[63J CEPIIALOPODS OF NORTHEASTERN COAST OF AMERICA. 
Architeuthis, which had lost its tentacular arms, as is often the case 
with stranded specimens. The length of the head is given as about 3 
feet, and its diameter is given as 14 inches—probably a mistake for 1£ 
feet. The more important points are as follows: “ Its arms had been 
partially broken; there were eight of them, each as thick as a, strong 
man’s upper arm, and beneath each were two rows of suckers like cup¬ 
ping-glasses, more than a shilling size in circuit. When perfect, each 
of these arms must have been from 12 to 15 feet long, and from the 
point of one arm to that of its opposite was a length of nearly 30 feet. 
The animal’s length, from the insertion of its suckers to the end of its 
body, must have been nearly 20 feet—perhaps more. Its mouth, like a 
parrot’s beak, was as large as two joined hands of a large man, with 
the fingers outstretched. It weighed about 4 cwt.” 
Examples from the Indian Ocean and New Zealand. 
In the Journal de Zoologie, vol. iv, No. 2, p. 88, 1875, M. Paul Gervais 
has given a partial summary of the gigantic Ceplialopods previously 
known, and has mentioned an additional species ( Architeuthis Mouchezi 
Velain), of which portions were brought to Paris by M. Velain, from the 
Island of Saint Paul, Indian Ocean, where it was cast ashore in Novem¬ 
ber. He also quotes the brief notice of the animal by M. Velain (in 
Comptes-Rendus, t. lxjjx, p. 1002, Seance du Avril 19,1875). It is stated 
that this example belongs to the same group with Ommastrephes. A 
description and a rude figure of it, made from a photograph taken in 
the position in which it lay upon the shore, has also been published by 
M. Velain in the Arch, de Zool. Exper., vol. vi, p. 83, 1877. The figure 
has been copied in Tryon’s Manual of Conchology, vol. i, pi. 82. Ac¬ 
cording to this figure, the tentacular arms were very long and the short 
arms were truncated, probably owing to mutilation. One of the tentacu¬ 
lar arms was saved, and, with the beak, was preserved in Paris. The 
caudal fin was narrow and lanceolate, adhering to the sides of the body 
by its entire length. In the latter feature this is very different from 
any of the northern species. 
In the Archives de Zool. Experimental, vol. vi, 1877, M. Velain has 
proposed a new genus ( Moucliezia ) for this specimen. The peculiarity 
of the pen appears to be the only character of any special importance 
referred to by him. 
Mr. T. W. Kirk, in the Transactions of the Wellington Philosophical 
Society, for October, 1879, p. 310, has published accounts of the occur¬ 
rence of five specimens of u giant cuttle-fish ” on the coast of New Zeal¬ 
and : 
No. 1. The first of these was cast ashore at Waimarama, east coast, 
in September, 1870. Of this the beak was preserved and sent to Mr. 
Kirk by Mr. Meinertzliagen, whose account of the occurrence, with a 
rather crude description and some measurements made by an eye-wit¬ 
ness, Mr. Kirk has printed. He gives no description of the beak, un- 
