412 
William 
Evans Hoyle; 
Polypus, Schneider, 1784 [no type given]. 25 
Procalistes, Lankester, 1884. P. suhmi, Lk., 1884 [monotypic] (= Taonidium?), Brit. Mus.! 26 
Promachoteuthis , Hoyle, 1885. P. megaptera, Hoyle, 1885 [monotypic]. Brit. Mus.! 
Pteroteuthis, de Blainville, 1824. Loligo vulgaris , Lister = L. forbesi Stp. (= Loligo). 
Pteroteuthis, Ehrenberg, 1831. P. arabica, Ehbg., 1831 [monotypic.] (— Loligo), 
Pterygioteuthis, H. Fischer, 1895. P. giardi, H. Fischer, 1895 [monotypic]. 
Pyrgopsis, de Bochebrune, 1884. P. rhynchopherus, deKochebr., 1884 [monotypic] (—Zygocranchia), 
Pyroteuthis, Hoyle, 1904. Enoploteuthis margaritifera , Büppel], 1844 [monotypic]. 
Bhombosepion, de Bochebrune, 1884. Sepia rupellaria d’Orbigny, 1834 [sp. first mentioned] (— Sepia + 
Sepiella partim). 
Phynchoteuthion, Pfeffer, 1908. (See RhyncJioteuthis, Chun, 1903). 
Phynchoteuthis , d’Orbigny, 1847 [a generic name applied to the fossilized beaks of Cephalopoda; 
I cannot find that a type has ever been fixed]. 
Bhynchoteuthis, Chun, 1903 (— Phynchoteuthion,) 27 
Possia, Owen, 1834. R. palpebrosa, Owen’ 1834 [monotypic]. 
Sandalops, Chun, 1906. S. melancholicus, Chun, 1906 [monotypic]. 
Scaeurgus, Troschel, 1857. S. titanotus, Tr., 1857 [sp. first named]. 
Sciadephorus, Beinhardt & Prosch, 1846. Girroteuthis mülleri, Eschricht, 1836 [monotypic] (— Cirro- 
teuthis). Copenhagen Mus. 
Semirossia, Steenstrup, 1887. Heteroteuthis tenera, Verrill, 1880 [designation]. 28 
Sepia, Finne, 1758. S. offcinalis, L., 1758 [elimination]. 
Sepiadarium, Steenstrup, 1881. S. kochii , Stp., 1881 [monotypic.]. 
Sepiella , Gray, 1849. Sepia ornata, Bang, 1837 [sp. first named]. 
Sepiola , Schneider, 1784 [no type given]. S. rondeletii, Leach, 1817. 29 
Sepioteuthis, de Blainville, 1824. S, sepiacea, Blv., 1824 (This specific name is a lapsus calami 
or a misprint for L. sepioidea, Blv., 1823). 
25 This genus being by definition equivalent to the first two species referred to by Lamarck to his Octopus will 
naturally take the same type as this genus, viz. O. vulgaris. 
26 The validity of the name Procalistes as against Taonidium demands a brief discussion. The identification 
of the larval form described by Lankester, with the larger specimens fignred in the “Challenger” Report seemed to 
me at the time very plausible and had the support of the late Professor Steenstrup. Now in view of the number of 
Taonius- like species since discovered I cannot regard this identification ai;s beyond question. If it should prove true 
then Procalistes must replace Taonidium. Chun considers that he has evidence that Galiteuthis is an older form of 
Taonidium; but this has not yet been made public. If it be so then Galiteuthis must replace Taonidium and it 
may be that Procalistes will replace both. At present it seems to me wise, until further evidence is forthcoming, to 
retain the name Procalistes for the larva, Taonidium for the “Challenger” specimens from Station 159, and Galiteuthis 
for Joubin’s species. 
27 No species is mentioned by the original describer; the only named species is R. chuni Hoyle, 1904; the forms 
on which genus is based are probably the young stages of some Ommastrephid and in addition the name is preoccupied. 
28 Steenstrup does not state in so many words that Verrill’s species is the type of his genus, but from the way 
in which be treats of this and of the other form (R. patagonica, Smith) there can, I think, be no doubt as to which 
he regarded as typical. 
29 Leach gives no authority for the species S- rondeletii and the only identification is a reference to „ Sepiola 
sepiola Linnö” as a synonym. This would seem to require that Limits name should take precedence, and such would 
be the case were it possible to ascertain what Linn6 meant by his S. sepiola. I have failed to discover this and no 
subsequent writer has given an adequate definition. S. rondeletii has, however, been satisfactorily characterised by 
d’Orbigny and I am of opinion that this name should stand as that of the type species of the genus Sepiola. 
