A. E. Verrill — North American Cephalopods. 
401 
on the dorsal arms of Hthenoteuthis pteropus (see PI. XXXVI, fig. 
7, a) and other related species. 
The suckers on the arm, as described and figured by Professor 
Owen, are like those of Architeuthis. Therefore, there is no ground 
whatever for referring this arm to any other genus , and Plectoteuthis 
must, therefore, become a synonym of Architeuthis. 
Whether the arm in question belongs to a species distinct from 
those already named, I am unable to say. There is, apparently, 
nothing to base specific characters upon except the form of the suckers 
and of their horny rings. But the description of the horny rings is 
not sufficiently precise, nor the figures sufficiently detailed, to afford 
such characters. If the arm is one of the ventral pair, as seems prob- 
able, the suckers as figured by Professor Owen, and especially as 
more fully described by Mr. Kent, agree very closely, but not per- 
fectly, with those of either of the Newfoundland specimens, for in the 
latter the suckers of the ventral arms are strongly toothed externally, 
but are either entire, or in some cases, only slightly denticulated on 
the inner side. But they also agree well with those of the Architeu- 
this Eartingii, as figured by Ilarting. Those of the original A. dux 
Steenst., have neither been described nor figured. In Owen’s figures 
the large suckers are represented as denticulated pretty evenly all 
around the edge. As this arm cannot, at present, be referred with 
certainty to any of the named species, it may be best to record it as 
Architeuthis grandis , until better known. 
In the same article Professor Owen has given a good figure (pi. 33, 
fig. 2) of the tentacular arm of the Newfoundland specimen (my No. 
2) copied from the same photograph described by me (see pp. 182, 
208, 209). To this he applies, doubtless by mistake, the name, Archi- 
teuthis princeps ,* without giving any reason for not adopting my 
conclusion that it belongs to A. Harbeyi. But he does not, in any 
way, refer to the latter species, although he mentions the specimen 
(my No. 5), or rather the photograph of the specimen, on which that 
species was based. lie apparently (on page 162) supposes that both 
photographs and all of Mr. Harvey’s measurements refer to the same 
* By a singular mistake, Professor Owen, on page 163, states that this species was 
named A. princeps by Dr. Packard, in February, 1873. But according to his own 
statement, on page 161, the specimen was not actually obtained till December, 1873, at 
least nine months after Dr. Packard’s article was printed. In truth, the name princeps 
was first given by me in 1875, to designate a pair of large jaws, as explained on page 
210. Neither this nor any other name appears on the cited page of Dr. Packard’s 
article, though lie elsewhere referred these jaws doubtfully to A. numachus. 
