REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. HI 



Daniel); Mediterranean (d'Orbigny, Verany); Adriatic (Ninni); iEgean (Forbes); Green- 

 land (Steenstrup); Goree, Senegal (Maltzan); Canaries (M'Andrew in Brit. Mus.). 



The name by which this species has long been currently known has been called in 

 question by Tryon {loc. cit), who adopts the term Sepiola sepiola. According to the 

 British Association rules, in their present form, there is no doubt that this view is 

 correct, for the Linnean specific name takes precedence of all others, and it is not held 

 to be necessary to change it even though it be erected into a generic name. At the 

 same time it must be remembered that this last principle is only of modern adoption ; 

 it was the universal custom, even so lately as the first edition of the British Association 

 rules, for any writer who converted a specific name to generic use to propose a new one 

 in its place, and therefore Leach, when he created the genus Sepiola, followed the 

 usual custom in selecting and giving currency to one taken from the pages of Gesner, 

 who wrote in 1558. It must, of course, be understood that Gesner 's designation is not 

 a binomial name in the Linnean sense though it happens to consist of two words ; it 

 simply means to identify the animal as the one called " Sepiola " by Rondelet. 



It seems best, on the whole, to perpetuate Leach's designation, 1st, because it has 

 virtually, if not technically, the claim of priority ; 2nd, because it was proposed by Leach 

 in strict conformity with the usage of his time ; and 3rd, because it has since found 

 universal acceptance for the commonest of the Mediterranean species. According to 

 Steenstrup ^ and others,^ there seem to be about three of these ; one of them may be 

 identical with Sepiola oweniana, d'Orb.; although Tryon has referred a form from the 

 Fiji Islands to this species.^ 



Gwyn Jeffreys' assertion [op. cit., p. 137) that "the male (of this species) is 

 Sepiola atlantica of d'Orbigny " is absolutely without foundation, and could only have 

 been made in total ignorance of the sexual characters found in this genus, which were 

 clearly set forth so long ago as 1856^ by Steenstrup, whom Jeffreys himself rightly 

 describes as " one of the greatest authorities on the Cephalopods." It is parallel to his 

 statement {op. cit., p. 131) that the distinction between Loligo vulgaris and Loligo 

 forhesii is not valid because it is possibly sexual, being based mainly on the relative 

 sizes of the suckers, although males of both species were described. 



For the specimen from Goree I am indebted to v. Maltzan as well as for some other 

 specimens from the same locality. 



1 Mbroh, Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kj^benhavn, p. 101, 1867. ^ Targioni-Tozzetti, op. cit., pp. 44, 45. 



3 Man. Conch., vol. i. p. 156. 



* Hectoootyl., p. 197, and Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 2, vol. xs. p. 91, 1857; see also Steenstrup, StkenoteutMs 

 og Lestoteuthis, p. 8. 



