A, E. Verrill—North American Cephalopods. 199 
(seven feet) long and five and one-half feet in circumference. The 
‘tail’ or caudal fin (Plate XIII, fig. 2, and Plate XVI, fig. 2) is 
decidedly sagittate, and remarkably small in proportion to the body, 
It is said by Mr. Harvey to have been 55°9°" (22 inches) across, but 
the preserved specimen is considerably smaller, owing, undoubtedly, 
to shrinkage in the brine and alcohol. The posterior termination is 
unusually acute and the lateral lobes extend forward considerably 
beyond their insertion. In the preserved specimen the total length, 
from the anterior end of the lateral lobes to the tip of the tail, is 
58°4°™ (23 inches); from the lateral insertions to the tip, 48°2°™ (19 
inches ; total breadth about 38 (15 inches); width of lateral lobes, 
15°2™ (6 inches). The eight shorter arms, when fresh, were, accord- 
ing to Mr. Harvey’s measurements, 182°9°™ (six feet) long and all of 
equal length,* but those of the different pairs were respectively 25-4, 
evidently the same that Steenstrup named A. monachus, in 1856. The confusion in 
reference to these names is evidently due to this mistake. 
The statement that Architeuthis dux Steenstrup is known from the beak alone is 
evidently erroneous. Steenstrup, himself, Harting, and Dr. Packard, in their articles 
on this subject, all state that the suckers, parts of the arms, and the internal shell or 
pen were preserved, and they have been figured, but not published, by Prof. Steenstrup. 
Harting has also given a figure of the lower jaw, copied from a figure by Steenstrup. 
In the proof-sheets that I have seen, this specimen is referred to as ‘A. Titan,” but’ 
Harting cites it as A. dua Steenstrup, which is the name given to it by Steenstrup in 
his first notice of it, in 1856. Therefore two distinct species were confounded under 
this name by Kent. 
I have more recently been led to consider our species distinct from the true A. mon- 
achus by correspondence with Professor Steenstrup, from whom I learn that the cau- 
dal fin in his species does not agree with that of the species here described, and that 
in his species the ventral arms differ from the others, both in form and in the char- 
acter of the suckers. Certain differences in the arms can be detected in the pho- 
tograph of our specimen (reproduced on Plate XIII) in which, fortunately, the 
ventral arms are well-displayed; but their suckers do not appear to differ, except in size. 
Unless these differences prove to be sexual characters, which is not likely, they would 
indicate a specific difference. Therefore, I have, for the present, adopted the specific 
name given by Kent to the Newfoundland specimens. The name was given, as a 
well-merited compliment to the Rev. M. Harvey, who has done so much to bring 
these remarkable specimens into notice. Nevertheless it is probable that when the 
original specimens of A. monachus shall have been fully described and figured, one of 
our species may prove to be identical with it. At present I am unable to decide 
whether the affinities of A. monachus may not be with A. princeps, rather than with 
A. Harveyi. With the former it apparently agrees in having two forms of suckers on 
the short arms. 
* It is possible that they may have been originally somewhat unequal, and that 
mutilation of their tips made them appear more nearly equal than they were in life, 
, 
