3 ' i (> 
.4. E. VerriU — North Amcri i ( cphatopodg. 
In another part of this article he refers* to ray paper, which had 
been promptly sent to him. but he makes no reference whatever to 
the genus Sthenotentl* is, nor to the species, megaptera , which, as a 
species, had been described by me still earlier (1S78) and in far 
greater detail than most of the other species which he mentions, and 
which should, under his system of classification, bear the name of 
Omnuutrephe* megaptera. Nor does he point out any new charac- 
ter- for distinguishing thi - generic group other than those fir-t given 
bv me. viz: the presence of connective suckers and tubercles on the 
tentacular arms proximal to the club, and the great development of 
the membranes on the lateral arms. 
Under the ordinary rule of nomenclature, by which the first cor- 
rect subdivision made in an older genus shall be entitled to priority, 
while the original name shall be retained for the remaining group, 
the name Sthenoteuthis ought to be maintained for the division first 
established by me, while Omma&trephe* (restricted) should be retained 
for a part or all of the remaining species.f While I very much 
regret this confusion of names. I perceive no way to remedy it except 
bv the application of the usual rules of priority. 
As for the distinction between Illex and Todarodes, it seems to me 
very -light and scarcely of generic importance. Illex is characterized 
bv having eight rows of small suckers on the distal part of the club, 
and a smooth siphonal groove. Todarodes is characterized by having 
four rows of distal suckers and some small grooves or furrows at the 
anterior end of the siphonal groove. 
But I have a species (which I refer to O. Sloan ei Gray), from Tas- 
mania, which agrees with Illex In having a smooth siphonal groove, 
but with Todarodes in having only four rows of distal tentacular 
Backers, and in the sharp denticulation of its large suckers. Accord- 
ing to Steenstrup’s system this would have to be made still another 
genus, or else his generic characters would have to be greatly 
* In discussing ip. 233, foot note) mv statements in respect to the sexual differ- 
ences in proportions. It is to be hoped that Prof. Steenstrup will find in the tables 
of measurements given in the preceding pages all the data needed to settle this 
matter more satisfactorily. 
+ Professor -teenstrup considers 0. Bartramii as the • typical” species of Omma- 
stref-hes. But in fact D'Orbigny did not give any particular species as the type of his 
genus. His description applies better to such forms as 0. todarus and 0. illecebrosus, 
for he does not mention the connective tubercles and suckers of the tentacular arms. 
Nor i- it certain that 0. yigas, odc of the earliest species referred to this genus, has 
such structures. The species thus named, even by Professor Steenstrup, is so called 
onlv with a mark of doubt. 
