402 
A. E. Verrill — North American Cephalopods. 
specimen, which is by no means the case, as had been sufficiently 
explained by me in several former papers.* 
The brief account given by Professor Owen of the large Cephalo- 
pods described by others, includes none additional to those noticed 
by me in this report. On the other hand, he omits those described 
by Halting; those’described by Mr. Kirk, from New Zealand; those 
from Alaska’;’ and several others. 
Sthenoteuthis Verrill (see pp. 222, 286.) 
Xiphoteuthis (sub-genus) Owen, op. cit. p. 104, pi. 28, figs. 1, 2, June, 1881 ( non 
Huxley). 
In the paper referred to above, f Professor Owen has described a 
cephalopod, without locality, under the name of 0 nimastrephes ensi- 
fer, for which he proposes the sub-generic name Xiphoteuthis. His 
species is a typical example of my genus Sthenoteuthis (1880) and 
appears to be identical, in every respect, with S. pteropus (see p. 228, 
PI. XXXVI, figs. 5-9, and PI. LIV, figs. 2, 2 «), as described by me. 
But Professor Owen fails to mention one of the most characteristic 
features of this group of squids, viz : the connective tubercles and 
smooth suckers on the proximal part of the tentacular club, nor is 
his figure sufficiently detailed to indicate this character, nor even the 
actual arrangement and structure of the other suckers of the club. 
The high median crest and broad marginal web of the third pair of 
*It seems incredible that Professor Owen could have made these mistakes had he 
examined either of my former papers in which these specimens have been described 
in detail, not only from the photographs, but from the preserved specimens. He does, 
however, refer to Part I, of this article, published in 1880. But as he states 
(p. 162) that iu it “a brief notice is given of Mr. Harvey’s squid” it is fair to 
suppose that the reference is taken at second-hand, for it is not to be supposed that he 
would have considered my description, covering over 20 pages, and accompanied by 
nine plates, as a “ brief notice .” None of my earlier papers are referred to, nor does 
he mention the large species, Moroteuthis rolmsta , in his account of the large Cephalo- 
pods hitherto described. 
f Among other species figured and described in this paper, there is a handsome 
species from the China Sea, described as Loligopsis ocellata , sp. nov. (pp. 139-140, id. 
26, tigs. 3-8 , pi. 27, figs. 1, 2). 
This is evidently not a true Loligopsis and belongs, in all probability, to my genus 
Calliteuthis. It agrees very closely, even to the coloration, and the form of the fins 
and pen, with my C. reversa, but differs in having serrate suckers. This species 
should, therefore, be called Calliteuthis ocellata. It is much larger than my specimen, 
but like the latter, had lost the tentacular arms. The genus probably belongs to the 
Chiroteuthidse. 
