CEPHALOPODA OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 
265 
origin to O. pacificus (and sloanii ?) , and Sepioteuthis arctipinnis is similar or identical with 
5. lessoniana, but without exception all the species most truly characteristic of the one 
area are conspicuous only by their absence in the other. We are able to correlate at least 
a portion of the Japanese fauna with that of western North America much more suc- 
cessfully. 
In summing up, then, it may be said that, although the ensemble of Hawaiian cepha- 
lopoda shows many features peculiar to itself, it appears reasonable to regard it as an 
offshoot, now largely isolated, of the great Indo-Malayan fauna, and therefore impossi- 
ble of any definite or satisfactory correlation with that of other regions of the north 
Pacific. That this statement is in substantial accord with the conclusions reached by 
students of other groups of animals is readily seen by a glance at almost any of the 
monographs dealing particularly with the fauna of the archipelago. 
Nutting (Bulletin U. S. Fish Commission, vol. xxiii, for 1903, p. 934, 1906) in 
discussing the hydroids says that they “ have unmistakable relationship with the Aus- 
tralian region, ” although (p. 935) “ as would be expected from the isolated position of the 
Hawaiian Islands, the preponderance of peeuliar species is very exceptionally large.” 
Miss Rathbun reaches similar conclusions from a study of the decapod crustaceans. 
She says that “the Hawaiian fauna is almost entirely Indo-Pacific, the islands forming 
the northeastern, as the Indian Ocean is the southwestern, limit for the majority of the 
species” (t. cit., p. 830, 1905). She finds but few species peculiar to the islands, however. 
Fisher (t. cit., p. 999, 1906) finds the distribution of the starfishes indicative of 
entirely similar phenomena. He writes that “we are at once struck by the fact that the 
Hawaiian fauna bears more resemblance to that of the distant Indian region than it 
does to the fauna of America, notwithstanding that all the ocean currents which pass 
the Hawaiian Islands are coming from America and not from the west.” 
In the case of the shore fishes Jordan and Evermann (t. cit., p. 32, 1905) have found 
the fauna to be “frankly and entirely tropical, all the species belonging to genera char- 
acteristic of the tropical Pacific,” but most of the species themselves seem to be peculiar 
to the islands. 
The conclusions of Gilbert (t. cit., p. 578, 1905), after his critical examination of 
the deep-sea fishes collected by the Albatross, are especially full of interest : “An analysis 
of the list of species recorded in the present paper shows conclusively that the bathybial 
fishes of Flawaii, like those of its reefs and shores, have been derived as a whole from the 
west and south, and not from the east or north. In its entire facies, the fauna is strik- 
ingly unlike that of the Pacific coast of Mexico and Central America, and resembles 
strongly the assemblage of forms discovered by the Albatross and the Challenger off the 
coasts of Japan and the East Indies. Some of its members find their nearest known 
affines in the Bay of Bengal.” 
On the other hand, Mayer (t. cit., p. 1133, 1906) in his report on the Medusae writes 
that “it appears the majority of the Hawaiian forms are of wide distribution,” a con- 
clusion entirely harmonious with what v/e know regarding such cephalopods as are of 
similar habit. 
