590 



3. Teuthological Miscellany No. 1. 



By S. Stillman Berry, Redlands, California. 



eingeg. 10. Juli 1913. 



A second Xote on the Genus Lolliguncula. 

 In 1911 (Berry 1911, p. 103) I called attention to the fact that 

 the hectocotylized arm in the group Lolliguncula is so similar in struc- 

 ture to that of typical LoUgo that the only important character left us 

 in distinguishing the two genera is the circumstance that while in the 

 female of Loligo the sperm reservoirs of the male are received upon a 

 pad below the mouth, in Lolliguncula they are received upon a calloused 

 patch on the inner surface of the mantle near the left gill. Only a few 

 months later Drew (1911, pp. 327 — 328, 350) in reporting his obser- 

 vations on the sexual activities of the common squid, L. jJcaleii, pub- 

 lished the curious discovery that in this species (which no one so far as I 

 am aware has ever considered to be other than a typical Loligo) there 

 are two distinct methods of copulation, one somewhat more common 

 method in which the "sperm reservoirs are attached to the outer buccal 

 membrane", and another by no means rare in which the "sperm reser- 

 voirs are attached in the mantle chamber on or near the oviduct". Drew 

 was fortunate in observing both processes in life and each is carefully 

 described. In the same connection quite recently I have been much 

 interested to discover in an old paper by L ebert and Hob in (1845, pi. 9) 

 some figures of L. vulgaris clearly showing the sperm reservoirs attached 

 within the palliai chamber near the base of the right gill. The experi- 

 ence of these writers would thus indicate that there is great variation 

 in the manner of attaching the sperm reservoirs even in the same species, 

 and although it does not appear from anything they tell us that there 

 is any structure within the mantle cavity of Loligo corresponding to the 

 calloused patch in Z/o/%i/?ic?//«, their observations very decidedly weaken 

 the claims of the latter genus to the recognition it has received. 



The Genus Teuthis Schneider 1784. 

 Naef (1912, pp. 743, 745 — 748) has recently revived the old genus 

 Teuthis Schneider 1784, following in this particular the now obsolete 

 usage of Gray (1849, p. 76). It seems almost superfluous to call atten- 

 tion once more to the reason that Schneider's genus has so long been 

 in discard, namely, that it is conspicuously preoccupied in fishes by 

 Teutiiis Linné 1766. As it is certainly convenient to have a name for 

 this group and as none other appears to be available, I would propose 

 Acroteuthis with the Sepia media Linné 1767 as type. To those who 

 prefer to continue the use of Loligo in its broader sense this name will 



