A. E. Verrill — North American Cephalopods. 187 



large. The suckers of its arms or feet, by which it lays hold, ahoiit 

 2 inches in diameter. The monster was cut up, salted, and barreled 

 for dog's meat." In this account the length given for the 'body' 

 CAddently includes the head also. This creature was probably disa- 

 bled, and perhaps nearly dead, when discovered at the surface, and 

 this seems to have been the case with most of the specimens hitherto 

 seen living. Animals of this sort probably never float or lie quietly 

 at the surface when in good health. 



Nos. 8 and 9.— Lamaline specimens, 1870-71. 



Mr. Harvey refers to a statement made to him by a clergyman, 

 Rev. M. Gabriel, that two specimens (Nos. 8 and 9), measuring re- 

 spectively 40 and 45 feet in total length, were cast ashore at Lama- 

 line, on the southern coast of Newfoundland, in the winter of 18*70-71. 



No. 1 0.— Sperm "Whale specimen. {ArcMteutMs prmceps.) 

 Plate XVIII, figures 1, 2. 

 This specimen, consisting of both jaws, was presented to the Pea- 

 body Academy of Science, at Salem, Mass., by Captain N. E. Atwood, 

 of Provincetown, Mass. It was taken from the stomach of a sperm 

 whale, but the precise date and locality are not known. It was 

 probably from the North Atlantic. The upper jaw was imperfectly 

 figured by Dr. Packard in his article on this subject.* It is one of the 

 largest jaws yet known, and belonged to an apparently undescribed 

 species, which I named ArchUeuthis princeps, and described in my 

 former papers, with figures of both jaws. 



No. 11.— Second Bonavista Bay specimen, 1872. 



The Rev. M. Harvey, in a letter to me, stated that a specimen was 

 cast ashore at Bonavista Bay, December, 1872, and that his informant 

 told him that the long arms measured 32 feet in length, and the short 

 arms about 1 feet in length, and wei-e " thicker than a man's thigh." 

 The body was not measured, but he thinks it was about 14 feet long, 

 and very stout, and that the largest suckers were 2*5 inches in diameter. 

 The size of the suckers is probably exaggerated, and most likely the 

 length of the body also. It is even possible that this was the same 

 specimen from which the beak and suckers described as No. 4, from 

 Bonavista Bay, were derived, for the date of capture of that specimen 

 is unknown to me. The latter, however, was much smaller than the 



* American Naturalist, vol. vii, p. 91, 1873, 



