144 



THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER. 



surface is elevated, so that the shell is thick, with a shallow median groove becoming 

 evanescent posteriorly, the last loculus has an index of 36 "6 and is bounded by a slightly 

 curved line with a cusp where the median groove meets it ; the inner cone is formed by 

 two limbs, which arise halfway along the shell and form a rounded fillet slightly more 

 elevated posteriorly, where they bound a shallow depression ; outside them the margin 

 of the shell expands into a subcircular plate (the outer cone), from the centre of which 

 the spine projects backwards ; no information can be given as to its form or length, as 

 it has been broken off close to the base/ 



Dimensions. 



Length, total, 



End of body to mantle-margin, 



End of body to eye, 



Breadth of body, . 



Breadth of head, . 



Eye to edge of umbrella, 



Breadth of fin, 



Length of shell (without spine). 



Breadth of shell, . 



Length of first arm, 

 Length of second arm. 

 Length of third arm. 

 Length of fourth arm. 

 Length of tentacle. 



72 mm. 



42 



41 



16 



14 



6 



2 

 41 



7 



Eight 



Left. 



10 mm. 



10'5 mm 



11 „ 



10 



9-5 „ 



9 



9 „' 



10-5 „ 



25 „ 





This is nearly related to Sepia hiensis, but is longer and narrower in its proportions, 

 notwithstanding that both specimens are females, and this difference is still more marked 

 in the shell; in that species its breadth is about two-fifths of the length, while in the 

 present form it is less than one-fifth ; in the former case the locular index is 40"5, in the 

 latter 36 "6. The type specimens of both species are probably immature, and their 

 validity can only be regarded as of a provisional nature. 



Since the above description was drawn up I have been able to see Appellofs 

 description of the specimens of this form which he received from Japan ; his account of 

 them agrees so well with the type specimen that there can be little doubt that they are 

 correctly referred to the same species. I notice a few differences, however, which it seems 

 advisable to record. The arms are considerably larger, proportionately, than in the 

 Challenger specimen, in which furthermore the diversity in the sizes of the suckers on the 

 sessile arms is scarcely apparent. As stated above, many of these were absent, but a 

 renewed investigation has led me to think that Appellofs account of their arrangement is 

 probably correct, though, like him, I regarded their disposition in two rows as merely 



' Mutilated. 



