[ 25 ] CEPHALOPODS OF NORTHEASTERN COAST OF AMERICA. 
Plates I and II. The body was relatively stout. According to the 
statement of Mr. Harvey, it was, when fresh, about 213 cm (7 feet) long 
and 54 feet in circumference. The * 1 * * * * * tail 7 or caudal fin (Plate I, fig. 2, 
and Plate IV, fig. 11) is decidedly sagittate, and remarkably small in 
proportion to the body. It is said by Mr. Harvey to have been 55.9 cm 
(22 inches) across, but the preserved specimen is considerably smaller, 
owing, undoubtedly, to shrinkage in the brine and alcohol. The pos¬ 
terior termination is unusually acute, and the lateral lobes extend for¬ 
ward considerably beyond their insertion. In the preserved specimen 
the total length, from the anterior end of the lateral lobes to the tip of 
the tail, is 58.4 cm (23 inches); from the lateral insertions to the tip, 4S.2 cm 
(19 inches); total breadth, about 3S cm (15 inches); width of lateral lobes, 
15.2 cm (G inches). The eight shorter arms, when fresh, were, accord¬ 
ing'to Mr. Harvey’s measurements, 182.9 cm (G feet) long, and all of 
equal length,* but those of the different pairs were, respectively, 
25.4 cm , 22.9 cm , 20.3 cm , and 17.S cm (10, 9, 8, and 7 inches) in circumference.! 
strop. Harting has also given a figure of the lower jaw, copied from a figure by 
Steenstrup. In the proof-sheets that I have seen this specimen is referred to as “A. 
titan” hut Harting cites it as A. dux Steenstrup, which is the name given to it by 
Steenstrup in his first notice of it, in 1856. Therefore, two distinct species were con¬ 
founded under this name by Kent. His rejection of the generic name, Architeuthis, 
might, perhaps, have been justified on the ground that Steenstrup had never pub¬ 
lished any definite description of it, and that he had mentioned no distinctive generic 
characters in his brief notice, had not Harting’s article given, indirectly, •sufficient 
information to justify us in adopting the genus. But Kent’s genus rests on no better 
foundation than Architeuthis, for he gave to it no characters that can he considered 
generic. Actual generic characters of Architeuthis were first given in my articles in 1875, 
but those then given for the pen and dentition were erroneous. Previous to that time 
no characters had been published, either by Steenstrup, Harting, or Kent, sufficient to 
distinguish the genus from Ommastrcphes and Loligo, much less from Sthenoteutliis, to 
which it is most closely allied. 
I have more recently been led to consider our species distinct from the true A. mo- 
nachus by correspondence with Professor Steenstrup, from whom I learn that the cau¬ 
dal fin in his species does not agree with that of the species here described, and that 
in his species the ventral arms differ from the others, both in form and in the charac¬ 
ter of the suckers. Certain differences in the arms can be detected in the photograph 
of our specimen (reproduced on Plate I), in which, fortunately, the ventral arms are 
well displayed. Unless these differences prove to be sexual characters, which is not 
likely, they would indicate a specific difference. Therefore, I have, for the present, 
adopted the specific name given by Kent to the Newfoundland specimens. The name 
was given as a well-merited compliment to the Rev. M. Harvey, who has done so much 
to bring these remarkable specimens into notice. Nevertheless, it is probable that 
when the original specimens of A. monaclius shall have been fully described and fig¬ 
ured, so as to make the species recognizable, one of our species may prove to be iden¬ 
tical with it. At present I am unable to decide whether the affinities of A. monaclius 
may not be with A. princeps rather than with A. Harveyi. Recently I have had an op¬ 
portunity to study the suckers of a young specimen of our species (No. 24) in place. 
In this the suckers on the basal part of the ventral arms differ from the corresponding 
ones of the other arms in being denticulate only on the outer side. 
* It is possible that they may have been originally somewhat unequal, and that 
mutilation of their tips made them appear more nearly equal than they were in life. 
t In the original statement it is not mentioned to which pairs of arms these dimen¬ 
sions apply. After having been five years in alcohol, the ventral arms now measure 
