REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 175 



1. The Arms have each four series of suckers or hooks, whilst all other Q^gopsids 



have only two. 



2. Tlie Veiitral Arms possess only suckers in all the four series, whilst the 



other arms have two series of suckers along the margins, and two series 

 of hooks up the centre ; a variation in the armature which is hitherto 

 known in no other Enoploteuthid nor indeed in any Onychian at all. 



3. The Tentacles are furnished even from a point low down upon the stem with 



regularly disposed longitudinal series of small suckers and corresponding 

 fixing-cushions, which allow of the tentacles being attached throughout 

 almost their whole length, an arrangement seen in no other Onychian. 



4. The Connective Apparatus is continued up one side of the club, where it 



forms a group of five or six large suckers and fixing cushions, whilst the 

 middle of the club itself is occupied by a very short series of two large and 

 three very small hooks, and the elongated tip of the club is covered with 

 small suckers. The club itself has no connective apparatus such as is seen 

 in most Onychians. 



5. The Gladius is narrow and linear anteriorly, but broader and lanceolate in the 



hinder two-thirds, whilst it ends posteriorly in a hollow cup or cone, which 

 has several diaphragms within it, and is not covered outside and behind by a 

 solid chitinous spine as is the case with most, perhaps all, Onychoteuthids 

 and Enoploteuthids ; at all events no species hitherto known has such a 

 hollow cone. 



6. The Fins reach some distance beyond the hinder end of the body, and their 



firm saddle-shaped cartilage slides upon the terminal portion of the gladius. 



7. The Radula has only five rows of teeth, instead of the usual seven. 



Such a combination of characters renders the creature easy to distinguish from all 

 other forms, but if one of them be overlooked, as may readily happen on superficial 

 examination, misunderstandings regarding it are sure to arise, and this has continually 

 happened during the history of the species. For instance, M0ller ^ failed to recognise his 

 specimens of Onychoteuthis (f) amcena, some two inches long, as the young of the Sepia 

 loligo of Fabricius,^ which were two or three times as large. 



The latter author gave a very accurate description of the species, and it is greatly to 

 be regretted that he did not take an opportunity of comparing it with a specimen of the 

 true Sepia loligo, Linn., for he would at once have recognised its distinctness and have 

 given it a name which would have obtained currency ; one consolation in this regard must 

 be the fact that Lichtenstein gave the form its discoverer's name, which it still bears. 



Gray received some specimens of this type from M0ller and founded upon them the 



1 Ind. Moll, groenl., p. 3. ^ Paun. grcenl., p, 358. 



