404 A. E. Verrill — North American Gephalopods. 



Enoploteuthis Cookii Owen. (See p. 241.) 



Enoploieuthis Cookii Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. London, xi, p. 150, pi. 30, figs. 1-3, pi. 



31. figs. 1-4, pi. 32, figs. 1-6, pi. 33, fig. 1 (restoration). June, 1881. 

 Seppia unguiculata Molina, 1810 (no description). 

 Enoploteuthis MolinceWOrbigny, Ceph. Acetab., p. 339, 1845-1848. 

 ? EnoploteuUds Hartinfjii Verrill, this vol., p. 241, pi. 24, figs. 4-4/;, 1880. 



Professor Owen has very recently described in detail and has given 

 excellent figures of most of the existing parts of this large and 

 remarkable cei)halopod, which have so long been preserved and have 

 so often been referred to, but hitherto have never been scientifically 

 described. (See p. 241). It is to be regretted, however, that Professor 

 Owen has neither described nor figured the teeth of the radula, in a 

 manner to enable it to be used as a systematic character. His state- 

 ment in regard to it is only of the niost general kind, and shows only 

 that there are seven rows of teeth. It is also a matter of surprise 

 that he has not compared any of the described portions with the 

 corresponding parts of an equally large and very closely allied 

 Enoploteuthis carefully described and figured by Harting in 1861 

 (see p. 241), and to which I have given the well-merited name, 

 E. Harthigii. 



It is not improbable that the two forms are really identical, but 

 this cannot be certainly determined from the figures, because the 

 corresponding parts are not always represented in the same positions, 

 and it is uncertain whether the corresponding arm is preserved in 

 the two cases. 



Harting figures, rather poorly, the teeth of the radula, which 

 appear to be very peculiar, if his figure is correct (see my PI. XXIV, 

 fig. 4A). 



The shape of the mandibles appears to be diflferent in the two 

 species, however, and the large hooks also differ in form. 



Histioteuthls CoUinsii Verrill. (pp. 234, 300). 



The teeth of the odontophore, originally described and figured 

 (p. 237, PI. XXXVII, fig. 5), were not the most developed of those on 

 the same odontophore. On the middle and best developed parts, the 

 bases of the central and inner lateral teeth, when seen in a front view, 

 are broader than indicated in the former figures, in which they are 

 seen nearly in profile. The median tooth has a long, acute, central 

 denticle, but no distinct lateral denticles, the broad, short base hav- 

 ing the outer angles only slightly prominent, or not at all so; the 

 inner lateral teeth are nearly as large, with one similar large denticle, 



