402 A. E. Verrill — North American Cephalopods. 



specimen, Avliich is by no means the case, as liad been sufficiently 

 explained by me in several former papers.* 



Tlie brief account given by Professor Owen of the large Cephalo- 

 pods described by otliers, inchides none additional to those noticed 

 by me in this report. On the other hand, he omits those described 

 by Harting; those described by Mr. Kirk, from New Zealand; those 

 from Alaska; and several others. 



SthenoteuthiS Yeirill (see pp. 222, 28<>.) 



Xiphoteuthis (sub-genus) Owen, op. cit. p. 104, pi. 28, figs. 1, 2, June, 1881 {non 

 Huxley). 



In the paper referred to above, f Professor Owen has described a 

 cephalopod, without locality, under the name of Oiuraastrephes ensi- 

 fer, for which he proposes the sub-generic name Xiphoteuthis. His 

 species is a typical example of my genus Sthenoteuthis (1880) and 

 appears to be identical, in every respect, with *S'. pteropus (see p. 228, 

 PI. XXXVI, figs. 5-9, and PL LIV, figs. 2, 2a), as described by me. 

 But Professor Owen fails to mention one of the most characteristic 

 features of this group of squids, viz : the connective tubercles and 

 smooth suckers on the proximal part of the tentacular club, nor is 

 his figure sufficiently detailed to indicate this character, nor even the 

 actual arrangement and structure of the other suckers of the club. 

 The high median crest and broad mai-ginal web of the third pair of 



*It seems incredible that Professor Owen could have made these mistakes had he 

 examined either of my former papers in which these specimens have been described 

 in detail, not only from the photographs, but from the preserved specimens. He does, 

 however, refer to Part T, of this article, published in 1880. But as he states 

 (p. 162) that in it "a brief notice is given of Mr. Harvey's squid" it is fair to 

 suppose that the reference is taken at second-hand, for it is not to be supposed that he 

 would have considered my description, covering over 20 pages, and accompanied by 

 nine plates, as a '• hrief notice.''^ None of my earlier papers are referred to, nor does 

 he mention the large species, Moroteuthis robusta, in his account of the large Cephalo- 

 pods hitherto described. 



f Among other species flgured and described in this paper, there is a handsome 

 species from the China Sea, described as Loligopsis oceUata, sp. nov. (pp. 139-140, pi. 

 26, figs. 3-8 , pi. 27, figs. 1, 2). 



This is evidently not a true Loligopsis and belongs, in all probaliility, to my genus 

 Calliimthis. It agrees very closely, even to the coloration, and the form of the fins 

 and pen, with my C. reversa, but differs in having serrate suckers. This species 

 should, therefore, be called CalliteutMs ocellata. It is much larger than my specimen, 

 but like the latter, liad lost the tentacular arms. The genus probably belongs to the 

 Cliirotenthidaj. 



