1889.] ANATOMY OF GONATUS FABRICII. 133 
From this table we may extract the following sets of resemblances 
and differences :— 
A. Gonatus resembles both Onychoteuthis and Enoploteuthis in :— 
(2) the fact that the club of the tentacle has both hooks and 
suckers, though it differs widely in their arrangement ; 
(5) the fact that the funnel has a valve and a funnel-organ ; 
(6) the simple siphono-pallial articulation ; 
(16) the number (though not the disposition) of the oviducts. 
B. Gonatus resembles Onychoteuthis and differs from Enoplo- 
teuthis in :— 
(4) the extension of the fins beyond the end of the body proper ; 
though even here a difference in their relation obtains owing 
to the varying form of the pen, which, however, has a phrag- 
mocone in both; 
(9) the fusion of the middle portions of the median retractors of 
the head ; 
(11) the absence of the nuchal muscle ; 
(12) the form of the median tooth of the radula ; 
(18) the presence of nidamental glands. 
C. Gonatus resembles Enoploteuthis and differs from Onycho- 
teuthis in :— 
(10) the separation between the median and lateral retractors of 
the head ; 
(13) the rudimentary anterior salivary glands ; 
(14) the symmetrical anal appendages ; 
(17) the situation of the oviducts dorsal to the roots of the gills. 
D. Gonatus differs from both Onychoteuthis and Enoploteuthis 
in :— 
(1) the arrangement of suckers in 4 rows and in their armature ; 
(2) the details of armature of the tentacular club ; 
(3) the connective apparatus of the tentacles ; 
(4) the exact relation of the end of the body to the fins; 
(7) the presence of a siphonal cartilage ; 
(8) the form of the pen; 
(12) the radula ; 
(15) the absence of accessory hearts. 
In regard to A the most noticeable fact is that no points of 
importance have been elucidated in which Gonatus resembles both 
the other forms under consideration except such as are also common 
to a much larger number of forms. 
The characters grouped under D are, I think, sufficient to justify 
the step taken three years ago in making this genus the type of a 
new subfamily Gonatide, for there can be no doubt that it is incom- 
parably further removed from Onychoteuthis and Enoploteuthis than 
they are from each other. 
The question which of these two genera it more nearly resembles 
is more difficult to settle ; but I should be disposed on the whole to 
attribute more weight to the characters which ally it to Onychoteu- 
Proc, Zoo. Soc.—1889, No. X. 10 
