334 



BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



Remarks. — Only two species of Pterygioteuthis have been recognized previous to the present one. 

 The first of these and type of the genus is the P. giardi Fischer, originally described from a specimen 

 taken by the Talisman at a depth of 1105 meters off the coast of Morocco. In 1904 Hoyle published a 

 much more detailed account of some specimens thought to represent the same species which were cap- 

 tured by the Albatross in the eastern tropical Pacific at depths ranging from 551 to 1,201 fathoms. In 

 1908 Chun issued a brief diagnosis of a second species, P. gemmata, which was secured by the Valdivia 

 expedition in the South Atlantic. When the present specimens from the Albatross Hawaiian collec- 

 tions were first being examined by the writer, Chun's paper had not yet come to hand, so that they were, 

 after a little hesitation, referred to P. giardi and were indeed recorded under this name in a preliminary 

 publication. Since that time the appearance of the great monograph of the Valdivia Oegopsids by 

 Chun has greatly increased and simplified our understanding of the genus, so that upon a reexamination 

 of the specimens and a patient working out of the details (often seriously obscured by the woeful preser- 

 vation of the material) the conclusion was reached that a new species is represented, which though in 

 many respects very close to P. giardi, in some ways shows an approach to P. gemmata, and in others is 

 somewhat different from either. The relationship of the three species is well shown by a consideration 

 of their more important diagnostic characters grouped in parallel columns. 



Diagnostic Characters of the Species of Pterygioteuthis. 



P. giardi. 



15 subocular organs; the 5 small anterior ones 

 nearly in line with one another 



Dorsal arms with 3 hooks near middle of arm 

 (both rows affected) and about 5 pairs of 

 suckers proximally; 2d and 3d arms with 

 2-3 hooks (both rows). No suckers at tips 

 of any arms save dorsal pair. 



Ventral arms devoid of both hooks and suckers 



Two suckers in fixing apparatus. 



Chitinous plate between the glandular ridges of 

 the hectocotylus bidentate. 



P. microlampas. 



14 subocular organs; arrangement 

 similar to P. gxardt, but 4 instead of 

 5 small anterior organs, and the last 

 of these not in line with the others. 



Dorsal arms with 3 hooks near middle 

 of ventral row, with 6-7 pairs of 

 suckers proximally; 2d and 3d arms 

 with 3 hooks in ventral row and 7 

 suckers proximally; suckers con- 

 tinuing distally to tips. 



Ventral arms with no hooks; suckers 

 minute and confined to distal half 

 of arm. 



Two suckers in fixing apparatus. 

 Hectocotylus unknown 



P. gemmata. 



14 subocular organs; arrangement very 

 different. 



Dorsal, 2d, and 3d arms with4~5 hooks 

 near middle of ventral row. 



Ventral arms with no hooks; but with 

 small suckers throughout their 

 length. 



Three suckers in fixing apparatus. 



Chitinous plate between the glandular 

 ridges of the hectocotylus finely 

 toothed. 



It is an unfortunate but curious fact that practically all of the specimens of this genus which have 

 been obtained have been defective in one way or another. As a rule either the eyes have burst or the 

 arms are badly damaged or both types of mutilation have occurred. This appears to be due to the 

 fragile and incoherent nature of the tissues, which seem unable to withstand the great changes in pressure 

 which they are forced to undergo in being pulled up from the depths in which they live. According 

 to present evidence it appears that even in a preserving medium they are apt to gradually disintegrate, 

 and despite the utmost vigilance and care the handling necessarily incidental to a thorough examination 

 is often fatal. This was the case with the specimen which was the subject of Mr. Hudson's excellent 

 drawing, for though evidently perfect at that time, it was in such fragmentary condition when it came 

 into my hands that no accurate description of it could be given and it became necessary to utilize the 

 second individual as the type, although the account of the photogenic organs of the eye has been mainly 

 drawn from the former specimen. 



I can not forbear adding that there are certain discrepancies in the various descriptions given by 

 Fischer, Joubin, Hoyle, and Chun for P. giardi which cause me to feel some doubt as to whether all their 

 specimens are really referable to the same species, an uncertainty which is by no means diminished 

 when the localities furnishing the respective specimens are taken into consideration. 



