490 MR. W. S. KENT ON CERTAIN [June 16, 



that both this and the Conception-Bay example are specifically- 

 identical, while, at the same time, the much fuller details now made 

 known to us through this last capture greatly facilitate our efforts 

 towards its correct appreciation. Particular interest attaches itself 

 to the fact, recorded in association with the tentacular club of this 

 latter specimen, that an outer row of minute suckers supplements 

 the two central rows of larger ones on each side. These small 

 suckers alternate with the larger, and, while of such inconspicuous 

 size as to have escaped notice in Mr. Harvey's first report, are of 

 especial importance inasmuch as they indicate that the animal is 

 most nearly allied to the genera Loligo and Ommastrephes. So 

 closely indeed is the formula of the tentacular club, in addition to all 

 other essential points, now shown to correspond with certain species 

 of Ommastrephes that it will be evidently desirable to retain it in that 

 genus, thus avoiding the creation of a new generic title, as previously 

 proposed, and which would have been requisite had the two rudi- 

 mentary rows of suckers on the outer margin of the tentacular club 

 been wanting, as the earlier description seemed to indicate. The 

 specific distinctness of this form, however, appears to be still more 

 clearly indicated by the more extensive information recently elimi- 

 nated. 



Prof. A. E. Verrill, in a very interesting communication to the 

 'American Journal of Science and Art,' reprinted in the 'Annals 

 and Magazine of Natural History ' for March last, brings forward, 

 in addition to the accounts of the two monsters here especially 

 mentioned, reliable evidence concerning several other Cephalopods 

 of gigantic size encountered on the same coast-line within the 

 last few years. Having examined the beaks and other portions 

 of several of these, Prof. Verrill is of the opinion that they 

 include two species respectively identical, in all probability, with 

 Prof. Steenstrup's Architeuthis dux and Architeuthis monackus. 

 Our information, however, relative to both the genus Architeuthis 

 and the two forms referred to it, is at present so limited, that 

 considerable difficulty is associated with the establishment of this 

 identity. This difficulty is, furthermore, greatly enhanced by the 

 very antagonistic evidence concerning these species adduced by 

 different authorities. Thus, in the absence of means of access to 

 Prof. Steenstrup's original description of the genus Architeuthis, the 

 present author accepted the authority of MM. Crosse and Fischer, 

 who in their well known 'Journal de Conchologie ' (vol. x. 1862, 

 pp. 129 & 130), state that the generic title was instituted by its 

 founder in the year 1856 for the reception of three gigantic Cephalo- 

 pods, two of which were captured on the coast of Iceland in the years 

 1639 and 1790, and of which popular record alone remains ; to these 

 Prof. Steenstrup provisionally applied the title of Architeuthis 

 monachus. A third was stranded on the coast of Jutland in 1854, 

 and upon the pharynx and beak of this, the only parts preserved ; 

 the same authority founded his species Architeuthis dux. Evidently 

 assuming that the genus Architeuthis had not been sufficiently 

 characterized for reidentification, MM. Crosse and Fischer, in this 



