334 
bulletin oe The bureau OE EISHERIES. 
Remarks. — Only two species of Pterygioteuthis have been recognized previous to the present one. 
The first of these and type of the genus is the P. giardi Fischer, originally described from a specimen 
taken by the Talisman at a depth of 1105 meters off the coast of Morocco. In 1904 Hoyle published a 
much more detailed account of some specimens thought to represent the same species which were cap- 
tmed by the Albatross in the eastern tropical Pacific at depths ranging from 551 to 1,201 fathoms. In 
1908 Chrm issued a brief diagnosis of a second species, P. gemmata, which was secured by the Valdivia 
expedition in the South Atlantic. When the present specimens from the Albatross Hawaiian collec- 
tions were first being examined by the writer, Chun’s paper had not yet come to hand, so that they were, 
after a little hesitation, referred to P. giardi and were indeed recorded under this name in a preliminary 
publication. Since that time the appearance of the great monograph of the Valdivia Oegopsids by 
Chun has greatly increased and simplified our understanding of the genus, so that upon a reexamination 
of the specimens and a patient working out of the details (often seriously obsciured by the woeful preser- 
vation of the material) the conclusion was reached that a new species is represented, which though in 
many respects very close to P. giardi, in some ways shows an approach to P. gemmata, and in others is 
somewhat different from either. The relationship of the three species is well shown by a consideration 
of their more important diagnostic characters grouped in parallel columns. 
Diagnostic Characters op the Species op Pterygioteuthis. 
P. giardi. 
P. microlampas. 
P. gemmata. 
15 subocular organs; the s small anterior ones 
14 subocular organs; arrangement 
similar to P. giardi, but 4 instead of 
5 small anterior organs, and the last 
of these not in line with the others. 
14 subocular organs; arrangement very 
different. 
Dorsal arms with 3 hooks near middle of arm 
(both rows affected) and about 5 pairs of 
suckers proximally; 2d and 3d arms with 
2-3 hooks (both rows). No suckers at tips 
of any arms save dorsal pair. 
Dorsal arms with 3 hooks near middle 
of ventral row, with 6-7 pairs of 
suckers proximally; 2d and 3d arms 
with 3 hooks in ventral row and 7 
suckers proximally; suckers con- 
tinuing distally to tips. 
Dorsal, 2d, and 3d arms with 4-5 hooks 
near middle of ventral row. 
Ventral arms devoid of both hooks and suckers. 
Ventral arms with no hooks; suckers 
minute and confined to distal half 
of arm. 
Ventral arms with no hooks; but with 
small suckers throughout their 
length. 
Three suckers in fixing apparatus. 
Chitinous plate between the glandular 
ridges of the hectocotylus finely 
toothed. 
Chitinous plate between the glandular ridges of 
the hectocotylus bidentate. 
It is an unfortimate but curious fact that practically all of the specimens of this genus which have 
been obtained have been defective in one way or another. As a rule either the eyes have burst or the 
arms are badly damaged or both types of mutilation have occmred. This appears to be due to the 
fragile and incoherent natme of the tissues, which seem tmable to withstand the great changes in pressure 
which they are forced to tmdergo in being pulled up from the depths in which they live. According 
to present evidence it appears that even in a preserving medium they are apt to gradually disintegrate, 
and despite the utmost vigilance and care the handling necessarily incidental to a thorough examination 
is often fatal. This was the case with the specimen which was the subject of Mr. Hudson’s excellent 
drawing, for though evidently perfect at that time, it was in such fragmentary condition when it came 
into my hands that no accurate description of it could be given and it became necessary to utilize the 
second individual as the type, although the account of the photogenic organs of the eye has been mainly 
drawn from the former specimen. 
I can not forbear adding that there are certain discrepancies in the various descriptions given by 
Fischer, Joubin, Hoyle, and Chun for P. giardi which cause me to feel some doubt as to whether all their 
specimens are really referable to the same species, an imcertainty which is by no means diminished 
when the localities furnishing the respective specimens are taken into consideration. 
