A. E. Eerrill — North American Gephalopocls. 
395 
of both large and small cephalopods. Thus Professor Steenstrup, 
himself, notwithstanding his demonstration of the etymological absurd- 
ity of the names, uses “ Enoploteuthisf “ Lestoteuthis ” for genera 
that include species about as large and powerful as Architeuthus. 
Although tenth is, in classical Greek, may signify a small and iceak 
cephalopod, as a zoological term it no longer has that meaning. 
But if the change had not been made by others, apparently with 
good reasons, I should certainly not have adopted it, for it is not in 
accordance with my practice to change or “reform” the original 
spelling of generic or specific names, unless for very urgent and 
obvious reasons. 
On the tentacular club of this and numerous other related genera, 
there is a peculiarity that I have not seen definitely described. 
Between the rows of large suckers there is, as described already, 
a central zigzag ridge, which sends off transverse ridges between 
the suckers, defining shallow pits around each sucker-pedicel. These 
pits are lined, however, with a thin, partially free membrane, which 
surrounds the base of the pedicel, like a collar, leaving an open 
space on all sides, except the inner, where it is attached to the 
pedicel. The space beneath this membrane freely communicates 
with the spaces beneath the other sucker-pits, by means of open 
spaces beneath the zigzag central and transverse ridges. 
A similar structure, but less developed, exists in Ommastrephes, 
Histioteutliis , Loligo and other genera. These collar-like mem- 
branes are probably able to embrace and support the pedicels, when 
the suckers are in action. 
Architenthis Harveyi Verriii. (See pp. 1 97, 259.) 
Since the publication of the descriptions of this species I have 
made a more thorough examination of the various mutilated frag- 
ments of the pen, and have compared them more fully with the cor- 
responding parts of the pen, in other genera. From these studies I 
became convinced that the portions of the pen formerly supposed by 
me to belong to the anterior, really belong to the posterior end.* 
Consequently the description on pages 206-208, should be corrected 
by substituting posterior for anterior, throughout, with other con- 
cordant changes. The explanation of the figure (FI. XV, fig. 3) 
should also be corrected, in the same way. To correct this mistake 
♦The description of the pen was corrected in my Report on Cephalopods (pp. 31- 
33] in the Report of the U. S. Fish Commissioner, put in type last year. 
Tuans. Conn. Acad., Vol. V. 47 November, 1881, 
