REPORT OP" COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. [ 200 ] 
base specific characters upon, except the form of the suckers, and of their 
horny rings. But the description of the horny rings is not sufficiently 
precise, nor the figures sufficiently detailed to afford such characters. 
If the arm is one of the ventral pair, as seems probable, the suckers, as 
figured by Professor Owen, and especially as more fully described by 
Mr. Kent, are of the same form, and agree closely, but not perfectly, 
with those of either of the Newfoundland specimens, for in the latter 
the suckers of the ventral arms are not denticulated on the inner side, 
or but slightly so. But they also agree well with those of Architeuthis 
Hartingii , as figured by Harting. Those of the original A. dux Steenst. 
have neither been described nor figured. 
As this arm cannot, at present, be referred with certainty to any of 
the named species, it may be best to record it as Architeuthis grandis , 
until better known. 
In the same article, Professor Owen has given a good figure (pi. 33, 
fig. 2) of the tentacular arm of the Newfoundland specimen (my No. 2), 
copied from the same photograph described by me (see pp. [6], [33], 
[34]). To this he applies, doubtless by mistake, the name, Architeuthis 
princeps ,* without giving any reason for not adopting my conclusion 
that it belongs to A. Harveyi. But he does not, in any way, refer to the 
latter species, although he mentions the specimen (my No. 5), or rather 
the photograph of the specimen, on which that species was based. He 
apparently (p. 162) supposes that both photographs and Mr. Harvey’s 
two series of measurements refer to the same specimen, which is by no 
means the case, as had been sufficiently explained by me, in several 
former papers.! 
The brief account, given by Professor Owen, of the large cephalopods 
described by others, includes none additional to those noticed by me in 
this report. On the other hand, he omits those described by Harting ; 
those described by Mr. Kirk, from New Zealand; those from Alaska; and 
several others. 
* By a singular mistake, Professor Owen, on p. 163, states that this species was 
named A. princeps by Dr. Packard, in February, 1873. But according to his own 
statement, on p. 161, the specimen was not actually obtained till December, 1873, at 
least nine months after Dr. Packard’s article was printed. In truth, the name princeps 
was first given by me, in 1875, to designate a pair of large jaws, as explained on p. 
41. Neither this nor any other name appears on the cited page of Dr. Packard’s arti¬ 
cle, though he elsewhere referred it doubtfully to A. monachus. 
t It seems incredible that Professor Owen could have made these mistakes had he 
examined either of my former papers in which these specimens have been described 
in detail, not only from the photographs but also from the preserved specimens. He 
does, however, refer to my detailed paper in the Trans. Conn. Acad., vol. v. But as 
he states (p. 162) that in it a “brief notice is given of Mr. Harvey’s squid,” it is fair to 
suppose that the reference is taken at second hand, for it is not to be supposed that 
he would have considered my description, covering over sixteen pages, and accom¬ 
panied by five plates, as a “brief notice .” None of my earlier papers are referred to, 
nor does he mention the large species, Moroteuthis robnsta, in his account of the large 
cephalopods hitherto described. 
