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



describes a pair of jaws (also preserved in the Smithsonian Institution) 

 as being much more slender than those of the last example men- 

 tioned, and entirely wanting its deep notch and prominent angular 

 lobe. This description, however, clearly indicates that neither this 

 particular individual nor the three others associated with it, if of 

 the same species, can be identical with A. dux, as in the latter it is 

 distinctly shown, both by M. Harting and by Prof. Steenstrup's own 

 figures, that a distinct notch and prominent angular lobe exist. 

 Both A. dux and A. monachus, indeed, seem to approach one another 

 so nearly in the character of the mandibles (the only portions yet 

 available for comparison), that it is difficult to refrain from the 

 suspicion that they represent one and the same species. 



If, again, M. Harting is correct in his identification of Architeu- 

 this dux, Steenstr., with Ommastrephes todarus, D'Orb., we have 

 further conclusive evidence that the Newfoundland examples are 

 distinct from that form, their tentacular arms presenting the 

 character of the ordinary cuttlefish, and wanting the anomalous 

 feature of these organs already observed of D'Orbigny's species. 



It would appear, then, that the individuals encountered in Con- 

 ception and Logie Bays, represented in the St. John's Museum by a 

 tentacular arm and an entire specimen, and which, in a previous 

 communication, we provisionally proposed to distinguish by the 

 title of Megaloteuthis harveyi, belong, if identical (as Prof. Verrill 

 surmises) with the three examples that have fallen beneath his 

 notice, to a species distinct from either representative of the genus 

 Architeuthis (even should two exist) as characterized by Prof. 

 Steenstrup, or from any other species of the same order recognizably 

 described. At the same time it would seem, from the evidence of 

 M. Harting and others, with the further testimony adduced from 

 the Newfoundland examples, that the two species of Architeuthis, 

 Steenstr., cannot be separated from the genus Ommastrephes, D'Orb., 

 of which they are merely gigantic representatives. Concerning 

 the species represented by the magnificent example and fragment in 

 the St. John's Museum — in the seeming absence of characters that 

 identify it with any form hitherto described, it appears desirable to 

 retain for it the same specific title proposed in our earlier com- 

 munication, and thus to distinguish it as Ommastrephes harveyi, the 

 arrangement of the suckers on the tentacular club, already enume- 

 rated, constituting a sound specific diagnosis. As, however, these 

 examples, with other material of a kindred nature, have had the 

 good fortune to engage the attention of so eminent an authority as 

 Prof. A. E. Verrill — a circumstance of which I was unaware at the 

 time of penning my first communication, we may confidently leave 

 it in his hands to demonstrate to us the many essential details yet 

 wanting to complete our perfect knowledge of these noble specimens, 

 and to clear up the several apparent discrepancies with which, owing 

 to the previous paucity of material, the literature of this most in- 

 teresting subject has been encumbered. 



With the above end in view, I wish to place on record the results 

 of a recent and more minute examination of the colossal arm pre- 



