EEPOET OJST THE CEPHALOPODA. 177 



" The additions which must be made to Sars' description are in the direction of further 

 detail, for the expressions used in characterising the structure of the arms and tentacles 

 'of this remarkable form are too general and undecided. It is not mentioned that the 

 median suckers on three pairs of arms bear true hooks, nor that in this respect the 

 ventral arms differ from the others, nor that the tentacles are provided with a connective 

 apparatus both on the stem and on the club. Nevertheless, figs. 10, 11 leave no doubt 

 that they were drawings from a Gonatus whose characters were not sharply perceived, 

 while fig. 5, part of an arm with its four series of suckers, figs. 6, 7, 8, a sucker from the 

 middle, and fig. 9, one from the lateral series, show clearly that there were two series of 

 hooks and two of true suckers." 



In 1880, Professor Verrill,^ misled no doubt by Gray's errors and Sars' omissions, 

 made Onychoteuthis kamtschatica, Middendorff, the type of a separate genus under the 

 name Lestoteutliis, without recognising its identity with Gonatus, including also in it 

 Dall's Onychoteuthis rohusta (since made the type of a genus Moroteuthis, and since 

 shown by Steenstrup to belong to Ancistroteuthis).' Verrill's paper was followed by that 

 of Steenstrup,^ from which the above quotations have been made, but whilst it was 

 passing through the press Verrill published the second part of his monograph,' in which 

 he described a specimen of Gonatus fabricii, taken from the stomach of a cod, but still 

 without recognising it as identical with Onychoteuthis kamtschatica, Middendorff (his 

 Lestoteuthis), and in his Report on the " Blake " Cephalopods, 1881, published the genus 

 Cheloteuthis, which, however, he speedily abandoned as synonymous with Lestoteuthis.'^ 



In the appendix to his Monograph,^ Verrill introduces another Cephalopod from 

 Cumberland Gulf, which is said to have " four rows of true suckers on all the arms, and 

 no hooks." This he is disposed, stiU misled by Gray's inaccurate description, to regard 

 as doubtless " the real Gonatus amcenus. Gray." Steenstrup in a second paper ® has 

 pointed out the untenability of this view, and having recently examined Gray's types of 

 Gonatus amcenus in the British Museum, I can quite corroborate all his statements 

 regarding their absolute identity with Gonatus fabricii. What this Cumberland Gulf 

 specimen really was has never transpired, as no further information about it has been 

 published, but seeing the ease with which the hooks of Gonatus are overlooked, it is 

 not impossible that it may also be referable to that genus. 



Owenia, Prosch, which appears in the list of generic synonyms above, demands 

 merely a few words of explanation ; the Danish naturalist received along with his 

 Cranchia megalops some small Cephalopods, which he wrongly regarded as being iden- 

 tical with it, and he was induced to separate his new species as a subgenus of Cranchia 

 owing to the mantle not being directly continuous with the head dorsally, a character 



■ Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 250. ^ Stlienoteuthis og Lestoteuthis. 



3 Ceph. N. E. Amer., pp. 259-446. * Op. cit., p. 388. ^ Op. dt., p.^/SS. 



» Notas Teuthol., I. 



(ZOOL. OHALL. EXP. — PAET XLIV. 1886.) Xx 23 



