35Q 



BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



mentioning, so that the formula is perhaps preferably stated as 3=4, 2, 1. (3) The horny rings of the 

 tentacular suckers have 12 to 14 instead of 10 teeth on the upper margin. These are none of them very 

 great differences, but seem sufficient, together with the widely separate habitats of the two forms, to 

 render their union unjustifiable until a better representation of each is available for study. 



My original reference of this species to Helicocranchia %vas certainly ill advised, our species differing 

 conspicuously in the larger, more elongate nonpedunculate fins, spitlike posterior continuation of the 

 mantle, much smaller funnel, and very much larger unstalked eyes. 



The discovery of this species very greatly extends the known geographical range of the little group 

 of typical Megalocranchia, but even yet the distribution of the various species is of interest because of 



the continuity of the respective regions occupied by them. Beginning 

 with M. pellucida in the south Atlantic, the remaining species form a geo- 

 graphic chain extending more than halfway around the globe. M. maxima 

 is known only from the Cape of Good Hope, M. abyssicola Goodrich from 

 the waters of the Indian peninsula, and the present species from the 

 Hawaiian Islands. Because of its occupancy of so distant and isolated a 

 region, the Hawaiian species might be expected to be the most highly 

 differentiated member of the group, but such is very far from being the 

 case. On the other hand M. abyssicola seems in many ways peculiar and 

 not so closely allied to any of the other three forms as they are to one 

 another. 



It has been a pleasure to associate with this interesting species the name 

 of my friend, Dr. Walter K. Fisher, who, as a member of the staff of the 

 Albatross during the Hawaiian explorations, had no small part in the 

 duties of caring for and preserving the present material. 



Genus HELICOCRANCHIA Massy 1907. 



Helicocranchia Massy 1907, p. 382. 

 Helicocranchia Massy 1909, p. 34. 

 Desmoteulhis (pars) Chun 1910. p. 302, 357. 

 Teuthowenia (Helicocranchia) Pieffer 1912, p. 742, 750. 



Body elongate, bag shaped. Fins small, oval; narrowed or even 

 pedunculate at base; little or not at all united posteriorly. Eyes large, 

 elevated on short stalks. Arms rather long, with two rows of suckers; no 

 hooks. Funnel enormous, extending well past the head and eyes. 



Type. — Helicocranchia Pfefferi Massy 1907 (monotypic); described from 

 off the coast of Ireland. 



Chun has referred this genus to Desmoteulhis (i. e., Megalocranchia), 

 but it seems to me to be rather nearer to Owenia (Teuthowenia Chun), 

 from which it differs most conspicuously in the more rounded eyes and 

 enormous development of the funnel. 

 Helicocranchia species? 



Cranchiid species. Berry 1909. p. 419 (mere locality record). 



A single sadly dilapidated specimen of some cranchiid approaching very close to this genus was 

 taken at Albatross station 4001, 230 to 277 fathoms, off Kapuai Point, Kauai [S. S. B. 261]. It is too 

 fragmentary for satisfactory determination, but has been made the subject of the following notes: 



Mantle much wrinkled and distorted; its outline in general elongate, swollen, cask -shaped; tapering 

 behind to a point; anterior margin fused with head in the nuchal region and on either side of the funnel 

 as usual in the group; width, of mantle about a third the length. Fins very small, separate, delicate; 

 attached for the anterior half of their inner margins to the minute and sharp membranous point which 

 forms the posterior termination of the mantle. 



Head small. Eyes moderately small, projecting forward upon very short club-shaped stalks. Fun- 

 nel enormous, reaching far beyond the head and more conspicuous than any other structure in the ante- 

 rior region of the body; heavy walled and inflated; aperture large. 



FlG. 40. — Helicocranchia sp., 

 ventral view of specimen [261] 

 from the vicinity of Kauai, 

 partially restored. X 2. In 

 this figure the mantle is 

 scarcely represented as suffi- 

 ciently elongate and the arms 

 are probably shown as much 

 too short and stocky. 



