REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. [ 62 ] 
isliment should be conveyed through them dowue the Hornes to the 
Beast. The head was not soe bigg as my fist, the month and two hard 
shells upon it very black and shap’d somewhat like to an Eagles Bill, 
but broader; In the mouth there was two tongues, and (as the Man 
declared that tooke this monster) the Beast had naturall power to draw 
this head in or putt it out of the Body as necessity required.” 
Iu the Zoologist, June, 1875, p. 4502, and August, p. 4569, and in the 
August number of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, vol. 
xvi, p. 123, Mr. More also gave an account of the capture, and briefly 
described the beak, odontophore, and portions of the tentacles and arms 
of another specimen, taken off Boffin Island, on the west coast of Ire¬ 
land, April, 1S75. The tentacular arms are said to have been 30 feet 
loug; the expanded portion, 2 feet 9 inches; the large central suckers, 
nearly 1 inch in diameter; those of the outer rows, .5 of an inch; one 
short arm is said to have been 8 feet long and 15 inches in circumference 
at the base when fresh. It had small suckers without teeth on the 
horny rings, on the 1 wrist’ of the 1 club ’ and scattered along the tentacular 
arms, as do our specimens. The rounded tubercles that always accom¬ 
pany these smooth-rimmed suckers are not mentioned, but doubtless 
they were also present. The beak was 5.25 inches long and 3.5 inches 
broad, dark reddish brown, “ with a large tooth in both margins of the 
inner mandible and a much smaller notch on each side of the outer 
mandible.” 
Mr. More believed this to be distinct from the Newfoundland species, 
and referred it to A. dux, but his description agrees closely with the cor¬ 
responding parts of A. Harveyi (No. 5) described by me, except in the 
relatively somewhat greater size of the sessile arms at base. In this 
respect, however, it is equaled or surpassed by our No. 14, and by others 
of the Newfoundland examples. This may also be only a peculiarity of 
the female. The measurements indicate a specimen intermediate in size 
between our Nos. 5 and 14, but the description is not sufficient to indi¬ 
cate with certainty to which of our species it was nearest related. A 
more detailed description, with figures of the suckers and odontophore, 
would probably settle this point. Mr. More supposed that the lateral 
suckers of the tentacular club were larger in his example than in A. 
Harveyi , but that is not the case. 
Prof. G. O. Sars, in his recent work (Mollusca Beg. Arct. Norvegise, 
p. 377), also mentions a specimen of Architeuthis (12 feet long) cast 
ashore on the Norwegian coast, at Foldenfjord, in 1874. He refers it 
doubtfully to U A dux Steenstrup” (from the Kattegat), by which we 
should understand A. monachus, without doubt. 
In “Nature,” vol. xxii, No. 25, October 21, 1880, p. 585, under the 
caption “An Octopus,” there is an account of the stranding of a large 
Cephalopod, early in October, at Kilkee, County Clare, Ireland, from a 
letter of the Ilev. B. J. Gabbett. The description though very imper¬ 
fect, is sufficient to show that it was not an Octopus, but probably an 
