348 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



In all other respects the Hawaiian form is essentially similar to L. reinhardlii except that (i) the 

 number of cartilaginous tubercles in the dorsal series is somewhat less than given by Lonnberg for 

 the specimen described by him, although more numerous in the ventral series; (2) the fins are conspic- 

 uously smaller; and (3) according to Pfeffer the statement that the latter are "flanked near the anterior 

 end by parallel rows of two or three smaller tubercles on either side" does not hold with respect to 

 the older species. 



Genus MEGALOCRANCHIA Pfeffer 1884. 



Megalocranchia Pfeffer 1S84. p. 24. 



Desmoteuthis Pleffer 1900, p. 191 (not of Verrill 1881). 



Desnwlcuthis Chun 1906, p. 8s. 



Desmoteuthis Chun 1910, p. 304, 356. 



Megalocranchia Pfeffer 1912, p. 64s. 711. 



Megalocranchia Berry 1912c, p. 644 



Body cask-shaped, membranous, transparent, very weakly pigmented. Fins oval, longer than 

 broad, overreaching the extremity of the body. Eyes large, rotund, protruding, sessile; on the ventral 

 surface of each a very large semicircular photogenic organ, with a smaller crescent-shaped organ just 

 in front. Arms with two rows of suckers; tentacles with four rows of suckers which extend along the 

 greater portion of the stalk; none of the suckers modified into hooks; no fixing apparatus. Photogenic 

 organs wanting except on the eye as stated. 



Type. — Megalocranchia maxima Pfeffer 1884 (monotypic); described from the Cape of Good Hope. 



Megalocranchia fisheri (Berry 1909) Pfeffer 1912. (PI. un, fig. 5, 6; pi. lv, fig. 2.) 



Helicocranchia fisher i Berry 1909, p. 417. 

 Xenoteuthis fisheri Berry 1909, p. 419 (error). 

 Megalocranchia fisheri Pfeffer jgi2,p. 718. 

 Megalocranchia fisheri Berry 1912c, p. 644. 



Animal small, body somewhat barrel-shaped. Mantle smooth, tough, membranous, saccular, thin, 

 very much inflated; largest at a point nearly midway between the head and fins; somewhat tapering 

 anteriorly and to a greater degree posteriorly, where it becomes at last suddenly constricted, termi- 

 nating in a short, slender, spitlike point extending between the fins and serving as their base of attach- 

 ment; maximum width of mantle probably about half its length. 



Fins rather small, thin; each semicircular, almost exactly half as wide as long, and a little over 

 a quarter the length of the mantle; almost continuous posteriorly and separated along the median line 

 only by the thread of integument covering the slender hinder extremity of the gladius. 



Head very short and broad; slightly concave above and below; relatively very large, due to the 

 enormous. globular eyes which are only faintly constricted at the base; lid openings very small, puck- 

 ered, so elevated as to appear almost papilliform. Mantle attached firmly to the head in the nuchal 

 region and also to the base of the funnel on either side. Funnel large, thin-walled, conical, broad at 

 the base; extremity not quite reaching the base of the ventral arms; aperture ample, with a caplike 

 upper lip. Funnel organ difficult to distinguish with certainty. 



Arms short, robust, fleshy, the longest less than one-third the length of the mantle; unequal, the 

 order of length 3=4, 2, 1; umbrella wanting; all the arms outwardly keeled and provided with a very 

 delicate trabeculated marginal membrane, which attains by far its best development on the arms of 

 the third pair; the latter in every way larger than the others and with larger suckers. Suckers biserial, 

 closely placed, regularly alternating to the tip; oblique, hood-shaped; apertures wide; horny rings (at 

 least on third arms) scarcely dentate, but very minutely and beautifully crenulate on the upper border, 

 nearly smooth below. 



a The mantle is much wrinkled and contracted in this specimen, especially ventrally (where the distance from the tip of 

 the body to the mantle margin is much less than it is dorsally), thus precluding the possibility of accurate measurement or exact 

 statement of relative proportions. This condition is probably wholly due to the action of the preserving fluid. 



