126 



THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER. 



pit ; the limbs extend halfway along the striated area. 



and curves gently upwards. 



Dimensions. 



Length, total, 



End of body to mantle-margm, 



End of body to eye, 



JJreadth of body, . 



Breadth of head, . . ■ 



Eye to edge of umbrella, . 



Breadth of fin, 



Diameter of largest sucker on sessile arm, 



Length of shell,^ . 



Breadth of shell,^ 



Length of first arm,^ 

 Length of second arm, 

 Length of third arm. 

 Length of fourth arm. 

 Length of tentacle, 

 Length of tentacular club, 



The spine is long, tapering, 



119 mm. 



70 „ 



70 „ 



35 „ 



30 „ 



20 „ 



10 „ 



1 „ 



84 „ 



30 .. 



Eight. 



24 mm. 



25 „ 



26 „ 

 32 „ 



Left. 



24 mm. 



25 



26 



32 



72 



IS 



The shell of this species somewhat resembles that of Sepia aculeata, but the animal 

 has no suckers on the buccal membrane ; it is also like d'Orbigny's figure of Sejna 

 indica, but it has a shallower groove along the middle of the ventral surface, and the 

 striations are less wavy than his description would appear to indicate ; in addition to 

 which the teeth on the suckers of the sessile arms are different.^ 



The body of one specimen had a lank, lean appearance as compared with the 

 others, suggesting the idea that it might be a male ; on examination, however, it 

 proved to be a female which had recently deposited its eggs. 



Sepia papuensis, Hoyle (PI. XVI. figs. 13-23). 



1885. Sepia papuensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 197. 

 1885. „ „ Hoyle,' Prelim. Eep. IL, p. 301. 



Habitat. — Station 188, in the Arafura Sea, south of Papua, September 10, 1874 ; 

 lat. 9° 59' S., long. 139° 42' E ; 28 fathoms ; green mud. Two specimens, ? . 



The Body is elongated, broadest about one-third back, pointed behind ; the Jins 

 extend the whole length of the body and are one-third of its breadth, a little wider 



1 From a larger specimen. ^ Measured froni the margni of the mouth. 



3 It is prope'r to mention here that, as Steenstrup has already pointed out, a confusion apparently mexplicable 

 exists between d'Orbigny's species. Sepia rostrata and Sepia indica; the descriptions given by him disagree in many 

 points with the figures on his plates, and there is no evidence to show whether plates or text should be accepted as 

 the ultimate criterion ; Dr. de Rochebrune in his recent Memoir has not touched upon these discrepancies. 



