REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. [126] 
with distinct, separate, small caudal Jins, which are free from the end of 
the body; its mantle-edge is also represented as free dorsally. This 
evidently is a generic type distinct from Taonius and Dcsmoteuthis. 
Indeed, it probably will be found not to belong to the same family, 
when actually studied. Therefore, it seems necessary to allow the name 
Loligopsis to remain connected with such small, short-bodied species, 
for which alone it was originally used. The genus, in its original sense, 
cannot yet be regarded as fully established. 
Leacliia Lesueur, 1821* (—Perothis (Esch.) Rathke, 1835), was also 
based on an imperfect figure of a small Pacific Ocean squid, which had 
likewise lost its tentacular arms. The only generic character given was, 
as in Lamarck’s case, the presence of only eight arms—a purely fictitious 
character. The type of this genus was Leacliia cyclura Les. It has a 
more elongated body, slender posteriorly, with a more or less rounded 
caudal fin, the two sides of the fin completely united together and to the 
posterior end of the body. The third pair of arms is much larger than 
the others. The anterior dorsal edge of the mantle is represented as 
free in all the figures, but, according to D’Orbigny, there is an internal 
dorsal commissure, and also two lateral ones. The visceral anatomy of 
one species of this group {L. guttata Grant), which D’Orbigny refers, 
probably correctly,! to the original L. cyclura , is pretty well known, and 
is widely different from that of Desmoteuthis (see Plate XXIY, fig. 1), as 
well as from that of Taonius, so far as the latter is known. 
There can be no doubt whatever as to the generic distinctness of 
Leacliia, if the anatomy be taken into account. (See the figures of 
Grant and D’Orbigny.) 
Taonius Steenstrup, 1861 (type T. pavo). This differs from the two 
preceding genera in its more elongated form, narrow caudal fin, &c. 
From Leacliia and Desmoteuthis it differs in the form of its pen. The 
dorsal edge of the mantle is represented and described as free by D’Or¬ 
bigny. The anatomical characters are not known. 
Desmoteuthis hyperborea Verrill. 
Leachia hyperborea Steenstrup, Kongelige Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Skrifter, 5r., 
yoI. iv, p. 200, 1856 (sep. copies, p. 16). 
Taonius hyperboreus Steenst., Oversigt Kgl. Danske Vidensk. Selsk., Forhand- 
linger, 1861, p. 83. 
Verrill, Amer. Joum. Sci., yoI. xvii, p. 243, 1879; vol. xix, p. 290, 1880. 
Loligopsis hyperboreus Tryon, op. cit., p. 162 (inaccurate translation, after 
Steenstrup). 
Desmoteuthis hyperborea Verrill, Trans. Conn. Acad., vol. v, p. 302, pi. 27, figs. 
1, 2, pi. 29, fig. 1, Feb., 1881. 
Plate XXIV, figures 1-3. Plate XXV, figures 1, 2 (anatomy). 
5. Body very long, tapering gradually backward, and ending in a 
* Journal Pliilad. Acad., vol. ii, p. 89, pi. 2. 
t Tryon criticizes this determination because Lesueur ‘'describes and figures a 
smooth species,” while L. guttata has two rows of curious tubercles on the ventral side. 
But as Lesueur only described a figure of the dorsal surface, liis objection to this identi¬ 
fication is absurd. 
