20 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER. 



' Sepiadarium, Steenstrup, 1881. 

 1. Sepiadarium Jcochii, Steenstrup. 



1881. Sepiadarium Eoehii, Stp., Sepiadarium. og Idiosepius, p. 214, pi. i. figs. 1-10. 



Subfamily Idiosepii, Steenstrup, 1881. 



Idiosepius, Steenstrup, 1881. 



1. Idiosepius pygmseus, Steenstrup.^ 



1881. Idiosepius pygmseus, Stp., Sepiadarium og Idiosepius, p. 219, pi. i. figs. 11-22. 



Spinda, Lamarck, 1801.^ 



1. Spinda per onii, Lamarck (p. 122). 



1822. Spinda Peronii, Lmk., Anim. s. vert., t. vii. p. 601. 



Subfamily Etjsepii, Steenstrup, 1881. 

 Sepia, Linne, 1766. 



Rhombosepion, Lophosepion, \ 

 Spathidosepion, Doratosepion, > de Eocliebrune. 3 

 Ascarosepion, Acanthosepion, ) 



1. Sep)ia officinalis, Linnd. 



1761. Sepia officinalis, Linn., Fauna Suecica, No. 2106. 



1839. „ „ d'Orb., Ceph. acet., p. 260; Seiches, pi i., pi ii. figs. 4, 5, pi iii. figs. 



1-3, pi. svii. figs. 1, 2. 



2. Sepia JiUiouxii, Lafont. 



1839. Sepia officinalis, d'Orb., C^ph. acet.,; Seiches, pL ii. figs. 1, 2, 3. 

 1851. „ „ V^r., Ceph. medit., pL xxv. 



1868. „ Filliouxii, Lafont, BuU. Assoc. Sci. Franc, No. 81 {fide Laf.). 



1869. ,, ,, Lafont, Journ. de Conch., s&'. 3, t. ix. p. 11. 



1 Steenstrup {(yp. cit., p. 224) suggests the possibility that Oranchia minima, Fer., and Loligopsis peronii, Lmk., mar 

 be aUied to this form. 



- There are great differences of opinion as to the number of species that should be referred to this genus, and there 

 seems to be as little agreement regarding the names which they should bear ; under these circumstances 1 refrain 

 from giving any opinion, but content myself with placing one species on the list, and using the name adopted by Prof. 

 Huxley in his Report on the genus to be published in the present series. 



3 Dr. de Rochebrune has recently published a memoir {Bull. Soc. philom. Paris, sir. 7, t. viii. pp. 74-122, pis. 

 iii.-vi.) in which he has divided the Sepia of previous authors into a number of new genera ; most of these seem to 

 me to be at most of subgenerie value, and there are so many points in which I find myself unable to follow Dr. de 

 Eochebrune that I have only given references to his paper in the case of his new species. 



