314 ProceediiKjs of the Royal Physical Society. 



the most recent authorities are far from being in accord as 

 to their proper positions. 



LoLiGOPSis, Lamarck, 1812. ■ 



Loligopsis, Lamarck. 



,, (pars), d'Orbigny, Tryon, de Kochebrune. 



The genus Loligopsis was founded by Lamarck for the 

 reception of a species observed and drawn by Peron and 

 Lesueur. Only two facts are known to us about this crea- 

 ture — (1.) it had eight arms, (2.) it resembled Sepiola, except 

 that its fins were rhomboidal and not rounded — but these 

 are quite sufficient to show that it had but little resemblance 

 to the forms which have been called Loligopsis by subsequent 

 writers. 



In 1839 d'Orbigny took Lesueur's Loligo pavo, named it 

 Loligopsis pavo, and then proceeded to draw up a full generic 

 diagnosis based upon this specimen and upon another which 

 he erroneously regarded as belonging to the same species 

 (see postea). With regard to L. Feronii, he naively says — 

 " dans tons les cas, j'ignore si cette espece est ici bien a sa 

 place ; " but as Steenstrup aptly remarks — " since L. Peronii 

 is the type it must be in its place in the genus Loligopsis, and 

 it is the other species which are out of place." ^ 



The type species does not appear to have been observed 

 again, so that for the present the genus Loligopsis admits of 

 no adequate diagnosis, and must therefore be used in no 

 other sense than as containing simply the type species. It 

 has been suggested that L. chrysophtalmos (Tilesius) is nearly 

 allied to it, and judging from the figure, which represents a 

 Sepiola-HkQ animal with eight arms, this seems possible. 



Loligopsis Peronii, Lamarck, 1812. 



1812. Loligopsis Peromi, Lamarck, Extrait de son Coui\s dc Zool., p. 123 



(/(^ed'Orb.). 

 1821. Sepia sepiola{'i), Lesueur, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., vol. ii., p. 100. 

 1821. ,, 7ninima{'i}, Id., Ibid. 



points in the description which indicate that it may require the erection of 

 a new genus for its reception. 

 ^ Overblik, p. 86 (18). 



