REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. [ 204 ] 
LESTOTEUTHIS V.= CHELOTEUTHIS V. = GONATUS Steenst. ( non Gray). 
Tlie second of Professor Steenstrup’s recent papers* contains a detailed 
discussion of Gonatus Fabricii Steenst., with which he also unites Ony- 
choteuthis Kamtschatica Midd., the type-species of my genus Lestoteuthis 
(see j>. [70]). He may be correct in uniting these forms, for he states 
that he has received specimens that agree with Gonatus Fabricii , from 
the North Pacific.! Moreover, taking the characters of the genus Gon- 
atus , as now understood , by Professor Steenstrup, the description and 
figures of MiddendorfPs species apply well to that genus, and my descrip¬ 
tion of Lestoteuthis well defines Gonatus Steenst., except for the mistake 
in regard to the tip of the pen. But when I proposed the genus Lesto¬ 
teuthis, no writer had ever so described Gonatus, and the data necessary 
for the correlation of the two species did not exist in the literature of the 
subject. I have already alluded (p. [79] and elsewhere) to some of the 
very serious errors of Gray, H. & A. Adams, and others, as to the gen¬ 
eric and even family characters of Gonatus.\ Professor Steenstrup, in 
his last paper, has exposed a greater number of errors, some of which 
are questionable. He has, however, been fortunate in securing speci¬ 
mens of larger size and in better condition than those examined by 
other writers, and has given good figures and a very full exposition of 
the characters of this very interesting species. Two excellent speci¬ 
mens were taken by our party, this season, on the “Fish Hawk.” One 
of these is an adult male; the other is young, with the mantle 30 mm long. 
The latter agrees well in size and form with the specimen described and 
figured by G. O. Sars, as Gonatus amcenus, while the former agrees with 
Steenstrup’s figure of the adult G. Fabricii. But both differ decidedly 
from a Cumberland Gulf specimen, which is doubtless the real Gonatus 
amcenus Gray, and has four rows of true suckers on all the arms, and no 
hooks. It does not appear that Steenstrup has seen this form. 
The fortunate acquisition of these specimens has enabled me to ascer¬ 
tain, for myself, not only that Professor Steenstrup is correct in consid¬ 
ering two of the forms that have been described from the North Atlantic 
as simply the young and adult of the same species, but also that all the 
* See note on p. [200]. 
t The figures, however, show differences in the form of the pen and caudal fin, which, 
if correct, may still indicate specific differences. 
t The genus Gonatus , as established by J. E. Gray, if we judge by his description, 
was a very different group from what Steenstrup understands by it. Among the false 
characters given by Gray are the following: 1, It was said to have no eyelids; 2, to 
have no valve in the siphon; 3, to have no siphonal dorsal band. But he also says 
that it has nearly equal and similar suckers in four series, on all the arms, “all with 
small circular rings”; and the club was said to have “ranges of small, nearly sessile, 
equal-sized cups,” with oue “large sessile cup, armed with a hook in the middle of 
the lower part.” From the fact that he received his specimens from Greenland (coll. 
Moller), we must believe that he actually had before him the real G. amcenus. My 
specimen from Cumberland Gulf has the suckers as described by Gray, on all the arms. 
Most of Gray’s errors have been copied and adopted by Woodward, H. & A. Adams, 
and many other writers. 
