Botany and Zoology. 73. 
surprise that he has not compared any of the portions that he 
describes with the corresponding parts of the equally large and 
very closely allied oe carefully described and figured 
Harting in 1861 (see Ceph. N. E. Am., p. 240), and to which I 
gave, in 1880, the well-merited name, Hartingii. It is not improb- 
able that the two forms are really identical, but this cannot be 
shee determined from bthe figures, because the a ony kode te 
cases. Har rting baieedi socher sats the teeth of the radii 
which appear to be very peculiar, if his figure is correct, (see m 
pl. xxiv, fig. 46). The shape of the mandibles appears to be 
different in the two species, however, and the large hooks differ 
differ in form and structure. The describers of this arm would 
doubtless have been able to ascertain to which pair it belonged 
by a direct comparison with the arms of Ommastrephes, or any 
pi fone related genus, 
or this arm, Professor Owen endeavors to establish a new 
genus and species arse grandis). The genus is based 
mainly on the fact that there is a marginal crest along each outer 
angle, and a narrow, paler membrane along each side of the 
nathenbeiattig face. These peculiarities are aeetiea those seen 
in the ventral arms of Architeuthis, and have already been de- 
scribed by me in former articles (see Ce ph. N. i. Amer., p. 214), as 
found in A. princeps. Similar membranes or crests are found on 
the dorsal arms of Sthenoteuthis pteropus and other related species. 
The protective or marginal membranes outside of the suckers are 
found in many allied genera. 
The suckers on the arm, as described and figured by Professor 
bit ~~ exactly like those of Architeuthis. Therefor e, there is 
Whether the arm in question cloak toa species distinet from 
vet already named, 4 am unable to sa y There is, mtg we 
