230 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society. 



Spirula, Lamarck, 1801.^ 



1. S. Peronii, Lmk., Anim. s. vert., vii., p. 601, 1822. 



1879. Spirula Peronii, Agassiz, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., v., p. 298. 

 1865. Ammonia Icevis, Angas, Proc. Zool. Soc. LoncL, p. 157. 

 1886. Spirula peronii, Hoyle, Chall. Ceph., p. 122. 



West Indian, Indo-Malayan, and Australian Regions.^ 



Subfamily Eusepii, Steenstrup, 1881. 

 Sepia, Linne, 1766. 



Rhomhosepion, Lophosepion, \ 

 Sp)athiclosep)ion, Doratosepion, > de Rocliebrune. "^ 

 Ascarosepion, Acanthosepion, ) 



1. S. officinalis, Linn., Fauna Suecica, No. 2106, 1761. 



1839. Sepia officinalis, d'Orb., Ceph. acet., p. 260, pi. i. ; pi. ii., figs. 

 4, 5 ; pi. iii., figs, 1-3 ; pi. xvii., figs. 1, 2. 

 Scandinavian, Lusitanian, Mediterranean, and West 

 African Regions. 



2. S. Filliouxii, Lafont. 



1839. Sepia officinalis, d'Orb., Ceph. acet., pi. ii., figs. 1, 2, 3. 

 1851. ,, ,, Ver., Ceph. medit, pi. xxv. 



1868. ,, Filliouxii, Lafont, Bull. Assoc. Sci. Franc, No. 81 {fide 



Laf.). 



1869. ,, „ Lafont, Journ. de Conch. [3], ix., p. 11. 

 Lusitanian and Mediterranean Regions. 



3. S. myrsus, Gray, B.M.C., p. 108, 1849. 



Indo-Malayan Region. 



4. S. Fischeri, Lafont, Actes Linn. Soc. Bordeaux, xxviii., p. 271, 



1871. 

 Lusitanian and Mediterranean Regions. 



5. S. hierredda, Rang, Mag. Zool., ann. vii., cl. v., p. 75, pi. c, 



1837. 



1 There are great differences of opinion as to the number of species that 

 should be referred to this genus, and there seems to be as little agreement 

 regarding the names which they should bear ; my own opportunities of form- 

 ing an opinion having been exceedingly limited, I content myself with placing 

 one species on the list, and using the name which seems, on the whole, to be 

 most commonly adopted. 



2 Only localities whence specimens of the animal have been obtained are 

 here considered. 



•^ Dr de Roohebrune has recently published a memoir {see p. 260) in which he 

 has divided the Sepia of previous authors into a number of new genera ; most of 

 these seem to me to be at most of subgeneric value, and there are so many 

 points in which I find myself unable to follow Dr de Eochebrune that I have 

 only given references to his paper in the case of his new species. 



