198 A. E. Verrill— North American Cephalopods. 
decidedly shorter than the head and body together, and scarcely as 
long as the body alone, all bearing apparently similar suckers; their 
tips slender and acute. Tentacular-arms, in extension, about four 
times as long as the short ones; about three times as long as the 
head and body together. Caudal fin small, less than one-third the 
length of the mantle, sagittate in form, with the narrow lateral lobes 
extending forward beyond their insertions; the posterior end tapering 
toa long acute tip. Jaws with smaller notch and lobe than in A. 
princeps. Suckers of the sessile arms (so far as seen) with numerous 
acute teeth all around the circumference, all similar in shape, but 
those on the inner margin smaller than those on the outer. Sexual 
characters are not yet determined. 
Special description of the specimen, No. 5.—The preserved parts of 
this specimen (see p. 184), examined by me, are as follows: The 
anterior part of the head, with the bases of the arms, the beak, 
lingual ribbon, etc.; the eight shorter arms, but without the suckers, 
which dropped off in the brine, and are now represented only by a 
few of the detached marginal rings; the two long tentacular-arms, 
which are well preserved, with all the suckers in place; the caudal 
fin; portions of the ‘pen > or internal shell; the ink-bag ; and pieces 
of the body. 
The general appearance and form of this species* are well shown 
by Plates XIIf and XIV. The body was relatively stout. Accord- 
ing to the statement of Mr. Harvey, it was, when fresh, about 213° 
* Mr. W. Saville Kent, from the popular descriptions of this species, gave it new 
generic and specific names, viz: Megaloteuthis Harveyi, in a communication made to 
the Zoological Society of London, March 3, 1874 (Pro@eedings Zool. Soc, p. 178; see 
also Nature, vol. ix, p. 375, March 12, and p. 403, March 19). My former identifica- 
tion was based on a comparison of the jaws with the jaws of A. monachus, well fig- 
ured and described by Steenstrup in proof-sheets of a paper which is still unpublished, 
though printed several years ago, and referred to by Harting. The agreement of the 
jaws is very close in nearly all respects, but the beak of the lower jaw is a little more 
divergent in Steenstrup’s figure. His specimen was a little larger than the one here 
described and was taken from a specimen cast ashore at Jutland, in 1853. Mr. Kent 
was probably unacquainted with Steenstrup’s notice of that specimen when he said 
(Nature, ix, p. 403) that A. monachus ‘“ was instituted for the reception of two gigantic 
Cephalopods, cast on the shores of Jutland in the years 1639 and 1790, and of 
which popular record alone remains.” In his second communication to the Zoological 
Society of London, March 18, 1874, (Proc., p. 490), he states (on the authority of 
Crosse and Fischer) that a third specimen “was stranded on the coast of Jutland in 
1854, and upon the pharynx and beak of this, the only parts preserved: the same 
authority founded his species Architeuthis dua.” The specimen here referred to is 
