386 A. E. Verrill — North American Cephalopods. 



In anotlier part of this article he refers* to my paper, which had 

 been promi»tly sent to him, but lie makes no reference whatever to 

 the genus fSthenoteuthis, nor to the species, iS. meydpf.era., which, as a 

 species, had been described by me still earlier (1878) and in far 

 greater detail than most of the other species which he mentions, and 

 which should, under his system of classification, bear the name of 

 Ommastrephes niegaptera. Nor does he ])oint out any new charac- 

 ters for distinguishing this generic group other than those first given 

 by me, viz: the presence of connective suckers and tubercles on the 

 tentacular arms proximal to the club, and the great development of 

 the membranes on the lateral arms. 



Under the ordinary rule of nomenclature, by which the first cor- 

 rect subdivision made in an older genus shall be entitled to priority, 

 while the original name shall be retained for the remaining grou|>, 

 the name Sthenoteuthis ought to be maintained for the division first 

 established by me, while Ommastrephea (restricted) should be retained 

 for a part or all of the remaining species.f While I very much 

 regret this confusion of names, I perceive no way to remedy it except 

 by the a])plication of the usual rules of priority. 



As for the distinction between Illex and Todarodes, it seems to me 

 very slight and scarcely of generic importance. Illex is characterized 

 by having eight rows of small suckers on the dislal part of the club, 

 and a smooth siphonal groove. Todarodes is characterized by having 

 four rows of distal suckers and some small grooves or furrows at the 

 anterior end of the siphonal groove. 



But I have a species (which I refer to 0. Sloanei Gray), from Tas- 

 mania, which agrees with Illex in having a smooth siphonal groove, 

 but with Todarodes in having only four rows of distal tentacular 

 suckers, and in the sharp denticulation of its large suckers. Accord- 

 ing to Steenstrup's system this would have to be made still another 

 o-enus or else his generic characters would have to be greatly 



* In discussing (p. 233, foot note) my statements in respect to the sexual difEer- 

 ences in proportions. It is to be hoped that Prof. Steenstriip will lind in the tables 

 of measurements given in the preceding pages all the data needed to settle this 

 matter more satisfactorily. 



f Professor Steenstrup considers 0. Bartramii as the " typical " species of Omma- 

 strephes. But in fact D'Orbigny did not give any particular species as the type of his 

 genus. His description applies better to such forms as 0. todarus and 0. illecebrosus, 

 for he does not mention the connective tubercles and suckers of the tentacular arms. 

 Nor is it certain that 0. gigas, one of the earliest species referred to this genus, has 

 such structures. The species thus named, even by Professor Steenstrup, is so called 

 only w^ith a mark of doubt. 



