270 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
Wherever a specimen appeared to possess definable characters of its own, however 
minute, the present writer has ranked himself frankly with the “splitters,” especially 
in cases where the nearest known ally of such a form has been described from a far dis- 
tant region. This procedure has not been resorted to from any desire to describe “new 
species,” but because of a conviction that wherever a given animal from a definite 
locality can be referred to a previously named species only with considerable doubt, 
the exigencies of systematic zoology are much better to be subserved by the provisional 
use of a separate name. To many a student of geographical distribution the possible 
evil of one more synonym does not seem nearly so repugnant as the improper listing 
of a species, through imperfect or incorrect knowledge of its totality of characters, from 
a region where it does not (often even remotely) belong. 
In matters of taxonomy the writer has unreservedly sought strict literal obedience 
to the published rules of the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature. 
Thanks to the careful work of previous authors, notably Hoyle, this procedure has not 
resulted in the demolition of very many teuthologic landmarks. It is possible that 
additional changes ought in some instances to be made, but wherever any given case did 
not clearly appear to be governed by some definite rule in the code, the current prevail- 
ing usage was adhered to. 
It might be well to call attention to the fact that in the verbal orientation of speci- 
mens for purposes of description, the terms anterior and posterior, dorsal and ventral 
have been used in their usual physiological sense (i. e., with relation to the normal activi- 
ties of the adult animal) rather than in their strict morphological (and embryological) 
significance, which latter would necessarily result in a more complete reformation of 
the current anatomical nomenclature than could well be attempted at the present time. 
It must be admitted, however, that to the student of molluscan comparative anatomy 
recourse to a system of topographic names based on the latter system would have much 
to commend it. 
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE. 
In the Hawaiian Islands, as in most other maritime countries, the common littoral 
cephalopods form a very important source of food. Both Polypus (particularly P. 
marmoratus and ornatus, to judge from the market specimens before me) and Sepioteuthis 
are frequently offered for sale in the Honolulu markets. The Hawaiian word denoting 
the Polypus, and perhaps other fonns as well, is “hee.” Cobb (1905, pp. 734, 736, 740) 
gives the following interesting account of some of the various modes of procedure resorted 
to by the natives for their capture : 
Spears are frequently used in fishing for the hee (octopus), principally by women. This animal 
generally makes its home in small circular holes in the rocks on the reefs. When the fisherwoman finds 
a hole that she thinks is occupied she runs the spear into it gently. Should a hee be there it comes out 
to see what is the matter, the spear is run through it, and it is brought to the surface. The woman usually 
carries a smaller spear also, and with this she pricks or hits the animal in the head until it is stunned or 
killed, otherwise it might twine around her arms or legs and cause serious difficulty. 
