REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. [ 52 ] 
resembles that of A. Harveyi more than A. princeps, and is a little larger 
than that of our No. 5. The beak is more rounded dorsally, less acute, 
and scarcely incurved; the notch is narrow, and the alar tooth is not 
prominent. 
M. Paul Gervais, in the Journal de Zoologie, ix, p. 90, 1875, gives a 
short description of this species, based apparently on the proof-sheets 
and unpublished plates (not seen by me) of Steenstrup’s article referred 
to above. He describes it as follows: A large species, of which a frag¬ 
ment of an arm preserved in the Museum of Copenhagan is nearly as 
large as the arm of a man. The sucker-bearing surface of the arm is 
extended bilaterally into a membrane exceeding, on each side, the arm 
itself. Diameter of the opening of the suckers 0.020 m ; of the suckers 
themselves 0.030 m . Length of the dorsal bone (pen) 2 m ; breadth [long¬ 
ueur, by error], measured in the middle of its length [longueur], 0.17 m . 
He refers to Steenstrup’s Plates III and IV. 
In a letter to the writer, dated Sej)tember 4, 1875, Professor Steen- 
strup states that, in addition to the specimens above mentioned, there 
are, in the museum of the University of Copenhagen, two complete speci¬ 
mens of Arcliiteutliis , preserved in alcohol. Both are of comparatively 
stnall size. One, from the northern coast of Iceland,* he refers to A. 
monachus. It has tentapnlar arms 10 feet long, and sessile arms 4 feet 
long. The other is a still smaller one, from the warmer parts of the 
Atlantic, possibly the young of A. dux. 
It is evident, therefore, that at no distant day most of the remaining 
doubtful points in respect to the structure and relationship of the spe¬ 
cies of this genus can be cleared up by Professor Steenstrup, even if 
additional specimens should not be obtained. 
The publication of Professor Steenstrup’s detailed memoir upon this 
genus would give great pleasure and satisfaction to all students of this 
class of animals. His thorough knowledge of the group, and his numer¬ 
ous and important investigations of the Cephalopods, published during 
many years, will give special value to his conclusions. 
Harting, in the important memoir referred to, describes specimens of 
two species, both of which are apparently distinct from all the New¬ 
foundland specimens enumerated by me. 
The first of these (his Plate I) is represented by the jaws and buccal 
mass, with the lingual dentition and some detached suckers, preserved 
in the museum of the University of Utrecht, but from an unknown local¬ 
ity. These parts are well figured and described, and were referred to 
Architeuthis dux by Harting. The form of the lower jaw (see Plate XII, 
fig. 1) is unlike that of A. dux, for the beak is very acute, the cut¬ 
ting edge is concave, the notch shallow and broad, and the alar tooth 
is somewhat prominent. The size is about the same as our No. 5. The 
suckers (Plate XII, fig. 2 a, 2 b) are from the sessile arms, and agree 
pretty nearly with those of A. Harveyi. The edge is strengthened by 
* This one is referred to by Dr. Packard, Amer. Naturalist, vol. vii, p. 94, 1873. 
