394 ^1. E. Verrill — NortJi Americcui Gephalopods. 



This genus will have, as known characters: A long, narrow, thin 

 pen, terminating posteriorly in a conical, hollow, many-ribbed, oblique 

 cone, which is inserted into the oblique, anterior end of a long, round, 

 tapering, acute, solid^ cartilaginous terminal cone, composed of con- 

 centric layers, and corresponding to the solid cone of Helonnitesm posi- 

 tion and relation to the true pen ; elliptical connective cartilages on 

 the base of the siphon ; nuchal, longitudinal crests, three, much as 

 in Ommastrephes ; eye-lids with a distinct sinus ; caudal fin large, 

 broad, spear-shaped, ventral arms with smooth-rimmed suckers at tlie 

 base. The rest of the armature is unknown. 



Moroteitthis rohusta is the only known species. 



Architeuthis Harting, 1861. (See pp. 197, 238, 239.) 

 Architeutlms Steenstrup, Forhandl. Skand. Naturf., 1856, vii, p. 182, 1857 (no 

 description). 



The cliaracters of this genus, as given on p. 197, must be modified, 

 so far as the pe^i is concerned, in accordance with the description 

 given below. 



Professor Steenstrup, in the second of the papers above cited (see 

 p. 385) criticises me (and others) for writing Architeuth/s instead of 

 Architeuth?/s, as he originally spelled the word. So far as 1 am per- 

 sonally concerned, I am free to confess that I liad always supposed that 

 his original spelling was a typographical error, and as the genus at 

 that time was merely named^ l)ut in no sense established nor defined, 

 as a matter of necessity I adopted the name as spelled in the earliest 

 published work (that of Harting), in whicli the characters of the 

 geniis were so far indicated as to make it possible to recognize it. 

 Harting states that he was in correspondence with Professor Steen- 

 strup, in regard to this genus, and that he had received from him 

 drawings and proofs of unpublished plates of Architeuthis. There- 

 fore, the blame, if any, for the change in spelling, must rest mainly 

 with Harting. Moreover, Gervais, who had seen and briefly described 

 Professor Steenstrup's specimens, also wrote Architeuthis, and that 

 has been the general practice with nearly all European writers, for 

 twenty years. Therefore, T do not see the propriety of specially 

 criticising Mr. Tryon and myself for using this spelling, which 

 has been so extensively adopted in Europe. 



That the original form of the word would have been preferable, I 

 do not deny. But that there is any special impropriety in the ter- 

 mination teutJiis, even for a large cephalopod, it is useless to insist 

 upon, for that termination has been generally adopted by many 

 writers, and during many years, for several genera, living and fossil, 



