REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 183 



constant withm the limits of the same family. Perhaps the readiest explanation is that 

 the valve being very small, Verany and others have overlooked it in Chiroteuthis ; but it 

 seems at present impossible to explain the discrepancy regarding Histioteuthis. 



It seems advisable provisionally to rank the present form in the same family with 

 Calliteuthis and Histioteuthis, to which it is certainly allied, under the name Chiro- 

 teuthidse, Gray; which will be equivalent to d'Orbigny's Loligopsidae without its type- 

 genus, and which seems to be uncertain in respect of the presence of a siphonal valve. 



Verrill has proposed ^ a new family, Histioteuthidse, but in our present lack of know- 

 ledge on many points connected with these iuteresting forms the step seems to me hardly 

 justified, especially in view of the existence of a genus so clearly intermediate between 

 the two principal genera as the present. 



Calliteuthis, Verrill. 

 LoUgopsis, Owen (pars). 



Calliteuthis reversa, Verrill (PL XXXIII. figs. 12-15). 



1880. Calliteuthis reveisa, Vll., Amer. Jonrn. Sci and Arts, vol. xx. p. 393. 



1881. „ „ VIL, Cepb. N. E. Amer., p. 295, pi. xlvi. fig. 1. 

 1884. „ „ Vll., Second Catal., p. 243. 



Habitat. — Station 168, east of the North Island, New Zealand, July 8, 1874; lat. 

 40° 28' S., long. 177° 43' E.; 1100 fathoms ; blue mud. One immature specimen taken 

 at the surface. 



Station 232. — The Hyalonema ground ofi" Ino Sima Island, Japan, May 12, 1875 ; 

 lat. 35° 11' N., long. 139° 28' E. ; 345 fathoms ; green mud. One specimen. 



Several stations ofi" the eastern United States, depths 1000 to 3000 fathoms (Verrill). 



Verrill's admirable description and figures leave no room for doubt as to the identity 

 of the Challenger specimen with his species. The temptation is great to regard it as 

 also synonjrmous with Sir Eichard Owen's LoUgopsis ocellata,^ the more so as this is 

 from the China Sea, while the Challenger individual was taken near Japan. The only 

 difi'erences which I can discover on a careful perusal of his diagnosis are, firstly, the form 

 of the fin, which does not extend posteriorly beyond the extremity of the body; secondly, 

 the smaller relative size of the suckers, and thirdly, the fact that the horny rings of these 

 are extremely prominent and toothed. 



The mantle-connective is a little more complicated than Verrill's description would 

 indicate ; the sockets on the base of the funnel are pyriform hollows, the deeper portion 

 being posterior ; the ridge on the mantle itself is divided into two portions, of which the 

 posterior is much the more prominent, and separated by a distinct gap from the anterior, 

 which is low and narrow. 



1 Ceph. N.E. Amer., p. 431. ^ frans. Zool. Soc. Land., vol. xi. p. 139. 



