234 REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. [24] 



Plates I— VI. 



The diagnostic characters of this species, so far as determined, are 

 as follows : Sessile arms unequal in size, nearly equal in length, de- 

 cidedly shorter than the head and body together, and scarcely as long 

 as the body alone, all bearing sharply serrated suckers; their tips 

 slender and acute. Tentacular arms, in extension, about four times as 

 long as the short ones ; about three times as long as the head and body 

 together. Caudal fin small, less than one-third the length of the mantle, 

 sagittate in form, with the narrow lateral lobes extending forward 

 beyond their insertions; the posterior end tapering to a long, acute tip. 

 Jaws with a smaller notch and lobe than in A. princeps. Larger suck- 

 ers, toward the base of the lateral and dorsal arms, with numerous acute 

 teeth all around the circumference, all similar in shape, but those on 

 the inner margin smaller than those on the outer. Remainder of the 

 suckers on these arms, and all of those on the ventral arms, toothed 

 on the outer margin only. Sexual characters are not yet determined. 



Special description of the specimen No. 5. — The preserved parts of this 

 specimen (see p. 8) examined by me are as follows : The anterior 

 part of the head, with the bases of the arms, the beak, lingual ribbon, 

 &c; the eight shorter arms, but without the suckers, which dropped off 

 in the brine, and are now represented only by a few of the detached 

 marginal rings ; the two long tentacular arms, which are well pre- 

 served, with all the suckers in place ; the caudal fin ; portions of the 

 pen or internal shell; the ink-bag; and pieces of the body. 



The general appearance and form of this species* are well shown by 



* Mr. W. Saville Kent, from the popular descriptions of this species, gave it new 

 generic and specific names, viz, Megaloteuthis Uarrcyi, in a communication made to 

 the Zoological Society of London, March 3, 1874 (Proceedings Zool. Soc, p. 178; see 

 also Nature, vol. ix, p. 375, March 12, and p. 403, March 19). My former identifica- 

 tion was based on a comparison of the jaws with the jaws of A. monachus, well fig- 

 ured and described by Steenstrup in proof-sheets of a paper which is still unpub- 

 lished, though in part printed several years ago, aud referred to by Harting. The agree- 

 ment of the jaws is very close in nearly all respects, but the beak of the lower jaw is 

 a little more divergent in Steenstrup's figure. His specimen was a little larger than 

 the one here described, and was taken from a specimen cast ashore at Jutland in 

 1853. Mr. Kent was probably unacquainted with Steenstrup's notice of that specimen 

 when he said (Nature, vol. ix, p. 403) that A. monaclms "was instituted for the recep- 

 tion of two gigantic Cephalox>ods cast on the shores of Jutland in the years 1G39 and 

 1790, and of which popular record alone remains." In his second communication to 

 the Zoological Society of London, March 18, 1874 (Proc, p. 490), he states (on the 

 authority of Crosse and Fischer) that a third specimen "was stranded on the coast 

 of Jutland in 1854, and upon the pharynx and beak of this, the only parts preserved, 

 the same authority founded his species Architeuthis dux." The specimen here referred 

 to is evidently the same that Steenstrup named A. monaclms, in 185G. The confusion 

 in reference to these names is evidently due to this mistake. 



The statement that Architeuthis dux Steenstrup is known from the beak alone is evi- 

 dently erroneous. Steenstrup himself, Harting, and Dr. Packard, in their articles on 

 this subject, all state that the suckers, parts of the arms, and tho internal shell or 

 pen were preserved, and they have been figured, but not published, by Professor Steen- 



