20 HOYLE, Genera of Recent Dibtanchiate Cephalopoda. 



14. &^ "Albatross" Report, p. 42. 



15. The type of this genus is Enoploteuthis polyonyx 

 Troschel, Bemerkungen iiber die Cephalopoden von Messina, 

 Arch. f. Naturg., Jahrg. 23, vol. i, p. 87, pi. 4, fig. 9, 1857. 



16. Chun (op. cit.) mentions luminous organs in Bathyteuthis 

 but gives no details as to their form or arrangement. 



1 7. This genus is based on a new species from the West Coast 

 of South America, not yet fully described; Pfeffer, "Synopsis" 

 p. 170. Along with it is created another new genus Stigma- 

 toteuthis for Histiopsis hoylei Goodrich, Ceph. Calcutta Mus, 

 Trans. Linn. Soc. (2), vol. 7, p. 15, 1896. I do not see adequate 

 ground for regarding it as generically distinct from Histioteuthis. 



18. The association of these two genera in the same family 

 is rather artificial, but further information is needed in order to 

 determine their true systematic position. 



19. I have little doubt that these two genera are identical, 

 and Dr. Pfeffer informs me that he has independently come to 

 the same conclusion. 



20. See Chun, Rhynchoteuthis. Eine merk wiirdige Jugend- 

 form von Cephalopoden, Zool. Anz., vol. 26, p. 716, [903. 



21. For a discussion of the nomenclature here adopted see 

 HoYLE, British Cephalopoda : their Nomenclature and Identifi- 

 cation, y"^z/;>'«. of Conch., vol. 10, p. 197 — 206, 1902. 



22. The fusion of the base of the siphon with the interior of 

 the mantle is also a character of the Cranchiidas ; in Symplecto- 

 teuthis the cartilaginous joint is retained, but the two elements 

 are fused at all events on one side ; in the Cranchiidse the fusion 

 is more extensive and bilateral and the cartilaginous elements 

 are not developed. 



23. According to Ficalbi (Unicita di specie delle due 

 forme di Cefalopodi pelagici chiamate " Chiroteuthis Veranyi " e 

 " Doratopsis vermicularis," Monitore Zool. lial., vol. 10, p. 93— 

 118, pi., 1899) Doratopsis is the young of Chiroteuthis, but his 

 arguments do not appear to me convincing ; his opinion is not 

 shared by Pfeffer, though the late Dr. Jatta was disposed to agree 

 with it (A proposito di alcuni Cefalopodi del Mediterranee, Boll 

 Soc. Nat. JSapoii, vol. 17, p. 193 — 198, 1903). 



