[ 83 ] CEPflALOPODS OF NORTHEASTERN COAST OF AMERICA. 
with Todarodes in having only four rows of distal tentacular suckers, 
and in the sharp denticulation of its large suckers. According to Steen- 
strup’s system this would have to be made still another genus, or else 
his generic characters would have to be entirely changed in order to 
admit it into either of his groups. The existence of eight rows of suck¬ 
ers in Illex seems to be due merely to the crowding together of the or¬ 
dinary four rows; nor can we attach much importance to the superficial 
furrows in the siphon-groove. Therefore, my own opinion is that Illex 
and Todarodes should be reunited and should retain the name Omma¬ 
strephes* * in a restricted sense. The absence of connective suckers and 
tubercles on the tentacular arms will be the most important diagnostic 
character to distinguish it from Sthenoteuthis and Architeuthis. Dosidicus 
is, perhaps, only an abnormal Sthenoteuthis with partially reproduced 
arms. 
Ommastrephes illecebrosus Yerrill.—(Short-finned Squid.) 
LolUjo illecebrosa Lesueur, Jouru. Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., vol. ii, p. 95, plate 
not numbered, 1821 (figures incorrect). 
Blainville, Diet, des Sci. IJat., vol. xxvii, p. 142, 1823. 
Gould, Invert. Mass., ed. 1, p. 318, 1841 (habits). 
Loligo piscatorum La Pylaie, Ann. des Sci. Nat., vol. iv, p. 319, 1825, pi. 16 
(habits as observed at Saint Pierre). 
Ommastrephes sagittatus {pars) D’Oi'big., Ceplial. Ac6tab., p. 345, pi. 7, figs. 1-3 
(after Lesueur). 
Gray {pars), Catalogue Moll. British Mus., part i, Cephal. Antep.,p. 58,1849. 
Binney, in Gould’s Invert. Mass., ed. 2, p. 510, 1870 (excl. syn.), pi. 26, figs. 
341-344 [341 is imperfect]* ( not pi. 24, fig. 339.) 
Tryon {p>ars), Man. Conch., vol. i, p. 177, pi. 78, fig. 342 (very poor, after Le¬ 
sueur), pi. 79, fig. 343,1879 {not pi. 78, figs. 341, 345). 
Ommastrephes illecebrosa Yerrill, Amer. Jouru. Sci., vol. iii, p. 281,1872 (syn- 
onomy); Report on Invert. Viney. Sd., &c., 1873, pp. 441 (habits), 634 
(descr.); Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. xix, p. 289, April, 1880; {illecebrosus) 
Trans. Conn. Acad., vol. v, p. 268, pis. 27,29, figs. 5,5 a, pi. 37, fig. 8, pi. 
38, fig. 2, pi. 39, figs. 2, 3 a 3 b, 1880-’81. 
Illex illecebrosus Steenstrup, Oversigt K. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Forhandl., 
1880, p. 90 (author’s separate copy, received August, p. 20). 
Plates XVIII-XX. 
Body, in the younger specimens, long and slender; in the adults, es¬ 
pecially when the stomach is distended with food r and in the breeding 
season, rather stout; most so in the large females; in preserved speci¬ 
mens the apparent stoutness of the body depends very much upon 
* I can see no necessity for the proposed reformation of the original spelling of this 
word by changing it to Ommalostrephes, for usage justifies the elision of a syllable in 
so long a name. The original spelling has been unchallenged for over forty years. 
* This species is not well figured in the last edition of Gould’s Invertebrates. Plato 
25, fig. 339, which Mr. Binney refers to it, really represents a Loligo. Plato 26, figs. 
341-344 (erroneously referred to Loligopsis paro), was doubtless made from a specimen 
of this species, but, if so, the long arms were incorrectly drawn, and confused with tho 
short arms. 
