SVENSKA EXPEDITIONEN TILL MAGELLANSLÄNDERNA BD II N:0 4. 55 



Hope, lat. 40' S. long. 15 18' E-k This is however not 

 quite correct because Steenstkup did not say that these 

 Southern specimens of Gonatus (of which he only hadreceived 

 fragments cut out of Albatrosses) did belong to the species 

 »führicii». On tlie contrary he says (p. 150. Overs. K. Dansk. 

 Vid. Selsk. Forh. 1882). »From the sculpture of the corru- 

 gated surface of the hollow cone and some other small 

 peculiarities the glaclius seemed to nie to indicate a from 

 our arctic species of the genus (Gronatus) different form». It 

 is thus more probable that these fragments have belonged to 

 the here described Gonatus antarcticus, which however. is closely 

 related to G. fabricii and probably in the antarctic regions 

 has a distribution similar to that of the latter in the arctic. 



Ouyclioteuthis ingens E. A. Smith 

 1 specimen, Katanushuaia 28 /5 1896 



on the ebbstrand 



1 specimen, Punta Arenas n h 1896 



(PI. IV). 



The arnis and the head of this species is so well described 

 by E. A Smith (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1881 p. 25) that there is not 

 much to add to that except some measurements which are 

 given below. On the tentacles, however, I have found the 

 number of the cups of the carpal group to be 12 on both 

 sides and the corresponding tubercles are of course the same 

 number. But the two distal ones are decidedly smaller (at 

 least in these specimens) than the others and therefore may 

 have been overlooked by Smith as he mentions ten cups and 

 »about eleven interjacent tubercles*. 



But it is also possible that this number can vary a little. 

 The terminal group of cups at the distal end of the club 

 numbers 15 without any tubercles. 



Mr. Smith had only a head of this form with its appendages 

 at his disposition when he established the species. It was 

 therefore of interest to learn to know the bod}'' of the animal 

 from two almost perfect specimens. 1 The specimen from 

 Katanushuaia is smaller with comparatively broader and shor- 

 ter fins, as the measurements show, but this difFerence is only 

 a matter of age and growth and in other respects the animals 

 agree perfectly. 



1 The fin of one specimen was split, otherwise it was without flaw. 



