REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. [ 24 ] 
Plates I—VI. 
The diagnostic characters of this species, so far as determined, are 
as follows: Sessile arms unequal in size, nearly equal in length, de¬ 
cidedly shorter than the head and body together, and scarcely as long 
as the body alone, all bearing sharply serrated suckers; their tips 
slender and acute. Tentacular arms, in extension, about four times as 
long as the short ones; about three times as long as the head and body 
together. Caudal tin small, less than one-third the length of the mantle, 
sagittate in form, with the narrow lateral lobes extending forward 
beyond their insertions; the posterior end tapering to a long, acute tip. 
Jaws with a smaller notch and lobe than in A. princeps. Larger suck¬ 
ers, toward the base of the lateral and dorsal arms, with numerous acute 
teeth all around the circumference, all similar in shape, but those on 
the inner margin smaller than those on the outer. Remainder of the 
suckers on these arms, and all of those on the ventral arms, toothed 
on the outer margin only. Sexual characters are not yet determined. 
Special description of the specimen No. 5.—The preserved parts of this 
specimen (see p. 8) examined by me are as follows: The anterior 
part of the head, with the bases of the arms, the beak, lingual ribbon, 
&c.; the eight shorter arms, but without the suckers, which dropped off 
in the brine, and are now represented only by a few of the detached 
marginal rings; the two long tentacular arms, which are well pre¬ 
served, with all the suckers in place; the caudal fin; portions of the 
pen or internal shell; the ink-bag; and pieces of the body. 
The general appearance and form of this species* are well shown by 
* Mr. W. Saville Kent, from the popular descriptions of this species, gave it new 
generic and specific names, viz, Megaloteutliis Harveyi, in a communication made to 
the Zoological Society of London, March 3, 1874 (Proceedings Zool. Soc., p. 178; see 
also Nature, vol. ix, p. 375, March 12, and p. 403, March 19). My former identifica¬ 
tion was based on a comparison of the jaws with the jaws of A. monaclius, well fig¬ 
ured and described by Steenstrup in proof-sheets of a paper which is still unpub¬ 
lished, though in part printed several years ago, and referred to by Harting. The agree¬ 
ment of the jaws is very close in nearly all respects, but the beak of the lower jaw is 
a little more divergent in Steenstrup’s figure. His specimen was a little larger than 
the one here described, and was taken from a specimen cast ashore at Jutland in 
1853. Mr. Kent was probably unacquainted with Steenstrup’s notice of that specimen 
when he said (Nature, vol. ix, p. 403) that A. monaclius “ was instituted for the recep¬ 
tion of two gigantic Cephalopods cast on the shores of Jutland in the years 1639 and 
1790, and of which popular record alone remains.” In his second communication to 
the Zoological Society of London, March 18, 1874 (Proc., p. 490), he states (on the 
authority of Crosse and Fischer) that a third specimen “was stranded on the coast 
of Jutland in 1854, and upon the pharynx and beak of this, the only parts preserved, 
the same authority founded his species Architeutkis dux.” The specimen here referred 
to is evidently the same that Steenstrup named A. monachus, in 1856. The confusion 
in reference to these names is evidently due to this mistake. 
The statement that Arcliiteuthis dux Steenstrup is known from the beak alone is evi¬ 
dently erroneous. Steenstrup himself, Harting, and Dr. Packard, in their articles on 
this subject, all state that the suckers, parts of the arms, and the internal shell or 
pen were preserved, and they have been figured, but not published, by Professor'Steen- 
