410 REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. [200] 



base specific characters upon, except the form of the suckers and of their 

 horny rings. But the description of the horny rings is not sufficiently 

 precise, nor the figures sufficiently detailed to afford such characters. 

 If the arm is oue of the ventral pair, as seems probable, the suckers, as 

 figured by Professor Owen, and especially as more fully described by 

 Mr. Kent, are of the same form, and agree closely, but not perfectly, 

 with those of either of the Newfoundland specimens, for in the latter 

 the suckers of the ventral arms are not denticulated on the inner side, 

 or but slightly so. But they also agree well with those of Architeuthis 

 Hartingii, as figured by Harting. Those of the original A. dux Steenst. 

 have neither been described nor figured. 



As this arm cannot, at present, be referred with certainty to any of 

 the named species, it may be best to record it as Architeuthis grandis, 

 until better known. 



In the same article, Professor Owen has given a good figure (pi. 33, 

 fig. 2) of the tentacular arm of the Newfoundland specimen (my No. 2), 

 copied from the same photograph described by me (see pp. [6], [33], 

 [34]). To this he applies, doubtless by mistake, the name, Architeuthis 

 princeps,* without giving auy reason for not adopting my conclusion 

 that it belongs to A. Harveyi. But he does uot, in any way, refer to the 

 latter species, although he mentions the specimen (my No. 5), or rather 

 the photograph of the specimen, on which that species was based. He 

 apparently (p. 1G2) supposes that both photographs and Mr. Harvey's 

 two series of measurements refer to the same specimen, which is by no 

 means the case, as had been sufficiently explained by me, in several 

 former papers. t 



The brief account, given by Professor Owen, of the large cephalopoda 

 described by others, includes none additional to those noticed by me in 

 this report. On the other hand, he omits those described by Harting j 

 those described by Mr. Kirk, from New Zealand ; those from Alaska; and 

 several others. 



* By a singular mistake, Professor Oweu, on p. 163, states that this species was 

 named A. princeps by Dr. Packard, in February, 1873. But according to his own 

 statement, on p. 161, the specimen was not actually obtained till December, 1873, at 

 least nine months after Dr. Packard's article was printed. In truth, the name pHnoeps 

 was first given by me, in 1875, to designate a pair of large jaws, as explained on p. 

 41. Neither this nor any other name appears on the cited page of Dr. Packard's arti- 

 cle, though he elsewhere referred it doubtfully to A. monachus. 



t It seems incredible that Professor Owen could have made these mistakes had he 

 examined either of my former papers in which these specimens have been described 

 in detail, not only from the photographs but also from the preserved specimens. He 

 does, however, refer to my detailed paper in the Trans. Conn. Acad., vol. v. But as 

 he states (p. 162) that in it a "brief notice is given of Mr. Harvey's squid," it is fair to 

 suppose that the reference is taken at second hand, for it is not to be supposed that 

 he would have considered my description, covering over sixteen pages, and accom- 

 panied by five plates, as a "brief notice." None of my earlier papers are referred to, 

 nor does he mention the large species, Moroienthis robusta, in his account of the large 

 cephalopods hitherto described. 



