326 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society. 



Leachia cyclura, Lesueiir. 



1821, Leachia cyclura, Les., Proc. Acid. Nat. Sci. Philad., vol. ii., p. 90, 



pi. vi. 

 1823. Loligo Leaehii, Blainv., Diet. d. Sci. Nat., t. xxvii., p. 135. 

 1823. ,, ,, Id., Journ. de Phys., p. 124. 



1823. Loligopsis cyclurus, Feruss., Diet, class., t. ii., p. 68, pi., fig. 3 {fide 



d'Orb.). 

 1825. ,, Leaehii, Feruss., d'Orb. Tabl. des Cepli., p. 57. 



1833. ,, guttata, Grant, Trans. Zool. Soe. Lond., vol. i., p. 24, pi. ii. 



1833. Perothis pellueida, Eathke, Mem. Sav. Etrang. Acad. Sci. St Petersb., 



t. ii., p. 149. 

 1833. ,, Eschscholtzii, Id., Ibid. 

 1839. Loligopsis guttata, d'Orb., Ceph. Acet. , Loligopsis, pi. i., fig. 1, pi. iii., 



pi. iv., figs. 9-16. 

 1845. ,, cijclura, Id., Ibid., p. 322; Moll. viv. et foss., p. 370, pi. 



xxiii., figs. 1-4. 

 1861. Leachia ,, Steenstrup, Overblik, p. 82 (14). 



1879. Loligop)sis ,, Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. i., p. 163. 

 1884. ,, ,, Rocliebr., Monogr. Loligopsidse, p. 14 (6). 



1884. ,, ,, Brock, Gottingen Naclirichten, p. 504. 



1884. Perothis Dussumieri, Rocliebr., Monogr. Loligopsidse, p. 28 (20). 



This is the type species of the genus Leachia, and is almost 

 as unsatisfactory as the type of the genus Loligopsis, for, as 

 above mentioned, it is founded upon a drawing which repre- 

 sents the dorsal aspect of a Cephalopod obtained in the 

 South Pacific, with only indifferent attention to its anato- 

 mical characters. Happily, however, the figure has been 

 published, and this has led d'Orbigny and others to identify 

 the animal more or less certainly with other forms described 

 in greater detail by Grant and Eathke. This is the more 

 fortunate, inasmuch as Lesueur's character of his genus is 

 about as short and fragmentary as possible — "Eight unequal 

 arms, the third pair longer and more robust." 



The identification of L. cyclura with Loligopsis guttata, 

 Grant {Perothis pellueida, Eathke), has recently been called 

 in question by Tryon and de Eochebrune. The objection of 

 the former that Grant's species " has rows of tubercles," while 

 " Lesueur describes and figures a smooth species," is suffi- 

 ciently answered by Verrill, who aptly points out that 

 " Lesueur only described a figure of the dorsal surface" which 

 could not be expected to show the ventral tubercles. 



