A. E. Verrill — Earth American Cephalopods. 
187 
large. The suckers of its arms or feet, by which it lays hold, about 
2 inches in diameter. The monster was cut up, salted, and barreled 
for dog’s meat.” In this account the length given for the ‘body’ 
evidently includes the head also. This creature was probably disa- 
bled, and perhaps nearly dead, when discovered at the surface, and 
this seems to have been the case with most of the specimens hitherto 
seen living. Animals of this sort probably never float or lie quietly 
at the surface when in good health. 
Nos. 8 and 9.— Lamaline specimens, 1870-71. 
Mr. Harvey refers to a statement made to him by a clergyman, 
Rev. M. Gabriel, that two specimens (Nos. 8 and 9), measuring re- 
spectively 40 and 45 feet in total length, were cast ashore at Lama- 
line, on the southern coast of Newfoundland, in the winter of 1870-71. 
No. 10.— Sperm Whale specimen. (ArcMteuthis princeps.) 
Plate XYIII, figures 1, 2. 
This specimen, consisting of both jaws, was presented to the Pea- 
body Academy of Science, at Salem, Mass., by Captain X. E. Atwood, 
of Provi ncet own, Mass. It was taken from the stomach of a sperm 
whale, but the precise date and locality are not known. It was 
probably from the North Atlantic. The upper jaw was imperfectly 
figured by Dr. Packard in his article on this subject.* It is one of the 
largest jaws yet known, and belonged to an apparently undescribed 
species, which I named Architeutkis princeps, and described in my 
former papers, with figures of both jaws. 
No. 11 —Second Bonavista Bay specimen, 1872. 
The Rev. M. Harvey, in a letter to me, stated that a specimen was 
cast ashore at Bonavista Bay, December, 1872, and that his informant 
told him that the long arms measured 32 feet in length, and the short 
arms about 10 feet in length, and were “thicker than a man’s thigh.” 
The body was not measured, but he thinks it was about 14 feet long, 
and very stout, and that the largest suckers were 2 ’5 inches in diameter. 
The si/.e of the suckers is probably exaggerated, and most likely the 
length of the body also. It is even possible that this was the same 
specimen from which the beak and suckers described as No. 4, from 
Bonavista Bay, were derived, for the date of capture of that specimen 
is unknown to me. The latter, however, was much smaller than the 
* American Naturalist, vol. vii, p. 91, 1873. 
