88 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 291 



two rows of small suckers (4-6 except on arm IV) ; suckers on the 

 buccal lappets, etc. Although differences in these characters do occur 

 between genera, they are not necessarily of a magnitude that require 

 separation at the familial level. 



The different order of attachment of the buccal connectives to the 

 ventral arms, however, is a major obstacle to the close relationship 

 between Ctenopteryx and Bathytenthh. A survey by Young and 

 Roper (1968) pointed out that the arrangement of buccal connectives 

 is an extremely stable character wnthin the families of Oegopsida. 

 The Bathyteuthidae with Ctenopteryx included would be the only 

 oegopsid family that did not confonn to this pattern. For this reason 

 it is difficult to reconcile the differences in attachment of buccal con- 

 nectives between Ctenopteryx and Bathyteuthis. 



Although the general shape of the gladius is similar in Ctenopteryx 

 and Bathyteuthis^ some of the details of structure indicate that the 

 similarities may be more superficial than earlier authors thought 

 (e.g., Pfeffer, 1900; Naef, 1923). Unfortunately, no analysis of the 

 value of the detailed structure of the gladius in showing relation- 

 ships in higher taxa is available. Without such an analysis for the 

 Oegopsida it is impossible at this time to determine how much 

 weight to place on the observed differences between Ctenopteryx and 

 Bathyteuthis. A priori it would seem, however, that the differences 

 in the structure of the gladii are basic and probably of familial 

 significance. 



Naef (1923) was the first to recognize the gland in Ctenopteryx 

 that he believed to be homologous with the accessory nidamental 

 glands of sepioids and myopsids. He gave a comparison wnth the 

 true accessory nidamental glands of myopsids and sepioids, and 

 he concluded that the glands are similar in structure, except that 

 they have become fused in Ctenopteryx. This may be so, but the 

 gland that I have observed in Ctenopteryx bears no resemblance to 

 the accessory nidamental glands of other decapods. It may be an 

 entirely different structure, but further comparative studies are neces- 

 sary before a final decision can be reached. In any case, the gland is 

 lacking in Bathyteuthis, and the oviducal glands of the two genera 

 are clearly dissimilar. 



In summary, Ctenopteryx and Bathyteuthis share several distinctive 

 features, one of which is unique among the Oegopsida. Other im- 

 portant characters, however, show sharp contrasts between the genera. 

 The first set of characters implies that Bathyteuthis and Ctenopteryx 

 may be related forms, but the second set precludes a very close relation- 

 ship. Bathyteuthis and Ctenopteryx are sufficiently distinct to warrant 

 their separation into separate families. 



