the U.S. National 

 Museum, is in poor condition ; it has dried up in the past and now is 

 hard and unmanageable. That it is conspecific with the Atlantic form 

 of Bathyteuthis ahyssicola, however, is still verifiable. 



The nomenclatural problem that exists between Bathyteuthis abys- 

 sicola and Benthoteuthis megalofs seems not to have arisen until 

 Chun (1910) announced that Verrill's Benthoteuthis inegalofs had 

 priority. Actually, Benthoteuthis w\as synonymized with Bathyteuthis 

 in the same year that the two genera were introduced; Hoyle (1885c, 

 p. 282) considered Verrill's specimens at least congeneric with Bathy- 

 teuthis and, further, determined that Benthoteuthis megaJops was 

 not published until July 1885, while Bathyteuthis ahyssicola appeared 

 in May 1885. In his Challenger Report, Hoyle (1886, p. 169) sug- 

 gested that B. ahyssicola and B. megalops were conspecific, but he re- 

 tained them as separate species (p. 36). Again in 1886a (p. 274) Hoyle 

 listed the two species of Bathyteuthis. Pfeffer (1900, p. 173) synon- 

 ymized B. inegalops with B. ahyssicola., although not without some 

 uncertainty. In 1903 Chun referred to ^'•Bathyteuthis {B enthoteuthisy 

 (p. 85) and from then on to Bathyteuthis., a clear indication that he 

 considered Benthoteuthis a synonym. But Chun (1910, p. 186) changed 

 his mind and claimed that Benthoteuthis megalops Verrill had priority 

 over Bathyteuthis ahyssicola Hoyle by one month on the basis of the 

 April 1885 signature date on the sheet that contained Verrill's de- 

 scription. Shortly thereafter, however, Hoyle (1912, p. 282) emphati- 

 cally opposed Chun's decision claiming that Verrill's work was not 

 published in separate sheets, "Therefore, under the most favourable 

 construction, it cannot possibly have appeared before June, and careful 

 inquiries which I made at the time led me to the conclusion that it 

 did not make its appearance till July" (p. 283) . 



Since that time the usage of the names seems to have been more a 

 matter of preference than of priority. 



I have made an exhaustive search through the records of the Smith- 

 sonian Institution Library, the Yale University Library, and the Con- 

 necticut Academy of Arts and Sciences in an effort to determine the 

 exact date of publication of Verrill's Benthoteuthis niegalops. I have 



