Mr W. E. Hoijle on Loligopsis and some other Genera. 331 



1845. Loligopsis chnjsophtalmos, d'Orb., Ceph. Acet., p. 324, Loligopsis, pi. 



i., figs. 2, Z, i{L. Tilesii). 

 1845. ,, chromorpha, Id., Ibid., p. 324. 



This is a minute creature discovered by Tilesius on Krusen- 

 stern's voyage round the world, which agrees with Lamarck's 

 definition of the genus, in so far that it somewhat resembles 

 Sepiola and has eight arms ; but, as Steenstrup has pointed 

 out,^ the shape of the fins is rounded, not rhomboidal, there 

 are three or four rows of suckers on the arms, and altogether 

 the animal resembles a young i^ossm-like creature more than 

 anything else. Its true position will probably always remaia 

 doubtful. I cannot propose to place it in any genus hitherto 

 constituted, still less do I intend to create a new one for its 

 reception. 



Loligopsis zygoina, Veiany. 



1855. Loligopsis zygcena, Verany, Ceph. Medit., p. 125, })!. xl., fig. c, 1851. 

 1884. Zygcenopsis ,, Rochebr., Monogr. Loligopsidae, p. 20. 



A very beautiful little Cephalopod, evidently of pelagic 

 habits, is figured by Verany, but unfortunately his statements 

 as to its anatomical peculiarities are far from giving sufficient 

 information to enable us to fix its systematic position. The 

 genus Loligopsis, as understood by Verany, by no means 

 agrees with the definition of d'Orbigny,whichis founded mainly 

 upon the structures connecting the head with the mantle, as 

 observed in the Loligopsis V&anyi of F^russac (= Chiroteuthis 

 Veranyi, d'Orb.) ; there is, however, no indication that such 

 an arrangement is found in the creature under discussion, 

 and if it were, the differences between this form and the type 

 species would render its erection into a new genus essential. 



It is worthy of notice that Verany's drawing closely 

 resembles two species in the '' Challenger " Collection, which 

 are referable to the genus Taonins, and are believed to be 

 older forms of Proealistes Snhmii, Lankester; the chief 

 differences are in the form of the fin, which is cordiform in 

 T. Suhmi, and in the absence of suckers on the tentacles 

 except at their extremities. Seeing that these differences 

 exist, however, it would not be right to transfer L. zijgcena to 

 the genus Taonius. Dr de Eochebrune has erected it into a 



1 Overblik, p. 86 (18). 



