394 A. M Verrill — Koi-th Atnerican Cephalopods. 



This genus will have, as known characters: A long, narrow, thin 

 pen, terminating posteriorly in a conical, hollow, many-ribbed, oblique 

 cone, which is inserted into the oblique, anterior end of a long, round, 

 tapering, acute, solid^ cartilaginous terminal cone, composed of con- 

 centric layers, and corresponding to the solid cone of Belernnitesm posi- 

 tion and relation to the true pen ; elliptical connective cartilages on 

 the base of the siphon; nuchal, longitudinal crests, three, much as 

 in Oinmastrephes ; eye-lids with a distinct sinus; caudal fin large, 

 broad, spear-shaped, ventral arms w^ith smooth-rimmed suckers at the 

 base. The rest of the armature is unknown. 



3Ioroteuthis rohiista is the only known species. 



ArchiteilthiS Harting, 1861. (See pp. 197, 238, 239.) 



Architeutlius Steenstrup, Forhandl. Skand. Naturf., 1856, vii, p. 182, 1851 (no 

 description). 



The characters of this genus, as given on p. 197, must be modified, 

 so far as the pen is concerned, in accordance with the description 

 given below. 



Professor Steenstrup, in the second of the papers above cited (see 

 p. 385) criticises rae (and others) for writing Architeuth/s instead of 

 Architeuthws, as he originally spelled the word. So tar as 1 am per- 

 sonally concerned, I am free to confess that I had always supposed that 

 his original spelling was a typographical error, and as the genus at 

 that time was merely named, but in no sense established nor defined, 

 as a matter of necessity I adopted the name as spelled in the earliest 

 published work (that of Harting), in which the characters of the 

 genus were so far indicated as to make it possible to recognize it. 

 Harting states that he was in correspondence with Professor Steen- 

 strup, in regard to this genus, and that he had received from him 

 drawings and proofs of unpublished plates of Arehiteuthis. There- 

 fore, the blame, if any, for the change in spelling, must rest mainly 

 with Harting. Moreover, Gervais, who had seen and briefly described 

 Professor Steenstrup's specimens, also wrote ArcJuteuthis, and that 

 has l)een the general practice with nearly all European writei's, for 

 twenty years. Therefore, T do not see the propriety of specially 

 criticising Mr. Tryon and myself for using this spelling, which 

 has been so extensively adopted in Europe. 



That the original form of the word would have been preferable, I 

 do not deny. But that there is any special impropriety in the ter- 

 mination teuthis, even for a large cephalopod, it is useless to insist 

 upon, for that termination has been generally adopted by many 

 writers, and during many years, for several genera, living and fossil, 



