190 THE VOYAGE OF H.AI.S. CHALLENGER. 



by its differences from Taonius pavo, viz.: " (1) the length, and breadth of the fin, which 

 is half the length of the body and six times as long as broad; (2) the large and almost 

 regularly spherical suckers, which are several times larger than those of Taonius jyccvo, 

 and especially on the lateral arms attain an astonishing size, so that the largest have a 

 diameter as great as the breadth of the arm ; and (3) the presence of a toothed marginal 

 membrane along all the arms." 



In every one of these characters it will be noticed that Professor Verrill's sjjecimen 

 differs from Taonius hyperhorens, and inclines rather to Taonius pavo ; and further, a 

 careful comparison of his figures and description with those of Loligopsis p>avo (Lesueur), 

 places it beyond all reasonable doubt that these are identical. 



The general shape of the body is practically identical in the two forms, but the fin is 

 produced in Verrill's drawing into " a long acute tip," which does not appear in Lesueur's, 

 but which may very well have been present originally, for the posterior extremity of the 

 type specimen has been injured. 



In both specimens the arms are not complete, "except those of the third and fourth 

 pairs, which are nearly equal in length, the ventral ones a little the shortest and most 

 slender." In both specimens, too, " the arms are all united together by a thin, delicate 

 basal web, which extends up some distance between the arms, . . . and then runs 

 along the sides of the arms, as broad, thin, marginal membranes." 



As regards the horny rings of the suckers, d'Orbigny figures two from the base 

 of an arm which may have l^een taken from this species, and which have square-cut 

 teeth somewhat variable in number. The sucker figured by VerriU from the middle of 

 one of the lateral arms (third pair) resembles these very closely, and he adds that 

 " toward the tips of the arms the smaller suckers again become deeper, with more 

 contracted apertures, and with a few more prominent denticles on the rings ; " but 

 he does not allude to the conspicuously four-toothed suckers characteristic of . Taonius 

 Gymoctyp>us, which he could not fail to have noticed had they been before him. 



The general shape of the sucker, too, agrees fairly with that figured by Lesueur. 



Verrill's account of the pen of his Desmoteuthis hyperborea describes that of Loligopsis 

 pavo (Lesueur), very well, for the latter, like the former, terminates posteriorly in a hollow 

 cone. This is not shown in Lesueur's drawing, though it is quite evident in the speci- 

 men ; the drawing indeed is merely a sketch giving a general idea of the form of the 

 pen, which has never been removed from the specimen. 



The passages in quotation marks above are taken from Verrill's description, and when 

 compared mth d'Orbigny's figures, they leave, I think, httle room for doubt that the two 

 species in question are the same. 



