310 
BUI^LETIN op the bureau op PISHERIE&. 
Measurements of Sepioteuthis arctipinnis. 
Number in author's register 
45 
1 
42 1 
Number in author’s register 
45 
4 * 
Sex 
& 
? 
cT 
5 
Length of mantle (dorsal) 
187 
54 
120 
38 
41 
58 
71 
mm, 
163 
55 
90 
25 
38 
48 
72 
Length of — 
ntm, 
87 
73 
23 
mm. 
81 
77 
184 
60 
4 
3 
Width of mantle anteriorly 
Width across fins at widest point 
Width of fin at widest point (ventral) 
Width of head 
Hectocotylized portion 
Tentacle 
Length of— 
Dorsal arm 
Second arm 
Diameter of largest suckers on tentacle 
Diameter of largest suckers on third arms 
3 
3 
Type locality . — Island of Maui (Gould). 
Distribution. — Honolulu, Oahu (Albatross, Jenkins, etal.);Maui (Gould); Bertrand Id., north coast 
of Paxjua ? (Wiilker). 
Specimens of Sepioteuthis arctipinnis Examined. 
No. ot 
speci- 
mens. 
Locality. 
Collector. 
Sex. 
Where deposited. 
Author’s 
register. 
cf 
9 
Juv. 
d 
U.S. Nat.Mus 
42 
Remarks . — The large male from Honolulu, which is the subject of the major portion of the pre- 
ceding paragraphs, shows certain differences from the description of Gould. Its fins are proportion- 
ately wider (the two taken together considerably more than equaling the body in width at their widest 
point), and the ventral arms are longer, considerably exceeding the head in length. These divergencies 
do not seem important, however, and on the w'hole the specimens indicate that 5. arctipinnis is probably 
to be regarded as a good species, even though not a very strongly differentiated one. 
As compared with male specimens of a near ally, 5. lessoniana Ferussac, from Wakanoura, Japan, 
the following differences are presented: The animal is smaller, the body a little more slender, more 
regularly tapering, and the posterior extremity somewhat more acute. The fins do not extend quite so 
far forward, they do not possess so symmetrically curving an outline, and the point of their widest 
expansion is at the posterior tliird instead of at near the middle. The “olfactory crest ” is less developed 
and its lobes angled rather than roimded. The minutiae of the hectocotylized arm are slightly different, 
although this may be due to the method of preservation. Lastly, the suckers of the sessile arms have 
a decidely fewer number of teeth on their homy rings; the variance between the homy rings of the ten- 
tacular suckers is very slight but in the same direction. The marginal thickenings of the gladius are 
also worthy of note, but these have already been called to attention by Tryon. On the whole tlie 
relationship between the species is exceedingly close, but so far as my material goes the two may be 
readily separated by means of the characters noted. 
This is another important edible form. 
Genus LOLIGO Schneider 1784. 
Loligo Schneider 1784, p. no. 
Loligo Lamarck 1798 {fide Hoyle); 1799. p. n {fide yatta.). 
Loligo Verrill i88i, p. 307. 
Body elongate, tapering posteriorly. Fins terminal; rhomboidal in the young, in the adult more 
or less sagittate. 
