NOTES ON A GIGANTIC CEPHALOPOU, 47 



fainter, and broader towards the anterior end, where it is a httle 

 over 1 cm. in breadth. At the posterior end, costae, one on each 

 side, started from the mid-rib, and gradually diverged until they touched 

 the edges of the shell at about 19 cm. from its posterior end ; they then 

 ran along the edge as a delicate rim for about 13 C7?i. more, thus, entirely 

 ceasing at about 32 cm. from the posterior end of the shell. These 

 costae therefore mark off at the posterior part of the shell two lateral 

 areas from the median area. Several faint ridges ran longitudinally in 

 the lateral areas. This posterior part, in short, resembles very much 

 that shown in Fig. 3, PI. XV. of Verrill's paper.* It is however 

 stated there that it is the anterior part of the pen. As we ourselves 

 took out the anterior broad half of the shell from our specimen and 

 pieced it with narrower parts from the posteior fin end, we can not 

 think ourselves wrong in our orientation of the shell. While the 

 greater part of the shell had lain flat in its sac, the posterior 10 cm. 

 seen to have been folded in two in the median line and lain almost ver- 

 tically. At the extreme posterior tip, the sides of the shell folded 

 towards the median line and formed a sjuall hollow end-conus which 

 could be forced open along the median line. 



Internal dissection revealed nothing noteworthy. The nida- 

 mental glands were comparatively very small, beiiig only 4.5 cm. 

 There were oviducts on both sides of the body as in Ommastrephes. 

 The reproductive organs were in general very small. The gills 

 measured 23 cm. in length. 



The comparatively small size of the whole animal, of its nidamental 

 glands, and the unripe condition of the reproductive glands suggest the 

 idea that the animal was still immature— in fact, the baby of a giant. 



The characters as described above leave little room for doubting 

 that the specimen belongs to the genas Arcldteathis, although on 

 several points it does not agree with the genus as characterized by 



loc. cit. 



