Mr W. E. Hoijlc on Loligopsis and some other Genera. 327 



Dr de Eochebruiie's objection, so far as I understand it, 

 seems to be of the same nature. He says — " D'Orbigny et 

 Ferussac, en attribuant ces tubercules au Leachia cyclura se 

 sont mepris ; " to which criticism, I take it, Verrill's remark 

 is a sufficient rejoinder. 



In such a case absolute certainty is impossible, but it 

 appears to me that d'Orbigny was quite justified in the course 

 he adopted. The drawings resemble each other very closely 

 in the form of the body (except that Lesueur's is a little 

 stouter), in the form of the fins, and in the relative dimen- 

 sions of the head and eyes. Grant himself calls attention to 

 the peduncle of the eye, which " is like a smaller eye-ball 

 placed behind the larger exterior," and remarks that it is 

 indicated in Lesueur's figure. The differences are that 

 Lesueur's drawing does not show the pen passing down the 

 centre of the back, and that the markings differ in form and 

 arrangement. 



It is clear that Petit's drawing was merely a rough sketch, 

 witness the manner in which the suckers are represented, 

 and taking this into consideration the correspondence is as 

 close as can be expected. 



I am unable to agree with Dr de Rochebrune in creating a 

 new species for the specimen in the Paris Museum, which 

 lie calls Perothis Dussumieri. It appeared to me to be a 

 very good example of Leachia cyclura ; indeed, I should have 

 had no doubt that it was actually the one depicted by 

 d'Orbigny in his great work (pi. iv., fig. 9), and with this the 

 locality quoted agrees. The tubercles on the ventral surface 

 are eleven large, with smaller intermediate ones. The ten- 

 tacles are truncated, and with rounded extremities, as in the 

 typical Leachia, and I cannot at all understand Dr de Eoche- 

 brune's description of them as " tentacules coniques recro- 

 quevilles, a cupules sessiles arrondies, sans dents et sur une 

 seule ligne." Is it possible that, as in the case of his Phas- 

 matopsis cymoctypus, he has overlooked the stumps of the 

 tentacles, and not observed that only four, and not five, pairs 

 of arms wxre present ? 



