190 



NOTE ON A BRITISH OEPHALOPOD. 



by Forbes and Hanley, we find it distingnislied from 0. sagittatus 

 (Illex coindeti) by two characters : (1) body elongated in tbe latter, 

 proportionately short in the former ; (2) terminal tentacular suckers 

 in many (about eight) rows in the latter, in four rows in the former ; 

 (3) the fin of 0. sagittatus is rhomboidal, of 0. ehlanss more 

 elliptical. The character first mentioned is not specific but sexual, 

 as may be seen from Verany's beautiful figures of the Mediterranean 

 form ; * whilst as regards the two latter, the Plymouth specimen 

 agrees with the description of 0. ehlanse. 





Fia. 1. — Ventral arms of Illex ehlance, to show tlie hectocotylisation. 



Among the specimens with which I have been able to compare it 

 are two Irish examples, labelled Ommastrephes ehlanse, and pre- 

 sumably named by comparison with Ball's type, which I understand 

 still exists in the museum of Trinity College, Dublin. t 



It resembles these in all essential characters, and hence there can 

 be no doubt that it belongs to the species which we must now call 

 Illex ehlanse (Ball), whose synonymy and definition will be as 

 follows : — 



Illex eblan-e (Ball). 



1841. LOLIGO EBLAN^, JBall. Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., vol. i, p. 363, figs. 1 — 7. 



1849. — — Grat/. Brit. Mus. Cat., p. 65. 



1853. Ammasteephes eblan^, Forbes and Ranley. Brit. Moll., vol. iv, 



p. 235, pi. sss, fig. 2. 

 1856. LoiiGO EBLAN^, Thompson. Nat. Hist. Ireland, vol. iv, p. 270. 

 1880. Ammasteephes eblan^, Steenstrup. Ommatostrephagtige Blaek- 



sprutter, Oversigt k. Dansk. Vid. Selsk. 



Forhandl., p. 97 (27). 



Fin very broadly rounded, sab-elliptical (see figs. 2, 3) ; tentacular 



* Moll, medit., Ceph., pis. xxxi, xxxii, 1851. 



f Since the above was in type my friend Dr. Scharfl", to whom I am indebted for much 

 help regarding the Irish specimens, informs me that he has compared my description of the 

 Plymouth specimen sent to him for the purpose with Ball's type. " This has," he says, 

 " been very much knocked about, and could not be taken out of the bottle. It is a much 

 smaller specimen, . . . and . . . the fin was more elongated in the type," but 

 that otherwise the description fitted. 



