412 William Evans Hoyle: 



Polypus, Sehneider, 1784 [no type given].-" 



ProealiMes, Lankester, 1884. F. sukmi, Lk., 1884 Imonotypic] (= Taonidiuin?). Brit. Mus. \-^ 



Protnaehoteiifhis, Hoyle, 1885. P. megaptera, Hoyle, 1885 [monotyiäcj. Brit. Mus. ! 



Pteroteuthis, de Blainville, 1824. LoJiyo vuh/aris, Lister = L. forhesi Stp. ('= LoU(/o). 



Pterotentbis, Ehreiiberg, 1831. P. arahicu, Elibg.. 1831 [monotypic] C= Lofif/o). 



JPtei'i/f/ioteuthis, H. Fisclier. 1895. P. giardi, H. Fisciier, 18y5 | monotypic]. 



Pyrgopsis, de Rocbebrune, 1884. P.rhynchopJierus, deEochebr., 1884 |nionotypicJ (= Zi/ffocranrliia). 



Pyi'oti'uthis, Hoyle, 1904. Enoploteuthis margaritifera, Riippell. 1844 [monotyi)ic]. 



Rhorabosepion, de Rocbebrune, 1884. Sepia riipellariuA'Ov\>\gny. 1834 [sp. first mentioned] ('= Sej>ia + 



HepieJIa partim). 

 Bhjiiichoteiithiou, Pfett'er, 1908. (See lihi/uchotculhig, C'liun, l'.to:;). 

 Bhjinchotettthis, d'Orbigny. 1847 [a generic name applied to tlie fossilized beaks of Cephalopoda; 



I cannot find that a tyjie has ever becn tixed]. 



Rhynchoteuthis, Clinn. 1903 (=^ Rhiftiehoteuthion.)^'' 



Hossin, Owen. 1834. R. palpehrosa, Owen» 1834 [monotypic]. 



H(nKJ(iloj)S, Clinn. 1906. S. nielanchoUcMS, Chun, 1906 [monotypic]. 



Sfaeitn/us, Troschel, 1857. S. titanotns, Tr., 1857 [sp. tirst named]. 



Sciadei)borus, Reinhardt & Prosch, 1846. Cirroteiithis miilUri, Eschriclit, 1836 [monotypic] C= Cifro- 

 teuthis). Copenhagen Mus. 



Semirossia, Steenstrup, 1887. Heferoteuthis tenera, Verrill, 1880 [designation].^* 

 Sepia, Linne, 1758. S. officinaUs, L., 1758 [elimination]. 

 Sepiadariiiin, Steenstrup, 1881. S. kocliii, Stp., 1881 [monotypic. [. 

 Sepiella, Gray, 1849. Sepia ornata, Rang, 1837 [sp. first named]. 

 Sepiola, Schneider, 1784 [no type given]. S. rondeletü, Leach, 1817.^^ 



Se2>ioteut]iis, de Blainville, 1824. S. sepiacea, Blv., 1824 (This specific name is a Japsus calami 

 or a misprint for Z,. sepioidea, Blv., 1823). 



^ This genus being by definition equivalent to the first two species referred to by Lamarck to his Octopus will 

 naturally take the same type as this genus, viz. 0. vulgaris. 



-" The validity of the name Procalistes as against Taonidium demands a brief discussion. The Identification 

 of the larval form described by Lankester, with the larger specimens figured in the " Challenger " Report seemed to 

 me at the time very plausible and had the support of the late Professor Steenstrup. Now in view of the number of 

 Tao«/;(s-like species since discovered I cannot regard this Identification as beyond question. If it should prove true 

 then Procalistes must rep'ace Taonidium. Chun considers that he has evidence that Galiteuthis is an older form of 

 Taonidium; but this has not yet been niade public. If it be so then Galiteuthis must replace Taonidium and it 

 may be that Procalistes will replace both. At present it seems to me wise, until further evidence is forthcoming, to 

 retain the name Procalistes for the larva, Taonidiuin for the "Challenger'' specimens from Station 1.59, and Galiteuthis 

 for Joubin's species. 



" No species is mentioned by the original describer; the only named species is R. vhuni Hoyle, 1904; the forms 

 on which genus is based are probably the young stages of some Ommastrephid and in addition the name is preoccupied. 



^^ Steenstrup does not State in so many words that Verrill s species is the type of his genus, but from the way 

 in which be treats of this and of the other form (R. patagonica. Smith) there can, I think, be no doubt as to which 

 he regarded as typical. 



™ Leach gives no authority for the species S- ro)ideletii and the only Identification is a reference to „Sepiula 

 sepiola LinnC'" as a synonym. This would seera to require that Linnö's name should take precedence, and such would 

 be the case were it possible to ascertain what Linn6 meant by his 5. sepiola. I have failed to discover this and no 

 subsequent writer has given an adequate definition. S. rondeletü has, however, been satisfactorily characterised by 

 d'Orbigny and I am of opinion that this name should stand as that of the type species of the genus Sepiola. 



