386 A. E. Verrill — North Ainerican Cephalopods. 



In another part of tliis article he refers* to ray paper, which had 

 been promptly sent to him, but he makes no reference whatever to 

 the genus Sthenotenthis, nor to the s])ecies, S. meg<iptera, which, as a 

 species, had been described by me still earlier (1878) and in far 

 iojreater detail than most of the other species which he mentions, and 

 which should, under his system of classification, bear the name of 

 Onmiastrephes meijaptera. Noi- does he point out any new charac- 

 ters for distinguishing this generic group other than those first given 

 by me, viz: the })resence of connective suckers and tubercles on the 

 tenta(;ular arms proximal to the club, and the great development of 

 the membranes on the lateral arms. 



Under the ordinary rule of nomenclature, by whicli tbe first cor- 

 rect subdivision made in an older genus shall be entitled to priority, 

 while the original name shall be retained for the remaining group, 

 the name Sthenoteiithis ought to be maintained for the division first 

 established by me, while OmmastrepheH (restricted) should be retained 

 for a part or all of the remaining species.f While I very much 

 regret this confusion of names, T perceive no way to remedy it except 

 by the a])plication of the usual rules of priority. 



As for the distinction between Illex and Todavodes.^ it seems to me 

 very slight and scarcely of generic importance. Illex is characterized 

 by having eight rows of small suckei's on the distal part of the club, 

 and a smooth siphonal groove. Todarodes is characterized by having 

 four rows of distal suckers and some small grooves or furrows at the 

 anterior end of the siphonal groove. 



But I have a species (which I refer to O. Sloanei Gray), from Tas- 

 mania, which agrees with Illex in having a smooth siphonal groove, 

 but with Todarodes in having only four rows of distal tentacular 

 suckers, and in the sharp denticulation of its large suckers. Accord- 

 ing to Steenstrup's system this would have to be made still another 

 o-enus, or else his generic characters would have to be greatly 



* In discussing (p. 233, foot note) my statements in respect to the sexual differ- 

 ences in proportions. It is to be hoped that Prof. Steenstrup will find in the tables 

 of measurements given in the preceding pages all tlie data needed to settle this 

 matter more satisfactorily. 



f Professor Steenstrup considers 0. Bartramii as the " typical " species of Omma- 

 strephefs. But in fact D'Orbigny did not give any particular species as the type of his 

 genus. Ilis description applies better to such forms as 0. todarus and 0. illecehrosus, 

 for he does not mention the connective tubercles and suckers of the tentacular arms. 

 Nor is it certain that 0. gigas, one of the earliest species referred to this genus, has 

 such structures. The species thus named, even by Professor Steenstrup, is so called 

 only with a mark of doubt. 



