HOYLE: REPORTS ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 2T 
They are all also very remarkable for the shape of the ink-sac, which is broader 
and with larger auricular processes than even in Sep. Rondeletit Leach, or 
Sep. atlantica d'Orbigny. On the whole they constitute, in my opinion, a 
special and well-marked generic type, which on account of the habit of body 
mentioned above I have called Huprymna, and of whose natural character I 
am the more convinced, inasmuch as I find in all the males of the group the 
sexual arm modified in the way represented by Mr. Appellöf (loc. cit.) in In. 
Morsei." 
Later on it is stated that Zuprymna is the Latinized feminine of the adjec- 
tive eUmpvpwos,-ov and has reference to short, stout body (stern, mpvpyn). 
Dr. Ortmann (788, p. 647) was presumably not acquainted with this paper 
of Professor Steenstrup when in 1888 he published his memoir on the Japa- 
nese Cephalopoda; it had indeed only appeared in the previous year. Dr. 
Ortmann points out a number of characters in which Inioteuthis japonica differs 
from I. morsei, and concludes by pointing out the necessity of creating a new 
genus for the latter, unless 7. japonica is united with Sepiola, in which case 
the name Inioteuthis might be retained for Z. morse and its allies. Against 
this it may be pointed out that Z. japonica was expressly made by Verrill the 
type of his genus, and as the name Huprymna had been proposed and defined 
by Steenstrup, it seems proper to accept it, whatever may be the fate of Inio- 
teuthis as against Sepiola. 
It is worthy of notice that Professor Steenstrup consistently spells the specific 
name of this species “sthenodactyla,” not “ stenodactyla.” In a note appended 
to No. 7 of his “Note Teuthologiez ” (87 A, p. 74 [120] ), he explains this by the 
Statement that “ Grant says expressly that he called the species thus on account 
of the stoutness and strength of the arms, and that, therefore, it must be in 
consequence of a typographical error that * stenodactyla, meaning thin or 
small-armed, has crept into the text and plate." If this were all, it would no 
doubt be desirable to correct the faulty spelling and write the word as Steen- 
strup suggests, but the matter is not quite so simple. On turning to Grant’s 
Memoir (334, p. 85) we find these words: “The arms are proportionally 
much thicker and shorter than in Sep. vulgaris. . . . From this contracted 
form of the cephalic arms, by which it differs so much from the European 
species, I have termed it Sep. stenodactyla,” and in the earlier note (33), where 
the first mention of the species occurs, the name is said to be suggested by “the 
comparative shortness of its members." orevds would, of course, be a correct 
translation for “ contracted,” but the contraction referred to seems to have been. 
in the matter of length and not breadth, and it is, to say the least of it, doubt- 
ful whether orevds can be used in that sense. For myself I have little doubt 
that Grant meant to write stenodactyla, when he would have done better to use 
sthenodactyla, but I do not see that anything is gained by making such a “ con- 
jectural emendation.” 
