A. E. Verrill — N'orth American Cephalopods. 401 



on the dorsal arms of Hthenoteuthis 2Jteropxis (see PI. XXXYI, fig. 

 7, a) and other related species. 



The suckers on the arm, as described and figured by Professor 

 Owen, are like those of Architeuthis. Therefore, there is no ground 

 wliatever for referring this arm to any other geniis^ and Plectoteuthis 

 must, therefore, become a synonym of Architeuthis. 



Whether the arm in question belongs to a species distinct from 

 those already named, I am unable to say. There is, apparently, 

 nothing to base specific characters upon except the form of the suckers 

 and of their horny rings. But the description of the liorny rings is 

 not sufficiently precise, nor the figures sufliciently detailed, to aftbrd 

 such characters. If the arm is one of the ventral pair, as seems prob- 

 able, the suckers as figured by Professor Owen, and especially as 

 more fully described by Mr. Kent, agree very closely, but not per- 

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

 latter the suckers of the ventral arms are strongly toothed externally, 

 but are either entire, or in some cases, only slightly denticulated on 

 the inner side. But they also agree well with those of the Architeit- 

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

 Steenst., have neither been described nor figured. In Owen's figures 

 the large suckers are represented as denticulated pretty evenly all 

 around the edge. As this arm cannot, at present, be referred Avith 

 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. 182, 

 208, 209). To this he applies, doubtless by mistake, the name, Archi- 

 teuthis princeps^ without giving any reason for not adopting my 

 conclusion that it belongs to A. Haroeyi. But he does not, 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 (on page 162) supposes that both 

 photographs and all of Mr. Harvey's measurements refer to the same 



* By a singular mistake, Professor Owen, on page ] 63, states that this species was 

 named J.. ^jWwceps by Dr. Packard, in February, 1873. But according to his own 

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

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

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

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

 article, though he elsewhere referred these jaws doubtfully to A. monachus. 



