388 ^-1, E. Verrill — North American Cephalopods. 



Steenstnip, the description and figures of Middendorff's species apply 

 well to that genus, and my description of Lestoteuthis well defines 

 Gonatus Steenst., except for the mistake in regard to the tip of the 

 pen. But when I proposed the genus Lestoteuthis^ no writer had ever 

 so described Gotuitas, and the data necessary for the correlation of 

 the two species did not exist in the literature of the subject. I have 

 already alluded (pp. 290-292 and elsewhere), to some of the very 

 serious errors of Gray, H. & A. Adams, and others, as to the generic 

 and even family characters of Gonatus.^ Professor Steenstrup, in 

 his last paper, has exposed a greater number of errors, some of which 

 are questionable. He has, however, been fortunate in securing 

 specimens of larger size and in better condition than those examined 

 by other writers, and has given good figures and a very full exposi- 

 tion of the characters of this very interesting species. Two excellent 

 specimens were taken by our party, this season, on the "Fish Hawk." 

 One of these is an adult male ; the other is young, with the mantle 

 3()mm loi^g^ The latter agrees well in size and form with the specimen 

 described and figured l)y G. O. Sars, as Gonatus amcenus, while the 

 formerf agrees with Steenstrup's figure of the adult G. Fabricli. 

 But both differ decidedly from a Cumberland Gulf specimen, which 

 is doubtless the real Gonatus amoenus Gray, and has four rows of 

 true suckers on all the arms, and no hooks. It does not appear that 

 Steenstrup has seen this form. 



The fortunate acquisition of these specimens has enabled me 

 to ascertain, for myself, not only that Professor Steenstrup is correct 

 in considering two forms that have been described from the North 



* The genus Gonatus, as established by J. B. Gray, if we judge by his description, 

 was a very different group from what Steenstrup understands by it. Among tlie false 

 characters given by him are the following: 1, It was said to have no eyelids; 2, to 

 have no valve in the siphon; 3, to have no siphonal dorsal band. But he also says 

 that it has nearly equal and similar suckers in four series, on all the arms, " all with 

 small circular rings"; and the club was said to have "ranges of small, nearly sessile, 

 equal-sized cups," with one "large sessile cup, armed with a hook in the middle of 

 the lower part." From the fact that he received his specimens from Greenland (coll. 

 Moller), we must believe that he actually had before him the real G. amoenus ! My 

 specimen from Cumberland Gulf has true suckers, as described by Gray, on all 

 the arms. 



Most of Gray's errors have been copied and adopted by Woodward, H. & A. Adams, 

 Tryon, and many other writers. 



f I have had figures of the larger specimen made by Mr. Kmerton, for my Report on 

 the Cephalopods, now printing in the Report of the U. S. Pish Commission, for 1879. 

 Some of these are also reproduced on Plate LV, figs. 1-ld 



