A. E. Yerrill — North American Cephalopoch. 395 



of both large and small ccphalopods. Thus Professor Steenstrxip, 

 himself, notwithstanding his demonstration of the etymological absurd- 

 ity of the names, uses '•'• Enoploteuthis^'' '■^Lestoteuthis'''' for genera 

 that include species about as large and powerful as ArcMteuthus. 

 Although teuthis, in classical Greek, may signify a small and iceak 

 cephalopod, as a zoological term it no longer has that meaning. 

 But if the change had not been made by others, apparently with 

 good 7'easons, I should certainly not have adopted it, for it is not in 

 accordance with ray pi-actice to change or "reform" the original 

 spelling of generic or specific names, unless for very urgent and 

 obvious reasons. 



On the tentacular club of this and numerous other related genera, 

 there is a peculiarity that I have not seen definitely described. 

 Between the rows of large suckers there is, as described already, 

 a central zigzag ridge, which sends ofi:' transverse ridges between 

 the suckers, defining shallow pits around each sucker-pedicel. These 

 pits are lined, however, with a thin, partially free membrane, which 

 surrounds the base of the pedicel, like a collar, leaving an open 

 space on all sides, except the inner, where it is attached to the 

 pedicel. The space beneath this membrane freely communicates 

 with the spaces beneath the other sucker-pits, by means of open 

 spaces beneath the zigzag central and transverse ridges. 



A similar structure, but less developed, exists in Om,mastrephes, 

 Histioteuthis, Loligo and other genera. These collai'-like mem- 

 branes are probably able to erabi-ace and support the pedicels, when 

 the suckers are in action. 



Architeuthis Harveyi Yerriii. (See pp. i97, 259.) 



Since the publication of the descriptions of this species I have 

 made a more thorough examination of the various mutilated frag- 

 ments of the pen, and have compared them more fully with the cor- 

 res|)onding parts of the pen, in other genera. From these studies I 

 became convinced that the portions of the pen formerly supposed by 

 me to belong to the anterior, really belong to the posterior end.* 

 Consequently the description on pages 206-208, should be corrected 

 by substituting posterior for anterior, throughout, with other con- 

 cordant changes. The explanation of the figure (PI. XV, fig. 3) 

 should also be corrected, in the sanle way. To correct this mistake 



* Tlie descriptioQ of the pen was corrected in my Report on Cephalopods (pp. 31- 

 33] in the Report of tiie U. S. Fish Commissioner, put in type last year. 

 Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. V. 4.7 November, 1881. 



