238 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society. 



17. S. arctipinnis, Gld., Moll. Wilkes Exped., p. 479, fig. 593, 

 1852. 

 Pacific Insular Region (Sandwich Islands). 



Loligo, Lamarck, 1799.i 



1. L. vulgaris, Lmk., Mem. Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris, i., p. 11, 1799. 



1823. Loligo 2MlcJira, Blv., Diet. Sci. Nat, xxvii., p. 144. 



1833. ,, Eangii, Fer., Ceph. acet, pi, xix., figs. 4-6. 



1839. ,, vulgaris, d'Orb., Ceph. acet., p. 308, pis. viii.-x., xxii. ; 



xxiii., figs. 1-12. 

 1849. „ ncglecta, Gray, B.M.C., p. 72. 

 1851. ,, Berthelotii (?), Ver,, Ceph. meclit., p. 93, pi. xxxvi., figs. 



h-k. 

 1869. ,, mcditerranea, Targ., Cef. Mus. Firenze, p. 36. 

 1869. ,, pulchra, Fischer, Journ. de Coneli, [3], ix., p. 129. 

 Scandinavian, Liisitanian, and Mediterranean Regions. 



2. L. affinis, Lafont,^ Actes Linn. Soc. Bordeaux, xxviii., p. 273, 



pi. xiii., 1872 ; Journ. de Conch. [3], xii., p. 22, 1872. 

 Lusitanian Region. 



3. L. macroplithalma, Lafont, oj)}). citL, p. 274, pi. xv., 1871 ; [3], 



xiL, p. 23, 1872. 

 Lusitanian Region. 



4. L. microcephala, Lafont, opp. ciU., p. 273, pi. xiv., 1871 ; [3], 



xii., p. 22, 1872. 

 Lusitanian Region. 



5. L. Moulinsi, Lafont, 02yp. citt., p. 274, 1871 ; [3], xii., p. 23, 



1872. 

 Lusitanian Region. 



6. L. breviceps, Stp., Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjobenhavn, p. 



289, 1861. 

 1871. Loligo vulgaris, Lenz, Jahresb. Comra. Kiel, Jahrg. i., p. 135. 



1 Gvvyn Jeffreys (Brit. Conch., v., p. 130) gives "Schneider" as the autho- 

 rity for this genus, but without any reference, or even date. The only paper 

 by that writer bearing upon the subject which I have been able to find is one 

 entitled " Bemerkungen liber die Gattung der Dintenfische " {Schrift. 

 GeseUsch. Naturf. Fr. Berlin, xi., pp. 33-50, 1794). In it this passage occiu-s 

 (p. 46) : " Ich finde auch daniit eine Zeichnung ganz ubereinstimmig, welche 

 ich von dem Lungenherze des Kalamers (Loligo) entworfen habe." This can 

 hardly, however, be called a definition of a genus, and so I have followed the 

 majority of writers in attributing its creation to Lamarck. 



2 I am inclined to suspect that some of Lafont's species are mere varieties ; 

 but as this opinion is based only on the brief published descriptions, I refrain 

 from giving it formal expression. It has been shown elsewhere (Chall. 

 Ceph., p. 157) that the greatest caution must be exercised in accepting 

 distinctions based on the proportionate length of the body and fin. 



