Manchester Memoirs, Vol. xlv. (1901), No. 6. 3 



The above description is taken from the example col- 

 lected by Dr. Koettlitz. There is a shell in the British 

 Museum (Natural History), [Reg. No., 69. 6. 14. i] in the 

 McAndrevv collection from the Red Sea, which clearly 

 belongs to the same species i^Pl. I, Fig. 2). 



It differs from the shell just described in the following 

 points : — 



1. The shell is more elliptical and not so oblong in 



outline. 



2. The striated area is not so deeply channelled in the 



middle line, and the rounded swellings on either 

 side are not so prominent. This may perhaps be 

 due to the specimen having been much rubbed. 



3. The hinder portion of the shell in front of the inn er 



cone is more deeply concaved. 

 These characters do not seem to me of specific value but 

 rather to indicate that Dr. Koettlitz's specimen is a male, 

 the other a female. 



This species apparently comes nearest to Sepia singa- 

 lensis Goodrich {Trans. Linn. Sac. (2), Vol. 7, p. 3, 1896), 

 but differs in that (i) the chitinous margin on the dorsal 

 surface is much narrower, and (2), the inner cone is 

 flattened, and, if anything, rather concave and not convex 

 as indicated in Goodrich's figure ; it also approaches 

 Sepia acnlcata van Hasselt, which, however, also has the 

 inner cone strongly convex, and the outline of the shell 

 broader and more evenly oval. Sepia zanzibarica Pfeffer 

 is another allied form, but here again the inner cone is 

 elevated instead of flat. 



W. E. H. 



