268 
bulletin of the bureau of fisheries. 
CLASSinCATION AND NOMENCLATURE. 
In conformity with my “Review of the Cephalopods of Western North America” 
(Berry, 1912a) I have followed the general lines of cephalopod classification laid down 
in the various works of Hoyle, with certain modifications adapted from Pfeifer’s “Synop- 
sis” (1900) and the masterly monograph of the Valdivia CEgopsida by Chun (1910). 
The present material has afforded few bizarre forms and, although highly important 
from a distributional and local standpoint, accomplishes very little toward the elucida- 
tion of the wider evolutionary problems. Of decided iinportance, however, is the 
discovery of an otherwise typical member of the family Cirroteuthidce, which is remarkable 
not only for being the second species in the entire group known to possess an odontophore, 
but also for its apparently total lack of the alternating rows of cirri along the arms, 
hitherto thought to be a characteristic as invariable as it is puzzling. The occurrence 
of a Pacific Scceurgus and a new sepiolid having affinity with the Atlantic Stoloteuihis 
leucoptera is also noteworthy. The presence in the collection of a large series of young 
ommastrephids comprising at least two Rhyncoteuthion-\\k& forms specifically distinct 
from one another indicates that the occurrence of the curious Rhy'ticoteuthion stage is 
an exceedingly widespread ontogenetic character in this family and one by no means 
confined to the typical genus. 
The primary division of the Dibranchiata of Owen into the Octopoda (devilfishes) 
and Decapoda (squids®), as proposed by Leach in 1817, is here adhered to, although 
the latter term is very confusing in view of the prior use of the name for a well-known 
group of Crustacea (Decapoda Latreille 1806). In many respects the restoration of 
Blainville’s Octocera and Decacera would be much more satisfactory, an excuse for 
discarding the complementary term Octopoda being possibly available because of the 
existence of Octopodia Schneider 1784, which was proposed as a general term for the 
entire class over a decade before Cuvier called them Cephalopoda. 
I have found myself quite unable to accept the various major divisions into which 
some authors have grouped the Octopoda, but on the other hand I have been unable to 
formulate any more natural arrangement of my own which could be utilized in their 
stead. In regard to the Decapoda, however, the anciently recognized bifurcation into 
Myopsid and CEgopsid forms seems very convenient and on the whole a natural separa- 
tion. Chun’s further division of the latter group into CEgopsida libera and CEgopsida 
consuta appears to me cumbersome and but little superior to the nearly or quite synony- 
mous Teuthidea and Taonidea of Verrill. For the purposes of the present paper it is 
not, however, necessary to adopt either system. 
In the arrangement of the families themselves scarcely any two authors are in 
entire agreement, so that the sequence herein followed can be regarded as in no way 
more than provisional. 
A word should be said in regard to the sort of morphological characters chiefly 
depended upon by the author in distinguishing species ; that is, beyond such conspicuous 
differences in bodily structure and general form as obviously require no explanation 
a In the Hawaiian Islands the term “squid *’ is colloquially employed to include nearly all cephalopods, especially the edible 
forms such as Polypus^ even though the usage is not scientific nor accurate English. 
