394 
A. E. Verrill — North American Cephalopods. 
This genus will have, as known characters: A long, narrow, thin 
pen, terminating posteriorly in a conical, hollow, many-ribbed, oblique 
cone, which is inserted into the oblique, anterior end of a long, round, 
tapering, acute, solid , cartilaginous terminal cone, composed of con- 
centric layers, and corresponding to the solid cone of Belemnites in posi- 
tion and relation to the true pen ; elliptical connective cartilages on 
the base of the siphon ; nuchal, longitudinal crests, three, much as 
in Ommastrephes ; eye-lids with a distinct sinus; caudal fin large, 
broad, spear-shaped, ventral arms with smooth-rimmed suckers at the 
base. The rest of the armature is unknown. 
Moroteuthis robasta is the only known species. 
Al'Chiteuthis Harting, 1861. (See pp. 197, 238, 239.) 
ArcMteuthus Steenstrup, Forhandl. Skand. Naturf., 1856, vii, p. 182, 1857 (no 
description). 
The characters of this genus, as given on p. 197, must be modified, 
so far as the pen is concerned, in accordance with the description 
given below. 
Professor Steenstrup, in the second of the papers above cited (see 
p. 385) criticises me (and others) for writing Architeuthis instead of 
Architeuthws, as he originally spelled the word. So far as 1 am per- 
sonally concerned, I am free to confess that I had always supposed that 
his original spelling was a typographical error, and as the genus at 
that time was merely named , but in no sense established nor defined , 
as a matter of necessity I adopted the name as spelled in the earliest 
published work (that of Harting), in which the characters of the 
genus were so far indicated as to make it possible to recognize it. 
Harting states that he was in correspondence with Professor Steen- 
strup, in regard to this genus, and that he had received from him 
drawings and proofs of unpublished plates of Architeuthis. There- 
fore, the blame, if any, for the change in spelling, must rest mainly 
with Harting. Moreover, Gervais, who had seen and briefly described 
Professor Steenstrup’s specimens, also wrote Architeuthis , and that 
has been the general practice with nearly all European writers, for 
twenty years. Therefore, I do not see the propriety of specially 
criticising Mr. Tryon and myself for using this spelling, which 
has been so extensively adopted in Europe. 
That the original form of the word would have been preferable, I 
do not deny. But that there is any special impropriety in the ter- 
mination teuthis , even for a large cephalopod, it is useless to insist 
upon, for that termination has been generally adopted by many 
writers, and during many years, for several genera, living and fossil, 
