644 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVI. No. 932 



ferred to it, although it does very well for T. 

 pavo. Since it would certainly appear that 

 Verrill's own definition of his type species 

 should have weight in this connection rather 

 than the mistaken name which he applied to 

 it, it follows that Loligo pavo Lesueur is oc- 

 cupying the incongruous role of serving as the 

 type for two genera at the same time. The 

 inevitable result is that Desmoteuthis must 

 he regarded as absolutely synonymous with 

 Taonius. 



It is interesting to observe that the true T. 

 hyperhoreus Steenstrup appears to have been 

 subsequently described by Verrill as D. tenera 

 n. sp., so that, as indicated by the above table, 

 his concept of Desmoteuthis coincides most 

 curiously with Steenstrup's idea of Taonius. 

 Thus we arrive, though through a consider- 

 ably different process of reasoning at essen- 

 tially the same conclusion attained by Hoyle 

 in 1884, for some reason apparently abandoned 

 by him since that time. 



What, then, is to become of T. hyperhoreus 

 Steenstrup, especially since according to our 

 modern notions that species appears in no way 

 congeneric with T. pavo? Fortunately it is 

 not necessary to add another new name to the 

 literature, for by turning to the more lately 

 described members of the group we learn that 

 we may utilize the Megalocranchia of Pfeffer 

 (1884, p. 24) with M. maxima Pfeffer as the 

 type. 



Chun (1910, pp. 302, 357) has further sug- 

 gested that Helicocranchia Massy (1907, p. 

 382) may also be referable to Desmoteuthis 

 (i. e., Megalocranchia) as a synonym, but for 

 the present I do not think this can be taken 

 as conclusive. The minute, separated, pedun- 

 culate fins, and more especially Miss Massy's 

 subsequent emendation " Eyes on short stalks " 

 (1909, p. 34), along with other characters are 

 shared by an undescribed form obtained by 

 the U. S. Fisheries steamer Albatross in the 

 Hawaiian Islands, which certainly does not 

 seem to be a Megalocranchia, but much nearer 

 to the group Teuthowenia as defined by Chun. 



In this connection it may be weU to observe 

 that the curious Hawaiian squid described by 

 me in 1909 as Helicocranchia fisheri is cer- 



tainly out of place in that genus. On the con- 

 trary it appears to be a typical Megalocranchia 

 having considerable affinity with M. maxima. 

 The recently described Desmoteuthis pel- 

 lucida Chun, 1910, is also exceedingly close. 

 A brief memorandum of the several species 

 which seem to be referable to this genus is 

 given below. 



MEGALOCRANCHIA Pfeffer, 1884 

 Desmoteuthis auctt., non Verrill 

 Megalocranchia Pfeffer, 1884, p. 24 

 M. hyperborea (Steenstrup, 1856). 



Leachia hyperborea Steenstrup, 1856, p. 200. 

 Taonius hyperhoreus Steenstrup, 1861, p. 



83. 

 Desmoteuthis tenera Verrill, 1881, p. 412, 



PL LV., Fig. 2; PI. LVI., Fig. 3. 

 Taonius hyperhoreus Hoyle, 1885, p. 321. 

 Taonius hyperhoreus Hoyle, 1886, p. 191, 

 PI. XXXIL, Fig. 12; PL XXXin., Figs. 

 1-11. 

 Desmoteuthis hyperborea Pfeffer, 1908, p. 



104, Fig. 119. 

 Desmoteuthis hyperhoreus Hoyle, 1909, p. 

 277. 

 North Atlantic. 

 M. maxima Pfeffer, 1884. 



Megalocranchia maxima Pfeffer, 1884, p. 

 24, Fig. 32, 32a. 

 Cape of Good Hope. 

 M. ahyssicola (Goodrich, 1896). 



Taonius ahyssicola Goodrich, 1896, p. 17, 



PL v., Figs. 72-80. 

 Desmoteuthis ahyssicola Pfeffer, 1900, pp. 

 191, 192. 

 Laccadive Sea. 

 M. fisheri (Berry, 1909). 



Helicocranchia fisheri Berry, 1909, p. 417. 

 Xenoteuthis fisheri Berry, 1909, p. 419 

 {error). 

 Hawaiian Islands. 

 M. pellucida (Chun, 1910). 



Desmoteuthis pellucida Chun, 1910, p. 357, 

 PL LIII., Fig. 1; PL LIV., Figs. 1-17. 

 South Atlantic. 

 The family Veranyidw has recently been 

 founded by Chun (1910, p. 139) for the re- 

 ception of that bizarre little genus, the Octo- 



