HOYLE : REPORTS ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 27 



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. Rondeletii Leach, or 

 Se-p. 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 1 have called Euprymna, 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. Appellbf (loc. cit.) in In. 

 Morsel.'' 



Later on it is stated that Euprymna is the Latinized feminine of the adjec- 

 tive evTTpvixvos,-ov and has reference to short, stout body (stern, irpvfivt]). 



Dr. Ortniann ('88, 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 /. morsel, and concludes by pointing out the necessity of creating a new 

 genus for the latter, unless I. japonica is united with Sepiola, in which case 

 the name Inioteuthis might be retained for 1. morsei and its allies. Against 

 this it may be pointed out that /. japonica was expressly made by Yerrill the 

 type of his genus, and as the name Euprymna had been proposed and defined 

 by Steenstrup, it seems proper to accept it, whatever may be the fate of Inio- 

 teutliis 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 " Notse Teuthologicte " ('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 tlie arms, and that, tlierefore, 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 ('33 a, p. 85) we find these words : " The arms are proportionally 

 much thicker and sliorter than in Sep. vulgaris. . . . From tiiis 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." artvos 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, doiibt- 

 ful whether (rrevos 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 

 sfhmodactyla, but I do not see that anything is gained by making such a " con- 

 jectural emendation." 



