A. E. Verrill—North American Cephalopods. 243 
officers,* proposed to establish a species for this specimen, which they 
named Loligo Bouyeri. The figure is very imperfect, but evidently 
represents a ten-armed cuttle-fish, though only eight arms are shown, 
and the tail is represented as truncated. In fact, there is nothing 
about the figure or description sufficient to indicate specific, or exact 
generic characters. The eight short arms, shown in the figure, are 
stout, tapered, and less than half the length of the head and body 
together. It was more probably a species of Architeuthis, to judge 
from the caudal fin, described as consisting of two rounded lobes, of 
small size. It may be designated as A. Bouwyeri, provisionally. 
In the Journal de Zoologie, vol. iv, No. 2, p. 88, 1875, M. Paul 
Gervais has given a partial summary of the gigantic Cephalopods 
previously known, and has mentioned an additional species (Archi- 
teuthis Mouchezi Vélain), of which portions were brought to Paris 
by M. Vélain, from the Island of St. Paul, Indian Ocean, where it 
was cast ashore in November. He also quotes the brief notice of 
the animal by M. Vélain (in Comptes Rendus, t. xxx, p. 1062, Seance 
du April 19,1875). It is stated that this example belongs to the same 
group with Ommastrephes. A description and a rude figure of it, made 
from a photograph taken in the position in which it lay upon the shore, 
has also been published by M. Vélain in the Arch. de Zool. Exper., 
vol. vi, p. 88, 1877. The figure has been copied in Tryon’s Manual > 
of Conchology, vol. i, Pl. 82. According to this figure the tentacular- 
arms were very long and the short arms were truncated, probably 
owing to mutilation. One of the tentacular-arms was saved, and, with 
the beak, is preserved in Paris. The caudal fin was narrow and lan- 
ceolate, adhering to the sides of the body by its entire length. In the 
latter feature this is very different from any of the northern species.t 
In the Archives de Zool. Experimentale, vol. vi, 1877, M. Vélain 
has proposed a new genus (Mouchezia) for this specimen. The 
peculiarity of the pen appears to be the only character, of any 
importance, referred to by him. 
In The Zoologist, London, 2d Series, No. 118, p. 4526, July, 1875, 
there is an article entitled, ‘‘ Notice of a gigantic Cephalopod (Dino- 
teuthis proboscideus), which was stranded at Dingle, in Kerry, two 
hundred years ago. By A. G. More, F.L.8.” The article is chiefly 
a reprint of the rude, but interesting, popular accounts written at the 
time of the capture, and upon these Mr. More attempted to found a 
new genus and species. The character which he mainly relied upon, 
* See Comptes Rendus, Acad. Sci., vol. 53, pp. 1263-7, i861. 
+ See also Tryon’s Manual of Conchology, i, pp. 89 and 184, 1879. 
