REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. [ 202 ] 
large cluster of spermatophores attached to the inner surface of the 
mantle, behind the base of the gill, and a smaller one, in front of the gill. 
In the second article referred to above, Professor Steenstrup discusses 
the genus Sthenoteuthis versus 11 Ommatostrephes. v He recognizes the 
identity of Sthenoteuthis and his restricted genus Ommatostrephes , as well 
as the priority of date of the former. He also refers to S. megaptera as 
u Ommatostrephes megaptera .” 
In the last paper* quoted above, Professor Owen has described a 
cephalopod, without locality, under the name of Ommastrephes ensifer, 
for which he proposes the subgeneric name, Xiphoteuthis. The latter 
name is, however, preoccupied. His species is a typical example of my 
genus Sthenoteuthis (1880), and appears to be identical in every respect 
with S. pteropus (see my Plate VII, figs. 2, 2a, and Plate XVII), as 
described by me. But Professor Owen fails to mention one of the most 
characteristic features of this group of squids, viz, the connective 
tubercles and smooth suckers on the proximal part of the tentacular 
club. Nor is his figure sufficiently detailed to indicate this character, 
nor even the actual arrangement and structure of the other suckers of 
the club. Tlie high median crest and broad marginal web of the third 
pair of arms are well shown, but these are about equally broad in S. 
pteropus and S. megaptera, and are also present in all the related species 
of this group. 
Owen’s specimen had a total length of 3 feet; length of body 15 
inches; of head to base of dorsal arms, 3.7; of third pair of arms, 12; 
of tentacular arms, 21; breadth of caudal fin, 12.6; length of their 
attached base, 6.6; breadth of body, 5; length of first, second, third, 
and fourth pairs of arms, 8.9, 11, 12, and 9.6 inches, respectively. The 
specimen is a female. It agrees very closely in size with the Bermuda 
specimen described by me, and its proportions do not differ more than is 
usual with alcoholic specimens of any species preserved under different 
circumstances, and in alcohol of different strength. The original speci¬ 
men of S. megaptera is considerably larger. 
Ommastrephes illecebrosus V. (See p. 83.) 
This species" was taken in many localities this year by the U. S. Fish 
Commission, in deep water, off Martha’s Vineyard. Most of the living 
specimens were young, but large ones were often taken from the 
stomachs of bottom-dwelling fishes, in the same region, showing con¬ 
clusively that it regularly inhabits those depths. 
* Among the other species figured and described in this paper, there is a handsome 
gpecies from the China Sea, described as Loligopsis ocellata, sp. nov. (pp. 139-143, pi. 
26, figs. 3-8; pi. 27, figs. 1, 2). This is evidently not a true Loligopsis, and belongs, in 
all probability, to my genus CaUiteuthis. It agrees very closely, even to the colora¬ 
tion and the form of the fins and pen, with my C. reversa, hut differs in having serrated 
suckers. It is much larger than my specimen, but, like the latter, had lost the ten¬ 
tacular arms. This species should, therefore, be called CaUiteuthis ocellata. The genus 
probably belongs to the Chiroteuthidae. 
