BATHYPELAGIC SQUID BATHYTEUTHIS 51 



(trabeculae) remain as a comblike structure reminiscent of the am- 

 bulacral stalks of some asteroids. Therefore, Pfeffer's description, like 

 Chun's must be considered a mixture of the characters of two species. 

 Both of these works, nevertheless, are still usable in a general way be- 

 cause they do not deal with the characters (other than the trabecula- 

 comb) that distinguish B. abyssicola from B. hacidifera. 



Naef's conclusions about Bathyfeiithis. which he stated are based 

 primarily on Chun's and Pfetfer's descriptions, are not adversely af- 

 fected because he dealt with taxa on the generic and familial levels. 

 Works that would be affected are those based on material taken from 

 localities where B. hacidifera is known to occur : the equatorial waters 

 of the Indian and eastern Pacific Oceans. Reports that may include 

 specimens of B. hacidifera are by Hoyle (1904), Massy (1916), and 

 Robson (1921, 1948). 



Hoyle's (1904) description of B. ahysslcola from the Panama re- 

 gion gives no hint that would help in determining the identity of his 

 specimen. The illustration is not particularly diagnostic either, but the 

 second left, arm (one of the five arms shown) looks as though it has 

 distinct trabeculae; these are connected at their ends by a membrane 

 and are not long. The tentacles look very long in the illustration and 

 wlien their measurements are reduced to natural size (38 mm) they 

 are 1 mm longer than the longest tentacle of B. abyssicola from the 

 Antarctic ; they are also somewhat longer than the tentacle of B. hacidi- 

 fera. The long tentacles may be due to preservation or to an illustrator's 

 error. No other specific features can be seen in the illustration and it 

 is not possible to determine with certainty to which species of Bafhy- 

 teuthls Hoyle's specimen belongs. 



Massy's (1916a) brief description of two small B. abyssicola from 

 the southern part of the Bay of Bengal is not detailed enough to in- 

 dicate if it should apply to B. hacidifera^ and no illustrations are given. 

 Trabeculae would be developed even in these small specimens, but 

 Massy did not mention them. The arm suckers have 4, 5, and 6 teeth, 

 and the suckers on the very short clubs have 4 teeth. 



In the absence of trabeculae, these features may refer the specimens 

 to B. ahysslcoht, but this cannot be stated with certainty, because 

 Chun's and Pfeffer's descriptions imply an ontogenetic occurrence of 

 trabeculae in older specimens; Massy could have believed that her 

 specimens were too small to have trabeculae. 



Robson's (1921) supposed bathyteuthid from the Indian Ocean miist 

 be ignored, because no information whatsoever can be gleaned from 

 the description or tlie specimen (see Historical Resume) . 



The Arctun(s captured 11 small specimens in the eastern tropical 

 Pacific in the region of the Galapagos and Cocos Islands. Robson 



