348 Records of thk S.A. Muskum 



which were in Professor Stcenstrup's hands from tlie In(1ian Ocean, China, and 

 Japan, and which ihereupon received from him the name Scpiadarinm kocliii. 

 Steenstrup recognized the evident relationship of his new genus with the earlier 

 Scpioloidca. and since he was a" devoted believer in the all-sufficiency of the 

 hectocotylized arm in matters of classification, he placed both genera, along with 

 Scf^ia. [dioscpiiis. an.d Spirula. rt al., in his family Sepio-LoUginei. comprising 

 all myo])sids having the ventral arms tlic ones affected by hectocotvlization. Their 

 ol)\ ions differences from the other members of this group he recognized bv placing 

 them in a specjal sub-family, Scpiadarii. which he allocated between the true 

 Se])ias ( Eitscpii) on the one liand. and the fdiosrpii on the other. 



The same year \'errill ( 1881. p. 417), in noting the publication of Steen- 

 strup's monograph, suggested the aBinity of the new genus with LoUgo, rather 

 than with Sepia. 



Fischer ( iS8j. p. 350 I was e\-idently im])ressed with the difficulties attendant 

 upon either suggested treatment, for he removed both Sepioloidea and Sepiadarmm 

 to a new family, the Sepiadariidac. He wrote: " Les Cephalopodes de cette 

 famille ont plus d'affinite avec les Sepiidae. les Spinilidae et les Lnh\i>inid<ie 

 qu'avec les Scpiolidae. dont ils jiresentent toutefois la forme generale." Fischer, 

 therefore, although adopting an es-^entiallv modern arrangement, dift'ers from 

 Steenstruj) merely in his exiiression of the facts, not his understanding of their 

 meaning. 



\Mth the next student. Brock (1884), it is quite otherwise. \'igorously 

 assailing the position of Steenstrup, he flatly denied the Allmacht of the hectoco- 

 tylus, and writes (p. 108): "Wir miissen uns entscheiden ob fiir die ISestimmung 

 der \'erwandtschaft die Hectocotvlization oder alle iibrige vergleichend-anatoni- 

 ische Merkmale massgebend sein sollen"' ; and, again (p. iio): "Es erhellt aus 

 dieseii Beispielen also genugsam. flass die Hectocotylization weder in Bezug auf 

 die Zahl und T\eihenfolge der umgebildeten .\rme, noch in Bezug auf den Modus 

 der I'mbildung selbst sich irgendwie mit den ubrigen verwandtschafthchen 

 Beziehungen deckt, und ich stehe daher nicht an, im Gegensatz zu Steenstrup zu 

 behaupten. dass die Hectocotylization trotz ihres bohen morphologischen und 

 plivsiologischen Interesses fiir die Erkcuiifiiiss der iiattirlichen Vencniidfscha/t 

 von hciucr odrr gaii.c iiiitcrticorductcr Rcdeutiiiig ist." He therefore referred 

 not onlv Srpiadarimii and Srpioloidra. but Idiosepius as well, outright to the 

 Scpiolidae. 



The unconvinced Steenstrup, however, maintained his position in a spirited 

 reply (1887) to Brock. 



The next contribution of conseciuence is that of .Appellof (1898). Working 

 on material from the island of Ternatc in the Moluccas, be showed many reasons 



