ist

te
2
it

a
o
*
if

rte)

t
a

i

ty
reese

ey

4

es

*

Aish

ttieh

ibis
Its

rites

reais

ith a!
Hany

fateh
ee eereekans
g

ry

e

se

ra
3)
>

3

i

3

He

ie

Ey

+

i

5

yer
ste

+
3

os

ah

¥

*

it

7
a3

ie

Uperdsseleres

epbieieppeiere es

perro araeaae

ny bem,

Tit Boies,
=

ssermerarare

iB

ra

oz}

aonb

a th
OE orb
sete

z 1
ret)

ah
ts

te
ay

ad j
i iY
abehatet,
- +14

say

ous

=

Searennn

vet jot

+
reshtaaty

:
rh
piace

ite

te a 1s)

rie

34

ra
5
oe

e

wie!
i i

pete Hi
pepepayaae

e

rn

2
a

‘2 Sh : i"
sieyeaey ihiies sets ase

Te

piesa
ra oo

aieeie
Ai aunt Ht

faeet hayes sis iis,
sere ete essed tt HBEuIHS
dopiyo aide vena segurenene se sevoneNn eyes
i rater Seen
ee sca

sieen
aes) re AY
alee sees tere ardstts
wh 4 eins

rexta

eases
a
ebeh

*

Sr Seses pr eroPSvauE a TenePSUSTaTSTE aN
gagetatere seer ae ae Ns tare Pye enay StS eD

adie area

ta

eaters

beste

a z ' be
waeky sedge;
<eeaehs Feet rest
setae th ae a aoe}
batayrearseaesereae rere oes :
sheeneaseontese sett} it gts ie a3

5
dies
rs
Baebes
r
sord

‘2

stay

*
ty
i

ie

aie

a.
paste

sats
peeseeeesresteLs areeese Lessa

:

vi

er

in

a;

¢
ai Sere pera ee
i Hite Weintrernaent ree

4)

$

i
=

i eit

biepecdaey
aaa {

.

atte

tek
pueda

: ats s

bapere SeateaT Tee
a
Hy

rates

eee
peaetete ef
trey:

eefietsesd

-
if
eyeie
is]

oy

G st
ra

erst ctor sr ops
$jheshore)

TRS toto SLI ora os

t

Nea hind it }

SMITHSONIAN
INSTITUTION

HEU

Amgueddta Genedlacthol Cymen.
Lational Duseum of ales.

Wye ay CF
Wilh Ve Qe, Compliments

i

(ee
neat
Mea ;
'

EDITORIAL NOTES.

Tus Volume contains Parts XLIV., XLV., XLVI., and XLVII. of the
Zoological Series of Reports on the Scientific Results of the Expedition.

Part XLIV.—Professor T. H. Huxley at one time proposed to undertake
the description of the Crpnanoropa brought home by the Expedition. His
many engagements, however, compelled him to give up this intention, so far
as regards the whole collection, but he retained, and is now engaged in the
preparation of a Report on, the genus Sprrura. The remainder of the
Cephalopod collection was placed in the hands of Mr. W. E. Hoyle, in
1883, soon after his appointment as Naturalist on the Editorial Staff of
the Challenger Reports.

The results of Mr. Hoyle’s investigations are given in this part, which, in
addition to the description of many new forms, will be found to contain an

able revision of our knowledge of existing species up to the present time.

Part XLV.—The collections of Sromaroropa were placed in the hands of
Professor W. K. Brooks of Johns Hopkins University, for examination and
description, some years after the return of the Expedition. The collections.
contained few adult specimens, but were rich in larval forms obtained at the
surface of the ocean in many different localities, by means of tow-nets.
Professor Brooks has thus been enabled to make a more extensive survey than
heretofore of the relations between larve and adults, and to elucidate many
points in their complicated life history. The Report thus forms a valuable

contribution to a difficult subject, and will be welcomed by all Naturalists.

Vill THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Part XLVI.—The collection of Rrrr-Corats formed during the Expedi-
tion was a relatively small one, being chiefly made up of a few specimens from
each of the localities visited. When, however, the collection was compared
with that in the British Museum it was found to be of much greater interest
than was at first supposed. Mr. John J. Quelch, B.Sc., who made this com-
parison, was consequently induced to prepare the present detailed Report, which
contains, in addition to the descriptions of new species, an important contri-

bution to our knowledge of the geographical distribution of these animals.

Part XLVII.—This is the second part of the Report on the Human
CRANIA AND OTHER BonEs oF THE SKELETON, by Professor Sir William Turner,
Knt., F.R.S. As in the first part of the Report, dealing with the Crania,
Sir William Turner has not limited his investigations to a description of the
Skeletons actually collected by the Expedition, but has embodied in his
research an account of a number of other Skeletons, and the descriptions of
preceding writers. The whole Report thus forms a valuable contribution to
the Comparative Osteology of the Races of Man.

JoHN Murray.

CHALLENGER OFFICE, 32 QuEEN STREET,
Epinsureu, 15th August 1886.

ERRATA —PART XLIV.

Page 14, line 8 from bottom, for “vol. iv.” read ‘vol. vi.”

Page 67, at the top of the page insert “ Division II. Trachyglossa, Liitken.”
Page 68, line 7 from bottom, for “ Bobitena” read “ Bolitena,”

Page 136, line 6, for “Gray” read ‘“ Quoy.”

Page 217, line 4 from bottom, for “ Monchezia” read “ Mouchezia.”

Page 219, after line 20, insert ‘ Architeuthus martensi.”

Page 220, footnote, for ‘‘d’Abigny ” read “ d’Orbigny.”

THE

VOYAGE OF H.M.8. CHALLENGER.

ZOOLOGY.

REPORT on the Czpuatoropa collected by H.M.S. Challenger during
the years 1873-76. By Wi1iam Evans Hovis, M.A. (Oxon.),
M.R.C.S., F.R.S.E., Naturalist on the Editorial Staff of the
Challenger Reports.

PREFACE.

On the return of the Challenger the whole collection of Cephalopoda was placed by
Sir Wyville Thomson in the hands of Professor Huxley for examination and description,
and it will be regretted by all naturalists that this Report was not prepared by that
eminent master in the science of comparative anatomy. Professor Huxley’s numerous
engagements, however, prevented him from undertaking more than the investigation of
the single specimen of Spirula which was obtained by the Expedition. The remainder of
the collection was offered to me by Mr. John Murray in the autumn of 1882, and within
the first few weeks of 1883 I received the specimens from South Kensington. Since
that period almost all my spare time has been occupied in the work of drawing up the
present Report. .

The lack of any collection of Cephalopoda in Edinburgh rendered progress slow at
first, but im the summer of 1884, by the invitation of Professor Steenstrup, I took the
Challenger specimens over to Copenhagen and spent a month in comparing them with
the unrivalled collection in the Zoological Museum of that city. I have also paid twe
visits to the British Museum, and one of only a day or two in duration to the Museum
of the Jardin des Plantes in Paris. In this connection I must express my thanks in
the first place to Mr. John Murray for having placed so important and interesting a

(ZOOL. CHALL. EXP.—PART XLIv.—1886.) Xx@

nt THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

piece of work in my hands, and for the kindness and consideration with which he has at
all times assisted me in carrying it out. Iam indebted also to Dr. Giinther and Mr.
Edgar A. Smith for facilitating my examination of the National Collection, and to the
latter gentleman in particular for notes and comparisons which he has been good enough
to make forme. In addition, my thanks are due to Professor H. Ray Lankester, F.R.S.,
to Dr. Paul Fischer, and to my friend Dr. Georg Pfeffer for having courteously answered
a number of questions regarding specimens in their charge; to Dr. Jatta of the Naples
Zoological Station ; to Dr. P. H. Carpenter, F.R.S., for information regarding the cruise
of the “ Porcupine”; to Dr. A. T. de Rochebrune for having shown me several of the
valuable type specimens in the Museum of the Jardin des Plantes; and to Dr Maurie,
the able librarian of the Linnean Society, for assistance in the bibliography of the subject.

No ordinary acknowledgment, however, is sufficient to indicate the extent of my
obligation to my good friend Professor Steenstrup ; not only did he allow me durmg my
sojourn in Copenhagen the greatest freedom of access to the invaluable collection under
his charge, but also gave up many hours to assist me in the work of comparison, and
since my return he has been good enough to answer numerous questions regarding
points of uncertainty or confusion, and has read over the proofs of this Report, which
has thus been saved from many errors, which it must otherwise have contained.

In addition to the Challenger collection the present memoir treats of those obtained
by H.M.SS. “ Porcupine,” “ Knight Errant,” and “Triton;” those from the two latter
expeditions were placed in my hands by Mr. John Murray, while the specimens collected
by the “ Porcupine,” which had been handed by the late Dr. Gwyn Jeffreys to Professor
Steenstrup, were transferred by him to me that they might be treated of along with the
others; a few specimens from the ‘“ Valorous” Expedition were also received with
them.

The present Report is almost exclusively systematic in its scope, but I hope to be
able within a year to prepare a Supplement giving an account of the anatomical exami-
nation of those specimens which are available for the purpose.

The ten years which have now elapsed since the return of the Challenger, have
to some extent impaired the novelty of this Report ; in that interval marine zoological
investigation in general, and deep-sea dredging in particular, have been so energetically
prosecuted, that no less than five genera which were first collected by the Challenger have
been since described from other sources.’

1 Alloposus, Eledonella, Inioteuthis, Mastigoteuthis, Calliteuthis.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE

A PROVISIONAL SYNOPSIS OF RECENT CEPHALOPODA, . B : : - 1
Explanation of the more abbreviated references, F : : ; ; : 48
DESCRIPTIONS OF GENERA AND SPECIES, . 5 ; : : é 53
Order, DIBRANCHIATA, Owen, ‘ ‘ A : ; ‘ 5 i 55
Suborder I. Ooropopa, Leach, : ‘ : : f ; : 5 55
Division I. Lioglossa, Liitken, 5 : : ' : ! : 55
Family I. Pteroti, Reinhardt et Bene : : : 3 3 : 55
Cirroteuthis, Eschricht, ; a : ‘ : : : : 55

na Magna, D, Sp., . : ; : : ; : : 56

* pacifica, n. sp., : F 4 : ; ; ae 61

, meangensis, D. Sp. ; $ : ; . : é 63

oe Gy. a : F : : 4 ; ; : 66

Division If. Trachyglossa, Liitken, ; : ; ; : : : 67
Family Il. Amphitretide, n. fam.,. ‘ : : : : : 67
Amphitretus, n. gen., ~ 6 : : : ; 5 : Q 67

3 pelagicus, n. sp. , : : ; : . : 67

Family III. Argonautide, Cantraine, : 5 ‘ : : ; 69
Argonauta, Linné, . é : ; 4 : ; : : 69

3 argo, Linné, . : : ; 5 : ‘ 69

Family IV. Philonexide, Lome: : F : : , é 70
Tremoctopus, delle Chiaje, . : ‘ 3 : 3 ; 6 70

>) quoyanus (VOrbigny), h 5 5 ; ‘ : 70

. atlanticus (d’Orbigny), : : : : : 71

4 gracilis (2) (Eydoux et Contec) ; : : : F val

Family V. Alloposide, Verrill, : , A : i : . 72
Alloposus, Verrill, . : : 4 : j : : F 72

ws mollis, Verrill, . ; 5 . : ( ; F 12,

Family VI. Octopodide, dOrbigny, 5 ; : . F : 74

Octopus, Lamarck, . ; : ; : : : : 74

» occidentalis, Steenstrup, MS. ; : ; t : : : 77

,, tuberculatus, Blainville, . : 6 é : ; : 78

» -verrucosus, D. Sp., . es : : y ; : : 79

» granulatus, Lamarck, : : ; : 4 : : 80

» voscti (Lesueur), var. pallida, p i d f : 81

» tonganus, nD. sp... : : d ; ; : 5 83

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

PAGE

Octopus vitiensis, 0. sp., . : : : : : ; : 84

» marmoratus, n. sp., ‘ : é : : ; ; 85

» areolatus, de Haan, M.S., : : F ; : ; 86
CSRS, 5 hyo : : : F : ; : 88

» tehuelchus, @Orbigny, : 5 0 : : : : 89

», duplex, 0. sp., : : i ; 5 : : A 90

» priscatorum, Verrill, é : i : : é ; Oil
anclzcus perosch, mae ; : : : : : 5 91

» pictus, Brock, j 4 ; : : : : 5 92

» pictus, var. fasciata, nov., . 5 : F j : < 94

» bermudensis, D. sp., : : : : ; : : 94

» macropus, Risso, . 3 : ‘ : : 3 . 95

» bandensis, n. sp., . . : 9 6 5 5 6 96

» januari, Steenstrup, M.S., ; : ; : ‘ is 97

» levis, D. Sp., : : : i ‘ : ; : 98

» punctatus, Gabb, . : ; : : ; j 5 Oo)

» Orevipes, d’Orbigny, : : : : q ° 5 iol

9 S29 : : 4 , : : ; , 5 101
SDS : 4 : . : 0 é 6 5 Lol
Eledone, Leach, ; : 5 : : : F On
» eirrosa (Link.), 102

» . verrucosa, Vervill, . 104

° rotunda, 0. sp., 104

55 brevis, n. sp., we : : ‘ : : Plo
Eledonella, Vervill, . : , 3 j : : : LOG
55 diaphana, 0. sp., 3 ‘ : : : : 5 Oe
Japetella, n. gen., . é : é ; : : 3 > Os
es prismatica, 0. sp., : : : : c : > Ls)
Suborder IT. Decapopa, Leach, : : : : ‘ : : 5 MO)
Division I. Myopsida, d’Orbigny, . ; F : 0 5 : 5 LiLo
Family VII. Sepiolini, Steenstrup, . 5 5 5 5 : 5 MIO)
Sepiola (Rondelet) Leach, . : f F 5 5 ; > . In@
» rondeleti, Leach, . F : : : : : > LI
Inioteuthis, Verrill, . F ; : ; : : : >
ss morset, Verrill, . : : : : : : eae?
Rossia, Owen, : ; b ; ; : : j . 114
» owent, Ball, . : 3 : 5 : 5 0 5) J sllulé

», glaucopis, Loven, . : : ; F : : 5 ING

», sublevis (2), Verrill, . é ; : ‘ : ‘ een wld

» (2) tenera (Verrill), . : : : 5 : : 5 As

» patagonica, E. A. Smith, -. , 3 ; 4 : apy el GIS)
Promachoteuthis, n. gen., . ¢ . ‘ : : . = 20
megapterd, D. Sp., - ; 0 : 4 5 20

Family VII Sepiarii, Steenstrup, . ‘ : 9 é : a 2
Subfamily Idiosepii, Steenstrup, ; ; , . : : eeli22

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA.

Spirula, Lmk.,
» peront, Lmk.,
Subfamily Eusepii, Steenstrup,
Sepia, Linné,
» smithi, n. sp.,
> papuensis, D. Sp.,
» esculenta, n. Sp.,
,, elliptica, n. sp.,
» cultrata, Steenstrup, MS.,
» recurvirostra (?), Steenstrup, .
, sulcata, n. sp.,
» andreanoides, n. sp.,
», Ktensis, n. sp.,
» obiensis, n. sp.,
Metasepia, subgen. nov.,
», (Metasepia) pfefferi, nu. sp.,
Sepiella, Gray, Steenstrup, .
5 maindront(?), de Rochebrune,
Family TX. Loliginei, Steenstrup,
Sepioteuthis, Blainville,
3 lessoniana, Férussac,
Loligo, Lamarck,
» edults, n. sp.,
» Orasiliensis, Blainville,
» kobiensis, n. sp.,
» «indica, Pfeffer,
» japonica, Steenstrup, MS.,
» galathex, Steenstrup, MS., .
» (2) ellipsura, n. sp., .
Division II. Cigopsida, d’Orbigny,
Family X. Ommastrephini, Steenstrup,
Subfamily Ommastrephide, Gill,
Ommastrephes, VOrbigny, .

3 oualaniensis (Lesson),
Todarodes, Steenstrup,
5 pacificus, Steenstrup,
Tracheloteuthis, Steenstrup,
3 riiset, Steenstrup, .
9 Sp.,

Bathyteuthis, n. gen.,
5p abyssicola, D. Sp.,
Subfamily Mastigoteuthide, Verrill,
Mastigoteuthis, Verrill,
agassizit, Verrill,

Family XI. Onychii, Steenstrup,

v1 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S, CHALLENGER.

PAGE

Subfamily Onychoteuthide, Gray, . ; 6 3 : ; > deal

Enoploteuthis, d’Orbigny, . : ; : : ; 5) leit

55 margaritiferda, Riippell, : 4 : : f meee lialt

Onychoteuthis, Lichtenstein, : : : : : : att

sp. - 5 : : : : ‘ : wn eet

Teleoteuthis, Verrill, : : ; ; : : } ot) vale

Ma cartbbea (Lesueur), . : } ; pa ; bei) key

Subfamily Gonatide, nov., . : : : 6 ; : > Mas

Gonatus, Gray, : : ; ; 0 6 5 alia

3 jelemruete Guicniensesinyy : ; : i : ; Dey uefa

Family XII. Taonoteuthi, Steenstrup, : 5 : : ; lis

Subfamily Chiroteuthide, Gray, : : : : ; : 5 lee

Chiroteuthis, d’Orbigny, : : ° 4 0 F SL,

ss (?) sp., é : é ‘ : : ; > LS

Histiopsis, n. gen., . é : : ‘ ; : b > L&O

a aalegpifians 0. Sp., : ; : 0 é : . 180

Calliteuthis, Verrill, ac ; : i 5 te é ESS)

i reversa, Verrill, : c : ; : > 188}

Family XIII. Cranchieformes, Rosctoatm . 5 . j . 184

Subfamily Cranchiade, Gray, . é : ; : 2 : Aveialltey:s

Cranchia, Leach, . ‘ : : j 0 Sin ioy:

Be (Liocranchia) reinhar ti, Siounp y : : : . 184

of SP-5 5 ; : : : : : : > UBz

Taonius, Steenstrup, : : B re : : ’ 5 US

0 hyperboreus, Steenstrup, . ; 0 : : aS i , Il

4 suhmu (Lankester), : : 5 : : : 5 LOB

Grenacher’s Pelagic Larva, . 6 a ¢ j 2 : 3 198

Order Il. TETRABRANCHIATA, Owen, : fr : : : : . 199
Family XIV. Nautilide, Owen, ; 5 5 : : 5 eo)

Nautilus, Linné, . ‘ P : : ‘ : : a ot99

35 pompilius, Linné, . : 5 : F F . 199

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, : : é : ; : ‘ > YO
List of Stations, . : : : : : 2 : : t a AMI
Tables, . ; : : Ae anes ae ; ; : : eon, DAL
Remarks, . te se : , : ; : 5 ; : . 222
BATHYMETRICAL DISTRIBUTION, F ‘ ; : 2 ne : e225
Tables, : : : 226
SUMMARY, . : : : i i : ; : F : oD
INDEX OF SYSTEMATIC NAMES, : : ; : : ‘ : 5 DBI
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES, s : ; : Be ; 5 : ZA

EXPLANATION OF THE PLATES.

Ve eRe
east

Mi,

Is
i

A PROVISIONAL SYNOPSIS OF RECENT CHPHALOPODA.

THE latest attempt to give a complete systematic account of the Cephalopoda is that of
Tryon, published in 1879;* but it labours under several disadvantages—the first and
most serious being that the author has given almost all his attention to Conchology
properly so-called, and has apparently treated the Cephalopods rather with a view of
making his Manual complete than from any special interest in them; secondly, the mode
of arrangement adopted of placing all the synonymy in the form of an alphabetical index
at the end of the volume renders it exceedingly difficult to ascertain what he includes
under each species, and, furthermore, a large number of new forms have been described
since the publication of his work, and several important contributions have been made to
our knowledge of the relations of previously described groups.

Under these circumstances it appeared that the compilation of such a list as the
present, even though it might fail, indeed necessarily must fail, to give a completely
satisfactory survey of the class, would nevertheless be of considerable use to workers in
this interesting branch of Malacology, were it only as a reliable index to the literature of
the subject, and I therefore resolved to draw up in a form fit for publication the material
gathered for use in my own investigations, and received Mr. Murray’s assent to its being
included in the present Report. I should, however, be doing injustice to Mr. Tryon did
I not acknowledge my indebtedness to his elaborate and careful index.

At present no systematic treatment of the whole class of Cephalopoda can hope to be
other than provisional, such a large percentage of the published descriptions of species
being inaccurate or insufficient for modern requirements, that nothing satisfactory can be
obtained until some worker shall do for this group what Lyman did for the Ophiuroidea
and Agassiz: for the Echini,—travel to the various museums and re-examine all such type
specimens as are at present extant ; and in the present instance it would be particularly
desirable that he should have the opportunity of comparing the different specimens side
by side.

With respect to the list itself, I have endeavoured to give a reference to the original
creation of each species and such others as might be necessary to indicate the important
points in its history, or good descriptions and figures of it; save in one or two cases of

1 Manual of Conchology, vol. i.
(ZOOL, CHALL, EXP.—PART XLIv.—1886.) Xx 1

-

2 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

special interest, I have not attempted to give complete synonymies. I have especially
avoided registering species as identical without such evidence as seemed to me absolutely
conclusive, for, so far from tending to simplicity and clearness, hasty and indiscriminate
identifying of species can only lead to the utmost confusion. It is too much to hope that
there should be no mistakes in the references, but every care has been taken to reduce
them to a minimum ; with the exception of a few, where the Saas) is distinctly stated,
they have all been personally verified by myself.

The Classification adopted is not identical with any previously published, but I have
endeavoured to select what was best from the works of my predecessors, modifying their
results when it seemed necessary. A systematic arrangement of this class, based on a
complete knowledge of their anatomy and development, as well as of their external
characters, is still and will long remain a desideratum.

The present list contains 388 species, which are disposed in 68 genera, and these
in 14 families; of which numbers 32 species, 4 genera, and 1 family are new to
science. Of these at least 60 or 70 species have been inadequately characterised,
so that it is unlikely that they could be recognised from the published descriptions, and
the same is true of several of the genera; hence it may be said in round numbers that
we are acquainted with 50 genera of recent Cephalopoda containing 300 species. It is
worthy of remark that 29 or half the genera contain only one species each, while
nearly one-half the species (170) belong to the three genera Octopus, Sepia, and Loligo.

Crass CHPHALOPODA, Cuvier.

Siphonopoda, Lankester.

Order I DIBRANCHIATA, Owen, 1832.

Suborder I. OCTOPODA, Leach, 1818.
Division 1. Lioglossa,? Liitken, 1882.

Family 1. Prerori, Reimhardt et Prosch.

CrIRROTEUTHIDA, Keferstein.

Cirroteuthis, Eschricht, 1836.
Sciudephorus, Reinhardt et Prosch, 1846.
Bostrychoteuthis, Agassiz, 1846.
Cirroteuthis miilleri, Eschricht.
1836. Cirroteuthis Miller’, Eschr., Nova Acta Acad. Cs. Leop.-Carol., t. xviii. p. 627, tabb.
xlvi.—xlviii.
1846. Sciadephorus Miilleri, Reinh. og Prosch, Om Sciadephorus Miilleri,? Kjgbenhavn.
Cirroteuthis umbellata, Fischer.

1883. Cirroteuthis umbellata, Fischer, Journ. de Conch., t. xxiii. p. 402.

Cirroteuthis magna, Hoyle (PI. XI. figs. 3-5; Pl. XII; Pl. XIII. figs. 1-4 ; p. 56).
1885. Cirroteuthis magna, Hoyle, Diagnoses L., p. 233.

Cirroteuthis pacifica, Hoyle (Pl. X.; p. 61).

1885. Cirroteuthis pacifica, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 235.

Cirroteuthis meangensis, laloyle (IE, IDX ime, ey, BSS es DIU sakese Th eee SOUL,
iS, D (3 jo, GB)

1885. Cirroteuthis meangensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 234.

Cirroteuthis plena, Verrill.
1885. Cirrhoteuthis plena, V1l., Third Catal., p. 404, pl. xlii. fig. 3.

Cirroteuthis megaptera, Verrill.
1885. Cirrhoteuthis megaptera, Vil., Third Catal., p. 405, pl. xliil. figs. 1, 2.

Without a radula (Dyreriget, p. 548, Kjgbenhayn, 1881-82).
> K. dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Afhandi., Bd. xii. pp. 185-224, tabb. iv.

4 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Stauroteuthis, Verrill, 1879.

1. Stauroteuthis syrtensis, Verrill.

1879. Stauroteuthis syrtensis, Vil., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xviii. p. 468.
1881. % s Vil., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 382, pl. xxxii. figs. 1-5.

Opisthoteuthis, Verrill, 1883.

1. Opisthoteuthis agassizi, Verrill.

1883. Opisthoteuthis Agassizii, V1l., “ Blake” Suppl., p. 113, pl. i. fig. 1; pl. ii. fig. 1.

Division 2. Trachyglossa, Liitken,’ 1882.

Family Il. AMPHITRETID4, n. fam.
Amplitretus, Hoyle, 1885.
1. Amphitretus pelagicus, Hoyle (Pl. IX. figs. 7-9; p. 67).
1885. Amphitretus pelagicus, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 235.
Family III. ARGoNAUTIDA, Cantraine, 1841.
Argonauta, Linné,’ 1756.
Ocythoé, Leach et Auctt. (non Rafinesque).
1. Argonauta argo, Linné (p. 69).
1758. Argonauta argo, Linn., Syst. Nat., ed. x. p. 708; No. 282, 231.

1817. % haustrum, Dillwyn, Descr. Catal., p. 335 (= forma aurita).

1838. > argo, V’Orb., Céph. acét. ; Argonaute, pl. 1. figs. 1, 2.

1853. 45 Gruneri, Dunker, Zeitschr. f. Malak., 1852, p. 48 (=jforma mutica).
1861. FF 3 Reeve, Conch. Icon., pl. iii. fig. 26 (= forma mutica).
1861. sy argo, Reeve, Conch. Icon., pl. iil. fig. 2c.

1861. .; haustrum, Reeve, Conch. Icon., pl. ii. (= forma aurita).

2. Argonauta tuberculata, Shaw.

Argonauta tuberculatus, Shaw, Nat. Miscell., vol. xxiii. tab. 995.°

1786. v4 nodosa, Solander, Portl. Catal., 76, 2120 (vol. ii, p. 113).

1786. 3 navicula, Solander, Portl. Catal., 42, 1055 (= forma aurita) (vol. ii. p. 112).
1787. 5s oryzata, Meuschen, Mus. Gevers., 252, No. 133,

1817. 5 gondola, Dillwyn, Deser. Catal. (= forma aurita).

1822. im tuberculosa, Lmk., Anim. s. vert., t. vil. p. 652.

1861. 3 i Reeve, Conch. Icon., pl. i. (= forma mutica).

1 Op. cit. p. 543. As I did not feel justified in removing the buccal organs from the small solitary specimen of
Amphitretus pelagicus in the collection, I am unable to say whether it belongs to the Trachyglossa or the Lioglossa.

2 Having had no opportunity of forming an independent opinion as to the values of the various recorded species
of Argonaut, I have followed von Martens (Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 3, vol. xx. p. 103, 1867), and added such
other species as have been described since the publication of that paper.

3 T have been unable to ascertain beyond doubt when this was published, for the volume bears no date. Dillwyn
(op. cit., p. xi.) gives 1790; if this be correct Solander’s name should take precedence.

Or

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA,

3. Argonauta hians, Solander.

1786. Argonauta hians, Solander, Portl. Catal., p. 44, lat. 1055 (vol. ii. p. 113).1
1822. 5 nitida, Lmk., Anim. s. vert., t. vil. p. 653.

1850. 5 Owentt, Ad. and Rv., Voy. “Samarang,” Moll, pl. iii. fig. 1.
1850. Ms gondola, Ad. and Rv., Op. cit., pl. i.

1852. : Kochiana, Dunker, Zeitschr. f. Malak., p. 49 (= var.).
1861. 5 gondola, Reeve, Conch. Icon., pl. iv. figs. 3a, 30.

4. Argonauta pacifica, Dall.
1872. Argonauta pacifica, Dall, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. vii. p. 95.

5. Argonauta expansa, Dall.
1873. Argonauta expansa, Dall, Proc. Calif. Acad., N.8., vol. iv. p. 303.

6. Argonauta bettgert, Maltzan.
1881. Argonauta Boettgert, Maltzan, Journ. de Conch., t. xxix. p. 163, pl. ix. fig. 7.

7. Argonauta gracilis, Kirk.
1885. Argonauta gracilis, Kirk, Trans. N. Zeal. Inst., vol. xvii. p. 58, pl. xiii.

Ocytho#, Rafinesque, 1814 (non Leach et auctt.).

Parasira, Steenstrup.

1. Ocythoé tuberculata, Rafinesque.*

1814. Ocythoé tuberculata, Raf., Précis découv. somiol., p. 29.

1828. Octopus catenulatus, Fér., Céph. acét.; Poulpes, pl. vi. bis et ter.

1837. » Caren, Vér., Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino, ser. 2, t. 1. p. 92, pl. i.

1838. Philonecis tuberculatus, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 87; Poulpes, pl. vi. bés et ter, pl. xxiii.
1840. Ocythoé tuberculata, Raf., Good Book, p. 63.

1849. Philonexis Alcceeus (?), Gray, B.M.C., p. 26.

1851. Octopus catenulatus, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 37, pl. xiii.

1851. », Carena, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 34, pl. xiv. figs. 2, 3; pl. xii figs. 1, 2.
1861. Parasira catenulata, Stp., Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjgbenhavn, Aar 1860, p. 333.
1869. 5 Targ., Cef. Mus. Firenze, p. 11.

1869. 5p tuberculata, Targ., Op. cit., p. 13.

1880. Ocythoé tuberculata, Stp., Ommat. Blekspr., p. 104.

1881. Parasira catenulata, Vll., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 362, pl. xxxiil. fig. 2.

1 T have not had an opportunity of seeing the Portland Catalogue but the references in brackets are taken from a
copy of Solander’s MS. in the Linnean Society’s Library, for the knowledge of which I am indebted to Dr. Murie ; it
was written by Humphreys and was formerly in the possession of G. B. Sowerby, from whom it was purchased for the
sum of £5.

2 Tt seems very improbable that this is the Octopus tuberculatus of Risso (Hist. Nat. Eur. Mérid., t. iv. p. 3, 1826);
his description does not seem to me applicable to this form, in addition to which we have Verany’s statement (Céph.
médit., p. 40) that Risso did not recognise the drawing of Octopus catenulatus (op. cit., pl. xiii.) as his species. There
can, however, be no doubt that, as Steenstrup has recently pointed out (loc. cit.), this is the species which Rafinesque
had in view in constituting the genus Ocythoé, which Leach and others have always understood to be the animal of the
Argonaut, which Rafinesque clearly states was not the case (Good Book, loc. cit.).

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Family IV. PHILONEXID 4, dOrbigny, 1838.

Tremoctopus, delle Chiaje, 1839.
Philonexis, d’Orbigny.

Tremoctopus violaceus, delle Chiaje.

1830. Tremoctopus violaceus, d. Ch., Mem. stor. nat., pl lxx. (side Ver.).

1830. Octopus velifer, Fér., Poulpes, pls. xviii., xix. (nomen tantum).

1837. » velatus, Rang, Mag. de Zool., cl. v. p. 60, pl. Ixxxix.

1838. Philonexis velifer, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 91; Poulpes, pls. xviiii—xx., pl. xxiii. figs, 2-4.
1851. Tremoctopus velifer, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 41, pl. xiv. fig. 1.

1851. 3 violaceus, Vér., Ibid., p. 41, pls. xv., xvi.

Tremoctopus quoyanus (dV Orbigny), Steenstrup (Pl. XIII. fig. 7; p. 70).

1835. Octopus (Philonexis) Quoyanus, V@Orb., Amér. mérid., p. 17, pl. ui. figs. 6-8.
1838. Philonexis Quoyanus, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 96; Poulpes, pl. xvi. figs. 6-8, pl. xxiii. fig. 5.
1861. Tremoctopus Quoyanus, Stp., Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjobenhavn, Aar 1860, p. 332.

Tremoctopus gracilis (Eydoux et Souleyet), Tryon (Pl. XIII. figs. 8, 9; p. 71).

1852. Octopus gracilis, E. et S., Voy. “ Bonite,” p. 13, pl. i. figs. 8, 9.
1879. Tremoctopus gracilis, Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. i. p. 131.

Tremoctopus atlanticus (d’Orbigny), Steenstrup (p. 71).

1835. Octopus (Philonexis) atlanticus, d’Orb., Amér. mérid., p. 19, pl. ii. figs. 1-4.
1838. Philonexis atlanticus, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 98; Poulpes, pl. xvi. figs. 4, 5.
1861. Tremoctopus atlanticus, Stp., Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjgbenhavn, Aar 1860, p. 332 (err. typ.).

Tremoctopus microstomus (Reynaud), Tryon.

1830. Octopus microstomus, Reynaud, Mag. de Zool., cl. v. p. 23, pl. xxiii.

1838. Philonexis microstomus, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 100; Poulpes, pl. x. fig. 5.
1851. Octopus Koellikeri (?), Vér., Céph. médit., p. 33, pl. x1. figs. 4, B, C.

1879. Tremoctopus microstomus, Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. i. p. 130.

Tremoctopus hyalinus (Rang), Tryon.

1837. Octopus hyalinus, Rang, Mag. de Zool., cl. v. p. 66, pl. xcil.
1838. Philonexis hyalinus, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 104; Poulpes, pl. xvi. figs. 1-3.
1879. Tremoctopus hyalinus, Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. i. p. 131.

Tremoctopus ocellatus, Brock.

1882. Tremoctopus ocellatus, Brock, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool., Bd. xxxvi. p. 601, pl. xxxvii. figs, 1, 2.

Tremoctopus semipalmatus (Owen).

1836. Octopus semipalmatus, Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. ii. p. 112, pl. xxi. figs. 12, 13.

~I

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA.

(Uncertain species.)

9. Tremoctopus dubius (Kydoux et Souleyet), Tryon.

1851. Philonewis dubia, Vér.j Céph. médit., p. 34.
1852. Octopus dubius, E. et S., Voy. “‘ Bonite,” p. 15, pl. i. figs. 10-14.
1879. Tremoctopus dubius, Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. i. p. 131.

Family V. ALLopost1p 4, Verrill, 1881.

Alloposus, Verrill, 1880.
Haliphron (?), Steenstrup.

1. Alloposus mollis, Verrill (p. 72).

1859. Haliphron atlanticus, Stp., Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren, Kjgbenhavn, Aar 1858, p. 183,
1880. Alloposus mollis, Vil., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xx. p. 394.
1881. Fr » VIl., Ceph. N. E. Amer., pp. 366, 420, pls. 1, li. figs. 3, 4.

Family VI. Octopopi1ps, dOrbigny, 1838.

Octoripm, dOrb. (pars).

Octopus, Lamarck, 1799.

1. Octopus vulgaris, Lamarck.

1799. Octopus vulgaris, Lmk., Mém. Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris, t. i. p. 18.

1826. » brevitentaculatus (2), Blv., Dict. d. Sci. Nat., t. xliii. p. 187,

1838. » vulgaris, V@Orb., Céph. acét., p. 26, pls. ii, iii. b¢s; pl. viii. figs. 1, 2; pls, xi.—xv.;
pl. xxix. fig. 6.

1851. s » VWér., Céph. médit., p. 16, pl. viii.

1869. » Lvroscheli(?), Targ., Cef. Mus. Firenze, p. 19.

2. Octopus salutii, Vérany.

1837. Octopus Salutii, Vér., Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino, p. 93, pl. iii.
1851. i » Vér., Céph. médit., p. 20, pl. ix.

3. Octopus occidentalis, Steenstrup., MS. (p. 77).

Octopus occidentalis, Stp., MS. in Mus. Havn.
1858. » vulgaris, var. americanus, d’Orb., Moll. Cuba, p. 14, tab. 1.

4. Octopus tuberculatus, Blainville (p. 78).
1826. Octopus tuberculatus, Blv., Dict. d. Sci. Nat., t. xl. p. 187.

5. Octopus verrucosus, Hoyle (Pl. IV.; p. 79).

1885. Octopus verrucosus, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 222.

10.

iLike

12.

13.

14.

Nay,

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Octopus granulatus, Lamarck’ (p. 80).

1792. Sepia rugosa, Bose, Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris, t. 1. p. 24, pl. v. figs. 1, 2.
1799. Octopus granulatus, Lmk., Mém. Soe. Hist. Nat. Paris, t. i. p. 20.
1838. » rugosus, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 45; Poulpes, pls. vi., xxii. fig 2.
1869. » incertus, Targ., Cef. Mus. Firenze, p. 22, tav. vi. figs. 9, 11.

Octopus boscit (Lesueur) (Pl. L., Pl. II. fig. 2; p. 81).

1821. Sepia Boscii, Les., Journ, Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., vol. i. p. 101.
1826. Octopus variolatus, Blyv., Dict. d. Sci. Nat., t. xliti. p. 186.

1838. » Boscii, d’Orb., Céph. aceét., p. 68.

1849. 53 », Gray, B.M.C., p. 12.

1885. 9 » var. pallida, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 223.

Octopus tetricus, Gould.
1852. Octopus tetricus, Gld., Moll. Wilkes Exped., p. 474, fig. 588.

Octopus polyzenia, Gray.

1849. Octopus polyzenia, Gray, B.M.C., p. 13.
1884. 5 FS E, A. Sm., “ Alert” Rep., p. 34, pl. iv. fig. a.

Octopus tonganus, Hoyle (P]. VIIL. figs. 1, 2; p. 83).
1885. Octopus tonganus, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 225.

Octopus de filippi, Verany.
1851. Octopus De-Filippii, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 30, pl. xi. figs. D, F.
1869. » De Filippi, Targ., Cef. Mus. Firenze, p. 20.

Octopus vitiensis, Hoyle (P]. VII. figs. 6-8; p. 84).
1885. Octopus vitiensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 226.

Octopus bimaculatus, Verrill.
1883. Octopus bimaculatus, VU, “Blake” Suppl., p. 121, pl. v. fig. 1; pl. vi.

Octopus marmoratus, Hoyle (Pl. VI.; p. 85).

1885. Octopus marmoratus, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 227.

Octopus areolatus, de Haan (PI. III. figs. 6, 7; p. 86).

1835. Octopus areolatus, de Haan, MS. (fide d’Orb.).

1838. i . d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 65.

1838. ,, sinensis (?), d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 68, pl. ix.

1849. » ocellatus, Gray, B.M.C., p. 15.

1886. 53 oe Appellof, Japanska Ceph., p. 8, pl. i. figs. 1, 2, 3.

1T have preferred Lamarck’s name to that of Bosc, which rests only on a very poor figure.

16.

We

18.

118).

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 9

Octopus superciliosus, Quoy et Gaimard.

1832. Octopus superciliosus, Q. eb G., Voy. “Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 88, pl. vi. fig. 4.
1838. _ % d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 41; Poulpes, pl. x. fig. 3, pl. xxviii. fig. 6.

Octopus australis, Hoyle (Pl. II. figs. 4, 5; p. 88).
1885. Octopus australis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 224,

Octopus membranaceus, Quoy et Gaimard.

1832. Octopus membranaceus, Q. et G., Voy. “ Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 89, pl. vi. fig. 5.
1882. Amphioctopus membranaceus, Fischer, Man. de Conch., p. 333.

Octopus carolinensis, Verrill.

1884. Octopus Carolinensis, V1l., Second Catal. p. 235.
SS5 sues 43 VIL, Third Catal. pl. xlii. fig. 4.

Octopus horridus, @Orbigny.

1826. Octopus horridus, @Orb., Tabl. méth., Ann. d. Sci. Nat., t. vii. p. 144, No. 4.
1838. 5 4 d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 51; Poulpes, pl. vii. fig. 3.
1848. » argus, Krauss, Stidafrik. Moll. p. 132, pl. vi. fig. 26.

Octopus aculeatus, d’Orbieny.

1825. Octopus aculeatus, d’Orb., Céph. acét.; Poulpes, pl. vii. (nomen tantum).
1838. 5 p d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 53; Poulpes, pl. vii. figs. 1, 2, pl. viii. fig. 1,
pl. xxii. figs. 3, 4.

Octopus tenebricus, KE. A. Smith.
1884. Octopus tenebricus, KE, A. Sm., “ Alert” Rep., p. 35, pl. iv. fig. B.

Octopus megalocyathus, Gould.
1852. Octopus megalocyathus, Gld., Moll. Wilkes Exped., p. 471, fig. 586.

Octopus fontanianus, dV Orbigny.

1835. Octopus fontanianus, d’Orb., Amér. mérid., p. 28, pl. ii. fig. 5.

1838. 0 0 d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 49; Poulpes, pl. xxviii. fig. 5, pl. xxix. fig. 1.
Octopus tehuelchus, d’Orbigny (p. 89).

1835. Octopus tehuelchus, @Orb., Amér. mérid., p. 27, pl. i. figs. 6, 7.

1838. y % d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 55; Poulpes, pl. xvii. fig. 6.
Octopus hawaiensis, Eydoux et Souleyet.

1852. Octopus hawaiensis, E. et 8., Voy. ‘‘ Bonite,” p. 9, pl. i. figs. 1-5.

Octopus globosus, Appellof.
1886. Octopus globosus, Appellof, Japanska Ceph., p..7, pl. i. figs. 4, 5.

(ZOOL. CHALL. EXP.—PART XLIv.—1886.) Xx 2

10 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

28. Octopus duplex, Hoyle (Pl. VII. fig. 5; p. 90).
1885. Octopus duplex, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 226.

29. Octopus lentus, Verrill.

1880. Octopus lentus, Vl., Amer. Journ. Sei. and Arts, vol. xix. p. 138.
1881, 7 » Vl., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 375, pl. xxxv. figs. 1, 2; pl. li. fig. 2.

30. Octopus obesus, Verrill.

1880. Octopus obesus, VU., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xix. pp. 137, 294.
1881. 5 », VIL, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 379, pl. xxxvi. fig. 3.

31. Octopus furvus, Gould.
1852. Octopus furvus, Gld., Moll. Wilkes Exped., p. 475, fig. 589.

32. Octopus piscatorum, Verrill (p. 91).

1879. Octopus piscatoruwm, Vil., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xviii. p. 470.
1881. “4 - Vil, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 377, pl. xxxvi. figs. 1, 2.
1885. 3 3 VIL, Third Catal., pl. xlii. fig. 5.

33. Octopus arcticus, Prosch (p. 91).

1834. Sepia gréenlandica (?), Dewh., Nat. Hist. Cetacea, p. 263.

1849. Octopus arcticus, Prosch, K. dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Skriv., Rk. 5, Bd. i. p. 53, figs, 1-3.

1856. s Stp., Hectocotyl., p. 201, Tav. 1. fig. 2.

1873. ,, Bairdii, Vil., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. v. p. 5.

1878. "5 - Sars, Moll. Reg. Arct, Norv., p. 339, pl. xxxii. figs. 1-10.

1881. 5 Vi1L, Ceph. N. E. Amer., pp. 368, 421, pl. xxxiii. fig. 1; pl. xxxiv. figs.
5,6; pl. xxxvi. fig. 10; pl. xxxviii. fig. 8; pl. xlix. fig. 4; pl. li. fig. 1.

34. Octopus verrilli, n. 0.”
1883. Octopus pictus, V1l., ‘‘ Blake” Suppl., p. 112, pl. i. fig. 3.

35. Octopus pictus, Brock (Pl. VIII. fig. 3; p. 92).

1882. Octopus pictus, Brock, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool., Bd. xxxvi. p. 603, Taf. xxxviul. fig. 3.
1883. », | maculosus, Hoyle, Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edin., vol. vil. p. 319, pl. vi.
1884. . 3 E. A. Sm., “ Alert” Rep., p. 36, pl. iv. fig. c.

36. Octopus lunulatus, Quoy et Gaimard.

1832. Octopus lunulatus, Q. et G., Voy. “ Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 86, pl. vi. figs. 1, 2,
1838. 5 35 d'Orb., Céph. acét., p. 59; Poulpes, pl. x. fig. 2, pl. xxvi. figs, 5-7.

a, ) n S
37. Octopus aranea, dOrbieny.

1826. Octopus aranea, dOrb., Céph. acét.; Poulpes, pl. v. (nomen tantum).
1838. ‘ d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 57; Poulpes, pl. v.

1 Verrill’s name having been preoccupied by Brock, I take the liberty of re-naming the species after its original
describer, who has made us acquainted with so many interesting Cephalopods.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 11

38. Octopus bermudensis, Hoyle (PI. II. fig. 5; p. 94).
1885. Octopus bermudensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 228.

39. Octopus macropus, Risso* (p. 95).
1826. Octopus macropus, Risso, Hist. Nat. Hur. mérid., t. iv. p. 3.
1826. » Cuvierii, VOrb., Céph. acét.; Poulpes, pl. iv. (nomen tantum).
1838. » Cuviert, POrb., Céph. acét., p. 18 ; Poulpes, pls. i., iv., xxiv., xxvii.
1851. » macropus, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 27, pl. x.

1869. eS Ps Targ., Cef. Mus. Firenze, p. 23.
1869. » Cuviert, Targ., Ibid. p. 24.

1886. 5 - Appelléf, Japanska Céph., p. 6, pl. i. fig. 6.

40. Octopus ornatus, Gould.
1852. Octopus ornatus, Gld., Moll. Wilkes Exped., p. 476, fig. 590.

41. Octopus gracilis, Verrill.
1884. Octopus gracilis, Vl., Second Catal., p. 236.

42. Octopus bandensis, Hoyle (Pl. VII. figs. 9, 10; p. 96).
1885. Octopus bandensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 227.

43. Octopus januari, Steenstrup, MS. (Pl. VII. figs. 1-4; p. 97).
1885. Octopus januarti, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 229.

44. Octopus levis, Hoyle (Pl. II. figs. 1-4; Pl. III. fig. 1; p. 98).
1885. Octopus levis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 229.

45. Octopus punctatus, Gabb (PI. V.; p. 100).

1862. Octopus punctatus, Gabb, Proc. Calif. Acad., vol. ii. p. 170.
1883. a FS Vl, “Blake” Suppl., p. 117, pl. iv.; pl. v. fig. 2.
1885. Octopus honkongensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 224.

46. Octopus filosus, Howell.
1867. Octopus jilosa, Howell, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. iii. p. 240, pl. xiv.

47. Octopus alderu, Vérany.
1851. Octopus Alderii, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 32, pl. vii. bis, fig. 3.

(Species insutticiently characterised. )

48. Octopus brevipes, VOrbigny.
1838. Octopus brevipes, @Orb., Céph. acét., p. 61 ; Poulpes, pl. xvii. fig. 1.
I do not feel certain that this species and Octopus cwviert are really the same. D’Orbigny places them together

under the name Octopus cuvieri, and Vérany regards them as identical, but prefers the name Octopus macropus. Targioni-
Tozzetti separates them, and Dr. Jatta unites them. Professor Steenstrup informs me that he is not convinced of their

identity.

12

49.

50.

ol.

52.

53.

o4.

55.

56.

Oe

58.

De),

60.

61.

62.

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Octopus capensis, Eydoux et Souleyet.
1852. Octopus capensis, E. et S., Voy. “ Bonite,” p. 11, pl. 1. figs. 6, 7.

Octopus zgina, Gray.
1849. Octopus Atgina, Gray, B.M.C., p. 7.

Octopus cassiopea, Gray.
1849. Octopus Cassiopea, Gray, B.M.C., p. 9.

Octopus cephea, Gray.
1849. Octopus Cephea, Gray, B.M.C., p. 15.

Octopus cyanea, Gray.
1849. Octopus Cyanea, Gray, B.M.C., p. 15.

Octopus eudora, Gray.
1849. Octopus Eudora, Gray, B.M.C., p. 9.

Octopus favonia, Gray.
1849. Octopus favonia, Gray, B.M.C., p. 9.

Octopus geryonea, Gray.
1849. Octopus Geryonea, Gray, B.M.C., p. 7.

Octopus medoria, Gray.
1849. Octopus medoria, Gray, B.M.C., p. 14.

Octopus berenice, Gray.
1849. Octopus Berenice, Gray, B.M.C., p. 11.

Octopus saphena, Gray.
1849. Octopus Saphenia, Gray, B.M.C., p. 11.

Octopus hardwickei, Gray.
1849. Octopus Hardwickei, Gray, B.M.C., p. 8.

Octopus pusillus, Gould.
1852. Octopus pusillus, Gld., Moll. Wilkes Exped., p. 478, fig 591.

Octopus mollis, Gould.
1852. Octopus mollis, Gld., Moll. Wilkes Exped., p. 479, fig. 592.

63.

64.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

(ile

72.

73.

74,

08;

76.

65.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 13

Octopus mimus, Gould.
1852. Octopus mimus, Gld., Moll. Wilkes Exped., p. 473, fig. 587.

Octopus maorum, Hutton.
1880. Octopus maorum, Hutton, Manual N. Zeal. Moll., p. 1.
1882. ‘ 5 Hutton, Trans. N. Zeal. Inst., vol. xiv. p. 162, pl. vi. fig. a (dentition).
1885. 3 Fh Parker, Nature, vol. xxxii. p. 586.
Octopus communis, Park.
1885. Octopus communis, Park, Trans. N. Zeal. Inst., vol. xvii. p. 198.

Octopus harmandi, de Rochebrune.
1882. Octopus Harmandi, Rochebr., Bull. soc. philom. Paris, sér. 7, t. vi. p. 73. \

Octopus pilosus, Risso.

1826. Octopus pilosus, Risso, Hist. Nat. Eur. mérid., t. iv. p. 4.

Octopus peronw (Lesueur), d’Orbigny.

1821. Sepia Peroni, Les., Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., vol. ii. p. 101.
1845. Octopus Peronit, d@’Orb., Moll. viv., p. 185.

Octopus longipes, Leach.
1817. Octopus longipes, Leach, Zool. Miscell., vol. ii. p. 139.

Octopus granosus, Blainville.
1826. Octopus granosus, Blv., Dict. d. Sci. Nat., t. xliii. p. 186.

Octopus fimbriatus, Riippell, MS.

1838. Octopus fimbriatus, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 64.
Octopus fang-siao, d Orbigny.

1838. Octopus fang-siao, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 70.

Octopus cxrulescens, Péron.
1826. Octopus cxrulescens, Blv., Dict. d. Sci. Nat., t. xliii. p. 189.

Octopus didynamus, Rafinesque.
1814. Octopus didynamus, Raf., Précis découv. somiol., p. 28.

Octopus tetradynamus, Rafinesque.

1814, Octopus tetradynamus, Raf., Précis découv. somiol., p. 28.

Octopus frayedus, Rafinesque.
1814. Octopus frayedus, Raf., Précis découv. somiol., p. 28.

14 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

77. Octopus heteropus, Rafinesque.

Octopus heteropus, Raf., Précis découv. somiol., p. 28.

Subgenus 7ritaxeopus, Owen, 1881.

78. Octopus cornutus (Owen).

1881. Tritaxeopus cornutus, Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. xi., part 5, p. 131, pl. xxii.

Pinnoctopus, dOrbigny, 1845.

—

. Pinnoctopus cordiformis (Quoy et Gaimard), d’Orbigny.

1832. Octopus cordiformis, Q. et G., Voy. “ Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 87, pl. vi. fig. 3.
1845. Pinnoctopus cordiformis, d’Orb., Moll. viv., p. 1938, pl. ii.

Cistopus, Gray, 1849.

1. Cistopus indicus (Rapp, MS.), Gray.’
1838. Octopus indicus, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 24; Poulpes, pl. xxv., pl. xxvi. figs. 1-4.
1849. Cistopus indicus, Gray, B.M.C., p. 20.
Sceurgus, Troschel, 1857.
1. Sceurgus titanotus, Troschel. .

1857. Sceurgus titanotus, Trosch., Archiv f. Naturgesch., Jahrg. xxiii. Bd. i. p. 51, Taf. iv.
figs. 4, 5.

1858. 3 Trosch., Op. cit., Jabrg. xxiv. Bd. i. p. 298.

2

bo

. Sceurgus unicirrhus (delle Chiaje, MS.), Tiberi.?

1838. Octopus unicirrhus, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 70.

1851. » Cocco, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 22, pls. xii., xii. bis.

1857. Sceurgus Coccoi, Trosch., Archiv f. Naturgesch., Jahrg. xxiii. Bd. 1. p. 57, Taf. iv. fig. 6.
1880. » wnicirrhus, Tiberi, Bull. soc. mal. ital., vol. vi. p. 12.

3, Sceurgus tetracirrhus (delle Chiaje, MS.), Tiberi.

1838. Octopus tetracirrhus, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 36; Poulpes, pl. xxii.
1851. 5 “ Vér., Céph. médit., p. 25, pl. vii. bis, figs. 1, 2.
1880. Sceurgus tetracirrhus, Tiberi, Bull. mal. ital., vol. iv. p. 12.

1882. Pteroctopus tetracirrhus, Fischer, Man. de Conch., p. 334.

1 Just at the time of going to press Professor Steenstrup writes me that it is, in his opinion, very doubtful whether
WV Orbigny’s two figures represent the samme species. He is disposed to regard the type of Rapp’s species as having been a
true Octopus, and for the form with pouches between the arms he has adopted the name Cistopus bursarius.

2 Vérany (loc. cit., p. 24) admits that his Octopus cocco is identical with delle Chiaje’s Octopus wnicirrhus, and also
recognises the priority of the latter, under which circumstances there can be no doubt that the name has been rightly
restored by Dr. Tiberi. D’Orbigny regarded it as a synonym of Octopus vulgaris.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA.

Eledone, Leach, 1817.
Ozoena, Rafinesque.

1. Eledone moschata (Lamarck), Leach.

1799. Octopus moschatus, Lmk., Mém. Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris, t. i. p. 22, pl. u.

1817. Eledone moschata, Leach, Zool. Miscell., vol. iii. p. 138.

1838. % 99 WOrb., Céph. actt., p. 72; Elédons, pls. i., i. b¢s, pl. iil.

1851. » moschatus, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 7, pls. iv.—vi.

2. Eledone cirrosa (Lamarck), d’Orbigny (p. 102).

1776. Sepia octopodia (?), Pennant, Brit. Zool., vol. iv. p. 53, pl. xxviii. fig. 44.
1799. Octopus cirrhosus, Lmk., Mém. Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris, t. i. p. 21, pl. 1. fig. 2.

1814. Ozoena Aldrovandi, Raf., Précis découv. somiol., p. 29.
1827. Octopus ventricosus, Grant, Edin. N. Phil. Journ., p. 309.
1838. Eledone cirrhosus, V@Orb., Céph. acét., p. 79; Elédons, pl. 1.
1843. 5, LPennantii, Macgillivray, Moll. Anim. Scot., p. 31.

1843. ,, Aldrovandi, Macgillivray, Thid., p. 32.
1851. » Aldrovandi, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 12, pls. i1., 11.
1851. » Genet, Vér., Op. cit., 05 1G), job ms

3. Eledone verrucosa, Verrill (p. 104).
1881. Zledone verrucosa, Vll., “Blake” Rep., p. 105, pls. v., vi.

ISSN hy » VIL, Ceph. N. E. Amer, p. 380, pls. lii, liii.

4. Eledone rotunda, Hoyle (Pl. VILL. figs. 4-6 ; p. 104).
1885. Eledone rotundu, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 230.

5. Eledone brevis, Hoyle (Pl. VIIL fig. 7; p. 105).
1885. Eledone brevis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 230.

6. Eledone halliana, de Rochebrune.
1884. Eledona halliana, Rochebr., Monogr. Eledonide, p. 162.

Hoylea, de Rochebrune, 1886.
Hallia, Val., MS.

1. Hoylea sepioidea (Valenciennes, MS.) de Rochebrune.

1884. Hallia sepioidea, Rochebr., Monogr. Eledonide, p. 156, pl. vu.
1886. Hoylea sepioidea, Rochebr., Bull. soc. philom. Paris, sér. 7, t. ix. p. 85.

Eledonenta, de Rochebrune, 1884.

1. Eledonenta filholiana, de Rochebrune.
1884, Eledonenta Filholiana, Rochebr., Monogr. Eledonide, p. 157.

15

16 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

2. Hledonenta mucrosicya, de Rochebrune.
1884. Hledonenta microsicya, Rochebr., Monogr. Eledonide, p. 158.

Eledonella, Verrill, 1884.
Japetella, Hoyle (pars).

1. Eledonella pygmexa, Verrill.
1884. Hledonella pygmea, Vl, Second Catal., p. 145, pl. xxxii. fig, 2.

Eledonella diaphana, Hoyle (Pl. IX. figs. 3-6; p. 107).
1885. Japetella diaphana, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 232.

bo

Japetella, Hoyle, 1885.

1. Japetella prismatica, Hoyle (Pl. IX. figs. 1, 2; p. 109).
1885. Japetella prismatica, Hoyle, Diagnoses L., p. 231.

Bolitena, Steenstrup, 1859.

1. Bolitena nucrocotyla, Steenstrup, MS.*
1859. Bolitzna sp., Stp., Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjobenhavn, Aar 1858, p. 183.

Suborder II. DECAPODA, Leach, 1818.
Division I. MYOPSIDA, d@’Orbigny, 1845.
Family VII. Seproxini, Steenstrup, 1861.

Sepiola (Rondelet, 1554), Leach, 1817.

1. Sepiola rondeleti, Leach (p. 110).

1558. Sepiola Rondeleti, Gesner, De Aquat., lib. iv. p. 855.

1817. ,, ~~ Rondeletti, Leach, Zool. Miscell., vol. iii. p. 140.

ISIE), | . @Orb., Céph. acét., p. 230; Sépioles, pl. i. figs. 1-6, pl. ii. figs. 3-13,
pl. iii. figs. 6-9.

S42 aes oceanica, d’Orb., Moll. viv., pl. x. fig. 13 (err.).

WE gy major (?), Targ., Cef. Mus. Firenze, p. 45.

1 Bolitena mucrocotyla has a soft ovoid body of gelatinous consistency, and a reddish-purple colour, some-
what resembling Cirroteuthis, but destitute of fins and with the mantle-opening very wide, extending beyond the eyes
instead of being a narrow aperture immediately surrounding the funnel. ‘The arms are comparatively short and slender,
webbed almost up to the extremities, and provided with a single row of very small suckers. The jaws are very little
curved, and the radula is remarkable in that the rows of teeth present a serial repetition, the fifth resembling the first.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 17

2. Sepiola oweniana, d’ Orbigny.

1839. Sepiola Oweniana, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 229; Sépioles, pl. iii. figs. 15.
WED — o5 (?) Mirch, Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjgbenhavn, p. 101.
S19 Nes Fy (?) Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. i. p. 156 (habitat).

3. Sepiola pacifica, Kirk.
1882. Sepiola pacifica, Kirk, Trans. N. Zeal. Inst., vol. xiv. p. 283.

4. Sepiola atlantica, @Orbigny.
1839. Sepiola atlantica, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 235; Sépioles, pl. iv. figs. 1-12.

5. Sepiola stenodactyla, Grant.
1833. Sepiola stenodactyla, Grant, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. i. p. 84, pl. ii. figs. 1, 2.

6. Sepiola pusilla, Pfeffer."
1884. Sepiola pusilla, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 7, fig. 9.

7. Sepiola schneehagenr, Pfefter.*
1884. Sepiola Schneehagent, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 7, fig. 8.

8. Seprola tasmanica, Pfeffer.
1884. Sepiola tasmanica, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 6., fig. 7.

9. Sepiola rossixformis, Pfeffer.
1884. Sepiola rossixformis, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 8, fig. 10.

10. Sepiola penares (Gray), Tryon.

1849. Fidenas penares, Gray, B.M.C., p. 95.
1858. A S Adams, Gen. Ree. Moll., p. 41, pl. v. fig. 1.
1879. Sepiola penares, Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. i. p. 157.

Inioteuthis, Verrill, 1881.

1. Inioteuthis japonica (Tilesius, MS.), Verrill.

1839. Sepiola Japonica, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 234.
1881. Intoteuthis Japonica, VU., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 417.

2. Inioteuthis morsei, Verrill (Pl. XIV. figs. 1-9 ; p. 112).

1881. Indoteuthis Morse, Vul., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 417.

1884. Sepiola bursa (?), Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 6, fig. 6.

1886. Inioteuthis Morsei, Appellif, Japanska Ceph., p. 15, pl. ii. figs. 15, 16 ; pl. i. figs. 16, 19,
20, 23.

1 From the absence of the pen in these three species, I am inclined to suspect that some of them should be referred
to Verrill’s genus Inioteuthis ; possibly the same is the case with Sepiola stenodactyla (see p. 114).
(ZOOL. CHALL. EXP.—PART XLiv.—1886.) Xx 3

18

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Stoloteuthis, Verrill, 1881.

. Stoloteuthis leucoptera, Verrill.

1878. Sepiola leucoptera, Vil., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xvi. p. 378.
1881. Stoloteuthis leucoptera, Vil, Ceph. N. E. Amer., pp. 347, 418, pl. xxxi. figs. 4, 5; pl. liv.
fig. 4.

Nectoteuthis, Verrill, 1883.

. Nectoteuthis pourtalesii, Verrill.

1883. Nectoteuthis Pourtalesti, Vll., “ Blake” Suppl, p. 108, pl. i. fig. 1.

Rossia, Owen, 1834.

. Rossia palpebrosa, Owen.

1834. Rossia palpebrosa, Owen, Ross’ Second Arctic Voy., Nat. Hist., p. 93. pl. B, fig. 1; pl. c.

. Rossia macrosoma (delle Chiaje), d’Orbigny.

1829. Sepiola macrosoma, a. Ch., Mem. stor. anim., t. xxi. (fide Gerv. et v. Ben.).
1839. ss 3 Gerv. et v. Ben., Bull. Acad. Sci. Bruxelles, t. vi. p. 39.
1839. Rossia macrosoma, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 245 ; Sépioles, pl. iv. figs. 13-24.
1869. ,, Panceri, Targ., Cef. Mus. Firenze, p. 46, pl. vii. fig. 7 (3).

3. Rossia owent, Ball (Pl. XV. figs. 1-9; p. 114).

1842. Rossia Owenid, Ball, Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., vol. ii. p. 193 (¢).

1842. ,, Jacobi, Ball, Op. cit., p. 193 (¢).
1845. ,, Owenii, Lovén, Ofversigt k. Vetensk.-Akad. Forhandl., p. 121.
S530, », Forbes and Hanley, Brit. Moll., vol. iv. p. 223, pl. sss, fig. 1.

. Rossia glaucopis, Lovén (p. 116).

1845. Rossia glaucopis, Lovén, Ofversigt. k. Vetensk.-Akad. Forhandl., p. 121.
1869. ,, papillifera, Jeffreys, Brit. Conch., vol. v. p. 134.
1878. ,, glaucopis, Sars, Moll. Reg. Arct. Norv., p. 337, pl. xxxii.

. Rossia hyatti, Verrill.

1878. Rossia Hyatti, Vll., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xvi. p. 208.
SS “5 Vil, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 351, pl. xxvii. figs. 8, 9; pl. xxx. fig. 1;
pl. xxxi. figs. 1, 2; pl. xlvi. fig. 5.

. Rossia sublevis, Verrill (p. 117).

1878. Rossia sublevis, Vil., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xvi. p. 209.
1881. ,, sudlevis, Vil. Ceph. N. E. Amer., pp. 354, 419, pl. xxx. fig. 2; pl. xxxi. fig. 3 ;
pl. xlvi. tig. 4; pl. xlvii. figs. 2-4.

. Rossia brachyura, Verrill.

1883. Rossia brachyura, VI, “Blake” Suppl., p. 110, pl. ii. fig. 2.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 19

8. Rossia molleri, Steenstrup.
1856. Rossia Mélleri, Stp., Hectocotyl., p. 198, pl. ii. fig. 1.

9. Rossia tenera (Verrill) (p. 118).
1880. Heteroteuthis tenera, Vi, Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts., vol. xx. p. 392.
1881. PA » VI, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 357, pl. xlvi. figs. 2, 3; pl. xlvii. fig. 5.
1883. ‘3 » VIL, “Blake” Suppl., p. 111.
10. Rossia patagonica, K. A. Smith (Pl. XV. figs. 10-18 ; p. 119).
1881. Rossia patagonica, K. A. Sm., Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., p. 22, pl. iii. fig. 3.

11. Rossia megaptera, Verrill.

1881. Rossta megauptera, Vil., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 349, pl. xxxviii. fig. 1; pl. xlvi. fig. 6.

Heteroteuthis, Gray, 1849 (non Verrill).
Rossia, Vérany et Auctt. (pars).

1. Heteroteuthis dispar (Ritppell), Gray.

1845. Sepiola dispar, Riipp., Giorn. Gab. Messina, t. xxvi (fide Vér.)

1849. Rossia (Heteroteuthis) dispar, Gray, B.M.C., p. 90.

1851. ,, dispar, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 63, pl. xxiii. figs. d—h.

TESS | 55 ss Trosch., Archiv f. Naturgesch., Jahrg. xxiii. Bd. i. p. 62, pl. iv. figs. 7, 8.
HEB, 5, s Claus, Op. cit., Jahrg. xxiv. Bd. i. p. 259, Taf. x. fig. 5.

Promachoteuthis, Hoyle, 1 885.

1. Promachoteuthis megaptera, Hoyle (Pl. XIV. figs. 10-14; p. 120).
1885. Promachoteuthis megaptera, Hoyle, Narr. Chall. Exp., vol. i. p. 273, fig. 109.
1885. 3 . Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 182.

Family VIII. Seprarit, Steenstrup, 1861.
SEPID#, d’Orb. (pars).

Subfamily, Srpraparu, Steenstrup, 1881.
Sepiolordea, dOrbigny, 1839.

1. Seproloidea lineolata (Quoy et Gaimard), d’Orbigny.

1832. Sepiola lineolata, Q. et G., Voy. “ Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 82, pl. v. figs. 8-13.
1839. Sepioloidea lineata, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 240; Sépioles, pl. ii. figs. 10-18.
1881. 3 An Stp., Sepiadarium og Idiosepius, p. 233.

1884. 3 BS Brock, Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Zool., Bd. xl. pp. 105-120.

20 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

| Sepiadarium, Steenstrup, 1881.

1. Sepiadariwm kochii, Steenstrup.
1881. Sepiadarium Kochii, Stp., Sepiadarium og Idiosepius, p. 214, pl. i. figs. 1-10.

Subfamily IprosEpi1, Steenstrup, 1881.
Idiosepius, Steenstrup, 1881.
1. Idiosepius pygmexus, Steenstrup.* ;
1881. Idiosepius pygmeus, Stp., Sepiadarium og Idiosepius, p. 219, pl. 1. figs. 11-22.
Spirula, Lamarck, 1801.”

1. Spirula peroni, Lamarck (p. 122).
1822. Spirula Peronit, Lmk., Anim. s. vert., t. vil. p. 601.

Subfamily Evsepi, Steenstrup, 1881.
Sepia, Linné, 1766.

Rhombosepion, Lophosepion,
Spathidosepion, Doratosepion, ta Rochebrune. 3
Ascarosepion, © Acanthosepion,

1. Sepia officinalis, Linné.
1761. Sepia officinalis, Linn., Fauna Suecica, No. 2106.
S39 ees A d@Orb., Céph. acét., p. 260; Seiches, pl i, pl. ii. figs. 4, 5, pl. ii. figs.
1-3, pl. xvii. figs. 1, 2.
2. Sepia filliouxi, Lafont.
1839. Sepia officinalis, d’Orb., Céph. acét.,; Seiches, pl. ii. figs. 1, 2, 3.

lel, x ss Vér., Céph. médit., pl. xxv.
1868. ,, Filléouxii, Lafont, Bull. Assoc. Sci. Franc., No. 81 (fide Laf.).
SG Ose nf Lafont, Journ. de Conch., sér. 3, t. ix. p. 11.

1 Steenstrup (op. cit., p. 224) suggests the possibility that Cranchia minima, Fér., and Loligopsis peronit, Lmk., may
be allied to this form.

* There are great differences of opinion as to the number of species that should be referred to this genus, and there
seems to be as little agreement regarding the names which they should bear; under these circumstances I refrain
from giving any opinion, but content myself with placing one species on the list, and using the name adopted by Prof.
Huxley in his Report on the genus to be published in the present series.

8 Dr. de Rochebrune has recently published a memoir (Bull. Soc. philom. Paris, sér. 7, t. viii. pp. 74-122, pls.
iii—vi.) in which he has divided the Sepia of previous authors into a number of new genera; most of these seem to
me to be at most of subgeneric value, and there are so many points in which I find myself unable to follow Dr. de
Rochebrune that I have only given references to his paper in the case of his new species.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Gy

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 21

. Sepia myrsus, Gray.

1849. Sepia myrsus, Gray, B.M.C., p. 108.

. Sepia fischerr, Lafont.

1871. Sepia fischer’, Lafont, Actes Linn. Soc. Bordeaux, t. xxviii. p. 271.

. Sepia erredda, Rang.

1837. Sepia hierredda, Rang, Mag. de Zool., ann. vii., cl. v. p. 75, pl. ¢.
1839. ,, Hierredda, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 268 ; Seiches, pls. xiii., xviii.
1875. ,, hieredda, Stp., Hemisepius, p. 478, pl. ii. fig. 2.

. Sepia vicellius, Gray.

1849. Sepia Vicellius, Gray, B.M.C., p. 100.

. Sepia savignyi, Blainville.

1827. Sepia officinalis, Aud., Expl. pl. Hist. Nat. Egypte, pl. v.; pl. i. fig. 3 (fide d’Orb.).
1827. ,, Savignyi, Blv., Dict. d. Sci. Nat., t. xlviii. p. 285.
S39 5Nes is d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 268; Seiches, pls. xiii., xviii.

. Sepia smith, Hoyle (Pl. XVI. figs. 1-12; p. 124).

1885. Sepia Smithi, Hoyle, Diagnoses IL., p. 190.

. Sepia papuensis, Hoyle (Pl. XVI. figs. 13-23; p. 126).

1885. Sepia papuensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 197.

Sepia pagenstecheri, Pfeffer.
1884. Sepia Pagenstecheri, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 9, fig. 12.

Sepia plangon, Gray.
1849. Sepia plangon, Gray, B.M.C., p. 104.

Sepia singaporensis, Pfeffer.
1884. Sepia singaporensis, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 10, fig. 13.

Sepia polynesica, Pfeffer.
1884. Sepia polynesica, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 11, fig. 14.

Sepia bertheloti, d’ Orbigny.

1839. Sepia Bertheloti, VOrb., Moll. Canaries, p. 21.
IGE), gg y dOrb., Céph. acét., p. 214; Seiches, pls. xi., xxiii.

Sepia verreauai (de Rochebrune).
1884. Ascarosepion Verreauai, Rochebr., Monogr. Sepiade, p. 98.

tb
bo

16.

Wf

18.

8).

20.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Sepia vermiculata, Quoy et Gaimard.

1832. Sepia vermiculata, Q. et G., Voy. “ Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 64, pl. i. figs. 1-5.
NGS, 5, 53 d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 279; Seiches, pl. iii. dis.

Sepia latimanus, Quoy et Gaimard.

1832. Sepia latimanus, Q. et G., Voy. “ Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 68, pl. ii. figs. 2-11.
'83 95a 4 d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 283; Seiches, pl. xii. figs. 1-6, pl. xvii. figs.
16, 17.

Sepia esculenta, Hoyle (Pl. XVII. figs. 1-5; Pl. XVIII. figs. 1-6; p. 129).
1885. Sepia esculenta, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 188.

Sepia aculeata, van Hasselt, MS.
1839. Sepia aculeata, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 287; Seiches, pl. v. bis ; pl. xxv.
IS, 5 Fs Stp., Hemisepius, pl. ii. fig. 4.
1884. Acanthosepion Hasselti, Rochebr., Monogr. Sepiade, p. 101.
Sepia indica, VOrbigny.
1839. Sepia indica, d’Orb., Céph. actt., p. 288 ; Seiches, pl. xxi. (nomine Sepia Blainvillei).

. Sepia zanzbarica, Pfeffer.

1884. Sepia zanzibarica, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 9, fig. 11.

Sepia rostrata, VOrbieny.
1839. Sepia rostrata, d’Orb., Céph. aceét., p. 284; Seiches, pl. viii. fig. 6, pl. xxvi.
1884. Acanthosepion spinigerum, Rochebr., Monogr. Sepiade, p. 103.

Sepia roux, d Orbigny.
1831. Sepia Pharaonis (?), Ehrbg., Symb. Phys., An. Moll. Ceph., Sep. No. 1.
1839. ,, Rowaiti, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 271; Seiches, pl. xix.

Sepia elliptica, Hoyle (Pl. XIX. figs. 14-24; p. 131).
1885. Sepia elliptica, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 189.

Sepia brevimana, Steenstrup.

1875. Sepia brevimana, Stp., Hemisepius, pp. 475, 479.

Sepia australis, d Orbigny.

1839. Sepia australis, @Orb., Céph. acét., p. 285; Seiches, pl. vii. fig. 4.

. Sepia venusta, Pfeffer.

1884, Sepia venusta, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 12, fig. 15.

28.

29.

30.

3l.

32.

33.

o4.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 23

Sepia orbignyana, Férussac.
1826. Sepia Orbigniana, VOrb., Tabl. méth., Ann. d. Sci. Nat. t. vil. p. 156.
1839. ,, Orbignyana, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 273; Seiches, pl. v. figs. 1, 2.
Sepia mestus, Gray.
1849. Sepia mestus, Gray, B.M.C., p. 108.

Sepia cultrata, Steenstrup, MS. (Pl. XX.; p. 133).
1885. Sepia cultrata, Hoyle, Diagnoses IL., p. 198.

Sepia trygonina (de Rochebrune).
1884. Doratosepion trygoninum, Rochebr., Monogr. Sepiadz, p. 97.

Sepia recurvirostra, Steenstrup (p. 137).
1875. Sepia recurvirostra, Stp., Hemisepius, pp. 475, 479.

Sepia sulcata, Hoyle (Pl. XIX. figs. 1-13 ; p. 137).
1885. Sepia sulcata, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 192.

Sepia andreana, Steenstrup.

1875. Sepia andreana, Stp., Hemisepius, pp. 474, 479, pl. i. figs. 11-19.

Sepia andreanoides, Hoyle (Pl. XXI. figs. 11-19; Pl. XXII. fig. 11; p. 139).
1885. Sepia andreanoides, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 193.

Sepia peterseni, Appellof.
1886. Sepia Peterseni, Appelléf, Japanska Ceph., p. 23, pl. ii. figs. 1-6 ; pl. iii. fig. 21.

Sepia kiensis, Hoyle (Pl. XVII. figs. 6-11; p. 141).
1885. Sepia kiensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 194.

Sepia kobiensis, Hoyle (Pl. XVIII. figs. 7-14 ; p. 142).
1885. Sepia kobiensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 195.

Sepia capensis, d’Orbigny.

1826. Sepia capensis, d’Orb., Céph. acét.; Seiches, pl. vii. figs. 1-3.

1832. ,, australis, Q. et G., Voy. “ Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 70, pl. v. figs. By

1839. ,, capensis, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 278; Seiches, pl. vii. figs. 1-3, pl. xii. figs. 7-11,
pl. xvii. figs. 18, 19.

1849. ,, Sinope (?), Gray, B.M.C., p. 106.

Sepia elongata, d’Orbigny.
1839. Sepia elongata, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 283 ; Seiches, pl. xxiv. figs. 7-10.

41.

42.

43.

44,

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

OMe

to
i)

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.8. CHALLENGER.

Sepia elegans, d’Orbigny.
1839. Sepia elegans, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 280; Seiches, pl. viii. figs. 1-5, pl. xxvii. figs. 3-6.

Sepia ruppellaria, @Orbigny.

1839. Sepia Rupellaria, WOrb., Céph. acét., p. 275; Seiches, pl. iii. figs. 10-13.
1851. ,, + brsserialis, Véer., Céph. médit., p. 73, pl. xxvi. figs. F, K.
1869. ,, vrupellaria, Fischer, Actes Linn. Soc. Bordeaux, t. xxvii. p. 125.

Sepia lefebrer, V Orbigny.
1839. Sepia Lefebrei, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 282; Seiches, pl. xxiv. figs. 1-6.

Sepia palmata, Owen.
1881. Sepia palmata, Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. xi. part 5, p. 134, pls. xxiv., xxv.

Sepia apama, Gray.
1849. Sepia apama, Gray, B.M.C., p. 103.

Sepia tuberculata, Lamarck.

1799. Sepia tuberculata, Lmk., Mém. Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris, t. i. p. 9, pl. i. fig. 1.
1832. ,, papillata, Q. et G., Voy. “ Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 61, pl. i. figs. 6-14.
1875. ,, + tuberculata, Stp., Hemisepius, pp. 474, 479, pl. i. figs. 20, 21; pl. ii. fig. 6.

Subgenus Metasepia, Hoyle, 1885.
Sepia (Metasepia) pfefferi, Hoyle (Pl. XXI. figs. 1-10; p. 145).
1885. Sepia (Metasepia) Pfeffer’, Hoyle, Diagnoses IL, p. 199.

Sepia (Metasepia) tullbergr, Appellot.
1886. Sepia Tullbergi, Appellof, Japanska Ceph., p. 26, pl. ii. figs. 7-14.

(Species insufficiently characterised. )

Sepia gibbosa, Hhrenberg.

1831. Sepia gibbosa, Khrbg., Symb. phys., Anim. Moll. Ceph., Sep., No. 2.
1869. _,, » Issel, Malacol. Mar Rosso, p. 238, pl. ii. figs. 14, 15.

. Sepia lycidas, Gray.

1849. Sepia Lycidus, Gray, B.M.C., p. 103.

Sepia brachycheira, Tapparone-Canefri.

1877. Sepia brachychetra, Tapp.-Can., Ann. Mus. civ. Genova, vol. ix. p. 278.

Sepia jousseawmi, de Rochebrune.

1884. Sepia Jousseaumi, Rochebr., Monogr. Sepiade, p. 117.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 25

53. Sepia mozambica, de Rochebrune.
1884. Sepia Mozambica, Rochebr., Monogr. Sepiade, p. 118.

54, Sepia javanica (de Rochebrune).
1884. Acanthosepion Javanicum, Rochebr., Monogr. Sepiade, p. 110.

55. Sepia goreensis (de Rochebrune).
1884. Acanthosepion Goreense, Rochebr., Monogr. Sepiade, p, 109.

56. Sepia enoplon (de Rochebrune).
1884. Acanthosepion enoplon, Rochebr., Monogr. Sepiade, p. 108.

57. Sepia oculifera (de Rochebrune).
1884. Acanthosepion oculiferum, Rochebr., Monogr. Sepiade, p. 107.

58. Sepia antillarum, dV Orbigny.

1838. Sepia antillarum, @Orb., Moll. Cuba, t. i. p. 33.
1845. e d’Orb., Moll. viv., p. 300.

Sepiella, Gray, 1849; Steenstrup, 1880.
Sepia, Auctt. (pars).

1. Sepiella inermis (van Hasselt, MS.), Steenstrup.

1839. Sepia inermis, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 286; Seiches, pl. vi. bis (= 3), pl. xx. figs. 1-9 (= @ ).
1839. ,, sinensis, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 289; Seiches, pl. ix. figs. 1, 2 (fide Gray).

1849. ,, mécrocheirus, Gray, B.M.C., p. 107.

1875. ,, mermis, Stp., Hemisepius, p. 478, pl. ii. fig. 3.

1880. Sepiella inermis, Stp., Sepiella, pp. 347-356, figs. 1-8.

2. Sepiella ornata (Rang), Steenstrup.

1837. Sepia ornata, Rang., Mag. de Zool., ann. vii., cl. v. p. 76, pl. ci.
8395 » dOrb., Céph. acét., p. 276; Seiches, pl. xxii.
1849. ,, » Gray, B.M.C., p. 106.

1880. Sepiella ornata, Stp., Sepiella, pp. 347-356.

3. Seprella curta, Pfeffer.
1884. Sepiella curta, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 13, fig. 16.

4. Sepiella ocellata, Pfeffer.
1884. Sepiella ocellata, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 13, fig. 17.

5. Seprella ovata, Pfeffer.

1884. Sepiella ovata, Pffr.. Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 14, fig. 18.
(ZOOL, CHALL, EXP.—PART XLIV.—1886.) Xx 4

26

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

6. Sepiella obtusata, Pfeffer.
1884. Sepiella obtusata, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 15, fig. 19.

7. Sepiella tourrannensis (Hydoux et Souleyet).
1852. Sepia towrrannensis, HK. et 8., Voy. “ Bonite,” p. 33, pl. iii. figs. 6-12.

8. Sepiella affinis (Kydoux et Souleyet).
1852. Sepia affinis, E. et S., Voy. “ Bonite,” p. 35, pl. ii. figs. 13, 14.

9. Sepiella maindroni, de Rochebrune (Pl. XXII. figs. 1-10; p. 149).
1884. Sepiella Maindroni Rochebr., Monogr. Sepiade, p. 89.

10. Sepiella (?) dabryr (de Rochebrune).
1884. Diphtherosepion Dabryi, Rochebr., Monogr. Sepiade, p. 81.

11. Sepiella (?) martini (de Rochebrune).
1884. Diphtherosepion Martini, Rochebr., Monogr. Sepiade, p. 81.

Hemisepius, Steenstrup, 1875.

1. Henusepius typicus, Steenstrup.
1875. Hemisepius typicus, Stp., Hemisepius, pp. 465-479, pl. i. figs. 1-10; pl. ii. fig. 1.

Family IX. Loxiginet, Steenstrup, 1861.

Seproteuthis, Blainville, 1825.
Chondrosepia, Leuckart. -

1. Sepioteuthis sepioidea (Blainville), d’Orbigny.
1823. Loligo sepioidea, Blv., Journ. de Phys., t. xevi. p. 123.
1839. Sepioteuthis septoidea, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 298; Sépioteuthes, pl. vii.
1875. rs > Stp., Hemisepius, p. 478, pl. ii. figs. 7, 8.
2. Sepioteuthis blainvilliana, Férussac.
1839. Sepioteuthis Blainvilliana, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 303; Sépioteuthes, pl. ii.

3. Sepioteuthis australis, Quoy et, Gaimard.
1832. Sepioteuthis australis, Q. et G., Voy. ‘ Astrolabe,” t. ii, p. 77, pl. iv. fig. 1.

1839. 3 . dOrb., Céph. acét., p. 300; Sépioteuthes, pl. v. fig. 5, pl. vi.
figs. 15-21.
1883. FA a M‘Coy, Nat. Hist. Victoria, Decade vii., pls. Ixxvi., lxxvii.

4, Seproteuthis ehrhardti, Pfeffer.
1884, Sepioteuthis Ehrhardti, Pftr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 3, fig. 1.

10.

ale

12.

13.

14.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 27

Sepioteuthis mauritiana, Quoy et Gaimard.

1832. Sepioteuthis mauritiana, Q. et G., Voy. “ Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 76, pl. iv. figs. 2-6.
1839. % _ d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 305 ; Sépioteuthes, pl. v. figs. 1-4, pl. vii.
figs. 1-5.

Sepioteuthis lunulata, Quoy et Gaimard.
1832. Sepioteuthis lunulata, Q. et G., Voy. ‘ Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 74, pl. iii. figs, 8-13.

1832. " guinensis, Q. et G., Op. cit., p. 72, pl iii. figs. 1-7.
1839. 90 lunulata, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 300; Sépioteuthes, pl. iii. fig. 1, pl. vi.
figs. 1-8.

Seproteuthis ovata, Gabb.
1868. Sepioteuthis ovata, Gabb., Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. iv. p. 193, pl. xvii.

Sepioteuthis sloani, Leach, MS.
1849. Sepioteuthis Sloanti, Gray, B.M.C., p. 81.

Sepioteuthis bilineata (Quoy et Gaimard), d’Orbigny.

1832. Sepia bilineata, Q. et G., Voy. ‘ Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 66, pl. i. fig. 1.
1839, Sepioteuthis bilineata, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 301; Sépioteuthes, pl. iv. fig. 2.

Sepioteuthis neoguinaica, Pfeffer.
1884. Sepioteuthis neoguinaica, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 4, fig. 2.

Sepioteuthis lessoniana, Férussac (p. 151).

1826. Sepioteuthis Lessoniana, VOrb., Tabl. méth., Ann. d. Sci. Nat., t. vil. p. 155.
1830. “ Ay Lesson, Voy. “Coquille,” Moll., p. 241, pl. xi,
1839. ea x dOrb., Céph. acét., p. 302; Sépioteuthes, pls. 1, vi. figs. 9-14.

Seproteuthis loliginiformis (Leuckart), d’Orbigny.
1828. Chondrosepia loliginiformis, Lkt., Atlas Reise im nordl. Afrika, Wirbell. Th., p. 21, tab. vi.

fig. 1. f
1831. Sepioteuthis Hemprichii (?), Ehrbg., Symb. Phys., Anim. Moll. Ceph.
1839. 7 loliginiformis, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 299; Sépioteuthes, pl. iv. fig. 1.

(Species insufficiently characterised.)

Sepioteuthis major, Gray."
1828. Sepioteuthis major, Gray, Spicil. Zool., p. 3, pl. iv. fig. 1.
1849. a » Gray, B.M.C., p. 83.

Sepioteuthis madagascariensis, Gray.

1849. Sepioteuthis madagascariensis, Gray, B.M.C., p. 80.

1 The figure is very suggestive of Thysanoteuthis rhombus, Troschel, with which Gray’s remark “the giant of the
genus” would also agree.

28 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

15. Sepioteuthis brevis, Owen.
1881. Sepioteuthis brevis, Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. xi. part 5, p. 137, pl. xxvi. fig. 1.

16. Sepioteuthis sinensis, d Orbigny.
1839. Sepioteuthis sinensis, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 304.

17. Sepioteuthis arctipinmis, Gould.
1852. Sepioteuthis arctipinnis, Gld., Moll. Wilkes Exped., p. 479, fig. 593.

Loligo, Lamarck, 1799.

1. Loligo vulgaris, Lamarck.

1799. Loligo vulgaris, Lmk., Mém. Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris, t. i. p. 11.

1823. ,, pulchra, Blv., Dict. d. Sci. Nat., t. xxvii. p. 144.

1833. ,, Rangii, Fér., Céph. acét.; Calmars, pl. xix. figs. 4-6.

1839. ,, vulgaris, @Orb., Céph. acét., p. 308; Calmars, pls. viii.—x., xxii., xxiii.
figs. 1-12.

1849. ,, neglecta, Gray, B.M.C., p. 72.

1851. ,, Berthelotri (?), Vér., Céph. médit., p. 93, pl. xxxvi. figs. h—-k.

1869. ,, mediterranea, Targ., Cef. Mus. Firenze, p. 36.

1869. ,, pulchra, Fischer, Journ. de Conch., sér. 3, t. ix. p. 129.

2. Loligo affinis, Lafont."

1871. Loligo afinis, Lafont, Actes Linn. Soc. Bordeaux, t. xxviii. p. 273, pl. xiii.
NGA 55 » Lafont, Journ. de Conch., sér. 3, t. xii. p. 22.

3. Loligo macrophthalma, Lafont.

1871. Loligo macrophthalma, Lafont, Actes Linn. Soc. Bordeaux, t. xxviii. p. 274, pl. xv.
UWB, =p 9 Lafont, Journ. de Conch., sér. 3, t. xii. p. 23.

4, Loligo nicrocephala, Lafont.

1871. Loligo microcephala, Lafont, Actes Linn. Soc. Bordeaux, t. xxviii. p. 278, pl. xiv.
NSP 5 rn Lafont, Journ. de Conch., sér. 3, t. xii. p. 22.

5. Loligo moulinsi, Lafont.

1871. Loligo Moulinsi, Lafont, Actes Linn. Soc. Bordeaux, t. xxviii. p. 274.
8 (7:2 Sees a Lafont, Journ. de Conch., sér. 3, t. xii. p. 23.

6. Loligo breviceps, Steenstrup.

1861. Loligo breviceps, Stp., Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjgbenhavn, p. 289.
1871. ,, vulgaris, Lenz, Jahresb. Comm. Kiel., Jahre. i. p. 135.
1873" ,, brevipes, Morch, Nachrichtsbl. malak. Gesellsch., No. 5 (err. typ.) (fide Lenz).
1875. ,, breviceps, Lenz, Jahresb. Comm. Kiel, Anhang., p. 23, pl. i. figs. 5, 6; pl. ii.
figs. 1-9 (pub. 1878).
*T am inclined to suspect that some of Lafont’s species are mere varieties, but as this opinion is based only on
the brief published descriptions I refrain from giving it formal expression. It will be shown in the sequel (p. 157) that
the greatest caution must be exercised in accepting distinctions based on the proportionate length of the body and fin.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 29

7. Loligo forbesi, Steenstrup.

1856. Loligo Forbesti, Stp., Hectocotyl., p. 189, pl. i. fig. 2.

1858. ,, magna, Adams, Gen. Rec. Moll., pl. iv. fig. 3.

1871. ,, Forbesii, Lenz, Jahresb. Comm. Kiel, Jahrg. i. p. 139.

WES, % Hoyle, Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edin., vol. viii. p. 459.

8. Loligo pealei, Lesueur.

1821. Loligo Peali, Les., Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., p. 92.

1843. ,, punctata, de Kay, Moll. New York, p. 3, pl. i. fig. 1.

1881. ,, Pealei, Vil, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 308, pl. xxix. figs. 1-4; pl. xxxvii. figs. 1-3 ;
pl. xxxix. fig. 4; pls. xl, xli.; pl xlv. figs. 3, 4.

9. Loligo edulis, Hoyle (Pl. XXIII; p. 152).
1885. Loligo edulis, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 186.
10. Loligo patagonica, K. A. Smith.
; 1881. Loligo patagonica, E. A. Sm., Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., p. 24, pl. i. fig. 2.

11. Loligo brasiliensis, Blainville (p. 153).
1823. Loligo brasiliensis, Blv., Journ. de Phys., t. xevi. p. 132.
18395 %p W@Orb., Céph. acét., p. 313; Calmars, pl. xii.; pl. xix. fig. 1; pl. xx.
figs. 1-5.
12. Loligo gahi, @Orbigny.
1835. Loligo gahi, @Orb., Amér. mérid., p. 60, pl. iii. figs. 1, 2.
SSO Ramee, » @Orb., Céph. acét., p. 316; Calmars, pl. xxi. figs. 3, 4.
13. Loligo kobiensis, Hoyle (Pl. XXV. figs. 1-10; p. 154).
1885. Loligo kobiensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 184.

14. Loligo pfefferi, n. n.”
1884. Loligo brevipinnis, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 5, fig. 4.

15. Loligo sumatrensis, d Orbigny.
1839. Loligo sumatrensis, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 317; Calmars, pl. xii. figs. 1-3.

16. Loligo spectrum, Pfeffer.

1884. Loligo spectrum, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 5.
17. Loligo duvaucelu, VOrbigny.

1839. Loligo Duvaucelii, @’Orb., Céph. actt., p. 318 ; Calmars, pls. xiv., xx. figs. 6-1 6.
18. Loligo indica, Pfeffer (Pl. XXVIL.; p. 156).

1884. Loligo indica, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 4, fig. 3.

1The name proposed by Dr. Pfeffer too closely resembles brevipinna, already introduced into this genus by
Lesueur. I have therefore taken the liberty of applying my friend’s own name to the species.

30

IL).

20.

21.

22.

23.

24

25.

26.

28.

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Loligo bleekeri, Keferstein.

1866. Loligo Bleekeri, Bronn, Klass. u. Ord. d. Thierreichs, Bd. iii. p. 1402 ; pl. exxii. figs. 9, 10;
pl. exxvii. fig. 14.

1882. ,, » Brock, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool., Bd. xxxvi. p. 604.

1886. __,, », Appellof, Japanska Ceph., p. 31, pl. i. figs. 7-10.

Loligo japonica, Steenstrup, MS. (Pl. XXIV. figs. 7-15 ; p. 157).
1885. Loligo japonica, Hoyle, Diagnoses JI., p. 187.

Loligo galathex, Steenstrup, MS. (Pl. XXVII.; p. 159).
1885. Loligo galathex, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 183.

Loligo subalata (Gervais et van Beneden), Hydoux et Souleyet.

1838. Sepiola subalata, Gerv. et v. Ben., Bull. Acad. Sci. Bruxelles, t. v. p. 423.
1852. Loligo subalata, E. et 8., Voy. “ Bonite,” p. 30, pl. ii. figs. 1-5.

Loligo reynaudu, d Orbigny.
1839. Loligo Reynaudii, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 315; Calmars, pl. xxiv.

Loligo plei, Blainville.

1823. Loligo Plet, Blv., Journ. de Phys., t. xevi. p. 132.
TES, gy » @Orb., Céph. acét., p. 312; Calmars, pls. xvi., xxiv. figs. 9-13.

Loligo media (Linné).
1767. Sepia media, Linn., Syst. nat., ed. x. p. 659; No. 262, 3.
1799. Loligo subulata, Lmk., Mém. Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris, t. i. p. 15.
1823. ,, spiralis, Fér., Dict. Class. Hist. Nat., t. iii. p. 67, No. 6.
1848. ,, parva, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 310; Calmars, pls. xvii., xxiii. figs. 19-21.
1849. Teuthis parva, Gray, B.M.C., p. 76.
1851. Loligo marmore (?), Vér., Céph. médit., p. 95, pl. xxxvii.

Loligo (?) ellipsura, Hoyle (Pl. XXIV. figs. 1-6; Pl. XXV. figs. 11-15 ; p. 160).
1885. Loligo ellipsura, Hoyle, Diagnoses IL., p. 182.

(Species insufficiently characterised.)

e

. Loligo arabica (Ehrenberg), Steenstrup.

1831. Pteroteuthis arabica, Ehrb., Symb. Phys., Anim. Moll. Ceph.
1845. Ommastrephes arabicus, VOrb, Moll. viv., p. 428.
1880. Loligo arabica, Stp., Ommat. Blekspr., p. 95.

Loligo australis, Gray.
1849. Loligo australis, Gray, B.M.C., p. 71.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34,

30.

36.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. ol

Loligo chinensis, Gray.
1849. ZLoligo chinensis, Gray, B.M.C., p. 74.

Loligo emmakina, Gray.

1849. Loligo Emmakina, Gray, B.M.C.. p. 71.
Loligo hardwickei, Gray.

1849. Loligo Hardwickei, Gray, B.M.C., p. 69.

Loligo hemiptera, Howell.
1867. Loligo hemiptera, Howell, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. iii. p. 239, pl. xiii.

Loligo lanceolata, Rafinesque.

1814. Loligo lanceolata, Raf., Précis. découv. somiol., p. 29 (nomen tantum).

Loligo odogadium, Rafinesque.
1814. Loligo odogadium, Raf., Précis. découv. somiol., p. 29 (nomen tantum).

Loligo tricarinata, Gray.
1849. Loligo tricarinata, Gray, B.M.C., p. 73.

Loligo gronovit, Férussac.

1839. Loligo Gronovit, Fér. and VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 319.
1880. “ 3 Stp., Ommat. Blekspr., p. 97.

Loliolus, Steenstrup, 1856.

1. Loliolus typus, Steenstrup.

i)

1856. Loliolus typus, Stp,, Hectocotyl., p. 194, pl. i. fig. 5.

. Loliolus affinis, Steenstrup.

1856. Loliolus afinis, Stp., Hectocotyl., p. 194, pl. i. fig. 6.

3. Loliolus steenstrupi, Dall.

1871. Loliolus Steenstrupi, Dall, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. vii. p. 97.

Lolliguncula, Steenstrup, 1881.

1. Lolliguncula brevis (Blainville), Steenstrup.

1823. Loligo brevis, Blv., Journ. de Phys., t. xevi. p. 133.

1824. ,, brevipinna (2), Les., Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., vol. iii p. 282, pl x.

1839. ,, brevis, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 314; Calmars, pl. xiii. figs. 4-6; pl. xv. fig. 13; pl.
xxiv. figs. 14-19.

1881. Lolliguncula brevis, Stp., Sepiadarium og Idiosepius, p. 242.

32 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S.. CHALLENGER.

Division II. GEGOPSIDA, d@’Orbigny, 1839.
Family X. OMMASTREPHINI, Steenstrup, 1861.
Subfamily ToysanoTEuTHID#, Keferstein, 1866.
Thysanoteuthis, Troschel, 1857.

1. Thysanoteuthis rhombus, Troschel.

1857. Thysanoteuthis rhombus, Trosch., Archiv f. Naturgesch., Jahrg. xxiii. Bd. i. p. 70, pl.
iv. fig. 12; pl. v. figs. 1-4.
1881. - » Vigelius, Mitth. Zool. Stat. Neapel, Bd. ii. p. 150.
2. Thysanoteuthis elegans, Troschel.

1851. Sepioteuthis sicula (?), Vér., Céph. médit., p. 75, pl. xxvii.
1857. Thysanoteuthis elegans, Trosch., Archiv f. Naturgesch., Jahrg. xxiii. Bd. i. p. 74, pl. iv.
figs. 10, 11.

Subfamily OMMASTREPHID#, Gill, 1871.

Ommastrephes, VOrbigny, 1835.
Sthenoteuthis, Verrill.

1. Ommastrephes bartrami (Lesueur), d’Orbigny.

1821. Loligo Bartramii, Les., Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., vol. ii. p. 90, pl. vii.
1835. Ommastrephes Bartramii, d’Orb., Amér. mérid., p. 55.

1835. 5 cylindricus, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 54; Calmars, pl. iii. figs. 3, 4.
1839. i 53 d@Orb., Op. cit., p. 347; Calmars, pl. ii; Ommast., pl. ii.
figs. 11-20.

1880. Ommatostrephes Bartramz, Stp., Ommat. Blekspr., pp. 79, 81, figs.

2. Ommastrephes gigas, dV Orbigny.

1835. Ommastrephes gigas, d’Orb., Amér. mérid., p. 50, pl. iv.
1839. ss giganteus, @’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 8350; Calmars, pl. xx.

3. Ommastrephes pteropus, Steenstrup.

1822. Loligo todaropterus (?), d. Ch., Mem. stor anim., pl. xev. ( fide Stp.).

1823. ,, Brongnartdi (?), Blv., Dict. sci. nat., t. xxvii. p. 142.

1856. Ommatostrephes pteropus, Stp., Vid. Meddel. nat, Foren. Kjgbenhavn, Aar 1855, p. 117.
1862. 5 5 Stp., Op. cit., Aar 1861, p. 285.
1880. Sthenoteuthis pteropus, V1l., Céph. N. E. Amer., p. 228, pl. xxvi.

1881. Ommastrephes ensdfer (?), Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. xi. pt. 5, p. 144, pl. xxviii.
1885. Ommatostrephes pteropus, Stp., Note Teuthol., V.

1 The greater number of the species of Ommastrephes are mentioned, and their systematic positions indicated in this
paper, so I have not thought it necessary to repeat the reference in every case,

_ REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 33

4. Ommastrephes oualaniensis (Lesson), d’Orbigny (p. 162).

1830. Loligo oualaniensis, Less., Voy. ‘‘ Coquille,” Zool., p. 240, pl. i. fig. 2.

1832. ,, vanikoriensis, Q. et G., Voy. “ Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 79, pl. v. figs. 1, 2.

1832. ,, brevitentaculata, Q. et G., Op. cit., p. 81.

1839. Ommastrephes owalaniensis, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 351 ; Calmars, pls. iii., xxi; Ommast.
pl. i. figs. 14, 15.

1862. os Tryonii (2), Gabb, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., p. 483, with plate.

1863. a Ayresii (?), Gabb, Carpenter, Rep. W. C. Moll., p. 613.

1880. Onumatostrephes oualaniensis, Stp., Ommat. Blekspr., pp. 76, 84, &e.

5. Ommastrephes pelagicus (Bosc), d’ Orbigny.

1802. Sepia pelagica, Bosc, Hist. nat., Vers, t. i. p. 46, pl. i. figs. 1, 2.
1839. Ommastrephes pelagicus, @’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 348; Calmars, pl. xviii. figs. 1, 2;
Ommast., pl. i. figs. 17, 18.

1849. 5 0 Gray, B.M.C., p. 63 (subgen. Hyaloteuthis).

6. Ommastrephes megapterus (Verrill), Steenstrup.

1878. Architeuthis megaptera, Vll., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xvi. p. 207.

1880. Sthenoteuthis megaptera, Vll., Ceph. N. E. Amer., pp. 223, 286, pl. xxi. figs. 1-9 ;
pl. xxvi.

1880. Ommatostrephes megapterus, Stp., Sthenoteuthis og Lestoteuthis, pp. 3-8.

(Species insufficiently characterised.)

7. Ommastrephes eblanx (Ball), Gray.

1841. Loligo Eblanz, Ball, Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., vol. i. p. 363, figs. 1-7.
1850. Ommastrephes Eblanz, Forbes and Hanley, Brit. Moll. vol. iv. p. 235, pl. sss. fig. 2.

8. Ommastrephes insigus, Gould.
1852. Ommastrephes insignis, Gld., Moll. Wilkes Exped., p. 480, fig. 594.

9. Ommastrephes crassus, Lafont.

1871. Ommastrephes crassus, Lafont, Actes Linn. Soc. Bordeaux, t. xxvill. p. 275, pl. xvi.

10. Ommastrephes equipoda, Riippell.

1844. Loligo xquipoda, Riipp., Giorn. Gab. Messina, t. xxvi. (fide Vér.).
IH, 5, <3 Vér., Céph. médit., p. 105, pl. xxxv. figs. a, 0.

Dosidicus, Steenstrup, 1857.

1. Dosidicus eschrichtw, Steenstrup.

1857. Dosidicus Eschrichtii, Stp., Oversigt K. D. Vid. Selsk. Forhandl., p. 11.
1880. Stp., Ommat. Blekspr., pp. 79, 81, 89, with woodcuts.
(ZoOL. CHALL. EXP.—PART XLIv.—1886.) Xx 5

” bP]

34 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

2. Dosidicus steenstrupu, Pfeffer.

1884. Dosidicus Steenstrupii, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 20, fig. 27.

Todarodes, Steenstrup, 1880.

Ommastrephes, d’Orbigny (pars).

1. Todarodes sagittatus (Lamarck), Steenstrup.

1758. Loliginis species maxima, Seba, Rer. Nat. Thes., tom. iii. tab. iv. figg. 1, 2.

1799. Loligo sagittata, Lmk., Mém. Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris, t. i. p. 13.

1829. ,, todarus,d. Ch., Mem. stor. anim., t. iv. p. 161, tav. lx.

1830. Ommastrephes todarus, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 349; Calmars, pl. i.; Ommast., pl. ii.
figs. 4-10.

1880. TLodarodes sagittatus, Stp., Ommat. Blekspr., pp. 83, 90, &e.

2, Todarodes pacificus, Steenstrup (Pl. XXVIII. figs. 1-5; p. 163).

1880. Todarodes pacificus, Stp., Ommat. Blekspr., pp. 83, 90, &c.
1886. Ommastrephes pacificus, Appellof, Japanska Ceph., p. 35, pl. i. figs. 8-10.

3. Todarodes (?) sloaniw (Gray), Steenstrup.

1849. Ommastrephes Sloanii, Gray, B.M.C., p. 61.
1880. ———_———. (?) Sloanei, Stp., Ommat. Blekspr., p. 98.

Illex, Steenstrup, 1880.

Ommastrephes, d’Orbigny (pars).

1. Illex illecebrosus (Lesueur), Steenstrup.

1821. Loligo illecebrosa, Les., Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., vol. ii. p. 95.

1825. ,, piscatorwm, La Pylaie, Ann. d. Sci. Nat., sér. 1, t. iv. p. 319.

1839. Ommastrephes sagittatus, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 345 ; Calmars, pls. iv., vi. (pars).

1880. Illex illecebrosus, Stp., Ommat. Blekspr., pp. 82, 90, &c.

1881. Ommastrephes illecebrosa, Vll., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 268, pl. xxviii; pl. xxix. fig. 5;
pl. xxxvil. fig. 8; pl. xxxix.

2. Illex coindetii (Vérany), Steenstrup.

1837. Loligo Coindetii, Vér., Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino, t. i. p. 94, pl. iv.

1839. Ommastrephes sagittatus, V@Orb., Céph. acét., p. 345; Ommast., pl. i. figs. 1-10 (pars).
1851. Loligo Pille (?), Vér., Céph. médit., p. 112; pl. xxxvi. figs. d-g.

1880. Illex Coindetii, Stp., Ommat. Blekspr., pp. 82. 90, &e.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 35

Architeuthus, Steenstrup, 1856."

Architeuthis, Auctt.

1. Architeuthus monachus, Steenstrup.

1857. Architeuthis monachus, Stp., Coloss. Blekspr., p. 182 (nomen tantwm).

1861. 5 dux, Harting, Verhandel. k. Akad. Weten., Dl. ix. p. 11, pl. i.
1880. monachus, Vil., Ceph. N. E. Amer., pp. 238-245.
1880. 7 Hartingwi (?), V1L., Op. cit., p. 240.

2. Architeuthus dux, Steenstrup.

1857. Architeuthis dux, Stp., Coloss. Blekspr., p. 128 (nomen tantum).

1862. Loligo Bouyeri, Crosse et Fischer, Journ. de Conch., sér. 3, t. il. p. 138.
1875. Architeuthis duw, Gervais, Journ. de Zool., t. iv. p. 90.

1880. 5 » Vll., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 238.

3. Architeuthus harveyi (Kent), Verrill.

1874. Megaloteuthis Harveyi, Kent, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., pp. 178, 489.
1880. Architeuthis Harveyi, Vil., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 197, pls. xiii.—xvia.
1882. 5 en Wa Op. cit., p. 422.

4. Architeuthus princeps, Verrill.

1875. Architeuthis princeps, Vll., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. ix. pp. 124, 181, pl. v.
1880. 33 » WIL, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 210, pls. xvil.—xx.

5. Architeuthus martensi (Hilgendorf), Steenstrup.

1880. Megateuthus Martensit, Hilgd., Sitzungsb. naturf. Freunde Berlin, p. 65.
1882. Architeuthus martensti, Stp., Note Teuthol. IIL., p. 157.

6. Architeuthus grandis (Owen), Verrill.

1881. Plectoteuthis grandis, Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. xi. pt. 5, p. 156,
pls. XxXXiv., XXXV.

1881. Architeuthis grandis, Vll., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 400.

1882. Architeuthus sp., Stp., Note Teuthol. IV., p. 164.

Moucheza,’ Vélain, 1877.

1. Mouchexna sancti-pauli, Vélain.
1877. Mouchezis Sancti-Pauli, Vélain, Archives d. Zool. expér., t. vi. p. 83, fig. 8. (er. typ. ?)

1 For generic characters see Steenstrup, Ommat. Blekspr., p. 102 ; and VIL, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 197.
2 The validity of this genus is very doubtful.

36

. Steenstrupiola atlantica, Pfeffer.

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Tracheloteuthis, Steenstrup, 1881.

Verrilliola, Petr.
Entomopsis, Rochebr. (2).

. Tracheloteuthis riser, Steenstrup (Pl. XXVIII. figs. 6-12; p. 164).

1881. Tracheloteuthis Riiset, Stp., Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjgbenhavn, p. 294.
1884. Verrilliola gracilis (?), Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 22, fig. 28.

. Tracheloteuthis behni, Steenstrup.

1881. Tracheloteuthis Behnii, Stp., Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjgbenhavn, p. 294.
1884. Verrilliola nympha (?) Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 28, fig. 29.

. Tracheloteuthis (?) velaini (de Rochebrune).

1884. Entomopsis Velaini, Rochebr., Monogr. Loligopside, p. 21, pl. ii. figs. 7-11.

. Tracheloteuthis (?) clowei (de Rochebrune).

1884. Entomopsis Clowet, Rochebr., Monogr. Loligopside, p. 22.

Bathyteuthis, Hoyle, 1885.
Benthoteuthis, Vervill.

. Bathyteuthis abyssicola, Hoyle (Pl. X XIX. figs. 1-7; p. 168).

1885. Bathyteuthis abyssicola, Hoyle, Narr. Chall. Exp., p. 272, fig. 108.
1885. 53 ‘ Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. IT., p. 308, fig. 2.

. Bathyteuthis megalops (Verrill).

1885. Benthoteuthis megalops, Verrill, Third Catal., p. 402, pl. xliv. fig. 1.

Steenstruprola, Pfeffer, 1884.

. Steenstrupiola chilensis, Pfeffer.

1884. Steenstrupiola chilensis, Pitr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 16, fig. 20.

1884. Steenstrupiola atlantica, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 17, fig. 21.

Subfamily MasticorrurHips#, Verrill, 1881.

Mastigoteuthis, Verrill, 1881.

. Mastigoteuthis agassizw, Verrill (Pl. XXIX. figs. 8-10; p. 170).

1881. Mastigoteuthis Agassiz, V1, “ Blake” Rep., p. 100, pls. 1., ii. figs. 2, 3.
1881. » % Vil., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 297, pls. xlviii., xlix. figs. 2, 3.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 37

Family XI. Onycutt, Steenstrup, 1861.
Subfamily OnycHorsuTHip#, Gray, 1849 (sensw stricto).
Enoploteuthis, VOrbigny, 1839.

1. Enoploteuthis leptwra (Leach), d’Orbigny.

1817. Loligo lepturo, Leach, Zool. Miscell., vol. iii. p. 141 (err. typ.).

1817. ,, Smythit, Leach, Ibid.

1839. Enoploteuthis leptura, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 337; Onychot., pl. vi., pl. xi. figs. 6-14,
pl. xii. figs. 10-24.

1849. 43 Smithii, Gray, B.M.C., p. 47.

2. Enoploteuthis margaritifera, Rirppell (Pl. XXIX. fig. 11; p. 171).

1844. Enoploteuthis margaritifera, Riipp., Giorn. Gab. Messina, t. xxvi. p. 2, fig. 1 (jide Vér-).

1851. ie 5 Vér., Céph. médit., p. 82, pl. xxx. fig. a.

1858. rr i Claus, Archiv f. Naturgesch., Jahrg. xxiv. Bd. i. p. 262,
Taf. x. fig. 2.

3. Enoploteuthis pallida, Pfeffer.
1884. Hnoploteuthis pallida, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 18, fig. 23.

4. Enoploteuthis hoyler, Pfeffer.
1884. Enoploteuthis Hoylet, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 17, fig. 22.

Cucioteuthus, Steenstrup, 1882.
Enoploteuthis, Auctt. (pars).

1. Cucioteuthus unguiculatus (Molina), Steenstrup.

1782. Sepia unguiculata, Molina, Saggio Stor. Nat. Chili, p. 199 (fide VOrb.).

1818. Onychoteuthis Moline, Licht., Sepien mit Krallen, p. 13.

1861. , Harting, Verhandel. k. Akad. Weten., Dl. ix. pl. iii. figs. 16, 17.

1881. Enoploteuthis Cookii, Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. xi. pt. 5, p. 150, pls.
* Xxx.=xxxil; pl. xxxiii. fig. 1 (pars).

1882. Cucioteuthus wnguiculatus, Stp., Note Teuthol, IIL. p. 153.

Ancistrocheirus, Gray, 1849.

Enoploteuthis, Auctt. (pars).

1. Ancistrocheirus lesueurti (d’Orbigny et Férussac), Gray.

1839, Enoploteuthis Lesueurii, VOrb. et Fér., Céph. acét., p. 339; Onychot., pl. xi. figs. 1-5;
pl. xiv. figs. 4-10. *
1849, Ancistrocheirus Lesueurit, Gray, B.M.C., p. 49.

38 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

2. Ancistrocheirus megaptera, Verrill.
1885. Ancistrocheirus megaptera, Vll., Third Catal., p. 399, pl xlii. fig. 1.

Abralia, Gray, 1849.
Enoploteuthis, Auctt. (pars).

1. Abralia armata (Quoy et Gaimard), Gray.
1832. Onychoteuthis armatus, Q. et G., Voy. ‘“ Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 84, pl. v. figs. 14-22.
1839. Enoploteuthis armata, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 340; Onychot., pl. ix. figs. 2-6, pl. xiv.
figs. 11-16.
1849. Abralia armata, Gray, B.M.C., p. 50.
2. Abralia morisu (Vérany), Gray.
1837. Onychoteuthis Moristi, Vér., Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino, ser. 2, t. i. p. 100, pl. ii.
1849. Abralia Moristi, Gray, B.M.C., p. 50.
3. Abralia veranyi (Riippell).
1844. Enoploteuthis Veranyi, Riipp., Giorn. Gab. Messina, t. xxvi. p. 3, fig. 2 (fide Vér.).
1851. FY os Vér., Céph. médit., p. 83, pl. xxx. fig. b.
4. Abralia oweni (Vérany).
1851. Hnoploteuthis Owenii, Vér., Ceph. médit., p. 84, pl. xxx. figs. c, d.
1858. » ., Claus, Archiv f. Naturgesch., Jahrg. xxiv. Bd. i. p. 261, pl. x.
fig. 1.
5. Abralia polyonyx (Troschel).
1857. Enoploteuthis polyonyx, Trosch., Archiv f. Naturgesch., Jahrg. xxiii. Bd. i. p. 87, pl. iv.
fig. 9.
6. Abralia megalops, Verrill.

1882. Abralia megalops, Vul., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xxiv. p. 364.
1883. 5 _ VIL, “ Blake” Suppl., p. 105, pl. iii. fig. 4.
1884. 5 i VIL, Second Catal., p. 148, pl. xxviii. fig. 2.

Verania, Krohn, 1847.
Octopodoteuthis, Krohn et Riippell, Gray.

1. Verania sicula, Krohn.

1844, Octopoteuthis sicula, Riipp., Giorn. Gab. Messina, t. xxxvi. p. 6 (fide Vér.).
1845. Octopodoteuthis sicula, Krohn, Archiv f. Naturgesch., Jahrg. xi. Bd. i. p. 47, pl. v.
1851. Verania sicula, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 78, pl. xxviii.

1884. Octopodoteuthis sicula, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 28.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 39

Onychoteuthis, Lichtenstem, 1818.

1. Onychoteuthis banskii (Leach), Férussac.’

1817. Loligo Banskii, Leach, Zool. Miscell., vol. iii. p. 141.

1839. Onychoteuthis Banskii, @Orb. et Feér., Céph. acét., p. 332; Onychot., pl i, pl. ii. figs.
1, 2, pls. iii—v. figs. 1-3, pl. ix. fig. 1, pl. xii. figs. 1-9.

1821. Onykia angulata, Les., Journ. Acad. Nat. Sei. Philad., vol. ii. p. 99, pl. ix. fig. 3.

2. Onychoteuthis fusifornis, Gabb.
1862. Onychoteuthis fusiformis, Gabb, Proc. Calif. Acad. Nat. Sci., vol. ii. p. 171.

3. Onychoteuthis equimanus, Gabb.
1868. Onychoteuthis equimanus, Gabb, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. iv. p. 23, pl. ii.

4. Onychoteuthis lobypennis, Dall.
1872. Onychoteuthis lobipennis, Dall, Amer. Journ. Conch., vol. vii. p. 96.

5. Onychoteuthis raptor, Owen.
1881. Onychoteuthis raptor, Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. xi. pt. 5, p. 148, pl. xxix.

6. Onychoteuthis ingens, EK. A. Smith.
1881. Onychoteuthis ingens, E, A. Sm., Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., p. 25, pl. iii. fig. 1.

7. Onychoteuthis brachyptera, Pfeffer.
1884. Onychoteuthis brachyptera, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 20, fig. 26.

(Species insufficiently characterised.)

8. Onychoteuthis rutilus, Gould.
1852. Onychoteuthis rutilus, Gld., Moll. Wilkes Exped., p. 489, fig. 595.

9. Onychoteuthis brevimanus, Gould.
1852. Onychoteuthis brevimanus, Gld., Moll. Wilkes Exped., p. 483, fig. 596.

10. Onychoteuthis (?) longimanus, Steenstrup.
1857. Onychoteuthis (?) longimanus, Stp., Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjgbenhavn, Aar 1856, p.
120.
1875. 5 (22) lorigera, Stp., Hemisepius, p. 473.

1 This species has also at various times received the specific names Lessonn, Bergii, Bartlingti, Bellonii, Flewrn, a
full account of which is given by d’Orbigny (loc. ctt.).

40 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Ancistroteuthis, Gray, 1849.

Onychoteuthis, Auctt. (pars).
Moroteuthis, Verrill.
Lestoteuthis, Verrill (pars).

1. Ancistroteuthis lichtensteinii (Férussac), Gray.

1839. Onychoteuthis Lichtensteinii, Fér., Céph. acét., p. 334; Onychot., pls. viii, xiv. figs. 1-3.
1849. Ancistroteuthis Lichtensteinti, Gray, B.M.C., p. 55.
1851. Onychoteuthis Lichtensteinii, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 78, pl. xxix. figs. ac.

2. Ancistroteuthis dusswmieri (d’Orbigny), Gray.

1839. Onychoteuthis Dussumieri, V@Orb., Céph. acét., p. 335; Onychot., pl. xiii.
1849. Ancistroteuthis Dussumieri, Gray, B.M.C., p. 56.

3. Ancistroteuthis robusta (Dall), Steenstrup.

1873. ? Onychoteuthis Bergi, Dall, American Naturalist, vol. vii. p. 484.

1876. Ommastrephes robustus, Dall MS., VU, Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xii. p. 236.
1880. Onychoteuthis robusta, Vll., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 246, pls, xxiii., xxiv.

1880. Ancistroteuthis robusta, Stp., Sthenoteuthis og Lestoteuthis, p. 19.

1881. Moroteuthis robusta, VU., Ceph., N. E. Amer., p. 393.

1882. Ancistroteuthis robusta, Stp., Note Teuthol. II., p. 150.

Teleoteuthis, Verrill, 1882.

Onychia, Lesueur.
Onychoteuthis, Auctt. (pars).

1. Teleoteuthis caribbea (Lesueur), Verrill (Pl. XXX. figs. 1-8; p. 172).

1821. Onykia carribea, Les., Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., vol. ii. p. 98, pl. ix. figs. 1, 2 a-e.

1839. Onychoteuthis cardioptera, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 333; Cranchies, pl. i. ; Onychot.,
pl. v. figs. 4-6 (pars ?).

1849. Onychia cardioptera, Gray, B.M.C., p. 57.

1882. Teleoteuthis carribea, Vil., Ceph. N. E. Amer. (Fish Comm. Rep.), p. 70.

1884. Onychia binotata (?), Pfr. Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 19, fig. 24.

2. Teleoteuthis platyptera (VOrbigny), Verrill.

1835. Onychoteuthis platyptera, d’Orb., Amér. mérid., p. 41, pl. iii. figs. 8-11.
1839. Ps platyptera, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 335; Onychot., pl. x. figs. 8-10, pl. xiv.
figs. 14-22.

3. Teleoteuthis peratoptera (d Orbigny).
1835. Onychoteuthis peratoptera, d’Orb., Amér. mérid., p. 39, pl. iii. figs. 5-7.

‘It is not without a feeling of regret that one abandons a generic name so time-honoured as that of Lesueur,
but since the name is preoccupied, and since Verrill has proposed a new one, there seems no longer any excuse for
retaining it.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA.

. Teleoteuthis curta (Pfeffer).
1884. Onychia curta, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 19, fig. 25.

i

5. Teleoteuthis krohnii (Vérany), Verrill.

41

1851. Onychoteuthis Krohnii, Véx., Céph. médit., p. 80, pl. xxix. figs. d, e.

1851. Loligo Bianconii (?), Vér., Ibid., p- 100, pl. xxxv. figs.

al.

1880, Onychia Krohnii, Stp., Sthenoteuthis og Lestoteuthis, p. 19 (note).
1882. Teleoteuthis Krohnii, Vll., Ceph. N. E. Amer. (Fish. Comm. Rep.), p. 70.

(=r)

. Teleoteuthis agilis, Verrill.
1885. Teleoteuthis agilis, Vil., Third Catal., p. 400, pl. xlii. fig. 2.

~“JI

. Teleoteuthis (?) meneghini (Vérany).

1851. Loligo Meneghini, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 98, pl. xxxiv. figs. ¢, e.
1880. Onychia (?) Meneghini, Stp., Ommat. Blekspr., p. 99.

Subfamily GonaTID&, noy.

Gonatus, Gray, 1849.

Sepia Loligo, Fabricius.

Onychoteuthis, Lichtenstein, Mgller, Middendorft.
Owenia, Prosch (pars).

Lestoteuthis, Verrill (pars).

Cheloteuthis, Verrill.

1. Gonatus fabricti (Lichtenstein), Steenstrup (p. 174).

1780. Sepia loligo, Fabr., Faun. groenl., p. 358.
1818. Onychoteuthis Fabricit, Licht., Sepien mit Krallen, p. 13.

1842. 45 + Meller, Ind. Moll. greenl., p. 3.
1842. » (2) amoena, Meller, _Tbid., p. 3.
1849. 55 Kamtschatica, Middff., Mém. Acad. Sci. St. Petersb., Sér) (6s) ita) ovale

p. 515, pl. xii. figs. 1-6.
1849. Gonatus amena, Gray, B.M.C., p. 68.
1858. Gonatus amena, Adams, Gen. Rec. Moll., p. 36, pl. iv. fig. 2.
1878. » amoenus, Sars, Moll. Reg. Arct. Norv., p. 336, pl. xxxi.
1880, Lestoteuthis Kamtschatica, Vll., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 251.
1880. Gonatus Fabricii, Stp., Sthenoteuthis og Lestoteuthis, p. 9, pl. i.
1881. s " VIL, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 291, ph xlv. figs.
1881. Cheloteuthis rapax, V1, Op. cit., p- 293, pl. xlix. fig.
1881. Lestoteuthis Fabrici, VL, Op. cit.. pp. 387-393, pl. xlv.
pl. lv. fig. 1.
1882. Gonatus Fabricéi, Stp., Note Teuthol. I., p. 143.
(ZOOL. CHALL, EXP.—PART xLIv.— 1886.)

1, 2.
ik,

figs. 1, 2; pl. xlix. fig. 1;

Xx 6

42

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Of uncertain relationship.

carunculata (Schneider).

1788. Sepia carunculata, Schneider, Beobacht. u. Entdeck., Bd. v. p. 42 (fide d’Orb.).
1845. Loligo carunculata, d’Orb., Moll. viv., p. 352.

Family XII. TaonoTEUTHI, Steenstrup, 1861.
Subfamily CHrroTEUTHID, Gray, 1849.

Chiroteuthis, VOrbigny, 1839.

Loligopsis, Férussac (par's).

. Chiroteuthis veranyi (Férussac), d’Orbigny.

1835. Loligopsis Veranyi, Fér., Mag. de Zool., ann. v., cl. v., pl. lxv.
1839. Chiroteuthis Veranyi, @Orb., Céph. acét., p. 325; Calmarets, pls. ii, iv. figs. 17-23.
1851. Loligopsis Veranyi, Vérany, Céph. médit., p. 120, pls. xxxviii., xxxix,

. Chiroteuthis bonplandi (Vérany), d Orbigny.

1837. Loligopsis Bomplandi, Vér., Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino, ser. 2, t. i. p. 99, pl. i.
1839. Chiroteuthis Bonplandi, dOrb., Céph. acét., p. 326.

Chiroteuthis lacertosa, Verrill.
1881. Chiroteuthis bonplandi (?), V1l., “‘ Blake” Rep., p. 102, pl. iii. fig. 1.
1881. % lacertosa, Vll., Ceph. N. KE, Amer., pp. 299, 408, pl. xlvii. fig. 1; pl. lvi. fig. 1.

Histiopsis, Hoyle, 1885.

. Mistiopsis atlantica, Hoyle (Pl. XXX. figs. 9-15; p. 180).

1885, Histiopsis atlantica, Hoyle, Narr. Chall. Exp., vol. i. p. 273 (nomen tantwm).
1885. . = Hoyle, Diagnoses I1., p. 201.

Calliteuthis, Verrill, 1880.
Loligopsis, Owen (pars).

Calliteuthis reversa, Verrill (Pl. XXXIII. figs. 12-15 ; p. 183).
1880. Calliteuthis reversa, Vll., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xx. p. 393.
1881. iD » VIL, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 295, pl. xlvi. fig. 1.
1884. » VIl., Second Catal., p. 243.

Calliteuthis ocellata (Owen), Verrill.
1881. Loligopsis ocellata, Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. xi. pt. 5, pp. 139-143, pl. xxvi.
figs. 3-8; pl. xxvii.
1881. Calliteuthis ocellata, VUl., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 402.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 43

Brachioteuthis,’ Verrill, 1881.

1. Brachioteuthis bean, Verrill.
1881. Brachioteuthis Beanii, V\l., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 406, pl. lv. fig. 3; pl. vi. fig. 2.

Doratopsis, de Rochebrune, 1884.

Hyalotcuthis, Pfeffer.
Leptoteuthis, Verrill.

1. Doratopsis vermicularis (Rirppell), de Rochebrune.°
1844. Loligopsis vermicularis, Riipp., Giorn. Gab. Messina, t. xxvi. (fide Vér.).

1851. 45 3 Vér, Céph. médit., p. 123, pl. xl. figs. a, b.
1884. Doratopsis vermicularis, Rochebr., Monogr. Loligopside, p. 18.
1884. i; Riippelli, Rochebr., Tbid., p. 19.

1884. Hyaloteuthis vermicularis, Pii., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 28, fig. 30.
1884, Leptoteuthis vermicolaris, VIl., Second Catal., p. 143.
1885. Doratopsis vermicularis, Hoyle, Loligopsis, p. 329.

2. Doratopsis diaphana (Verrill).
1884. Leptoteuthis diaphana, VIL, Second Catal., p. 141, pl. xxxii. fig. 1.

Histioteuthis, VOrbigny, 1839.

Cranchia, Férussac (pars).

1. Histioteuthis bonelliana (Férussac), @Orbigny. :

1835. Cranchia Bonelliana, Fér., Mag. de Zool., ann. v., el. v., pl. Ixvi.
1839. Histioteuthis Bonelliana, @Orb., Céph. acct., p. 327; Cranchies, pl. u.

1“ This genus probably includes the Chiroteuthis bonplandi, Vérany, from the eastern Atlantic” (Verrill, op. ctt.,
p. 405).

°Tt is not a little remarkable that this curious species should have remained undisturbed for forty years in the
genus Loligopsis, and that then within a year no less than three genera should have been formed for its reception. It is
rather unfortunate that the name proposed by de Rochebrune, who has only copied Vérany’s very unsatisfactory
diagnosis, should have preference over those suggested by Pfeffer and Verrill, who have added considerably to our
knowledge of this genus; they have both, however, chosen names which were preoccupied (see Gray, B.M.C., p. 63,
and W@Orb., Moll. viv., p. 363). With respect to the identity of the two forms figured by Vérany, Prof. Steenstrup
informs me that he has had the opportunity of examining them both ; a specimen of one (Vérany, loc. cit., fig. 6)
was given by Krohn to Vérany, by Vérany to Kélliker, and by Kolliker to Steenstrup, and is now in the Copenhagen
Museum; of the other (fig. a), Prof. Steenstrup examined the original specimen preserved in the Museum
Senkenbergianum, Frankfort, and found that the shortness of the mantle was due to its having been folded, a fact
which had not been observed owing to the transparency of the animal, and that the difference in the fin is owing to
mutilation. The gladius, so far as he was able to examine it, presents some resemblance to the curious pen described
on p. 178 of the present Report.

Dr. Pfeffer’s generic name being invalid, it would be necessary to change the family name, which he has proposed
(Hyaloteuthidee), to correspond with the one which has the preference, but I think that for the present this form may
be placed among the Chiroteuthide.

wae.

44

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

2. Histioteuthis ruppelli, Vérany.
1851. Histioteuthis Ruppelli, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 117, pls. xx., xxi.

3. Mistioteuthis collinsii, Verrill.

1879. Histioteuthis Collinsti, V1l., Amer, Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xvii. p. 241.
1882. o 5 Vil, Ceph. N. E. Amer., pp. 234, 300, 404, pl. xxiii; pl. xxvii.
figs. 3-5 ; pl. xxxvii. fig. 5; pl. lv. fig. 6.

Family XII]. CRancHI#FORMES, Steenstrup, 1861.

Subfamily CrancuiaDa&, Gray, 1849.

Cranchia, Leach, 1817.
1. Cranchia scabra, Leach.

1817. Cranchia scabra, Leach, Zool. Miscell., vol. iii. p. 140.

1836. 3 3 Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. ii p. 105 (with figs.).
1838. Philonexis Eylais, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 102; Poulpes, pl. xvii. figs. 4, 5.
1861. Cranchia scabra, Stp., Overblik, p. 72.

2. Cranchia hispida, Pfeffer.
1884. Cranchia hispida, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mius., p. 27, fig. 37.

3. Cranchia tenuitentaculata, Pfeffer.
1884. Cranchia tenwitententaculata, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 26, fig. 36 (err. typ.).

4. Cranchia megalops, Prosch..
1847. Cranchia megalops, Prosch, K. dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Skriv., Rk. 5, Bd. i. p. 64 (with
figs.).
1861. #3 5 Stp., Overblik, p. 77.
5. Cranchia (?) maculata, Leach.
1817. Cranchia maculata, Leach, Zool. Miscell., vol. iii. p. 140.

Subgenus, Liocranchia, Pfeffer, 1884.

6. Cranchia brockii (Pfeffer).
1884, Lioeranchia Brockii, Pfir.. Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 25, fig. 33.

7. Cranchia reinhardii, Steenstrup (Pl. XXXI. figs. 11-14; Pl. XXXII. figs. 1-4;
p. 184).

1856. Leachia Reinhardtii, Stp., Hectocotyl., p. 200,
1861. Cranchia Reinhardtii, Stp., Overblik., p. 76.
1884. Liocranchia Reinhardtii, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 25.

_ REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 45

Toons, Steenstrup, 1861.
Loligopsis, @Orbigny, Tryon, de Rochebrune, &c.
Desmoteuthis, Verrill
Procalistes, Lankestex.

Phasmatopsis, de Rochebrune.
Megalocranchia (?), Pfeffer.

1. Taonius pavo (Lesueur), Steenstrup.
1821. Loligo pavo, Lesueur, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., vol. ii. p. 96, pl.
1839. Loligopsis pavo, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 321; Calmars, pl. vi. (excl. fig. 4); Loligopsis,
pl. iv. figs. 1-8 (pars).
1861. Taonius pavo, Stp., Overblik, pp. 70, 84.
1882. Desmoteuthis hyperborea (?), Vll., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 302, pl. xxvii. figs. 1, 2;
pl. xxxix. fig. 1 (eel. syn.).
1885. Taonius pavo, Hoyle, Loligopsis, p. 318.

2. Taonus hyperboreus, Steenstrup (Pl. XXXII. fig. 12; Pl. XXXIII. figs. 1-11;

je JS)IL)
1861. Taonius hyperboreus, Stp., Overblik., p. 83.
1882. Desmoteuthis tenera (?), Vu., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 412, pl. lv. fig. 2; pl. lvi. fig. 3.
1885. Taonius hyperboreus, Hoyle, Loligopsis, p. 321. 5

3. Taonvus cymoctypus (de Rochebrune), Hoyle.
1839. Loligopsis pavo, @Orb., Céph. actt., p. 321; Calmars, pl. vi. fig. 4 (2); pl. xxiii. figs. 10, 11.
(pars).
1884. Phasmatopsis cymoctypus, Rochebr., Monogr. Loligopside, p. 17, pl. i.
1885. Taonius cymoctypus, Hoyle, Loligopsis, p. 323.

4. Taonius suhnvi (Lankester), (Pl. XXXII. figs. 5-11; p. 192).
1884. Procalistes Suhmii, Lankester, Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., vol. xxiv. p. 311.

5. Taonius elongatus, Steenstrup, MS. (Pl. XXVIIL fig. 13; p. 189).

6. Taonius schneehageni (Pfeffer).
1884. Loligopsis Schneehagentt, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 23, fig. 31.

7. Taonius (?) maaimus (Pfeffer).?
1884. Megalocranchia maxima, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 24, fig. 32.

Pyrgopsis, de Rochebrune, 1884.

1. Pyrgopsis rhynchophorus, de Rochebrune.
1884. Pyrgopsis rynchophorus, Rochebr., Monogr. Loligopside, p. 23, pl. ii. figs. 1-6.

1 Dr. Pfeffer has been good enough to furnish me with a number of additional particulars regarding this form,
which leave no doubt that it should be referred to the genus Taonius.

* If Tam correct in referring this form to the genus Taonius, the specific designation is singularly unfortunate;
minimus would have been more appropriate ; but in the present state of our knowledge it is not worth while to burden
the animal with another name.

46 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Leachia, Lesueur, 1821; Steenstrup, 1861.

Anisoctus (?), Rafinesque.
Loligopsis (pars), VOrbigny, Auctt.
Dyctydiopsis, de Rochebrune.
Perothis, Rathke.

1. Leachia cyclura, Lesueur.

1821. Leachia cyclura, Les., Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., vol. ii. p. 90, pl. vi.
1833. Loligopsis guttata, Grant, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. i. p. 24, pl. ii.
1833. Perothis pellucida, Rathke, Mém. Savans Etrang. St. Petersb., t. ii. p. 149.
1833. » Lscholtzit, Rathke, Ibid.

1861. Leachia cyclura, Stp., Overblik, p. 82.

1884. Perothis Dusswmieri, Rochebr., Monogr. Loligopside, p. 28.

1885. Leachia cyclura, Hoyle, Loligopsis, p. 326.

2. Leachia ellipsoptera (Adams and Reeve), Steenstrup.

1848. Loligopsis ellipsoptera, Ad. and Ry., Voy. “Samarang,” Moll., p. 2.
1861. Leachia ellipsoptera, Stp., Overblik, p. 80.

1884. Dyctydiopsis ellipsoptera, Rochebr., Monogr. Loligopside, p. 18.
1885. Leachia ellipsoptera, Hoyle, Loligopsis, p. 328.

3. Leachia dubia (Rathke), Hoyle.

1833. Perothis dubia, Rathke, Mém. Savans Etrang. St. Petersb., t ii. p. 170.
1885. Leachia dubia, Hoyle, Loligopsis, p. 329.

Loligopsis,’ Lamarck, 1812.
Loligopsis, Auctt. (pars).

1. Loligopsis peronii, Lamarck.

1812. Loligopsis Peronii, Lmk., Extrait de son Cours de Zool., p. 123 (fide d’Orb.).
1861. a - Stp., Overblik., p. 85.
1885. $0 5 Hoyle, Loligopsis, p. 314.

2. Loligopsis zygena, Vérany.?

1851. Loligopsis zygxna, Ver., Céph. médit., p. 125, pl. xl. fig. c.
1884. Zygenopsis zygena, Rochebr., Monogr. Loligopside, p. 20.
1885, ———— (?) zygexna, Hoyle, Loligopsis, p. 331.

' The true position of this genus is entirely uncertain: the description of the type species, based upon a drawing,
is so fragmentary, that nothing can be extracted from it as to the affinities of the animal. See also note p. 20.

? This is certainly not a Loligopsis in the Lamarckian sense, but at present there is no ground for referring it to any
known genus whatever, nor do I think its characters sufficiently well known to enable a new genus to be erected of
it ; J therefore leave it as placed by the original describer. The name proposed by de Rochebrune is preoccupied.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 47

Order Il. TETRABRANCHIATA, Owen, 1832.

Family XIV. NaurTiuipa@, Owen, 1836.

Nautilus, Linné, 1757.

1. Nautilus pompilius, Linné (p. 199).

1758. Nautilus pompilius, Linn., Syst. Nat., ed. x. p. 708; No. 283, 232.
1868. 45 iz Kiister, Conch. Cab., sec. 55, p. 9, Taf. 11. fig. 2.

2. Nautilus scrobiculatus, Solander, M8.

Nautilus scrobiculatus, Sol., Portl. Catal., No. 3653.
1868. 5 D Kiister, Conch. Cab., sec. 55, p. 9, Taf. iii. figs. 1, 2.

3. Nautilus macromphalus, Sowerby.

1848. Nautilus macromphalus, Sow., Thes. Conch., p. 464, pl. xeviil. figs. 4, 5.
1868. |,, a Kiister, Conch. Cab., sec. 55, p. 10, Taf. 3a.

4, Nautilus wmbilicatus, Lister.

Nautilus umbilicatus, Lister, Conch., pl. 552, fig. 4.
1868. 55 a Kiister, Conch. Cab., sec. 55, p. 10, Taf. 3c. fig. 2.

5. Nautilus stenomphalus, Sowerby.

1848. Nautilus stenomphalus, Sow., Thes. Conch., p. 469, pl. xcvii. fig. 3.
1868. 95 ul Kiister, Conch. Cab., sec. 55, p. 11, Taf. 3b.

1 Having no sufficient personal knowledge of the different species of this genus I have followed Kiister (Joc. cit.)
in their enumeration ; what study I have had the opportunity of giving them leads me to think that they may,
perhaps, be reducible to two species, Nautilus pompilius, Linn., and Nautilus wmbilicatus, Lister, with a number of more
or less well marked varieties.

48 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

EXPLANATION OF THE MORE ABBREVIATED REFERENCES.

ApPELLOF, A.
Japanska Ceph. x
Japanska Cephalopoder, K. Svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Handl., Bd. xxi. No. 13, pp. 1-40, pls. 1.-1., 1886.

Caisse, STEFANO DELLE (d. Ch.).
Mem. stor. anim.

Memorie sulla storia e notomia degli animali senza vertebre del regno di Napoli, t. iv. Napoli,
1829.

Dittwyy, L. W.
Descr. Catal.
A Descriptive Catalogue of Recent Shells arranged according to the Linnean Method, with Particular
Attention to the Synonymy. London, 1817.

Eypoux Et Souteyer (E. et §.).
Voy. “ Bonite.”
Voyage autour du Monde exécuté pendant les années 1836 et 1837, sur la corvette la Bonite, com-
mandée par M. Vaillant.—Zoologie, t. 1. Paris, 1852.

Goutp, A. A. (Gld.).
Moll. Wilkes Exped.
United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, under the
Command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N.—Vol. xii., Mollusca and Shells. Boston, 1852.

Gray, JoHn Epwarp.
B. M. ©.
Catalogue of the Mollusca in the Collection of the British Museum.—Part I., Cephalopoda Antepedia.
London, 1849.

Hovis, W. E.
Diagnoses I.
Diagnoses of new Species of Cephalopoda collected during the Cruise of H.M.S. Challenger.—Part I.
The Octopoda. Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 5, vol. xv. pp. 222-236, 1885.

Diagnoses II.
Diagnoses of new Species of Cephalopoda collected during the Cruise of H.M.S. Challenger.—Part I.
The Decapoda. Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 5, vol. xvi. pp. 181-203, 1885.

Prelim. Rep. I.
Preliminary Report on the Cephalopoda collected during the Cruise of H.M.S. Challenger.—Part L.
The Octopoda. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol xiii. pp. 94-114, with two woodcuts, 1885.

Prelim. Rep. II.
Preliminary Report on the Cephalopoda collected during the Cruise of H.M.S. Challenger.—Part EI
The Decapoda. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xiii. pp. 281-310, with two woodcuts, 1885.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 49

Hoy, W. E.—continued.
»® Loligopsis.
On Loligopsis and some other genera. Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edin., vol. viii. pp. 318-333, 1885.

Isspx, A.
“< Malacol. Mar Rosso.

Malacologia del Mar Rosso, ricerche zoologiche e paleontologiche. Pisa, 1869.

Lenz.
Jahresb. Comm. Kiel.

Jahresbericht der Commission zur wissenchaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere in Kiel,
Jahrgang i, &e., 1871, &e. Berlin, 1873, 1878.

Mouter, H. P. C.
< Ind. Moll. Groenl.

Index Molluscorum Groenlandie. Kréyer, Nat. Hist. Tidsskr., Ba. iv. pp. 76-97, 1843 ; also (paged
separately) Hafniz, 1842.

p’OrBiGNy, ALcrps (d’Orb.).
\. Amér. mérid.

Voyage dans l’Amérique méridionale exécute pendant les années, 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831,
1832, et 1833.—Tom. v. partie 3, Mollusques. Paris et Strasbourg, 1835-1843,

\ Moll. viv.

Mollusques vivants et fossiles. Paris, 1845 and 1855.

Moll. Cuba.

Historie physique, politique et naturelle de Ile de Cuba, par M. Ramon de la Sagra.—Mollusques
par Alcide d’Orbigny. Paris, 1853.

p’OrpiGNy, ALcrpE, ET Firussac (d’Orb. et Fér.).
Céph. acét.

Histoire naturelle générale et particulitre des céphalopodes acctabuliferes, vivants et fossiles.
Paris 1835-1848.

(Some of the plates of this work appear to have been issued prior to this date, for d’Orbigny
quotes species as having been published in them as early as 1825.)

Prerrer, G, (Pffr.).
>< Ceph. Hamb. Mus.

Die Cephalopoden des Hamburger Naturhistorischen Museums.—T. i. Neue Decapoden. Abhandl.
d. Naturwiss. Vereins Hamburg, Bd. viii. Abth. 1, pp. 1-30, pls. iii, 1884.
(ZOOL. CHALL, EXP,—PART XLIV.—1886.) Xx 7

50 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.8. CHALLENGER.
Quoy ET GamarD (Q. et G.).

> Voy. “ Astrolabe.”
Zoologie du Voyage de l’Astrolabe, sous les ordres du Capitaine Dumont d’Urville, pendant les années

1826-29, t. ii. Paris, 1832.

RarFinesque, C. 8. (Raf.).

Précis découv. somiol.
Précis de découvertes somiologiques ou zoologiques et botaniques. Palermo, 1814.

Good Book.
The Good Book and Amentties

On the 3 genera of Cephalopodes—Ocythoe, Todarus, and Anisoctus.
of Nature, or Annals of Historical and Natural Sciences. Philadelphia, 1840.
(The references to these papers are given on the authority of Binney and Tryon’s edition of the

author’s collected works, New York, 1864.)

Rocuesrune, Dr. A. T. pe (Rochebr.),

Monogr. Loligopsidee.
Etude monographique de la famille des Loligopside. Bull. Soc. philom. Paris, séy. 7, t. viii. No. 1,

pp. 7-28, pls, i., ii, 1884.
Monogr. Sepiadee.
Ktude monographique de la famille des Sepiade. Bull. Soc. philom. Paris, sér. 7, t. viii.

pp. 74-122, pls. ui.-vi., 1884.

Monogr. Hledonide.
Etude monographique de la famille des Eledonide, Bull. Soc. philom. Paris, sév. 7, t. viii.

pp. 152-163; pl. vii, 1884.

SmitH, Enear A. (E. A. Sm.).

\. “Alert” Rep.
Report on the Zoological Collections made in the Indo-Pacific Ocean during the Voyage of H.M.S,

“ Alert,” 1881-82. London, 1884.

STEENSTRUP, J APETUS (Stp.).
. Hectocotyl. ;
Hectocotyldannelsen hos Octopodslegterne, Argonauta og Tremoctopus. K. dansk. Vidensk. Selsk.

Skriv., Rk. 4, Bd. iv. pp. 185-216, 1856.
(Translation by W. S. Dallas. Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 2, vol. xx. pp. 81-114, 1857.)

~ Coloss. Bleekspr.
Oplysninger om Atlanterhayets colossale Blaeksprutter. Skand. Naturf. Forhandl., vii. Mode,

pp. 182-185, 1856.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 51

Srmenstrup, Japetus (Stp.)—continwed.
* Overblik.
Overblik over de i Kjébenhavns Museer opbevarede Bleksprutter fra det aabne Hav. Oversigt K.
D. Vid. Selsk. Forhandl., pp. 69-86, 1861.

Hemisepius.
Hemisepius, en ny Slegt af Sepia-Bleksprutternes Familie, med Bemerkninger om Sepia-Formerne
i Almindelighed. K. dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Skriv., Rk. 5, Bd. vii. pp. 465-482, pls. i, i, 1875.

Ommat. Bleekspr.
De Ommatostrephagtige Bleksprutters indbyrdes Forhold. Oversigt K. D. Vid. Selsk. Forhand.,
pp. 73-110, pl. ili., 1880.

Sthenoteuthis og Lestoteuthis.
Professor A. E. Verrils to nye Cephalopodslegter: Sthenoteuthis-og Lestoteuthis, Oversigt K. D.
Vid. Selsk. Forhandl., pp. 1-27, pl. i., 1880.

~ Sepiella.
Sepiella Gray, Stp. Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjébenhavn, pp. 347-356, figs. 1-8, 1880.

Sepiadarium og Idiosepius.
Sepiadarium og Idiosepius, to nye Slegter af Sepiernes Familie, med Bemzrkninger om de to
beslagtede Former Sepioloidea D’Orb. og Spirula Lmk. K. dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Skrwv., Rk. 6,
Bd. i. pp. 213-242, pl. i, 1881.

Noteze Teuthol.
Notze Teuthologicee. Oversigt K. D. Vid. Selsk. Forhandl., pp. 143-168, 1882; pp. 109-127, 1885.

Tarciont-Tozzert1, Apotro (Targ.).

Cef. Mus. Firenze.
Commentario sui Cepalopodi mediterranei del R. Museo di Firenze. Bull. malacol. ital., anno il.,
pp. 141-162, 209-252, 1869.
(The paging in the references is taken from the separate copy.)

Virany, J. B. (Vér.).
Céph. médit.
Mollusques méditeranéens, observés, décrits, figurés et chromolithographiés d’apres le vivant. Partie
1, Céphalopodes de la Méditerranée. Génes, 1851,

Verrit, A. E. (VIL).

x “Blake” Rep.
Reports on the Results of Dredging, under the Supervision of Alexander Agassiz, on the East
Coast of the United States during the Summer of 1880, by the U. S. Coast Survey, Steamer
“Blake,” Commander J. R. Bartlett, U.S.N., Commanding. X.—Report on the Cephalopods,
and on some additional Species dredged. by the U. 8. Fish Commission’ Steamer “ Fish Hawk”
during the Season of 1880. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zodl., vol. viii. No. 5, pp. 99-116, pls. i—vill.,
1881.

52 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Verritt, A. E. (VII.)—continued.
\ “Blake” Suppl.

Reports on the Results of Dredging, under the Supervision of Alexander Agassiz, in the Gulf
of Mexico and in the Caribbean Sea (1878-79), by the U. 8S. Coast Survey Steamer “Blake,”
Lieut.-Commander C. D. Sigsbee, U. 8. N., and Commander J. R. Bartlett, U. S. N., Com-
manding. XXIV.—Supplementary Report on the “ Blake” Cephalopods. Bull. Mus. Comp.
Zool., vol. xi, No. 5, pp. 105-115, pls. i—iii., 1883.

Also Descriptions of Two Species of Octopus from California, No. 6, pp. 117-124, pls. iv.—vi., 1883.

Ceph. N. EH. Amer.

The Cephalopods of the North-Kastern Coast of America. Part I.—The Gigantic Squids (Archi-
teuthis) and their allies; with observations on similar large species from foreign localities.
Trans. Connect. Acad., vol. v. part 1, pp. 177-257, pls. xiii.—xxy., 1880.

Part IJ.—The smaller cephalopods, including the “squids” and the octopi, with other allied
forms. Trans. Connect. Acad., vol. v. part 2, pp. 259-446, pls. xxvi—xli., xlv.-lvi., 1881.

Also reprinted, with scarcely any variation, in Annual Report of the Commissioner of Fish
and Fisheries for 1879, Washington, 1882.

(In references to the pages and plates, the former of these places is quoted as having been first
published, in addition to which the index attached to the Fish Commission Report renders the
indication of pages in it less necessary.)

~~ Second Catal.
Second Catalogue of Mollusca recently added to the Fauna of the New England Coast and the
adjacent parts of the Atlantic, consisting mostly of Deep-Sea Species, with Notes on others

previously recorded. Trans. Connect. Acad., vol. vi. part 1, pp. 139-294, pls. XXVI1L—-Xxxil.,
1884.

Third Catal.

Third Catalogue of Mollusca recently added to the Fauna of the New England Coast and the
adjacent parts of the Atlantic, consisting mostly of Deep-Sea Species, with Notes on others
previously recorded. Trans. Connect. Acad., vol. vi. part 2, pp. 395-452, pls, xlii.—xliv., 1885.

DESCRIPTIONS OF GENERA AND SPECIES.

Every one who, within the last few years, has attempted the task of identifying a
considerable collection of Cephalopoda must have felt great difficulty in deciding what
forms were to be regarded as new; a result mainly owing to the brevity and insufficiency
of the published descriptions of a large proportion of the hitherto known species. Taking
warning by such experiences I have endeavoured to bequeath to my successors as little
trouble in this respect as may be, though I cannot hope that there will not come a time
when the diagnoses given below will be found inadequate to the requirements of the day.
I have endeavoured, without being unduly prolix, to make mention of every feature in
the appearance of the animal which could be of systematic significance, whether I have
myself thought it of much importance in that respect or not.

The specimen has been invariably placed for descriptive purposes in a position,
indicated in the annexed woodcut (Fig. 1), which agrees with what may be called the

DORSAL

VENTRAL
Fic. 1.—Lateral view of a Sepia, showing the position in which the specimen is placed for description.
“morphological disposition” adopted by Lankester,! if the inclination to the horizontal,
which is inconvenient for practical purposes, be neglected. In speaking of the arms, the
side which is turned towards the mouth and bears the suckers has been called the “inner”
and the opposite the “ outer,” and the same terms have been applied to the two surfaces of
the interbrachial membrane or “umbrella.” “ Breadth” has always been used to signify
a transverse measurement, and “length” a measurement parallel to the longitudinal axis
of the animal, although, as in the fins of Cirroteuthis, the former may greatly exceed the
latter. Several structures, to whose systematic value attention has been called by
Steenstrup, have been called by translations of his names; thus “ Heeftepuder” has been
rendered by “fixing cushions.” Other names which have been adopted for the parts of
the shells of Sepia and for other structures will be explained as they arise.

1 Ency. Brit., vol. xvi. p. 664, 1884.

54 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Furthermore the attempt has been made to render the descriptions as easy of reference
as possible, by arranging each in a series of uniform paragraphs and taking up the organs
in a definite order.

Dimensions have been given in the case of new species, although, except as
. indicating general proportions, I do not attach much value to them, owing to the great
contractility of the animals when alive, and to the irregular manner in which they
sometimes seem to be affected by reagents.

It may be a matter of astonishment to some that no stress has been laid upon the
radula in the comparison of different species. When the examimation of the present
collection was first commenced, drawings were made of this organ, and it was intended
to publish and use them for diagnostic purposes, but it became evident in a short time
that without a much more extended investigation than was possible under the circum-
stances no results of value could be hoped for. It appears that m almost every radula
each row of teeth differs a little from the one preceding it, and very frequently five, six,
or even more rows must be examined before a given form repeats itself; two rows of
teeth from the same specimen will often differ as much as two from different species.
From this it was evident that the majority of the figures hitherto published were valueless
for comparative purposes, inasmuch as they show only one row of teeth, and it appeared
wiser to defer the consideration of this particular organ, in the hope of making a thorough
examination of the whole matter with larger material at some future date.

Crass CHPHALOPODA, Covier.

Siphonopoda, Lankester.
Order I. DIBRANCHIATA, Owen.

Suborder I. OCTOPODA, Leach.
Division 1. Lioglossa, Liitken.

Family I. Pterort, Reinhardt et Prosch.

CIRROTEUTHID®, Keferstein.

Cirroteuthis, Eischricht.

Sciadephorus, Reinhardt et Prosch.
Bostrychoteuthis, Agassiz.

The history of this genus has been rather remarkable. Founded in 1836 by
Eschricht for the reception of a single species, it underwent no enlargement for nearly
fifty years, until, in fact, the dredgings of the “Talisman” gave Dr. Fischer materials
for the description of a second species; whilst during the past year no less than five
additional forms have been added, three obtained by the Challenger and two by the
U.S. steamer “ Albatross.”

This sudden increase in our knowledge of the genus is coincident with the extensive
prosecution of deep-sea dredging, and, as will be explained in the sequel (p. 231),
furnishes one argument for regarding Cirroteuthis as an abyssal genus.

It is of course possible that some two or more of these forms may belong to the same
species, for at present we have but slender means of ascertaining the amount of variation
in this genus. As specific characters I have relied upon the form of the mternal
cartilage, the presence or absence of an “intermediate web,” the position on the arm at
which the cirri commence and cease, and the presence or absence of a tubercle or in-
durated tract at the junction of the web with the arms, which will be described further on.

Desiring to avoid as far as possible the danger of creating unnecessary species, I sent
drawings and descriptions of those proposed to Dr. Paul Fischer for comparison with his
type specimens, concerning which he writes,—‘ J'ai comparé avec soin vos figures avec

\

les types de Cirroteuthis umbellata, et aucun d’eux ne se rapporte 4 mon espece, dont

56 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

la terminaison des bras est differente, et dont les cirrhes sont beaucoup plus courts, et
dont les nageoires sont aussi plus courtes et plus arrondies.”

We have no reliable information as to the habits of the genus, and the Challenger
material yielded none even as to its food, for several specimens were in such a frag-
mentary condition that no stomach was forthcoming, and in the other cases it was empty,
and the intestine contained only a pulpy mass in which no structures could be dis-
tinguished. It may be conjectured that the enormous web serves as a kind of fishing-net,
and that the cirri placed between the suckers are tactile in function. It seems also worth
while to suggest that possibly the cirri may by their vibration create a current passing
down the arms to the mouth, thus procuring a supply of food as is also the case with
the Rotifer Stephanoceros. Unfortunately also not one of the specimens of Cirroteuthis
collected by the Challenger is in a fit state for dissection, for the soft consistency of
the tissues of these animals renders them exceedingly sensitive to reagents, and the
amount of material to be dealt with on board the ship was so great that it was im-
possible to give to such delicate organisms the care they required. It is interesting to
note, however, that no radula could be found, as is also the case in Cirroteuthis miillerc.

Cirroteuthis magna, Hoyle (Pl. XI. figs. 3-5; Pl. XII; Pl. XIII. figs. 1-4).

1876. Ctrroteuthis sp., Suhm, Challenger Briefe, vi., Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool., Bd. xxvi. p. Ixxx.
1885 a magna, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 233.
1885. . » Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I., p. 109.

Habitat.—Station 146, between Prince Edward Island and the Crozets, December
29, 1873; lat. 46° 46’ S., long. 45° 31’ E.; 1375 fathoms; Globigerina ooze. One
specimen.

Station 298, off Valparaiso, November 17, 1875; lat. 34° 7’ S., long. 73° 56’ W. ;
2225 fathoms; blue mud. One mangled specimen.

The Body is oblong, about twice as long as broad, and rather broader than deep.
The mantle-opening is circular, but little larger than the base of the siphon, and its
margins are continuous with two ridges on the sides of the latter. The s¢phon is conical,
and slightly swollen at the tip; it is not connected to the head by hgaments. The jins
are obovate in form, about four times as broad as long, and thickened along the posterior
margin. The dorsal cartilage (Pl. XIII. figs. 1, 2) is saddle-shaped, and elongated from
side to side, not antero-posteriorly.

The Head is directly continuous with, and somewhat narrower than the body; the
eyes are spheroidal, the lens spherical, and the palpebral opening circular.

The Arms are subequal, three and a half to four times as long as the body; they are
slender, and more resemble thickenings of the web than independent arms; they are

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. BY

thickest about two-thirds the distance from their base, and terminate in a delicate
slender tip, which projects beyond the web. The umbrella is a thin delicate mem-
brane, very largely developed, and when fully expanded probably forming a cup nearly
three times as large in diameter as in depth. It extends from the tip of the ventral arm
on either side backwards, and becomes gradually narrower, so that it only extends along
the proximal two-thirds of the next arm, and passes beneath it to be attached in a
erescentic line to the outer surface of the web, which similarly passes backwards from
the tip of this (Pl XII. fig. 1): this condition is usually described by saying that the
arm does not lie in the umbrella for the proximal two-thirds of its length, but is jomed
to it by a vertical or “intermediate” web, but this does not so correctly represent the
arrangement. The umbrella stretches across from tip to tip of the two dorsal arms, and
between the proximal two-thirds of the two ventral arms (see woodcut 2). The web is
thickened but not indurated where it is attached to the ventral aspect of the arms. The
suckers commence about 1 cm. from the oral margin, and the first four he pretty close
together within a space of less than 2 em., after which they gradually become further
separated, an interval of 2-3 cm. intervening between each two ; about two-thirds along
the arm they stand closer together, and are very large, but after this they again become
smaller, and stand in close contiguity with each other. The proximal suckers are small,
prominent, and rather soft, and seem to contract by folding the lateral margins over
towards each other, so as to present the appearance of a half-closed eyelid; the largest
suckers are firm and muscular, and consist of a hollow globular basal portion imbedded
in the arm and a short cylindrical or conical projecting portion. They are divided inter-
nally also into two parts, the outer being a shallow cup leading by a narrow aperture
into a rounded cavity below. The cir77 commence between the fourth and fifth suckers
as very minute prominences, which gradually increase in length until halfway along
the arm they attain a maximum length of 8 cm., after which they decrease rapidly,
and cease opposite the attachment of the web to the ventral aspect of the arm.

The Surface of the body has been entirely denuded of epidermis, so that it is
impossible to ascertain its nature ; the web is perfectly smooth.

The Colour, so far as preserved, is a dull madder ; an entry in v. Willemoes-Suhm’s
manuscript journal states that it was “rose” when captured.

The Jaws are shown in Pl. XII. figs. 6, 7.

(ZOOL. CHALL, EXP,—PART XLIV.—1886.) Xx 8

58 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Dimensions.
Length, total, : : 6 : : F . 1155 mm.
End of body to Man tleomaera! 3 d : ‘ ; g 4 OB og
End of body to eye, ; ; : : : : a Ia, 5,
Breadth of body, . : 3 4 : : ; sD Se
Breadth of head, . : é : : : : about 100 ,,
Eye to root of fin, : E P : : : Poy» Os
Length of fin, . : : : : : : (Ghee.
Breadth of fin (sainenn) « : : : : : , oh AOS ME.
Breadth of intermediate web, é , : ‘ : 5 lis 2,
Diameter of largest sucker, : : i é : : Suk
Length of longest cirri, . 2 : : : é 2 80 ,,
Breadth of dorsal cartilage, : : 5 : : cto LOO: eye
Length (greatest antero-posterior), : ; ; ; : BO) 5,
», (median), . ; ‘ ; F : s XD 5,
Thickness (dorso sentir, F é : : 5 : 2 O aes
Right. Left.
Length of first arm, ; : d : : : - 875 mm. 875 mm.
Length of second arm, . ‘ : : ; ‘ > 8 5 SOleess
Length of third arm, ; ‘ 3 : : » &@ = SO) >
Length of fourth arm, . : : : : : 838 ,, is 5,
Length of free tip of arms, 0 : : : : Sra BO) > KO) a
Suckers on first arm, i : d F ‘ : eS eee SO
Suckers on second arm, . : : : : ; : Somme SSaaes
Suckers on third arm, . 3 ; : : ; > OB 5 Oa.
Suckers on fourth arm, . ; ‘ : : : : Bees 85 |,

The species just described is based upon only two specimens; the smaller is in a very
fragmentary condition, but the larger is of special interest as being, so far as I am aware,
by far the largest of the genus hitherto known; the fine series of Cirroteuthis miilleri in
the Copenhagen Museum contains none more than 40 em. in extreme length.

Still larger dimensions must, however, be sometimes attained by the genus, as is
proved by the suckers which were removed from a dead specimen floating on the surface,
and which measured nearly twice as much in diameter as those of the present individual
(see p. 66).

The arrangement of the web needs perhaps a little further description. Commencing
with the portion between the two dorsal arms, it extends almost up to their extremities,
only a very slender tapering portion projecting beyond it (Pl. XII. fig. 2, and woodcut 2).
The arms themselves appear to be thickenings of the margin of the web for the reception
of the suckers, rather than independent structures ; they are about 25 mm. wide,
thickened at the free margin where the suckers are inserted, and becoming gradually
thinner as they pass into the web. A curved line (2, 7, woodeut 2) may be seen passing
along the membrane on either side from near the mouth to a point about two-thirds up
the arm ; this line is the attachment of the web extending between the dorsal and dorso-

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 59

lateral arms of either side, which is affixed to the outer surface of the web above
described, and in its turn passes to within 30 mm. of the extremity of the dorso-lateral
arm. Its margin is thickened where it is attached to the dorsal arm (Pl. XII. fig. 3);
this thickening corresponds to the hardened tract forming this part of the margin of the
web in Cirroteuthis miilleri, but there is no trace of anything horny or cartilaginous in
its constitution in the present species.

The membrane is attached in a precisely similar way to each two successive arms,
producing, when looked at from the anterior end of the animal, the figure shown in
woodcut 2, A.

Ky Ly
A

Fic. 2.—Diagrammatic figures of Cirroteuthis magna, drawn to a scale of about one-twentieth, to show the form and
arrangement of the umbrella. A, seen from the anterior aspect; B, from the left hand side ; R,-Ry, D,-L4, the arms
of the right and left sides respectively ; 7, 7, the lines indicating the attachment of one web to the other.

The effect of this arrangement is that when the umbrella is extended the arms do not
lie in its plane, but each is separated from it by the portion of web lying between the
arm and the curved line alluded to above; this may be conveniently called the
“intermediate ” web.

Measurements of the different parts of the web led to the following conclusions as
to its form when fully expanded. The perimeter of the margin must have been about
450 em., the distance between the tips of the two dorsal arms being 80 cm., between the
two ventral 62 cm., while the distances between the remaining pairs varied from 46 to
54 cm.

The radius of the circle in which the tips of the arms lie would thus be about 72 em.,
and taking the average length of an arm at 87 cm., and assuming them to be quite
extended or but shghtly curved, the mouth would then be about 60 cm. behind the plane
of the tips of the arms. The web itself, however, would form deep pouches between the

60 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

several arms owing to the presence of the intermediate web, and might render the whole
apparatus a very effective fishing-net.

The dorsal cartilage (Pl. XIII. figs. 1, 2) may be described as saddle-shaped ; it is
narrow, thick, and rises up into a prominent angle on the dorsum, while the two sides are
flattened out into obovate expansions, which are more prominent anteriorly than pos-
teriorly. A thick semi-cartilaginous membrane is attached all round the dorsal surface,
and appears to have been reflected over it, and thus to have enclosed a narrow cavity
above the cartilage : in Cirroteuthis miilleri a similar membrane seems to have overlapped
the posterior surface and to have formed a cavity there.’ This organ is widely different
in form from that of Cirroteuthis miilleri as may be seen at once on comparing Pl. XIII.
figs. 1, 2, with the figures in Reinhardt and Prosch’s Memoir. In both instances,
however, the cartilage is entirely free from the sac in which it lies, and the bases of the
fins rest upon it near the extremities of the lateral expansions.

The mangled specimen from Station 298 was at first referred to Stawroteuthis, but
with very great hesitation ; firstly because of its lacerated condition, and secondly in
consequence of doubts as to the validity of the genus.

In Verrill’s definition there are but few points mentioned which seem to me of generic
importance, and of these a large proportion are also common to Cirroteuthis, for instance,
the opening sentence—“ Allied to Cirrhoteuthis, but with the mantle united to the head
all around, and to the dorsal side of the slender siphon, which it surrounds like a close
collar, leaving only a very narrow opening around the base of the siphon, laterally and
ventrally ” “—is quite misleading, and would not have been written if the author had had
the opportunity of examining a specimen of Cirroteuthis in good condition, for he would
then have seen that these characters, upon which he relies for distinction, are common to
both genera ; the mistake has no doubt arisen from his having had for comparison only
the figures of Eschricht,’ which exhibit the mantle as gaping widely open and exposing
the gills; a condition only seen in specimens whose tissues have become loosened and
stretched in consequence of defective preservation. The excellent drawing of the animal
in a living condition by Madame Rudolph, published by Reinhardt and Prosch,* would
have shown Professor Verrill the true state of the case, especially when taken in conjunc-
tion with their clear description of the arrangement :—‘ Head and body are united to
the greatest extent possible, so that there only remains a horse-shoe-shaped aperture
closely surrounding the funnel in the ventral median line” (op. cit., p. 11).° |

The points which are really diagnostic between the two genera, if only reliance can
be placed upon them, are the following :—(1) “Dorsal cartilage forming a median

1 Om Sciadephorus Miilleri, tab. iii. figs. 1, 2, 3. 2 Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 382.

3 Nova Acta Acad. Owes. Leop.-Carol., tom. xviii., tab. xlviii. 4 Om Sciadephorus Milleri, tab. 1.

5 Professor Steenstrup, who gave Dr. Rudolph a-preliminary acquaintance with the Mollusca of Greenland before

his departure to that country, tells me that this account of the form of the mantle-opening was confirmed by Dr. and
Madame Rudolph in conversation with him.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 61

angle, directed backward,”’* and (2) the fact that the web is attached to an equal extent
both to the dorsal and ventral aspects of the arms.”

With regard to the former of these matters I am inclined to doubt its value, because
in the case of Cirroteuthis meangensis | found a young individual with the cartilage
disposed as in Stawroteuthis, while in a larger one it was placed in the usual manner.
Furthermore, the examination of the specimens of Cirroteuthis miilleri in the Zoological
Museum at Copenhagen led me to the conclusion. that the cartilage was liable to con-
siderable displacement by the unequal contraction of so soft and loosely compacted a
body when immersed in alcohol, and that an observer who had only one specimen for
investigation might easily be deceived as to its original position.

As to the latter point, it constitutes, to my mind, the chief diagnostic character of
Stauwroteutlis, if it be proved to exist. It may seem gratuitous to hint that so careful an
observer as Professor Verrill may have made a mistake in such a matter as the attach-
ment of the web to the arms, but he does not record the absence of the usual inequality,
and it is a point which, unless exaggerated, as in the case of Cirroteuthis magna, is not
very striking, and is also one which has been observed in every specimen examined with
a view to ascertaining its existence. More explicit information as to this point, and as to
the form of the internal cartilage, would be very acceptable to teuthologists.

The specimen under discussion was at first referred to Stawroteuthis, because, although
the web was much lacerated, it appeared as though it could be traced almost to the
extremities of the arms, and that name (with a query) was affixed to the drawing (PI.
XI. fig. 3), in which also the margin of the web was ‘“‘restored” in agreement with this
view as to the affinities of the animal. Since the cartilage has been extracted, however,
and has been compared with that of Cirroteuthis magna, it has been found to present a
most decided agreement with it (compare Pl. XIII. figs. 1, 2, and 3, 4), and a renewed
examination of the arms and the fragments of the web has shown that the appearances
previously relied upon were deceptive, so that there seems now every reason to regard
this specimen and the larger one as conspecific.

Cirroteuthis pacifica, Hoyle (PI. X.).

1885. Crrroteuthis pacifica, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 235.
1885. ' Ay Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I., p. 112.

Habitat.—Station 181, off the south-eastern extremity of Papua, August 25, 1874 ;
lat. 18° 50’ S., long. 151° 49’ E.; 2440 fathoms; red clay. One mutilated specimen.

The Body is almost entirely absent. The fin is obovate in form, and thickened along
the posterior margin, thin and membranous at the extremity and along the anterior

1 Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 382. 2 Op. cet, pl. xxxil.

62 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

margin (fig. 3). The mantle-opening is horse-shoe-shaped, and closely embraces the
base of the siphon, which is long, thin, and conical (fig. 3).

The Head is exceedingly short, and the eye appears to occupy all the available space
between the fin and the arms.

The Arms are subequal, thick, rounded, and soft, and taper rapidly towards the
extremities. The wmbrella is attached directly to the arms, which are somewhat more
prominent on its inner than on its outer surface ; it is attached to the dorsal aspect of
every arm almost to the tip, and to the ventral aspect for somewhat more than half its
length, and at this latter attachment is a firm nodule of cartilaginous consistency (fig. 2).
The suckers are about fifty-two in number, and commence close to the oral lip, and the
first half-dozen stand near together; halfway up the arms they are farther apart, and the
largest are situated opposite the attachment of the membrane to the ventral aspect of the
arms; they are prominent, but not so hard and firm as those of Cirroteuthis magna :
there are faint radial markings upon them. The civr7i commence on the dorsal arms
between the seventh and eighth suckers, and continue till the last ; on the ventral arms
they commence between the sixth and seventh, and here also are continued to the tips
of the arms; they begin as small papillee, and gradually increase in length, attaining the
maximum about halfway along the arms.

The Surface is smooth.

The Colour is a deep purplish-madder, paler outside the umbrella and on the fin.

The Jaws are shown in Pl, X. figs. 4, 5.

Dimensions.

Length of fin, . . : : ‘ 15 mm.

Breadth of one fin from origin to tip, : : : : : iY) 5

Length of siphon, 5 : : : : ; ‘ 1G) gs

Diameter of largest sucker, : : 2 : : : 2°5 .,

Length of longest cirri, . : : : : ; é 5 5

Right. Left.

Length of first arm, : : : : : ; 5s yO sm, 145 mm.
Length of second arm, . 3 ; 3 ‘ ; auld Oley aenlic oii at
Length of third arm, : : F ; 5 ; eS Osea 140 _,,
Length of fourth arm, .. : ; : é F 5 Oates S55

The only specimen representing this species is sadly mutilated ; the whole body has
been removed, leaving only one fin, one eye, and the siphon. It is readily distinguished
from the last by the much greater thickness and solidity of the arms and the smaller com-
parative size of the suckers, and by the fact that the web is very narrow between the
several arms,and does not admit of their being widely separated (this may be due to the
action of thespirit); it is attached directly to each side of the arms, one web not being
joined to the other so as to constitute an intermediate web. As in that form, however, it

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 63

passes to the tip of the arm on the dorsal aspect, and only about two-thirds up it on the
ventral.

On the ventral side of each arm, just where the margin of the umbrella is attached, is
a peculiar ovoid nodule of cartilaginous consistency projecting inwards, somewhat paler in
colour than the surrounding tissue (see Pl. X. figs. 1,2). This is obviously homologous
with the thickening of the margin of the web in Cirroteuthis miilleri, alluded to above,
and I have no doubt that it is of a similar nature to the structure described by Verrill
in the case of his Cirroteuthis megaptera.’ In that case, however, the organ seems
to have been long and tentacular instead of being a mere nodule. I do not feel able to
suggest any function for these structures, other than that they serve to strengthen the
web at its attachment to the arm where it would naturally run the greatest risk of being
torn. I do not think that their arrangement in this species lends any support to Verrill’s
view that ‘it may, perhaps, correspond to one of the transverse supports of the marginal
membranes of Sthenoteuthis and Ommastrephes,” but should rather be disposed to agree
with Professor Steenstrup who regards them as comparable to the thickened margin of
the web-like expansion of the third pair of arms of Ommastrephes. In any case it is
interesting to see here a stage in the evolution of the more complete organ, which he
has described, another step being represented by the still less pronounced nodule observed
in the next species.

The proximal end of the cartilage of the fin was exposed and presented a long grooved
articular surface; the one branchia which remained was similar to that of Cirroteuthis
miillert, presenting the appearance of a spheroidal nodule with meridional grooves, and
looking not unlike an Onzsews when rolled up.

Cirroteuthis meangensis, Hoyle (Pl. IX. figs. 12,13; Pl. XI. figs. 1,2; Pl. XIII.
figs. 5, 6).
1885. meangensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 234. i
1885. Bs ar Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I, p. 111.
Habitat.—Station 214, off the Meangis Islands, February 10, 1875; lat. 4° 33’ N.,
long. 127° 6’ E.; 500 fathoms; blue mud. One specimen.
Station 171, north of the Kermadee Islands, July 15, 1874; lat. 28° 33’ &., long.
177° 50’ W.; 600 fathoms; hard ground. One immature specimen.

The Body is much distorted, but appears to have been subglobular in form, The
mantle-opening is very small, and fits closely around the base of the siphon, which is
small and bluntly conical, with a still smaller pimple-like extremity; on either side there
extends from the dorso-lateral base a curved fold of membrane, which loses itself in the

Third Catal., p. 407.

64 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

mantle. The jins are about equal in length to the breadth of the body, narrow and
pointed at the extremity, and thickened towards the posterior margin, and just above
the root of each is a pore of unknown function. The dorsal cartilage is much elongated
transversely, and is curved almost into the form of a horse-shoe (Pl. XIII. fig. 5).

The Head is exceedingly short, and the eyes large and spheroidal.

The Arms are subequal, and about three times as long as the body in the present
shrunken condition of the specimen; they taper rather rapidly to slender points. The
umbrella extends on the dorsal side of each arm to within 1 cm. of its extremity, whilst
on the ventral side it reaches only four-fifths along it; the arms lie in the umbrella, and
are not united to it by any intermediate or vertical web. The suckers are about sixty to
seventy in number, small and subequal; they are at equal intervals for the greater part
of the arm, but closer near the extremity. The cirri are short, stout, and conical, the
largest 2 mm. in length; on the ventral arms they commence between the fourth and
fifth suckers, and extend to the fiftieth sucker, beyond which there are twenty-one suckers,
which gradually decrease ; on the dorsal arms the cirri commence between the sixth and
seventh suckers, and continue to the fifty-fifth, beyond which there are nine suckers.

The Surface is smooth.

The Colour of the body is creamy white, of the arms and umbrella deep madder-brown.
The suckers and cirri are paler.

Dimensions.

Breadth of body, . : : ‘ : : d : 30 mm.

Length of fin, . : 3 : , é : ‘ OU

Breadth of one fin, : : 5 : : : : 30m.

Diameter of largest sucker, : : : ‘ : : liga

Diameter of eye, . ‘ : : ; 5 : ‘ 2 ees

Right. Left.

Length of first arm, : : . 3 : : . 100 mm. 100 mm.
Length of second arm, . ; : : ; : : 94 1@O 5,
Length of third arm, ; 3 : : , : : SOME OB op
Length of fourth arm, . : 6 ; : ; : GO 5 OZ.

This species is closely allied to the last, the web being attached directly to either side
of each arm, so that there is no intermediate web, whilst it passes nearly to the tip on the
dorsal but only about four-fifths upon the ventral aspect; furthermore, at the junction with
the arm on this side there is a small papilla, but this, besides being smaller, is more inti-
mately connected with the arm, and lies less in the web than in the case of Cirroteuthis
pacifica; it is marked by a ridge which is a continuation of the margin of the umbrella (PI.
XI. fig. 2); the cirri too, instead of ceasing where the membrane terminates on the ventral
aspect of the arm, are continued almost, if not quite, to its extremity. The two species
differ in the form of the funnel, in the presence of the pore above mentioned, and the cirri

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 65

commence one or two suckers farther from the mouth, but it is not certain how
much importance is to be attached to this point.

In connection with the capture of this species I find the following note in Dr. v.
Willemoes-Suhm’s MS. Journal. “‘ Cirroteuthis.—By us this genus. . . . has been found
before in deep water several times, especially in the Antarctic,” alluding no doubt to the
specimens above described as Cirroteuthis magna and Cirroteuthis pacifica. Further-
more, in his “Challenger Briefe” (oc. cit.) he remarks, ‘‘Ich méchte glauben, dass das
Thier wie die Umbellularia im hohen Norden das Flachwasser erreicht,. . . . im iibrigen
aber tiberall in grossen Tiefen bei niedrigen Temperaturgraden anzutreffen ist,” a supposi-
tion which we shall afterwards see to be remarkably borne out by all we know of the
distribution of the genus (see section on Distribution, postéa).

The dorsal cartilage (Pl. XIII. figs. 5, 6) resembles that of Cirroteuthis magna rather
than of Cirroteuthis miilleri, but the peculiar transversely elongated and curved shape of
the former is here greatly exaggerated. It consists, indeed, of a thin rod bent round
almost into the shape of a horse-shoe: the inner surface of the curve is rounded off,
whereas the outer is flat except for four little angular processes, which protrude from it
on the anterior and posterior edges about halfway between the centre and the extremities
of the curve. Just outside these processes is a slightly flattened area which receives
the base of the fin, and forms a kind of socket for it. ;

The interesting little specimen shown enlarged about four diameters on Pl. IX. figs.
12, 13, may, owing to its complete state of preservation, be supposed to give a better
idea of the general form of the body than any other in the collection.

The arms are bent sharply outwards, probably owing to the contraction caused by the
alcohol, and for the same reason, as well as because the web on their dorsal side extends
quite to the tips, they are drawn upwards at their extremities. They have each about
thirty suckers, and the cirri appear as minute papillae beside and alternating with
them.

The head measured across the eyes is the widest part of the body, and just behind
these, and slightly to the ventral side of them, are the fins, which arise by narrow
rounded peduncles, and become flattened and expanded distally. The funnel is placed
anteriorly to the eyes and curves downwards, the mantle-margin fitting closely round its
base.

The posterior extremity of the body presents several interesting points for considera-
tion: it is flattened from above downwards, thus terminating in a subacute edge, and
this marginal portion seems to consist entirely of the internal cartilage with the integu-
ments stretched tightly over it. The form of the skeleton thus revealed very closely
resembles that of Cirroteuthis meangensis above described, the angular prominences
shown in Pl. XIII. fig. 5, being quite distinctly traceable (they are not quite sufficiently

indicated in Pl. [X. fig. 12). It is very singular that this cartilage is curved in the
(ZOOL. CHALL, EXP.—PART XLIv.—1886.) Xx 9

66 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

horizontal plane in which lies the longitudinal axis of the body, whereas in the specimen
which I take to be an adult of the same species, it lies in a vertical plane. The
significance of this point has been already alluded to whilst discussing the genus
Stauroteuthis (p. 61).

This specimen has been referred to Cirroteuthis meangensis, chiefly on account of the
dorsal cartilage, but partly also from the presence of papillee at the junction of the web
with the ventral aspect of the arms, though this character would not distinguish it from
Cirroteuthis pacifica.

Cirroteuthis sp. (Pl. IX. figs. 10, 11).

Habitat.—South Pacific Ocean, 20° W. of Patagonia, November 6, 1875.

Concerning this specimen, Mr. Murray’s MS. journal has the following note :—“On
the 6th we passed a large blubber. The dingy was lowered, and I went away in it to
pick it up. It turned out to be part of an immense cuttle-fish, Cirroteuthis. The
body was gone as it had been eaten by some animal, only the arms and mouth parts
remained.”

The portions which came into my hands consisted of three suckers, one of which had
a small fragment of the integument of the arm attached to it (fig. 10). There is nothing
to indicate from what part of the arm they were taken, but it is most likely that the
largest suckers available would be selected for removal, and on the assumption that such was
the case they would show that the animal was of considerably greater dimensions than
the specimen of Cirroteuthis magna. In that form the largest suckers are situated about
two-thirds along the arms, and measure 8 mm. in diameter, while the largest of the
present three was about 12 mm. in diameter; it would be unsafe to assume that all the
dimensions of the animals were proportional to the diameters of the suckers, but it seems
fair to suppose that this specimen attained a length of not less than 1°5 metres.

A section of one of the suckers shows it to consist of a firm muscular shell, which is
embedded in the substance of the arm, and is somewhat less than 1 mm. thick. The
cavity is subdivided by a circular ridge, the outer portion being the proper suctorial
disk, the margins of which are in this instance incurved, so that it appears to form part
of the general cavity.

The suckers present no characteristic structure nor peculiar markings which could
serve to establish satisfactorily either the specific identity of this form with, or its difference
from, any of the preceding ones.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 67

Family Il. AMPHITRETID4, n. fam.

Amplhitretus,* Hoyle.

This genus possesses the character, unique amongst Cephalopoda, of having the mantle
fused with the siphon in the median line, so that there are two openings into the branchial
cavity, one on either side, whence the name.” Since only one species is at present known,
it is unnecessary to give a more detailed generic diagnosis.

Amphitretus pelagicus, Hoyle (Pl. 1X. figs. 7-9).

1885. Amphitretus pelagicus, Hoyle, Diagnoses IL., p. 235.
1885. 3 # Hoyle, Narr. Chall. Exp., vol. i. p. 271, fig. 106.
1885. % im Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I., p. 113, woodcut.
Habitat.—Station 170, off the Kermadec Islands, July 14, 1874; lat. 29° 55’ S.,
long. 178° 14’ W.; 520 fathoms; volcanic mud. One specimen, sex (?).

The Body is short, rounded, of gelatinous consistency, and semitransparent. The
mantle adheres to the sides of the siphon, so that the mantle-opening, which is single in
all other known Cephalopods, is here divided into two pocket-like openings, which he one
beneath each eye, and extend less than halfway to the svphon, which is very long and
narrow, and extends forwards anteriorly to the margin of the mantle, for a distance
almost equal to the length of the body, and is a little swollen at the extremity.

The Head is indistinguishable from the body, except by the possession of the eyes,
which are situated near together on the dorsal surface; they consist of a larger basal
spheroid, through the walls of which pigment is clearly visible, upon which stands a
smaller very prominent spheroid, white, opaque, and of glistening surface.

The Arms are equal, and rather more than twice as long as the body; they are
slender, and taper at first gradually and then more rapidly to comparatively blunt points.
The umbrella extends more than two-thirds up the arms, and is thin, delicate, and trans-
parent (much damaged in the present instance). The suckers are firm, muscular cups
embedded in the softer tissue of the arms, as in Cirroteuthis; there are about twelve
placed at some distance apart on that portion of the arm up which the web extends, and
eleven closely set, and showing a tendency to biserial arrangement on the free extremities.
There are no cirri, nor is there any trace of the formation of a hectocotylus.

1 gu@irenros, with double entrance.

2 Functionally, if not structurally, this arrangement may be compared with the median septum which is

found in the branchial cavity of Octopus, Eledone and other genera, and is seen carried almost to the margin of the
mantle in Alloposus mollis, Verrill (Ceph. N. E. Amer,, pl. 1. figs. 1, 2).

68 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

The Surface appears to have been quite smooth originally; there is no sign of any
cirri or warts.

The Colour is a dull yellow, apparently due ‘to preservation in picric acid, and the
mantle and umbrella are thickly sprinkled with small brown chromatophores.

Dimensions.

Length, total, . : ‘ : A 3 : ; 45 mm.
End of body to mantle-margin, . 5 4 : ; : 11 Rk
End of body toeye, . é : " ; : : 9 5
Breadth of body, : : : : : : 11
Hye to edge of umbrella, : : : ‘ : ’ a)
Diameter of largest sucker, : j ‘ ; ; : 0-75 ,,

”

Length of arms, : ‘ : ; é : . 30

This interesting little Cephalopod came into my hands in a condition of strong con-
traction, due to the action of strong spirit and of picric acid, in which I infer that it had
been placed, partly from its strong yellow colour and partly from a statement in one of
v. Willemoes-Suhm’s letters to the effect that this reagent was commonly used on board
for small Cephalopoda." The body of the animal was much deformed owing to this
contraction, and it was only after prolonged soaking in weak spirit that it was possible |
to make out the principal points in its organisation; indeed, it was long before I dis-
covered the two lateral openings into the mantle cavity, supposing in consequence that
this communicated with the exterior only by the siphon. There seems still to be an
adhesion on one side between the mantle and the body, so that access into the branchial
cavity on this side is impossible ; it is so clear, however, on the other that it seems only
reasonable to suppose that this closure is an abnormal condition.

As regards the affinities of the genus, it seems to be most nearly allied to Cirroteuthis,
as shown by its arms bearing a single series of suckers and being united by a broad web.
They resemble each other too in the great extent to which the mantle is united with the
head, but in the one case the adhesion is lateral, in the other it is median.

As conspicuous points of difference may be noted, the absence of the cartilage (so far
as can be ascertained by feeling through the body-wall), the absence of fins and of cirri
along the arms.

In the delicacy and transparency of its tissues it also resembles Bobitena Eledo-
nella and Japetella, but this may be an adaptation to pelagic life rather than a point
indicating morphological relationship.

1“iir Cephalopoden zarterer Art verwenden wir stets mit gutem Erfolg, ehe wir sie in Alkohol thun, eine
verdinnte Lésung von Chrom- oder, bei kleineren, namentlich durchsichtigen Arten, Pikrinsiure,” Challenger Briefe

VI., Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool., Bd. xxvi. p. xxx, 1876. I may take this opportunity of recommending others to avoid the
use of this reagent for Cephalopoda.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 69

Family II]. ARGonauTID 4, Cantraine.

Argonauta, Linné.
Argonauta argo, Linné.

1758. Argonauta argo, Linn., Syst. Nat., ed. x. p. 708.

1817. a haustrum, Dillwyn, Descr. Catal., p. 335 (=forma aurita).
1838. i argo, VOrb., Céph. acét. ; Argonaute, pl. ii. figs. 1, 2.

1852. 3 Grunert, Dunker, Zeitschr. f. Malak., p. 48 (=jforma mutica).
1861. ij 5 Reeve, Conch. Icon., pl. ii. fig. 2b (= forma mutica).
1861. 5 argo, Reeve, Conch. Icon., pl. iii. fig. 2c.

1861. ss haustrum, Reeve, Conch. Icon., pl. ii. (= forma aurita).

Habitat.—Cape of Good Hope, December 1873. One medium sized specimen.

Atlantic, Cape of Good Hope (d’Orbigny, Tryon); Madeira (Suhm, MS.); Mediter-
ranean (d’Orbigny, Cantraine, Vérany, &c.); east coast of the United States (Lockwood,
Verrill); Pacific and Gulf of California (Tryon).

The specimen brought home by the Challenger measures 90 mm. in length, and is of
special interest because it shows the process of repair. On the right hand side a large
erack has run across the shell from a point about 10 mm. from the inner cusp to
about midway along the convex curve; at its commencement this expands into a notch
18 mm. across and 11 mm. deep, while farther back it leads into a hole in the form of
an isosceles triangle whose sides are 25 mm. and whose base is 18 mm. It passes
also quite across the carima of the shell, and about 15 mm. on to the left side.
Besides this crack there are two irregularly oval holes, each about 10 mm. long on the
left side, a small one on the right, and two on the carina.

Repair has proceeded to such an extent that the notch is almost filled up, and from a
consideration of the lines in the calcareous matter deposited this seems to have taken
place while from 3 to 5 mm. were being added to the rest of the margin. The large
triangular hole has been quite filled, though the layer covering it is somewhat thinner
than the remainder of the shell; and the smaller holes are partially or completely filled
by an exceedingly delicate membrane, so thin as to be quite flexible, and bearing a strong
superficial resemblance to goldbeaters’ skin. |

Assuming that the injuries were all inflicted at one time, this would indicate that the
most important lesions were most rapidly repaired. Another matter deserving of special
notice is that the material which has filled up the marginal notch is quite different from
that which has been employed in repairing the holes. The former is perfectly smooth,
shining, and porcellanous, and marked with striz parallel to the margin, while the latter
is dull, rough, and irregularly scratched, one or two lines describing elliptic curves ;
this latter substance, moreover, seems to rise up from the under surface of the shell, for

traf \6S7

(2), 29, ),.63.

70 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

while it is evenly continuous with the inner surface it does not rise up quite so high as
the outer, leaving the rough angles exposed. The two materials meet in a distinct line
near the bottom of the notch.

This confirms what has been stated by previous observers, that the processes of repair
are differently carried out in the marginal and central parts of the shell.

Family IV. PHILONEX1ID 4@, dOrbigny.

Tremoctopus, Delle Chiaje.
Philonexis, VOrbigny.

Tremoctopus quoyanus (V’Orbigny), Steenstrup (PI. XIII. fig. 7).

1835. Octopus (Philonexis) Quoyanus, VOrb., Amér. mérid., p. 17, pl. i. figs. 6-8.
1838. Philonexis Quoyanus, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 96 ; Poulpes, pl. xvi. figs. 6-8, pl. xxiii. fig. 5.
1861. Tremoctopus Quoyanus, Stp., Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjgbenhavn, Aar 1860, p. 332.
Habitat.—North Atlantic, April 28, 1876; lat. 17° 47’ N., long. 28° 28’ W. (at
noon) ; from the tow-net at night; surface. Seventeen specimens (8 2, 9 2).
South Pacific, between the Sandwich Islands and Tahiti, September 15, 1875:
lat. 12° 8’S., long. 150° 13’ W. One specimen, ¢.
South Atlantic (d’Orb.) ; Atlantic (Stp.).

Of the seventeen specimens from the Atlantic above recorded, the three largest were
im a separate bottle labelled ‘in absolute alcohol,” while a fourth was mounted in a cell
as a microscopic object, but, owing to the impossibility of identification in that condition,
it was transferred to a tube of alcohol.

All the males had the hectocotylised arm (the third on the right side) still enclosed
in its sac, which had the form of a large tumour extending as far as the margin of the
mouth ; and in one case there were six suckers upon its inner surface close to the margin
of the mouth, belonging to the arm which was just issuing from its sac, an interesting
fact as showing that the sac opens first at its oral margin (Pl. XIII. fig. 7).

The specimen from the Pacifie Ocean was not very well preserved, the web between
the arms having been almost entirely destroyed, so that error in its identification is by
no means impossible.

The largest female specimen obtained was so much larger than those measured by
VOrbigny that it seems worth while to record its principal dimensions; it does not
appear to be sexually mature, and Professor Steenstrup informs me that he has never
seen any individual in that condition.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. v1

Dimensions.

Length, total, . 5 : : : : : E 70 mm.

End of body to mantle-margin, . ‘ : ; : : FO teas

End of body to eye, : : : a ; , : WS 5

Breadth of body, , 5 ; : 5 ; ; IG

Breadth of head (including the eyes), . : : 3 : N65,

Diameter of largest sucker, i ; : 0 : : 075,

Right. Left.

Length of first arm, . : : 3 ° ; : 50 mm. 45 mm.
Length of second arm, , < s : 5 3 45 Pr BI)
Length of third arm, . Q . 6 : : : 175, KD 5
Length of fourth arm, : 6 4 F : : BAG) o- Bios) 9

Tremoctopus atlanticus (dV Orbigny), Steenstrup.

1835. Octopus (Philonexis) atlanticus, d’Orb., Amér. mérid., p. 19, pl. ii. figs. 1-4.
1838. Philonexis atlanticus, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 98; Poulpes, pl. xvi. figs. 4, 5.
Habitat.—North Atlantic between Tenerife and St. Thomas, Danish West Indies ;
surface. Fourteen specimens (6 ?, 8 ¢ ).

Tropical Atlantic (d’Orb.).

The male specimens from the North Atlantic present a very interesting series of
graduated sizes, illustrating the gradual development of the hectocotylus. The smallest
had a mantle of 2°5 mm. in length, the position of the third right arm was occupied by a
small round process, of about 0°75 mm. in diameter; in another, where the mantle was
about 3 mm. in length. the hectocotylus was 1°5 mm. in diameter, while a third, with a
mantle 4°5 mm. long, had a hectocotylus 2°5 mm. in diameter.

Tremoctopus gracilis (?) (Eydoux et Souleyet), Tryon (PI. XIII. figs. 8, 9).

1852. Octopus gracilis, E. et S., Voy. “‘ Bonite,” p. 13, pl. i. figs. 8, 9.

1879. Tremoctopus gracilis, Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. i. p. 131.
Habitat.—Western Pacific, between Papua and Japan; surface. One specimen, ¢.
North Pacific, lat. 8° N., long. 106° W. (E. and §.).

I cannot with satisfaction refer this specimen to any of the known species of Tvremoc-
opus, but it appears to agree fairly with the form described by the naturalists of the
“ Bonite,” although their diagnosis is by no means so complete as might have been
wished. In the present case the most striking peculiarity is in the formation of the
heetocotylus, and that perhaps they had no opportunity of observing.

The third right arm is as usual absent, but instead of its place beimg occupied by a
round sac, there is seen beneath, the skin a narrow white thread disposed in an elliptic

72 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

spiral of one and a half turns (Pl. XIIL. fig. 8). The thread was removed from its sac
and was then seen to present the form depicted in fig. 9. It is about 12 mm. in length,
and there is a swelling near one end of it (fig. 9, a) which is evidently the rudiment of
the “pyriform portion” or capsule figured by Steenstrup in Tremoctopus quoyanus, and
by Vérany in several Mediterranean species ;' while the more slender continuation of the
arm is evidently the filament of other forms. One side of it bears two series of minute
suckers, as far as the swelling above mentioned. There is nothing to indicate that the
adult hectocotylus would differ materially from that of other species, but in the other
young forms which I have seen, it has been developed in a small globular swelling, and
not laid out flat under the skin.

As regards other specific characters, the dorsal arms are about twice the length of the
mantle and a little longer than the second pair; the ventral arms are about as long as
the mantle and nearly twice as long as the third pair. There is a pair of aquiferous
pores on the top of the head, and another pair situated one on either side of the siphon ;
the eyes are large and spheroidal, but do not present the pedunculate appearance seen in

Hydoux and Souleyet’s figure.

' Family V. ALLoPOSID!, Verrill.

Alloposus, Vervill.
Haliphron (?), Steenstrup.

Alloposus mollis, Verrill.

1861. Haliphron atlanticus (?), Stp., Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjgbenhavn, Aar 1860, p. 333.
1880. Alloposus mollis, V1, Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xx. p. 394.

1881. a » VIL, Ceph. N. E. Amer., pp. 366, 420, pls. 1., li. figs. 3, 4.

1884. 5 » W1L, Second Catal., p. 247.

Habitat.—North Atlantic. Two fragments of a dead specimen.
, Off Newport, Rhode Island, 238 to 506 fathoms; off Chesapeake Bay, 300 fathoms ;
off Delaware Bay, 197 fathoms; off Martha’s Vineyard, 310 to 715 fathoms; south of
Nantucket Island, U.S.A., 1346, 1735 and 1731 fathoms (Verrill).

A bottle labelled “ Part of a mutilated cuttle-fish picked up at sea. North Atlantic,”
came into my hands among the collection: it contained part of the imterbrachial web
near the mouth and a portion of an arm.

The web measures about 16 cm. in its greatest diameter, and contains portions of

1 Hectocotyl., p. 208, pl. ii. fig. 8a ; Céph. médit., pl. xli. I may here correct a mistake in Mr. Dallas’ rendering of
Steenstrup’s paper (Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 2, vol. xx., 1857); on p. 104, line 33, for “although this” read “and

it.” The mistake may have arisen through the English version having been taken from a German one and not directly
from the Danish.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 73

four arms, of which the longest is about 14 cm. long, and contains six suckers, The inner-
most of these, judging from the way in which the arms slope towards each other, must
have been either that nearest the mouth or the second one ; 1t is about 1 cm. in diameter,
while the distal one on the fragment measures 1°5 em. The suckers consist of hollow
muscular bulbs like those of Cirroteuthis, embedded in the comparatively loose tissues of
the arm, but the ridge marking off the true cavity from the suctorial disk is less marked,
and the interior seems to have been lined by a kind of cuticle, which remains as a
softened mass within it. The stellate form of the aperture, so distinctly marked in
Verrill’s figure of the hectocotylised arm (op. cit., pl. li. fig. 4) is seen to some extent
here, though the rays of the star are more numerous and much less prominent. The
web itself is thick, tough, and very much wrinkled, and forms two or more circular folds
around each sucker.

The portion of the arm is 12 cm. long and elliptical in section, the axes of the ellipse
being 4°5 cm. and 7 cm. respectively. It seems to consist of a cylindrical core 8 cm. in
diameter, composed of a gelatinous material containing numerous muscle-fibres embedded
in it: around this is a quantity of connective tissue. Only on the inner aspect of. the arm
is any integument preserved ; this is precisely similar in character to that ‘sunzeund-
ing the mouth, and contains four suckers, which are about 12 mm. in diameter and
3°5 cm. apart (measuring from centre to centre); they are arranged in a slightly wavy
line.

The fragments above described agree so well in every particular with Professor
Verrill’s graphic description of his Adloposus mollis, that there can be no doubt they
belong to that species.

When in Copenhagen the year before last, Professor Steenstrup showed me the type
specimen of his Haliphron atlanticus, and I was at once struck by its remarkable
resemblance to the hectocotylised arm of Alloposus as depicted by Verrill. The specimen
is in fact a portion of an arm some 5 or 6 cm. in length, with two rows of very prominent
beehive-shaped suckers, the apertures of which are markedly stellate in form.?
Unfortunately the specimen has been somewhat macerated, having been found in the
stomach of a shark, and no trace remains of the fringe of slender processes which
forms such a conspicuous character in Alloposus.

Steenstrup’s name was published nearly twenty years before Verrill’s, and, in the
event of the identity of the two genera being conclusively proved, must take precedence.
The possibility must not be overlooked that the two forms may be two distinct species
belonging to the same genus.

‘The original description characterises the species by the resemblance of the lobate suckers to the half-opened
flowers of the lily of the valley, Convallaria mayalis, Stp., op. cit., p. 332.

(ZOOL. CHALL. EXP.—PART XLiv.—1886.) Xx 10

74 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Family VI. Octorop1p@, dOrbigny (em.).

Aes
Ocroripaz, d’Orbigny.

The subdivision of the Octopoda into smaller groups presents considerable difficulties :
Steenstrup and others following him have characterised two considerable groups,
according as the suckers are in a single or in several series,’ but the importance of this
character seems to me overrated. In the first place, the character is one rather of degree
than of kind, as may be readily seen from the facts that the proximal suckers in the arm
of an Octopus are almost always arranged in a single series, and that the number of
suckers so disposed is greater or less according as the arm is bent outwards or inwards.
This circumstance and the arrangement of the suckers, not opposite in pairs but ma
zigzag line, at once suggest that the two modes of disposition may pass one into the
other (see also pp. 76, 78).

Furthermore, glancing at the results of this method of classification, it is seen that
Eledone and Octopus are separated from each other, and that the former is united with
Cirroteuthis and the latter with Tremoctopus and Argonauta. It is not necessary to
recapitulate the points of likeness between the first two genera nor those in which they
severally differ from the forms with which they are thus brought into contact. Indeed,
I do not for the present feel disposed to place Octopus and Eledone in separate families
at all, the only conspicuous internal difference between them being that in the latter the
eggs are attached each by a separate stalk to the wall of the ovary.’ If 1t were necessary
to break up the Octopodidee, I should propose rather to separate from them the soft
semi-gelatinous forms, such as Bolitena and Japetella, which in this peculiar con-
stitution of their bodies resemble the Alloposidee and Cirroteuthidee (though this may
indicate merely analogy not homology), but our knowledge of them is at present too
fragmentary to render such a course advisable.

Octopus, Lamarck.

This genus continues much the same in general scope as when defined by Lamarck,
the only considerable loss it has sustained being the removal of the genus Hledone.

There is perhaps no other group which presents so many difficulties to the systematist,
for no two authorities seem agreed as to the characters which are to be relied upon for
the purpose of defining species ; it will therefore be advisable to say a few words regarding
the principles which have been followed in the present Report.

The general form and proportions of the body are of some value, though not of much,
for the whole consistency is soft, there is no firm internal skeleton to aid in giving a
determinate outline, and any one who has watched a living Octopus and seen the mantle

1 Overblik, p. 69 ; Fischer, Man. de Conch., p. 331.
* Grant, Hdin. New Phil. Journ., vol. ii. p. 317, 1827 ; and Brock, Morphol. Jahrb., Ba. vi. pp. 283, 284, 1880.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 75

alternately distending and contracting with the respiratory movements, will easily under-
stand how variations in form may arise. Nevertheless, when a number of specimens of
the same species are compared which have been subjected to pretty much the same
treatment, a certain similarity is usually to be remarked among them.

The relative length of the arms, both with respect to each other and to the body, was
regarded by @Orbigny as a point of the greatest importance, and although it has again
and again been shown that he greatly exaggerated this,' nevertheless he has been followed
by many authorities, such as Gray and Tryon. The arms of an Octopus being almost
wholly muscular, and entirely devoid of any hard or even cartilaginous parts whatsoever,
are capable of a very considerable degree of contraction and extension, and as, when
killed by being placed in fresh water or alcohol or poisonous solutions, they twist their
arms about in the most lively manner, it follows that they may die with them in very
varied states of contraction. There are, of course, cases in which the dimensions of one
or more pairs of arms are so preponderant that no hypothesis of irregular contraction will
account for the difference, which must then be regarded as a matter of systematic import-
ance ; such instances are to be seen in Octopus macropus, Risso, where the first pair,
and in Octopus aranea, @Orbigny, where the fourth pair of arms greatly exceed the
others. When, however, d’Orbigny places his Octopus jfontanianus in the division
“ Bras inférieurs les plus longs,” because the length of the upper arms is 165 mm. and of
the lower 166 mm., he carries out the principle to an extent which is almost too ridiculous
to require criticism.

The degree to which the arms are united by a web or umbrella is a valuable
character, though it must be borne in mind that here, as in the case of the arms, small
variations must be regarded as probably due to different degrees of contraction.

The colour has commonly been regarded as of but little systematic value, owing to
the manifold variations in this respect which these animals undergo owing to the play
of the chromatophores. It seems, however, reasonable to suppose that in animals which
have been killed and preserved in the same way, the chromatophores will be similarly
affected, and thus the differences which are due to their action eliminated. Certainly in
examining the Challenger material I have remarked that specimens which seemed on
other grounds to be referable to the same species have generally agreed also in regard to
colour. There are some cases (e.g., Octopus pictus, Brock, and Octopus lunulatus, Quoy
and Gaimard) in which the colour is disposed in definite bands or patches, and in these
its distribution is quite diagnostic.

The nature of the surface of the body, namely, whether smooth or provided with
warts or cirri, is also regarded by d’Orbigny with disfavour, on the ground that variations
in this respect occur in correlation with the position and state of irritation or repose of
the animal. The remarks just made regarding the colour apply to a large extent here

1 See Verrill, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 381, and pp. 86, 93, 100 of the present Report.

76 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

also; the warts and cirri certainly vary according to the mode of preservation, but they
are rarely so masked as not to be perceptible on careful examination. The matter is
still open to question, however, and any one who can readily obtain numbers of fresh
specimens would do a good work by killmg and preserving them in different ways and
reporting upon the variations thus produced in their surface markings.

A character which has been much used by some authors, Gray for instance, is the
fact that a certain number of the proximal cups are often arranged in a single series.
This, I feel convinced, is of very little importance; the statement that the suckers in the
genus Octopus are in two series is not, strictly speaking, correct, they are placed in a zigzag
so close that they often appear to form a succession of pairs, but when the arm is extended
(bent away from the mouth) the proximal portion of the zigzag is stretched out and the
suckers fall into a more or less nearly straight line, on the other hand, when the arm is
flexed (towards the mouth) the zigzag closes up and the two series reappear. The
presence or absence of certain large suckers on the lateral arms, used by d’Orbigny, and
by Gray and Tryon following him, for specific diagnosis, has long since been shown by
Steenstrup to be merely a sexual character.

To sum up, then, I have paid some attention to the form and proportions of the body,
not much to variations in the lengths of the arms (unless these were considerable), some
to the colour, and a good deal to the nature of the surface of the body.

Any peculiarities that presented themselves in the suckers have, of course been noted,
and the same is the case with the hectocotylised arm whenever this was present.

Of this last structure I have observed what seem to be three fairly distinct types :—

1. That found in Octopus vulgaris, Octopus marmoratus (Pl. VI. figs. 2, 3), &e.,
where the modified extremity is minute in relation to the arm ; it is conical, or rather
pyramidal, and has a narrow groove on the inner side.

2. The form seen in Octopus levis (Pl. I. fig. 2), Octopus januari (Pl. VII. fig. 2),
&c., which resembles the last in form, but is decidedly more bulky and conspicuous.
It shows a tendency to develop transverse ridges on the interior of the spoon-shaped
termination, and reaches its extreme form in Octopus obesus, Verrill.*

3. The form which has only been found, so far as I am aware, in Octopus punctatus,
Gabb. (see Pl. V. fig. 2). It is slender and very long in proportion to the arm, being
nearly one-tenth of its total length in the Challenger specimen.

There is a temptation to break up the large genus Octopus into groups based
upon characters derived from this organ, but I have been unable at present to ascertain
that they are correlated with other distinctions between the different forms, and it
may prove impossible to keep these three types separate when the structure of the
hectocotylised arm shall become known in a greater number of species than is at
present the case.

1 See Ceph. N. E. Amer., pl. xxxvi. fig. 4.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. é Ue

Octopus occidentalis, Steenstrup, MS.
Octopus occidentalis, Steenstrup, MS. in Mus. Havn.
1853. » vulgaris, var. americanus, WOrb., Moll. Cuba, p. 14, tab. i.
fabitat.—Ascension, April 1876. One specimen ?.
Cuba (d’Orb).

The Body is short and oblong, somewhat expanded behind, and deeply grooved in
the middle Ime. The mantle-opening terminates midway between the eyes and the
siphon, which is conical, pointed and of quite the average length, extending fully half-
way to the umbrella-margin.

The Head is very short and as broad as the body, the eyes being very prominent
and the eyelids much contracted.

The Arms are subequal, about six times the length of the body. The wnbrella
extends nearly one-third up the arms, to the least extent apparently between the dorsal
pair, though this may be owing to the state of contraction. The suckers ave of moderate
size, but present no characteristic peculiarities. The cirewmoral lip is invisible, owing
to its retraction, the suckers extending quite to the centre.

The Surface is rough, slightly so on the body, but with minute irregular papillee
seattered over the head and the outer surfaces of the arms. The internal surface of the
umbrella bears very numerous papille, which are aggregated into clusters, between which
the skin is smooth ; they extend over the inner surface of the arms between the suckers,
and the wall of these bears minute warts on its outer surface. There are traces of one
or two irregular cirri over each eye, but none can be found on the back.

The Colour of the upper surface of the body, head, and outside of the arms is dark
brown, almost black, the ventral surface of the body being amber-brown; the inner
surface of the umbrella is pale yellow, the groups of papillee being still of a pinkish hue,
though not so deeply coloured as in d’Orbigny’s figure (loc. cit.), which was perhaps

drawn from life.

Dimensions.
Length, total, . 5 : 0 5 : 6 . 300mm.
End of body to mantle margin, . ' : : ; ; 3) 5
End of body to eye, ¢ ‘ 4 ‘ 4 A 6 8) 5,
Breadth of body, . : : : : 2 ; : oO
Breadth of head, . : : é Z é : ; 40 ,,
Eye to edge of umbrella, . ; : ‘ F s about 50 ,,
Diameter of largest sucker, ; j : 3 : 0 CMs
Right. Left.
Length of first arm, 235 mm. 120! mm.
Length of second arm, 235, 240 _,,
Length of third arm, 230 ,, 230 ,,
220 ,, 230 =,

Length of fourth arm, ;
* Mutilated. The lengths of the arms are measured from the margin of the mouth.

78 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

There can be no doubt that this specimen is to be referred to the same species
as that figured by d’Orbigny (tab. cit.), but there is much more difficulty in deciding by
what name it should be called. When the plates accompanying the “Cuba Memoir”
were drawn it is evident that d’Orbigny regarded it as varietally distinct from Octopus
vulgaris, Lmk., for the plate is lettered ‘“ Octopus vulgaris, var. americanus,” and
since this figure is really the type of the species, it would have been desirable to
elevate d’Orbigny’s designation into a specific name, and to quote him as the authority
for it. The first objection to this is that d’Orbigny seems to have abandoned his idea
of establishing this as a formal variety, for in his text he makes no further allusion
to its characteristic peculiarities than “Nous avons cru remarquer que les individus
américains, tout’ en présentant les proportions et tous les autres caractéres de ceux
de nos cétes, sont néanmoins plus tachetés de rouge en dedans de l’ombrelle” (loc. cit.,
p- 415). The second objection is more serious, and consists in the fact that the name
americanus. has been already applied to an Octopus by de Blainville,’ following
de Montfort,? who applied the name “ Poulpe americain” to a figure published by
Barker.? The drawing was so insufficient that the name has never come into use,
and it would be quite impossible to demonstrate its identity with the present form.
Under these circumstances I have not felt justified in adopting d’Orbigny’s name, but
have thought it better to use Steenstrup’s MS. designation.

The individual examined presents some curious irregularities in the disposition of
the suckers. The left dorsal arm has the six proximal suckers disposed in the usual
manner (the first four being in one series), and after them a gap, large enough to have
contained two suckers, which have been, as it were, dislocated on to the umbrella just
at the dorsal margin of the arm. The right dorsal arm has a supernumerary sucker
just beyond the eleventh; and the third arm on the right side has the nine proximal
suckers arranged normally, but beyond them are two transverse rows, each containing
three suckers. Such deviations from the usual rule suggest the question whether
Tritaxeopus cornutus, Owen,* may not be merely a case in which a similar malformation
is more completely carried out.

Octopus tuberculatus, Blainville.

1826. Octopus tuberculatus, Blv., Dict. d. Sci. Nat., t. xliii. p. 187.
SB gg 5 @’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 38; Poulpes, pls. xxi., xxiii.
1869. Pe Re Targ., Ceph. Mus. Firenze, p. 18.
Habitat. Station 122s, off Barra Grande, September 10, 1873; lat. 9° 9’ S,,
long. 34° 53’ W.; 32 fathoms ; red mud. One young specimen.

1 Dict. d. Sci. Nat., p. 189, 1826. 2 Buffon de Sonnini, Moll., t. iii. p. 30, pl. xxix., 1802.
° Phil. Trans., vol. 1. part 2, p. 777, pl. xxix. figs. 1-4, 1758. # Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. xi. p. 131.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 7)

Atlantic, coasts of France, of the Antilles, and of Africa, Mediterranean (d’Orbigny);
Gorée, Senegal (W. E. H.), Messina (Targioni-Tozzetti).

A small specimen obtained at the above locality seems to be properly referable to
this species, although certainty is impossible in the case of so immature a creature.

I do not propose here to discuss the question how far this species is removed from
Octopus vulgaris, but it seems to me that they are rather further apart than would be
expressed by ranking them as varieties.

Whether Octopus ruber, Rafinesque,! be identical with this is still more uncertain,
the definition of that author being as unsatisfactory as usual. Moreover, his species has
been regarded as identical with Octopus macropus, Risso, and having regard merely to
the colour, which is the character emphasised by Rafinesque’s name, this would seem
likely; it is to be noted, however, that the arms of Octopus macropus very greatly
exceed the length mentioned by Rafinesque (“environ le double du corps ”).

Octopus verrucosus, Hoyle (Pl. TV.).

1885. Octopus verrucosus, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 222.
1885. : eB Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. L, p. 96.

Habitat.—Inaccessible Island, Tristan da Cunha, October 16, 1873. Two speci-

mens, é.

The Body is rounded, but so distorted by compression that no further details can
be given. The mantle-opening extends fully halfway round the body, terminating a
little below and behind the eye. The siphon is long, evenly conical and pointed, and
extends nearly halfway to the umbrella-margin.

The Head is short, not so broad as the body, and with eyes but slightly prominent.

The Arms are unequal im length, the second pair being considerably the longest,
and almost six times as long as the body; they are comparatively stout, and taper
gradually. The umbrella extends about one-fifth up the longest arms. The suckers
are fairly close, deeply cupped and marked with radial grooves (fig. 2), between which
are numerous very minute papille (fig. 3). About four suckers on each lateral arm,
opposite the umbrella-margin, are larger than the others ;* beyond these they gradually
diminish. The extremity of the hectocotylised arm resembles that of Octopus vulgaris,
but is very minute (about 2 mm. long in the larger specimen); it is acutely pointed,
and the median groove has three transverse ridges.

The Surface of the back, dorsal surface of the head, and umbrella is covered with
irregular closely-set warts, which attain a maximum diameter of several millimetres in

1 Précis découv. somiol., p. 28.
2 This is a sexual character, as is clearly shown by the analogy of numerous other species.

80 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

the nuchal region, a few larger ones extend down the back on either side of the middle
line; the warts extend on to the ventral surface of the body, where they become much
smaller, more even, and average less than 1 mm. in diameter; they do not cover the
inner surface of the umbrella between the two dorsal arms. Above each eye there
seems to have been a short cirrus, but these have been rather damaged.

The Colour is a dull purplish grey, very dark above, much lighter below.

The Jaws are figured on Pl. IV. figs. 4, 5.

Damensions.*

Length, total, . = Shy as vic ‘ F ‘ ee Oem

End of body to mantle margin, 5 : 3 : : OD anes

End of body to eye, . : i: F : : : SOmaaes

Breadth of body, ‘ : ; : { : : 55 BS

Breadth of head, : 3 F : : E < 40 pr

Eye to edge of umbrella, 5 F a : 3 A 60 3

Length of extremity of hectocotylised arm, : : : 4 Bo)

Breadth of extremity of hectocotylised arm, : : : 5 195) on

Diameter of largest sucker on lateral arm, : 3 : : 18 53

Diameter of largest sucker on ventral arm, : j : . 8 Pa

Right. Left.

Length of first arm, . : : - z ee (Ozanne: 320 mm.
Length of second arm, . . 3 : , : s | BHO gy BAO) og
Length of third arm, . > ss é ; 5 1 OAD) oy 32020
Length of fourth arm, . : : : F s Oe 320),

This species differs very markedly from Octopus granulatus, Lamk., in the size and
form of the tubercles covering the body and head and in the rows of larger ones down
the back, as also from Octopus fontanianus in which the granulation is much finer.
From Octopus tetricus, Gould, it differs in the smaller size of the umbrella.

Octopus granulatus, Lamarck.

1799. Octopus granulatus, Lamarck, Mém. Soe. Hist. Nat. Paris, t. i. p. 20.
1838. » Tugosus, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 45; Poulpes, pls. vi. xxiii. fig. 2.
1869. » tncertus, Tozz., Cef. Mus. Firenze, p. 22, tav. vi. figs. 9, 11.
Habitat.—St. Vincent, Cape Verde Islands, April 25, 1876; 15 to 20 fathoms.
One specimen,
Simon’s Bay, Cape of Good Hope; 10 to 20 fathoms. One young specimen.
Atlantic Ocean, shores of the Antilles and Senegal; Pacific Ocean, Manila,
Mauritius, Batavia (d’Orbigny); Ceylon (W. E. H.).

Férussac and d’Orbigny identify this species with Sepia rugosa, Bose,? and adopt
his name in consequence, but his description is so indefinite that it is hardly sufficient

1 The arms were so bent and contracted that their lengths can only be regarded as approximate.
2 Mutilated. 3 Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris, 1792, tab. 5, figs. 1, 2.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 81

to form the criterion of a good species, and hence Lamarck’s name is here preferred.
A long synonymy is given by those authors, which I have not thought it necessary to
repeat.
There seems to be no point of importance by which Targioni-Tozzetti’s Octopus

ineertus can be distinguished from the present form.

Like most other rough-skinned species of Octopus, this belongs to Professor Steenstrup’s
group Schizoctopus, characterised by having the umbrella between the dorsal arms
very short and the cutaneous sculpture continued over its inner surface.

Octopus boscw (Lesueur), var. pallida (PI. I. ; Pl. II. fig. 2).

1885. Octopus Boscit (Lesueur), var. pallida, nov., Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 223.
1885. + es 3 Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I., p. 97.

Habitat.—Station 162, off Hast Moncceur Island, Bass Strait, April 2, 1874;
lat. 39° 10’ 30” S., long. 146° 37’ E.; 38 fathoms; sand and shells. One specimen, ¢ .

Station 1634, off Twofold Bay, Australia, April 4, 1874; lat. 36° 59’ S
long. 150° 20’ E.; 150 fathoms; green mud. Two specimens, 1 9, 1 juv.

0s)

The Body is evenly rounded, with a slight depression in the median ventral line.
The mantle-opening extends less than halfway round the body, terminating immediately
below the eye, and further from it than from the base of the siphon, which is long and
pointed, has rather a small opening, and extends two-thirds the distance to the
umbrella-margin.

The Head is short and not so broad as the body; the eyes are only shehtly
prominent.

The Arms are subequal, nearly four times the length of the body, and taper
evenly to fine points. The wmbrella extends one-third up the arms, being a little
wider laterally than dorsally. The suckers are closely set, deeply cupped, and marked
with regular radial grooves; their biserial arrangement commences immediately after
the first. The extremity of the hectocotylised arm is large and of the usual form
except that its imterior is furnished with papilla instead of transverse grooves and _
ridges. The exrewmoral lip is low and narrow.

The Surface is covered with warts, which are largest and most numerous on the
dorsal surface of the body, head, and umbrella, and dorsal aspect of the arms, where
they have a quadrifid or quinquefid form, usually with a small wart in the centre, each
forming a figure like a star or rosette (Pl. I. fig. 2). Towards the ventral surface
and on the sides of the arms the warts are simple, and much smaller. On the back
are about ten long cirri, which are rough with small warts, and above each eye is a
very large arborescent cirrus with six or seven smaller ones beside it (Pl. I. fig. 3).

(ZOOL. CHALL. EXP.—PART XLIV.— 1886.) Xx 11

82 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

The Colour is a very pale purplish grey, shading off to a creamy white on the
ventral surface.
The Jaws are shown on PI. I. figs. 4, 5.

Dimensions.*

Length, total, . : A : ° : =) (325) mms
End of body to mantle-margin, . : : " : - CLO
End of body to eye, : a 5 5 ; . : 70 3
Breadth of body, ‘ ‘ F : : ‘ : 70 a
Breadth of head, ‘ : : ; : : ‘ Ky
Mouth to edge of umbrella between lateral arms, 5 ‘ ; Gay 5
Length of extremity of hectocotylised arm,?__—. 2 : : Sion.
Breadth of extremity of hectocotylised arm,” 2B) oy
Diameter of largest sucker, 7 5
Right. Left.
Length of first arm, : : : : : : 40mm: 200 mm.
Length of second arm, . : : i ; WU NeD DS has Ne},
Length of third arm, . P : : , ‘ Beth BAB 220° ;;
Length of fourth arm, . : : 6 6 : 5 2HO 4 22.0) es

The original Octopus boscii was discovered on the western coast of Australia by
Péron and Lesueur, and received from the former the manuscript name Sepia rugosa,
Bosc ; Lesueur, however, was of opinion that it was not the same as the species figured
by Bosc,* and therefore gave it the name of that naturalist, but without publishing
any diagnosis.° :

Férussac and d’Orbigny give a brief description,® but do not say upon what it is
based, and in the British Museum collection there is a specimen named Octopus bosci
by Gray,’ though no trace can be found of what led him to this identification. Under
these circumstances it appeared better to accept Gray’s opinion and to give a new
definition of the old species rather than erect the Challenger specimens into a new one;
the more so as Gray’s Octopus does not disagree in any particular with d’Orbigny’s
description.

There is, however, a marked difference between it and the Challenger specimens in
colour (too great, I think, to be accounted for merely by the disposition of the
chromatophores), and the surface ornamentation is better marked in the latter, so [
have separated them as a distinct variety.

It seems not impossible that Octopus tetricus, Gould, should be referred to this
species ; the description of the surface ornamentation is very similar, and it comes from

1 Taken from the largest specimen (9). 2 Taken from a smaller specimen, whose total length is 160 min.

3 Mutilated. 4 Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris, tab. v. figs. 1, 2.
® Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., vol. ii. p. 101. © Céph. acét., p. 68. 7B. M. C., p. 12:

‘REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 83

the same region.’ One arm bears a supernumerary sucker in the largest specimen

(Pl. III. fig. 2).

Octopus tonganus, Hoyle (PI. VIII. figs. 1, 2).
1885. Octopus tonganus, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 225.
1885. a 5 Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I., p. 100.

Habitat.—The Reefs, Tongatabu. Three mutilated specimens, one 3, two ?.

The Body is rounded, depressed, and broader than long, with a marked but shallow
median groove on the ventral surface. The mantle-opening extends about one-third
round the circumference of the body, terminating nearer to the funnel than to the eye.
The s¢phon is short and conical, and extends rather more than halfway to the umbrella-
margin.

The Head is small and the eyes prominent.

The Arms are unequal, the order being 3, 2, 4, 1; on an average they are nearly
ten times as long as the body, and taper gradually to very fine points. The wmbrella
is very small, and slightly narrower dorsally than laterally. The swckers are for the
most part small and closely packed ; the first four are arranged in a single row; eight
small suckers surround the mouth, but there is no distinct lip. In the male there are
four large ones on each lateral arm opposite the margin of the umbrella, beyond which
they gradually diminish. The extremity of the hectocotylised arm is very minute (fig. 2).

The Surface is in general smooth; the back bears a few small papille, but owing
to the compression of the specimens it is impossible to make out their exact number.
There are three minute cirri over each eye.

The Colour is on the whole grey, paler below ;. this is due to dark specks sprinkled
more or less closely over a cream-coloured ground. One specimen has a purplish patch
at either side of the mantle-opening.

Dimensions.”

Length, total, . 5 ; 5 6 3 a 6 PASI) ambi
End of body to mantle-margin, 5 ; : : } 30 ye
End of body to eye, . 3 : : : 3 : 32 Pe
Length of extremity of hectocotylised arm, . : 3 é 2 %
Breadth of extremity of hectocotylised arm, . : : j 27/5) |
Diameter of largest sucker on lateral arm, . : F : 5 5
Diameter of largest sucker on dorsal arm, é j 3 : 3 at
Right. Left.
Length of first arm, é : 4 é : ; . 150mm. 153 mm.
Length of second arm, . ; “ : : : sl AOS 20315,
Length of third arm, F : ; ; : : fy cS O}ieies 2 Ole
Length of fourth arm, . : : ‘ : : of) a PNG) op

1 Moll., Wilkes Exped., 474. 2 Taken from the male specimen.

84 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

The three specimens upon which this species is founded were much damaged owing
to the pressure to which they had been subjected in packing ; it was, however, possible
by careful comparison of all three to make out characters distinguishing them from all
hitherto known species.

Octopus vitiensis, Hoyle (Pl. VIL. figs. 6-8).
1885. Octopus vitiensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 226.
1885. _ 5 Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I., p. 100.

Habitat.—The Reefs, Kandavu, Fiji. One small specimen, ?.

The Body is nearly oblong, but becomes somewhat narrower posteriorly. The
mantle-opening extends nearly one-third round the body, and terminates some distance
below and behind the eye. The siphon is long and acutely pointed, and extends about
halfway to the umbrella-margin.

The Head is broader than the body, with large laterally prominent eyes.

The Arms are subequal, the two lateral pairs being a little longer than the others ;
on an average they are nearly three times as long as the body, and taper rather rapidly
about the middle of their length and then more gradually to fine points. The wmbrella
extends nearly one-third up the arms, least along the dorsal pair. The suckers are
sunken, comparatively large, with a dark margin and very well-marked radial grooves
(Pl. VIL fig. 8). The first two in each arm are in a single series, owing to compression
of the arms laterally (fig. 7); there are no enlarged suckers on the lateral arms. The
only specimen being a female, no hectocotylus is developed.

The Surface of the dorsum of the body bears minute warts scattered here and
there; over each eye there is a rather large branched cirrus, with a few small ones
scattered round it. The internal surface of the arms is covered with minute hemi-
spherical warts, so as to resemble shagreen (fig. 8).

The Colour is very dark grey, almost black on the dorsal surface and outer surface
of the arms; paler grey below and on the inner surfaces of the arms. The dark warty
character of the integument is not continued over the inner surface of the membrane
uniting the two dorsal arms.

Dimensions.
Length, total, : j : : : : j : 60 mm.
End of body to mantle-margin, . : é ; : : Uy 5
Right. Left.

Length of first arm, : ; : : : ; : 40 mm. 40 mm. —
Length of second arm, . 3 : 4 : ; . abe 43a
Length of third arm, : ; : , : : ‘ 0) op 43,
Length of fourth arm, . ; : ; ; ; ; Asst oe 40

”

1 Mutilated.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 85

This small and possibly immature form differs from Octopus tuberculatus, which
it somewhat resembles in the comparative shortness of its arms, in the fewness of its
cirri, and more particularly in the shagreen-like internal surface of its arms, which last
is its most distinctive peculiarity.

Octopus marmoratus, Hoyle (Pl. VI.).

1885. Octopus marmoratus, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 227.
1885. . 3 Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I, p. 102.

Habitat.—On the Reefs, Honolulu, Sandwich Islands. Three specimens, one ¢ , two ?.
Sandwich Islands (Copenhagen Museum).

The Body is round, not depressed, and a little longer than wide. The mantle-opening
extends somewhat less than halfway round the body, terminating nearer to the siphon
than to the eye, and considerably behind the latter. The s:phon is small and acutely
conical, and extends about one-third the distance to the umbrella-margin.

The Head is narrow, and the eyes are prominent, where they have not suffered from
compression.

The Arms. are subequal, eight times as long as the body; they are very long and
slender, the last character being more marked in the females than in the male; they
taper more rapidly at first than near the extremities, which are much attenuated. The
umbrella is very wide, especially in the male, where it extends almost one-third up the
arms; in the females its extent is only one-sixth. The suckers are rather large, and
closely set ; in the male a few suckers opposite the umbrella-margin are slightly, but not
markedly, larger than the others. The extremity of the hectocotylised arm is small, and
has about ten small transverse ridges (figs. 2, 3).

The Surface appears to have been smooth, except for a few short ridges placed
longitudinally on the back and sides; but the skin is shrivelled by the action of the
spirit, so that it is difficult to be certain. A conical cirrus is situated above and slightly
behind each eye ; but in some cases this has been destroyed.

The Colour is a stone-grey, with dark pigment disposed in veins like those of marble!
on the dorsal surface of the body, head, and umbrella (fig. 1); the male is much darker,
so that the marbling is almost concealed. Traces of an oval spot are seen in front of and
below the eye on both sides of one female specimen and on one side of the other; but
this spot is concealed by the dark colouring in the male even if it exist.

1 Hence the specific name.

86 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Dimensions. fe) &
Length, total, ; s ; ' ; . 630mm. 580 mm.
End of body to mantle-margin, : : : ; TO 55 S(O)
End of body to eye, A 3 ; : 5) on 1@5)
Breadth of body, . 3 ! F : : CO 5 UO 5
Breadth of head, . 5 : : : F 43, KO) 55
Eye to edge of umbrella (dorsally), . 2 : . CS 95 UBS 5
Eye to edge of umbrella (laterally), . : : > 10D 55 105»,
Length of extremity of hectocotylised arm, . ; : 380 Zena
Breadth of extremity of hectocotylised arm, ‘ : aa ileice ys
Diameter of largest sucker on lateral arm, el 14,
Diameter of largest sucker on ventral arm, . ; 6 es I@ 5
on : ry t g cease |
Right. Left. Right. Left.
Length of first arm,! . F . 530mm. 490 mm. 460mm. 315? mm.
Length of second arm, : : . 560 ,, 400 ,, 400 , 500 ,,
Length of third arm, . ‘ : = ORATOR Co eo 40 Roe OD ED gs
Length of fourth arm, u : Ae DOO mura vioO i ad 200 er AcOn aes

This species presents in some respects a resemblance to Octopus bimaculatus,’ Verrill,
namely, in the general form and proportions, in the enlargement of one or more suckers:
on the lateral arms and in the small size of the hectocotylus of the male, as also in the
presence of the dark spot on either side in front of the eye. Hach, too, has a supra-ocular
cirrus, but the conspicuously warted upper surface of Verrill’s form and the equally
marked smoothness of the Challenger specimens, as well as the seemingly constant differ-
ence of coloration necessitate their separation.

Octopus bimaculatus is from California, so that so far as regards habitat there would
be no @ priori ground for separating the two forms.

The new species agrees with unnamed specimens, from the same locality, in the
Copenhagen Museum, in which the spots upon the side of the membrane are even more
clearly marked, while the other characters remain the same.

It approaches Octopus hawarensis, K. and S%.,* in general form, but differs in th
presence of cirri over the eyes.

Octopus areolatus, de Haan, MS. (PI. IL. figs. 6, 7).
1835. Octopus areolatus, de Haan, MS. letter (fide d’Orbigny).

1838. 5 » W@Orbigny, Céph, acét., p. 65.

IQS gs sinensis (?), VOrbigny, Céph. acét., p. 68; Poulpes, pl. ix..
1849. 3 ocellatus, Gray, B. M. C., p. 15.

WI gg 5 Appellof, Japanska Ceph., p. 8, pl. 1. figs. 1-3.

Habitat.—Station 192, off the Ki Islands, south of Papua, September 26, 1874 ;
lat. 5° 49’ 15” S., long. 132° 14’ 15" E.; 140 fathoms; blue mud. One specimen, ?.
Japan (de Haan, Appellof); Hong Kong (Copenhagen Museum).

1 The lengths of the arms are measured from the eye. 2 Mutilated.
3 Bull. Mus. Comp. Zodl., vol. xi. p. 121, 1883. 4 Voy. “ Bonite,” p. 9, pl. i. figs, 1-5.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 87

The Body is oblong, about as deep as wide. The mantle-opening extends nearly
two-thirds round the body, terminating immediately behind the eye; the siphon is short,
conical, and reaches one-fourth the distance up to the umbrella margin.

The Head is small and short, and the eyes are not prominent.

The Arms are subequal and about twice as long as the body, tapering evenly to thin
points. The wmbrella is wide, reaching somewhat less than half up the arms; it is con-
tinued along each side of them as a narrow fillet, which expands on the ventral aspect
into a more or less wide membrane (PI. III. fig. 6). The suckers are small, round, and
prominent, the marginal portion being separated by a constriction from the somewhat
conical base ; they are not closely set. The specimen being a female, the hectocotylus is
not developed.

The Surface is covered with shagreen-like pimples on the dorsal aspect of the body,
head, and umbrella, which are here and there closely set so as to form short longitudinal
ridges ; above and slightly behind each eye is a low rough wart. The pimpled surface of
the umbrella is continued on to its inner surface between the two dorsal arms.

The Colour is a dull purple, paler below ; in front of each eye is a peculiar spot con-
sisting of a dark centre separated by a pale ring from a dark external area; on the outer

surface of each of the four ventral arms are two rows of dark elongated spots (Pl. II.
fig. 7).

Dimensions.

Length, total, .. : é 4 ; : : . 103 mm.

End of body to mantle-margin, . : : ! : F Bl)

End of body to eye, : ; 4 ¥ : : y 33) 3;

Breadth of body, . ‘ ; : 5 : eS : PABY

Breadth of head, . : . : : : : : Oe

Eye to edge of umbrella (dorsally) : 5 : } : WS

Kye to edge of umbrella (laterally), : : : : 2 2)

Diameter of largest sucker, ; : F 5 : : De.

Diameter of the ocellus, . : : : é : : 4,

Right. Left.

Length of first arm,! E : : : : j : 63 mm. 65 mm.
Length of second arm, _ .. : : : 5 : ; LO 70,
Length of third arm, : 4 : ; 5 ; : UO! Dx
Length of fourth arm, . ; : : : : : Ome 402 ,,

I have referred this to de Haan’s species on the authority of the two specimens in the
Copenhagen Museum, which Steenstrup informs me that he identified with some
(presumably the types) labelled Octopus areolatus, de Haan, in the Leyden Museum.

It agrees with those in the tubercles on the back, the spot in front of each eye (which,
however, is smaller in this specimen), and a dark band on the dorsal and second arms;
smaller mottlings on the back and sides seen in the others are not so distinct in the

1 Measured from the eye. 2 Mutilated.

88 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Challenger specimen owing to the deeper pigmentation of those parts. One of the
Copenhagen specimens has two tubercles over each eye, the other none; and in both of
them the longitudinal markings seen on the ventral arms are wanting.

Octopus australis, Hoyle (PI. III. figs. 4, 5).
1885. Octopus australis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 224. _
1885. % $6 Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. L., p. 98.
Habitat.—Port Jackson, Australia; 6 to 15 fathoms. Two specimens, one ?, one
immature.

The Body is rounded, and wider behind than in front; depressed, and with a well-
marked ventral median groove. A sharp narrow ridge extends along either side of the
body to the posterior extremity. The mantle-opening extends nearly half round the body.
The siphon is of medium size; at first the lateral margins are parallel and then taper
rapidly to a blunt point; it extends less than halfway to the umbrella margin.

The Head is narrower than the body, and the eyes somewhat prominent, dorsally
rather than laterally.

The Arms are unequal, the lateral being slightly the largest, and about three times
as long as the body; they are slender and tapering. The wmbrella is longer than the
length of the body; larger ventrally than dorsally, and larger laterally than ventrally.
The suckers are prominent and closely set; they are altogether larger on the lateral arms,
and extend in a double row to the centre ; the radial grooves are deep, and extend quite
to the margins. The specimens being females, no hectocotylus is present.

The Surface of the back of the body, head, and dorsal aspects of the umbrella and
arms is covered with thick-set hemispherical pimples, which are also found on the inner
side of the membrane between the two dorsal arms, and on the inner surfaces of the arms
between the suckers. They are smaller and more sparse on the ventral surface of the
body. A large rough cirrus and a few pimples larger than the others are found over
each eye. A raised ridge passes backwards from the base of the siphon along the ventro-
lateral margin of the body, meeting its fellow of the opposite side at the posterior
extremity (PI. III. fig. 5). y

The Colour is deep purplish on the back, mottled on the sides, and cream below.

Dimensions.
Length, total, : ; : é ; j ; ‘ 87 mm.
End of body to mantle-margin, . : : : : é 20
End of body to eye, 6 : : : ; 5 : DO
Breadth of body, . é : : : Bh : : 19) 4,
Breadth of head, ; : : : : 14 ,,
Eye to edge of serie (Gomalle 5 : : : sei 1@ ,,
Eye to edge of umbrella (laterally), ‘ : : ; : 2305;

Diameter of largest sucker, : ; : : 5 F 2°5,,

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 89

Right. Left.
Length of first arm, : c F 6 5 6 : 5) mm. 60 mm.
Length of second arm, . ‘ i ‘ , : : GOnme 63 5,
Length of third arm, : 6 . 5 : 6 : OD 0)
Length of fourth arm, . F j : : 6 40 ,, 50) 5

It is doubtful what value is to be attached to the raised ridge mentioned above ; it is
to be seen in other species under certain conditions, possibly due either to different
modes of preservation or to varying states of contraction ; nevertheless, in the majority
of forms it is never observed, and I am therefore inclined to attribute to it a certain
systematic importance, the more especially as it occurs in both the specimens before me.
Octopus membranaceus, Q. and G., seems to present the same condition carried out
more fully.

The present species is decidedly paler and more ruddy in colour than Octopus
granulatus, and the granulations are not so large nor so closely set as in that form. The
mottling on the sides, too, is very marked.

Octopus tehuelchus, d’Orbigny.

1835. Octopus tehuelchus, d’Orb., Amér. mérid., p. 27, pl. i. figs. 6, 7.
1838. % 5 d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 55; Poulpes, pl. xvii. fig. 6.
1870. » megalocyathus, Phil. (?), Cunningham, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., vol. xxvii. p. 474.
Habitat.—St. Thomas, Danish West Indies; 8 fathoms.
East coast of Patagonia; lat. 40° 8. (d’Orbigny); Strait of Magellan and Punta
Arenas (Cunningham); Nicaragua (Copenhagen Museum).

I refer to this species, not without some hesitation, a small Octopus of about
5 em. in total length, from the West Indies. The body is proportionally a little
more elongated than in d’Orbigny’s figure, but a specimen in the British Museum,
brought by Cunningham from Sandy Point, resembles closely that obtained
by the Challenger, which is also much like an unnamed form in the Copenhagen
Museum from San Jan de Nicaragua, except that the arms of the latter are some-
what larger.

Cunningham’s specimen in the British Museum is almost certainly the one alluded to
in the Zoology of the Voyage of the ‘“‘ Nassau” (loc. cit.), where he speaks of obtaining it
at the eastern end of the Strait of Magellan, and of numbers of mutilated specimens
being thrown up on the beach at Punta Arenas. I have not been able to find the
original description of “ Octopus megalocyathus, Phil.,” the only species bearing that
name known to me being the one described by Gould in the Mollusca of the Wilkes
Expedition, p. 471.

(ZOOL, CHALL, EXP.—PART XLiv.—1886.) Xx 12

90 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Octopus duplex, Hoyle (Pl. VII. fig. 5).

1885. Octopus duplex, Hoyle, Diagnoses L, p. 226.
1885. 5 » Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I., p. 101.
Habitat.—Station 1634, off Twofold Bay,’ South-East Australia, April 4, 1874;
lat. 36° 59’ S., long. 150° 20’ E.; 150 fathoms; green mud. Two specimens, one ? ,
one ¢ , immature.

The Body is short and evenly rounded, with the merest trace of a median ventral
groove. The mantle-opening extends about half round the circumference, and terminates
halfway between the siphon and the eye. The siphon is relatively long, conical, and
pointed, and extends about halfway to the umbrella-margin.

The Head is small, and the eyes rather prominent

The Arms seem to have been unequal, the lateral the longest, but so many have been
mutilated that it is difficult to be certain; they are about four times the length of
the body. The wmbrella extends about one-third up the arms, farthest between the
lateral pairs. The suckers are large, close, and prominent, with a narrow margin marked
off from the basal portion ; the radial grooves extend to the margin and form notches in
it. The hectocotylus is not present, the specimen being a female; the third right arm
has been mutilated, but the stump shows no groove running up the outer ventral margin.

The Surface is smooth; an interrupted ridge starting from the base of the siphon
passes backwards along the ventro-lateral margin of the body, probably due to contraction.
There are three small papillee above each eye.

The Colour is a pale bluish grey above, shading into a creamy tint below.

Dimensions.

Length, total, : i a : F ; : ‘ 80 mm.

End of body to mantle margin, . : 5 0 5 16) 5p

End of body to eye, 6 6 Q ; ‘ : : We gp

Breadth of body, . 3 : 3 . : : : WS} 55

Breadth of head, . ; : : : : : é WS} 55

Eye to edge of umbrella, . ; : 5 : : : 13} 95

Diameter of largest sucker, ; : ; : : s B55

Right. Left

Length of first arm, ; ¢ ‘ : : : 2 55 mm. 53 mm.
Length of second arm, . B : : i B : Lee 53)
Length of third arm, : : : : 3 : : Oy 95 Gp
Length of fourth arm, . j : , A 3 : 43 ,, 0) 5

All my efforts to identify this with any previously known species have failed, which
is the more remarkable, inasmuch as it presents no very special distinctive characters.

1 Hence the specific name.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 91

It will probably prove to be identical with some of the forms from the same region which
have hitherto been insufficiently described.

Octopus piscatorum, Verrill.

1879. Octopus piscatorum, V1l., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xviii. p. 470.

1881. 5 a VIL, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 377, pl. xxxvi. figs. 1, 2.
1884, 5 PS VIL, Second Catal, p. 248.
1885. 3 $5 VIL, Third Catal., pl. xlii. fig. 5.

Habitat.—Station 8, Ferée Channel, H.MS. “Knight Errant” Expedition,
August 17, 1880; lat. 60° 3’ N., long. 5° 51’ W.; 540 fathoms; ooze. One specimen, ¢.

Station 9, Feerde .Channel, H.M.S. “Triton” Expedition, August 23, 1882;
lat. 60° 5’ N., long. 6° 21’ W.; 608 fathoms; mud. ‘Two specimens, one ¢, one ?.

Off La Havre Bank, Nova Scotia, 120 fathoms; near the Grand Bank, 200 fathoms ;
south of Nantucket Island,1362 fathoms (Verrill).

It is not a little interesting that this species should have been found on the north-
west coast of Hurope, whither so many species which have been described from the coast
of America seem to extend; another instance will be found in the case of Verrill’s
Octopus bairdi, which has been found by Sars off the Norwegian coast, and by the
British expeditions in the Feerée Channel (see next species).

The hectocotylised arm, which Verrill’s specimens being females did not show, closely
resembles that of Octopus arcticus, Prosch, and agrees very well with the figure given
by Steenstrup,' except that it is rather more pointed at the tip.

Octopus arcticus, Prosch.

1834. Sepia grienlandica (?), Dewh., Nat. Hist. Cetacea, p. 263.
1849. Octopus arcticus, Prosch, K. Dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Skriv., Rk. 5, Bd. i. p. 53, figs. 1-3.

1856. " 3 Stp., Hectocotyl., p. 201, Tav. 11. fig. 2.

1873. » Bairdiz, Vil., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. v. p. 5.

1878. 5 3 Sars, Moll. Reg. Arct. Norv., p. 339, pl. xxxiii. figs. 1-10.

1881. 7 VIL, Ceph. N. E. Amer., pp. 368, 421, pl. xxxiii. fig, 1; pl xxxiv.
figs. 5, 6; pl. xxxvi. fig. 10; pl. xxxviil. fig. 8; pl. xlix. fig. 4;
pl. li fig. 1.

Habitat.—Station 57, Ferée Channel, H.M.S. “Porcupine” Expedition, 1869;
lat. 60° 14’ N., long. 6° 17’ W.; 632 fathoms. One specimen, ¢.
Station 65, Ferée Channel, H.M.S. “ Porcupine” Expedition, 1869; lat. 61° 10’ N.,
long. 2° 21’ W.; 345 fathoms. ‘Three specimens, one ¢ , two immature.
Station 8, Ferée Channel, H.M.S “Knight Errant” Expedition, August 17, 1880;
lat. 60° 3’ N., long. 5° 51’ W.; 540 fathoms; ooze. Two specimens, one ?, one 2.
1 Hectocotyl., p. 201, Tav. ii. fig. 2.

92 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Station 9, Ferée Channel, H.M.S. “Triton” Expedition, August 23, 1882;
lat. 60° 5’ N., long. 6° 21’ W.; 608 fathoms; mud. One specimen, ¢.

Greenland (Dewhurst); north-east coast of the United States, 85 to 843 fathoms
(Verrill) ; coast of Norway (Sars).

A few words are necessary regarding the synonymy of this species as given above.
The number and beauty of the drawings, which Professor Verrill has given of his types,
have enabled me to establish beyond any doubt their identity with the specimens
obtained from the Fzrée Channel ; it is equally certain that the form figured by Professor
Sars is conspecific with them. That the specimens in my hands are the same as Octopus
arcticus, Prosch, I was able to establish in 1884 when I had the opportunity of com-
paring them with the types in the Copenhagen Museum. The identity of this form
with Octopus grenlandicus (Dewhurst) cannot be proved, unless it were shown that
only one species of Octopus occurs on the coast of Greenland, the original description
being quite valueless.

Octopus pictus, Brock.

1882. Octopus pictus, Brock, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool., Bd. xxxii. p. 603, pl. xxxvil. fig. 3
(non Verrill).

SSS maculosus, Hoyle, Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edin., vol. vii. p. 319, pl. vi.

SS45eees 5 E. A. Smith, “ Alert” Report, p. 36, pl. iv. fig. c.

Habitat.—Port Jackson, Australia (Brock, E. A. Smith); Australia (Hoyle).

To me, personally, a melancholy kind of interest attaches to this species, for it is the
first I ventured to describe, being unaware that Dr Brock had, a few months previously,
as an appendix to the elaborate anatomical work above quoted, described several new
species, among which the present form was one.

Although this species does not occur in the Challenger collection, it appears desirable
to mention it here partly as introductory to the following variety, and partly for the sake
of rectifying the synonymy.

Brock’s original diagnosis may be translated here : ‘‘ Mantle of the specimen, preserved
in alcohol, slightly broader than long. The arms are subequal, not very long com-
pared with the body, and in order of length 3,2, 4,1. The second and third pairs
are almost exactly equal, and not quite twice as long as the body. Arms tapering
constantly towards the tips. Suckers in two regularly alternating series continually
decreasing in size. ‘The first three or four smaller than the rest and arranged in a single
series. Umbrella equally but slightly developed. Ocular cirri wanting.

“Ventral and inner sides of the arms dull ochre yellow, dorsal and outer sides of. the
arms darker, somewhat regularly marked with large blackish brown spots, fused at the

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 95

edges, and exhibiting a black ring in the centre sharply marked off from the brown
ground. Under the lens the dark spots are resolved into aggregations of chromatophores,
and it may also be observed that the rings are more deeply placed and shine through the
spots, and are therefore probably due to a fixed pigment in the deeper layers of the cutis.
The brown spots on the arms bear no rings.

“The distribution of colour in this species is so characteristic that it can hardly be
confused with any other hitherto known. The only known specimen (unfortunately
defective) is in the Gottingen collection, and was presented by Dr. Schiitte of Sydney.”

The specimen which came into my hands bore the label “ Australia,” and I have since
seen two in the British Museum from Port Jackson and Kangaroo Island, South Australia,
and also four specimens in the Liverpool Free Public Museum, and one in the Museum of
the Royal College of Surgeons, London, from unknown localities.

This species furnishes an admirable instance of the uselessness of slight variations in
the lengths of the arms as specific characters; a number of specimens which have been
examined with respect to this point giving the following results :

Type specimen, . ; : 6 . 3and 2 subequal, 4, 1.
Specimen in my own collection, . . 4, 1 and 3 equal, 2.
on one side; 4, 2, 1, 3 on the other.

"(probably ; arms much curled).
on one side, doubtful on the other.

eee

Four specimens in the Liverpool Museum,

“ Alert” specimen, j P : . 2,3 and 4 subequal, 1.

The example in the British Museum from Kangaroo Island has a curious thin pointed
process about 6 mm. long at the aboral end of the body, which led to its receiving a
special MS. name, but in all other respects it agrees so closely with Octopus pictus
that I am inclined to regard it as an individual abnormality.

This specific name appears to have been applied by Blainville to the animal now
known as Parasia catenulata, at least @Orbigny quotes Octopus pictus, Blainville, with
a reference to “ Faune francaise, mollusques” as one of its synonyms, with the addition
“(’apres Risso,” in whose writings I have been unable to find any allusion to the matter. In
this case, seeing that there seems to be some doubt as to Blainville’s application of the name,
and as it has, at all events, never obtained currency, it seems right to allow Brock’s name,
which has the priority in reference to the present species, to stand.

Professor Verrill has described a new species of Octopus” for which he has selected
the name “ pictus,” being apparently unaware of its appropriation by Brock; it is quite
certain that the two forms are distinct, and therefore as Verrill’s name must be changed,
I propose that his species should be known as Octopus verrilli.

1T am indebted to my friend Professor Herdman for measuring these specimens.
2Blake” Suppl., p. 112, pl. iii. fig. 3.

94 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Octopus pictus, Brock, var. fasciata, nov. (Pl. VII. fig. 3).

Habitat.—Port Jackson, Australia, April 23, 1874; 6 to 15 fathoms.

The variety differs from the typical form (1) im the somewhat elongated not spheroidal
shape of the body, (2) in the inequality in the shape of the arms, (3) in the prominence
of the suckers; none of which are points of great importance, being possibly due to
varying states of contraction.

On the other hand, it agrees in the type of colouring, but here the dark pigment is
arranged in continuous bands, which are not broken up into rounded patches as is the
case in all the specimens I have seen; the spots of the type are, however, arranged in
rows disposed similarly to the bands. Furthermore, each band contains an opaque-looking
median streak like the centre of the spots, and the number of transverse stripes on the
arms corresponds roughly in both forms.

Octopus bermudensis, Hoyle (Pl. II. fig. 5).

1885. Octopus bermudensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 228.
1885. i 3 Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I., p. 103.

Habitat.—Bermuda. One young specimen, ?.

The Body is spheroidal, acuminate behind, and with a median groove ventrally. The
mantle-opening extends rather less than half round the circumference of the body, and
terminates some distance behind and a little below the eye. The siphon is long and
smooth, and attached by nearly all its length to the head; it extends fully halfway to
the umbrella-margin.

The Head is much narrower, and more depressed than the body; the eyes are
searcely at all prominent.

The Arms are unequal, in the order 1, 2, 3, 4; about six times as long as the body ;
they are very long and slender, tapering but slightly. The wmbrella is small. The
suckers are small, prominent, and closely set, and the first four stand in a slightly
zigzag line. The only specimen being a female, no hectocotylised arm was observed.

The Surface is smooth for the most part, but the skin is wrinkled over the posterior —
acuminate extremity, owing to the action of the spirit; there is one very small wart over
each eye.

The Colour is yellow ochre, with a pale sienna patch on the back and one on the

head.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 95

Dimensions.
Length, total,» . y : . : : ; : 58 mm.
End of body to mantle margin, . : F : : : 10 ,,
Right. Left.

Length of first arm, : 6 : 4 5 5 : 50 mm. 48 mm.
Length of second arm, . : ‘ ; : : : aN 40 ,,
Length of third arm, ‘ : : ; ¢ : : Gs gy Bis} gy
Length of fourth arm, . ; , é q F 6 610s 32h

This specimen is probably immature, but its characters are so well marked that I
have little hesitation in making it the type of a new species; it differs from Octopus
pusillus, Gould, in the very small size of the umbrella, and from Octopus aranea,
d’Orb., which it resembles in the length of its arms, in the fact that here it is the dorsal,
there the ventral arms, which markedly exceed the others. The arms are much longer
than in Octopus eudora, Gray.

Octopus macropus, Risso.

1814. Octopus ruber (?), Raf., Précis découv. somiol., p. 28.

1826. » macropus, Risso, Hist. Nat. Eur. Mérid., t. iv. p. 3.

1826. » Cuviertd, d’Orb., Céph. acét.; Poulpes, pl. iv. (nomen tantum).
1838. », Cuvier, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 18; Poulpes, pls. i, iv., xxvii.
1851. » macropus, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 27, pl. x.

1869. Be pS Targ., Cef. Mus. Firenze., p. 23.
1869. » Cuviert, Targ., Cef. Mus. Firenze., p. 24.
1886. " » Appellof, Japanska Ceph., p. 6, pl. i. fig. 6.

Habitat.—Yokohama, Japan, purchased in the market. One specimen, ?.
Canaries, Indian Ocean, Red Sea (d’Orbigny); Japan (Appellof); Mediterranean
(Risso, d’Orbigny, Vérany, &c.) ; Adriatic (Ninni).

This specimen agrees with d’Orbigny’s description in every particular except that
the ‘“cirrhe postérieur médiane” could not be found, but as the skin in that region was
much wrinkled and contracted, that is not a matter of much moment, especially as,
according to Vérany, its presence is not constant.

The synonymy of this species requires a little notice; and in regard to it two
questions arise:—Are Octopus macropus and Octopus cuvieri to be regarded as one
species —and if so, what name is that species to bear ?

Two of the greatest authorities who have written on the subject, Vérany and
dOrbigny, unite them, but under different names, while the only modern writer who
separates them is Targioni-Tozzetti (Joc. cit.). Not having sufficient material to form an
opinion on the subject, I wrote asking the opinion of my friend Dr. Jatta, of the Naples
Zoological Station, who has an extensive knowledge of the Cephalopoda of the

96 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Mediterranean. He is of opinion that they are identical, and that view I have adopted
in the present Report.

As regards the name, seeing that Risso’s was accompanied by a description in a
published book, while d’Orbigny’s was merely inscribed at the bottom of a plate which
appears to have been in the first instance privately distributed, it appears right to adopt
that of the former author.

What the Octopus ruber of Rafinesque really was will probably always remain
doubtful. Cantraine! adopted the name for this species because its colour is generally
ruddy, but the account of the length of the arms (“antenopes égaux, environ le double
du corps”) is strongly at variance with this hypothesis.

Octopus bandensis, Hoyle (Pl. VII. figs. 9, 10).

1885. Octopus bandensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 227.
1885. oy 3 Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I., p. 102.

Habitat.—Banda. One young specimen.

The Body is rounded and depressed (?from pressure), and with a slight ventral
groove. The mantle-opening terminates immediately below and behind the eye. The
siphon extends as far as the umbrella-margin, and is acutely pointed.

The Head is broader than the body, and flattened by compression; the eyes are very
prominent.

The Arms are unequal, the third pair being much the longest and stoutest ; on the
average they are four times as long as the body; they taper gradually at first, and then
more rapidly. The wmbrella is very small. The suckers are prominent, the first four
being disposed in a single series (incorrectly shown on Pl. VII. fig. 10); and none are
enlarged on the lateral arms. No hectocotylised arm was present in the single specimen.

The Surface is smooth in general, but there are about twelve warts on the back and
sides of the body, and a large cirrus over each eye, with several smaller ones near it.

The Colour is deep black, apparently owing to treatment with osmic acid.

Dimensions.

Total length, ; : : : ’ 4 : : 25 mm.
End of body to eye, 0 : ‘ : : : : 6

This minute specimen presents so striking an elongation of its third pair of arms as
compared with the others that it is impossible to refer it to any hitherto known
species.

1 Malacol. médit., p. 18.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 97

Octopus januarn, Steenstrup, MS. (PI. VII. figs. 1-4).
Octopus januari, Steenstrup, MS. in Mus. Havn.
1885. 0% Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 229.
1885. 35 i Hoyle, Prelim. Rep., p. 105.
Habitat.—Station 122, off Barra Grande, Brazil, September 10, 1873; lat. 9° 5’S.,
long. 34° 50’ W.; 350 fathoms; red mud. One specimen, ¢.
Station 237, North Pacific, east of Japan, June 17, 1875; lat. 34° 37’ N., long.
140° 32’ E.; 1875 fathoms; blue mud. One specimen, ¢.
Rio Janeiro (Copenhagen Museum).

The Body is rounded, widening a little posteriorly ; the ventral groove is very faint.
The mantle-opening terminates just below the eyes. The s¢phon is bluntly conical, and
extensively attached to the umbrella; it extends less than halfway to the umbrella margin.

The Head is small, and the sides are entirely occupied by the enormous eyes, which
are swollen and globular, but with very small palpebral openings. The skin covering
them is so thin that the dark pigment within is distinctly visible.

The Arms are unequal, the dorsal pair being the largest ; on an average they are six
times as long as the body. ' The wmbrella is about equally wide all round, except that it
is a little shorter between the two ventral arms.

The Suckers are comparatively small, prominent, and separate ; more widely in one
specimen than in the other, probably owing to its being less contracted by spirit. None
of the suckers on the lateral arms are enlarged, notwithstanding the sex. The extremity
of the hectocotylised arm is well developed; it is broad, and tapers rapidly to an acute
point ; in one specimen about seven transverse ridges can be counted in the proximal
half of the median groove ; in the distal half and in the other specimen they are indistinct
(REVS ties:2)): .

The Surface is perfectly smooth all over.

The Colour is a pale purplish-pink ; deeper above than below.

The Jaws are shown in PI. VII. figs. 3, 4.

Dimensions.*

Length, total, . ; : : : , : . 285mm.
End of body to mantle margin, . i : : : : Bia) ey
End of body to eye, , 6 ; ; : : : Ayes
Breadth of body, . f 4 : é : : : LP)
Breadth of head, . : : : : : : ; ois
Eye to edge of umbrella, . : . j : ; 5 WS)
Length of tip of hectocotylised arm, : ‘ ! : . LOS:
Breadth of tip of hectocotylised arm, : 5 : ; : Bi
Diameter of largest sucker, ; , : : : : 35 ,,

1 The measurements are from the Barra Grande specimen ; it was in better condition than the other, which had also
a length of about 290 mm. The lengths of the arms are measured from the eye.
(ZOOL, CHALL, EXP.—PART XLIV.—1886.) Xx 13

98 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Right. Left.
Length of first arm, 5 5 : : 3 0 . 250 mm. 2251 mm.
Length of second arm, . ‘ ; . é : ao =62BO. g 220s
Length of thirdarm, . : : : : d Seto, GO 5
Length of fourth arm, . 5 : j ; ‘ » Ue 5 GO

The two specimens in the Challenger collection agree in all essential particulars
with several in the Copenhagen Museum, so that I have gladly adopted Professor
Steenstrup’s MS. name for the species, recalling the fact that it was first obtained off Rio
Janeiro.

On a recent visit to Paris, Dr. Paul Fischer showed me some specimens of an Octopus
; from the hurried glance, which was all I

?

obtained in large numbers by the “Talisman ’
could give them, they seemed to present a considerable resemblance to this form, but
without further examination it would be impossible to form any opinion as to their
identity.

It is not a little remarkable that the same species of Octopus should be found in such
diverse localities as is here the case; it 1s further noticeable that the smaller specimen
furnishes one of the very few instances im which an Octopus was brought up by the deep-
sea dredge or trawl, the genus being usually found only in comparatively shallow water.
If Dr. Fischer's specimens should prove to belong to the same species the opinion would
be forcibly suggested that we have here to do with a veritably abyssal Octopus.

Octopus levis, Hoyle (PI. IL. figs. 1-4; Pl. III. fig. 1).

1885. Octopus levis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 229.
SKS, gy », Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I., p. 104.
Hoabitat.—Station 151, off Heard Island, Southern Ocean, February 7, 1874;
lat. 52° 59’ 30’ S., long. 73° 33’ 30” W.; 75 fathoms; volcanic mud. Four specimens,
one f~, one f immature, two ? immature.

The Body is oblong, depressed, and bulges a little at the sides. The mantle-
opening extends about one-third round the circumference, terminating about midway
between the siphon and the eye. The siphon is short and small, extending scarcely
one-third the distance to the umbrella-margin.

The Head is almost as broad as the body; and the eyes are large, spheroidal, and
prominent, with very small circular apertures.

The Arms are subequal and short, compared with the body, being about three times
its length; they taper gradually to moderately fine points. The wmbrella is large,
extending about one-third of the arms. The suckers are small and prominent, and
arranged in two rows from the commencement (PI. III. fig. 1); a narrow well-marked

1 The extreme tip is wanting.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 99

groove runs across the arm between each two suckers (possibly due to contraction),
The extremity of the hectocotylised arm is well-developed, short, and tapering rapidly
to, a blunt point; the median groove has about ten transverse bars (12, IL see, @)),
The evrewmoral hip is unusually thick (Pl. III. fig. 1).
The Surface appears to have been perfectly smooth,’ but is now covered with

wrinkles, due to the action of the spirit.

The Colour is a dull grey, inclining to stone-colour below.

The Jaws are shown in Pl. II. figs. 3, 4.

Dimensions.

Length, total, : : ‘ ; 5 : ; » 190mm.

End of body to mantle margin, . : : 5 : ; 43

End of body to eye, p : ; Zi ; P ; 5) 5

Breadth of body, . : : : : . : ; 40 ,,

Breadth of head, . ; ; 4 ‘ : : ; Somes

Eye to edge of umbrella, . : : 5 : 6 a) 5

Length of extremity of hectocotylised arm, esses

Breadth of extremity of hectocotylised arm, dla ae

Diameter of largest sucker, : Sey

Right. Left.

Length of first arm,” i : : : : ; . 125 mm. 140 mm.
Length of second arm, . : ; : ‘ 3 5 GK) 5 140 _,,
Length of third arm, : ? ‘ : : : lOO me, USO) 5,
Length of fourth arm, . 4 : : ; é a WS 5 SOM

The establishment of this species is more than usually satisfactory, being based
upon no less than four specimens; and although three of these were of small size, yet
they agree so well with the large one that there would be no doubt as to their identity
even had they not been obtained at the same Station.

In some respects, for instance, in the absence of cirri, and in its smooth skin, it
resembles Octopus tehuelchus, @Orbigny, but the specimens differ from the latter so
very markedly in colour (d’Orbigny’s form being of a deep blackish-brown), and in some
minor points, that there is no doubt they are distinct.

In its smoothness and in the form and dimensions of the extremity of its
hectocotylised arm it also resembles Octopus januarit, Steenstrup, but it is certainly
distinct. From Octopus favonia, Gray, it differs in the presence of a stout cireumoral
lip, and in the double row of cups reaching quite wp to it (Pl. III. fig. 1); the latter
is in most cases a comparatively insignificant character, but seems to be of more value in
the present instance because the arms were strongly bent back from the mouth, a con-
dition in which the suckers would naturally tend to form a single series.

1 Hence the specific name.
* The lengths of the arms are measured from the margin of the mouth.

100 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Octopus punctatus, Gabb (Pl. V.).
1862, Octopus punctatus, Gabb, Proc. Calif. Acad., vol. ii. p. 170.

1866. 3 Fs Dall, Lbid., vol. iii. p. 243, fig. 27.
1883. 7 ate Vil, “Blake,” Suppl, p. 117, pls. iv., v., fig. 2.
1885. », hongkongensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 224.

1885. 5 5 Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I., p. 99.

Habitat.—Station 232, the Hyalonema-ground, off Ino Sima Island, Japan, May 12,
1875; lat. 35° 11’ N., long. 139° 28’ E.; 345 fathoms; green mud. One specimen, 2.
Pacific Coast, San Francisco to Sitka, Alaska (Verrill); Hong Kong (Copenhagen

Museum).

This species was identified in the summer of 1884 by comparison with four specimens
which had been named by Steenstrup, Octopus hongkongensis, and although the
Challenger example greatly exceeded them in size, it nevertheless agreed with them so
remarkably in the form of the minute pimples on the body and im the shape and
proportions of the hectocotylised arm, that there could be no doubt they all belonged
to the same species. Since that time Professor Verrill has kindly sent me a copy of
his descriptions of two species of Octopus from California (op. cit.), and a comparison
of his account of Octopus punctatus, with the Challenger specime» irom Japan, has
convinced me that they must all be referred to one type, which will of course bear the
name selected by Gabb.

A large sucker, some 30 mm. or more in diameter, in the British Museum, seems to
me almost certainly to have belonged to an individual of this species.

I append the dimensions of the Challenger specimen for comparison with those given
by Verrill; the length of the arms seems to be very variable.

Dimensions.

Length, total, 5 : j ; : : : . 650mm.

End of body to mantle-margin, . i ‘ bg : é 70 ,,

End of body to eye, : 3 : ; : : ‘ NO) gp

Breadth of body, . , j : : : ; 2 OU

Breadth of head, . é : : " 3 : ; Gols

Eye to edge of umbrella (dorsally), : : . : Peeps. Olu.

Eye to edge of umbrella (laterally), : 4 2 4 a MOON aes

Length of extremity of hectocotylised arm, s : ; : Sila:

Breadth of extremity of hectocotylised arm, : ; i ‘i Ae

Diameter of largest sucker, é : : : i : TD ey

Right. Left.

Length of first arm, ‘ : 2 4 : : . 510mm. 530 mm.
Length of second arm, .. : : : : : Ht 2 Olu SOOM.
Length of third arm, : : : : d j 5 YD 5, 440 ,,
Length of fourth arm, . : : : : : 3, SoD ae 410 ,,

1 The extremity is missing.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 101

Octopus brevipes, d’Orbigny.
1838. Octopus brevipes, VOrb., Céph. acét., p. 61; Poulpes, pl. xvii. fig. 1.
Habitat.—North Pacific, April 3, 1875; lat. 24° 49’ N., long. 138° 34’ E.; surface.

One specimen.
North Atlantic; lat. 23° N., long. 82° W. (d’Orbigny).

A small specimen (11 mm. long) in the collection resembles d’Orbigny’s figure so
closely that I apply his name to it. The colour, however, is much darker along the
dorsal surface of the arms ; it is almost certain that both are young forms, perhaps of two
distinct species.

Octopus sp.

Habitat.—Station 188, south of Papua, September 10, 1874; lat. Oy OY Sug
long. 139° 42’ E.; 28 fathoms; green mud. One specimen.

An immature specimen, which could not be determined, was obtained at this Station.

Octopus sp.

Habitat.—Station 184, east of Cape York, August 29, 1874; lets RP BY IS
long. 145° 10’ E.; 1400 fathoms; Globigerina ooze. One specimen.

At this Station the trawl brought up some fragments of an Octopus, which it was
quite impossible to determine.

Eledone, Leach.

The species of this genus are exceedingly difficult to discriminate, and it is by no
means certain into how many even the commonly occurring European forms should be
divided.

The difficulties are of the same kind as those encountered in the genus Octopus, and
the remarks made under that heading (see p. 74) apply equally here also.

It seems necessary to go to some extent into the history of this generic name, since
Dr. de Rochebrune has recently discussed it} and arrived at a conclusion whither I can
hardly follow him.

For the present purpose it is not necessary to refer to any pre-Linnean authors, for,
as Dr. de Rochebrune himself admits, they are not to be considered in cases of priority;
we have therefore merely to inquire who was the first after the year 1758 (or 1766) to
formally establish the present genus. In the year 1817, Leach wrote, in the Zoological
Miscellany (vol. iii. p. 137), thus, “ Pedes antlus simplice serie imstructi, consimiles,

1 Monogr. Eledonide.

102 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

1. Etzpons,”! in 1826, d’Orbigny enumerated the genus by the same name in his
“ Tableau méthodique ”;? and in the same year Risso also adopted the genus but altered
the spelling to “ Eledona,” either with the view of approximating it to customary
Latin spelling, or merely following the example of Belon, Aldrovandus, and others.

The conclusion which de Rochebrune draws from these facts is that Risso is the
author of the genus. This seems to me quite untenable, and calculated to lead to the
utmost confusion, in addition to which it is obviously unjust to give to a writer who
merely makes a literal alteration in the spelling of a word the credit of founding the
genus. A few examples will make my meaning clear. In 1835 d’Orbigny separated
Blainville’s “ Calmars fléches” as a distinct genus Omiastrephes, since which some
other authors, of whom I believe Lovén? was the first, have preferred to spell it
Ommatostrephes ; but are we therefore to speak of it as “ Ommatostrephes, Loven,
1847”? Again the year before last, Dr. de Rochebrune himself thought fit to erect
Loligopsis ellipsoptera, Adams and Reeve, into a genus ‘“ Dyctydiopsis.” This is in
distinct violation of the ordinary rule for transliterating Greek words, whereby cv should
become 7 not y, but if, in adopting his genus, I were to make this correction, I do not
think any future writer, even though he might approve of this spelling, would be
justified in calling the genus “ Dictydiopsis, Hoyle, 1886.”

The question whether Risso’s proposed alteration was desirable or not does not
affect the question; it may well be left as a matter of opmion. To me, I confess, it
seems that Hledone is the preferable form, and as it has priority I prefer to use it ;
indeed I should be loth to interfere with any published spelling except on the ground
of flagrant imaccuracy.

Eledone cirrosa (Lamarck), @Orbigny.

1776. Sepia actopodia (?), Pennant, Brit. Zool., vol. iv. p. 53, pl. xxviii. fig. 44.
1799. Octopus cirrhosus, Lmk., Mém, Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris, t. i. p. 21, pl. i. fig. 2.
1814. Ozoena aldrovandi (?), Raf., Précis découv. somiol., p. 29.

1827. Octopus ventricosus, Grant, Edin. N. Phil. Journ., p. 309.

1829. » aldrovandi, d. Ch., Mem. stor. nat., pp. 45, 57, tav. lvi.

1838. Eledone cirrhosus, d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 79; Elédons, pl. ii.

1843. » pennantit, Macgillivray, Moll. Anim. Scot., p. 31.

1843. » aldrovandi (?), Macgillivray, Tbid., p. 32.
1851. aldrovandi, Vér., Céph. médit., p. 12, pls. ii., iii.
1851. genes Nier., Lbid., p: Vo, pli i.

1853. - cirrhosus, Forbes and Hanley, Brit. Moll., vol. iv. p. 211, pl. KKK fig. 4; pl. sant
fig. 1.
3; cirrosa, Jefireys, Brit. Conch., vol. v. p. 146, pl. vii. fig. 2.
Habitat.—Off the Butt of Lewis, H.M.S. “ Triton” Expedition, August 25, 1882 ;
40 fathoms. One specimen, ¢.

1869.

? De Rochebrune is in error when he states (op. cit., p. 153) that Leach used the form “ Eledon.”
2 Ann. d. Set. Nat., t. vii. p. 145. 3 Ofversigt k. Svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Férhandl., Argangen, p. 135, 1846.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 103

Off Wexford, H.M.S. “ Porcupine ” Expedition, 1869. One specimen, 9.
Britain (Pennant, Forbes and Hanley, Jeffreys); Norway (Lovén, Steenstrup);
Mediterranean (as Eledone aldrovandi, Vérany).

Of this species I have examined a considerable number from our own coast as well
as some from other localities, and feel pretty confident that the table of synonyms above
given, though long, is correct. I have compared some specimens of Eledone aldrovandi
received from the Zoological Station at Naples, with young specimens from our own
coast, and can detect absolutely no points of specific importance between them.' Older
specimens, as compared with the young ones, are proportionately longer in the body,
the tubercles on the back are more prominent, and the arms better developed.
One or two specimens from the east coast of Scotland are quite smooth, but I am dis-
posed to attribute this to their having been kept some time after death before being
placed in spirit, an opinion confirmed by their soft flabby consistency.

The contraction due to this reagent often causes a disposition of the suckers in two
series on longer or shorter portions of the arms, and in some cases this is so consistent
and regular that it would not be difficult on cursory examination to mistake the
specimen for an Octopus.

Not having seen a male, I have been unable to confirm Steenstrup’s observation
regarding the structure of the extremities of the arms in that sex.2 He found in a
specimen from Bergen that the suckers ceased a little below the tip, and were replaced
by pairs of minute cirri; it would be very desirable to repeat this observation because
Steenstrup remarks that his specimen was in poor condition, and because the specimens
of Hledone aldrovandi from Naples disagree in this respect with his description, but
resemble Eledone moschata in possessing not cirri but cuticular folds at their ends:
this structure is figured by Steenstrup,? and is visible on specimens sent me from Naples.
If the male Hledone cirrosa really possesses these paired threads it would tend to prove
that Hledone aldrovandi was not identical with it, but, as above remarked, I have
been unable to separate them by any external characters.

What Macgillivray’s Eledone aldrovandi was it seems ‘neroaeilble to determine with
any certainty; it may have been a distorted specimen of the present species, but in any
case the name must be dropped.

Eledone octopodia (Pennant) has been adopted by some authors as a name for this
species, but even if it could be proved beyond question that Pennant’s Sepia octopodia
is identical with it, then his name would not take precedence of the others, because he
did not name the species at all, but merely referred it erroneously to Linné’s type, which
we now know as Octopus vulgaris.

1] have just ascertained that the identity of Hledone cirrosa (Eledone pennantt) with Eledone aldrovandi has been
already suggested by Dr. Paul Fischer (Jowrn. de Conch., sér. 3, t. vii. p. 13, 1867).
Hectoctyl, p. 206, Tay. ii. fig. 6. 2 Op. cit., Tay. ii. fig. 5

104 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Eledone verrucosa, Verrill.

1881, Zledone verrucosa, V1l., “‘ Blake” Report, p. 105, pls. v., vi.
1881. ap 5 VIL, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 330, pls. liz, lil.
1884. i 3 V1, Second Catal., p. 248.

Habitat.—Station 170A, off the Kermadec Islands, north of New Zealand ;
July 14, 1874; lat. 29° 45’ S., long. 178° 11’ W.; 630 fathoms; volcanic mud. One
specimen, 2.

North Atlantic, south east of Long Island; off Nantucket ; off Martha’s Vineyard ;
off Delaware Bay; 466-1255 fathoms (Verrill).

The agreement between the Challenger specimen and the admirable drawings and
description of Professor Verrill is so close that there can be no doubt as to the correct-
ness of this identification. The only differences appear to be that in the American
specimens the cirri round and above the eyes are a little more prominent than in that
from the Pacific, while the latter has the extremity of the hectocotylised arm formed
like that of an Octopus rather than like that of an Hledone, as shown in Verrill’s figure.
The Challenger specimen, moreover, has the second pair of arms the longest, the first
come next, while the third and fourth are subequal and still a little shorter; but as
appears from Verrill’s measurements (/oc. c7t.), these proportions are liable to variation.

The point of greatest interest in connection with this specimen is its capture so far
away from the original habitat of the species, but this, as will appear in the sequel, is
not without parallel (see p. 223).

Eledone rotunda, Hoyle (Pl. VIII. figs. 4-6).

1885. EHledone rotunda, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 230.
1885. ‘ sl Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I., p. 105.

Habitat.—Station 157, im the Southern Ocean, March 3, 1874; lat. 53° 55’ G.,
long. 108° 35’ E.; 1950 fathoms ; Diatom ooze. One specimen, ?.

Station 298, off Valparaiso, November 17, 1875; lat. 34° 7’S., long. 73° 56’ W.;
2225 fathoms; blue mud. One specimen (arms only), ?.

The Body is spheroidal, very little longer than broad, and the ventral groove is
not marked. The mantle-opening extends one-third round the body, ending some
distance directly below the eyes. The szphon is slightly tapering, and extends one-
third the distance to the umbrella margin.

The Head is short, nearly as broad as the body, and the eyes are round and
rather prominent.

The Arms are equal, and about twice as long as the body; they are very stout,

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 105

and taper gradually to blunt points; their section shows a triangle projecting inwards,
and a rounded surface looking outwards; the former much more prominent than the
latter. The wmbrella is wide, extending one-third up the arms, a little further dorsally
than ventrally. The suckers are comparatively small, closely set, and deeply cupped.
No hectocotylus was found on either specimen, hence they are considered to be females,
a supposition subsequently verified in the case of the one whose body was preserved.

The Surface is perfectly smooth.

The Colour is dull purple, palest on the body, and deepest on the inner surface of
the umbrella,

The Jaws are shown on Pl. VIII. figs. 5, 6.

Dimensions.

Length, total, . ’ : 2 . : : - 165mm.

End of body to mantle-margin, . s ; : : : 45 ,,

End of body to eye, 6 : j : : : : 53)

Breadth of body, . ; . ; : : F 3 45 ,,

Breadth of head, . : : ; : ‘ 5 : 35;

Eye to edge of umbrella, . ; : 5 j : : SOS;

Diameter of largest sucker, : c 5 7 ; : 3 5}

Right. Left.

Length of first arm,! : 5 : : : ; . 100 mm. 105 mm.
Length of second arm, . 9 : : 2 ? ; 105 ,, 100 ,,
Length of third arm, ; 2 : ‘ : : : OR KOO) 5
Length of fourth arm, . : : ‘ ; : s Os 105 ,,

The better preserved of these two specimens is of interest as having come from the
Southern Ocean, of the fauna of which we have but scanty reports; the mangled
remains of another from the South Pacific, which have been referred with some doubt
to the same species, indicate that it may perhaps have a wide range in deep water,
for both examples appear to be from a depth of about 2000 fathoms.

Eledone brevis, Hoyle (Pl. VIII. fig. 7).
1885. Eledone brevis, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 230.
1885. i », Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I. p. 106.
Habitat.—Station 320, off Monte Video, February 14, 1876; lat. 37° 17’ S.,
long. 53° 52’ W.; 600 fathoms; green sand. Three specimens, ?.

The Body is short, rounded, and depressed; blunt behind, and deeply grooved
below. The mantle-opening extends one-third round the animal, and terminates
immediately below the eyes. The siphon is short, acutely pointed, and extends less
than halfway to the umbrella margin.

1 The lengths of the arms are measured from the eye.
(ZOOL, CHALL. EXP.—PART XLiv.—1886.) Xx 14

106 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

The Head is short, and nearly as broad as the body. The eyes are spheroidal, and
very prominent.

The Arms are equal, and about half as long again as the body; they are short,
stout, and taper gradually to blunt points. The wmbrella extends halfway up the
arms,—rather more in the largest specimen. The suckers are round, prominent, and
deeply cupped, and there are about thirty on each arm. The hectocotylus is not
present on any of the specimens, all being females.

The Surface is smooth, with the exception of three cirri arranged in a triangle over
each eye. (By a mistake of the lithographer the cirri are represented as below the eye.)
Behind the left eye in the largest specimen the skin is elevated into a number of small
papillee, and a few similar ones are seen on the back of the medium-sized specimen.

The Colour is a dull purplish-grey above, inclining to pale ochre below.

Dimensions.
Length, total, . . 5 : : 6 : : 55 mm.
End of body to mantle-margin, . ; ‘ : ‘ : WS op
End of body to eye, . 2 . : : : : 20
Breadth of body, . : ‘ A : : : 3 OPN.
Breadth of head, . fi ; ! : : F XO) ep
Eye to edge of umbrella, . ‘ : ; ‘ : , 23” 6
. Diameter of largest sucker, : - 3 : : ‘ alia
p Right. Left.
Length of first arm, : : : ; ‘ : : 35 mm, 35 mm.
Length of second arm, . : : é F ; : BW) gp 35. ,,
Length of third arm, , , F : , ; SURE L SOM ee os Sik
Length of fourth arm, : : : : p : 30 (Cs, 30 (sy

The three little specimens of Eledone, trawled off the mouth of the Rio de la Plata,
are not like any others of the genus known to me. The short arms, the smooth
or slightly roughened dorsal surface, and three well-marked constant cirri over each

eye, are very characteristic.

Eledonella, Verrill.
Japetella, Hoyle (pars).

This genus was created by Verrill in 18841 for a small E/edone-like Cephalopod
dredged by the U.S. Fish Commission Steamer “ Albatross” off the American coast
in 2949 fathoms. In March of last year, not having then received Professor
Verrill’s paper, I described a very similar form from the Pacific Ocean under the name
Japetella, a genus erected for it and for another form from the South Atlantic, for
which I have still retained it, the two forms being clearly distinguished by the presence

1 Second Catal., p. 14.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 107

or absence of a median septum in the branchial cavity. Verrill does not appear to have
opened the siphon of his specimen, for he does not allude to a pad in its dorsal wall ;
in the Challenger specimen this pad was free at its anterior extremity, forming a valve,
but I am not sure that the separation was not artificial.

Eledonella diaphana, Hoyle (Pl. IX. figs. 3-6).

1885. Japetella diaphana, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 232.
1885. % » Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I., p. 108.

Habitat.—Station 220, north of Papua, March 11, 1875; lat, 0° 42’ S., long.
147° E.; 1100 fathoms (?); Globigerina ooze. One specimen, sex ?.

The Body is gelatinous and semitransparent ; it is ovoid in form, and considerably
longer than broad. The mantle-opening is very wide, extending up behind the eyes on
either side. The sxphon extends two-thirds of the distance to the umbrella margin, and
is truncated at the extremity; it has a thick pad on its dorsal wall, which seems to form
a valve by its free tip. There is a median septum in the branchial cavity (PI. IX. fig. 4).

The Head is nearly as broad as the body, and the eyes are large and prominent ;
they consist of a larger, darkly pigmented spheroid, from which protrudes the opaque
white, smaller, spheroidal lens.

The Arms are unequal ; the longest (the third pair) are almost as long as the body,
and are nearly twice as long as the fourth, which are the shortest, the order of length
being 3, 2, 1, 4; they taper rapidly to fine points. The wmbrella is very small,
extending about one-fourth up the dorsal and ventral arms, a little further up the
dorso-lateral and lateral arms, and being least developed in the space between the
ventral and ventro-lateral arms (fig. 5). The suckers have assumed, probably owing
to shrinking, a quadrangular or triangular form (fig. 6); they are prominent, and
marked by two constrictions, one at the base, separating them from the arm, the other
rather more than halfway up. There is no trace of any hectocotylus.

The Surface appears to have been smooth originally, but the epithelium has been
to a great extent stripped off.

The Colour is very pale yellowish-grey, marked with numerous longitudinally
disposed oblong chromatophores.

Dimensions.
Length, total, . j : , d : i : 36 mm.
End of body to mantle-margin, . : : : we : Ge ss
End of body to eye, 2 0 9 : ; : NS op
Hye to edge of umbrella, . : : : ; F j Oo
Length of third pair of arms, : . 0 . . : 18 ,,

In the Preliminary Report this specimen was recorded as being from the “surface,”
firstly, on the ground that it was so noted in the manuscript Station Book, kept during

108 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

the cruise, and, secondly, because of the pale semitransparent appearance which suggested
its specific name. It seems better, however, to omit this and to leave the depth from
which the specimen was taken an open question; there was, so far as I can ascertain,
no objective evidence that the animal had been taken at the surface, and in the only
two cases in which examples of this genus have been obtained the dredge or trawl had
been to a great depth. Professor Steenstrup’s five specimens of his Bolitena micro-
cotyla, a form nearly allied to this, were all taken in the surface net with Medusee and
other pelagic organisms at very distant localities.

The question as to the specific identity, or otherwise, of this form with that
described by Verrill seems at present to admit of no decision ; the extent of variation in
a genus consisting at present of only two specimens is, of course, quite uncertain, the
more so as these belong apparently to different sexes. It seems, therefore, that the
interests of science will be best served by recording the two as distinct, though I have a
strong suspicion that they will eventually be proved to be identical, and had the knowledge
of Verrill’s species come to me in time I should not have proposed a new name.

The present type resembles Bolitzna, Steenstrup, in the gelatinous consistency of
the body, in the presence of a median septum in the branchial cavity, in the wide
opening of the mantle, which extends to just behind the eyes, and in the preponder-
ance of the third pair of arms. They differ, however, in a considerable number of im-
portant characters. In Bolitzna microcotyla the distance from the eye to the extremity
of the arms is somewhat greater than from the eye to the end of the body, whereas in
Eledonella it is only about half as great; and whilst in Bolitena there are fourteen
small widely separated suckers on the longest arm, in Hledonella there are sixteen larger
ones closely placed. In Bolitena the colour is a brownish-purple, with irregular dark
brown mottlings, and a delicate web extends about halfway up the arms, while in Hledon-
ella the colour is almost white, with elongated oval brownish spots, and the web extends
only one-fourth up the dorsal arms, and to a somewhat less extent between the others.

The genus Hledonella furnishes one of the instances in which closely similar, if not
identical, forms occur both in the Western Atlantic and the Western Pacific (compare
pp. 184, 228).

Japetella,! Hoyle.

Body gelatinous in consistency and semitransparent, and more or less oblong in
form. Mantle-opening very wide. Siphon provided with a valve. No median
septum in the branchial cavity.

Arms unequal, and the longest only about equal in length to the body. Umbrella
small, and the suckers arranged in a single series.

1 Named in honour of Professor Japetus Steenstrup, whose brilliant researches have added so much to our
knowledge of this group, and who examined this specimen and the one just described with peculiar interest.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 109

Japetella prismatica,' Hoyle (Pl. 1X. figs. 1, 2).

1885. Japetella prismatica, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 231.
1885. 5 D Hoyle, Narr. Chall. Exp., vol. i. p. 271, fig. 107.
1885. 90 > Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. I, p. 107, woodcut.
Habitat.—Station 126, off ‘the Rio San Francisco, Brazil, September 12, 1873;
lat. 10° 46’ S., long. 36° 8’ W.; 770 fathoms; red mud. One specimen, probably ? .

The Body is of gelatinous consistency and semitransparent; it is somewhat
longer than broad, flat on the dorsum, and with the median ventral region raised into
a prominent ridge, which gives the body a prismatic form (fig. 1). The mantle-
opening appears to have been wide, and to have terminated behind the eyes; but as the
integument has been torn away from the head dorsally, it is impossible to be certain of
this. The siphon extends almost to the margin of the umbrella, and is but slightly
conical, with a broad truncated extremity; internally it is provided with a distinct valve.

The Head is about as broad as the body; the eyes are rounded, and prominent
laterally, the spherical lens protruding from the middle of each.

The Arms are unequal, the third pair being the largest, one quarter longer than the
body, and about one-third longer than the fourth, which are slightly longer than the
second, and these than the first, so that the order of length is 3, 4, 2,1. The arms are
stout, and taper gradually to blunt points. The umbrella extends about halfway up
the dorsal arms and one-fourth up the ventral arms, its extent being intermediate
between these extremes in the case of the other arms. The suckers are round and
prominent, and in many cases show a double margin, due to a thin fold of skin
surrounding the thickened edge of the sucker; they commence one sucker’s breadth
from the oral margin, and become gradually larger and wider apart as far as the
middle of the arm, where they are one sucker’s breadth apart, after which they are
smaller and closer, and towards the extremity stand in contact. There is no trace of a
hectocotylus.

The Surface of the body appears to have been perfectly smooth ; it is covered with
torn remains of epithelium, but there are neither warts nor curi.

The Colour is a pale yellowish-grey, and there are numerous reddish-brown
chromatophores.

Dimensions.
Length, total, . : : f : : : : 70 mm.
End of body to mantle-margin, . : : : ‘ F Dla.
End of body to eye, 5 . : 5 3 c : 33,
Breadth of body, ; F : 4 : ; : OP on
Breadth of head, . : ; : : : ; ; 20 ie
Kye to edge of umbrella, . ; 4 : ‘ 5 3 HOR
Diameter of largest sucker, 3 ‘ : 15,,

1 So called from the form of the Ae

110 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Right. Left
Length of first arm,! : ; ‘ : 6 : : 26 mm. 27 mm.
Length of second arm, . : : : ; 2 : Ol 6 98 2
Length of third arm, : : : : : d : SOMmes BO» 2
Length of fourth arm, . ; : : : : : AX 5 26) ;;

The genus Japetella was originally created for the reception of two forms, which
however, differed in a character so important that they were only united provisionally.
Since then the other species (Japetella diaphana) has been referred to Hledonella,
Verrill, so that the present genus is monotypic. The distinguishing character is the
median ventral septum in the branchial cavity, which, though present in Octopus,
Eledone, Cirroteuthis, Eledonella, and Bolitzna, is absent in Japetella. The presence
of a valve in the siphon is very remarkable.

This is another of the forms brought up by a trawl which had been down into
deep water, and concerning whose real place of origin there is considerable uncertainty;
its general similarity to Hledonella is so great that whatever decision is come to regard-
ing the one, must be regarded @ priori as probably true of the other.

Suborder II. DECAPODA, Leach.
Division I. MYOPSIDA, d’Orbigny.
Family VI. Sep1ro.uint, Steenstrup.

Sepiola (Rondelet), Leach.
Sepiola rondeleti, Leach.

1558. Sepiola rondaleti, Gesner, De Aquat., lib. iv. p. 855.

1817. », Rondeleti’, Leach, Zool. Miscell., vol. iii. p. 138.

NSS gy 3 d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 230; Sépioles, pl. i. figs. 1-6; pl. ii. figs. 3-13 ;
pl. iti. figs. 6-9.

1845. ,, oceanica, d’Orb., Moll. viv., pl. x. fig. 13 (err.).

1853. ,, Rondeletii, Forbes and Hanley, Brit. Moll., vol. iv. p. 220, pl. mum. fig, 1.

1869. » Rondeletti, Targ., Cef. Mus, Firenze, p. 45.

1869. ,, Rondeleti, Jeffreys, Brit. Conch., vol. v. p. 136.

1879. » septola, Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. i. p. 155.

Habitat.—The Minch, west coast of Scotland, “ Porcupine” Expedition, 1869 ;
60 to 80 fathoms. Two specimens, ?.
British Seas (Forbes and Hanley, Jeffreys); Atlantic coast of France (Fischer,

1 The lengths of the arms are measured from the eye. 2 Mutilated.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 111

Daniel); Mediterranean (’Orbigny, Vérany); Adriatic (Ninni); Agean (Forbes); Green-
land (Steenstrup); Gorée, Senegal (Maltzan); Canaries (M‘Andrew in Brit. Mus.).

The name by which this species has long been currently known has been called in
question by Tryon (oc. cit.), who adopts the term Sepiola sepiola. According to the
British Association rules, in their present form, there is no doubt that this view is
correct, for the Linnean specific name takes precedence of all others, and it is not held
to be necessary to change it even though it be erected into a generic name. At the
same time it must be remembered that this last principle is only of modern adoption ;
it was the universal custom, even so lately as the first edition of the British Association
rules, for any writer who converted a specific name to generic use to propose a new one
in its place, and therefore Leach, when he created the genus Sepiola, followed the
usual custom in selecting and giving currency to one taken from the pages of Gesner,
who wrote in 1558. It must, of course, be understood that Gesner’s designation is not
a binomial name in the Linnean sense though it happens to consist of two words; it
simply means to identify the animal as the one called “ Sepiola” by Rondelet.

Tt seems best, on the whole, to perpetuate Leach’s designation, Ist, because it has
virtually, if not technically, the claim of priority ; 2nd, because it was proposed by Leach
in strict conformity with the usage of his time; and 3rd, because it has since found
universal acceptance for the commonest of the Mediterranean species. According to
Steenstrup? and others,” there seem to be about three of these; one of them may be
identical with Sepiola oweniana, @Orb.; although Tryon has referred a form from the
Fiji Islands to this species.?

Gwyn Jeffreys’ assertion (op. cit., p. 137) that “the male (of this species) is
Sepiola atlantica of d’Orbigny” is absolutely without foundation, and could only have
been made in total ignorance of the sexual characters found in this genus, which were
clearly set forth so long ago as 1856* by Steenstrup, whom Jeffreys himself rightly
describes as “one of the greatest authorities on the Cephalopods.” It is parallel to his
statement (op. cit., p. 131) that the distinction between Loligo vulgaris and Loligo
forbesvi is not valid because it is possibly sexual, being based mainly on the relative
sizes of the suckers, although males of both species were described.

For the specimen from Gorée I am indebted to v. Maltzan as well as for some other
specimens from the same locality.

1 Morch, Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjgbenhavn, p. 101, 1867. 2 Targioni-Tozzetti, op. cit., pp. 44, 45.

3 Man. Conch., vol. i. p. 156.

4 Hectocotyl., p. 197, and Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 2, vol. xx. p. 91, 1857; see also Steenstrup, Sthenoteuthis
og Lestoteuthis, p. 8.

112 i THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Inioteuthis, Verrill.

Inioteuthis morsei, Verrill (Pl. XIV. figs. 1-9).

1881. Zndoteuthis Morsei, Vil., Ceph. N.E. Amer., p. 417,

1884. Sepiola bursa, (?) Pftr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 6, fig. 6.

1886. Inioteuthis Morsei, Appellof, Japanska Ceph., p. 15, pl. ii. figs. 15,16; pl. iii. figs. 16,
19, 20, 23.

Habitat.—Station 233, off Kobé, Japan, May 17, 1875; lat. 34° 39’ N., long.
- 135° 14’ E.; 8 to 14 fathoms, mud. Four specimens, ¢.
Bay of Yedo (Verrill) ; Hong Kong (Pfeffer) ; Japan (Appellof).

The Body is oblong, rounded behind and rather longer than broad ; the fins are
subcircular, notched at the anterior attachment to the body, but not at the posterior ;
they are about half as long and half as broad as the body. The manile is attached to
the head by a broad ligament reaching nearly the whole distance from eye to eye ; the
mantle connective is of the usual form. The s¢phon is long, slender, conical, slightly
expanded at the extremity, and nearly reaches the gap between the ventral arms.

The Head is broad and the eyes prominent ; the lacrymal pore below and anterior
to the eye is in several specimens unrecognisable.

The Arms are unequal, the order beng 2=3, 1=4; they are slightly longer than
the body, conical and gradually tapering towards the extremities. The suckers are in four
series, except a few (four to eight) proximal ones which are in two series (fig. 9), they are
hood-shaped (figs. 2, 3) and oblique, with very slender peduncles from which they readily
become detached. The horny ring is entire and surrounded by a narrow papillary area.
The hectocotylus was not seen, all the specimens being females. The wmbrella extends
about equally between the first, second, and third arms, namely, about up to the fourth
row of suckers, while between the third and fourth arms it reaches to the seventh row, °
and is entirely absent between the two ventral arms. The buccal membrane has
six points, but no suckers. The outer lip is thin, the inner thick and papillate.

The Tentacles are nearly twice as long as the body, the stem is flattened on the
inner side, rounded on the outer; the internal dorsal angle is produced into a thin
membrane, which becomes wider distally. The club (figs. 4, 5) is elongated and
but’ slightly expanded, it is covered for three-quarters, and near the tip over almost
the whole, of its circumference with exceedingly minute suckers, which give it a velvety
appearance even under a lens. The suckers are goblet-shaped, with a minute aperture
leading into the infundibulum and a bell-shaped horny ring, the base of which is
directed towards the peduncle (figs. 6-8).

The Surface is smooth all over.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 1138

The Colour is a pale yellowish-grey mottled with dull purple, the spots being more
distinct on the ventral surface of the body, fins, and arms. There are four or five oval
patches on the outer side of the tentacle near the club.

The Gladius is absent.

Dimensions.

Length, total, : : : : : : : . 120mm.

End-of body to mantle-margin, . : : : : . 40 ,,

End of body to eye, : F : : j ; ; 45 ,,

Breadth of body, . ; F j ; : : ; PAS) 5

Breadth of head, . ; : : : ; : 7 2 ae

Hye to edge of umbrella, . : : : c é : 18) 5

Length of fin, : : 4 : s : : 3 220s

Breadth of each fin, : : : : F : : 1B 55

Breadth across the fins, . : £ ; : : : Bo

Right. Left

Length of first arm, 3 3 ‘ ; ; 5 é 38 mm. 35 mm.
Length of second arm, . 6 ; ‘ ; : 3 50 ,, 50 ,,
Length of third arm, ; ‘ j : ; : ; 50, 50,
Length of fourth arm, .. ; : : : : : 38 Ca, 40 ,,
Length of tentacle, ; 0 ; : ; ‘ : 65 ,, Oe
Length of tentacular club, : : : 6 : : IG) 5, 15,

I have thought it well to give a full description and figures of this form because
its identity with that described by Dr. Pfeffer is not quite certain. The diagnosis
of the latter agrees with the Challenger specimens in every particular, but no mention
is made of the remarkable structure of the tentacular suckers; Dr. Pfeffer, to whom
I wrote on this matter, does not seem, however, to have made a microscopic examina-
tion of them, without which their peculiarities would be quite unnoticed. Having
several specimens at my disposal, I removed a piece of the integument with the
suckers attached and mounted it in Canada balsam, and from this preparation the
figures 6, 7, and 8 on Pl. XIV. were drawn. I am inclined on the whole to think that
the species are identical, and Dr. Pfeffer’s name was therefore at first applied to the
Challenger ‘specimens, and printed at the foot of the plate.

In the absence of males there seems to be no point separating the present form
from Verrill’s Inioteuthis,’ also from Japan ; indeed, so far as females are concerned, this
genus would seem to differ only from Sepzola in the absence of the gladius, and should
perhaps contain several species which have been referred to the latter. Verrill does not
say how he identified his type with Sepiola japonica, Tilesius, which I have always
regarded as one of those Cephalopods concerning which no certain information was to be
had; and his description omits the most characteristic point in that of d’Orbigny,?
namely, the “tendon,” which forms an elevated rounded tubular muscle lying between

1 Trans. Connect. Acad., vol. v. p. 417. 2 Moll. viv., p. 251.
(ZOOL. CHALL. EXP.—PART XLIv.—1886.) Xx 15

114 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

the two rows of suckers. It would be interesting to know what is the structure of
the tentacular suckers in this form.

The original description of Inioteuthis morser (lec. cit.) is very Bree and would
fit Sepiola bursa very well, except that it is not mentioned that the proximal suckers
are in two series. The uncertainty at present existing among these various species
can only be cleared up by their respective authors giving full particulars regarding the
points alluded to above.!

Sepiola stenodactyla, Grant,” recalls this species by the description of its tentacular
clubs, which “ present a villous appearance but have no suckers developed;” judging by
the figures, however, it has a shorter, more rounded body and longer arms, and the eight
series of suckers would be quite diagnostic if this character could be relied upon. ‘This
is very doubtful, however, because the description speaks of seven or eight rows very
irregularly placed, and because no Sepiola has yet been found with other than four
distinctly marked series of suckers.

The extreme contraction of the mouth of the horny ring in the tentacular suckers is
a point of great interest, especially when taken in connection with the absence of any
roughnesses or papillee on the suctorial surface. It seems to indicate that they adhere
by almost pure suction in contradistinction to those of most Decapods, which adhere
by a combination of suction with the action of the toothed margin of the ring and the
horny papillee surrounding it.?

Rossia, Owen.
Rossia owent, Ball (Pl. XV. figs. 1-9).

1842. Rossia Owenti et Rossia Facobii, Ball, Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., vol. ii. p. 193.
1842. ,, 3 sh 5 Ball, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. ix. p. 349.
1844. Rossia Oweni et Rossia Jacobi, Thompson, Rep. Brit. Assoc., p. 248.

1845. Rossia Owenti et Rossia Jacobii, @Orbigny, Moll. viv. et foss., p. 259.

Tv, cy » Lovén, Ofversigt k. Vetensk. Akad. Forhandl., p. 121.
IGE, yy Cree 18), WIS Oe, yo), XO)
WS gg » Forbes and Hanley, Brit. Moll., vol. iv. p. 223, pl. sss, fig. 1

Halbitat.—Off the Butt of Lewis, H.M.S. “ Triton,” August 25, 1882; 40 fathoms.
Three specimens, ¢.

The Minch, H.MLS. “ Porcupine,” 1869. One specimen, ?.

Off Wexford, H.M.S8. “ Porcupine,” 1869. One specimen, 3.

1 Since these remarks were in type, I have received Appellof’s interesting Memoir on Japanese Cephalopoda, and
his description has left no doubt in my mind that the Challenger specimens are of the same species as those which he has
named Inioteuthis morset, Verrill ; I have, therefore, at the moment of going to press adopted that name in the text of
this Report. The absence of males in the collection is greatly to be regretted, as a comparison of the peculiar hecto-
cotylised arm would haye rendered the identification still more satisfactory.

2 Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. i. p. 84, pl. ii. figs. 1, 2. -3 Niemiec, Recueil zool. suisse, t. ii. p. 90.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 115

Off Dublin Bay (Ball); Isle of Wight (Forbes and Hanley); Firth of Clyde (Scottish
Marine Station); Kattegat (Copenhagen Museum); “ad oras Bohusiz ” (Lovén).

“Rossia Owenii Batu? Ann. nat. hist. IX, 349; pinnis pone medium sitis;
brachiis basi discretis, acetabulorum ineequalium serie tri-quadruplici armatis, tentaculis
validis, membrana apicali ad basin tori incipiente—Abdomen ventricosum, satis ob-
tusum, latit. ad longit. = 28:38. Pinnz ad basin longitudine abdominis dimidium
prope zequantes, late ellipticee, antice per breve spatium limbi liberee. Caput magnum.
Brachia valida, 1, 4, 2, 3, ad basin brevissime colligata, exceptis 3tiis, que ad } longit.
4tis adnexa, his invicem profunde discretis. Acetabula, quorum in brachii singuli serie
laterali cire. 30, inde ab ima basi numeranda, inferius per paria disposita subalterna,
deinde per series obliquas tri- et quadruplices, brevissime pedunculata (nec longe,
cfr. 1. ¢.), in brach 1:is subsequalia, mediocria, in 4:is, 2:is, et preesertim 3:iis inzequalia,
lateralibus media duplo superantibus. Brachia 1 latere externo plica cutis marginali.
Tentacula valida, compressa, corpus longitudine eequantia, apice dilatata, revoluta, et intus
toro preedita lanceolato, membrana utrinque defenso, ex acetabulis confertis, versus apicem
sensim diminutis, superioribus baseos longe maximis, basalia brachii 1:mi vix credentibus;
membrana marginalis ad basin tori incipiens. Palpebra crassa, inferior oculum omnino
obtegens. Long. tot. = 85 mm.; ad basin brach. 1 = 58 mm.; latit. max. = 28 mm.;
long. glad 23 mm.—Ad oras Bohusize hieme semel capta.”-—(Lovén, loc. cit.).

There can be little doubt that as Steenstrup has suggested, the two forms described
by Ball are of different sexes and not of different species, although it is not true as
stated by Jeffreys? that he “considers R. Owen of Ball the male, and _ his
hk. Jacobi the female of R. macrosoma.” The distinguishing characters indicated by
Ball are exactly those which mark out the sexes; the males have enlarged suckers in
the two outer series on the lateral arms, while the females have smaller equal suckers,
and the body is more elongated, or, what is the same thing, the arms are “ propor-
tionably shorter.” The description of the membrane round the mouth given in
connection with Rossva jacobii is not of the nature of a specific character, being found
in many, if not most, genera of Decapoda.

This species is very closely related to several others, many of the distinctive cha-
racters being only of a relative nature, as indeed is the case throughout the genus. It
differs from Rossia palpebrosa, Owen, in the greater equality of the arms and the
more posterior position of the fins; it resembles Rossia hyatti, Vervill, very closely
in many respects (form of body, proportionate length of arms and umbrella, and number
of rows of suckers), but the fin is different in shape, wider, and less incised anteriorly,
and. there are no papillae on the dorsal surface.

This species is certainly very closely allied to Rossia macrosoma, and should

1 Hectocotyl., p. 199. 2 Brit. Conch., vol. v. p. 134.

116 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

perhaps be regarded as only a variety of it; still it seems quite easy to distinguish
well-grown specimens of the two species from each other, as follows :—

Rossia owent. Rossia macrosomu.
1. Attains rather greater dimensions, in the largest | 1. In the largest specimens I have seen the length
specimen in my collection (?) the length of the of the body was from 30 to 35 mm.
body is 50mm.
2, The body is more elongated, the breadth being | 2. The breadth is 70 to 75 per cent. of the length.
55 to 65 per cent. of the length.
3. The tentacles are shorter. 3. The tentacles are longer.
4. The tentacular suckers are slightly larger. 4. The tentacular suckers are not quite so large.

The most accurate of the descriptions published is that of Lovén quoted above,
the original diagnosis of Ball being extremely incomplete and misleading in the state-
ment that the suckers are in three rows; they are really in four, but sometimes
(especially in the males) so irregular that on casual inspection only three seem to be
present.

The only figure of this species hitherto published is that of Forbes and Hanley
(loc. cit.) which leaves much to be desired; the tentacular club in particular is very
inaccurate (compare Pl. XV. fig. 6 with pl. sss.). The central figure of Pl. XY. is
taken from a fine specimen (¢) obtained by H.M.S. “ Porcupine,” while figures 2 and
5 are from a male captured off Wexford, the only specimen of that sex which has
come into my hands. The teeth of the large tentacular suckers are very irregular (see
figs. 7 and 9); the papillary area which immediately surrounds the horny ring consists
of two rows of obliquely truncated conical papillee (seen in profile in fig. 8), outside which
is a layer of chitinous material with somewhat irregular closely set radial markings.

This species would seem, judging from the literature of the subject, to be rather
rare, each of the previous observers having recorded only one specimen, but several
unrecorded examples are in the Museums of Copenhagen and Gotheborg, and there can
be little doubt that it would have been much more frequently mentioned had it not
been wrongly identified with Rossia macrosoma. A considerable number of specimens
were trawled last summer by the “ Medusa” during the sojourn of the Scottish
Marine Station at Millport in the Firth of Clyde.

Rossia glaucopis, Lovén.

1845. Rossia glaucopis, Loven, Ofversigt k. Vetensk. Akad. Forhhandl., p. 121.
1869. Rossia papillifera, Jeffreys, Brit. Conch., vol. v. p. 134.
1878, Rossia glaucopis, Sars, Moll. Reg. Arct. Norv., p. 337, pl. xxxii.
Habitat.—Station 65, north west of the Shetland Islands, cruise of H.M.S.
“‘ Porcupine,” 1869; lat. 61° 21’ N., long. 3° 44’ W.; 345 fathoms. One immature
specimen.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 117

Near Hammerfest, 40 to 50 fathoms (Lovén); north of the Shetlands, 60 to 100
fathoms (Jeffreys); Lofoten and Finmark, not very uncommon at depths of 60 to 200
fathoms (Sars).

An example from the Shetlands enables me to corroborate in the most satisfactory
manner the opinion expressed by Professor Sars that Rossia papillifera is a synonym of
Rossia glaucopis. It was contained in a bottle sent to me among the “ Porcupine ”
collection, and had been labelled with the former designation by Jeffreys, while on a
separate label it bore the name Rossia glaucopis, in the handwriting of Professor
Steenstrup, who had examined it along with the remainder of the collection. Professor
Steenstrup tells me, moreover, that, from the notes he received along with the
“Porcupine” specimens from Jeffreys, he has every reason to believe that this
particular individual was the type of Rossia papillifera.

I have also compared it myself with specimens of Lovén’s species from Lofoten sent
to Sir Wyville Thomson by Professor Sars and can find absolutely no points of specific
distinction between them.

Rossia sublevis (2), Verrill.

1878. Rossta sublevis, Vil., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xvi. p. 209.

WEE 55 e Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. i. p. 160.

SSO Se. Vil, Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xix. p. 291, pl. xv. fig. 3.
SS = VIL, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zo6L., vol. viii. p. 104, pl. iii. figs. 2-4, pl. vii. fig. 4.
NS Sirs Vil, Ceph. N. E. Amer., pp. 354, 419, pl. xxx. fig. 2, pl. xxxi. fig. 3,

pl. xlvi. fig. 4, pl. xlvii. figs. 2—4.

Habitat.—Station 3138, off Cape Virgins, South America, January 20, 1876; lat.
52° 20’ §., long. 67° 39’ W.; depth, 55 fathoms; sand. One small somewhat damaged
specimen, $ .

Eastern coast of the United States, from Nova Scotia as far south as lat.
32° 33’ 15” N.; depth, 42 to 640. fathoms (Verrill).

A large number of specimens of Rossia patagonica, E. A. Smith, were obtained
from the same Station, and it is quite possible that the present may be only a young
form of that species; it differs, however, in the shorter and more rounded form of its
body, in the longer and narrower pit at the base of the siphon for articulation with
the mantle, and in the more elongated tentacular club, and on the whole seems to
present greater resemblance to Verrill’s species, to which I have, not without hesita-
tion, referred it. If the identification be correct its occurrence so far south is a matter

of some interest.

118 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Rossia (?) tenera (Verrill), mihi.

1880. Heteroteuthis tenera, Vll., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xx. p. 392.

1880. 3 » WIL, Proc. Nat. Hist. Mus., vol. ui. p. 360.

1881. 5 » VIL, “Blake” Rep., vol. viii. p. 103, pl. iii. fig. 5; pl vil, figs. 2, 3.
1881. 3 » Wl, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 357, pl. xlvi. figs. 2, 3; pl. xlvii. fig. 5.
1883. 5 » VIL, “Blake” Suppl. p. 111.

Habitat.—Station 49, south of Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 20, 1873; lat.
43° 3’ N., long. 63° 39’ W.; 85 fathoms; gravel, stones. One specimen, ?.
Off the New England Coast, 18 to 301 fathoms ; off St. Kitts (Verrill).

A small specimen dredged south of Halifax agrees so well with Professor Verrill’s
Heteroteuthis tenera that there can be little doubt as to its correct reference to that
species. The differences noticed are, the greater shortness of the ventral arms, which
are subequal to the dorsal and shorter than the lateral, whilst on the tentacular club the
disparity between the sizes of the suckers is not so marked as in Verrill’s figure
(pl. xlvi. fig. 2a), and the suckers are more numerous, especially towards the proximal
end of the club.

Having only a single small specimen at my disposal I did not remove the pen nor
the buccal organs.

I cannot, however, agree with Verrill in referring this form to Heteroteuthis, Gray,
because the type of that genus (fossia dispar, Riippell), is a very different animal.
Among its points of distinction may be mentioned the following :—

1. The fins are placed very far back, projecting beyond the hinder end of the body,
as in Verany’s figures.'

2. The anterior border of the mantle is of quite a different shape, being transverse
dorsally, coming forward on either side below the eye and having a notch for the
reception of the funnel.

3. The length of the gladius is only one-sixth of the length of the body,’ while in
Rossia tenera it is nearly half as long.*

4, The enormously large suckers are three or four in number and are situated on
the third pair of arms.*

5. The dorsal and dorso-lateral arms are united for half their length by a web, and
at their conjoined bases on the right side is situated the gland first described by
Troschel.°

These points I have been able to substantiate by the examination of two male

1 Céph. médit., pl. xxiii. figs. d, e, f. 2 Stp., Sepiadarium og Idiosepius, p. 217.

3 Compare Ceph. N. E. Amer., pl. xlvi. figs. 2 and 20.

4 Troschel, Archiv f. Naturgesch., Jahrg. xxiii. Bd. i. p. 63; Claus, op. cit., Jahrg. xxiv. Bd. i. p. 259.

5 Loc. cit. Troschel also points out and rectifies Vérany’s erroneous statement that it is the females and not the
males which are provided with large suckers,

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 119

specimens, presented to the British Museum by Riippell and recorded by Gray in his
Catalogue ;1 they leave no doubt that Verrill’s Heteroteuthis is not that of Gray, and
indeed the form described by him does not seem to me to differ so much from other
species of Rossa as to demand the erection of a new genus for its reception.

Rossia patagonica, E. A. Smith (Pl. XV. figs. 10-18).
1881. Rossia patagonica, E. A. Smith, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., p. 22, pl. iii. fig. 3.

Habitat.—Station 313, off Cape Virgins, South America, January 20, 1876;
lat. 52° 20’ S., long. 67° 39’ W.; 55 fathoms; sand. Twenty-six specimens, 11¢,
18) @ »

Southern Patagonia, 10 and 30 fathoms (E. A. Smith).

Dimensions.’

Length, total, : S : a : : : ; 59 mm.
End of body to mantle-margin, . 3 , : : 5 Qs.
End of body to eye, 6 : b : : ; é BO 6
Breadth of body, . : 5 : , ; ; , Ties
Breadth of head, . : i : ss : s : We) 5
Kye to edge of umbrella, . Z : : i é : Sra
Length of fin, 5 : a : Fe : : : Nos
Breadth of fin, . 48 6 : A F 4 ue WO) ih 53
Breadth across both fins, . a : : : ; : 34 355
Diameter of largest-sucker on sessile arm, . : : a : Dy
Diameter of largest sucker on tentacle, . s : : FEROS).

Right. Left.

Length of first arm, . ‘ d : : ; : LE 22mm. 22 mm.
Length of second arm, : : ‘ ‘ j ; BT son BY on
Length of third arm, : ‘ : : ; : : BO on 28a
Length of fourth arm, PM in MLE oh
Sop ue oon

Length of tentacle, .

The following notes may'be given as supplementary to Mr. E. A. Smith’s description.

All the arms in both sexes have two series of suckers, except at the extreme tip,
where there are four series of very minute ones. The male has the suckers (figs. 14, 18)
on the lateral and ventral arms, enlarging rapidly to the middle of the arms and then
diminishing (figs. 10-12) their size being three times as great as in the females. The
left dorsal arm (fig. 13) is hectocotylised; it has two series of suckers except at the extreme
tip, where there are four as usual, and in the middle of the arm the two series assume
a zigzag arrangement so as to present the appearance of four. The suckers are

1B. M. C., p. 90.
2 Taken from the largest specimen, a male; the lengths of the arms are measured from the centre of the eye.

120 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.8. CHALLENGER.

mounted upon long conical peduncles, whose bases are curved outwards, and a broad
membrane passes up the lateral aspect of the arm for about three quarters of its length.

The tentacular suckers (figs, 16, 17) are largest at the inner border of the club, and
there they are bounded by a narrow protective membrane, beyond which is a fin about
one-third as broad as the club.

Promachoteuthis,! Hoyle.

Body short, rounded, with large broad jins, situated posteriorly. Mantle free
behind, as in Rossia ; siphon short, slender, and with everted margin ; valve ?

Head small and narrow ; eyes not prominent.

Arms long and conical, with two series of pedunculate spherical suckers. Tentacles
exactly resembling the arms at their origin; their extremities wanting in the only
specimen.

Gladius not removed from the single example.

The definition of this new genus must be regarded as provisional; the only known
species being represented by a single specimen, in describing which all that is known
about the genus will be stated.

Promachoteuthis megaptera, Hoyle (Pl. XIV. figs. 10-14; woodcut 3).

1885.. Promachoteuthis megaptera, Hoyle, Narr. Chall. Exp., vol. i. p. 273, fig. 109.
1885. Pe nA Hoyle, Diagnoses IL, p. 182.
1885. y) Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. H., p. 284.
Habitat.—Station 237, south-east of Nosima, Japan, June 17, 1875; lat. 34° 37’ N.,
long. 140° 32’ E.; 1875 fathoms; blue mud. One mutilated specimen, sex ?

The Body is short, barrel-shaped, rounded behind; the jin is large, transversely
elliptical, and extending beyond the end of the body posteriorly ; each half is wider
than long. The mantle-margin is transversely truncated. The mantle-connective
consists of a linear ridge on either side, fitting into an almond-shaped depression at
each side of the base of the siphon (fig. 11), which is short, slender, and has the
distal margin everted, like the neck of a flask; the specimen was so small and
indifferently preserved that the siphon was not opened to ascertain whether a valve was
present.

The Head is very small and narrow, almost the whole of its sides being occupied
by the eyes, which are not prominent, but are covered with a transparent membrane,
and have a distinct pore at a point in front of and below each (fig. 10).

1 In forming this name I have ventured to make use of Dr. Carpenter’s very apt rendering of “Challenger” by
mpouaros (Narr. Chall. Exp., p. 311).

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 121

The Arms are unequal, the fourth pair being the shortest (considerably so on the
right side); the first, second, and third are subequal; they are on an average of about the
same length as the body, smoothly conical, and taper evenly to fine points. The suckers
(fig. 14) are in two series throughout, pedunculate,
spherical, with a lateral aperture directed inwards
(figs. 11, 12); the horny ring is smooth and sur-
rounded by a few large papille. The hectocotylus
is not developed. There is no trace of an wmbrella.
The buccal membrane is well developed and has
the usual seven points, but they are not very well
marked nor provided with suckers; the membrane
is not connected with the arms by ligaments. There ae
seems to be only one lip, which is thick and papillate iG. 8.—P omaha oucles meqanteray Hovles
(fig. 13).

The Tentacles arise directly between the third and fourth arms, exactly resembling
them at their origin, and being obviously serially homologous with them (figs. 10, 13) ;
the stem is swollen at first and somewhat more than one third up the arms narrows
rather suddenly to about half its previous diameter. The club is wanting in the unique
specimen.

The Surface is smooth.

The Colour is a dull purplish madder, paler on the fins (especially their under
surface) and on the arms and tentacles.

The Gladius has not been extracted.

Dimensions.

Length, total (to end of mutilated tentacle), : : ; : 50 mm.

End of body to mantle-margin, . : b ’ 2 Way 6p

End of body to eye, : : : : ; : US 5,

Breadth of body, : ; : : ow

Breadth of head, ; i 3 2 : O %

Length of fin, . : : : ; é Tes

Breadth across both fins, : : uy : ; 230s

Diameter of largest sucker on sessile arm, : ; : : 0°75,

Right. Left.

Length of first arm, E : : : : ; ; 13 mm. 14 mm.
Length of second arm, . 3 : F j Bas j 14:5,, 6),
Length of third arm, . : : : ; 5 : 14 si, 14,
Length of fourth arm, . , ‘ i : 5 Uo Woh
Length of tentacle Gecintedyy : F ; : 6 2215; 25) ,,
Number of suckers on first arm, : : 5 : : 37 37
Number of suckers on second arm, j ; : : é 39 39
Number of suckers on third arm, : : ‘ : Q 35 39
Number of suckers on fourth arm, ; j : : 20 31

(ZOOL. CHALL, EXP,—PART XLIv.—1886, Xx 16

122 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

The single specimen upon which the genus and species under discussion are based
was in a most unsatisfactory condition ; the head was separated from the body and the
latter was completely gutted, only the integuments remaining. Under these circum-
stances its relationships to other forms can only be incompletely made out. It seems,
however, to be connected in some way or other with all the principal groups of Myopsida.

With Sepiola and Rossia it agrees in the form of the body and fins (although
these are situated much farther back, and even extend beyond the posterior extremity
of the body) as also in the spherical form of the suckers. It resembles the latter genus
in that the mantle fold seems to have been continuous across the dorsum.

From both these genera it differs in the small size of the head, which is considerably
less in diameter than the body, and also in the covering of the eye, the integument
passing directly over this without any reduplication to form a lower eyelid; in the last
point it resembles Loligos as also in the presence of the pre-ocular pore, but whether it
also agrees with that genus in the presence of an auricular crest cannot now be
determined. A relationship to Sepia is indicated by the form of the mantle-connective,
which consists of an almond-shaped depression at the hinder angle of the siphon, and
not of an elongated groove, as in the other genera just mentioned.

Finally, the similarity between the tentacles and the arms, alluded to above,
may perhaps be a primitive character; it has also been observed in Taonius suhma
(see p. 192).

Family VIII. Seprartiti, Steenstrup.

Subfamily Iprosrpi, Steenstrup.

Spirula, Lamarck.

Spirula peroni, Lamarck.
1822. Spirula peronit, Lmk., Anim. s., Vert., t. vii. p. 601.

Habitat.—Station 194a, off Banda, September 29, 1874; lat. 4° 31’ S., long.
129° 57’ 20” E.; 360 fathoms; volcanic mud. One specimen, with soft parts.

North Atlantic, April 29, 1876, surface. Dead shells.

Raine Island, Torres Strait. Dead shells from the shore.

Station 2164, north of Papua, February 16, 1875; lat. 2° 56’ N., long. 134° 11’ E,;
2000 fathoms; Globigerina ooze. One dead shell with a Cirriped attached (almost
certainly from the surface).

February 22, 1875; 70 miles north-east of Fort D’Urville, Papua. Dead shell.

Since Professor Huxley is preparing a Report on this genus, I have merely recorded
the localities at which its occurrence was observed during the Expedition.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 123

Subfamily Eusrepu, Steenstrup.
Sepia, Linné.

One of the most marked accessions of new species has been to this already large
genus, which has been augmented to the extent of no less than ten new types as the
result of the Challenger Expedition. It is noteworthy, moreover, that all these were
obtained between Port Jackson, Australia, and Japan, a fact which will be again
alluded to when treating of distribution (see p. 222).

The species of this genus being very numerous and differing only in minute, though
to all appearance constant characters, it has been necessary to enter into considerable
detail in their descriptions, and the more so, inasmuch as the accounts of nearly all the
earlier writers have left much to be desired in this respect. This is the case especially
with respect to the shell or sepiostaire, regarding the different parts of which no settled
terminology seems to have been adopted, even by those writers who have most clearly
recognised its systematic importance. I have therefore found it necessary to adopt a
series of names for descriptive purposes, and have endeavoured to select those which
should be convenient, readily suggestive of the
structures to which they refer, and devoid of any
abstract morphological significance with regard to
their origin or homology. The annexed woodcut
shows the names chosen, with respect to one or two of
which it may be advisable to make some observations.

The last loculus is a term borrowed from
d@Orbigny, who adopted it for the most recently
deposited calcareous layer; the proportion which it %4@------- a
bears to the area of the shell is very characteristic, \
and appears to be constant within certain limits.
Professor Steenstrup informs me that it varies
according to the season of the year. This relation
is for practical purposes most conveniently expressed
by dividing the total length of the shell into one

mets Fic. 4.—Shell of Sepia mestus, Gray, showing the
hundred parts, and stating how many of them are Cam oe lee eigen os EB
occupied by it; this quantity I propose to designate Tats ct ie tance ons 1.1, last loculus ; s.a.,
briefly as the “locular index.”

The hinder generally hollow ventral surface of the shell I have called the “ striated
area”; valuable characters are derived from the curvature of the parallel lines formed
by the margins of the loculi.

In most shells a thin fillet of calcareous matter runs along either side of this area,

C.M.- >>

124 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S8. CHALLENGER.

and posteriorly these two fillets unite and often form a little pointed space into which
the hinder end of the visceral sac is received; this I have called the ‘inner cone,”
because in many cases the margin of the shell proper forms a larger more or less com-
plete cone outside this, which is called the “outer cone.” (See Pl. XXI. figs. 14, 15.)
The two fillets above described will be alluded to as the “limbs of the inner cone.”

The suckers, also, in this genus offer valuable characters for the discrimination of
species; they are always pedunculate and obliquely set, as in most Decapoda, but the
horny ring surrounding the acetabular cavity may be either smooth or more or
less coarsely toothed. Steenstrup has pointed out that this denticulation is in some
cases subject to a sexual variation, so that in instituting comparisons between different
forms in respect of this character, care must be taken not to use different sexes. The
ring is commonly surrounded by an area in which the epidermal cells are surmounted
by rough plates of a chitinous material; this I propose to call the “ papillary area.”
The relative sizes and shapes of its component parts vary in different species, and in many
cases I have figured them. Furthermore, the margin of the sucker itself is in many
species marked by a number of narrow grooves, separating more bulging intermediate
portions; these, from their direction, will be called ‘meridional grooves,” and will
be alluded to in those cases in which their presence has been observed.

The structure of the hectocotylised arm has been described and figured, wherever it
was present ; and so far from this being uniform throughout the genus, no less than
four different types of modification have been observed. It is very unfortunate that we
have accurate information on this point in so few forms of this genus, for there is no
doubt that it would afford a most valuable character in the discrimination of species.

I regret that I have been unable in the present work to adopt the divisions of the
genus proposed by Dr. de Rochebrune in his recent “ Etude monographique;”! from some
of his conclusions I am obliged to differ entirely, as for example the separation of
Diphtherosepion ornatum (Rang), from the genus Sepiel/a, and having been unable to go
fully into the whole question it appeared to me better to leave the genus intact, except
in so far as specimens, which I have myself examined, seemed to require a different
treatment.

Sepia smithi,’ Hoyle (Pl. XVI. figs. 1-12).
1885. Sepia Smitht, Hoyle, Diagnoses I., p. 190.
US, 55 55 Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. L, p. 294.
Habitat.—Station 188, Arafura Sea, south of Papua, September 10, 1874; lat.
9° 59’ S., long. 139° 42’ E.; 28 fathoms; green mud. Four specimens, ?.

1 Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris, sér. 7, t. viii. pp. 74-122, pls. iii—vi.
* Named after Mr. Edgar A. Smith, F.Z.S., of the British Museum, whose investigation of the collections made
by H.M.S. “ Alert,” has made us acquainted with several new and interesting Cephalopods.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 125

The Body is of medium breadth, widest one-third back, curving evenly to a pointed
posterior extremity. The fin is nearly one-third the breadth of the body, extending
from the anterior margin of the mantle to within 4 mm. of its fellow at the posterior
extremity. The mantle-margin projects to a considerable extent over the head
dorsally, and is slightly emarginate ventrally. The s¢phon is long, reaching up to the
interspace between the ventral arms.

The Head is of medium breadth and the eyes prominent.

The Arms are subequal, their order of length being 4, 3, 2, 1; they are a little
more than half as long as the body; the dorsal are the smallest and subconical, the
ventral wide and with a narrow web on the outer aspect; they all taper gradually to
fine points. The suckers (figs. 6, 7) are in four series throughout, pedunculate,
oblique, notched proximally and distally, and with meridional grooves on the
margin; the horny ring has about twenty blunt triangular teeth on the distal semi-
circumference, and is surrounded by a broad papillary area (fig. 7). The hectocotylus
was not observed, all the specimens being females. The wmbrella is but slightly
developed, reaching in its greatest extent (between the third and fourth arms) only to
the fourth row of suckers. The buccal membrane has the usual seven points, but
there is no spermatic pad. The outer lip is moderately thick and longitudinally
ribbed ; the ¢nner is provided with many rows of elevated rounded papille.

The Tentacles are about as long as the mantle, and have stout three-sided stems ;
the club occupies about one-fourth of the whole length, and extends fully half round
the stem (fig, 3); a protective membrane is found at either side of the suckers and a
web along the dorso-median aspect of the club (fig. 4). The suckers are very numerous,
minute, and closely packed; the horny ring has about eight or ten stout distant teeth
on the distal margin (fig. 8).

The Surface is for the most part smooth, but there are about five elongated
elevations down each side of the body near the origin of the fin, and a few minute
papillee on the dorsal surface.

The Colour is a dull purplish-grey above, pale ochre below,

The Shell is roughly elliptical in owtline (figs. 10, 11, 12); the anterior extremity
is bounded by two nearly straight lines forming a blunt rounded angle; the sides curve
evenly outwards (the greatest breadth being a little anterior to the middle) and form a
bluntish point behind. The chitinous margin is narrow and vanishes in the median
ventral line behind. The dorsal surface is rough, with granules arranged in rows
parallel to the anterior margin; three slightly elevated tracts diverge from the spine
to the three anterior angles (fig. 12). The ventral surface is little elevated ; the last
loculus has an index of 29°5, and is emarginate behind, being bounded by a more or
less evenly curved line; the striated area is excavated, so that the whole shell is thin ;
the znner cone is well developed, with a thickened rounded margin, and encloses a deep

126 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

pit; the limbs extend halfway along the striated area. The spine is long, tapering,
and curves gently upwards.

Dimensions.
Length, total, . : : : 4 : : 5 LAG) sonia,
End of body to mantle-margin, : : : F 4 WO x
End of body to eye, : 4 : : ! : : Ones
Breadth of body, . : : 3 F : : ‘ 300s
Breadth of head, . aD Ait F ‘ 3 j : 30s
Eye to edge of umbrella, . ! : : é z : A). 55
Breadth of fin, . : : : : : j : OM
Diameter of largest sucker on sessile arm, : : s : bien
Length of shell,’ . : : ; : : : . 84
Breadth of shell,* ; : : : ‘ : 3 30);
Right. Left.
Length of first arm,” : é : : : 5 . 24 mm. 24 mm.
Length of second arm, ; : : 4 25) NERO, Rated OMe
Length of third arm, : : : : 5 A : 26m HB. 5
Length of fourth arm, . : : : : : : OZ) Gs 32) =
Length of tentacle, ; : 4 : 3 : > Ace WO. op
: 3 Eo ASE

Length of tentacular club,

The shell of this species somewhat resembles that of Sepia aculeata, but the animal
has no suckers on the buccal membrane; it is also like d’Orbigny’s figure of Sepia
indica, but it has a shallower groove along the middle of the ventral surface, and the
striations are less wavy than his description would appear to indicate; in addition to
which the teeth on the suckers of the sessile arms are different.?

The body of one specimen had a lank, lean appearance as compared with the
others, suggesting the idea that it might be a male; on examination, however, it
proved to be a female which had recently deposited its eggs.

Sepia papuensis, Hoyle (Pl. XVI. figs. 13-23).

1885. Sepia papuensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses IL., p. 197.
ISS ose, 5 Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. IL, p. 301.
Habitat.—Station 188, in the Arafura Sea, south of Papua, September 10, 1874 ;
lat. 9° 59’ S., long. 139° 42’ E; 28 fathoms; green mud. Two specimens, ?.

The Body is elongated, broadest about one-third back, pointed behind: the jins
extend the whole length of the body and are one-third of its breadth, a little wider

1 From a larger specimen. 2 Measured from the margin of the mouth.

Jt is proper to mention here that, as Steenstrup has already pointed out, a confusion apparently inexplicable
exists between d’Orbigny’s species, Sepia rostrata and Sepia imdica; the descriptions given by him disagree in many
points with the figures on his plates, and there is no evidence to show whether plates or text should be accepted as
the ultimate criterion; Dr. de Rochebrune in his recent Memoir has not touched upon these discrepancies.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 127

behind; they extend to within 1 mm. of the anterior margin, but are separated by
about 5 mm. posteriorly : the mantle-margin projects far over the head dorsally, and is
slightly emarginate ventrally. The siphon is conical, reaching two-thirds up to the gap
between the ventral arms.

The Head is short and broad ; the eyes prominent.

The Arms are subequal, their order of length being “4, 3, 1, 2; they are about one-
fourth as long as the body and taper to fine points: the dorsal are conical with a very
slight ridge up the outer aspect, the third pair have a similar ridge; the ventral are
flattened and bear a distinct crest. The suckers (figs. 19, 20) are in four series
throughout and of moderate size, set obliquely on short peduncles, with meridional
grooves on the outside: the horny ring bears twenty to twenty-five long, square-cut,
irregular teeth on its distal semicircumference (fig. 20), and outside it is an area covered
with closely set papille. The hectocotylus was not observed, both the specimens being
females. The wmbrella is slight, reaching only as high as the sixth row of suckers
between the third and fourth arms, where it is widest; as usual it is entirely absent
between the two ventral arms. The buccal membrane has the usual seven points.
The spermatic pad is not developed ; the outer lip is smooth, except for a few ridges
due to contraction ; the nner bears numerous small papille.

The Tentacles are about as long as the body, the stem being three-sided: the club
is short, flattened, and expanded, with a protective membrane on either side and a
broad web down the back, reaching along the stem for a distance equal to half the
length of the club (fig. 15); it bears six larger suckers in the central row, a series of
smaller ones on either side, and some very minute ones along each margin: at
the top are fifteen to twenty in four series. The horny ring of the large suckers
has twenty-five to thirty teeth in its distal semicircle (fig. 18); those of the smaller
about ten.

The Surface is smooth, except for a few irregular inconstant papille on one side of
the ventral surface and below the eye.

The Colour is a pale yellowish-grey, darker above.

The Jaws are shown in figs. 16, 17.

The Shell (figs. 21, 22, 23) is oval in outline, broadest anteriorly to the middle,
tapering somewhat rapidly and ending in a semicircle in front; posteriorly it tapers
gently, and, then rounding off, ends in two almost straight lines, which meet at a right
angle at the base of the spine. The chitinous margin is but shghtly uncovered on the
dorsal surface, which shows two grooves diverging as they pass forwards, separating
three ribs, and is covered with rounded papille arranged in curves parallel to the °
anterior margin. The ventral surface has a rather deep and broad median groove:
the last loculus has an index of 34, and is bounded posteriorly by a wavy line with
three curves; the striated area is hollowed, so that this part of the shell is thin; the

128 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

umner cone commences by two limbs, which arise halfway along the striated area, curve
outwards, and are united below the posterior apex by a broad chitmous band passing
from one side of the shell to the other and forming a rather deep outer cone: the
spe is short (but has been broken off); it bends slightly upwards and has a narrow
longitudinal keel on its ventral surface.

Dimensions.

Length, total, . c : 5 : : : B 90 mm.

End of body to mantle-margin, . : : 5 : : Ob

End of body to eye, i : ; 5 : : ; COR

Breadth of body, : ‘ 5 : 3 , 2 PAS) se

Breadth of head, : ; ; ‘ : i x AB gy

Eye to edge of umbrella, : : : : : F DIS es

Breadth of fin, . ; ; ; . : : : harness

Diameter of largest sucker on sessile arm, é é 3 Z 0-75 .,,

Length of shell, . : ; : : d E ‘ 6A

Breadth of shell, : : é : : : P 22

Right. Left.

Length of first arm, L : ; : : : 20 mm. 19 mm.
Length of second arm, .. : : ; : : : 20 IS ¢5
Length of third arm, . : ; y é ‘ ! 20a Dil) Wes
Length of fourth arm, . : : : : : : B3 on WP 6
Length of tentacle, A : : : 3 ; : Ss 5 5

This species agrees very closely with Sepia singaporensis, Pfeffer,’ as regards the soft
parts, but the shell is broader at the anterior extremity and the spine cannot be said to
be “zuriick gebogen,” although it slopes gently upwards; it is also near to Sepia
plangon, Gray, which seems, however, to be still nearer to Dr. Pfeffer’s species.

It corresponds with an unnamed shell in the Copenhagen Museum. .

The smaller specimen has the curve bounding the loculi even, not wavy, and the keel
upon the spine is more distinct than in the other specimen.

1Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 10, fig. 13.,

2 Sepia plangon, Gray. The type specimen in the British Museum has the following characters ;—The body is
moderately long and oval in form ; the fins are very narrow but seem to have been partially destroyed ; they commence
about 2 mm. from the anterior edge of the body, and extend to within 2mm. of each other behind. The mantle margin
extends far over the head dorsally, and the siphon is short. The head is rather narrow. The arms are about half the
length of the body, their order being 4, 3, 2,1. The suckers are in four series and of medium size ; the horny rings have
fallen out. No hectocotylus is present. The wmbrella extends about one-fifth up the arms; the buccal membrane has
the usual arrangement ; the outer lip is thin, the inner thick and papillate. The tentacles are about twice the length of
the body ; the club flat and expanded, and the suckers apparently in four series. The surface is smooth. The colour is
dark brown. The shell resembles that of Sepia singaporensis, Pfeffer, more nearly than any other known to me; the
only differences being that the incurving of the margins of the loculi in the striated area is a little more pronounced,
and there is a ridge or keel on the ventral surface of the spine (as in Sepia cultrata) not recorded by Dr. Pfeffer. These
two species are much alike, but they differ in the arrangement of the suckers on the tentacular club.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 129

Sepia esculenta, Hoyle (Pl. XVII. figs. 1-5; Pl. XVIII. figs. 1-6).

1885. Sepia esculenta, Hoyle, Diagnoses IL., p. 188.

TES, o5 5 Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. IL., p. 291.

1886. _,, Appelléf, Japanska Ceph., p. 28, pl. ii. figs. 1-6, 24.
Habitat.—Japan, purchased in the market, Yokohama. Two specimens, ¢, ?.
Japan (Appelléf).

The Body is broad, stout, and semielliptical posteriorly. The fins are about one-
fourth of the body in breadth and commence within 6 mm. of the anterior margin, and ~
end within 5 mm. of each other; the mantle margin is produced far over the head
dorsally, and evenly truncated below. The szphon just reaches the gap between the
ventral arms.

The Head is broad, and the eyes laterally prominent.

The Arms are subequal, the order of length being 4, 1, 2, 3, and nearly half as long
as the body ; they are all more or less compressed, especially the ventral ones ; they have
a distinct web along the outer margin, and a rather broad membrane runs up either side
of the sucker-bearing face. The suckers are in four series throughout (Pl. XVII. fig. 2),
not very obliquely set ; they are large and spheroidal, and have meridional markings on
the outer surface ; the horny ring is smooth and surrounded by a narrow papillary area.
In the hectocotylised arm of the male (Pl. XVIII. fig. 6) the first four rows of suckers
are normal, then come two rows of gradually diminishing suckers, succeeded by four
rows of minute ones, after which they again regain their normal dimensions. The
umbrella is narrow, widest between the second and third arms, where it reaches up to
the fifth row of suckers. The buccal membrane has the usual seven points in the
male; in the female the two ventral ones are rounded off; the spermatic pad is exceed-
ingly well developed, and has four deep transverse grooves. The outer lup is thin and
longitudinally corrugated ; the inner is thick and bears numerous very long papillee.

The Tentacles are “about as long as or somewhat longer than the body ; their suckers
are small and of equal size, stand in about ten series and are somewhat oblique. The
horny rings are provided on the distal margin with from twelve to fourteen very long but
blunt teeth, which, on the proximal margin pass over into similar shorter ones.” *

The Surface is smooth throughout.

The Colour is dull grey, mottled with black above, yellowish below.

The Jaws are shown on Pl. XVII. figs. 4, 5.

The Shell (Pl. XVII. fig. 3; Pl. XVIII. figs. 1, 2, 3) is elliptical in outline, somewhat
broader behind (especially in the female); the chitinous margin is narrow and does not
form a complete ridge across the shell below the spine; it forms two slightly expanded
wings behind, and its uncovered marginal part is narrow ; the dorsal surface is marked

1 Appellof, loc. cit. The tentacles had been removed from both the Challenger specimens.

(ZOOL, CHALL, EXP,—PART XLIV.—1886.) Xx 17

130 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

with coarse rugosities disposed in curved lines parallel to the anterior margin ; a distinct
but low rib runs down the centre. The ventral surface is elevated on either side of
a deep median groove ; the last Joculus has an index of 22 in the male and 17 in the
female specimen, and is bounded posteriorly by two slightly wavy lines, meeting at an
acute angle; the striated area is long, and the angle between the strize widens posteriorly.
The inner cone is very well developed; the limbs arise one-fifth the length of the shell
from the posterior end, and gradually become more elevated until they enclose a deep
conical cavity. The spine is strong and pointed (Pl. XVIII. figs. 1, 2), somewhat curved
laterally in the female example.

Dimensions.*

Length, total, . & e : a : : . 240mm.

End of body to mantle-margin, dorsally, . = 3 ; a LO 5

End of body to mantle-margin, ventrally, ‘ : : > IO 4

End of body to eye, 6 : ; ‘ : : 5 Lg

Breadth of body, . ie : P : : : : UO. op

Breadth of head, . ; ‘ ; : ‘ ; : 55

Eye to edge of umbrella, . 4 ; : ; : : 40 ,,

Breadth of fin, . : . é : : j : XO) 5

Diameter of largest sucker on sessile arm, . F 5 6 : QA

Length of shell, . ; 5 4 ‘ : : ae Sees

Breadth of shell, . 6 é : be i : : OMe

Right. Left.

Length of first arm, é : : : : 9 ; 65 mm. 68 mm.
Length of second arm, . : 5 é : F 3 Goi GOR
Length of third arm, ‘ : ; 4 : ; 3} 5, Ole
Length of fourth arm, : 5 : : : : WO oo OB 5,

This fine species approaches Sepia aculeata, van Hasselt, but lacks the suckers on
the buccal membrane,’ and also the callosity of the inner cone at the posterior extremity
of the shell. This cannot be due to immaturity, for the two specimens in the Challenger
collection are larger than undoubted specimens of Sepa aculeata, in which this
peculiarity is well marked.

It has moreover some resemblance to Sepia brevimana, Steenstrup, but the shell is
not so broad in proportion nor so regularly elliptical, beng rather more dilated in its
posterior half.

Perhaps, however, its closest relationship is with an unpublished form in the
Copenhagen Museum, labelled “ Sepix rostrate affinis,” but that the posterior extremity
of its shell is more rounded (both being females). The thickened spermatic pad is
more fully developed in the Challenger than in the Copenhagen specimen, which may,

1 The dimensions above are from the male specimen; in the female the length of the body is 143 mm. dorsally and
123 mm. ventrally and the breadth 70 mm., length of shell 143 mm., breadth 54 mm.
2 Steenstrup, Hemisepius, pl. ii. fig. 4.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 131

however, be owing to the smaller size and presumably less complete development of the
latter, which had unfortunately lost the horny rings of its suckers, so that comparison
of these parts was impossible.

The two specimens of the present species furnish an admirable illustration of the sexual
differences in the genus Sepia; the structure of the hectocotylised arm has been
described above, but in addition to that it is seen that the proportions of the body are
very different ; the breadth being 52 per cent. of the length in the male and 57 per
cent. in the female. This difference is still more pronounced in the shells, the breadth of
the male shell being only 32 per cent. of the length, while in the female it is 37 per cent.

Appelléf has had the good fortune to examine specimens of this species in which the
tentacles were present, and I have inserted above a translation of his description of those
organs. He adds also some interesting and valuable remarks on the gradual development
of teeth in the suckers and on the relations of the species.

Sepia elliptica,’ Hoyle (Pl. XIX. figs. 14-24).
1885. Sepia elliptica, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 189.
IGS, | sp Pa Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. IL, p. 293.
Habitat.—Station 188, Arafura Sea, south of Papua, September 10, 1874; lat.
9° 59’ S., long. 139° 42’ E.; 28 fathoms; green mud. Fourspecimens, one ¢, three ?.
Station 190, Arafura Sea, south of Papua, September 12, 1874; lat. 8° 56’ S,
long. 136° 5’ .; 49 fathoms; green mud. Four specimens, one 3, three ?.

The Body is ovoid, broadest one-third from the anterior margin, pointed behind.
The fins are one-third the width of the body, broadest in the middle, extending the
whole length of the body, and approaching within 2 mm. of each other posteriorly.
The mantle-margin is not very prominent over the head dorsally. The mantle-connective
is rather short and deep, but otherwise normal. The sephon is conical, reaching to
within 1 mm. of, or quite up to the space between the ventral arms.

The Head is very short and broad, the eyes prominent.

The Arms are subequal, the order of length being 4, 3, 2, 1, or 4, 2, 3,1; they are
nearly half the length of the body, and taper evenly to fine points; there is a distinct
but narrow ridge along the fourth arm, and a delicate web along each side of the oral aspect
of the arms. The swckers are in four series throughout, and of moderate size, marked
with inconstant meridional grooves (fig. 17), and there is a large notch proximally and
distally in the rim (fig. 19). The horny ring has for the most part no distinct teeth,
but is marked in the distal half with shallow wregular notches, which are occasionally
more regular (figs. 17, 19). A papillary area surrounds the horny ring (fig. 18). The
hectocotylus is developed in about the middle third of the left ventral arm (fig.16); beyond

1 So named from the form of the shell.

132 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

the eighth row of suckers the two ventral series are continued of the normal size, but the
two dorsal are each represented by five minute suckers, gradually diminishing to the
middle one and then increasing again; beyond this the arm exhibits no peculiarities.
The wmbrella is widest between the two lateral arms, where it extends as far
as the sixth row of suckers. The buccal membrane bears the usual seven distinct
points in the male, whilst in the female the ventral pair are lost in the thick swollen
spermatic pad (fig. 15), which is subdivided by four or five deep grooves into as many
transverse ridges. The outer lip is thin; the inner bears about half a dozen rows of
distinct hemispheroidal papille.

The Tentacles are about as long as the mantle; the stem is indistinctly three-
sided ; the club is long and wide, and bears eight series of minute equal suckers ; there
is a protective membrane on either side and a broad jin on the dorso-internal aspect.
The horny ring is small and has a smooth margin.

The Surface is smooth.

The Colour is a dull grey dorsally, pale yellowish below.

The Jaws are shown in figs. 20, 21. ;

The Shell (figs. 22-24) is broad, subelliptical in owtline, the anterior extremity
bounded by two straight lines, which form obtuse rounded-off angles with each other
and the sides of the shell; the posterior is rounded gradually off. The dorsal surface
has a faint ridge passing to each of the three angles just mentioned, and is covered
with curved rows of tubercles parallel to the anterior margin. The ventral surface is
but little elevated; the last loculws has an index of 34, and is bounded behind by a
broadly open curve with three or four irregular sinuations in it. The striated area is
hollowed posteriorly and. is marked by grooves corresponding to the sinuations just
mentioned. The inner cone arises about halfway along the striated area, curves evenly
outwards, and then rises into a distinct ridge, forming a wall separate from the margin
of the shell; its ventral surface is marked by a number of strie pointing in the
direction of the spine, which is of medium length and strength, and curved gently
upwards.

Dumensions.*

Length, total, . 4 : 5 : . ¢ . 102mm.
End of body to mantle-margin, . ; F : . : WD 355
End of body to eye, : ' ‘ : : s : OB gp
Breadth of body, . ; : : é : : : 40)
Breadth of head, . : ‘ : é d i ; Be) pb
Eye to edge of umbrella, . : F ; ; ; : US
Breadth of fin, . : : : ; : 5 : iit es
Diameter of largest sucker on sessile arm, : : 5 5 oe
Length of shell, . F : f é : . : 2) Se
Breadth of shell, . : : : : : : : 31

1 Taken from one of the female specimens from Station 188.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 138

Right. Left.
Length of first arm,1 : : ; : ; : ‘ 25 mm. 25 mm.
Length of second arm, . j : ; : : : Yt Big
Length of third arm, : : : F ; ‘ ‘ 2B 6p AB op
Length of fourth arm, . ati : é ; ‘ : 2a, 80) cp
Length of tentacle, : : F ; : ; j ae iin
Length of tentacular club, : ; : 3 ; ‘ i 12

The shell of this species resembles that of Sepia brevimana, Steenstrup, but it is
not so hollow, and has a series of two or three radial ridges on the middle of the inferior
surface of the imner cone (fig. 24), while in the latter species the inner cone has a
thickened margin not seen in these specimens. It also resembles that of Sepia aculeata,
but the inner cone is very much less pronounced, and as regards the animal itself, the
tentacular club is much shorter and there are no suckers on the buccal membrane.

In general form the shell bears some likeness to Sepia rostrata, but the inner cone
is much less developed and the spine very much smaller, while the horny ring of the
suckers is not “trés petit” nor has it “bords lisses” as stated by d’Orbigny, though
here his description does not agree with his figure.”

The specimens from Station 190 differ a little from those from Station 188 in that
the horny rings of the suckers of the sessile arms are more decidedly toothed, but both
forms agree so closely in other characters, that I have not thought it necessary to
separate them formally. This fact is an instance of an observation that has frequently
been made in regard to other classes of animals, namely, that in those regions where a
genus is particularly abundant and rich in species, it presents also the largest number
of varieties, whence the species show a greater tendency to run into each other and
become more difficult to define. There seems abundant reason to believe, as will be
shown in the section of this Report treating of Distribution, that the Indian Archipelago
and neighbouring seas are the localities richest in species of Sepia.

Sepia cultrata, Steenstrup MS. (Pl. XX.).

Sepia cultrata, Stp., MS. in Mus. Havn.

1885. o Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 198.
SSO rs, a Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. IL., p. 303.
var.= ,, capensis, Gray, B. M. C., p. 110 (exel. syn.).

Habitat.—Station 1634, off Twofold Bay, Australia, April 4, 1874; lat. 36° 59’S.,
long. 150° 20’ HE; 150 fathoms; green mud. One specimen, ?.

The Body is elongated, broadest about the middle of its length. The fins are
rather narrow, about one-fourth the breadth of the body, commencing 2 mm. from the
anterior edge of the body and approaching within 5 mm. of each other posteriorly ; the

1 Measured from the oral margin. 2 Compare. Céph. acét., pl. xxvi. figs. 7, 8.

134 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

left is somewhat broader than the right. The mantle-margin extends far over the head
dorsally and is not emarginate, but slightly undulating ventrally. The siphon is short,
terminating far short of the depression between the ventral arms.

The Head is broad, and the eyes very prominent.

The Arms are subequal, the order of length being 4, 1, 2, 3; they are one-fourth
the length of the body, all are flattened and taper evenly to fine points. The suckers
are in four series (fig. 4), except in the right dorsal arm, where they appear to be in
two, probably owing to its state of extreme compression ; they are of medium size, many
are deeply notched proximally and distally, and provided with fine meridional grooves
on the margin (fig. 6); the horny ring is smooth and surrounded by a papillary area.
The hectocotylus was not seen, the only specimen being a female. The wmbrella is
small, widest between the lateral arms, where it reaches up to the sixth or seventh row
of suckers. The buccal membrane has five distinct points, the ventral edge being
thickened and forming a large folded spermatic pad (fig. 3); it bears no suckers. The
outer lip is thick, and marked with fine longitudinal grooves ; the inner is papillate.

The Tentacles are as long as the mantle, with a three-sided flattened stem, much
broader proximally than distally. The club is slightly expanded, with a narrow
protective membrane below, a broad one above, and a distinct web outwardly (fig. .5).
There are five or six series of suckers, slightly larger in the middle than at the margins,
on very long slender peduncles; the horny ring is smooth.

The Surface bears a number of small irregularly scattered papille, and four or five
elongated warts on the dorsum near the origin of the fins, and some folds in the skin
on the ventral surface ; probably these are due to contraction.

The Colour is a dull grey with a bluish shade above inclining to yellow
below. :
The Jaws are shown in figs. 7, 8.

The Shell (figs. 9-11) has an elongate oval outline, broadest one-third of the way
back and rounded off at both ends. The free chitinows margin is narrow anteriorly,
then broader, evanescent posteriorly, a deep calcareous outer cone forming the posterior
extremity of the shell; it is but slightly exposed on the dorsal surface, which bears only
faint indications of a median ridge, and is beset with fine granules disposed in rows parallel
to the anterior margin. The ventral surface is elevated so as to give the shell a more
than average thickness; the last loculus has an index of 33, and is bounded by a tranverse
hemielliptical curve; the striated area is excavated, but slightly convex in the middle
line. The imner cone consists only of the slightly elevated limbs, which run along
three-quarters of the striated area and unite with each other as a flattened fillet
posteriorly. The spine has lost its extreme point, but it is strong, and has a raised
knife-like ridge developed upon its ventral aspect? (fig. 11).

1 Whence the specific name.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 135

Dimensions.

Length, total, . : 5 3 ‘ 4 d ey ESI:

End of body to mantle-margin, . ; : F : i 84 ,,

End of body to eye, ‘ : : : : ‘ : US”? ep

Breadth of body, . : ¢ : : p 5 5 37 SCs,

Breadth of head, . , i : : : : : 40 ,,

Eye to edge of umbrella, . : F , : : , is),

Breadth of fin, . : ; é , : 3 : Shans

Diameter of largest sucker on sessile arm, . : , : F 1 ges

Diameter of largest sucker on tentacle, . : 5 : : 06,,

Length of shell, . : 4 } 3 . : 3 OO) 55

Breadth of shell, . : : : : ; z : PAS) 53

Right. Left.

Length of first arm,1 : . 3 : ‘ 3 ; 23 mm. 22 mm.
Length of second arm, .. ‘ ; ‘ : : ‘ 22s, AAD) 5p
Length of third arm, 6 ; 0 3 6 : : 20K, 20h,
Length of fourth arm, .. : : : : ; : 23s, OR
Length of tentacle, ; ye : 3 : 5 A SOlmee ie

This species is of special interest because it has hitherto been known only from a
shell in the Zoological Museum at Copenhagen, which was the only specimen then
known to possess the peculiar ridged spine shown in fig. 11. Recently, however, I

Fic. 5.—Shell of Sepia mestus, Gray, from the type specimen in the British Museum labelled ‘‘Sep. mestus.
Australia, Presented by Dr. Sinclair, R.N.” Drawn by Mr. P. J. Smit.

happened to notice that the type of Gray’s Sepia mestus was similarly armed, but
being then unable to make a thorough investigation of the matter, I sent the Challenger
specimen tomy friend Mr. Edgar Smith who was good enough to institute a comparison

1 The lengths of the arms are measured from the oral margin.

136 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.8. CHALLENGER.

for me between the two shells; he says (as is obvious from the figures), that the
Challenger species is different in form from Sepia mestus, which is comparatively
broader “and has a peculiar raised band on each side not unlike a muscular scar” ;
and adds “I think your shell may be the same species (although a var.) that Gray
has identified in the museum collection as Sepia capensis, but which seems to me
distinct from Sepia capensis of d’Orbigny (=Sepia australis, Gray and Gaimard).
Our two shells, both from Australia (one from Port Jackson), are rather narrower than
yours ;” further, the last loculus is smaller and the curve of its posterior margin is
more flattened. The two shells alluded to by Mr. Smith are here figured for comparison
with the Challenger specimen.

The present specimen differs from Sepia capensis, d’Orbigny, in the form of the

an

ag

Fic. 6.—Shell of a Sepia in the British Museum labelled “S. capensis. Sydney, Presented by
J. Edwards, Esq. R.N.” Drawn by Mr. P. J. Smit.

ventral aspect of the shell; furthermore, the curves of the striated area are more
transverse, the anterior extremity is more pointed, and there is the ridge on the spine
not mentioned by d’Orbigny (compare Céph. acét., pl. vi. fig. 4). As regards the
external characters of the animal, Sepia capensis has three suckers on the tentacle
larger than the rest, and on the sessile arms the two imner series of suckers are larger
than the outer.

The second left arm shows an abnormality, the groove in which the suckers lie
being interrupted for about 2 mm. by the folding over and union of the two margins ;
the part of the arm beyond this has only two series of very small suckers (fig. 2).

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 137

Sepia recurvirostra (?), Steenstrup.
1875. Sepia recurvirostra, Steenstrup, Hemisepius, pp. 475, 479.

Habitat.—Station 207, off Tablas Island, January 16, 1875; lat. 12° 21’ N.,
long. 122° 15’ HK. ; 700 fathoms. One broken shell.
Eastern Archipelago (Copenhagen Museum).

A much mutilated shell was brought up in the trawl at the above locality ;
unfortunately the posterior extremity, which furnishes the most striking character of
Professor Steenstrup’s species, was wanting, but still the general form of the body of the
shell and the curvature of the lines in the striated area resemble that type more than any
other known to me, and as the locality is corroborative of this view I refer it with a query
to that species.

Sepia sulcata,’ Hoyle (Pl. XIX. figs. 1-13).

1885. Sepia sulcata, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 192.
1885. i, » Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. IL., p. 296.

Habitat.—Station 192, off the Ki Islands, Arafura Sea, September 26, 1874;
lat. 5° 49’ 15” S., long. 182° 14’ 15” K.; 140 fathoms; blue mud. One specimen, 7.

The Body is cylindrical in its anterior fourth, then tapers gradually backwards, and
is pointed behind. The fins are one-fifth the breadth of the body, commence 2 mm.
from the anterior margin of the mantle, and approach within 5 mm. of each other
posteriorly ; the mantle-margin reaches far over the head dorsally, and is evenly
truncated below. The siphon does not extend up to the interbrachial space.

The Head is broad and the eyes very prominent ; in the only specimen it is much
retracted into the mantle.

The Arms are subequal, the order of length being 4, 3, 2, 1; they are one-third
the length of the mantle, and taper gradually to slender points; the first are thin and
rounded, the fourth flattened, each has a distinct ridge on the outer side, which in the
fourth expands to a broad membrane. The suckers are in two series in the first and
second arms, but with a tendency to form four series in the others, more especially in
the distal portions ; they are pedunculate and very oblique (fig. 7), and the margin is
marked with meridional grooves and has a deep distal notch; the horny ring is
small, smooth, and surrounded by a papillate area (fig. 8). The left ventral arm is
hectocotylised (figs. 4, 5); along three-fourths of its length runs a groove with convex
bottom, bounded on either side by a narrow fillet; on either margin of the groove is a
row of minute suckers, which are larger and more distinct, and even form two series on

1 So named from the form of the hectocotylised arm.
(ZOOL. CHALL, EXP.—PART XLIV.—1886.) Xx 18

138 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S, CHALLENGER.

the ventral aspect ; the tip of the arm bears two series of small suckers. The wmbrella
is better developed than usual, its greatest extent (between the lateral arms) being up
to the eighth rows of suckers. The buccal membrane has the usual seven points, but not
very strongly marked ; the outer lip is smooth and thin, the imner papillate.

The Tentacle is as long as the head and body together, with a slender and some-
what flattened stem; the club (fig. 3) is short and rather broad, and’ has a protective
membrane on either side of the suckers, and a broad web on the dorsal aspect, extend-
ing for a distance equal to half its length down the stem; there are from six to eight
rows of very minute suckers, subequal, and with smooth horny rings.

The Surface is smooth, except that on one side of the ventral surface are three
slightly raised linear ridges, apparently due to contraction, and a few minute papille
on the dorsal surface posteriorly.

The Colour is on the whole pale, yellowish below, purplish above.

The Jaws are shown in figs. 9, 10.

The Shell (figs. 11-18) is herhielliptical in outline anteriorly, tapering to a point
behind. The chitinous margin is rather broad, widest about two-thirds back; it is
bare over all except the median third of the dorsal surface, which is finely rugose,
and has a slightly elevated median portion and a faint lnear ridge in the middle line
posteriorly, about 3 mm. long, and terminating 2 mm. from the base of the spme. The
ventral surface is but little elevated ; the last loculus occupies more than one-third of
it, and its posterior boundary is almost semicircular, inflected in the centre. The
inner cone is evanescent ; its limbs are chitinous and form'a ventral margin to the
terminal cone. A spine is present, but, as it had been broken off, its length and form
cannot be determined.

Dimensions.

Length, total, . - ; : : : : : . 112 mm.

End of body to mantle-margin, . 5 : : : ‘ 45,

End of body to eye, ; : p ; ; % : 49 ,,

Breadth of body, : : : . ; ; : 25) 5;

Breadth of head, : ; : 5 5 : ; ees

Hye to edge of umbrella, ; : ; ‘ f NAS See

Breadth of fin, . : : P : 3 , : DO) dares

Diameter of largest sucker on sessile arm, O:5iee

Diameter of largest sucker on tentacle, . : : é t 0-16,,

Length of shell, . : ; : : j : i D2 iss

Breadth of shell, : : : : j é : 21 es

Right. Left

Length of first arm, ; ‘ 4 é : 4 : 22 mm. 22 mm.
Length of second arm, . ; : 2 ; 3 : 2} |) 5 23h.
Length of third arm, 24, 24 =,
Length of fourth arm, . : ; 6 : 5 5 ZONs, 25 tee
Length of tentacle, : : . : : 5 : OD 5 83 sp

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 139

The shell of this species is peculiar in having a spine as well as, near to but distinct
from it, a keel, upon the dorsal aspect of the shell. Sepia elegans, d’Orb., has the keel
but no spine, while an unnamed specimen from the Cape in the Copenhagen Museum has
a stronger keel reaching quite up to the spine, which is larger and thinner than in this
specimen.

The tentacular club is like that of Sepia brevimana, Steenstrup.

The integument in the middle of the back has been pierced down to the shell by a
neat round hole, presumably the work of some parasite (see fig. 2).

Sepia andreanoides, Hoyle (Pl. XXI. figs. 11-19; Pl. XXII. fig. 11).

1885. Sepia andreanoides, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 193.
8855 3 Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. IL, p. 297.
Habitat.—Japan. Purchased in the market, Yokohama. Three specimens, one ¢,
two &.

The Body is very long, broadest one-third of the way back, pointed and acuminate
behind. The fins are narrow, they commence 3 mm. behind the anterior margin, and
terminate 5 mm. from the posterior end of the body, and, approaching within 3 mm. of
each other, extend a little distance upon the dorsal aspect of the body. The mantle-
margin extends well over the head dorsally, and is very slightly emarginate ventrally.
The siphon extends about as far forward as the middle of the eyes, but not up to the
space between the ventral arms. :

The Head is decidedly narrower than the body and somewhat elongated ; the eyes being
distended and laterally prominent.

The Arms are subequal, the order of length being 1, 2, 3, 4, or 1, 4, 3, 2; they are
two-fifths the length of the body, elongated, conical (except the fourth pair, which are
flattened), and taper to very slender tips. The suckers seem to be normally in four series,
but in some cases the arms are so compressed that they appear to be in only two,
especially at the proximal extremities of the first and second arms; they are globular,
slightly oblique, with a small aperture and smooth horny ring (fig. 17). The distal half of
the left ventral arm of the male is hectocotylised (Pl. XXII. fig. 11) ; the suckers are normal
up to the twelfth row, after which the arm widens and has a median groove from which
about twelve shallow grooves pass outwards on either side, separating raised portions, each
of which bears.a minute sucker on the dorsal side of the groove. The wmbrella is present
only between the second and third and third and fourth arms up to the fourth row of
suckers. The buccal membrane is well developed and has the usual seven points ; in
the female there is a deeply grooved spermatic pad. The outer lip is thin and smooth,
the inner thick and papillate.

The Tentacles are somewhat longer than the head and body, very slender and some

140 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

what flattened. he club (Pl. XXI. fig. 13) is flattened and expanded ; along its outer
margin isa very narrow membrane, and along the median edge, at some distance from the
cupules, is a broad web, marked on the dorsal aspect with fine parallel shallow oblique
grooves ; along one margin it bears three or four series of small pedunculate suckers,
whose horny rings bear very numerous and acute teeth.

The Surface is smooth.

The Colour is a dull purplish grey above, ochre with purple chromatophores below.

The Jaws are shown in figs. 18, 19.

The Shell (figs. 14-16) has a narrow elongated oval outline, somewhat pointed in front
and tapering gradually backwards ; the chitinous margin is uncovered over about one-
third of the dorsal surface, which shows the boundary lines of the loculi clearly as brown
striz, and is very minutely roughened ; the ventral surface is elevated, so that the shell is
thick in proportion to its breadth, a narrow groove runs down the centre ; the last loculus
has an index of 28°3 in the male and 30-5 in the female, and is bounded posteriorly by a
shallow open curve. The posterior extremity is a very flattened irregular cone, to the
apex of which the spine is attached; the inner cone is very shallow and its opening 1s
some 4 mm. distant from the margin of the outer cone. The spine is long, straight, and
points directly backward.

Dimensions.'

Length, total, . : F ; ? : ; a Mee aawan,
End of body to mantle-margin, . ; ; : , : COMtue
End of body to eye, ‘ 3 : : : : : 62s
Breadth of body, ’ ; : : : : : OH (ila
Breadth of head, ‘ E ; F : : : Ocoee
Kye to edge of umbrella, : 2 : a : : Ob es
Breadth of fin, . ayas tee : : F : Shire bn
Diameter of largest sucker on sessile arm, 3 : 3 ¢ 0;6iee
Diameter of largest sucker on tentacle, . : : ; ‘ O25)
Length of the shell, : : : é : : F GQ) 5
Breadth of the shell, . : : ‘ : : i MEMS) 5
Richt. Left.
Length of first arm,” 3 ; : : ‘ 4 35 mm. 25 mm.
Length of second arm, . : ; ; : : E Bil 5 Wy
- Length of third arm, . é Z : ; j F 28) PHS) a
Length of fourth arm, . : : £ : : : Ses Dili
Length of tentacle, : ; : : ‘ : 2 OO 5 115

This species resembles Sepia andreana, Steenstrup, from Hako Dadi, Japan, very
closely in the form of the shell, which, however, is here a little thicker and broader in
proportion to its length ; in both, too, the ventral and third arms have a strong keel ;
the suckers are in four series except a varying number (two to four rows) at the

1 Of the male specimen. In one of the females the shell is 59 mm, long and 13 mm. broad.
2 The lengths of the arms are measured from the eye.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 141

beginning of the arms; the suckers are small and globular and the highest power of a
hand-lens shows no teeth on their horny rings.

Sepia andreana is distinguished by the extraordinary development of the second
arms, which are nearly twice as long as the others, and by the greater shortness of
the tentacular club, which bears a single median row of five suckers larger than the
others. The suckers on the tips of the longest sessile arms are in two series.

In one specimen the tentacles were completely exserted, in another partially, in the
third completely retracted, in which condition they could be distinctly traced through
the integuments on the under surface of the head disposed in close windings (Pl. XXI.
fi. 11).

Sepia kiensis, Hoyle (Pl. XVII. figs. 6-11).
1885. Sepia kiensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 194.
IE 55 » Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. II., p. 299.
Habitat.—Station 192, off the Ki Islands, Arafura Sea, September 26, 1874;
lat. 5° 49’ 15” S., long. 182° 14’ 15” E.; 140 fathoms; blue mud. One specimen, ¢.

The Body is narrow, widest anteriorly, and tapering gradually backwards ; the jin is
narrow, less than one-quarter the breadth of the body, widening a little behind; it
commences 1 mm. from the anterior margin and extends to within 2 mm. of its fellow
behind. The mantle-margin is prominent dorsally and slightly emarginate ventrally.
The siphon does not quite extend to the bases of the arms.

The Head is broad, and the eyes rounded and prominent.

The Arms are subequal, the order of length being 4, 3, 2, 1; they are very short,
about one-third the length of the body ; the first and second are conical, the third flatter,
with a slight ridge externally, and the fourth broad and flat with a distinct crest. The
suckers are in four series throughout, small, spheroidal, and not very oblique; the horny
ring is smooth. The specimen being a female no hectocotylus is developed. The
umbrella is evanescent, extending at most only up to the second row of suckers; the
buccal membrane has five points and is rounded dorsally; the spermatic pad is but —
slightly developed. The outer lip is thin and grooved longitudinally, the wer thicker
and papillate.

The Tentacles are as long as the head and body; the stem being slender and indis-
tinctly three-sided. The club (fig. 8) is very slightly expanded; a protective membrane,
grooved obliquely on the dorsal aspect, is situated on the outer margin, and there is a
web on the internal side. The suckers are in four or five series, which are slightly
larger towards the inner margin ; the horny ring presents a few acute teeth.

The Surface is smooth throughout.

The Colour is a dull reddish grey above, yellowish below.

142 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.8. CHALLENGER.

The Shell (figs. 9-11) is very elongate oval in outline; the free chitinous margin 18
very narrow and only slightly uncovered on the dorsal surface, which is finely granular
and marked by the divisions between the loculi; the ventral surface is somewhat elevated
and marked by a distinct but not very deep median groove; the last loculus has an index
of 40°5, and is bounded posteriorly by an almost semicircular line; the striw are very
close ; the limbs of the inner cone arise about midway along the shell, pass backwards
as low, narrow, smooth fillets, and unite behind without forming any deep cavity; the
posterior extremity is curved towards the ventral aspect and ends in a narrow blunt outer
cone, to the apex of which is attached the straight dorsally directed spine.

Dimensions.

Length, total, : : ‘ é : : : : 82 mm.

End of body to mantle-margin, . j : 5 3 : BU \ yy ‘

End of body to eye, : : i : : : ; 34. C,

Breadth of body, . ae : 5 : ; ‘ : Sie

Breadth of head, . . : : : d : : By) on,

Eye to edge of umbrella, . : 3 Ree : : : 4 ,,

Breadth of fin, . : ; 2 : : : ‘ Shp

Length of the shell, : 2 : p : i F otis

Breadth of the shell, : : : ¢ é : ; anne

Right. Left.

Length of first arm,1 ; : : : : : ; 8 mm. 9 mm.
Length of second arm, . is ; : 2 : ) 5 OMe
Length of third arm, 3 : : : k : : OM MO 5,
Length of fourth arm, . : : 3 , : : Ores 1@ 5
Length of tentacle, : ; : 5 : : é et ASS

The posterior extremity of the shell of this form closely resembles that of Sepia.
andreana, Steenstrup, from Japan, but both animal and shell are much wider as well as
thicker in proportion to the length. Furthermore, the arms are subequal, whereas in
Steenstrup’s type those of the second pair are nearly twice as long as the others. In
the Challenger specimen also the tentacular club is long, narrow, and provided with
subequal suckers, while in Sepia andreana it is shorter and there are five larger suckers
along its middle.

Sepia kobiensis, Hoyle (Pl. XVIII. figs. 7-14 ; and woodcut 7).

1885. Sepia kobiensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 195.
18855555; Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. II., p. 300.
USSG * Appellof, Japanska Ceph., p. 20, pl. ii. fig. 7.
Habitat.—Station 233, Bay of Kobé, Japan, May 17, 1875; lat. 34° 39’ N., long.
135° 14’ E.; 8 fathoms; mud. One specimen, ?.

1 Measured from the oral margin.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 145

The Body is long and narrow, widest near the anterior margin, and tapers gradually
backwards. The jin is very narrow, only one-eighth the breadth of the body ; it
commences 3 mm. from the margin of the body, and posteriorly passes on to the
ventral surface, and terminates 2 mm. from its fellow and 4 mm. from the extremity
of the body. The mantle-margin has a narrow projection over the head, and is evenly
truncated ventrally. The siphon is short, reaching barely halfway to the space between
the ventral arms.

Fic. 7.—Sepia kobiensis ; side view, showing how the fins terminate on the ventral surface of the body,

The Head is of medium breadth, and the eyes prominent laterally.

The Arms are subequal, the order of length being 2, 4, 1, 3(2), and less than one-third
the length of the body ; the first two pairs are subconical and slender, the third broader
and with a web running up the ventral aspect, the fourth wider and with a distinct
ridge along the outer edge; they all taper to very fine points. Many of the suckers are
deficient, but they seem to have stood in four series throughout; they are spheroidal
(fig. 11) and very oblique, the distal margin of many has a deep notch (fig. 10); the
horny ring is smooth in most cases, but occasionally possesses a few angular teeth. The
specimen being a female no hectocotylus is present. The umbrella is but little developed,
its greatest extent being between the ventro-lateral arms, where it reaches the fourth
row of suckers. The buccal membrane has the usual seven points, the two ventral being
the least distinct (as usual in female specimens); the spermatic pad is small. The
outer lip is narrow, the diner thick and papillate.

The Tentacles are shorter than the body and slender; the stem has three sides, the
inner being slightly hollow, with a slender fillet along the middle. The club (fig. 9) is
slightly expanded with a distinct protective membrane; the inner side of the club is
deeply grooved, and internally to the groove is a rather broad fin. The suckers are
in about five series, near the inner margin are three rather larger than the rest,! which
gradually diminish towards the outer margin. The horny rings of the larger suckers have
about twenty fine teeth on the distal semicircumference, the smaller have fewer in pro-
portion.

The Surface is smooth all over.

The Colour is a dark purplish grey above, paler below.

The Shell (figs. 12-14) is a very elongated oval in outline; the chitinous margin is
very narrow and is uncovered over one-third of the dorsal surface, which is smooth and
evenly convex, with the exception of a slight ridge along the middle line; the ventral

1 Not adequately shown in the figure.

144 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

surface is elevated, so that the shell is thick, with a shallow median groove becoming
evanescent posteriorly, the last loculus has an index of 36°6 and is bounded by a slightly
curved line with a cusp where the median groove meets it; the mner cone is formed by
two limbs, which arise halfway along the shell and form a rounded fillet slightly more
elevated posteriorly, where they bound a shallow depression ; outside them the margin
of the shell expands into a subcircular plate (the owter cone), from the centre of which
the spene projects backwards; no information can be given as to its form or length, as
it has been broken off close to the base.

Dimensions.

Length, total, : : : A ie : ‘ : 72 mm.

End of body to mantle-margin, . ; : 3 4 i A;

End of body to eye, 5 ; : : ; ; ; Al’ 5

Breadth of body, . ; f é . : 5 : 16,

Breadth of head, . ‘ : f 4 A : ; 4 es

Eye to edge of umbrella, . : ; : 2 ; : 6hass

Breadth of fin, . : ; x : : : : Cees

Length of shell (without spine), . : : : ‘ : 41 ,,

Breadth of shell, . 4 : : : : j ia

Right. Left.

Length of first arm, ‘ : ; : : : ; 10 mm. 10°5 mm.
Length of second arm, . : : : 3 : : 15 10 op
Length of third arm, é : ; i : : : EAB 5 9 3
Length of fourth arm, . ‘ ; : : ; 4 ras 10:5)
Length of tentacle, : : : : ; : A AB) 55 :

This is nearly related to Sepia kiensis, but is longer and narrower in its proportions,
notwithstanding that both specimens are females, and this difference is still more marked
in the shell; in that species its breadth is about two-fifths of the length, while in the
present form it is less than one-fifth ; in the former case the locular index is 40°5, in the
latter 36°6. The type specimens of both species are probably immature, and their
validity can only be regarded as of a provisional nature.

Since the above description was drawn up I have been able to see Appellif’s
description of the specimens of this form which he received from Japan ; his account of
them agrees so well with the type specimen that there can be little doubt that they are
correctly referred to the same species. I notice a few differences, however, which it seems
advisable to record. The arms are considerably larger, proportionately, than in the
Challenger specimen, in which furthermore the diversity in the sizes of the suckers on the
sessile arms is scarcely apparent. As stated above, many of these were absent, but a
renewed investigation has led me to think that Appelléf’s account of their arrangement is
probably correct, though, like him, I regarded their disposition in two rows as merely

1 Mutilated.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. » 145

apparent, and consequently described them as “seeming” to be in four series. The shell
of the Challenger specimen is decidedly narrower than the one figured by Appellof, and
the raised median tract appears to be by no means so prominent.

Metasepia, subgen. nov.

Body short, rounded, thick dorgo-ventrally ; nuchal cartilage without linear groove
and mantle devoid of corresponding ridge ; siphono-pallial articulation deep.

Tentacular club with unequal suckers.

Shell rhomboidal in outline, with no calcareous covering on the dorsal surface of the
chitinous sheet ; no spine.

Sepia (Metasepia) pfefferi," Hoyle (Pl. XXI. figs. 1-10).
1885. Sepia (Metasepia) Pfeffert, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 199.
1885. ,, 3 i; Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. IT., p. 304.
Habitat.—Station 188, south of Papua, in the Arafura Sea, September 10, 1874;
lat. 9° 59’S., long. 139° 42’ E.; 28 fathoms; green mud. One specimen, ¢.

The Body is short and stout, broadest about the middle of its length, very thick
(dorso-ventrally), and bluntly rounded behind. The fins are one-fourth as broad as the
body and placed much nearer the dorsal than the ventral surface ; they commence 2 to
3 mm. from the anterior margin and are connected by a narrow fillet behind; a slightly
raised ridge passes down the ventro-lateral aspect of the body. The mantle-margin
projects very slightly dorsally and is a trifle emarginate opposite the funnel; the
nuchal cartilage has no distinct linear groove as in most species, but only a slight
depression, while the corresponding part of the mantle has a triangular eminence about
half as broad as long, and with the rounded apex directed forwards; the connective
cartilages are deeper than in most species of Sepia, but there is no distinct knob as
in Sepiella, their greatest depth being in the middle not anteriorly ; there is no posterior
gland. The syphon reaches up to the depression between the ventral arms.

The Head is broad, and the eyes prominent.

The Arms are subequal, in order of length 3, 4, 2, 1, or 4, 3, 2, 1; they are rather
more than half as long as the body and distinctly three-sided, having a ridge on the
outer side of each, broadest on the ventral ones; they taper evenly to very fine points ;
the inner surface of each is roughly papillate, and has hemispherical depressions into
which the suckers are retracted. The suckers are in four series throughout, almost
hemispherical, not very oblique, and marked with meridional grooves; the horny ring
bears irregular square teeth. The hectocotylus is not developed, the specimen being a

1 Named after my friend Dr. Georg Pfeffer of the Hamburg Museum, who has recently published a valuable
catalogue of the Cephalopoda of that institution.
(ZOOL. CHALL, EXP.—PART XLIV.—1886.) Xx 19

146 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

female.! The wmbrella is larger than usual in the genus, reaching on an average about one-
third up the arms ; the buccal membrane has seven not very prominent points, and there is
a spermatic pad as usual (fig. 8); the outer lip is very thin, the nner thick and papillate.

The Tentacle is about as long as the body, stout, indistinctly three-sided, and
tapering. The club (fig. 7) is short and but little expanded, with a narrow protective
membrane on its outer side; the sucker-bearing area is, as it were, undermined on its
inner aspect by a deep groove or fissure, and internally to this again is a broad fin
which reaches down the tentacle for a distance exceeding half the length of the club.
There are three suckers much longer than the rest, whereof the middle one is the largest
and the proximal the next, placed on stout peduncles arising in deep depressions ;
towards the outer side of the club is a series of about four medium-sized suckers, and
beyond these again one or two series of minute ones. The horny rings appear smooth
under a powerful hand-lens, though the microscope reveals a fine irregular denticulation.

The Surface is smooth in general, but there are a few irregular papille in the
ventro-lateral region.

The Colour is a dull grey, with indications of annular markings on the back disposed
in the form of a cross (fig. 1).

The Shell (figs. 4, 5) has a rhomboidal outline, with rounded anterior and lateral
angles; the chitinous margin is narrow, widest behind, where it forms a flat, acute-
angled plate, the posterior extremity of the shell; it covers entirely, however, the
dorsal surface, which is slightly raised mesially and marked by a number of faint strize
radiating from the posterior end. The ventral surface is much elevated on either side
of a median groove; the last Joculus is bounded by a wavy line, and deeply emarginate
in the middle; it has an index of 22. The znner cone is represented only by a narrow
rib reaching halfway along each posterior side of the shell and meeting its fellow in a
rounded angle behind, from which a number of radiating calcareous streaks pass outwards
into the horny termination.

Dimensions.

Length, total, A : i 5 : : é . 110mm.
End of body to mantle-margin, . , : : : ‘ 52
End of body to eye, E : : : : : GON;
Breadth of body (excluding aly ¢ sf : : : ; 325;
Breadth of head, : ; F : ; ; : a gy
Eye to edge of eeapeellel ; : ; : L : ; Ie},
Breadth of fin, . : ‘ j ; : ; omar
Diameter of largest areken on sessile arm, : : : : Lec
Diameter of largest sucker on tentacle, . : : ‘ ; Diy ses
Length of shell, . 0 . F : : : : 4 Dees
Breadth of shell, . : : ‘ : : : : 24 4,
Thickness of shell, : 5 i : : ; \ 8

”

1 Appellof records that he found no trace of the formation of the hectocotylus in the male examined by him.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 147

Right. Left
Length of first arm, : 5 : § : : 6 30 mm. 25 mm.
Length of second arm, . " ; ; : : : 36 Cs, 0) gs
Length of third arm, a : ; ; 2 : : 36) 55 Bil on
Length of fourth arm, . F : ‘ ; : ; 30, BY on
Length of tentacle, : ; ; : : ‘ ; Dies Giles

This interesting species is represented in the collection by only one female specimen,
but exhibits such peculiarities as to render it worthy of great attention.

The form of the body is remarkable for its great dorso-ventral extent, and for the
ridge which runs down the ventro-lateral aspect. This is not very prominent, but is
similar to the ridge observed in many species of Octopus and Eledone (e.g., Octopus
australis, p. 88 and Pl. IIL. fig. 5, and Eledone cirrosa), but I do not remember to have
seen it before in any specimen of Sepia.

The tentacular club bears the greatest resemblance to that of Sepia elegans,
dOrbigny,' in respect of its shortness and rounded form, and in the presence of three
suckers considerably exceeding the others in size. Sepia tuberculata, Quoy and
Gaimard, has also three enlarged suckers, but judging by dOrbigny’s figure,’ these
would seem to be along the median line of the club and not nearer to one side
than the other as in the present form. It may be remarked, however, that very few,
if any, species of Sepia have the club so symmetrical as that figure would indicate,
and hence the possibility of inaccuracy in this respect must be borne in mind. This is
especially important because, as will be seen immediately, these two species present, im
one respect, a close resemblance to each other.

The shell of the type under consideration is undoubtedly its most remarkable
characteristic. In the first place it possesses no trace of a spine, a point in which it
resembles Sepia elegans, dOrbigny, above alluded to, and also the various species of
Sepiella, which latter it further resembles in the depth of the siphono-pallial articulation ;
in all these, however, the chitinous layer of the shell is covered for the most part by
a rough calcar.ous deposit, and only appears at the margin, and the genus Sepiella is
clearly distinguished by its peculiar glandular apparatus.

The chitinous portion of the shell of Sepia pfefferi is visible over the whole of its
dorsal surface, and this fact separates it clearly from all Sepiz# or related forms, with
two exceptions, Sepia tuberculata, Lamarck,’ and Hemisepius typicus, Steenstrup.’ The
former of these has an oval shell, the calcareous portion coming close up to the anterior
margin, but narrowing so as to leave large projecting chitinous wings posteriorly, whilst
in the form under discussion the chitinous plate is but little larger than the calcareous
portion all round. In Hemisepius the chitinous plate is so large as to project far
beyond the calcareous centre anteriorly as well as posteriorly.

1 Céph. acét., Seiches, pl. xxvii. fig. 4. 2 Op. cit., pl. xvil. fig. 13.
3 Céph. acét., pl. vi. figs, a, b, c. 4 Hemisepius, Tab. i. figs. 3, 4, 5.

148 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

From these facts we should be inclined to suppose that Sepia pfefferi and Sepia
tuberculata stand in a nearer relation to each other than does either of them to
Hemisepius, which is clearly marked off by the presence of only two series of flattened
suckers on the sessile arms, and the broad shape of the ventral pair of these; by the
form of the tentacular club, and by the two rows of glandular pits down its ventral surface.

The three forms seem to constitute together a very aberrant branch of the group,
but we have not at present sufficient knowledge to interpret their precise relations to
the more ordinary forms. Indeed the problem of the natural relationship of the various
species of Sepia is far from having been satisfactorily worked out. The shells, which
seem in many respects the organs most likely to lead to a solution, can be arranged in series
increasing or decreasing in complexity, and there are several interesting fossil genera,’
which help to bridge over the gulf separating Sepia from the Belemnites, but an arrange-
ment of the species based upon the shells does not agree with one based upon the form of
the tentacular club, or other parts of the animal’s organisation, so that we are hardly
justified in regarding it as natural.

Since the above remarks were written I have received, by the kindness of Dr.
Appelléf, a copy of his paper on Japanese Cephalopoda,” which contains the description
of a new species, Sepia tullbergi, closely related to the present form. The two agree in
the short rounded form of the body, the slight convexity of the anterior dorsal border of
the mantle, the depth of the siphono-pallial articulation, the absence of the linear ridge
and groove in the nuchal articulation, the disparity in the sizes of the tentacular suckers,
and in the form and structure of the shell.

Such being the case, there is no doubt that Sepia tullbergi belongs to the group to
which I have given the name Metasepia.

There are a number of details in which the specimen obtained by the Challenger
differs from that described by Appellof, so that it is impossible to regard them as other
than distinct species.

In Sepia pfefferi the pits at the base of the funnel for articulation with the mantle are
deepest in the middle, not at the anterior end as in Sepia tullbergi; there is no trace of any
tubercles on the back or head ; the teeth of the suckers on the sessile arms are finer and more
acute, notso broadly triangular, as indicated in Appelléf’s figure (pl. ii. fig. 13); the tentacles
are decidedly shorter and the large suckers on the club are not so conspicuous (compare
pl. ii. fig. 8, with Pl. XXI. fig. 7 of the present Report, where indeed they are hardly
large enough) ; the denticulation of their horny rings, too, is much finer and not so regular.

The shell agrees in almost every particular with Appelléf’s description, except that
the posterior extremity, although somewhat thickened, does not give rise to any structure
at all like the horny lamella indicated by his figure (pl. ii. fig. 11, @).

1 For interesting remarks on some of these see Lankester, Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., N.S., vol. xiv. p. 372, 1874.
2 K, Svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Handl., Bd. xxi. No. 13, pp. 1-40, pls. i.—ii1.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 149

Sepiella, Gray, Steenstrup.

This generic name was first informally proposed by Gray! in 1849, but no adequate
account was given of its characters, until in 1880 Steenstrup? published a paper which
was then a complete Monograph of the genus, and to which nothing of importance has
been added since.

Three conspicuous characters occur in both sexes of all members of this group,
which can hardly be expressed better than in Steenstrup’s Latin diagnosis, here quoted.

‘“Sepiella .. . . prebet.——

“1. Sepium minus validum, inerme, neque rostro seu mucrone (ut in plurimis
Sepiis) neque carina (ut in Sep. elegante, @Orb.) dorsali ornatum.

“2. Fibulam palliarem complicatam, conulo nempe elevato, in profundam
cavitatem siphunculo recipiendo instructam.

“3. Saccum subeutaneum, inter sepium et cutem dorsualem palli situm,
valde plicatum, plicis pluries divisis et inter se connexis, apertura sat
conspicua in pagina inferiori abdominis inter radices pinnarum preeditum.”

Steenstrup enumerated two species in this genus, one being the Sepia ornata, Rang,
the other Sepia inermis, v. Hass., of which he showed Sepia microcheirus, Gray, to
be the female; having recently had the opportunity of examining Gray’s types in the
British Museum I can fully comfirm all his statements on this head. Last year,
however, Dr. Pfeffer described four species and Dr. de Rochebrune another (see p. 25),
whilst it seems to me likely that two forms of his Diphtherosepion should be referred
to this genus.

One very fine specimen was obtained by the Challenger Expedition from the Inland
Sea, Japan, which I have not succeeded in certainly identifying with any of the species
hitherto described. It does not present any important variation from the definition
given of Sepiella maindroni, Rochebr., but so many important details are wanting in
the description of this type that certainty is impossible, but I have judged it best to apply
his name to the Challenger specimen, rather than create a new species unnecessarily.

Sepiella maindroni (?), de Rochebrune (Pl. XXII. figs. 1-10).
1884. Sepiella maindroni, Rochebr., Monogr. Sepiade, p. 89.

Habitat.—Inland Sea, Japan. One specimen, ¢.
Pondichery (de Rochebrune).

I cannot find any difference between the specimen in the Challenger collection and
Dr. de Rochebrune’s description, but in this latter so many points of specific import-
1 Gray, Brit. Mus. Cat., p. 106. 2 Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjdbenhavn, pp. 347-356, 1880.

150 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

ance are omitted (even the sex of the specimens not being mentioned), that there is
still uncertainty as to the correctness of the identification.

I therefore add details, which are not given by the original describer, but which
will show whether or not the two forms are identical.

The Suckers (figs. 2, 3) of the sessile arms are nearly hemispherical, with numerous
meridional grooves which pass obliquely towards their distal side; the horny ring is
smooth, and the papillary area unusually wide.

The Suckers of the tentacular club are in about ten rows, hemispherical in form, and
mounted on long peduncles (fig. 4); the horny ring bears in its distal semicircumference
from fifteen to twenty rather irregular conical teeth (fig. 6), and is surrounded by a
papillary area with three rows of little spines and two of irregular plates (figs. 5, 7).

The Shell (figs. 8, 9, 10) is elliptical in outline, except that the posterior extremity
is somewhat expanded ; the dorsal surface has fine rugosities disposed in curves parallel
to the anterior margin, and a raised ridge passes along its middle; the chitinous margin
appears along the edges, and extends some distance beyond them: it is curved down-
wards and inwards laterally, while posteriorly it expands into the hemielliptical plate
characteristic of the genus; the ventral surface is elevated so that the shell is thick, the
striated area is not hollowed but has several slight grooves passing along it from back
to front; the last loculus has an index of 33, and is bounded posteriorly by a somewhat
irregularly waved line. The ener cone is represented only by a small fillet of calcareous
matter from which the limbs pass forwards as thin tapering strips, which extend forwards
along only one-third of the striated area.

The Colour is pale yellowish below, and of a dark slate tint above, with no trace of
the remarkable patch over the posterior sac, which is seen in d’Orbigny’s figures."

Dimensions.

End of body to mantle-margin, . : : : ; . 125mm.

End of body to eye, 5 5 : : : ; fe) MLD irr

Breadth of body, . : : : é : 4 : ANS) oy

Breadth of head, . . c ; 3 : : 4 ADT

Hye to edge of umbrella, . : : : ‘ . ; 2 oe

Breadth of fin, average, . ; j : : ; : LO} 55

Right. Left.

Length of first arm, i : i ‘ : : ; 43 mm. 42 mm.
Length of second arm, . : : 3 ‘ : : 35, BO cp
Length of third arm, } : é : ; A : 40 ,, 40 ,,
Length of fourth arm, . : rf : j : : 45, 35,
Length of tentacle, : 6 ; ; ; é UO»

1 Céph. acét., Seiches, pl. xx. fig. 1, pl. xxii. fig. 1.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 151

Family IX. LoLiginet, Steenstrup.

Sepioteuthis, Blainville.

Sepioteuthis lessoniana, Férussac.

1825. Sepioteuthis lessontana, d’Orb., Tabl. méth., p. 155 (nomen tantum).

1830. % a Lesson, Voy., “Coquille,” Moll., p. 241, pl. xi.

1839. BS mp d’Orb., Céph. acét., p. 301, Sépioteuthes, pls. i. vi. figs. 9-14.
1849. 0 5 Gray, Brit. Mus. Cat., p. 80.

1886. 00 Appellof, Japanska Ceph., p. 31.

Habitat—From the surface of the harbour, Kandavu, Fiji, August 1874. One
specimen, ¢.

Ternate, October 15 to 17, 1874. One specimen, $. (Presented by the Resident.)

New Guinea, Java, Cape Fabre, Trincomalee (d’Orbigny) ; New Zealand (Gray) ;
Japan (Appellof).

Both the Challenger specimens agree so well with d’Orbigny’s description that I have
no hesitation in referring them to this species. The individual from Ternate being the
largest that has come under my notice, I append its dimensions.

Dimensions.

Length, total, . 5 : 5 A : : . 570mm.

End of body to mantle-margin, . : 3 : ; 3 OB G

End of body to eye, : S 3 5 : 6 Se roiSiaes

Breadth of body, . : 3 : : ; : Gl} | 5

Breadth of head, . ; F : ; : : : 50,

Eye to edge of umbrella, . ; : , z ss 33) 45

Breadth of fin, . : ee : : j : : A Dns

Length of hectocotylus, . : : : : : ; 2

Diameter of largest sucker on sessile arm, . 3 ‘ a : 4°5,,

Diameter of largest sucker on tentacle, . : : . : 5:5,

Right. Left

Length of first arm, 4 6 : : s : : 70 mm. 66 mm.
Length of second arm, . : ; : : : : 85, 80 ,,
Length of third arm, 3 : : : : ; é 0 a5 OSes
Length of fourth arm, . é : : : : é OB 100 ,,
Length of tentacle, 0 a ; 0 : : 5 320 ,, 335,

The hectocotylisation is of the type common in this genus and Loligo; it occupies the
distal fourth of the arm; the suckers diminish in size and their peduncles become large
swollen cones, and eventually these entirely replace the suckers.

152 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Loligo, Lamarck."

Loligo edulis, Hoyle (Pl. XXIII.).

1885. Loligo edulis, Hoyle, Diagnoses IL., p. 186.
IS SOees. » Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. II., p. 289.

Habitat.—Yokohama, Japan. Purchased in the market. One specimen, ¢.

The Body is moderately stout, being about three times as long as broad, cylindrical
in its anterior third, and tapering gradually to a bluntish point. The jin occupies a
little more than half the length of the body ; it is rhomboidal, not quite so broad as long,
and broadest anteriorly to the middle; the lateral angles are rounded. The mantle-
margin has a slight projection in the dorsal median line and a broad shallow sinuate
excavation ventrally. The siphon is of moderate length and bluntly pointed.

The Head has prominent rounded eyes, and the usual auricular crest and preocular pore.

The Arms are unequal, the order of length being 3, 4, 2, 1, and about half as long as
the body. The first are very slender and bear a distinct keel on the dorsal aspect; the
second are thicker and triangular, and have a broad keel almost expanding into a web
on the lateral aspect; the third are the stoutest, flattened from above downwards,
and distinctly keeled externally; the fourth are intermediate between the third and
second, triangular, and with a broadish web extending the whole way up the dorso-
lateral aspect. They all have a web up each side of the inner face. The suckers
(figs. 3, 4) are in two series, very oblique, and with slender conical peduncles, their size
varying with that of the arms on which they are situated; the horny ring bears about
eight long square-cut teeth on its distal margin. The left ventral arm as usual is
hectocotylised, and bears proximally ten rows of suckers, then a minute sucker with an
exaggerated peduncle, and beyond this two series of long conical papille (fig. 5). The
buccal membrane has the usual seven angles produced into long lappets, each of which
bears about eight suckers in two rows; the outer lip is moderately thick, the cnner
much thicker and marked with deep radial grooves.

The Tentacles are about as long as the body, with flattened stems; about one-third
their length is occupied by the club (fig. 6), which is only slightly expanded, has a
protective membrane on either side, but a dorsal web is present only at the extremity.
The central suckers (fig. 7) are about sixteen in number and about one-third larger than
the lateral; the proximal are about ten, the distal are closely packed in four series. The

1 Gwyn Jeffreys (Brit. Conch., vol. v. p. 130) gives “Schneider” as the authority for this genus, but without any
reference or even date. The only paper by that author bearing in any way upon the subject, which I have been able to
find, is one entitled Bemerkungen tiber die Gattung der Dintenfische (Schrift. Gesellsch. ntuturf. Freunde Berlin, Bd. xi.
pp. 33-50, 1794). In it this passage occurs (p. 46), “ Ich finde auch damit eine Zeichnung ganz tibereinstimmig, welche
ich von dem Lungenherze des Kalamers (Loligo) entworfen habe.” This does not, however, seem to be of the nature
of a definition, and so I have followed the majority of writers in attributing the creation of the genus to Lamarck.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 1538

horny rings of the largest suckers (fig. 8) are provided with about twenty larger teeth,
with which smaller ones alternate somewhat regularly ; the lateral bear about ten distant
acute teeth on the outer margin, while the proximal and distal groups are similarly
armed on the distal margin.

The Surface is smooth.

The Colour is a dull yellow with purplish chromatophores.

The Gladius (fig. 9) is of the usual form, the narrow anterior portion being less than
one-fourth of the total length.

Dimensions.

Length, total, . ‘ : : ; : : . 260 mm.

End of body to mantle-margin, . p 4 ; , F Wis) 5

End of body to eye, : : ; : 5 : P 126 ,,

Breadth of body, . : : : : j : : oii.

Breadth of head,. . : 2 : F : : 5 26 =,

Kye to edge of umbrella, . : . : ; : : NBS" 5

Length of fin, : p : j ; ; ; 2 Gijaees

Breadth of tin, . : : ‘ : : : ; 6355;

Breadth of each lobe, ; 3 ; : : : ; Dias

Length of hectocotylus, . : : ; ; ‘ : 35,

Diameter of largest sucker on sessile arm, . : b 4 : 2 6

Diameter of largest sucker on tentacle, . ‘ s y : Dey.

Right. Left

Length of first arm, : c : ‘ : : : 41 mm. 45 mm.
Length of second arm, .. : e ; : : ‘ 52ies RM oy
Length of third arm, : : : , ‘ ; d EOI, 60 _,,
Length of fourth arm, . 4 ; F : ; : OD BL B
Length of tentacle, ‘ : ; : F f : 105) a TAS) gg

Loligo edulis seems to find its nearest ally in Loligo pealei, Les., whose habitat is
very far removed from its own, but it differs in the form and number of the teeth on the
suckers. It is quite clearly distinguished from all other forms from the same region.

Loligo brasiliensis, Blainville.

1823. Loligo brasiliensis, Blv., Journ. de Phys., t. xevi. p. 132.
1833. Loligo poeyanus, Fér., Pl. de Calmars, xix. figs. 1-3.
1835. Loligo brasiliensis, ’Orb., Amér. mérid., p. 63.

SSS, s d’Orb., Moll. des Antilles, t. i. p. 38.

WES a5 Pe dOrb. et Fér., Céph. acét., p. 313; Calmars, pl. xit, pl. xix.
figs. 1-3, pl. xx. figs. 1-5.

S53 ses i dOrb., Cuba Moll., p. 38.

Habitat.—Station 321, off Monte Video, February 25, 1876; lat. 35° 2’S., long.
55° 15’ W.; depth, 13 fathoms. Six specimens, 22, 4 immature.
Coasts of Brazil, the Antilles, Cuba (d’Orbigny).

(Z00L. CHALL. EXP.—PART XLIv.—1886,) Xx 20

154 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

I have no hesitation in referring these specimens to de Blainville’s species ; in general
appearance they agree rather with the figure of Loligo poeyana (op. cit., pl. xix.) than
with the one on pl xii., and in one specimen, at all events, there is a slight notching of
the fin at its anterior insertion. There is some discrepancy between d’Orbigny’s
description and figure (pl. xx. figs. 3, 4) in respect of the horny ring of the large
tentacular sucker, which is said to be “armé tout autour de dents..... égale
erosseur,” while the teeth are depicted as distinctly larger along one side of the ring than
the other; the Challenger specimens agree with the figure.

The teeth in the suckers of the sessile arms present a slight variation, inasmuch as the
three median teeth are considerably narrower than the lateral ones.

A specimen of Loligo brasiliensis in the Copenhagen Museum has the teeth of these
suckers alternately large and small, showing an interesting approach to Loligo pealei,
Les. to which this species is undoubtedly nearly related.

The two larger specimens have a distinct spermatic pad within the ventral border
of the buccal membrane, very similar to that shown in PL XXV. fig. 4.

Loligo kobiensis, Hoyle (Pl. XXYV. figs. 1-10).

1885. Loligo kobiensis, Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 184.
USS hae. a Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. IL., p. 287.

Habitat.—Station 233, Bay of Kobe, Japan, May 17, 1875; lat. 34° 39’ N.,
long. 135° 14’ E.; 8 fathoms; mud. One specimen, ¢.

Station 233c, Inland Sea, Japan, May 28, 1875; lat. 34° 18’ N., long. 133° 21’ E.;
12 fathoms; blue mud. Four immature specimens.’

The Body is cylindrical in the anterior moiety, tapers posteriorly, and ends in a blunt
point. The jin is more than half the length of the body, trapezoidal, with rounded
lateral angles; the extreme breadth is less than the length, and is situated anteriorly
to the middle of the fin. The mantle-margin presents a triangular process in the mid-
dorsal line and is deeply sinuate ventrally. The siphon is short and bluntly conical.

The Head is short and not so broad as the body; the eyes are comparatively small
and have a bow-shaped auricular crest behind and a minute pore in front of them.

The Arms are unequal, the order of length being 3, 4, 2, 1, and, on the average,
rather more than one-third the length of the body; the first are the most slender, and
have the dorso-median angle raised into a prominent keel ; the second have only a faintly-
marked angle ventro-laterally ; the third have a broad web externally, passing over at
the base into one which extends up the dorsal aspect of the ventral arms. The suckers
(figs. 2, 3) are arranged in two series, pedunculate, very oblique, and rather larger on the
lateral than on the other arms; the horny ring has about nine short, close-set, square-cut

1 On the label attached to two of these specimens the locality was marked with a query.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 155

teeth on its distal side, and is smooth on the proximal. The only mature specimen
being a female, no hectocotylus was observed. The buccal membrane has five points,
each of which bears two or three small suckers ; the two ventral pots are rounded off,
and just within the ventral margin is a small papilla surrounded by two elevated rings,
for the reception of spermatophores (fig. 4). Both the outer and imner lips are folded.

The Tentacle is faintly three-sided and shorter than the body; the club (fig. 5), which
is expanded and triangular in section, is one-third as long; it has a protective membrane
on either side and a web externally ; in the centre are eight large suckers, three times
the diameter of the lateral ones; at the proximal end are about nine suckers, gradually
increasing in size, and at the distal end more than twenty rows arranged in four series,
gradually diminishing. The largest suckers are scarcely at all oblique, and have the
margin cut up by radial grooves, into a number of small papillee (figs. 6, 7), an arrange-
ment also found on the outer margin of the lateral suckers, but not in the terminal ones.
The horny rings of the largest suckers are smooth; those of the lateral and terminal
suckers bear about twelve long distant teeth on their outer margin (figs. 8, 9).

The Surface is smooth.

The Colour is pinkish-yellow, with purplish chromatophores.

The Gladius (fig. 10) has the usual form, but the narrow anterior part passes very
gradually into the expanded blade.

Dimensions.
Length, total, . 5 : F : : 4 2 L6Semm,
End of body to mantle-margin, . : 5 : : 3 SH) oy
End of body to eye, 5 3 5 ; ; : : Gis} gg
Breadth of body, : , ; é , : : LOM
Breadth of head, : F : : : E P N@ 5
Eye to edge of umbrella, : 5 : : j 0 ) = gp
Length of fin, . 5 : : j ‘ é : KO 5
Breadth of fin, . 5 : ; : : a 44ers
Breadth of each lobe, . : 5 : K : , 15)" ion
Diameter of largest sucker on sessile arm, Q 3 ; ; 1:25 ,,
Diameter of largest sucker on tentacle, . Fy 4 ; y PTB ce
: Right. Left.
Length of first arm, z y R ‘ é : 15 mm. 15 mm.
Length of second arm, . 5 : : : ; ‘ ZN; 22s
Length of third arm, . . : : 3 : ; 2 Oa Bl 6
Length of fourth arm, . : : 5 3 : F 25s 250
Length of tentacle, : : : : ; F : Dae

The present form differs from all known species of Loligo (except Loligo reynaudu,
@Orbigny) in the absence of teeth in the large tentacular suckers,’ these two species

1 Mutilated.

2 Loligo breviceps, Stp. (Lenz, Jahrb. Comm. Kiel, Jahrg. iv. v. vi., Heft 2, Anhang 1, p. 23, 1878), has the teeth on
the suckers very variable in size and number, and here and there a perfectly smooth horny ring occurs, but this does
not seem likely to be confused with the constant absence of teeth observed in the two species here compared,

156 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

being readily distinguishable by the following characters :—Loligo reynaudii has sharp-
pointed teeth in the suckers of the sessile arms, while in Loligo kobiensis they are
blunt and closely set. The papillate character of the margins of the tentacular suckers in
the latter species is a very remarkable character; it recalls the meridional grooves already
described in the suckers of certain species of Sepia (see p. 124); and may be a parallel
phenomenon with the fringes which are seen in Loligo vulgaris from the Mediterranean.

The left ventral arm has a number of spermatophores attached to it (fig. 4a), but
there are none on the spermatic pad.

Loligo indica, Pfeffer (Pl. XXVI1).
1884. Loligo indica, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 4, fig. 3, 3a.

Habitat.—Station 188, Arafura Sea, south of Papua, September 10, 1874;
lat. 9° 59’'S., long. 139° 42’ H.; 28 fathoms; green mud. One specimen, @.
Station 190, also in the Arafura Sea, south of Papua, September 12, 1874;
lat. 8° 56’ S., long. 136° 5’ E.; 49 fathoms; green mud.
Twelve specimens, 83, 42.
Tera "Java (Pfeffer).

I had little doubt that the Challenger specimens
were to be referred to the same species as the one
which Dr. Pfeffer has obtained from Java, but to place
the matter beyond question, I sent him a copy of the
drawings which are here published with the request that
he would compare it with his types. His reply was that
both certainly belonged to the same species, the sole
difference being that the fins are a little shorter in the
Hamburg specimens.

This species is certainly very near to Loligo duvau-
celii, VOrbigny, differing in the number of teeth in the
suckers and in the greater slenderness of the pen. Dr.
Pfeffer having given merely an outline of the body and
pen, I have devoted a plate to the full illustration of
the species.

eh ally oes Aue UA clea There bemg a large number of specimens in the
Fegan homing emmopertions eran collection of very varying sizes, the mode in which the
outline of the body varies with increasing growth was

brought forcibly before me. The accompanying cut, which shows the outlines of nine
individuals, proves conclusively that the growth is most rapid at the posterior end of the

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 157

body, for while in the youngest stage examined the fin is much shorter than the anterior
cylindrical portion of the body, in the oldest it is considerably longer. This has a very
important bearing on the use of the proportionate length of the fin as a specific character ;
Lafont? has given a table of the Loligos of the French coast in which they are sub-
divided according as the fins are greater or less than half the length of the body. A
consideration of the development shows, however, that species are not comparable in
this respect unless they have attained the same stage of growth.

Loligo japonica, Steenstrup, MS. (Pl. XXIV. figs. 7-15).

... Loligo japonica, Steenstrup, MS. in Mus. Havn.
SUS gp » Hoyle, Diagnoses IL., p. 187.
WES, gp » Hoyle, Prelim Rep. II., p. 290,

fabitat.—Yokohama, Japan. Purchased in the market. One specimen, ? .

The Body is only moderately elongated, being about three times as long as broad,
and bluntly pointed behind. The fin is a little more than half the length of the body,
about as long as broad, rhomboidal, rounded laterally, and very slightly notched at the
anterior angles. The mantle-margin curves gradually forward to a projecting point in
the dorsal median line, and is deeply emarginate ventrally. The siphon is short and of
the usual form. é

The Head is comparatively large and rounded; the eyes are swollen and
prominent.

The Arms are unequal, the order of length being 3, 4, 2, 1, and on an average about
half as long as the body; the first are very small, slender, and rounded; the second
have a prominent ventro-lateral angle, not amounting to a keel; the third have a distinct
web on the outer aspect of the distal portion, which is continued backwards as a faint
ridge, which joins the web lying along the dorsal lateral edge of the fourth. The suckers
are in two series, and vary in size in accordance with the arms on which they are situated ;
they are subglobular and oblique. The horny ring bears about ten broad, closely set,
square-cut teeth (fig. 8). The hectocotylus was not present in the Challenger specimen,
which was a female; but in some examples in the Copenhagen Museum, Professor
Steenstrup pointed it out to me, as usual, on the left ventral arm; the distal suckers of
the ventral series only are modified into conical papille, some of which bear a minute
sucker at their tips (fig. 10). The wmbrella is absent; the buccal membrane is
well developed and has the usual seven points, each of which bears a few small suckers
(occasionally only one). The owter lip is thick, thicker than the inner; both are cut
up into papille along the edge.

1 Journ. de Coneh., sér. 3, vol. xii. p. 25, 1872.

158 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

The Tentacles are as long as the head and body together, and have very slender,
almost cylindrical stems; the club (figs. 11, 12) occupies about one-fourth of the whole
length, and is but slightly expanded. The large central suckers are about eight in number
and fully twice the diameter of the lateral ones ; proximally to them are about half a
dozen suckers of different sizes, and beyond them a large number of diminishing ones
arranged in four series, and occupying nearly half the length of the club. The horny
ring in the largest suckers bears about twenty-five square teeth (fig. 14); im the lateral
suckers it bears more than twenty close-set acutely-pointed teeth (fig. 13), and in the
distal ones about the same number of similar character (fig. 9).

The Surface is smooth.

The Colour is pale, with purplish chromatophores.

The Gladius (fig. 15) is of quite typical form, expanded behind, and about six
times as long as broad ; the narrow anterior extremity occupies less than one third the
total length.

Dimensions.
Length, total, : Z : 6 by : = . 182mm.
End of body to mantle-margin, . = 2 e z Goi
End of body to eye, ‘ : 2 3 4 5 E UO gp
Breadth of body, . : : c bs : ; : Tis) 5
Breadth of head, . : 2 : es A A 3 NB 5,
Eye to edge of umbrella, . ‘ : 5 ; 2 : I@) 5,
Length of fin, i i : ‘ F : : e 40 ,,
Breadth of fin, . P j : : : ‘ : 42,
Breadth of each lobe, Bs : a : rs : ; 16 ,,

Diameter of largest sucker on sessile arm, : : ; : 3}

Diameter of largest sucker on tentacle, . < 2 les

Right. Left.

Length of first arm,t : : : ‘ 3 § 6 22 mm. 22 mm,
Length of second arm, . ‘ ; j : : : 30, all 35
Length of third arm, : : : : : : : 39! aa) 54
Length of fourth arm, . 3 : : : : : SM) a5 BY. oy
Length of tentacle, 2 ; : : : : p 92 sj Tales

This specimen agrees so closely with several in the Copenhagen Museum that it is
impossible to do otherwise than refer them to the same species. The two most prominent
characters of this form are the presence of blunt teeth in the suckers, both in the tentacles
and the sessile arms, and the type of the hectocotylisation ; this consists in the modification
of the suckers of only one series (that on the ventral aspect of the arms) into conical
papille, the suckers persisting, although reduced in size, on the other.

This form, therefore, bears a curious relation to Loligo bleekeri, Keferstein, from the
same region, in which the dorsal series is thus modified.?

1 The lengths of the arms are measured from the oral margin. Mutilated.
3 See Bronn, Klass. u. Ord. d. Thierreichs, Bd. iii., pl. exxii. fig. 10.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 159

It is clearly distinguished from that species, however, by the following characters :!
(1) the length of the arms, which are about half the length of the body and not one-
fifth, (2) the size of the tentacular suckers, which are much larger than those of the sessile
arms, (3) the form of the gladius (compare fig. 15 with Keferstein’s drawing), and (4)
the denticulation of the horny rings of the suckers.?

Loligo galathex, Steenstrup, MS. (Pl. XXVII.).

Loligo galathex, Steenstrup, MS. in Mus. Havn.

1885. ii 5 Hoyle, Diagnoses IT., p. 183.
1885. 3 a Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. IL, p. 286.
Habitat.—Station 203, off Panay, Philippine Islands, October 31, 1874; lat. 11° 6’

Ne long: 123% 97 E.; 20 fathoms; mud. Two immature specimens,

The Body is about four times as long as broad, cylindrical anteriorly, and pointed
behind. ‘The fin is rather less than half the length of the body, about as long as broad,
and with rounded lateral angles. The mantle-margin curves out rapidly to a triangular
process in the dorsal median line, for the rest it is almost transverse, except where it
forms two obtuse angled processes, one at either side of the ventral emargination,
which receives the siphon.

The Head is comparatively broad and with rather prominent rounded eyes. The
siphon is moderately large and of the usual form.

The Arms are unequal, the order of length being 3, 2, 4, 1, and about half as long
as the body. The dorsal have a distinct keel on the upper margin, the second are keeled
on the ventro-lateral aspect, the third are stout and flattened and have a broad web on
the outer aspect, which unites with the web running up the dorso-lateral aspect of the
ventral arms. The suckers (fig. 2) are in two series throughout, with short peduncles,
and not very oblique; their horny rings bear nearly twenty distant blunt teeth (figs. 3, 4).
The left ventral arm is hectocotylised for about two-thirds of its length (fig. 5); there
being as usual two rows of conical papillae. The papille of the dorsal series are
decidedly smaller than the others and bear each a minute sucker at the tip (fig. 6).
Those of the ventral series are stouter and not so evenly conical as the others, tapering
more rapidly towards their tips; they bear also a somewhat elevated oval patch on one
or both their sides, and a few of the proximal ones have each a small sucker at the tip
(figs. 7, 8). At the base of the arm, lying transversely across it is an oval raised
cushion with a rough papillate surface (fig. 5). The umbrella is absent. The buccal
membrane has the usual seven points, each of which bears a few suckers. The outer lip
is thin, the mner thin and papillate.

1 Brock, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool., Bd. xxxvi. p. 604, 1882. 2 Bronn, op. cit., pl. exxvii. fig. 14.
3 Compare Appellof’s figures (Japanska Ceph., pl. i. figs. 9, 10) with those given in the present Report.

160 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

The Tentacles are comparatively short, being not quite so long as the body; the
stems are subtriangular. The club occupies less than one-third of the length, and has a
protective membrane at either side of the suckers and a distinct web on the outer aspect.
The large central suckers are eight to ten in number, and nearly twice the diameter of
the lateral ones (fig. 9); the proximal group consists of about ten, while the distal
portion bears four series of diminishing suckers. The horny ring bears long, distant,
blunt pointed teeth, about twenty-four in the largest suckers (fig. 10), proportionally
fewer in the smaller (fig. 11), which are much larger in the distal and external portions
of the ring respectively.

The Surface is smooth.

The Colour is pale yellowish, spotted with brownish-purple and red chromatophores.

The Gladius (fig. 12) is of the usual form, the narrow anterior portion being
comparatively broad and about one-fourth of the total length.

The description of this species given in the Preliminary Report has been modified in
accordance with a drawing of an adult specimen in the Copenhagen Museum, which I
received from Professor Steenstrup, and which is reproduced in Pl. XXVII.; -the
Challenger specimens were so small that it was not worth while to give dimensions of
them.

Loligo (*) ellipsura, Hoyle (Pl. XXIV. figs. 1-6 ; Pl. XXV. figs. 11-15).

1885. Loligo ellipswra, Hoyle, Diagnoses, II., p. 182.
MEX, 55 8 Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. IT., p. 285.

Habitat.—Station 313, off Cape Virgins, Patagonia, January 20, 1876; lat. 52° 20’
S., long. 67° 39’ W.; 55 fathoms; sand. One specimen, ¢.

The Body is elongated, widest anteriorly, and taperimg gradually to an acute point
behind. The fin is comparatively short, only one-third the length of the body, elliptical,
slightly broader than long. The mantle-margin passes almost straight across the back,
except where a long narrow median process juts out over the head (Pl. XXIV. fig. 2);
it is slightly sinuate ventrally (fig. 1). The s¢phon is short and blunt.

The Head is short and very nearly as broad as the body; it has the usual auricular
crest and pre-ocular pore.

The Arms are unequal, the order of length being 3, 4, 2, 1, and about one-third the
leneth of the body ; the first has a distinct web on its dorso-median angle, and the third
a still broader web on its outer aspect, passing back nearly as far as the eye, where it
becomes connected with another passing up the dorso-lateral aspect of the fourth. The
suckers (figs. 4, 5) are in two series, pedunculate, oblique, notched distally, and somewhat
larger on the lateral than on the other arms. The horny ring bears from five to seven

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 161

large pointed teeth in its distal portion, but is smooth proximally. The only specimen
being a female the hectocotylus is not developed. The buccal membrane has the usual
seven points, each of which carries two or three small suckers. ‘The outer lip is thick
and marked with radial grooves ; the imner was not seen.

The Tentacle is slender, approximately cylindrical, and about two-thirds the leneth
of the body ; its terminal fourth is occupied by the club (Pl. XXYV. fig. 11), which is but
little expanded, and has a delicate protective membrane along either side of the inner
surface and a well-marked web externally. The large median suckers (figs. 12, 13) are
about ten in number, and about twice as large as the alternating lateral; the proximal
are about twenty, and gradually increasing; the distal occupy nearly one half the club,
and are in four series, diminishing. The horny rings of the largest suckers (fig. 14)
have about twenty-four distant square pointed teeth, much longer on the distal margin ;
and are surrounded by a papillary area, consisting of two rows of plates succeeded by
radial markings (Pl. XXIV. fig. 3); the lateral ones have about half as many similar
teeth on the outer margin (fig. 6), and the terminal suckers are armed in the same way.

The Surface has been almost entirely denuded of skin.

The Colour appears to have been pale buff with purple chromatophores.

The Gladius (Pl. XXV. fig. 15) has the anterior narrow portion very long in com-
parison with the broader portion, but this is probably correlated with the small size and
presumable immaturity of the specimen, for the posterior portion of the body grows
more rapidly than the anterior (see p. 156).

Dimensions.

End of body to mantle-margin, . 3 : : : : 43 mm.

End of body to eye, : ‘ : : : : ‘ 45 ,,

Breadth of body, . : ; : , s ! 3 LSS

Breadth cf head, -. i ‘ ; : ; 3 5 ®) 5

Hye to edge of umbrella, . é : : : 5 ; Bs

Length of fin, : ; : é . : : 18. op

Breadth of fin, . : ; ; ; F ‘ i Sie.

Breadth of each lobe, ; BY 33

Right. Left.

Length of first arm, c 6 5 : ; . 6 14 mm. 15 mm.
Length of second arm, . : : : : : ‘ dl (caters Ns se
Length of third arm, : : : : : ; ; Ufs}) 65 20s
Leneth of fourth arm, . j ' F ; : i 16° 5 16,
Length of tentacle, : : : ; i P ; $4: BO) oy

This species approaches Loligo brasiliensis, Blainville, in some respects; both have a
rounded fin, although the shape is much more nearly elliptical in the present form, and
both have blunt squarish teeth in the suckers of the arms and sharper ones in those of
the tentacles ; Loligo ellipsura has, however, only about five complete teeth in the arm-
suckers and nineteen in the tentacular, whilst in Loligo brasiliensis the numbers are eight

(ZOOL. CHALL, EXP.—PART XLIV.— 1886.) Xx 21

162 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

and twenty-eight respectively, while the shapes are clearly distinct (compare d’Orbigny,
Céph. acét., pl. xx. figs. 1-5).

It also resembles in its rounded fin Lolliguncula brevis (Blv.), but it differs from it
in the greater slenderness of its body and correspondingly narrower fin, the teeth of the
suckers too are different both in number and form ; compare the figures here given with
those of d’Orbigny, Céph. acét., pl. xxiv. figs. 14-19. Very probably it should be placed
in the genus Lolliguneula, which is distinguished by the spermatophores being attached
to a spot over the left gill m the female. The Challenger specimen bore no spermato-
phores, so that it is impossible to be certain of its true position. The male of Lolliguncula
brevis has not yet been described.

Division II. CEGOPSIDA, d’Orbigny.
Family X. OMMASTREPHINI, Steenstrup.

Subfamily, OMMASTREPHID#, Gill.
Ommastrephes, @Orbigny.
Ommastrephes oualaniensis (Lesson), @Orbigny.

1830. Loligo owalaniensis, Less., Voy. “ Coquille,” Zool., p. 240, pl. i. fig. 2.

1832. ,,_-vanecoriensis Q. et G., Voy. “Astrolabe,” t. ii. p. 79, pl. v. figs. 1, 2

1832. ,, brevitentaculata, Q. et G., Ibid., p. 81.

1839. Ommastrephes oualaniensis, VOrb., Ceph. actt., p. 351; Calmars, pls. iii., xxi.; Ommast.,
pl. i. figs. 14, 15.

1862. tryontt (?), Gabb, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., p. 483, with plate.

1863. ayrestt (?), Gabb, Carpenter, Rep. W. C. Moll., p. 613.

1880. Orimatgemeniicn oualaniensis, Stp., Ommat. Blekspr., pp. 76, ‘84, &e.

Habitat.—Betweéen Api, New Hebrides, and Cape York, August 22,1874. From the
stomach of a specimen of Sula piscator which alighted on the ship. Hight specimens.

Pacific Ocean, 25° north of the Admiralty Island, March 13, 1875; surface. One
specimen.

Oualan Island (Lesson) ; Island of Vanikoro (Q. and G. ); Pacific Ocean, “ dans toute
son étendue” (d’Orbigny); Indian Ocean, Cape of Good Hope (Tryon).

This species is readily distinguished from all others of the family in that the mantle
has developed on either side an adhesion to the base of the siphon. The specimens were
in bad condition and did not present any points worthy of special notice.

A young Ommastrephes of undetermined species was captured in the surface-net on
April 29, 1876, which is interesting because, though only 5 mm. long, it showed the
peculiar form of mantle-connective characteristic of the genus.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 163

Todarodes, Steenstrup.

Todarodes pacificus, Steenstrup (Pl. XXVIII. figs. 1-5).

1880. Todarodes pacificus, Steenstrup, Ommat., Blackspr., pp. 83, 90, &c.

1886. Ommastrephes pacificus, Appellof, Japanska Ceph., p. 35, pl. ii. figs. 8-10.
Habitat—Inland Sea, Japan; May 25 to 29, 1875. One immature specimen.
Hakodadi, Japan (Steenstrup); Japan (Appelléf).

This species may be readily distinguished from Todarodes sagittatus (Ommastrephes
todarus, d’Orb. et auctt.) by the following characters :—

1. The body is evenly cylindrical, and does not taper so rapidly posteriorly.

2. The tentacular suckers do not make their appearance until nearly halfway along
the arm, whereas in Todarodes sagittatus, they begin close to the base.

3. The suckers of the sessile arms have subequal teeth (eight or nine in number) on
the distal semi-circumference of the horny ring, while in Todarodes sagittatus there are
seven teeth, of which the central one is much larger than the others.

The small specimen obtained by the Challenger had lost a good deal of its epidermis,
but still it agreed very closely with the type specimens in the Copenhagen Museum, the
chief differences being the greater relative shortness of the fin and of the tentacles, both
of which may be referred to its immaturity. It was so small that a figure of it would
have been of no service, and I am indebted to Professor Steenstrup for the drawings
by Mr. Thornam, which are reproduced on Pl. XXVIII.

Tracheloteuthis, Steenstrup.

Verrilliola, Pfeffer.
Entomopsis, Rochebr. (?).

This genus has been described by its founder as follows :'—

“These forms have the eye furnished with a sinus. The siphon with a valve, the
head with aquiferous chambers at the bases of the arms, but neither on the arms nor
on the tentacles have they hooks instead of rings on the suckers, and hence, according to
the present state of our knowledge, they must be classed among the Cigopsids beside
Ommatostrephes and Architeuthus.

“The small specimens hitherto obtained, only 2 to. 4 inches long, have many charac-
ters in common with Architeuthus—only two suspensory ligaments to the funnel, only a
very long ridge on each side of the mantle and a trough- or groove-shaped hollow on
either side of the siphon, together with relatively long tentacles, which have long clubs,

1 Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjgbenhavn, p. 293, 1881.

164 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

whose proximal more slender portion is furnished with small closely placed suckers,
while the distal part bears much larger ones.

“They are distinguished, on the contrary, by the much weaker musculature of the
mantle (very little more powerful than in Cranchia Reinhardtii) and their more elongated
form, more expanded fins one-third to one-fourth the length of the mantle, the great
inequality in the length of the arms, and especially the preponderance of the lateral arms
over both the ventral and dorsal, both in length and stoutness. When the mantle is
divided along the ventral median line two peculiarities are observed: the position of the
viscera in an aggregated mass far back in the mantle-cavity, with the rectum projecting
from it, but so short that the anus with its two appendages lies about midway in the
mantle-cavity and far from the base of the siphon; also the long and broad musculi
depressores infundibuli, which extend backwards meeting in the middle line. The
formula of the arms 2, 3, 4, 1.

“The gladius can be seen through the almost transparent, or at all events translucent
mantle, in the form of a long, almost linear streak, until it approaches the base of the
fins ; here it expands into a broad lance-shaped blade, whose two margins bend over and
form a hollow cone posteriorly. It closely resembles the figure of Conoteuthis given by
@Orbieny.”?

Tracheloteuthis riisei, Steenstrup (Pl. XXVIIL. figs. 6-12).

1881. Tracheloteuthis Riisei, Stp., Vid. Meddel. nat. Foren. Kjobenhavn, p. 294,
1884. Verrilliola gracilis (?), Pftr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 22, fig. 28.
Habitat.—Station 2, Feerée Channel, H.M.S. “ Knight Errant” Expedition, J uly
28, 1880; lat. 60° 29’ N., long. 8° 19’ W.; surface. One specimen.
Atlantic, Mediterranean (Steenstrup); Solomon Islands (Pfeffer).

The Body is cylindrical in its anterior two-thirds and then tapers rapidly to a point.
The jin is very little more than one-third the length of the body, and considerably
broader than long; it is cordate in shape and is notched at its anterior insertion
(fig. 6). The mantle-margin is transverse, slightly convex dorsally. The muntle-
connective consists of an elongated cartilaginous groove and ridge in the nuchal
region, and of a linear ridge on either side of the mantle fitting into a correspond-
ing groove at the base of the siphon; which is short, subulate and deeply notched in
the middle line behind (fig. 7). It is provided with a small valve; and has two
long suspensory ligaments connecting it with the head. The furrow in which it lies is
shallow.

The Head is narrower than the body except for the eyes, which in the present

1 Moll. viv., pl. xxxii. figs. 1, 4.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 165

specimen were globular and protruded from their sockets, so that the presence or absence
of a sinus in the eyelid could not be determined.

The Arms are very unequal, the order of length being 2, 3, 4, 1; the longest are
rather more than half the length of the body; the shortest about one-fifth. They are
quadrilateral in section; the third pair bear a distinct but narrow web up the outer
aspect and the fourth pair a keel on the dorso-lateral angle. There is no membrane
bounding the sucker-bearing face. The suckers (fig. 8) are in two series throughout,
and placed upon subulate conical peduncles, they are spheroidal and oblique and the
horny ring bears in its distal semicireumference about eight or ten broad, square-cut
teeth, standing close together. No trace of a hectocotylus was observed on the single
specimen in the collection. The bases of the arms are not connected by any wmbrella.
The buccal membrane is thin, has seven blunt points, and is connected with the arms
by lhgaments in the usual way.

The Tentacles are about as long as the body and have slender subcylindrical stems.
The club (fig. 9) is but slightly expanded, and has no protective membranes and no
web. The wider portion is covered with about nine series of minute suckers, which
have very long slender peduncles springing from a conical base and smooth horny rings
(fig. 12). The narrow terminal part of the club bears about four series of much larger
suckers (fig. 10), which are also mounted on large peduncles: their horny ring is
armed in its distal semicircumference with about fourteen long acute teeth, and on its
proximal margin with ten or twelve blunt quadrate teeth. The suckers at the extreme
tip of the club resemble those last mentioned, but are smaller, and the proximal half of
the horny ring is smooth (fig. 11). At the proximal end of the club the peduncles of the
suckers become shorter till these are almost sessile. They extend for a considerable
distance down the stem, but it was impossible to ascertain exactly how far. No fixing
cushions could be seen, though their absence cannot be regarded as proved.

The Surface is smooth.

The Colour is white, probably transparent when alive, with elongated, reddish
chromatophores here and there.

The Gladius was not extracted; it had been damaged near the anterior end of the
fin, but it was possible to see that it forms a hollow cone posteriorly.

Dimensions.

Length, total, . ; 6 : : ; : : 67 mm.
End of body to mantle-margin, . : 6 : : : BD) 56
End of body to eye, ; : F 5 ; : 0 35,
Breadth of body, . : : : : : : : Siers
Length of fin, . 5 : : : ‘ ; : UB.

Breadth of fin, . : j ; 6 : . : 19 ,,

166 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Right. Left
Length of first arm,! : : : 0 : : . 8 mm. 8 mm.
Length of second arm, ; . : 6 as 5 : IK) gs ae
Length of third arm, : j , : 4 F , ane LS
Length of fourth arm, : : : : : F 4 IB 5. 18) 55
Length of tentacle, E ‘ : : : : A eat By

The specimen under consideration was only placed in my hands quite recently, so
that I have not had the opportunity of comparing it with Professor Steenstrup’s
specimens ; hence its identification cannot be regarded as certain, the more so as the
original diagnosis of the species is very short, being in fact not a diagnosis but merely
an indication of the characters which distinguish it from the only other form (Trachelo-
teuthis behni) known to the author.

I cannot be sure of its identity with Verrilliola gracilis, Pfeffer; there are one or two
points in his description which may indicate specific distinctness, but they seem to me
unimportant.

Tracheloteuthis (2) sp. (Pl. XXXI. figs. 6-10).

Habitat.—South Pacific, November 5, 1875; surface at night. One specimen.

November 11, 1875; surface. Two specimens (stained with carmine and mounted
in glycerine as microscopic objects).

Ferée Channel, August 8, 1882; surface. One specimen.

Pl. XXXI. figs. 6, 7 represents a young Cephalopod which I have been unable to
refer to any species hitherto described, but it is so exceedingly immature that it would
not be justifiable to make it the type of a new species, and I therefore content myself
with publishing these drawings and a few remarks, in the hope that at some future time
it may find its true systematic position.

The Facies of the specimen is exceedingly like that of a Cranchia, so that in my
first examination of the Challenger material I referred it to that group without any
hesitation ; closer examination failed to disclose the three connections between the
mantle and the head, even though in order to obtain complete certainty in this point I
dismounted one specimen and made an incision down the ventral aspect of the mantle.

The Body is subcylindrical, elongated, and comparatively very large, presenting in
this respect a marked contrast to Loligo, Sepia, and other forms whose young stages are
well known. The jins are small and terminal, and so folded that their true shape is
difficult to determine, but they appear each to have been transversely oval. The
mantle-cavity is as large as in Cranchia, Taonius or Tracheloteuthis, and in the mounted
specimens in which it has become apparently wider, owing to compression, the head at
the end of a kind of stem projects from it like a clapper from a bell. The siphon

1 Measured from the eye.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 167

(Pl. XXXI. fig. 9) is short, entirely concealed within the mantle, and recurved, and at its
base bears an elongated, oval, articular depression for articulation with the mantle, the
corresponding part of which consists of a fine linear ridge, as in the Onychians, Taono-
teuthids and Tracheloteuthis; it is connected with the head by two rudimentary but
distinct ligaments, and has the prominent musculi depressores infundibuli which form
such a striking character of the last mentioned form. I was unable to ascertain whether
a valve is present. It agrees with Zracheloteuthis also in the posterior position of the
viscera.

The Head is long, the eyes occupying the antero-inferior angles of it (fig. 8); the
bright shining spherical lenses are clearly visible protruding from the body of the eye;
over each eye is a chromatophore. The mouth is elevated on a process longer than
the arms.

The Arms are quite rudimentary, the second pair being the longest, the others sub-
equal; they bear one or two suckers.

The Tentacles are short and stout without distinct clubs, but with suckers in four
rows at the extremities, and reaching down the greater part of the stem.

The Gladius extends the whole length of the mantle, and is linear, somewhat
expanded behind.

Dimensions.
Length, total, : : : ; : ‘ . about 14 mm.
End of body to mantle-margin, . : 3 : E , Qs
Breadth of body, . : : : F : : Bop
Breadth of head, . ; : é : : : : oH La ier
Length of tentacle, a ; ; : : é about)! 3s,

Bathyteuthis, Hoyle.

Bathyteuthis, Hoyle, Narr. Chall. Exp., vol. i. p. 272, May 1885.
Benthoteuthis, Vervill, Third Catal., p. 401, July 1885.

Body long, cylindrical, tapering but slightly behind ; fins subterminal, small and
rounded ; mantle-connective an elongated linear ridge fitting into a similar shorter groove
on the base of the siphon, which is provided with a valve but has no dorsal bridles.

Head large, very broad, with prominent eyes.

Arms very short, slender and conical; suckers very minute and in two or four
series. Buccal membrane large, with seven points, each bearing one or two
suckers.

Tentacles long slender, without expanded clubs, but with numerous minute suckers.

Gladius resembling that of Ommastrephes in front but expanded in the posterior
third.

168 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Buthyteuthis abyssicola, Hoyle (Pl. XXIX. figs. 1-7).

1885. Bathyteuthis abyssicola, Hoyle, Narr. Chall. Exp., vol. i. p. 272, fig.108.
1885. 35 ss Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. II., p. 309, fig. 2.

Habitat.—Station 147, Southern Ocean, between Marion Island and the Crozets,
December 30, 1873 ; lat. 46° 16’ S., long 48° 27’ E; 1600 fathoms; Diatom ooze. One
specimen.

The Body is subcylindrical, somewhat narrowing towards and bluntly rounded at the
posterior extremity. The fins are small, separate ; each is somewhat rectangular in shape,
with rounded angles, and attached to the body by one angle. The mantle-margin is
almost transverse, but projects slightly in the dorsal median line, and forms a shallow
sinus behind each eye and the siphon. The mantle-connective (fig. 2) consists of a long
linear ridge, extending quite to the margin, and fitting into a corresponding, but somewhat
shorter and broader, groove on the base of the s¢phon, which is short, tapering, and
bluntly pointed, and fits into a shallow depression below the head, but has no dorsal bridles.

The Head is much broader than the body, being distended laterally by the enormous
eyes, which look outwards and forwards, and have bright, prominent, glistening lenses.

The Arms (fig. 3) are unequal, the order of length being 4, 3, 2, 1, and about one-
fourth the length of the body: they are all conical, and taper to slender points ; each has
a distinct angle along the outer side, which expands to a distinct web in the fourth pair ;
there is also a very narrow delicate web along each side of the sucker-bearing face. The
suckers (fig. 4) are very minute, pedunculate, and are arranged in two irreeular rows,
almost embedded in the arm; they are spheroidal, the horny ring has five or six blunt-
pointed teeth and is surrounded by two or three rows of conical papillee. No hectocotylisa-
tion was observed in the specimen. The buccal membrane (fig. 8) is very large, has
the usual seven points, connected by ligaments with the arms; each point bears one or
two suckers.

The Tentacles are almost equal in length to the head and body together; the stem is
very slender, cylindrical, and grooved along the inner aspect (fig. 5 ); they taper away
rapidly towards the extremity, no club being formed: the suckers cover only the distal
eighth of the tentacle in its inner aspect ; they are smaller than those of the sessile arms,
and almost imperceptible to the naked eye; they are urn-shaped, and have a smooth
horny ring, surrounded by about two rows of very small papillee (fig. 6).

The Surface is covered with minute wrinkles, probably due to the action of the spirit.

The Colour is a very deep purplish-brown.

The Gladius (fig. 7) was unfortunately somewhat damaged; for the anterior two-
thirds it resembles that of an Ommastrephes, but posteriorly it expands into a broad blade
resembling that of Loligo; although somewhat damaged during the extraction it was still

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 169

possible to ascertain that it does not form a terminal cone like that of Ommastrephes or
Taonius.

Dimensions.

End of body to mantle-margin, . : : é : : 40 mm.

End of body to eye, 0 : : ‘ é : 4 XO)

Breadth of body, . : 3 : ‘ : : : ne ee

Breadth of head, . § ; : : ; : : Si

Eye to edge of umbrella, . : : ; ; : , TWO) 65

Length of fin, . ; : j , ; : ; tfkioess

Breadth of fin, . : : : 2 ; : A 1K 55

Breadth of each lobe, A : : é : p ; Gh e

Right. Left.

Length of first arm, : A : j : : = 16°5 mm. 16 mm.
Length of second arm, . j 4 ; 6 F : 16 9 Gis.
Length of third arm, . : : : , : ‘ 15 5 NS)
Length of fourth arm, . ‘ ‘ ; : : ; 15 NB)
Leneth of tentacle, : F : F : : 3 55 ~ 45 ,,

Notwithstanding the great distance between the localities where this species and
Verrill’s Benthoteuthis megalops* were captured, it seems quite possible that they may
ultimately prove to be the same species. The chief differences seem to be the absence of
the angular sinus in the eyelid in the Challenger specimen, the greater comparative size of
the head, (though this may be explicable by the individual being smaller), and the suckers
on the sessile arms being for the most part in two, not in four, series ; but the two rows
in the Challenger specimen are very irregular, and if but slightly more so might easily be
regarded as four.

Verrill has called attention to certain embryonic characters in this genus, which are
certainly very striking, namely, the size and position of the fins, the short arms, and
more particularly the shape of the head, with the eyes situated at the anterior angles of
a roughly quadrate mass.

The pen is very remarkable, exhibiting a combination of the characters of Ommastrephes
and Loligo ; I greatly regret that the posterior extremity was damaged in extracting it
so that I have been unable to depict the extreme end on the plate ; the dotted line
indicates what seemed to have been the original form.

Certain other structural peculiarities of this animal seem to fit it for an abyssal
existence ; the small fins are in marked contrast to those of most pelagic species,
although some genera which are characteristic surface forms such as Cranchia and
Idiosepius have fins quite as small: the minute suckers and delicate tentacles appear
but little fitted for raptorial purposes; while on the other hand the large circumoral
membrane would seem well adapted for collecting nutritive matters from an oozy bottom.

It is uncertain to what family this form rightly belongs ; it is possible that a new one

will eventually be required for its reception.
1 Third Catal., p. 402.
(ZOOL, CHALL. EXP.-—PART XLIV.—1886.) Xx 22

170 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Subfamily MasticoTevTHIp#, Verrill.

Mastigoteuthis, Verrill.

Mastigoteuthis agassiz, Verrill (Pl. XXIX. figs. 8-10).
1881. Mastigoteuthis Agassizii, Vl, “ Blake” Rep., p. 100, pls.i, i. figs. 2, 3.
1881. * “ VIL, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 297, pls. xlviii., xlix. figs. 2, 3.
1884. *, os VIL, Second Catal., p. 243.

Habitat.—Station 2, south-west of Tenerife, Febuary 17, 1873; lat. 25° 52’ N., long.
19° 22’ W.; 1945 fathoms ; Globigerina ooze. Fragments of a tentacle, found adhering
to the dredge rope.

Off North Carolina, U.S.A; lat. 334° to 343° N., long. 753° to 76° W., and 647 to
1632 fathoms (Verrill).

When these fragments were obtained Dr. von Willemoes-Suhm mounted several of the
suckers as microscopic objects, and his diary has the following mention of the occurrence :
“The arms of a cuttle-fish were brought up having suckers which show a horny denticula-
tion of the finest arrangement. See preparations.”

From these preparations the drawings on Pl. XXIX. have been made, which show the
tentacular suckers to be hood-shaped, with a rather small aperture and a horny ring bear-
ing from six to eight strong, pointed teeth, and surrounded by a broad papillary area, with
two rows of spinous papillee.

A thickened band of the horny material extends round the posterior and proximal
part of the sucker, where it is visible through the integuments (fig. 9).

The fragments picked up by the Challenger have a combined length of 42 em. or about
one-third longer than the tentacle measured by Verrill.

The sucker-bearing portion is about 18°5 cm. long, and the greatest diameter (4 mm.)
is about 7 cm. from the extremity; at the proximal part of the sucker-bearing portion
the diameter has diminished to 3°5 mm. and a fragment which was apparently still nearer
the base measures only 2°75 mm. From these dimensions it may be concluded that the
specimen was of considerably greater magnitude than the larger of the two measured by
Verrill, its total length from the posterior extremity to the end of the sessile arms
having presumably been about 30 cm.

No portion of the present tentacle (of which the extreme tip has fortunately been
preserved) is entirely surrounded by suckers, as Verrill indicates to have been the case
with his examples, although his figure (op. cit., pl. xlviii.) hardly agrees with this ; and at
the widest portion of the tentacle almost exactly half its circumference is covered by
suckers.

This difference, and also the fact that the tentacle instead of tapering gradually

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 171

throughout its whole length as stated by Verrill, is distinctly thickened in the middle of
the club may indicate specific or varietal distinctness, but with our present knowledge
it would be very undesirable to give this formal expression.

Family XI. Ony cuit, Steenstrup.

Subfamily ONYcHOTEUTHID, Gray.
Enoploteuthis, VOrbigny.

Enoploteuthis margaritifera, Riippell (Pl. X XIX. fig. 11).
1844. Enoploteuthis margaritifera, Riippell., Giorn. Gab. Messina, t. xxvi. p. 2, fig. 1.

1851. m Pe Vér., Céph. médit., p. 82, pl. xxx. fig. a.

1858. B Claus, Archiv f. Naturgesch., Jahrg. xxiv., Bd. i. p. 262, Taf.
3G 10, 2,

1879. op +5 Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. i. p. 172.

Habitat.—Station 195, off Amboina, October 3, 1874; lat. 4° 21’S., long. 129° 7’ E. ;
1425 fathoms; blue mud. One specimen.

Station 271, Central Pacific, September 6, 1875; lat. 0° 33’ S., long. 151° 34’ W.;
2425 fathoms; Globigerina ooze. One specimen.

Mediterranean (Riippell, Vérany, Claus).

These two specimens were found at localities widely separate from each other, and
from the original habitat of the species, but still they exhibit no characters which would
justify their separation. The specimen from the Central Pacific does not possess the
round spots under the eye from which the specific name is derived, but since these are
invisible below one eye of the other individual, and indistinct below the other, I do not
think that much stress can be laid upon this.

The number of hooks upon the tentacular arms appears to vary between three and
four ; and the body is more slender and the fin more rounded than in Vérany’s figure,
approximating to that of Claus (loc. cvt.).

Tryon’s account of this species (Joc. cit.) contains a mistake which can only be the
result of his having translated Vérany without taking the trouble to read the context.
He says “ distinguished. . . . by the sessile arms having two rows of cups and one of
hooks.” It is true this is an exact rendering of Vérany (op. cit. p. 83), ‘but if Mr. Tryon
had reflected upon this statement for a moment, he would have perceived that an animal
with such a character could not possibly belong to the genus Hnoploteuthis, and if he had
taken the trouble to read Vérany’s description on the preceding page he would have seen
the sessile arms described thus: “Tous ces bras sont armés d'une double rangée de
tubercules charnus, enveloppant une griffe ;” while the tentacles are described as “ terminiés

172 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S8. CHALLENGER.

par une massue lanceolée, armée d'une double rangée de trés petites cupules sessiles, dont
les plus grosses sont celles de la base, et d’une rangée latérale de quatre griffes.” The con-
clusion from which is unavoidable, that in the passage translated there is a misprint
or lapsus calami of “ sessiles”” for ‘ tentaculaires.”

Whence Tryon’s statement (/oc. cit.) that there are “two specimens only known” is
derived I cannot say; Gray’ mentions the existence of two examples in the British
Museum (which are still preserved) presented to him by Riippell, who probably did not
part with the whole of his collection.

Tryon’s definition of the genus Enoploteuthis (op. cit. p. 107) is inaccurate; the
phrase “ tentacles with hooks only ” is contradicted by the figure he himself gives (pl. Ixxy.
fig. 317, copied from Vérany) of the tentacle of this very form. Vérany’s figure is,
however, not very accurate, and I have therefore given one taken from the specimen
from Amboina (fig. 11); this shows the proximal group of suckers not only to be much
larger than indicated in the above-mentioned drawing, but to consist partly of suckers
and partly of fixing cushions (“‘ Heeftepuder,” Steenstrup). The hooks vary in number
between three and four; the club from which the drawing was made had only two, but
as there was a vacant space from which it had evidently fallen out I have supplied the
deficiency.

Onychoteuthis, Lichtenstein.
Onychoteuthis, sp.

Habitat.—Off Valparaiso, October 21, 1875, between the surface and 30 fathoms;
and North Atlantic, April 12, 1876; surface. Too young and ill preserved for deter-
mination.

Teleoteuthis, Verrill.

Onychia, Lesueur.
Onychoteuthis, Auctt. (pars).

Teleoteuthis caribbea (Lesueur), Verrill (Pl. XXX. figs. 1-8).

1821. Onykia carribea, Les., Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., vol. ii. p. 98, pl. ix. fig. 1, 2 a-e.

1836. Loligo laticeps, Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. ii. p. 108, pl. xxi. figs. 6-11.

1837. Cranchia perlucida, Rang, Mag. de Zool., pl. xciv.

1839. Onychoteuthis cardioptera, @Orb., Céph. acét., p. 333; Cranchies, pl. iv.; Onychot.,
pl. v. figs. 4-6 (pars ?).

1849. Onychia cardioptera, Gray, B.M.C., p. 57.

1851. Loligo alessandrinii (?), Vér., Céph, médit., p. 99, pl. xxxv. figs., f. g. h.

1880. Onychia caribea, Stp., Ommat. Blekspr., p. 96.

1882. Teleoteuthis carribxa, VU., Ceph. N. E. Omer. (Fish Comm. Rep.), p. 70.

fabitat.—North Atlantic, between St. Thomas, West Indies, and Bermuda ; surface.
Three specimens.
1B, M. C,, p. 48.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 173

?North Pacific, off Volcano Island, April 3, 1875; about lat. 24° 49’ N., long.
138° 34’ E.; surface. Three specimens.

* North Pacific, near the same locality, April 5, 1875; surface. One specimen.

Gulf of Mexico, Gulf Stream, ‘“‘ amongst fuci” (Lesueur), North Atlantic, surface
(Owen), Atlantic Ocean (d’Orbigny, Steenstrup).

The specimens marked with a query are small and badly preserved, so that their
identification is by no means certain ; some doubt is also thrown upon it by the fact
that the species has not hitherto been found except in the Atlantic, but in a creature of
such pronounced pelagic habit much stress need not be laid upon this.

Owen's figure of the whole animal is very good, but no satisfactory drawing of the
elub appears yet to have been published, so I give one of it.

The tentacular club (fig. 1) is only slightly expanded, but has a broad web along
its distal half. On the proximal portion (‘“ wrist” of various authors) it bears a group of
seven to nine suckers, and the same number of fixing cushions, beyond which are four
series of hooks and suckers, the latter being situated along the margins, the former in the
centre. The first transverse row contains suckers only, the second has two suckers
outside, and between them two whose horny ring shows an early stage of hook formation
(fig. 4). The hook becomes gradually more prominent (fig. 5), and is best marked in the
sixth and seventh rows, where they have the form shown in the drawings (figs. 6, 7).
The muscular part entirely covers the horny part of the hook in all those specimens,
even the point being protected by a sort of membranous hood (fig. 7), but by mount-
ing in Canada balsam they become quite transparent, and the outline of the hook itself
shows clearly through.

There are about eight rows of hooks, beyond which the club bears three (or four ¢)
irregular rows of minute suckers (fig. 3), whose horny ring bears five long acute teeth.
The large marginal suckers (fig. 2), have four or five long pointed teeth, and a
papillary area with two rows of spinous papille. In the specimen figured the flexible
floor of the sucker intrudes very far into its cavity.

Subfamily GonaTIpDZ&, nov.

Gonatus, Gray, 1879.

Sepia loligo, Fabricius.

Onychoteuthis, Lichtenstein, Moller, Middendorff.
Owenia, Prosch (pars).

Lestoteuthis, Verrill (pars).

Cheloteuthis, Verrill.

174 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Gonatus fabricii (Lichtenstein), Steenstrup.

1780. Sepia loligo, Fabr., Faun. greenl., p. 358.
1818. Onychoteuthis fabricti, Licht., Sepien mit Krallen, p. 13.

1842. 3 5 Meller, Ind. Moll. greenl., p. 3.
1842. Bs (2) amoena, Moller, Ibid., p. 3.
1849, “ kamtschatica, Middff., Mém. Acad. Sci. St. Petersb., sér. 6, t. vi.

p. 515, pl. xii. figs. 1-6.
1849. Gonatus amena, Gray, B.M.C., p. 68.
1858. Gonatus amana, Adams, Gen. Ree. Moll., p. 36, pl. iv. fig. 2.
1876. Leachia borealis, Jeffreys, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., vol. xxv. p. 180 (erv.).
1876. » hyperborea, Jeffreys, Ibid., p. 193 (pars).
1878. Gonatus amoenus, Sars, Moll. Reg. Arct. Norv., p. 336, tab. xxxi.
1880. Lestoteuthis kamtschatica, VU., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 251.
1880. Gonatus fabricti, Stp., Sthenoteuthis og Lestoteuthis, p. 9, pl. i.
1881. » WIL, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 291, pl. xlv. figs. 1, 2.
1881. Cheloteuthis rapax, Vil., Ibid., p. 293, pl. xlix. fig. 1.
1881. Lestoteuthis fabricit, V., Ibid., pp. 387-393, pl. xlv. figs. 1, 2; pl. xlix. fig. 1; pl. lv.
fig. 1.
1882. Gonatus fabrict, Stp., Note Teuthol. L., p. 143.

Habitat.—Lat. 58° 45’ N., long. 48° 39’ W., August 15, 1875. Taken by the tow-
net during the cruise of H.M.S. “ Valorous.” Two young specimens.

Lat. 59° 16’ N., long. 37° 16’ W. Washed on board H.M.S. “ Valorous”* during a
gale.?

Whole of Davies Strait, south and east of Greenland, lat. 58° to 61° N.,
long. 16° 52’ W.; Iceland; Ferés, Atlantic, deep water; Mediterranean ; South of Cape
of Good Hope, lat. 40° S., long. 15° 18’ E. (Steenstrup) ; Porsangerfjord, Norway; Coast
of Finmark, Norway (Sars); Kamtschatka (Middendorff); Japan (Steenstrup, Leiden
Museum); Seal Island, Nova Scotia, from the stomach of a cod (Verrill) ; one hundred
miles south of Newport, R.I., from the stomach of a fish (Verrill).

This remarkable form has received perhaps more maltreatment at the hands of
teuthologists than any other of its class, as will appear from the above extensive
synonymy. ‘The most complete and reliable information we possess regarding it is in
Professor Steenstrup’s papers, but as these have by no means received the attention they
deserved, owing probably to their having appeared in the Danish language, I shall make
no apology for reproducing considerable portions of them here.

The genus Gonatus is defined as differing from all others of the same group in the
following characters °—

1 This is the specimen alluded to by Dr. Gwyn Jeffreys in the “Valorous” Report (Joc. cit. supra); he is mistaken,
however, in stating that it was the same species as that obtained during the first cruise of H.M.S. “ Porcupine,”
that being Taonius hyperboreus (see p. 191). The label on’ the bottle bears the name “ Leachiaellipsoptera,” written in

pencil and almost erased.
2 Sthenoteuthis og Lestoteuthis, p. 10.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 175

1. The Arms have each four series of suckers or hooks, whilst all other (igopsids
have only two.

2. The Ventral Arms possess only suckers in all the four series, whilst the
other arms have two series of suckers along the margins, and two series
of hooks up the centre; a variation in the armature which is hitherto
known in no other Enoploteuthid nor indeed in any Onychian at all. '

3. The Tentacles are furnished even from a point low down upon the stem with
regularly disposed longitudinal series of small suckers and corresponding
fixing-cushions, which allow of the tentacles being attached throughout
almost their whole length, an arrangement seen in no other Onychian.

4, The Connective Apparatus is continued up one side of the club, where it
forms a group of five or six large suckers and fixing cushions, whilst the
middle of the club itself is occupied by a very short series of two large and
three very small hooks, and the elongated tip of the club is covered with
small suckers. The club itself has no connective apparatus such as is seen
in most Onychians.

5. The Gladius is narrow and linear anteriorly, but broader and lanceolate in the
hinder two-thirds, whilst it ends posteriorly in a hollow cup or cone, which
has several diaphragms within it, and is not covered outside and behind by a
solid chitinous spine as is the case with most, perhaps all, Onychoteuthids
and Enoploteuthids; at all events no species hitherto known has such a
hollow cone.

6. The Fins reach some distance beyond the hinder end of the body, and their
firm saddle-shaped cartilage slides upon the terminal portion of the gladius.

7. The Radula has only five rows of teeth, instead of the usual seven.

Such a combination of characters renders the creature easy to distinguish from all
other forms, but if one of them be overlooked, as may readily happen on superficial
examination, misunderstandings regarding it are sure to arise, and this has continually
happened during the history of the species. For instance, Moller ' failed to recognise his
specimens of Onychoteuthis (?) amana, some two inches long, as the young of the Sepia
loligo of Fabricius,’ which were two or three times as large.

The latter author gave a very accurate description of the species, and it is greatly to
be regretted that he did not take an opportunity of comparing it with a specimen of the
true Sepia loligo, Linn., for he would at once have recognised its distinctness and have
given it a name which would have obtained currency; one consolation in this regard must
be the fact that Lichtenstein gave the form its discoverer’s name, which it still bears.

Gray received some specimens of this type from Moller and founded upon them the

1 Ind. Moll, greenl., p. 3. 2 Faun. greenl., p, 358.

176 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

genus Gonatus, not, however, without making several mistakes, which have since led to
great confusion. Steenstrup has tabulated the most serious of these as follows :—

a. Gray overlooked the difference between the armature of the ventral and of the
other arms, not seeing the tips of the hooks in the two median series of
suckers, as his description “all with small circular rings”! proves; the
same error reappears in the phrase “and the outer series of the cups on
the shorter arms are like the other, with circular arms and no hooks.”
Moller had rightly observed that the horny rings had often a very small hook
on the margin, but thought, wrongly, that they had fallen out or were lost in
those cases in which he did not see them (“uncinis marginalibus minutissimis
et admodum caducis [rarissime obviis] instructis ”).*

6. Gray denied the presence of the minute suckers along the stems of the tentacles
which Moller had correctly observed and recorded (“brachiis pedunculatis
per totam longitudinem cotylis preditis”), whilst Gray in his turn perceived
the hooks in the tentacular clubs whose existence Moller regarded as
doubtful. (“Uncinos in brachiis ped. nondum vidi; fortasse tamen adsunt,
sed eeque caduci ac uncini brachiorum sessilium.”)

c. Gray states that the siphon has “no interior valve,” and that it is “without
superior central band”; and

d. That the gladius has no terminal cup, although in other respects his description
of it is correct.

Nothing was added to our knowledge of this form between 1849 and 1878, when
Professor G. O. Sars published* some figures and a description of a small specimen
captured in the Porsangerfjord, concerning which Steenstrup makes the following
criticisms :? —

“Tn the enlarged details of portions of an arm, and of suckers from the median and
lateral series, any one who is acquainted with Gonatus will readily recognise its
characters, and will also see in fig. 10 an approximate though not quite accurate
representation of its tentacles. The same holds of fig. 11, which represents the most
important middle portion of a tentacular club, except that the connective apparatus is
omitted both in the drawing® and in the text. As regards the gladius, the ventral
aspect of which is shown in fig. 4, its terminal cone has been laid open in the middle
line and spread out on either side, instead of being retained in its proper conical shape
with which agrees also the expression in the text ‘extremitate postico leviter
cochleariformi.’

T3Be MC. ps 672 2 Op. cit., p. 68. 3 Ind. Moll. grenl., p. 3.

4 Moll. Reg. Arct. Norv., p. 336, tab. xxi. 5 Op. cit., p. 14.

° There are a number of minute dots along the arm which seem to me as though intended to suggest the presence
of minute suckers.—W. E. H.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 177

“The additions which must be made to Sars’ description are in the direction of further
detail, for the expressions used in characterising the structure of the arms and tentacles
‘of this remarkable form are too general and undecided. It is not mentioned that the
median suckers on three pairs of arms bear true hooks, nor that in this respect the
ventral arms differ from the others, nor that the tentacles are provided with a connective
apparatus both on the stem and on the club. Nevertheless, figs. 10, 11 leave no doubt
that they were drawings from a Gonatus whose characters were not sharply perceived,
while fig. 5, part of an arm with its four series of suckers, figs. 6, 7, 8, a sucker from the
middle, and fig. 9, one from the lateral series, show clearly that there were two series of
hooks and two of true suckers.”

In 1880, Professor Verrill," misled no doubt by Gray’s errors and Sars’ omissions,
made Onychoteuthis kamtschatica, Middendorff, the type of a separate genus under the
name Lestoteuthis, without recognising its identity with Gonatus, including also in it
Dall’s Onychoteuthis robusta (since made the type of a genus Moroteuthis, and since
shown by Steenstrup to belong to Ancistroteuthis). Verrill’s paper was followed by that
of Steenstrup,” from which the above quotations have been made, but whilst it was
passing through the press Verrill published the second part of his monograph,’ in which
he described a specimen of Gonatus fabricii, taken from the stomach of a cod, but still
without recognising it as identical with Onychoteuthis kamtschatica, Middendorff (his
Lestoteuthis), and in his Report on the “ Blake” Cephalopods, 1881, published the genus
Cheloteuthis, which, however, he speedily abandoned as synonymous with Lestotewthis.*

In the appendix to his Monograph,’ Verrill introduces another Cephalopod from
Cumberland Gulf, which is said to have ‘ four rows of true suckers on all the arms, and
no hooks.” This he is disposed, still misled by Gray’s inaccurate description, to regard
as doubtless “the real Gonatus amanus, Gray.” Steenstrup in a second paper ® has
pointed out the untenability of this view, and having recently examined Gray’s types of
Gonatus amenus in the British Museum, I can quite corroborate all his statements
regarding their absolute identity with Gonatus fabric. What this Cumberland Gulf
specimen really was has never transpired, as no further information about it has been
published, but seeing the ease with which the hooks of Gonatus are overlooked, it is
not impossible that it may also be referable to that genus.

Owenia, Prosch, which appears in the list of generic synonyms above, demands
merely a few words of explanation; the Danish naturalist received along with his
Cranchia megalops some small Cephalopods, which he wrongly regarded as being iden-
tical with it, and he was induced to separate his new species as a subgenus of Cranchia
owing to the mantle not being directly continuous with the head dorsally, a character

1 Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 250. 2 Sthenoteuthis og Lestoteuthis.

3 Ceph. N. E. Amer., pp. 259-446. 4 Op. cit., p. 388. 5 Op. cit, p2X88.

® Note Teuthol., I.

(ZOOL. CHALL., EXP, —PART XLIv.—1886.) Xx 23

ta

178 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

found only in the wrongly identified specimens, which were afterwards shown by
Steenstrup to be small specimens of Gonatus fabrici, so that the subgenus Owenia lost
all locus standv.

The result of all this is a list of synonyms anything but pleasant to contemplate, but
since the publication of the excellent plate in Steenstrup’s first mentioned paper it will
be difficult for any observer to mistake this form in the future.

The specimens which have come into my hands from the “ Valorous” expedition
are all small and have not enabled me to add anything of consequence to the descriptions
which have gone before, but it appeared worth while to make their occurrence in the
collection an opportunity for giving a resumé of the literature regarding this interest-
ing form.

Family XII. TaonotTeurat, Steenstrup.
Subfamily CurroreuTHips, Gray.
Chiroteuthis, VOrbigny.

Chiroteuthis (?), sp. (Pl. XXXI. figs. 1-5).

Habitat.—Pacific Ocean. Fragments of a gladius taken from the stomach of a shark,
September 2, 1875.

One of the most curious specimens in the collection is this much damaged and frag-
mentary pen, for if I am correct in referring it to Chiroteuthis, that genus must attain
dimensions which have been hitherto quite unsuspected.

The portions preserved are ten in number, of which three are mere scraps and give
no information regarding the form of the complete structure. The largest piece is
22°5 cm. in length; with a maximum and minimum depth of 2 cm. and 1°5 cm.
respectively, while the breadth varies from 0°85 to 1 cm. The form of its section at
the larger and presumably the anterior end is shown in fig. 3: it is in fact a lamella,
thickest in the mid-dorsal line where it is sharply folded to form a keel, thence it
passes in two curves (like cow) outwards, then downwards, and finally inwards towards
the median line again. Whether the margins of the lamellze were fused at this point,
as will be seen to be the case in the posterior portion, cannot now be decided, but as in
the majority of pens the anterior portion is flat and open, there is no reason for doubting
that this was the portion where the opening began to take place.

The smaller extremity of the fragment in question has a section of the form shown in
fig. 4, which was drawn, however, from a portion situated slightly farther back ; it closely

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 179

resembles the other end, but the lamina is here thicker, and the ventral margins have
fused, forming a closed quadrangular tube.

The next portion is quite similar in form, and from a consideration of its breadth
and depth must have been situated posteriorly to the largest piece, and separated from it by
a distance of 2 or 3 cm.; it measures 5 cm. in length. The next piece is 6°5 cm. long,
and evidently fitted closely to the one just mentioned; this appears to have been followed
by a piece 6 em. long, separated from it by about 1 cm., and finally there is a portion
8:5 cm. long succeeding to this, but separated from it by about 5 cm. All these portions
resemble the first in the form of their transverse section, and taper gradually backwards,
so that the posterior extremity of the last has a depth of 6 mm. and a breadth of 4°5 mm.,
as shown in fig. 5. This termination is, however, roughly truncated, and was evidently
not the end in the natural condition ; it probably came to a point as in most other forms.

In addition to all these there is a long strip 26°5 cm. in length which consists almost
entirely of the dorsal keel, which is here larger than in the portion first mentioned, and
it is slightly larger at one extremity than the other. The smaller end was presumably
separated by an interspace of unknown length, from the part shown in fig. 1, and on
one side it bears a piece of the lamina, 6 cm. in length, 2°5 cm. in breadth posteriorly,
and tapering to a point anteriorly (see fig. 2); the margin is perfectly smooth and even,
so that this was evidently the anterior part of the expanded lamina or blade of the pen.

The anterior extremity of the keel (fig. 4a) is 5 mm. high, 3 mm. broad at the top,
and 6 mm. at the base; it is irregularly truncated, so that it evidently did not form
the anterior extremity, and its lateral margins are also rough, so that its breadth was
originally somewhat greater than at present.

Unfortunately it is impossible to give even a probable estimate of the total length of
the pen; all the fragments and the interspaces which can be calculated with some degree
of certainty amount together to 78 cm., so that we have here a minimum; but what
was the length of the flat expanded portion of the blade, or whether indeed any portion
was actually widely spread out, there are no means of ascertaining.

The only structure known to me with which this pen can be at all compared is that
of Chiroteuthis lacertosa, as described by Verrill, but to this the resemblance is
apparently rather close. In both there is a narrow anterior portion, with a keel of very
similar form (compare his figure, pl. lvi. fig. la’ with Pl. XXXI. fig. 4a). The corre-
spondence between his figure 1a” and fig. 3 is so close as to strike any one who places
them side by side. The likeness is, I think, sufficient to prove that the forms belong at
any rate to closely allied genera.

Professor Steenstrup has also told me that the specimen of Doratopsis vermicularis,
in the Copenhagen Museum, has a pen somewhat resembling this, but as I did not see
that specimen during my visit I can give no particulars regarding the comparison ; it
will be described and figured, however, in one of his forthcoming papers,

180 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Mistiopsis,’ Hoyle.

Body resembling Calliteuthis, Verrill, in shape and in the pigment spots scattered
over it. Siphon with a suspensory ligament and a valve.

Head large and broad ; eyes very large.

Arms webbed to some extent between the dorsal, dorso-lateral, and lateral pairs.
Suckers small in two series.

Tentacles truncated in the only known specimen.

Gladius resembing that of Loligo, but short and broad.

This genus is erected for a unique specimen which was brought up by the trawl in
the middle of the South Atlantic; as will appear in the sequel it presents characters
which show it to occupy a position intermediate between Calliteuthis and Histioteuthis.

Histiopsis atlantica, Hoyle (Pl. XXX. figs. 9-15).

1885. Histiopsis atlantica, Hoyle, in Narr. Chall. Exp., vol. i. p. 273 (nomen tantum).
1885. 5 3 Hoyle, Diagnoses II., p. 201.
1885. 59 ¥ Hoyle, Prelim. Rep. IL, p. 306.

Habitat.—Station 333, Mid-South Atlantic, March 13, 1876; lat. 35° 36’ S.,
long. 21° 12’ W.; 2025 fathoms; Globigerina ooze. One specimen, ¢.

The Body is short and conical ; acuminate and curving gently downwards posteriorly.
The jin is about one-third the length of the body and considerably broader than long ;
each half is roughly semicircular and narrows into its insertion both in front and
behind. The mantle-margin is in general transverse, but projects slightly as a blunt
rounded angle in the dorsal median line. The mantle-connective consists of a groove
with a narrow median fillet in the mid-dorsal line fitting into a corresponding cartilaginous
surface on the back of the neck, and of a long linear ridge extending up to the margin,
which fits into a shorter. groove on the base of the siphon; this is broad, short, and
conical, has a thick suspensory ligament, through the skin of which two muscles may be
distinguished, and a distinct valve.

The Head is as large as the body, rounded at the sides, and flattened above and
below. The eyes appear to have been enormous, one is distended and protrudes from its
orbit, whilst the other is shrivelled (fig. 9). There is no auricular crest nor preocular
pore, but behind each eye is a white papilla.

The Arms are about equal in length to the head and body together; the dorsal are

' Contracted from “ Histioteuthopsis.” There being only one species the generic diagnosis is of course merely
provisional.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 181

the shortest, the other three pairs subequal, the order of length being 3, 4, 2, 1; they
are quadrilateral, with rounded angles externally, with two slightly raised ridges
internally, on which the suckers are situated ; they taper gradually to very slender tips ;
the third pair have a delicate narrow web along the third quarter of their outer aspect.
The suckers are in two series throughout; they are small and distant along the proximal
third (the webbed portion) of the arms, then larger and closer, and finally minute and
very closely set towards the tips; they are set transversely on short conical peduncles,
spheroidal, with a swollen band round the face. The horny ring (figs. 12, 13 ) is smooth
proximally, distally it bears about five close-set, broad, bluntly rounded teeth; the smaller
proximal suckers have a smooth ring (fig. 14). No trace of hectocotylisation could be
found on any of the arms. The umbrella is found only between the dorsal, dorso-lateral,
and lateral arms; it takes origin from the sucker-bearing ridge and extends about one-
third up the arm. The buccal membrane (fig. 11) is broad and somewhat contracted
over the mouth; it has the usual seven points, but they are very blunt and indistinct ;
it is united by three ligaments with the web between the dorsal and dorso-lateral arms,
by a ligament with the inner side of each ventro-lateral arm on its ventral aspect, and by
another to the inner surface of each ventral arm, there being altogether seven ligaments.
The membrane bears no suckers; its inner surface is much creased and folded. The
outer lip is very thin and smooth, and hidden between the creased integument of the
buccal membrane and the inner lip, which is thick and marked with irregular radial
orooves.

The Tentacles have been removed ; the stumps which remain are not half the length
of the arms ; they are quadrangular and flattened from above downwards.

The Surface bears a large number of papille, slightly elevated, resembling those of
Calliteuthis ; they are arranged most thickly on the ventral aspect of the head and body,
but there are also a few on the dorsal surface; they extend up the outer aspect of the
arms, three series on the ventral arms, two on each of the others. Near the tip of each
dorsal arm is a series of four or five black, elongate, egg-shaped swellings, gradually
diminishing in size, and forming apparently an extreme development of the papillee above
mentioned. The second pair of arms appears to have been similarly provided ; the third
has been so stripped of integument towards the tips that it is impossible to ascertain the
original condition. In the fourth the warts at the tip are quite similar to those lower
down the arm.

The Colour is a dull purplish-madder, paler above than below, the papillee are a deep
black, with a white centre, usually situated towards the anterior margin. The buccal
membrane, both sides of the umbrella, and the inner surfaces of the arms, so far as this
extends, are a deep purple.

The Gladius (fig. 15) resembles that of oligo, the anterior portion forming about
one-fourth the total length.

182 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Dimensions.

Length, total, . 5 ; A : : ‘ : 96 mm.

End of body to mantle-margin, ventrally, : : : : 2 gy

End of body to mantle-margin, dorsally, 5 : ; : 335) gh

End of body to eye, . : 3 ‘ ; : é 40 ,,

Breadth of body, 5 : : : : : : 22

Breadth of head, : 5 : i 0 : : 22 (2) .,

Eye to edge of umbrella, : . ; F : ; pees:

Length of fin, . F ; : : 2 : , i 5,

Breadth of fin, . 5 ; : ; : : ; Dies

Diameter of largest sucker on sessile arm, : ; : 5 lige

Diameter of eye, : ‘ 4 é ; F : LD aes

Diameter of lens, F , : ; ; : 6 Wes: Gs

Right Left

Length of first arm,’ , : : : ; : j 45 mm. 47 mm.
Length of second arm, : ‘ : : s : ; BL 5 56 Cs,
Length of third arm, 3 5 : - ; 2 : Domes De
Length of fourth arm, i : é : : : : KO. 5X0),

This form is evidently related both to Histioteuthis and to Calliteuthis, and in many
respects is intermediate between them. For instance, while Histioteuthis has a large
web, and Callitewthis none, Histiopsis has a web which reaches about halfway up the
arms. The dorsal bands of the siphon are present in Histioteuthis, present in Calli-
teuthis, whilst in Histiopsis they are present but concealed, and not obvious except on
close examination.

As regards the presence of a valve in the siphon of these forms there seems to be
some uncertainty; d’Orbigny”? united the genera Loligopsis, Chiroteuthis, and Histio-
teuthis in the family Loligopside, which had, amongst other characters, that of being
destitute of a siphonal valve. ‘The first of these genera, as has been already pointed out
(p. 46), has no systematic locus standi whatever ; Histioteuthis is usually described
as having no valve, as is also Chiroteuthis by Vérany,’ dOrbigny and Brock,* whilst
Verrill in a species described by him from the North Atlantic, which certainly seems
to belong to this genus, distinctly affirms that a valve is present. Professor Lankester
informs me that in a Chiroteuthis veranyt in University College Museum, London,
“there is a very small, in fact, a rudimentary valve, just a transverse fold not projecting
much” and also that he has acquired a Histioteuthis with a ‘“ well-developed valve in its
funnel.” From this it seems certain either that an error has been made by some observer
or else that one species of Chiroteuthis has a siphonal valve, whilst others have not,
which would imply that the systematic value of this structure is very much less than has
hitherto been supposed, for its presence or absence has generally been considered as

1 Measured from the centre of the eye. 2 Céph. acét., p. 320.
3 Céph. médit., p. 120. 4 Morphol. Jahrb., Bd. vi. p. 261, 1880.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 183

constant within the limits of the same family. Perhaps the readiest explanation is that
the valve being very small, Vérany and others have overlooked it in Chiroteuthis; but it
seems at present impossible to explain the discrepancy regarding Histioteuthis.

It seems advisable provisionally to rank the present form in the same family with
Calliteuthis and Histioteuthis, to which it is certainly allied, under the name Chiro-
teuthidee, Gray; which will be equivalent to d’Orbigny’s Loligopside without its type-
genus, and which seems to be uncertain in respect of the presence of a siphonal valve.

Verrill has proposed * a new family, Histioteuthidee, but in our present lack of know-
ledge on many points connected with these interesting forms the step seems to me hardly
justified, especially in view of the existence of a genus so clearly intermediate between
the two principal genera as the present.

Calliteuthis, Verrill.
Loligopsis, Owen (pas).

Calliteuthis reversa, Verrill (Pl. XX XIII. figs. 12-15).

1880. Calliteuthis reversa, Vll., Amer. Journ. Sci. and Arts, vol. xx. p. 393.
1881. ‘ » WIL, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 295, pl. xlvi. fig. 1.
1884, » », VIL, Second Catal., p. 243.

Habitat.—Station 168, east of the North Island, New Zealand, July 8, 1874; lat.
40° 28’ S., long. 177° 43’ E.; 1100 fathoms; blue mud. One immature specimen taken
at the surface.

Station 232.—The Hyalonema ground off Ino Sima Island, Japan, May 12, 1875;
lat. 35° 11’ N., long. 139° 28’ E.; 345 fathoms; green mud. One specimen.

Several stations off the eastern United States, depths 1000 to 3000 fathoms (Verrill).

Verrill’s admirable description and figures leave no room for doubt as to the identity
of the Challenger specimen with his species. The temptation is great to regard it as
also synonymous with Sir Richard Owen’s Loligopsis ocellata,’ the more so as this is
from the China Sea, while the Challenger individual was taken near Japan. The only
differences which I can discover on a careful perusal of his diagnosis are, firstly, the form
of the fin, which does not extend posteriorly beyond the extremity of the body; secondly,
the smaller relative size of the suckers, and thirdly, the fact that the horny rings of these
are extremely prominent and toothed.

The mantle-connective is a little more complicated than Verrill’s description would
indicate ; the sockets on the base of the funnel are pyriform hollows, the deeper portion
being posterior ; the ridge on the mantle itself is divided into two portions, of which the
posterior is much the more prominent, and separated by a distinct gap from the anterior,
which is low and narrow.

1 Ceph. N.E. Amer., p. 481. 2 Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. xi. p. 139.

184 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

The tentacular arm has been described but not figured by Verrill, a drawing of it is
therefore appended here (figs. 12-14); the central series of suckers should have been
represented as somewhat larger than the others as indicated by- Verrill.

The pen (fig. 15) has a short, narrow, anterior extremity expanding into a
subeaudate blade, posteriorly it curves round the hinder end of the viscera, and then is
reflected as a very thin, irregular, membranous expansion.

The fact that the same species (or at all events two closely allied species) is found
both in the Western Pacific and in the Western Atlantic is of great interest, and
especially when considered in relation with the similar distribution of Octopus januari,
Eledone verrucosa, Hledonella pygmxa, and Eledonella diaphana.

The identification of the small specimen from New Zealand is uncertain.

Family XIII. CRANCHI#FORMES, Steenstrup.
Subfamily CrancHiap&, Gray.

Cranchia, Leach.

Cranchia (Inocranchia) reinhardtii, Steenstrup (Pl. XX XI. figs. 11-14; Pl. XXXII.
figs. 1—4).

1857. Leachia Reinhardtii, Stp., Hectocotyldannelsen, p. 200.
1861. Cranchia Reinhardtii, Stp., Overblik, p. 76.
1879. Loligopsis Reinhardtti, Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. i. p. 165.
(nec.) 1882. Cranchia Reinhardtit, Brock, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool., Bd. xxxvi. p. 605.
1884. Perotis Reinhardtit, Rochebr., Monogr. Loligops., p. 25.
(nec.) 1884. Cranchia ef. Reinhardtii, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 29.

i

Habitat.—Station 106, August 25, 1873; lat. 1° 47’ N., long. 24° 26’ W.; depth,
1850 fathoms. ‘Two young specimens, in all probability from the surface. '

North Atlantic, lat. 15° to 28° N., long. 18° to 32° W. (Steenstrup); within the
Tropics, longitude of the Azores (Kiel Museum, fide Steenstrup).

The Body (fig. 4) is rotund and barrel-shaped, the diameter being greater than half
the length, bluntly rounded behind; a little in advance of the posterior extremity on
the dorsal surface is a process containing the end of the pen (figs. 2, 3), to it are
attached the fins for about half their length. They are subquadrate, the posterior angles
being better marked than the anterior; they are attached by their inner margins, for
the anterior moiety to the process of the body above mentioned, for the posterior to
each other. The mantle-margin passes anteriorly in even curves from one point of
attachment to another. From the point of attachment at either side of the funnel,

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 185

which is indicated by a cartilage-like speck in the body wall, there extend backwards
two cartilage-like lines (fig. 11), diverging at an angle of some 60°, each of which bears
about thirteen minute pointed papille; a similar row stands upon the tissue covering
the gladius in the middle of the back. The siphon is short, bluntly conical, and usually
projects only very little above the margin of the mantle.

The Head is very short but broad; the eyes are prominent and the lens protrudes
from the larger portion of the organ; behind the eye is a papilla, and in front of and
below it are several minute, white, spherical bodies (fig. 1), which in many cases are
embedded in a prominent, irrecularly-shaped mass of tissue.

The Arms (fig. 1) are short and very unequal, their order of length being 38, 4, 2, 1
(in some specimens 4 and 2 are almost equal); the third pair being twice as long as the
second and three times as long as the first. Each arm bears two rows of minute pedun-
culate suckers (fig. 13), which have smooth horny rings. The umbrella extends halfway
up the dorsal arms, and is of about the same breadth between them and the second and
between these and the third, while it is absent between the ventral arms and between
them and the third pair. The buccal membrane has five points, below it passes into
two fillets which run side by side, separated by a narrow groove, to join the ventral arms
(fig. 1). The outer lip is thin; the inner thick and rounded, both being smooth.

The Tentacles (fig. 12) are comparatively stout, twice as thick as the sessile arms,
very slightly thickened towards the club, and then tapering to exceedingly fine points.
The club has a very narrow delicate web up either side, and bears four rows of pedun-
culate suckers (fig. 14). These are rather larger at the middle of the club than at either
end, and those of the two median series are slightly larger than the lateral ones; at the
tip they are exceedingly minute ; and two series of very small ones commence about half
way up the stem and continue up to the club. They are spheroidal in form and oblique,
with a small aperture, and a smooth horny ring, surrounded by long, narrow, radially
disposed papille, from which radial grooves pass towards the margin.

The Colour (in the spirit specimens) is pale, almost white, semitransparent.

The Surface is smooth but for the papillz above described.

The Gladius is as long as the mantle, very narrow, and slightly expanded behind into
a lanceolate extremity.

The above description has been drawn up from specimens kindly lent to me by
Professor Steenstrup ; those obtained by the Challenger were young, only 7 to 8 mm.
long in the body, and at first glance not at all unlike the figures of Cranchia megalops,
Prosch,’ and although I have no hesitation in referring them to Cranchia reinhardtii,
they present many interesting differences from the more developed forms. The fins are
smaller comparatively, the arms are shorter and have very few suckers, the dorsal arms

1 Nogle nye Cephalopoder, figs. 4, 5, 6.
(ZOOL. CHALL, EXP.—PART XLIv.—] 886.) Xx 24

186 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.8. CHALLENGER.

are represented only by papille, each bearing two suckers; the second pair are larger
than the third and bear five suckers, while each ventral arm is indicated only by one very
minute sessile sucker.

On the tentacles the suckers commence close to the base instead of half way up the
stem, whence one would be disposed to infer that the growth of these organs takes place
at the base rather than the apex. The club is not in the least expanded, and four rows
of suckers are found only at the extreme tip. Below and in front of the eye are two or
three minute white shining dots but no swollen mass of tissue. The usual four cartilage-
like bands pass down the ventral surface, but the number of papille is less than in the
adults, bemg only from seven to nine.

Iam unable to refer to this species Cranchia reinhardtii, Brock,’ and Cranchia ef.
reinhardtu, Pfeffer.” The former differs so conspicuously in the form of the body, which
indeed is more like that found in Taonius than that characteristic of Cranchia. It must
be remembered, however, that the correct pictorial reproduction of the form of these
specimens requires great care for its accomplishment. I distended the mantle-cavity of |
several specimens by means of a syringe, and only one of them (fig. 4) showed any conical
process at the posterior extremity whatever, and that was very different from the form
given in Brock’s figure. This same specimen had, however, a number of spots, of which
several situated on the ventral surface and on one fin are shown; they were not
darkly pigmented, but pale, like the rest of the body, from which they seemed to differ
in structure rather than colour; a few very faint markings could also be deciphered on
the tentacles; there seemed, however, to be no other points indicating that this form
was distinct from the others. It would be interesting should there be proved to exist
a series of forms with more or less elongated bodies connecting Cranchia with Taonius.

Dr. Pfeffer’s species, with regard to the position of which he expresses great doubt,
does not appear tome to be Cranchia reinhardtu, Steenstrup; its body-form is quite
different, resembling that of Brock’s specimen, the web between the arms is present
between the third and fourth pairs; the arms are compressed and the third and fourth
provided with a fin, the tentacles have two ridges separated by a furrow, one of which
expands into a web, and there are other smaller differences which a comparison of the
descriptions will disclose.

Whether Pfeffer’s specimen belongs to the same species as Brock’s, I have of course
no better means of ascertaining than had he.

Brock (loc. cit.) suggests on the basis of the specimen figured by him that Cranchia
remnhardtu may be the same as Cranchia maculata, Leach; and as I have recently been
able to examine the type of that species in the British Museum, it may be well to give
some account of it here.

1 Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool., Bd. xxxvi. p. 605, pl. xxxvii. fig. 4, 1882.
2 Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 29, fig. 35.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 187

The Mantle is so crumpled that it is almost impossible to ascertain its original outline,
but it seems to have been rather elongated for a Cranchia, but not so long as a Taonius.
It is fused with the head in the middle line dorsally, and also on each side in a minute
cartilaginous patch with the base of the siphon, which is short and conical. The mantle
has no tubercles, but is covered with oval black specks about 2 mm. apart. The pen
forms a thin cartilaginous line down the back, and is very slightly expanded posteriorly.
The head and arms are entirely wanting. The length is about 3 em., the breadth 1 cm.
It is readily distinguishable from Brock’s form by the absence of tubercles on the mantle,
and approaches more than any other form with which I am acquainted Dr. Pfeffer’s
Megalocranchia, which, however, there can be little doubt is based upon a small Taonius.

Cranchia sp.

Habitat—Surface between the Cape and Marion Island. One young specimen
mounted in Canada balsam.

About this portion of the cruise, Dr. v. Willemoes-Suhm notes in his diary that a few
specimens of Cranchia were taken in every haul of the tow-net, but this is the only one
that has come into my hands from this region.

Each sessile arm has only one sucker, except the ventral, which have two; the horny
ring of the suckers seems to have no teeth, but is surrounded by papille. The tentacles
have suckers with smooth rings, surrounded by two rows of papille, a point in which
they differ from those of Cranchia reinhardtii, and some of them seem to have a fringe
round the margin. The pen is not visible.

Taonius, Steenstrup.

Loligopsis (pars), VOrbigny, Tryon, de Rochebrune, &c.
Desmoteuthis, Vervill.

Procalistes, Lankester.

Phasmatopsis, de Rochebrune.

Megalocranchia (?), Pfeffer.

Body elongated, semitransparent, head comparatively small, eyes prominent, some-
times very large. Mantle united with the back of the head by a firm band, which widens
posteriorly, the surface of the back either directly continuous with that of the head, or
marked off, if at all, by an exceedingly slight fold. Mantle also connected with the
body at either side of the base of the funnel. Funnel devoid of a valve, but possessing
Verrill’s organ.!_ Fins meeting at the posterior end of the body usually in a point.

1 By this name I denote an apparatus which has been found in every species of Taonius examined by me, except
Taonius cymoctypus. Itconsists of two pads within the funnel near its base, and a little posterior to them in the middle
line one or two tubercles. It is figured by Verrill, who first noticed it, in his Desmoteuthis tenera (Ceph. N. E. Amer.,
pl. lv. fig. 2d).

188 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Arms short compared with the body, furnished with two rows of globular
suckers.

Tentacles present, and bearing four rows of suckers on the distal extremity (Taonius
pavo, doubtful as regards the last point, owing to mutilation).

Gladius long and narrow, somewhat expanded towards the fins and forming a hollow
pointed cone behind.

The genus Taonius was established by Steenstrup in 1861 to include Loligo pavo,
Lesueur, and Taonius hyperboreus, and since his description has been overlooked by most
subsequent writers it may not be out of place to translate some parts of it.

In the first place, the whole family Cranchizformes is characterised thus: ‘“ The
mantle is firmly united with the head at three separate poimts—namely, directly in the
dorsal median line, and indirectly by means of the funnel on either side of it, where there
is usually a movable sliding cartilaginous articulation or hook in other Cephalopoda.”
Then, under the heading Taonius hyperboreus, he adds: “ As soon as the relations of
the tentacles and the structure of the arms in the genus Leachia are carefully considered,
it is obvious that Loligopsis pavo, Lesueur, and Leachia hyperborea, Steenstrup, which
have hitherto been referred to it, must form a separate group. For in addition to the
fact that the latter species has, and the former seems to have had, tentacles, both have
narrow elongated fins, which extend along a large portion of the body, and are strikingly
characterised by their enormous eyes, which almost meet on the ventral surface, and by
a funnel, which is shorter and smaller than that of Leachia. The gladius agrees very
well with that of other Cranchias, but may, on the whole, be described as expanded at
the inferior extremity.’

“The generic name Yaonius is chosen more especially with reference to the longest
known species, whose beautiful coloured spots suggested the specific name pavo ; how far
similar spots may have been present on the body of my species hyperboreus, I cannot
say... . Incase a division of the genus should become desirable, I regard the older
species Lol. pavo, Les., as the type.”

It appears from these passages that Steenstrup regarded Loligo pavo, Lesueur, as the
type of his genus, and he did not consider it essential to make a long and detailed state-
ment of its characters, because d’Orbigny had already done this when in 1839 he took
Lesueur’s Loligo pavo, named it Loligopsis pavo, and then proceeded to draw up a full
generic diagnosis based upon this specimen and upon another (Taonus cymoctypus)
which he erroneously regarded as belonging to the same species; in other words, Steen-
strup’s Taonius is practically identical with d’Orbigny’s Loligopsis. It is of great
importance that this should be clearly understood, because in 1882 Professor A. E. Verrill
constituted? a new genus, Desmoteuthis, based upon a specimen captured near the

1 Overblik, p. 70. 2 Céph. N. E. Amer., p. 216.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 189

northern edge of the Gulf Stream, which he erroneously regarded as identical with Tuonius
hyperboreus, Steenstrup. Another species, Desmoteuthis tenera, Verrill, which is almost
certainly identical with the real Taonius hyperboreus,' has since been added to the genus.

The most striking character in the generic diagnosis of Desmoteuthis is “ Anterior
edge of the mantle united directly to the head, on the dorsal side, by a commissure, so
that there is no free edge medially ; . . . two additional muscular commissures unite the
lateral inner surfaces of the mantle to te sides of the siphon.” This may be compared
with the first sentence translated above from Steenstrup, and with d’ Orbigny’s description
of his genus Loligopsis,’ in which occur the following words: “ Appareil de résistance
consistant en trois larges brides, ou attaches fixes, placés au bord méme du corps, qui le
lent intimement & la téte, lune cervicale ou dorsale 4 l’extremité de la saillie médiane-de
la coquille. Les deux autres latérales inférieures au lieu ou est ordinairement Vappareil
inférieur mobile.” It seems almost impossible to resist the conclusion that he means
hereby to describe a precisely similar structure; furthermore, in the drawing of his
Loligopsis pavo,*® the dorsal margin of the mantle is shown, extending on to the head
behind the eye. The remainder of the definition of Desmoteuthis sounds almost like a
translation of that of Loligopsis, and nowhere are they in contradiction, as any one may
see who reads them side by side.

These quotations would probably suffice to show that Desmoreutis must be regarded
as a synonym of Zaonius, but in addition I have recently had the opportunity of exam-
ining the following specimens belonging to this genus :—The type specimens of Tuonius
peo and of Taonius cymoctypus in the Paris Museum, that of Taonius hyperboreus in
the Copenhagen Museum, a somewhat mutilated specimen of the same species in the
Challenger collection, and two from the “Porcupine” Expedition; a specimen of an
unpublished species which Professor Steenstrup proposes to call Tauonius elongatus *
(PL XXVIII. fig. 13); and two specimens of Taonius suhmi, from the Challenger
collection ; and on the basis of this material the above description of the genus has been
drawn up, which will, I think, leave no doubt as to its identity with Desmoteuthis. Not
only is this the case, however, but it seems also most likely that the specimen which
Verrill obtained from the northern edge of the Gulf Stream, and which he believed to
be identical with Taonius hyperboreus, was none other than Taonius pavo.

That it differs from the former of these may be seen by a most cursory examination of
the type specimen, or of Pl. XXXUI. fig. 1, and may be also seen by a careful comparison
of Verrill’s figures with Steenstrup’s description.? Taonius hyperboreus is there defined

1 Op. cit., p. 412. 2 Céph. acét., p. 320; Moll. viv., p. 368.

% Céph. acct. pl. iv. fig. 1; Moll. viv., pl. xxiii. fig. 6

* Taonius elongatus, Stp., MS., is characterised by its elongated form, by the body being broadest anteriorly and
tapering backwards at first rather suddenly, then more gradually. The fin is cordate and pointed behind like that of

Taonius sukmi but much larger, and the eyes are comparatively small.
® Overblik, p. 84.

190 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

by its differences from Taonius pavo, viz.: “ (1) the length and breadth of the fin, which
is half the length of the body and six times as long as broad; (2) the large and almost
regularly spherical suckers, which are several times larger than those of Taonius pavo,
and especially on the lateral arms attain an astonishing size, so that the largest have a
diameter as great as the breadth of the arm; and (3) the presence of a toothed marginal
membrane along all the arms.”

In every one of these characters it will be noticed that Professor Verrill’s specimen
differs from Taonius hyperboreus, and inclines rather to Taonius pavo; and further, a
careful comparison of his figures and description with those of Loligopsis pavo (Lesueur),
places it beyond all reasonable doubt that these are identical.

The general shape of the body is practically identical in the two forms, but the fin is
produced in Verrill’s drawing into “a long acute tip,” which does not appear in Lesueur’s,
but which may very well have been present originally, for the posterior extremity of the
type specimen has been injured.

In both specimens the arms are not complete, ‘except those of the third and fourth
pairs, which are nearly equal in length, the ventral ones a little the shortest and most
slender.” In both specimens, too, “the arms are all united together by a thin, delicate
basal web, which extends up some distance between the arms, ... and then runs
along the sides of the arms, as broad, thin, marginal membranes.”

As regards the horny rings of the suckers, d’Orbigny figures two from the base
of an arm which may have been taken from this species, and which have square-cut
teeth somewhat variable in number. The sucker figured by Verrill from the middle of
one of the lateral arms (third pair) resembles these very closely, and he adds that
“toward the tips of the arms the smaller suckers again become deeper, with more
contracted apertures, and with a few more prominent denticles on the rings;” but
he does not allude to the conspicuously four-toothed suckers characteristic of .Taonius
cymoctypus, which he could not fail to have noticed had they been before him.

The general shape of the sucker, too, agrees fairly with that figured by Lesueur.

Verrill’s account of the pen of his Desmoteuthis hyperborea describes that of Loligopsis
pavo (Lesueur), very well, for the latter, like the former, terminates posteriorly in a hollow
cone. This is not shown in Lesueur’s drawing, though it is quite evident in the speci-
men; the drawing indeed is merely a sketch giving a general idea of the form of the
pen, which has never been removed from the specimen.

The passages in quotation marks above are taken from Verrill’s description, and when
compared with d’Orbigny’s figures, they leave, I think, little room for doubt that the two
species in question are the same.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 191

Taonius hyperboreus, Steenstrup (Pl. XXXII. fig. 12; Pl. XXXII. figs. 1-11).

1856. Leachia hyperborea, Stp., Hectococtyl., p. 200.

1861. Taonius hyperboreus, Stp., Overblik., p. 83 (non Verrill).

1870. Leachia ellipsoptera, Carpenter, Jeffreys and Thomson, Proc. Roy. Soe. Lond., vol. xviii.
p- 423.

1879. Loligopsis hyperborea, Tryon, Man. Conch., vol. 1. p. 162.

1882. Desmoteuthis tenera (?), Vil., Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 412, pl. lv. fig. 2; pl. lvi. fig. 3.

1884. Tuonius hyperboreus, V\l., Second Catal., p. 245.

1884. Loligopsis hyperborea, Rochebr., Monogr. Loligopside, p. 12.

1885. Taonius hyperboreus, Hoyle, Loligopsis, p. 321.

Habitat.—Station 50, South of Halifax, Nova Scotia, May PAL USES len Ae BY INT.
long. 63° 39’ W.; 1250 fathoms; blue mud. One specimen, @ , probably from the surface.

North Atlantic, 140 miles north-west of the Irish Coast, July 2, 1869; lat. 56°10’N.,
long. 13° 16’ W.; surface (““Porcupine” Expedition). Two specimens.

North Greenland (Steenstrup). Off Martha’s Vineyard, 874 miles from Gray Head ;
388 fathoms (?)'; two specimens. Off the New England Coast, lat. 39° 27’ 10” N.,
long. 69° 56’ 20” W.; 1346 fathoms (?)1; one specimen, Verrill.

The Body (fig. 1) is elongated, tapering posteriorly ; the mantle is thin, enclosing an
enormous branchial cavity, only a small portion of which is occupied by the viscera; its
anterior border is transverse or projects slightly m the dorsal median line and at each
lateral attachment; in the former of these positions the surface of the body is almost
continuous with that of the head, only the very slightest fold of the mantle marking
it off. The jin is about half the length of the body and of an elongated cordate
shape, the form of the hinder margin being, however, slightly variable. The siphon is
triangular, and reaches to about the centre of the head; on its dorsal wall, immediately
behind the aperture, are two low cushion-like papille in the middle line, and behind
these three long, pointed papillee arranged in a triangle with the apex directed forwards.

The Head proper is small, much smaller than either of the enormous globular eyes,
which occupy the whole of its two lateral surfaces.

The Arms are short, on an average about one-third the length of the body; their
order of length is 3, 2, 1, 4; a toothed membrane extends along the arms, but forms only
a very small web between them (fig. 12). They are furnished with two rows of suckers,
most numerous and closely packed on the dorsal arms. ‘The suckers (figs. 2-5) are
subglobular, the proximal half of the globe being opaque and muscular, the distal
corneous and semitransparent. The suckers on the dorsal and ventral arms are
subequal, and also on the lateral arms for the proximal half of their length; on the
third quarter are situated about eight large suckers, whose diameter fully equals that of

1 The query is not intended to imply any doubt as to the accuracy of the observations, but merely as to whether
the specimen was taken at the bottom.

192 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

the arms; on the terminal fourth the suckers gradually diminish. The margin of the
larger suckers is almost entire but marked out into irregular very shallow, square-cut
teeth (figs. 2, 8); on the distal margins of the smaller suckers the teeth become more
prominent, but are blunt, and about eight to ten in number.

The Tentacles (fig. 6) are but little longer than the arms, and only slightly expanded
at their extremities. On the inner side of the stem is a groove which bears two and
afterwards four irregular rows of very minute suckers (fig. 7), among which are a
number of fixing-cushions (fig. 10). On the club are four rows of suckers about as
large as the smaller ones on the arms; their horny rings are provided on the proximal
semicircumference with about fifteen closely set subacute teeth, while the distal semi-
circumference bears about nine long very acute teeth (fig. 8, 9).

The Surface is smooth.

The Colour is pale yellowish-grey ; a number of purplish chromatophores cover the
mantle, and there are also a number of larger spots disposed in irregular rows, of which
there are about ten down the mantle.

The Gladius (fig. 11) is long, narrow anteriorly, expanded in the posterior half, and
forming a hollow terminal cone enclosing part of the genital gland.

Taonius suhmi (Lankester), Hoyle (Pl. XXXII. figs. 5-11).

1884. Procalistes Suhmit, Lankester, Quart. Journ. Mier. Sci., N.S., vol. xxiv. p. 311, figs. 1, 2.
1885. Taonius suhmii, Hoyle, in Narr. Chall. Exp., p. 472, figs. 173, 174.
Habitat.—Station 159; Southern Ocean due south of Australia, March 10, 1874;
lat. 47° 25’ S., long. 130° 22’ H.; 2150 fathoms. Surface(?) Two specimens.
Between Sydney and Wellington, June 16-17, 1874. Three young specimens
mounted as microscopic objects, and one preserved in spirit. Surface.
North Atlantic, off the coast of Africa, April 18, 1876. Surface. One small specimen.

The Body is elongated and fusiform, broadest about one-third back, narrowing
gradually forwards and tapering to an acuminate point behind. The jin is small, about
one-eighth the length of the body, and cordate in form. The mantle-margin is directly
transverse, and forms three watch-pocket-like openings between its dorsal and lateral
attachments, and at each of the latter of these is an oblong semitransparent piece of
cartilage-like material. The siphon is long, reaching as far as the bases of the arms,
and tapering ; it opens anteriorly by a transverse slit.

The Head is small and subquadrate, its anterior end being entirely occupied by
the bases of the arms, and the hinder portion of its sides by the large pedunculate
eyes (fig. 5).

The Arms are unequal, the order of length being 4, 3, 2, 1, and on an average

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 193

about one-fifth the length of the body; they are slender, tapering and rounded, and
neither keeled nor webbed. The suckers are in two series, spheroidal, and provided with
smooth horny rings (fig. 6).

The Tentacles (fig. 9) are about three-fourths as long as the body, slender,
cylindrical, not expanded into a distinct club; the extremity bears four series of
suckers, the marginal ones being a little smaller than the median. The suckers
(fig. 7) are of quite normal shape, and the horny ring both of the median and
marginal ones bears four strong bluntly pointed teeth (figs. 7, 8).

The Surface is smooth throughout.

The Colour is pale, almost white, and the mantle semitransparent even when
preserved, no doubt quite so when living; a number of oblong chromatophores are
arranged in about eight transverse rows (fig. 5).

The Gladius, so far as could be ascertained without extraction, does not differ
materially from that of the other species of the genus.

Dimensions.

Length, total, . : : 0 : : : : 82 mm.

End of body to mantle-margin, . ; : ; ; j 42 ,,

End of body to eye, : . : : , : : 45 ,,

Breadth of body, . : ; A : ; ‘ : W355 5

Breadth of head, . < F : : . 6 F By

Breadth of head across the eyes, . j 3 5 ‘ F Lb

Length of fin, . : : : b ; : ; Miss

Breadth of fin, . ; 4 / : ; j , Ae ae

Right. Left.

Length of first arm, 5 p P : ; : : 5 mm. 5 mm.
Length of second arm, F : ; ; 5 3 3 Ge @ 55
Length of third arm, : : 4 ‘ : g . Siers 8) 55
Length of fourth arm, é é ‘ ; 5 : : 8°5,, 85 ,,
Length of tentacle, ; 4 p F : : : 38) gy 37 yy

The three small specimens taken in the Southern Ocean demand a careful discussion,
inasmuch as they and the drawing by Dr. v. Willemoes-Suhm, reproduced in the
accompanying woodcut (fig. 9), were made by Professor Lankester the basis of a new
genus, Procalistes, characterised as follows :—‘ Similar to Cranchia, excepting that the
eyes are pedunculate, that the shorter perioral arms are aborted, and that the longer
(so-called prehensile) arms are devoid of suckers. In the youngest stage observed there
“are two rows of suckers on the long arms, and six isolated and pedunculated suckers
surrounding the mouth, which appear to represent the shorter arms of other
Cephalopods.”

The capture of these individuals is thus alluded to in Dr. v. Willemoes-Suhm’s MS.

journal,
(ZOOL. CHALL, EXP,—PART XLIv.—1886.) Xx 25

194 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

“16th June, 1874.—Among the surface gatherings there is a transparent and very
interesting Pteropod, with large eyes on the tentacles and without any ‘ptera’ or foot.
Having obtained three more or less damaged specimens from which I could not complete
its anatomy, I shall have to defer giving a proper account of it. The animal belongs to
the Clionidee, and is probably allied to Pelagia, Quoy and Gaimard.”

Fic. 9.—Zaonius suhmi (Lankester).

A. a living specimen, drawn by v. Willemoes-Suhin, magnified about 25 diameters. a, a, tentacles ; 6, six of the sessile
arms, each bearing one sucker ; c, the neck; d, d, the pedunculate eyes; /, the siphon; g, the ink-bag ; &, the posterior
extremity of the body, much more elongated in the adults of this genus; /, the fins ; m, the buecal apparatus ; ”, the
oto-cysts ; 0, the intestine. B. One of the tentacular suckers, more highly magnified. C. A portion of the radula,
more highly magnified.

On a piece of paper attached to the drawing are the following particulars regarding
the structure of the animal.

“Clionid Pteropod: June 16th—18th, 1874. In the warm East Australian current
coming from the north (surface temperature 18° C.), together with Calcarclla on the

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 195

voyage from Sydney to Wellington, lat. 34° 50’ S., long. 155° 28’ E. In all only three
specimens, of which the largest alone showed the eyes well. It measured 13 mm. long ;
tentacles 6—7 mm. long ; eye peduncles 2 mm. long. Neither of the smaller specimens
showed anything new. Tentacles with suckers, of which one is strongly magnified
below (woodcut 9, B). Mouth with six suckers, two teeth, and radula; the latter,
as far as I could make it out without injury to the animal, is drawn below to the
right hand side (woodcut 9, c). The mouth leads into an cesophagus; this imto a
muscular stomach, in the muscular wall of which is a unicellular gland @ la nematode.
Sharply defined intestine (0) which I could not follow out to the anus on the process to
the right (woodeut 9, f). Ganglion superius sends out the nerves to the eyes ; between
it and the ganglion inferius are the two otolithic vesicles (n). On the right side the
generative gland is seen with reddish oil specks, and in the corner black pigment (9) ;
to the left is a cellular body, probably an excretory organ. Subsequently it seemed to
me as though there was a calamus in the hindermost portion of the animal; this must
however, have been a mistake. Heart not seen.”

Two of the three specimens were mounted in glycerine and labelled “Clionide, 17
June, 74, Sidney—Wellington ;” from one of them the mounting fluid had escaped,
leaving the specimen so much dried that no efforts were successful in restoring it ; in
what follows it will for the sake of brevity be alluded to as the ‘“‘ damaged ” specimen.

The second specimen was in a much better state of preservation than the first, as
may be seen from the drawing (Pl. XXXII. fig. 11); it will be called the “complete”
specimen.

The third specimen was labelled “Clionide, 16 June, 74, Sidney—Wellington ;” it
had been stained with carmine and mounted in balsam, and will be referred to as the
“stained” specimen. It is the largest and is mentioned by Suhm as being the only one
which showed the eyes well. Probably it contributed more than either of the others to
Lankester’s restoration, which is here reproduced (woodcut 10), seeing that its disposition
on the slide somewhat resembles his figure, and it is the only one destitute of suckers,
and seeing that the explanation of his figure specially mentions that it was taken from a
“somewhat older specimen” than Suhm’s.

This absence of suckers is the most important character in Lankester’s definition, for,
as I shall mention later, the remaining points are such as either belong properly to the
genus Taonius or are indicative of immaturity.

Professor Lankester admits that “they may possibly have been rubbed off by rough
usage of the specimens,” but he inclines “to believe that they are naturally absent in the
later stage.” It is to be noted, however, that the “complete” specimen does possess
suckers, although owing to an unfortunate accident these escaped Lankester’s attention ;
when the specimen came into my hands a large part of it was concealed by the dark
cement which had been used in fixing down the cover-glass, and which had spread over

196 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

it, probably owing* to the heat of the tropics, through which it must have passed three
times. The hidden portion included the oral region and the tentacles, and when the
superfluous material was scraped away these were seen to present the appearance shown

MoAb OO we TL,
Since then two out of three specimens exhibit the suckers (for they can be made out

Fic. 10.—‘‘ A somewhat older specimen of Procalistes Suhmii. Drawn by E. Ray Lankester from a specimen
mounted on a glass slide in balsam by R. von Suhm. Magnified 20 diameters.

“a, The long ‘arms’ or processes of the fore-foot; b, the smooth buccal margin devoid of processes; c, the elongated neck ;
d, the pedunculated eyes; ¢, the edge of the mantle flap, separated from its attachment to the head and funnel by
pressure ; f, the funnel or siphon ; g, the anal process seen through the transparent mantle, and showing a spiral band
of black pigment lying in the ink-bag; h, chromatophores ; 2, the pen; %, the median posterior process of the body ;
1, the lateral fins attached to the same; m, the two horny beaks of the buccal apparatus.” (Lankester, Zoc. cit.)

in the “damaged” one), and since the “complete” example is almost as large as the
“stained” one, it seems to me more natural to adopt the alternative hypothesis rejected

by Professor Lankester, and to believe that the suckers are not present in the one
specimen because they have been accidentally removed. This view is strengthened by

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 197

the fact that the stained specimen has been largely denuded of its epidermis, which can
be seen in places adhering to the tentacle and also to the circumoral region.

In addition to this, there was a small Cephalopod in the collection preserved in spirit,
which there can be no reasonable doubt is identical with the three specimens above
discussed although it was taken in the Atlantic. From the figure of it here given
(Pl. XXXII. fig. 10) it is seen to have the same stalked eyes and long process carrying -
the mouth and arms, the same form of body, and (so far as can be seen) of pen, and the
same distribution of chromatophores. Also since the figure just referred to was drawn
I have received another specimen from Dr. Pelseneer, who found it among the collection
of Pteropods on which he is engaged, and it is of special importance because it was taken
at the same locality as the three examples mounted by Suhm. It resembles the Atlantic
specimen so closely that the drawing might have been equally well made from either.

The arms are rudimentary and carry each one sucker, and here it may be observed
that in every Cephalopod the arms pass through a stage in which they have each only
one sucker. In the case of Cranchia and allied genera, where even in the adult the
sessile arms are very short, it is only reasonable to expect this one-suckered stage at a
much later period of development than in such forms as Loligo, where they reach a.
comparatively greater length, and as above mentioned (p. 185), specimens of Cranchia
reinhardtii have been seen in the present collection, in which the arms were quite
rudimentary, although the animals had attained more than one-third of their usual
dimensions. In the present example the suckers stand upon small papillee, which are
obviously rudimentary arms, an arrangement not visible in the mounted specimens
(see fig. 10).

Furthermore the correspondence between these small spirit specimens and the two
larger ones from the Southern Ocean, which must be regarded as the types of the species,
is so close that it is impossible to do otherwise than consider them as identical. The
resemblance is especially great in the form of the body, and of the fin and of the head,
though the neck and the ocular peduncles are not so long in the less as in the more
mature specimen. This last, however, is a phenomenon seen in the development of every
Cephalopod ; for example, in Sepia the eye is much more prominent in the embryo than
in the adult (compare K6lliker's drawing’ with any of the illustrations in Pls. XVI. to
XXII.) and in the case of Grenacher’s pelagic larva’ one of the stages observed (fig. 8)
has the eyes distinctly pedunculate, while in a somewhat later stage this appearance is
almost entirely lost (fig. 12).

If the identifications above made be correct there is no doubt that the only character
by which the genus Procalistes can be differentiated from Taonius disappears, and the
two genera must therefore be regarded as synonymous.

Before leaving this subject, however, it is only right to mention that Professor

1 Entwickel. d. Cephalop., taf. iii. figs. xxvii.xxxi., Ztirich, 1844. 2 Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool., Bd. xxiv pl. xi-

198 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Steenstrup, with whom I had the great pleasure and profit of discussing this question, does
not entirely agree with what has been advanced above, but is disposed to refer the stained
specimen to a different species from the others, and that for the following reasons :—

1. The pigment spots in its mantle are very black and opaque, and circular in form,
resembling those depicted in Grant’s figure of Loligopsis guttata,’ while those of the
other specimens are much paler and with more dispersed pigment.

2. Because he was of opinion that two more or less parallel limes might be seen along
the body, which seemed to represent the rows of points down the ventral surface of
Leachia.

I am by no means prepared to say that such is not the case, and it is only with the
utmost diffidence that I differ from my illustrious friend, but I think that the first point
alluded to may be explained by the pigment of the chromatophores being in a state of
concentration in the one case, while it was diffused in the other, and as regards the second
I must confess that on repeated examination I have been unable to make out the rows
of points with any certainty. On the whole, therefore, 1 am disposed to believe that
these preparations represent only one species.

This form presents a remarkable likeness in many respects to Loligopsis zygena
Vérany,” but differs in several important particulars, so that it is impossible to regard the
two as identical. The points of difference are (1) the shape of the fin, (2) the absence
of suckers on the stems of the tentacles, and (3) the presence of chromatophores.

Grenacher’s Pelagic Larva.

Habitat.—South Atlantic, March 21, 1876; lat. 21° 15’S., long. 14° 2’ W.; surface
temperature at noon 76°°5.

Among the microscopic preparations mounted during the voyage was one bearing
the above date, which contained three embryos closely resembling those figured by
Grenacher,’ but they were not sufficiently well preserved to render it possible to make
any observations of value upon them.

1 Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. i. pl. ii. figs. 1, 2. 2 Céph. médit., pl. xl. fig. c.
3 Zeitschr. f. wiss Zool., Bd. xxiv. pp. 419-498, 1874.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 199

Order I. TETRABRANCHIATA, Owen.

Family XXII. NavuTiLipa.
Nautilus, Linné.

Nautilus pompilius, Linne.

1758. Nautilus pompilius, Linn., Syst. nat., ed. x p. 709; No. 283, 233.
1868. 5 bs Kiister, Conch. Cab., sec. 55, p. 9, taf. ii. fig. 9.

Habitat.—Station 173, off Matuku, Fiji Islands; June 24, 1874; lat. 19° 9’ 35”S.,
long. 179° 41’ 50” E.; 315 fathoms; coral mud. One specimen.

The specimen of Nautilus pompilius obtained by the Challenger was not in the
collection when it came into my hands, so that I can give no further information
regarding it than is contained in the following quotation from the Narrative.

“Tn dredging off Matuku Island, in 310 and 315 fathoms, on a coral bottom, some
Phorus, Turritella, and a few other shells were brought up, as well as numerous
specimens of the blind Crustacean, Polycheles, and other animals showing the fauna to
be a true deep-water one.

“A living specimen of the Pearly Nautilus (Nautilus pompilius), so rarely seen in the
living condition by any naturalist, was captured here. This was the only specimen of this
animal obtained by the dredge or trawl during the voyage. The animal was very lively,
though probably not so lively as it would have been if it had been obtained from a less
depth, the sudden change of pressure having no doubt very much disarranged its economy.
However, it swam round and round a shallow tub in which it was placed, moving after the
manner of all Cephalopods, backwards, that is with the shell foremost. It floated at the
surface with a small portion of the top of the shell just out of the water, as observed by
-Rumphius.’ The shell was maintained with its major plane in a vertical position, and its
mouth directed upwards. The animal seemed unable to sink, and the floating of the
shell, as described, was due no doubt to some expansion of gas in the interior, occasioned
by diminished pressure. The animal moved backwards slowly by a succession of small
jerks, the propelling spouts from the siphon being directed somewhat downwards, so that
the shell was rotated a little at each stroke, upon its axis, and a slightly greater area of
it raised above the surface of the water. Occasionally, when the animal was frightened
or touched, it made a sort of dash, by squirting out the water from its siphon with more
than usual violence, so as to cause a strong eddy on the surface of the water. On either
side of the base of the membranous operculum-like head-fold, which, when the animal is

1 De Amboinsche Rariteitkamer, p. 61, Amsterdam, 1705.

200 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

retracted, entirely closes the mouth of the shell, the fold of the mantle closing the gill
cavity was to be seen rising and falling, with a regular pulsating motion, as the animal
in breathing took in the water, which was afterwards expelled through the siphon. The
tentacle-like arms contrast strongly with those of most other Cephalopods, because of their
relatively extreme slightness and shortness, though they are not shorter proportionately
than those of the living Sepia. They are held by the animal, whilst swimming, extended
radially from the head, somewhat like the tentacles in a sea anemone; but each pair has its
definite and different direction, which is constantly maintained. This direction of the many
pairs of tentacles at constant but different angles from the head, is the most striking feature
to be observed in the living Nautilus. Thus, one pair of tentacles was held poimting
directly downwards; two other pairs, situated just before and behind the eyes, were held
projecting obliquely outwards and forwards, and backwards respectively, as if to protect
the organs of sight. Ina somewhat corresponding manner, the tentacular arms of the
common cuttle-fish whilst living are maintained in a marked and definite attitude, as may
be observed in any aquarium. Another living Nautilus was brought to the Consul at
Kandavu during the stay of the Challenger. The natives were said to frequently catch
them alive, and to give them to their chiefs, who eat them.”

1 Narr. Chall. Exp., vol. i. pp. 490, 491.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION,

LIST OF STATIONS,

SHOWING THE PHYSICAL CoNDITIONS AND THE SPECIES OBTAINED AT EACH,

Station 2.-—South-west of Tenerife, February 17, 1873; lat. 25° 52’ N., long. 19° 22’
W.; 1945 fathoms; Globigerina ooze; bottom temperature, 36°°8; surface tem-
perature, 67°. Dredge.

Mastigoteuthis agassizir.

North Atlantic, between Tenerife and St. Thomas, Danish West Indies.

Tremoctopus atlanticus.

St. Thomas, Danish West Indies, 8 fathoms.
Octopus tehuelchus.

North Atlantic, between St. Thomas, West Indies, and Bermuda, surface.

Teleoteuthis caribbea.

Bermuda.
Octopus bermudensis, un. sp.

Station 49.—South of Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 20, 1873; lat. 438° 3’ N., long.
63° 39’ W.; 85 fathoms; gravel, stones; bottom temperature, 35°; surface tem-
perature, 40°°5. Dredge.

Rossia (2) tenera.

Sration 50.—South of Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 21, 1873; lat. 42° 8’ N., long.
63° 39’ W.; 1250 fathoms; blue mud; bottom temperature, 38°; surface tem-
perature, 45°. Dredge. .

Taonius hyperboreus.
(zool. CHALL, EXP.—PART XLIV.—1886.) Xx 26

202 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Sratron 106.—Between St. Vincent and St. Paul’s Rocks, August 25, 1873; lat.
1° 47’ N., long. 24° 26’ W.; 1850 fathoms; Globigerina ooze; bottom temperature,
36°°6; surface temperature, 78°°8. Taken in a surface-net at a depth of 40 fathoms.

Cranchia reinhardti.

North Atlantic (picked up dead from the surface).

Alloposus mollis.

Atlantic ; collected from the surface.
Spirula peronw (shells).

Sration 122.—Off Barra Grande, September 10, 1873; lat. 9° 5’ S., long. 34° 50’ W.;
350 fathoms ; red mud; surface temperature, 77°'5. Trawl.

Octopus januari, 0. sp.

Sration 1228n.—Off Barra Grande, September 10, 1873; lat. 9° 9’ S., long. 34° 53’ W.:
32 fathoms; red mud; surface temperature, 77°°5. Trawl.

Octopus tuberculatus.

_ Sration 126.—Off the Rio San Francisco, Brazil, September 12, 1873; lat. LO? 4a! Sb.
long. 36° 8’ W.; 770 fathoms; red mud; surface temperature, 77°. Trawl.

Japetella prismatica, n. sp.

Inaccessible Island, Tristan da Cunha, October 16, 1873; collected on the shore.

Octopus verrucosus, 1. sp.

Simon’s Bay, Cape of Good Hope, December 1873 ; 10-20 fathoms.

Octopus granulatus.

Cape of Good Hope, December 1873.

Argonauta argo.

Between the Cape and Marion Island.
Cranchia sp.

Sration 146.—Between Prince Edward Island and the Crozets, December 29, 1873;
lat. 46° 46’ S., long. 45° 31’ H.; 1375 fathoms; Globigerina ooze ; bottom tempera-
ture, 35°°6; surface temperature, 43°. Trawl.

Cirroteuthis magna, n. sp.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 2038

Station 147.—Southern Ocean, between Prince Edward Island and the Crozets,
December 30, 1873; lat. 46° 16’S., long. 48° 27’ E.; 1600 fathoms; Diatom ooze ;
bottom temperature, 34°°2; surface temperature, 41°. Trawl.

Bathyteuthis abyssicola, n. sp.

Station 151.—Off Heard Island, February 7, 1874; lat. 52° 59’ 30” S., long.
73° 33’ 30” E.; 75 fathoms; volcanic mud; surface temperature, 36°°2. Dredge.

Octopus levis, n. sp.

Station 157.—Southern Ocean, March 3, 1874; lat. 53° 55’ S., long. 108° 35’ E.,

1950 fathoms; Diatom ooze; bottom temperature, 32°°1; surface temperature,
B7/°oR. Winayyll,

Eledone rotunda, n. sp.

Station 159.—Southern Ocean, due south of Australia, March 10, 1874; lat. 47° 25’S.,
long. 130° 22’ H.; 2150 fathoms; Globigerina ooze; bottom temperature, 34°°5 ;
surface temperature, 51°°5. Trawl.

Taonvus suhma, n. sp.

Station 162.—Off Kast Moncceur Island, Bass Strait, April 2, 1874; lat. 39° 10’ 30” S.,

long. 146° 37’ H.; 38 fathoms; sand and shells; surface temperature, 63°°2.
Dredge. ,

Octopus bosci, var. pallida, nov.

Station 163a4.—Off Twofold Bay, Australia, April 4, 1874; lat. 36° 59’ S., long.
150° 20’ E.; 150 fathoms; green mud; surface temperature, 71°. Trawl ?

Octopus bosci, var. pallida, nov. | Octopus duplex, n. sp.
Sepia cultrata, n. sp.
Port Jackson, Australia, 2 to 15 fathoms.

Octopus australis, n. sp. | Octopus pictus, var. fasciata, nov.

Between Sydney and Wellington, June 16, 17, 1874. Surface.

Tuonius suhmi, a. sp.

Station 168.—East of the North Island, New Zealand, July 8, 1874; lat. 40° 28’S.,
long. 177° 43’ E.; 1100 fathoms; blue mud; bottom temperature, 37°°2; surface
temperature, 57°°2. Trawl.’ Taken at the surface.

Calliteuthis reversa ?
1 The label reads “1100 fs. surface.”

204 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Sration 170.—Off the Kermadec Islands, July 14, 1874; lat. 29° 55’ S., long.
178° 14’ W.; 520 fathoms; volcanic mud; bottom temperature, 43°; surface
temperature, 65°. Trawl.

Amphitretus pelagicus, n. sp.

Sration 170a.—Off the Kermadec Islands, July 14, 1874; lat. 29° 45’ S., long.
178° 11’ W.; 630 fathoms; volcanic mud; bottom temperature, 39°°5; surface
temperature, 65°°2. Trawl.

Eledone verrucosa.

Sration 171.—North of the Kermadec Islands, July 15, 1874; lat. 28° 33’ S.,
long. 177° 50’ W.; 600 fathoms; hard ground; bottom temperature, 39°°5 ;
surface temperature, 66°°5. Trawl.

Cirroteuthis meangensis, n. sp.

The Reefs, Tongatabu, 18 fathoms.

Octopus tonganus, 1. sp.

Sration 173.—Off Matuku, Fiji Islands, July 24, 1874; lat. 19° 9’ 35” S., long.
179° 41’ 50” E.; 315 fathoms; coral mud; surface temperature; 76°. Dredge.

Nautilus ponpilius.
The Reefs, Kandavu, Fiji.

Octopus vitiensis, n. sp.

Surface of the harbour, Kandavu, Fiji.

Sepioteuthis lessonana.

Between Api, New Hebrides, and Cape York, August 22, 1874; from the stomach of a
specimen of Sula piscator, which alighted on the ship.

Ommastrephes oualaniensis.

Sration 181.—Off the south-eastern extremity of Papua, August 25, 1874; lat.
13° 50’S., long. 151° 49’ E.; 2440 fathoms; red clay; bottom temperature, 35°°8;
surface temperature, 80°. Trawl.

Cirroteuthis pacifica, n. sp.

Raine Island, Torres Strait ; picked up on the shore.
Spirula peroni (shells).

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 205

Station 188.—Arafura Sea, south of Papua, September 10, 1874; lat. 9° 59’ S,
long. 139° 42’ E.; 28 fathoms; green mud; surface temperature, 78°°5. Trawl
and dredge.

Octopus sp. Sepia elliptica, n. sp.

Sepia smithi, n. sp. Sepia (Metasepia) pfefferi, n. sp.
Sepia papuensis, n. sp. Loligo indica.

Sration 190.—Arafura Sea, south of Papua, September 12, 1874; lat. 8° 56’ S.,
long. 186° 5’ E.; 49 fathoms; green mud; surface temperature, 79°°2. Trawl.

Sepia elliptica, nu. sp. | Loligo indica.

Sration 192.—Off the Ki Islands, south of Papua, September 26, 1874; lat.
5° 4915” S., long. 132° 14’ 15” E.; 140 fathoms; blue mud; surface temperature,
82°. Trawl.

Octopus wreolatus. | Sepia sulcata, n. sp.
Sepia kiensis, n. sp.

Sration 1944.—Off Banda, September 29, 1874; lat. 4° 31’ S., long. 129° 57’ 20” H.;
360 fathoms ; volcanic mud; surface temperature, 82°°5. Trawl.

Spirula peronw (animal).

Banda.
Octopus bandensis, n. sp.

Station 195.—Off Amboina, October 8, 1874; lat. 4° 21’ S., long. 129° 7’ H.; 1425
fathoms; blue mud; bottom temperature, 38°; surface temperature, 82°. Trawl.

Enoploteuthis margaritifera.

Ternate, presented by the Resident.
Sepioteuthis lessoniana.

Sration 203.—Off Panay, Philippine Islands, October 31, 1874; lat. 11° 6’ N.,
long. 123° 9’ E.; 20 fathoms; mud; surface temperature, 85°. Trawl.

Loligo galathex.

Station 207.—Off Tablas Island, January 16, 1875; lat. 12° 21’ N., long. 122° 15’ E.;
700 fathoms; blue mud; bottom temperature, 51°°6; surface temperature, 80°.
Trawl.

Sepia recurvirostra.

206 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Station 214.—Off the Meangis Islands, February 10, 1875; lat. 4° 33’ N., long.
127° 6’ E.; 500 fathoms; blue mud; bottom temperature, 41°°8; surface tempera-
ture, 80°°5. Trawl.

Cirroteuthis meangensis, n. sp.

Station 2164.—North of Papua, February 16, 1875; lat. 2° 56’ N., long. 134° 11’ E;
2000 fathoms; Globigerina ooze ; bottom temperature, 35°4 ; surface temperature,
82°°8. Surface.

Spirula peroni (shell).

North-east of Fort D’Urville, Papua, February 22, 1875. Surface.
Spirula peroni (shell).

Sration 220.—North of Papua, March 11, 1875; lat. 0° 42’ S., long. 147° E.; 1100
fathoms ; Globigerina ooze ; bottom temperature, 36°:2 ; surface temperature, 83°°8.
Trawl.

EHledonella diaphana, nu. sp.

Pacific Ocean, 2” north of the Admiralty Islands, March 13, 1875; surface.

Ommastrephes oualanensis.

North Pacific, April 3, 1875; lat. 24° 49’ N., long. 138° 34’ E. Surface.
Octopus brevipes (?).

North Pacific, off Voleano Island, April 3 and 5, 1875; about lat. 24° 49’ N., long.
ISIS? Bale 1B,
Teleoteuthis caribbexa (2).

Western Pacific, between Papua and Japan.

Tremoctopus gracilis (2).

Yokohama, Japan, purchased in the market.
Octopus macropus. Sepia andreanoides, un. sp.
Sepia esculenta, n. sp. Loligo edulis, n. sp.
Loligo japonica, 0. sp.

Sration 232.—The Hyalonema-ground, off Ino Sima Island, Japan, May 12, 1875;
lat. 35° 11’ N., long. 139° 28’ E.; 345 fathoms; green mud; bottom tempera-
ture, 41°'1; surface temperature, 64°°2. Dredge and trawl.

Calliteuthis vreversa.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 207

STATION 233.—Bay of Kobé, Japan, May 17-19, 1875; lat. 34° 39’ N., long.
135° 14’ E.; 8 fathoms; mud; surface temperature, 62°°3. Dredge.

Inoteuthis morser. | Sepia kobiensis, n. sp.
Loligo kobiensis, n. sp.

Station 233c.—Inland Sea, Japan, May 28, 1875; lat. 34° 18’ N., long. 133° 21’ E. ;
12 fathoms; blue mud; bottom temperature, 59°°9; surface temperature, 66°°8.
Trawl.

Seprella maindroni (2). Loligo kobiensis, n. sp.
Todarodes pacificus.

Station 237.—South-east of Nosima, Japan, June 17, 1875; lat. 34° 37’ N., long.
140° 32’ E.; 1875 fathoms ; blue mud; bottom temperature, 35°°3 ; surface tempera-
ture,73.. Trawl.

Octopus januarn, n. sp. | Promachoteuthis megaptera, n. sp.

Reefs, Honolulu, Sandwich Islands.

Octopus marmoratus, n. sp.

Pacific Ocean, south of the Sandwich Islands, September 2, 1875; lat. 5° 54’ N., long.
147° 2’ W. (Taken from the stomach of a shark.)

Chiroteuthis (2) sp.

Station 271.—Central Pacific, September 6, 1875; lat. 0° 33’ S., long. 151° 34’ W.; .
2425 fathoms; Globigerina ooze; bottom temperature, 35°; surface temperature,
i ouaemeelrawle
Enoploteuthis margaritufera.

South Pacific, between the Sandwich Islands and Tahiti, September 15, 1875; lat.
12°-8’S., long. 150° 13’ W.; surface temperature, 80°.

Tremoctopus quoyanus.

Off Valparaiso, October 21, 1875; surface to 30 fathoms.
Onychoteuthis sp.

South Pacific, November 1, 5, 7, and 11, 1875; about lat. 38° 7’S., long. 94° 4’ W.;
surface.

Tracheloteuthis sp.

208 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

South Pacifie Ocean, 20° W. of Patagonia, November 6, 1875; lat. 37° 50’ &., long.
93° 54’ W.
Cirroteuthis sp.
Sration 298.—Off Valparaiso, November 17, 1875; lat. 34° 7 Semlone a iommoOn Wels
9225 fathoms; blue mud; bottom temperature, 35°°6; surface temperature, 59°,
Trawl.

Cirroteuthis magna, n. sp. Eledone rotunda, n. sp.

From the surface near the same locality.

Tracheloteuthis sp.

Sration 313.—Off Cape Virgins, Patagonia, January 20, 1876; lat. 52° 20’ S., long.
67° 39’ W.; 55 fathoms; sand; bottom temperature, 47°'8 ; surface temperature
ASa- 5 aluranyale

Rossia sublevis (?). | Rossia patagonica.
Loligo ellipsura, n. sp.

Station 320.—Off Monte Video, February 14, 1876; lat. 37° 17’S., long. 53° 52’ W.;
600 fathoms ; green sand ; bottom temperature, 37°2; surface temperature, 67°°5.

Trawl.
Eledone brevis, n. sp.

Sration 321.—Off Monte Video, February 25, 1876; lat. 35° 2’S., long. 55° 15’ W.;
13 fathoms; mud; surface temperature, 73°°5. Trawl.

Loligo brasiliensis. -

Sratton 333.—Mid-South Atlantic, March 13, 1876; lat. 35° 36’ S., long. 21° 12’ W.;
2025 fathoms ; Globigerina ooze; bottom temperature, 35°°3 ; surface temperature,
67°. Trawl.

Histiopsis atlantica, n. gen., n. sp.

South Atlantic, March 21, 1876; lat. 21° 15’S., long. 14° 2’ W.; surface temperature at
noon, 76°'5.
Grenacher’s pelagic larva.

Ascension, March 27—April 3, 1876.
Octopus occidentalis, n. sp.

North Atlantic, April 12, 1876; lat. 9° 3’ N., long. 16° 35’ W.; surface temperature at

noon, 81°°7. Surface.
Onychoteuthis sp.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 209

North Atlantic, April 18, 1876; lat. 10° 48’ N., long. 17° 48’ W.; surface temperature at

noon, 78°°5. Surface.
Taonius suhmi, n. sp.

St. Vincent, Cape Verde Islands, April 25, 1876; 15 to 20 fathoms.

Octopus granulatus.

North Atlantic, April 28, 1876; lat. 17° 47’ N., long. 28° 28’ W.; tow-net at night,
surface ; surface temperature at midnight, 73°.

Tremoctopus quoyanus.

North Atlantic, April 29, 1876; lat. 18° 8’ N., long. 30° 5’ W.; surface temperature at
midnight, 73°°7. Surface at night.
Ommastrephes sp. ral Spirula peroni (shells).

H.M.S. ‘“‘ Porcupine” ExprpItion, 1869.

Station 57.—Feerde Channel, cold area ; lat. 60° 14’ N., long. 6° 17’ W.; 632 fathoms ;

bottom temperature, 30°°5.
Octopus arcticus.

Station 65.—Ferde Channel, cold area; lat. 61° 10’ N., long. 2° 21’ W.; 345 fathoms ;
bottom temperature, 29°°8.
Octopus arcticus. | Rossia glaucopis.

The Minch, west coast of Scotland; 60 to 80 fathoms.

Sepiola rondeleti. | Rossia owent.
Off Wexford.
Rossia owen. | Eledone cirrosa.

North Atlantic, about 140 miles north-west of the Irish coast; July 2, 1869; lat.
56° 10’ N., long. 13° 36’ W. Surface. .
Taonius hyperboreus.

““Vatorous” EXPEDITION.

South west of Cape Farewell, Greenland, August 15, 1875; lat. 58° 45’ N., long.
48° 39’ W. Surface.
Gonatus fabrici.
(ZOOL. CHALL, EXP.—PART XLVI.—1886.)

210 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

East of Cape Farewell; lat. 59° 16’ N., long. 37° 16’ W.

Gonatus fabricit.

H.M.S. “ Knigur Errant” EXxPenpirion.

Station 2.—Ferde Channel, cold area, July 28, 1880; lat. 60° 29’ N.; long. 8° 19’
_ W.; 375 fathoms ; mud; bottom temperature, 31°°0; surface temperature, 53°.

Tracheloteuthis riiset.

Station 8.—Ferée Channel, cold area, August 17, 1880: lat. 60° 3’ N., long. 5° 51’ W.;
540 fathoms ; ooze; bottom temperature, 29°; surface temperature, 56°°5.

Octopus piscatorum. | Octopus arcticus.

H.M.S. “Triton” Exprpirion.

Feerde Channel, August 8, 1882; surface.
Tracheloteuthis sp.
Station 9.—Ferée Channel, cold area, August 23, 1882; lat. 60° 5’N., long. 6° 21’ W.;

608 fathoms ; mud; bottom temperature, 30°.

Octopus piscatorum. | Octopus arcticus.

Off the Butt of Lewis, August 25, 1882; 40 fathoms.

Eledone cirrosa. | Rossia owen.

The preceding list is a more than usually valuable one, not only because of the care
with which all the localities were recorded, but also because of the accuracy with which
the various physical conditions were determined at the different stations.

From a faunistic point of view, however, it is obviously very incomplete, owing to
the fact that collecting in shallow water, where Cephalopods are certainly most abundant,
formed a comparatively small part of the work of the Expedition, and partly also
because it was from the very nature of the case impossible that any one voyage, how-
ever protracted, should explore more than a very small portion of the sea. Such being
the case, and seeing that, so far as I am aware, no attempt has hitherto been made to
give a complete survey of the existing species of this group arranged geographically,

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 211

I have collected whatever information the specimens in my hands and the: litera-
ture of the subject afforded in the subjoined lists.

As regards their distribution the Cephalopoda seem to be divisible into three principal
groups (1) the Pelagic, (2) the Littoral, (3) the Abyssal, and the different genera belong
with considerable constancy to one group or the other, that is to say, all the species of
any one genus belong to the same group; for example—Octopus, Sepia, and Loligo
are typical littoral genera, while Cranchia, Ommastrephes, and Onychoteuthis are
with equal distinctness pelagic in their habits.

It has been stated generally, and the examination of the Challenger collection has
certainly borne out the proposition, that while pelagic animals belong to but few types,
each of which has a comparatively wide area of distribution, littoral forms belong to many
species, each of which is confined within narrow limits. With reference to deep-sea forms
our knowledge is only in its infancy, but they seem to be even more widely distributed
than the pelagic ones; and conditions of life in the depths of the sea (especially tempera-
ture) are so uniform that this is precisely what we should expect, and what has been
found to obtain in other groups.

The first three lists give what I may call the “Oceanic” species, using this word
to include both the pelagic and abyssal forms, for it is convenient to consider them
together as regards their horizontal distribution: their vertical distribution will be
treated of in the next section of this Report. These forms have been disposed in three
groups corresponding to the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian (including the Southern)
Oceans rather for convenience than from a belief that such a division is natural ¢
although, as will appear subsequently (p. 222), the great majority are confined to one
area. The chief factor limiting their dispersion being probably temperature, though
doubtless other conditions, such as the presence of Gulf weed, also have their influence,

The “ Littoral” species, that is those found in moderately shallow water not far from
the coasts, whether they be active swimmers like Loligo, or more sedentary like Octopus,
are much more restricted in their range than the oceanic. For the purpose of represent-
ing their distribution, the coasts of the world have been divided into seventeen regions,
which are very different in extent and in the number of species that have been recorded
from them; as regards the former of these points it may be remarked that no sharp
boundaries can be drawn between them at all; for, although for statistical purposes it
may be necessary to adopt lines of demarcation, these are not recognised by nature, and
furthermore a fuller knowledge of the faunas of the various regions would almost
certainly show that some of the districts here proposed should be subdivided and others
united.

The geographical regions here adopted agree very closely with those proposed by
Dr. Paul Fischer in his recent Manual, based upon a study of the whole of the
Mollusca. In a few cases I have subdivided his districts, in more he has subdivided

212

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

mine. The subjoined comparative scheme shows approximately the relations of the
different divisions :—

NOOO BP oF rd

ie)

The geographical position

FISCHER.

. Arctique,
. Boréale,
. Celtique, \

. Lusitanienne,

. Aralo-caspienne,
. Africaine occidentale,
. Africaine australe,

. Indo-pacifique,

. Australo-zélandaise,

. Japonaise,
. Aleutienne, )

Californienne, (

. Panamique,
. Péruvienne, j
3 Mecellaniaue, |

. Patagonienne,

. Caraibe,
. Transatlantique,

Hoye.
XVII. Arctic.

I. Scandinavian.

| TV. Lusitanian.
V. Mediterranean.

VI. West African.
VII. South African.
VIII. Red Sea.

1 IX. Indo-Malay.
XIII. Insular Pacifie.
{ XI. Australian.
XII. New Zealand.
X. Japanese.

XIV. Californian.

XV. Peruvian.

XVI. Patagonian.
III. West Indian.
Il. New England.

of each region will be indicated in the sequel, and

is shown upon the accompanying map; the boundary between the littoral regions and
the oceanic provinces has been taken at the 500 fathom line for the abyssal forms; as
regards the pelagic forms obviously no line can be drawn, for most characteristic oceanic
surface forms are not unfrequently found quite near to the coast.

When a species has been recorded from more than one region the letter or number
corresponding to each additional region is placed after its name; t indicates that the
species is recorded from that province in the present Report.

OCEANIC SPECIES.

A. Tar ATLANTIC OcEANIC REGION.

Cirroteuthis umbellata.

39

Stauroteuthis syrtensis (also IL).
Opisthoteuthis agassiz (also II. IIL).
Argonauta argo (also C. IL IV. V. VI.

plena.
megaptera.

IX. XL).

Argonauta hians (also C. TX.).
+ Tremoctopus quoyanus (also C.).

ii atlanticus.

2?

= mucrostonius (also V.).
ys hyalinus.
+ Allopsus mollis (also II).

Octopus lentus (also II.).

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 213

+ Octopus piscatorum (also I. IL).
Uo) ep GingiewS (ello m, 10),
SEO macilis:
» brevipes (also C.).
Eledone verrucosa (also C. I1.).
iti » orevis.
Hledonella pygmea.
+ Japetella prismatica.
Bolitena microcotyla.
Sepiola pusilla.
Rossia megaptera (also II).

Ommastrephes bartrami (also B. II. V.).

As pteropus (also I. V.).
Bs pelagicus (also TII.).
Todarodes sagittatus (also I. IV. V.).
Illex illecebrosus (also I1.).
+ Tracheloteuthis riser (also V. XIII).
Architeuthus monachus.

0» dus (also 1):
3 harveyi (also II). -
» princeps (also II. ).

Bathyteuthis megalops. _
Steenstrupiola atlantica.

+ Mastigoteuthis agassizi.
Enoploteuthis leptura (also C.).
i pallida.
Ancistrocheirus megaptera.
Abralia morisi.
Onychoteuthis banksw (also B. C. XII).
+ Teleoteuthis caribbea (also C.).

_t Gonatus fabricw (also C. II. V. XVIL.).

Doratopsis diaphana.
Chewroteuthis bonplandi.

y lacertosa (also I1.).
Brachioteuthis beanii (also 11.).
Calliteuthis reversa (also II. X.).

+ HMistiopsis atlantica.
Cranchia scabra (also III).
i megalops.
+ i reinhardtit.
fe maculata.
Taonius pavo (also II).
+, hyperboreus (also II. XVIL).
99 cymoctypus.
i ee sul (alsous: C:):
Leachia cyclura (also B.C.).

Leachia ellipsoptera.

B. Tue Inpran anp SourHeRN OcrAnic REGIon.

+ Cirroteuthis magna (also C.).
+ Eledone rotunda (also C.).
Sepiadarium kochit.
Idiosepius pygmxus (also TX.).
Ommastrephes bartramu (also A. II.V.).
Me oualaniensis (also C.).
Tracheloteuthis behnit (also C. 1X.).

+ Bathyteuthis abyssicola.

Abralia armata.
Onychoteuthis banksw (also A. C. XII).
Ancistroteuthis dussumiert.
Teleoteuthis platypera (also C.).

i peratoptera (also C.).

+ Taonius suhma (also A. C.).

Leachia cyclura (also A. C.).

C. Tur Pactric Reeron.

+ Cirroteuthis magna (also B.).
t 66 meangensis.
t pacifica.

+ Amplitretus pelagicus.
+? Tremoctopus gracilis.
+

» quoyanus (also A.).

214

Argonauta argo (also A. II. IV. V. VIL.
IX. XI).
tuberculata (also VII. IX. XI.
XII).
" hians (also A. TX.).
+? Octopus brevipes (also A.).
» januari (also III).
+ Hledone verrucosa (also A. IL).
i) rotunda KalsoyB)):
+ Eledonella diaphana.
+ Promachoteuthis megauptera.
Loliolus affinis.
Ommastrephes gigas.
ii 5 oualamensis (also B.).

29

THE VOYAGE OF H.MS. CHALLENGER.

Todarodes sloanw (also XII).
Tracheloteuthis behnii (also B. TX.).
Enoploteuthis leptura (also A.).
if ss margaritifera (also V.).
Cucioteuthus unguiculatus.
- Ancistrocheirus leseurii.
Onychoteuthis banks (also A. B. XI1.).
i xqumand.
+? Teleoteuthis caribbexa (also A.).
platyptera (also B.).
- peratoptera (also B.).
Gonatus fabricu (also A. II. V. XVII).
+ Taonius suhmi (also A. B.).
Leachia cyclura (also A. B.).

by)

LITTORAL SPECIES.

I. THe ScANnDINAVIAN REGION.

This region includes the whole of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Denmark, Holland,
Iceland, and the northern half of the British Isles.

Octopus vulgaris (also III. IV. V. VI. VIL.
VIII. IX. X. XIIL).
t » _prscatorwm (also A. II.).
t » arcticus (also A. II. XVIL).
+ Hledone cirrosa (also IV. V.).
+ Sepiola rondeleti (also IV. V. VL.).
38 atlantica (also XVIL.).
4 Rossia macrosoma (also V. XVIL.).
t+ 4,. owen.
t glaucopis (also XVIL).

29

Sepia officinalis (also IV. V. VI.).
Loligo vulgaris (also IV. V.).

» forbesi (also IV.).

5, breviceps.

,», media (also IV. V.).
Ommastrephes pteropus (also A. V.).
Todarodes sagittatus (also A. IV. V.).
Illex coindetir (also IV. V.).
Architeuthus monachus (also A.).
~ dusx (also A.).

29

II. Tue New Encuanp Recion.

The northern boundary of this region I am unable to fix, probably it extends up to
the coast of Labrador ; southwards it extends about as far as Cape Hatteras.

Stauroteuthis syrtensis (also A.).
Opisthoteuthis agassizi (also A. IL).

Argonauta argo (also A. C. IV. V. VIL.

IX. XL),

Ocythoé tuberculata (also V.).
Alloposus mollis (also A.).
Octopus lentus (also A.).
obesus.

29

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 215

Octopus piscatorum (also A. I.).
Y arcticus (also A. I. XVIL).
» carolinensis,
Eledone verrucosa (also A. C.).
Stoloteuthis leucoptera.
Rossia hyatti.
» sublevis (also XVI).
+ Rossia tenera (also III.).
» megaptera (also A.).
Loligo pealei.
Lolliguneula brevis (also II).
Ommastrephes bartrani (also A. B. V.).

Ommastrephes megupterus.
Illex illecebrosus (also A.).
Architeuthus harveyi (also A.).

53 princeps (also A.).
Gonatus fabricu (also A. C. V. XVII).
Teleoteuthis agulis.

Chiroteuthis lacertosa (also A.).
Brachioteuthis bean (also A.).
Calliteuthis reversa (also A. X.).
Histioteuthis collinsir.

Taonius pawvo (also A.).

Taonius hyperboreus (also A. XVIL).

III. Tat West Inpran REcIon.

This province extends southwards from the last, about as far as the mouth of the
Rio de la Plata, and includes the Gulf of Mexico and the shores of the islands at its

mouth. .

Opisthoteuthis agassizii (also A. 11).
Octopus vulgaris (also I. IV. V. VI. VIL
VIIL IX. X. XIII).
, occidentalis (also V1).
., tuberculatus (also V. VI).
granulatus (also IV. VI. VIL
IX. XV.).
t ,, tehuelchus (also XVI).
» verrilli.
i bermudensis.
» januari (also C.).
» filosus.
Nectoteuthis pourtalesi.
Rossia brachyura.

Rossia tenera (also I).
Spirula peronw (also TX. X1.).
Sepia antillarum.
Sepioteuthis seprordea.

BS ehrhardti.
A ovata.
M sloant.

+ Loligo brasiliensis.
» gah (also XV. XVI).
PRIOLE?:
Lolliguneula brevis (also IL).
Ommastrephes pelagicus (also A.).
Abralia megalops.
Cranchia scabra (also A.).

Cranchia tenwitentaculata.

IV. Tue Lustrantan REGIon.

This region includes the southern half of the British Isles, the coasts of France, Spain

and Africa, about as far as the Canary Islands.

It is, of course, closely related to the

Mediterranean Region, but that sea contains so many forms which appear to be peculiar
to it that it appeared best to regard it provisionally as a distinct region.

216

Argonauta argo (also A. C. IIL. V. VII.
TXeeRT)!
Octopus vulgaris (also I. II. V. VI. VIL.
VIII. IX. X. XIII).
» granulatus (also IIL VI. VIL.
DS, BOY)
Eledone cirrosa (also I. V.).
Sepiola rondeleti (also I. V. V1).
» atlantica.
Sepia officinalis (also I. V. VI.).
,», filliouct (also V.).
» jischerr.

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Sepia orbignyana (also V.).

» Truppellaria (also V.).
Loligo vulgaris (also I. V.).

> apis:

» macrophthalma.

5, microcephala.

» moulinsi.

» forbesit.
media (also I. V.).
Ommastrephes crassus.
Todarodes sagittatus (also A. I. V.).
Illex coindetu (also I. V.).

V. Tue MEDITERRANEAN REGION.

The Mediterranean and Black Seas make up this region.

Strictly speaking, here

also a subdivision should be made, like that adopted in regard to the oceans, separating
the pelagic from the littoral forms; but the distinction does not seem to be so clearly
marked, perhaps owing to the subject not having been sufficiently investigated.

Argonauta argo (also A. C. II. IV. VII.
1D: Sh)
Ocythoé tuberculata (also I1.).
Tremoctopus violaceus.
es macrostomus (also A.).
i ocellatus.
2 Octopus vulgaris (also I. III. IV. VI. VIL
VIII. IX. X. XIII).
a salutia.
me tuberculatus (also III. V1.).
en de filuppr.
i macropus (also VI. VIII. IX. X.).
ee alderia.
Scxurgus tetracirrhus.
: titanotus.
5 UNICITTUS.
Hledone moschata.
» evrrosa (= EHledone aldro-
vandt) (also I. IV.).

2

Sepiola rondeletz (also I. IV. VI.).
» owenrana (also XIII.).
Rossia macrosoma (also I. XVII).

Heteroteuthis dispar.
Sepia officinalis (also I. IV. VL).
», Jjilliouxi (also IV.).
» orbignyana (also TV.).
» elegans.
5 ruppellaria (also IV.).
Loligo vulgaris (also I. IV.).
», media (also I. IV.).
Thysanoteuthis rhombus.

5 elegans.
Ommastrephes bartramia (also A. B,
IL).
H zquipodus.
pteropus (also A. 1.).

Todarodes sagittatus (also A. I. IV.).
Illex covndetw (also I. IV.).

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 217

Dosidicus eschrichtu. Ancstroteuthis lichtensteinir.
Tracheloteuthis riser (also A. XII). Teleoteuthis krohniv.
Abralia polyonyx. Gonatus fabrici, (also A. C. II. XVIL.).
» veranyt. Chiroteuthis veranyt.
» owent. EMistioteuthis bonelliana.
Enoploteuthis margaritifera (also C.). 55 ruppella.
Verama sicula. Doratopsis vermicularis.

VI. Tae West Arrican Raion.

The district thus named extends from the Canaries to about the Tropic of Capricorn.

Octopus vulgaris (also I. III. IV. V. VIL Octopus macropus (also V. VIII. IX. X.).
VIII. IX. X. XIII). Sepiola rondeleti (also I. IV. V.).
» tuberculatus (also III. V.). Sepia officinalis (also I. IV. V.).
+ ,, occidentalis (also IIL). » Mmerredda.
+ 4, granulatus (also II. IV. VIL. , berthelote.
IX. XV.). Seprella ornata.

VII. Tue Sours Arrican Racion.

A considerably greater area has been allotted to this province than is given to the
corresponding one in Dr. Fischer’s arrangement. It has been allowed to extend from
the Cape as far as the Red Sea and to include the Madagascar and Mauritius, as well as
the islands of the South Atlantic and Southern Oceans, the Tristan and Prince Edward
eroups, with the Kerguelen and Heard Islands.

+ Argonauta argo (also A, C.IL IV. V. TX. Sepia vermiculata.
axa): » zanzbarica.
a tuberculata (also C. IX. XI. » venusta.
XII). » capensis.
Octopus vulgaris (also I. IIL IV. V. VI. ,, tuberculata.
VIII. IX. X. XIIL). Hemisepius typicus.
T on CCFUBOSUS. Seproteuthis mauritiana.
t 4, granulatus (also IIL IV. VI. IX. a loliginifornus (also VIIL.).
XV.). 3y madagascariensis.
% ,, horrdus (also VIIL). Loligo reynaudia.
», aranea (also XIII). Monchezxa sancti-paulr.
» ~ levis. Enoploteuthis hoyler.
Cistopus mdicus (also TX). Pyrgopsis rhynchophorus.
Sepiola stenodactyla. Taonius (?) maximus.

(ZOOL, CHALL. EXP.—PART xLIv.—1886.) Xx 28

218 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

VIII. Tue Rep Sea.

This has been separated as a distinct region, since it seems to contain several

peculiar forms.

Octopus vulgaris (also I. III. IV. V. VI.

WALL IDS Ss 24008),
horridus (also VIL).

» macropus (also V. VI. IX. X.).
Sepia savigny?.

29

Sepia rousxit (also IX.).
,, elongata.
» lefebrer.
» grbbosa.
Seproteuthis loliginiformis (also VIL).

Loligo arabica.

IX. Tue Inpo-Matayan ReEcion.

This province I regard as extending from the Red Sea eastward and northward
somewhat further than the Island of Formosa, and as including the Philippines, Papua

and all the Malay Archipelago.

Probably a portion of the northern coast of Australia

should be added, as is done by Fischer, but of this I am not certain.

Argonauta argo (also A. C. IL IV. V.

VII IX. XI).

5. tuberculata (also C. VII. XI.

XII).
re hians (also A. C.).

Octopus vulgaris (also I. IIL. IV. V. VI.

VII. VIII. X. XIII).

» granulatus (also III. IV. VI.

VII. XV.).
+ . areolatus (also X.).
,, aculeatus (also XIII.).

» macropus (also V. VI. VIII.

x).

» bandensis.

» membranaceus.

» punctatus (also X. XIV.).
Cistopus indicus (also VIL).
Sepiola schneehagenr.

» rossixformis.

» penares.

Idiosepius pygmeus (also B.).
t Spirula peronw (also III. XI).

+ Sepia smathe.
t+ ,, papuensis.
» pagenstechert.
» simgaporensis.
. latimanus (also XI).
,» aculeata.
,» wndica (also XI).
» rostrata (also XI.).
» roux (also VIII).
tT 4, ellipivea:
», brevimana.
» recurvirostra.
5, sulcata.
,, kerensis.
» pfefferr.

», brachychevra.

+ at se

Sepiella inermas.
HE curta.
ocellata.
» maimdron (also X.).
Sepioteuthis blainvilliana.
4 neoguinaica.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA.

+ Sepioteuthis lessoniana (also X. XII.
XII).
Loligo sumatrensis.
» awvaucelia.
tT 4, andica.

219

Loligo subalata.

t ,, galathex.

Tracheloteuthis behnii (also B. C.).
Teleoteuthis curta.
Cranchia brockit.

X. THe JAPANESE REGION.

The coasts of these islands have yielded so many remarkable Cephalopods that it
seems advisable to separate them, provisionally at all events, as a distinct region.

Octopus vulgaris (also I. III. IV. V. VI.
VII. VIII. IX. XIII),
areolatus (also IX.).

+ 4, macropus (also V. VI. VIII.1X.).
» globosus. min
T 3 punctatus (also TX. Xv. ).
Inioteuthis japonica.
ir be morset.
4 Sepia myrsus.
tT ,, esculenta.
» andreana.
» petersent.
t 4, andreanoides.

+ Sepia kobiensis.
,, tullbergr.
+ Sepiella maindroni (also TX).
Seproteuthis lessoniana (also IX. XI.
XIII).
a brevis.
+ Loligo kobiensis.
,, Oleekere.
tT ,, chinensis.
T 5 Gohls,
i yapontca:
+ Todarodes pacificus.
+ Calliteuthis reversa (also A. II.).

Arcateuthus me

Calliteuthis ocellata.

XI. Tur Austraian Recion.

The whole Australian continent is here regarded as forming a single region; as above
remarked it is quite probable that the northern portion of it should be placed in the last
division, but so little information regarding the species from that district has come into
my hands that I forbear from drawing any line. Fischer makes an arbitrary boundary

at the Tropic of Capricorn.

Argonauta argo (also A. ©. II. IV. V. Octopus tetricus.
VII. IX), » superciliosus.
sd tuberculata (also ©. VII. IX. tT 5, australis.
XII). » tenebricus.
Octopus bosci. Vo gy) Chay ales.
ip i ,», var. pallida. Te Sin AUCLUS:

220 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

+ Octopus pictus, var. fasciata. Sepia australis.
» polyzenra. »» mestus.
» cornutus. TV wp Guligrana.
Sepiola tasmanica. » apama (also XIL).
Sepioloidea lineolata. » palmata.
Spirula peroni (also III. TX.). Sepioteuthis australis.
Sepia plangon. i lunulata (also XI1.).
» latimana (also IX.). Loligo australis.
,», imdica (also TX.). Nautilus stenomphalus.
» rostrata (also TX.). Nautilus pompilius (also XII1.).

XII. Tae New Zeauanp REcIon.

The Cephalopod fauna of these islands is so peculiar that it seems advisable to
separate them from the Australian region, to which they are no doubt nearly allied,
though, as will be seen above, the number of forms proved to be common to both is
very few.

Argonauta tuberculata (also C. VII. IX. Sepiola pacifica.
XI). Sepia apama (also X1.).
i gracils. Sepioteuthis bilineata.
Octopus maorum. Xs lessoniana (also IX. &X.
» communis. XIII).
Pinnoctopus cordiformis. Todarodes sloani (also C.).

Onychoteuthis banksvi (also A. B. C.).

XIII. Tue Pactric Insutar Recton.

The shores of the various archipelagos in the Pacific Ocean seem to be inhabited by
numerous Cephalopods which are quite distinct from the pelagic forms inhabiting the
open ocean. But few collections have as yet been made of these; not enough to enable
any general conclusions regarding their affinities to be drawn.

? Octopus vulgaris (also I. III. IV. V. VI. Octopus hawmensis.

VII. VIII. IX. X.). » araned (also VIL).
F » tonganus. » lunulatus.*
t+ 4, vitrensis. ? Sepiola owenrana (also V.).
t+ 4, = marmoratus. Sepia polynesica.

, aculeatus (also TX).

1 Hutton (Man. Moll. N. Zeal., p. 1) has corrected d’Abigny’s statement that this species is from New Zealand ;
Quoy and Gaimard say, “le havre Carteret 4 la Nouvelle Irlande.”

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 221

Sepioteuthis lunulata (also X1.). Tracheloteuthis risei (also A. V.).
+ i‘ lessonviana (also IX, X. Nautilus pompilius (also X1.).
XII.). A scrobiculatus.
Loligo pfeffert. 3 macromphalus.
4» spectrum. Bi umbilicatus.

XIV. Tue CatirorniAn REGION.

This region I regard as stretching from the peninsula of Alaska to the Isthmus of
Panama; probably it will eventually be necessary to subdivide it, but so few forms have
been described from that coast, that this course hardly seems advisable at present. From
the coast between Alaska and Kamtschatka no Cephalopods are known to me; probably
they will be found like the other Mollusca from that region to be of Arctic types.

Argonauta pucifica. Octopus punctatus (also TX. X).
5s expansd. Loliolus steenstrupt.
Octopus bimaculatus. Onychoteuthis lobipennis.

Ancistroteuthis robusta.

XV. Tut Peruvian REGION.

The northern boundary of this province may be taken at the Isthmus of Panama and
the southern at about the northern limit of Patagonia.

Octopus granulatus (also TI. Iv. VI. Loligo gahi (also IIL. XVI).
VII. IX.). Steenstrupiola chilensis.*
» fontanianus (also XVI). Onychoteuthis brachyptera.

Taonius schneehagen.*

XVI. THe Patagonian REGIon.

This region includes the extremity of South America, both on the eastern and

western coasts.

Octopus fontanianus (also XV.). Rossia sublevis (also IL).
,», tehwelchus (also IIL). Loligo gaha (also II. XV.).
+ Rossia patagonea. » patagonica.

Onychoteuthis ingens.

' 1 Probably these species are Oceanic.

222 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

XVII. Tar Arctic Recton.

The coasts of Greenland, Spitzbergen, and the seas within the Arctic circle, so far as
they have been explored, constitute this region.

Cirroteuthis miillerc. Rossia palpebrosa.

Octopus arcticus * (also A. I. IL). » glaucopis (also 1.).

Sepiola atlantica (also 1.). » mollerc.

Rossia macrosoma” (also I. V.). Gonatus fabricu (also A. C. II. V.).

Tuonius hyperboreus (also A. II.).

The general statements above made may be tested by reference to these statistical
tables.
The species enumerated in the Oceanic lists are distributed thus :—
: 66 species are recorded from only one Oceanic area.

15 ' 59 two Oceanic areas.
3 eS) ” three ”

These numbers show that about 75 per cent. of the oceanic forms are confined to one
ocean, and that cosmopolitan forms must be regarded as exceptional.
The species enumerated in the seventeen Littoral lists may be arranged thus :—

199 species are recorded from only one Littoral area.

27 5) * two Littoral areas.
12 3 Fe three 43

4 5 Fe four ny

1 a ss five i

2 . a six Ap

1 = ne ten op

About 80 per cent. therefore of these forms are confined to one region, a striking
confirmation of the proposition made on p. 211.

Thirty-five species are recorded from both Oceanic and Littoral regions, but the
majority of these are typically pelagic, and hence their occurrence in the latter areas must
be regarded as accidental ; furthermore it will be seen that almost without exception the
littoral regions where a species has been found are those bordering upon its proper ocean,
which is precisely what would have been expected.

‘Recorded by Dewhurst as Sepia grdenlandica (Nat. Hist. Cetacea, p. 263, London, 1834), and by Moller as
Octopus granulatus (Ind. Moll. groenl., p. 3). Most of the species enumerated above occur in Mérch’s list in Rink,
Danish Greenland, p. 440, London, 1877.

* This is more likely to be Rossia owent.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 223

The most remarkable instances of wide distribution are Octopus macropus (from
five regions), Octopus granulatus and Argonauta argo (each from six), and Octopus
vulgaris (from ten regions); but with regard to each of these it is probable that other species
have been recorded under the names of the better known ones. This is more especially
likely in the last instance, for the specific name vulgaris seems to impress certain
minds with the idea that the commonest form in all regions must be referable to it.

The genus Sepia, in contradistinction to Octopus and Loligo which are cosmopolitan,
presents us with a very interesting case of wide but yet definitely limited distribution.
The different distributional regions contain the following numbers of species :’—

I. Scandinavian, 1 X. Japanese, . 9
Il. New England, 0 XI. Australian, 9
III. West Indian, 1 Xil. New Zealand, 1
IV. Lusitanian, 5 XIII. Pacific Insular, il
V. Mediterranean, 5 XIV. Californian, 0
VI. West African, 4 XV. Peruvian, 0
VIL. South African, 5 XVI. Patagonian, 0
VIII. Red Sea, oe) XVII. Arctic, 0
TX. Indo-Malayan, o UY

From this summary it appears, in the first place, that the whole American continent
is devoid of any species of this genus, and that from the islands only one species
has been recorded and that a very doubtful one (Sepia antillarum, dOrb.). The
opposite hemisphere, however, is just as rich in species as this one is poor, and the
greatest abundance is seen to be in the Indo-Malayan region, from which no less than
nineteen forms have been recorded, while the remaining districts seem to contain fewer
types pretty nearly in proportion as they are removed from this centre; thus Japan and
Australia each have nine; the Red Sea, South Africa and the Mediterranean each five,
while the Scandinavian region has only one. The conclusion is most forcibly suggested
that this genus was first developed in this part of the world and has gradually spread,
Sepia antillarwm being as it were a pioneer leading the way to the occupation of the
Western Hemisphere.

An interesting correspondence has often been remarked between the Scandinavian
and New England regions; Verrill has called attention to it as regards the Mollusca as
a whole, and I have elsewhere given a comparison between the Ophiuroidea from
the two sides of the Atlantic.2 As regards the Cephalopoda the. resemblance between
the two faunas is not striking, especially at first sight, only Octopus prscatorwm and
Octopus arcticus being dbenally. common to the two; but it must be remembered that
several of the species of Rossia resemble each other closely (e.g., Rossia glaucopis of the
European, and Rossia hyatti of the American waters), while there is no doubt that Ilex
illecebrosus and Ilex coindetii are very nearly allied to each other. This resemblance

1 Species of the genus Sepiella are here included. 2 Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xii. p. 727, 1884.

224 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

is rendered less strange by the considerations, that it 1s most marked in the case of
the species from deep and cold water, and that the faunas of both sides of the Atlantic
are similarly related to the forms from the Arctic Ocean (compare regions I., II., and
XVII).

An apparent resemblance, less easy to account for, if it be found really to exist, is
that between the Western Pacific and the Western Atlantic, to which allusion has
already been made in the pages of this Report (pp. 105, 107, 184). A number of
identical or allied species are common to both, as may be seen from the subjoined list :—

WESTERN ATLANTIC. WESTERN PACIFIC.

Cirroteuthis plena. Cirroteuthis magna.
i megapterd. ss meangensis.
55 pacifica.

Octopus januarn, . : : ; . Octopus januarir.
Eledone verrucosa, . : ; ; . LEledone verrucosa.
Eledonella pygmea, : : : . Lledonella diaphana.
Calliteuthis reversa, : ‘ ; . Calliteuthis reversa.

It is possible that this resemblance may, upon further examination, prove to be
delusive. Cirroteuthis is a genus whose members appear to be rather widely distri-
buted in deep water; and Hledone verrucosa and Octopus januarit seem to be
inhabitants of moderately deep water, and will perhaps be dredged up from intermediate
points, while Eledonella is probably a pelagic genus, and if so is of no weight whatever
in the consideration of distributional problems. It seemed worth while, however,
to state the facts clearly as at present known, if only for the sake of directing attention
to them.

A relation between the marine faunas of Japan and Western Europe has been
pointed out in the case of fish by Dr. Giinther, and in the case of mollusca by the late
Dr. Gwyn Jeffreys,' but the study of the Cephalopoda has not made any additions to
the list of common forms. A matter of interest in this connection, however, is the
capture of specimens of Hnoploteuthis in the Malay Archipelago and in the Pacific,
which I see no reason for distinguishing from the Hnoploteuthis margaritifera of the
Mediterranean ; a fact which suggests the possibility of a connection having taken
place between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, although, so far as it has yet
been studied, the Cephalopod fauna of the Red Sea does not lend much support to this
hypothesis. I understand, however, from Professor Geikie, that there is strong
geological evidence in its favour, and, if so, the migration which has led to the existence
of similar forms in the seas of Japan and Western Kurope, may have taken place round
the south, and not round the north of Asia as has generally been supposed.

1 Journ. Linn. Soc. Lond., vol. xii. pp. 100-109 ; see also Hoyle, tom. cit. supra, p. 717.

BATHYMETRICAL DISTRIBUTION.

- Only slight materials are at present available for drawing any conclusions as to the
Bathymetrical Distribution of the Cephalopoda. This is due, in the first place, to the
fact that it is only quite recently that any record has been kept of the depth from which
specimens were obtained, all our museums having considered it suthcient to indicate
the localities of the various species.

Since the introduction of deep-sea dredging, however, a change in this respect has
set in, but even yet the collections of the Challenger and of the United States Fish
Commission and Coast Survey furnish by far the greater proportion of the accurate data
available for discussion, although, no doubt, the investigations of the “Talisman” and
“ Travailleur” will furnish welcome additions when published.

Another consideration, however, greatly diminishes our real knowledge in this
matter, and it is the fact, which has often been commented on in the present series of
Reports, that it by no means follows that specimens procured necessarily inhabit the
greatest depth reached by the dredge. In the case of animals so gifted with locomotor
powers as the Cephalopoda it is peculiarly impossible to obtain certainty in this respect,
and, consequently, every recorded instance of the occurrence of a member of this group
in deep water requires to be discussed on its own merits, and by the aid of whatever
collateral evidence may be available.

Before proceeding further it will be well to give, ma tabulated form, the information
yielded by the Challenger collection, supplemented by whatever could be obtained from
the literature of the subject or other trustworthy sources. No general statements, such as
“shallow water,” “moderate depths,” have been admitted, but only those in which a
definite number of fathoms was recorded; had the former been included the list of
species found above the 100 fathom line would have been much more extensive.

The figures indicate the depth in fathoms, and the letters the sources of information ;

(ais Is o—
Ch = Challenger collection. S = Professor G. O. Sars.
K =“Knight Errant” collection. T =“ Triton” collection.
P=‘ Porcupine” collection (Expedition of V = Professor Verrill.
1869). Val =‘‘Valorous” collection.

The numbers enclosed in square brackets indicate recorded depths which are almost certainly erroneous.
(ZOOL. CHALL. EXP.—PART XLVI.—1886.) Xx 29

226

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

TasBLeE I.—Species recorded from the Surface.

é h sh ican
Species. Challenger.| eepeditions, | Expeditions
Amphitretus pelagicus, n. sp., [520]
Argonauta argo, . : V.
Tremoctopus quoyanus, . Ch.

3 gracilis (?), Ch.

. atlanticus, Ch.

Alloposus mollis, . Ch. Vv.

Octopus brevipes (?), : Ch.

Eledonella diaphana, n. sp., . [1100]

Sepioteuthis lessoniana, 3 Ch.

Ommastrephes bartramii, V.
oualantensis, . Ch.

Todar odes sagittatus,

TIilex illecebrosus, . Ve

Teleoteuthis caribbea, Ch.

_ agilis, Ve
Gonatus fabrici2, . Vol.
Chiroteuthis bonplandi,

Cranchia reinhardtii, [1850]
me Sp., Ch.
Taonius pavo, Wo
» Ayperboreus, [1250] iP
Ch.
» suhmi, n. sp., . Ch.

Other Sources and
Remarks.

Dead.

Recorded Ceph. N.
KE. Amer., p. 388.

S.
Lesr.

Steenstrup has shown
reason for think-
ing that this form
also occurs in the
deep sea.

Vérany.
Stp.

Also in Table

IL, INV, Wo Wl

Ill. IV.

TV

IV. VI.
VII. ().

TABLE I.—Species recorded from between the Surface and 50 fathoms.

Species.

Other British
Challenger. Expeditions.

American
Expeditions.

Other Sources and
Remarks.

Also in Table

Octopus occidentalis, n. sp.,

5 tuberculatus,

Ry verrucosus, D. SP.,

“6 granulatus,

3 boscti, var. pallida, 0
0 tonganus, n. Sp.,

5p vitiensis, N. Sp.,

3 marmoratus, D. Sp. .
55 australis, 0. sp.

9 tehuelchus,

n.,

III.

IV.

TABLE I1.—continued.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA.

Species.

Octopus arcticus, .
verrilla,

9
pictus, var. fasciata, n

”

”

A bandensis, n. sp.,
LEledone cirrosa, .
Inioteuthis morset,
Rossia owent,

» hyatti,

» sublevis,

», (2) tenera, .
Sepia smitht, n. sp.,
papuensis, D. sp.,
elliptica, 0. sp., .
kobiensis, n. sp., .

pfefferi, n. sp.,- .

Sepiella maindroni (?),

2
bP)
”

Loligo pealez,
» orasiliensis,
», kobiensis, n. sp.,
» wndica, °
» galathex, nu. sp.,
Todarodes pacijicus,

bermudensis, 0. sp., .

TasE III.—Species recorded from between 50 and 100 fathoms.

Species.

Other British merican
Cielionge. Expeditions. Eee
7-47
27
6-15
40
8
40
7-49
42-45
18-31
28
28
28-49
§
28
12
1-50
13
8-12
28
20
12

Other Sources and
Remarks.

Exact depth not re-

corded.
7.

Te

Also in Table

III. IV. V.
Ii.

III.
Iii.
III. IV.
IIT. IV.

Octopus tuberculatus A

Ba arcticus, .

» verrilli, .
Sepiola rondeleti, .
Stoloteuthis leucoptera, .
Rossia owent, 5
glaucopis, .
hyatti,
sublevis,

”
”

2?

(2) tenera, .

» patagonica,
Loligo ellipsura, n. sp.,
Illex illecebrosus, .

”

Other British} American ther Sources a
Gaellongen eta Expeditions, y Remarks. -
69-84
54-97 60-300 S.
69
60-80 P.
94
60-80 P.
60 8.
57-101
53 54-100 | Not repeated
Table IV.
85 57-85
53
53
51-100

in

Also in Table

ie
II. IV. V.
Il.

IV.
II.
IV.
IL.
II. IV.

Il. IV.

IL, IY.

228

TaBLE 1V.—Species recorded from between 100 and 500 fathoms.

Species.

Challenger.

Cirroteuthis meangensis, 0. sp.,
Stauroteuthis syrtensis,
Opisthoteuthis agassizit,
Alloposus mollis, . : .
Octopus boscii, var. pallida, n.,
» areolatus, é
» carolinensis,
» duplex, n. sp.,.
s UHR, « 5
» obesus,
» puscatorum,
SS CCLUC ISH
» januari, n. sp.,
Eledone verrucosa,
Stoloteuthis leucoptera,
Nectoteuthis pourtalesii,
Rossia glaucopis, .
» sublevis,
» Orachyura,
53 LENETA,
» megaptera,
Spirula peronit, .
Sepia cultrata, n. sp., .
», sulcata, D. sp.,
» Kiensts, 0. sp.,
Iilex, illecebrosus, .
Abralia megalops,
Gonatus fabricti, . 5
Chiroteuthis lacertosa, .
Brachioteuthis beanti, .
Calliteuthis reversa,
Histioteuthis collinsti, .
Taonius hyperboreus,
Nautilus pompilius,

500

150
140

150

350

360
150
140
140

345

315

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

her British} -American Other Sources and .
Teoitoe Expeditions. Remarks. suo Sa Ube
Vv.
250 Nia Wile
291 VI.
238-506 I. V. VI
108
142
120-464 VE
150-300
120-200 V. VI.
345, P. 101-487 600-300 S. IHG IONE \¥
Wie
466 Vo Wak
110-3888 IU.
180
345 P. 2008. 1WO6
101-458 5 II. II.
208
100-252 IE IHOL
150 Vv.
We
100-258 i, JOE,
137-173
255-372 IL Wo
306-464 VI. VIL.
183-368 V.
365 Wo Wie Waal
180-372
[388] VI.

TaBLE V.—Species recorded from between 500 and 1000 fathoms.

Speci Chalenger| er Batsih| Ameren, | Othe Sours and | gio in Tole
Cirroteuthis meangensis, n. sp., 600 IV.
| Stauroteuthis syrtensis, . 523 VEN Vals
| Amplhitretus pelagicus, n, sp., [520] Almost certainly from
the surface.
| Alloposus mollis, . 715 I. IV. VI.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA.

Taste V.—continued.

229

Species.

Octopus lentus,

» prscatorum,

» arcticus, .
Eledone verrucosa,

» Orevis,n.sp., .
Japetella prismatica, n. sp., .

Rossia megaptera,

Spirula peronit, . 6
Bathyteuthis megalops, .
Mastigoteuthis agassizit,
Ancistrocheirus megaptera,
Gonatus fabricit, .
Brachioteuthis beanti, .
Calliteuthis reversa,

Challenger.

- 630
600
[70]

Other British) - American Other Soprces and Miko Sa TET
Expeditions. | Expeditions. Remarks.
603 IV.
540, 608 K.E., T. IV. VI.
540-632 524, 843 P., KE, T. II. II. IV.
787-810 IV. VI.
Probably from sur-
face.
640 IV.
950 IV.
600 VI.
647 VI. VII.
707
715, 906 L IV.
843 IV.
906 IV. VI. VIL

TaBLe VI.—Species recorded from between 1000 and 2000 fathoms.

_ Species. Challenger. eee ene Other, Sources and | MAlsoniay Table

Cirroteuthis magna, 0. sp., 1375 Vil.

“4 plena, 1073

ra megaptera, 1054 VIL.
Stauroteuthis syrtensis, 1346 ING We
Opisthoteuthis agassizit, 1054 IV.
Alloposus mollis, . 1346-1735 Ik, IDS WW,
Octopus piscatorum, 1362 IV. V.

cp GRAS, 1290
» januari, D. sp., 1875 IV.

Eledone verrucosa, 1050-1255 IV. V
Eledone rotunda, nu. sp., 1950 WAL,
Eledonella diaphana, nu. sp., . . | [1100]
Promachoteuthis megaptera, D, sp., 1875 Quite uncertain.
Enoploteuthis margaritifera, [1425] Very doubtful. VII.
Bathyteuthis abyssicola, u. sp., 1600

4 megalops, . 1073 V.
Mastigoteuthis agassizit, 1945 1632 V. VIL.
Doratopsis diaphana, [1731] Probably surface.
Chiroteuthis lacertosa, . 1022, 1309 IV. VII.
Calliteuthis reversa, 1346-1608 VV ee Valulale
Cranchia reinhardtit, [1850] Surface almost be-

; : yond doubt.

Taonius hyperboreus, . [1250] [1346] Almost certainly IE, IY.

surface.
\

230

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

TaBLe VII.—Species recorded from between 2000 and 3000 fathoms.

Species.

Cirroteuthis magna, 0. sp.,

sf megaptera,
Eledone rotunda, n. sp.,
Eledonella pygmea,
Mastigoteuthis agassizit,

Chiroteuthis lacertosa, .
Calliteuthis reversa,
Histiopsis atlantica, n. sp.,
Taonius suhmi, 0. spy .

a pacificd, D. sp. .

Enoploteuthis margaritifera,

Other British | American
[Olnalern gon. Expeditions. | Expeditions.
2225
2440
2512, 2574
2225
[2949]
: 2515
Se | eee
9 6 2098, 2949
2369
2025
[2150]

Other Sources 1) | /Aleonn Table
VI.
VI.
VI.
VY. VI.
Very doubtful. VI.
IY, Wk
IV. V. VI
Possibly surface.
Surface. I,

Some of the genera enumerated in the above list merit a brief discussion, and among
these perhaps the most interesting is Cirroteuthis, whose remarkable history has already
been alluded to (p. 55); the type species, described in 1836, was the only one known till
1883, since which time six species have been brought to our knowledge in addition to

the two closely allied if not identical genera, Stawroteuthis and Opzsthoteuthis.

The

following table gives all the particulars which have been published regarding the habitat
of each of these forms, as well as the localities of some specimens too fragmentary for

identification.
Temperature.
Species. Locality. Depth in Remarks.
Fathoms.| Bottom | Surface
218g malts
Cirroteuthis miillert, Eschricht, | Jakobshavn, Greenland. a No information as to depth.
sp umbellata, Fischer, Suaeee cul Wexb (CHES Gi Dial 500 fee
AF magna, Hoyle, Southern Ocean. 1375 35°6 43°0
5) a 5 , Off Valparaiso. 2225 35°6 59°0
90 pacifica, Hoyle, Between Papua and Australia. 2440 35°8 80:0 | Station Book says ‘‘surface.”
y is NG
” meangensis, Hoyle, Coe ee nels leans, GHIA OF 500 41°8 80°5
Off Kermadec Islands, South : F
* My Bia Swain 600 | 39:5 | 66-5 ;
5 P Floating on surface, dead and
5 sp.?, 20° West of Patagonia. ae 000 00 ee Ny Be oe aL
An plena, Verrill, 5° East of Chesapeake Bay. 1073 38:0 73°0
Ba megaptera, Verrill, | A little further east. 2512 37°0 78°0 | Two specimens.
x aD 4 . | A little further east still. 2574 37°0 79°0 3 5
3 sp.?, e . | A little further north. 1054 38°0 74:0
Rector More than six localities in the| 428 to | 88:0 to |71:0 to
22 SBS O's : H same region. 1106 40°0 74:0
| 30 miles east of Sable Island, 250
° . . Nova Scotia. EBS ae
Staunoteuthis syrtensis, Verrill, | oe Martha’s Vineyard. 523 | 39:0 | 68:0
Near same locality. 1346 360 ee
. ° ele . Off Grenada. 291 000 20
Opisthoteuthes agassizw, Verrill, Of Martha’s Vineyard. 1058 | 38:0 | 74:0

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 231

From the above table it will be seen that (excluding the type form, concerning
which no information has been published in this regard), not one of the species of
Cirroteuthis has been found at a depth less than 600 fathoms, and, therefore, if we are
Justified in taking the depth to which the dredge or trawl descended as representing the
depth from which the specimens were obtained, we must certainly regard them as deep-
sea forms.

Tt is, however, well known to all who are familiar with the methods of deep-sea
dredging that this cannot be at once assumed. Indeed, in one case, namely that of Cirro-
teuthis pacifica, the MS. Station Book kept on board the Challenger states that the specimen
came from the surface, but it appears certain that this was merely an assumption based
upon the supposed nature of the animal, and cannot be held as conclusive evidence in
regard to the occurrence of these animals on the surface.

On the other hand, it is not a little noticeable that this family should have remained
among the greatest of zoological rarities until deep-sea dredging was practised, and that
then specimens should have been procured with comparative frequency. Negative
evidence is proverbially unsatisfactory, but had they been surface organisms one would
have expected that the voyages of the older zoologists would have shown us some trace
of creatures which are too remarkable to have been passed over in silence had they
been observed.

The fact that the animals in question should have been so long known from one
locality in the Arctic regions is probably to be explained, as v. Willemoes-Suhm
has hinted, by this being one more instance of a type found in the abyssal regions
near the equator and in temperate regions of the globe, whilst it approaches near
to the surface in the Polar regions (see p. 65). The probability that this hypothesis is
correct is increased by a consideration of the temperatures of the various localities at
which the specimens were found; a glance at the table shows that while the surface
temperature in these various places varied as much’as from 43° to 80° F., the
bottom temperature was comparatively constant, ranging between 35°°6 and 41°°8 F.

Furthermore, eggs containing embryos undoubtedly belonging to this genus have
been dredged by Professor Verrill in deep water, 428 to 1106 fathoms, and it would seem
unreasonable to suppose that animals living at the surface should lay eggs and leave
them to sink through so great a distance, during which time they would be exposed to
great danger from the attacks of their enemies.

The two other genera discovered by Professor Verrill do not seem to be so certainly
deep-sea animals as Cirroteuthis, for they have both been met with at depths of less
than 300 fathoms, although they appear also to range to a depth of over 1000 fathoms,

In discussing this matter it must not be forgotten that there are animals with a very
extensive bathymetrical range, e.g., Amphilepis norvegica, among the Ophiuroidea, and
Bathyactis symmetrica among the Corals, but these are exceptions, and from the reasons

232 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

detailed above, I am inclined to think that the Cirroteuthide belong to the deep-water
rather than to the shallow seas.

As regards their habits we are quite in the dark. Reinhardt and Prosch in their
treatise upon Cirroteuthis miillert confessed their entire ignorance of this matter, and
though they held out the hope that Dr. Rudolph would do something to enlighten the
scientific world on this head, still the darkness remains as great as ever—whether the
huge umbrella serves only for swimming, or whether it is also a kind of fishing net; what
is the function of the cirri between the suckers? are they tactile like the long fringes of
certain deep-sea fish ? or do they serve to create a current sweeping particles of food to
the mouth as already suggested (p. 56)? Even as regards the food of Cirroteuthis I
can give no information, for all the specimens in the Challenger collection were either so
fragmentary that it was impossible to examine their stomachs, or else these were
empty. The intestine of Cirroteuthis magna contained a mass of pulpy material in
which I found no recognisable fragments.

Another genus, which there is reason to regard as an inhabitant of the deep sea, is
Bathyteuthis, the type specimen of which was dredged by the Challenger in the
Southern Ocean, north-west of Kerguelen, from a depth of 1600 fathoms; and quite
recently Professor Verrill has described, under the name Benthoteuthis, two other specimens
from 600 and 1073 fathoms in the North Atlantic, obviously belonging to the same
genus.’ In the course of his description he calls attention to the embryonic characters of
these animals, which indeed are too striking to escape notice, but these same characters
may also point to the deep sea as the probable home of the species.

For the small fins seem but ill adapted for a pelagic life, and the minuteness of the
suckers with which the arms and tentacles are provided seem little fitted for raptorial
purposes, while the great size of the eyes is known to be a character of frequent occur-
rence in deep-sea animals, in addition to which the large buccal membrane may serve the
purpose of collecting food from an oozy bottom.

A third genus which may perhaps be abyssal is Mastigoteuthis, Verrill, of which at
present only one species is known, Mastigoteuthis agassizii, which has been dredged
by the U.S.S. “Blake” and by the Fish Commission in depths varying from 647 to
2516 fathoms, while the Challenger brought home a single tentacle which adhered to
the dredge-rope at Station 2 in the eastern part of the North Atlantic, where the depth
was 1945 fathoms.

It will be seen that this species presents a great contrast to the last mentioned in the
fin, which is exceedingly large, quite as large as in any of the pelagic forms; this would
seem to indicate that although the animal may dwell in the deep sea, it by no means
leads a sedentary existence ; the two genera resemble each other, however, in the form of
the tentacles, which are long, cylindrical and taper to points at the extremities instead of

1 Trans. Connect. Acad., vol. vi. pp. 401-403, 1885.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. ~— 238

expanding to form clubs, and are armed with very minute suckers; I have not observed
anything like a specialised tactile organ in either of these tentacles, or I should be disposed
to suggest an analogy between them and the long streaming fringes found in certain
deep-sea fish. The fact remains, however, that this form of tentacle is the only structural
character which I have observed to be common to any two deep-sea Cephalopods. The
stomach of one of Professor Verrill’s specimens contained fragments of Crustacea, but we
have no other information regarding its habits and mode of life.

It must be admitted that the evidence that this form came from the deep sea is by
no means conclusive, but it is very suggestive that no individuals should have been taken
in a surface net, while they seem to be not very uncommonly brought up by the deep-sea
trawl.

Five species of Octopus (see p. 229), have been brought up from depths of over 500
fathoms, a particularly interesting fact since we are accustomed to consider these animals
as being characteristic of shallow waters. It seems unlikely, however, that they live at
the surface, for from what we know of the habits of this genus as observed in aquaria,
they seem rather to frequent the bottom, hiding in crevices of the rocks, and clinging to
them by their suckers, swimming only as a means of passing from one hiding place to
another ; the same remark applies also to the three species of Hledone (Hledone verru-
cosa, Eledone rotunda and Eledone brevis), which also appear in the lists of deep-water
forms.

Eledonella has only been twice obtained and on both occasions by a dredge that
had been down to the abyssal regions (1100 and 2949 fathoms), but its semitransparent
consistency, resembling that of Cranchia and Taonius, is suggestive of its being a pelagic
organism.

Alloposus mollis furnishes another problem for future investigation, both as regards
its habits and its systematic position. All the specimens obtained in a perfect state have
been brought up from considerable depths, and the tissues have a soft gelatinous character,
recalling Cirroteuthis ; perhaps this may be in some way correlated with deep-sea life ;
Giinther has poimted out that abyssal fish when brought up to the surface present a marked
flaccidity of their tissues.

As regards the single specimen which forms the type of the new genus Promacho-
teuthis, I feel quite unable to give any opinion as to its habits. It was brought up by
the deep-sea trawl from a depth of 1875 fathoms, off the coast of Japan, but I have failed
to find any sufficient evidence to show whether it came from the surface or the bottom.

The Taonoteuthids (Calliteuthis, Histioteuthis, &c.) form a group, whose bathymetrical
distribution presents a still unsolved problem ; perhaps the truth is that the species vary
in this respect. Vérany records that his specimens of Histioteuthis were taken by the
dredge ; Calliteuthis has been taken by deep-sea dredges in depths varying from 345 to

2369 fathoms; the only specimen known of Histiopsis was brought up by a trawl which
(ZOOL, CHALL, EXP.—PART XLIV.—1886.) Xx 30

234 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

had descended to 2025 fathoms. On the other hand, Chiroteuthis veranyi is distinctly
stated by Vérany to live “a fleur d’eau pendant les calmes des belles saisons, au milieu
des médusaires,”! and the same author records that he also found his specimen of
Chiroteuthis bonplandi on the surface, while Verrill’s examples of Chiroteuthis lacertosa
have been obtained by dredging, apparently from depths varying from 300 to 2900
fathoms.

In this, as in so many other respects, we must await new facts before any conclusions

m1

of value can be obtained; the great need of the present day as regards inquiry into
bathymetrical distribution is a net which can be opened and closed at any given depth.

1 Céph. médit., p. 122.

SUMMARY.

The present Report opens with a synopsis of all the recent species of Cephalopods ;
no pains have been spared to ensure accuracy and completeness in this part of the work,
and it is hoped that it will enable the memoir to serve to some extent as a monograph of
the group, for though the space available precluded the possibility of adding diagnoses of
genera and species, references have been given to the works where these may be obtained.

A list of the species contained in the Challenger collection occupies the next section
of the Report, diagnoses of the new ones being given and such remarks as seemed neces-
sary on those previously known. The Challenger collection contains 72 species, disposed
in 30 genera, of which 32 species and 4 genera are described as new to science; it has
only been found necessary, however, to create one new family (Amphitretidee).

The “ Porcupine,” “ Knight Errant,” “Triton,” and “ Valorous” collections, which,
as explained in the Introduction, are included in this memoir, contain 8 additional
species, none of which are new, and:3 additional genera, making a total of 80 species
and 33 genera recorded.

It is a matter for surprise that so few pelagic Cephalopods should have been captured
on an expedition which spent so much time on the open ocean, and made such constant
and systematic use of the townet. The explanation probably lies in the enormous
activity of these animals, which is so great that they can only be captured when the
vessel is moving rapidly, a condition which renders the use of the townet difficult if not
impossible.

A most important means of obtaining them is by the examination of the stomachs of
predaceous birds, fish and Cetacea, of whose food they form a large part; on the
Challenger Expedition, for example, several specimens of Ommastrephes oualaniensis were
taken from the stomach of a bird which alighted on the ship; and one of the most remark-
able items in the collection, the large pen described on p. 178, was taken from the stomach
of a shark. The value of the results which would accrue to science if whalers and those
engaged in the capture of sea-fowl would preserve the contents of the stomachs in spirit,
can hardly be exaggerated.

Some disappommtment may be felt at there being no specimen, even fragmentary, of
one of those giant squids (Architeuthus), which have been found, attaining sometimes a

236 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

length of sixty or seventy feet,’ in all parts of the world, and which have, no doubt, con-
tributed to the stories of the sea-serpent. The largest Cephalopod obtained by the
Challenger was the type of Cirroteuthis magna; it measures more than a metre in
length, and is interesting as being the largest individual of the genus which has yet been
obtained.

The greatest accessions of new species have been to the already large genera Octopus,
Sepia, and Loligo, but these are of less interest than the unique specimens which have
been made types of new genera, each of which presents some character either entirely
novel, or important as furnishing connecting links between previously known forms. The
genus Amphitretus, for example, has two openings into the branchial cavity in place of
one, a disposition found in no other Cephalopod; while Histiopsis is related closely to
Histioteuthis, Chiroteuthis, and Calliteuthis.

The next section treats of Geographical Distribution, and an attempt has been made
to supplement the work of the Challenger by a summary of all that has been recorded on
this head. The species have been divided into “littoral ” and “ oceanic,” the latter group
including both “ pelagic” and “abyssal.” Lists of each of these are given, but owing
probably to the want of complete information, the same species sometimes appears under
two categories; thus an Ommastrephes, typically pelagic, may be obtained near the coast
among littoral forms. It is much to be wished that future collectors will carefully note
the exact localities where and the conditions under which specimens are obtained, and
thus help to unravel some of the problems which wait solution regarding the distribution
of these animals.

In the concluding section, which treats of Bathymetrical Distribution, still greater
difficulties have been encountered, because in the case of such active creatures it is
obviously impossible to assume that they were captured by the dredge or trawl at the
ereatest depth reached. In the case of the single specimen of Promachoteuthis, for
example, there seems no means of arriving at any conclusion as to the depth whence it
was obtaimed. :

Nevertheless, taking all collateral facts into consideration, evidence is adduced which
seems to indicate that Crrroteuthis almost certainly, Bathyteuthis and Mastigoteuthis
probably, and possibly even one or two species of Octopus, may be veritably abyssal
Cephalopods, but apart from the single fact that Bathyteuthis and Mastigoteuthis both
have slender filiform tentacles with minute suckers, no structural features have been
discovered which will serve to diagnose a deep-sea form from a shallow-water one.

1 Verrill, Ceph. N.E. Amer., part i.

INDEX.

Note.—Synonyms are printed in ztalics ; the more important pages are indicated by darker type.

ABRALIA, Gray, anaes
armata (@. ef G.), .
megalops, V7/.,
morisii (Vér.),
oweni (Vér.), .
polyonyx (TZvosch.),
veranyi (Riipp.),

ACANTHOSEPION, Rochebr.,
enoplon, Rochebr., .
goreense, Rochebr., .
hasselti, Rochebr., .
javanicum, Rochebr.,
oculiferwm, Rochebr.,
spinigerum, Rochebr.,

Autoposipa, Vil., .

Axxoposus, Vil.,

mollis, V7,

AMPHIOCTOPUS, Fischer.

membranaceus (Q. et G. ),

AMPHITRETIDA, n. fan, .
AMPHITRETUS, Hoyle,
pelagicus, Hoyle,
ANCISTROCHEIRUS, Gray, .
lesueurii (@’Orb. et Fér.),
megaptera, V77., ;
ANCISTROTEUTHIS, Gray, .
dussumieri (d’Orb.),
lichtensteinii (Fér.),
robusta (Dall),
AnrsocTus, Raf., . .
ARCHITEUTHIS, an
dux, Harting,
grandis, Vll., .
hartingii, V11.,
harveyi (Kent),
megaptera, Vil.,
monachus, Stp.,
princeps, Vl.,
ARCHITEUTHUS, Stp.,
dux, Stp.,
grandis (Owen)

Plate Page
p00 oad 38
38, 213
38, 215, 228
38, 213
38, 217
38, 217
38, 217
20
25
25
22
25
25
22
7, 72, 74
e ae
7, 67, 72, 202, 212,
214, 226, 228, 229

9
4, 67

Le 3 4, 67
1x. 4,67,204,213,226, 228
37

37, 214

38, 213, 229

40, 177

40, 213

40, 217

40, 221

46

35

35

35

35

35

33

35

35

35, 163

35, 213, 214

35

ARCHITEUTHUS—continued.
harveyi (Kent), :
martensi (Hilg.),
monachus, Stp., .
princeps, VU1.,

Arconavta, L.,

argo, L., ° 0

beettgeri, Maltzan, .
expansa, Dail,
gondola, Ad. et Rv.,
gondola, Dillw.,
gracilis, Kirk, .
gruneri, Dky., “0
haustrum, Dillw., .
hians, Soland.,
kochiana, Dkyr.,
navicula, Soland., .
nitida, Lmk.,
nodosa, Soland., .
oryzata, Meuschen, ..
owenti, Ad. et Rv.
pacifica, Dall,
. tuberculata, Shaw, .
tuberculosa, Lmk., .
ARGONAUTIDE, Cantr., _..
ASCAROSEPION, Rochebr.,
verreauat, Rochebr.,
BATHYTEUTHIS, Hoyle, |
abyssicola, Hoyle,
megalops (VU.),
BENTHOTEUTHIS, V11.,
megalops, Vll.,
Bouirana, Stp.,
microcotyla, Stp.,
BracuHiorevruis, Vil.,
beanii, V7.,
BOSTRYCHOTEUTHIS, Ag.,
CauuiTEvruis, Vil., .
ocellata (Owen),

reversa, Vil.,. |.

Plate Page
; 35, 218, 215
35, 219
a 35, 213, 214
a 35, 213, 215
cine 4, 69, 74
4,69, 202,212,214, 216,
" (217, 218, 219, 223,226
5
5, 221
5
4
5, 220
4, 69
4, 69
5, 212, 214, 218

ae 5, 221
4,214, 217,218,219, 220
4
4, 69
20
a 21
36, 167, 232
36,168, 203,213,229
36, 213, 229
36, 167, 232
36, 169
16, 68, 74, 110
16, 108, 213
Me 43
43, 213, 215,228, 229
: 3, 55
: 42, 180, 182, 183
eis sah 42, 219
42, 183, 203,206,213,
215, 219, 224, 298,
229, 230

XXIX.

238

CHELOTEUTHIS, VIl.,
papas, Nill, .

CHIROTEUTHIDA, Gray,

CHIROTEUTHIS, d’O7b.,
bonplandi (Vé7.),

lacertosa, Vl.,
Sp.,

veranyi (Fér. ,
CHONDROSEPIA, LKt.,

loliginiformis, Lkt.,

CIRROTEUTHID#, Kef.,
CIRROTEUTHIS, Eschr.,

magna, Hoyle,

meangensis, Hoyle, .

megaptera, V/l.,
miilleri, Zschr.,

pacifica, Hoyle,

plena, V7/.,

Sp-,

anipalln, Fischer,
Cistorus, Gray,

bursarius, Sip.,

indicus (Rapp),
ConoTEuTHIs, d’Orb.,
CRANCHIA, Fer.,

Crancuia, Leach,

bonelliana, Feér.,
brockii (P#7r. );
hispida, P7r.,
maculata, Leach,
megalops, Prosch,
minima, Feér.,
perlucida, Rang,

reinhardtii, Sép.,

scabra, Leach,
SP.

Remuitentaculatar Pifr.,

CRANCHLEFORMES, Sép.,
CRANCHIADE, Gray, .
CucioreurHus, Sép.,

unguiculatus (Molina),

Drvapopa, Leach,
DESMOTEUTHIS, Vll.,
hyperborea, Vl.,
tenera, Vl.,
DIBRANCHIATA,
DICTYDIOPSIS, .

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER,

Plate

. XXXI.

‘a

. Ix.

DIPHTHEROSEPION, Rochebr. bp 0

dabryi, Rochebr.,

ornatum (Rang),

martini, Rochebr.,
Doraropsis, Rochebr.,

Page
, Al, WANA
41, 174
42, 178
. 42,178, 182
42, 48, 218, 226
42,179, 213, 215, 228,
229, 230
178, 207
... 42, 182, 217
26
27
3, 55, 74
3,16,55,68,73,74,110
3,56, 62, 65, 202, 208,
213, 224, 229, 230
eee aa re te
224, 228, 230
3,63, 212,224,229, 230
HOGA 6 28, 08,
292, 230, 232:
3, 61, 64, 204, 213,
Tbe, oon
3, 212, 224, 229, 230
63, 66, 208, 230
3, 55, 212, 230
14
o 14
.. 14, 217, 218
164
i 43
44,166, 169, 184, 188,
197, 211
43
44, 219
; 44
as 186, 213
44, 177, 185, 213
20
ms. 172
44,164, 184, 187, 197,
202, 213, 226, 229
.. 44, 213, 215
187, 202, 226
44, 215
44, 184
44, 184
37
37, 214
16, 110
ee 187, 188
45, 190
45, 187, 189, 191
3, 55
102
149

Doratorsis—continued.
diaphana (V7/.), . .
riippelli, Rochebr., . -
vermicularis (Riipp.), .

DORATOSEPION, Rochebr., F
trygoninum, Rochebr., .
Dosrpicus, Sép., F F 5
eschrichtii, Stp., . .
steenstrupii, Pfr., . .

DycrTyviopsis, Rochebr., . 5
ellipsoptera (Ad. et Ryv.),
ELEDONA, Risso, 0 ; :

ELEDONE, Leach, é °
aldrovandi, ‘Stell, 5
aldrovandi (Raf.), . .
brevis, Hoyle, . 6 5
cirrosa (Link. ), . .
genet, Vér., . oe 85

halliana, Rochebr., . 0
moschata (Zmk.), . 0
octopodia (Pennt.), . .
pennantii, Macgill., 5

rotunda, Hoyle,
verrucosa, Vii., 0 °

ELEDONELLA, Vil., . . .

diaphana, Hoyle, . .

pygmea, V77., p .
ELEDONENTA, Rochebr., . :
filholiana, Rochebr., f
microsicya, Rochebr., .

ENOPLOTEUTHIS, d’Orb., . .
armata (Q. et G.), . .
cookii, Owen, . a .
hoylei, Pfr., . 5 :
leptura (Leach), 5 a
lesueurti, Orb. et Fér.,

margaritifera, Riipp., .
owenti, Vér., . 8 A
pallida, Pfr, 4 .
polyonyx, Trosch., . .

smithii, Gray, n .
veranyt, Ripp., . :
ENTomopsis, Rochebr., . .

clouet, Rochebr., . .

velaini, Rochebr., . 6
EuseErit, Stp., . . a 7
FIDENAS, Gray.

penares, Gray, 5 A
GONATIDR, 2. subfam., +
Gonatus, Gray, é ; -

amend, Gray, 4 ,

fabricii (Licht.), .

Grenacher’s pelagic larva,

Plate

VIII.

VIII.

XXIX.

Page
.. 43, 213, 229
Se 43
.. 43, 179, 217
20
23
33
33, 217
34
46, 102
46
102
15, 67, 74, 101, 110
15, 102
.. 15, 102, 216
15,105, 208, 213, 229
15,102, 147, 209,210
214, 216, 227
15, 102
: 15
. 15, 103, 216
103
eee 15, 102
15,104, 203, 208, 213,
214, 229, 230, 233
15, 104, 184,204, 213,
214,215,224,228, 229
16, 68, 106, 110
16, 107, 184,206, 214,
224, 226, 229, 233
16, 184, 218, 224, 230
: 15
15
16
37, 38, 171
38
37
Bip, Oalre
... 87, 213, 214
37
37, 171, 205, 207, 214,
217, 224, 229, 230
38
37, 213
38
37
38
36, 163
36
36
20, 123

17

41, 178

41, 173

41, 174

41, 174,209, 210, 213,
214, 215, 217,222,226,
228, 229
ve 198, 208

LTALIPHRON, Stp.,
atlanticus, Stp.,

HALLIA, Val., . 3 Q
sepioidea, Val.,
Hemiserius, Stp., . a

typicus, Sip., .
HETEROTEUTHIS, Gray,
HETEROTEUTHIS, Vil, .

dispar (Riipp. ),

tenera, Vll., . 0
Histiorsis, Hoyle, . 0

atlantica, Hoyle,
HISTIOTEUTHID#, Vll.,
HistioTeutuis, @’Orb.,

bonelliana (Fér.), .

collinsii, V7, .

ruppelli, Vér., 5
Hoyira, Rochebr., . 0

sepioidea (Val.), .
HYALOTEUTHID#, Pfir., .
HIVALOTEUTHIS, Pfir., .

vermicularis, Pffr., .
Iproseri, Stp., : :
IpiosErius, Stp., . .

pygmeus, Stp., .
ILLEX, Stp., 0

coindetii (Vér.),

illecebrosus (Les.), .

Iniorruruis, Vil., . °
japonica (V7/1.), .
morsei, V7., .

JAPETELLA, Hoyle, . :

diaphana, Hoyle, .
prismatica, Hoyle, .
LEACHIA, Les., . . .
borealis, Jeffr.,
eyelura, Zes., . .
dubia (Rathke), .

ellipsoptera (Ad. et Rv.),

hyperborea, Stp., »
reinhardtii, Stp., »
LEPTOTEUTHIS, Vl., 0
diaphana, V1l.,
vermicolaris (Riipp.),
LESTOTEUTHIS, Vl., 0
fabricii (Licht.), .
kamtschatica (Middf. ),
LiocrAncuiA, Pffr., . .
brockii, Pffr., .
reinhardtit (Stp.),
Liogtossa, Lth., : 0D
Loicinet, Stp., é 5

LOLIGINIS species maxima, Seba,

Louico, Link., 0 5

wquipoda, Riipp.,. .
affinis, Laf., i
alessandrinii, V ér.,

'

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA.

Plate Page
7, (2
coo me 0, (2, 13
O00 aon 15
bad we 15
ph 26, 148
obo PA, Alri, GALZ
19, 118
19, 119
080 ton | 1Q) BAK
b00 a 19, 118
ae 42, 180
42, 180, 208, 213, 230
ns 183
... 43, 180, 182
so 43, 217
... 44, 215, 228
44, 217
15
15
43
000 Sch 43
43
oud 20, 122
ooo sas 20, 169
p00 ... 20, 213, 218
900 aoe 34
34, 214, 216, 223
34,213, 215, 223, 226,

227, 228

XXX,

17, 112

ae 17, 219
xiv. 17,112,207, 219, 227
: 16, 68, 74, 106, 108
ap ... 16,107,110
1x. 16, 109, 202,213, 229
: ... 46, 188, 198
174

46, 213, 214

~ 46

46, 174, 191, 213

174, 188, 191

ne 44, 184
ue oe 43
43

es oy 43
Sop 40, 41, 173, 177
x oo al, TA
41, 174

44

44

44
3, 55

26, 151

34

oa 9,28, 122,151,152, 166,
169,181, 197,211,223
a 33

28, 216
172

one

Lo1t1go—continued.

arabica (Hhrbg.), .»
australis, Gray,
banskvi, Leach,
bartramit, Les., .
berthelotii, Vér.,
bianconti, Vér., A
bleekeri, Ke/., .
bowyeri, Cr. et F.,
brasiliensis, Blv.,
breviceps, Stp., 0
brevipes, Morch, .
brevipinna, Les., .
brevipinnis, Pfir.,
brevis, Bly.,
brevitentaculata, Q. et G.
brongnartii, Blv., .
carunculata (Schn. ),
chinensis, Gray,
coindetiz, Vér.,
duvaucelii, d’Orb., .
eblanz, Ball, .
edulis, Hoyle, .

ellipsura, Hoyle,

emmakina, Gray,
forbesii, Sép., .
gahi, @’Orb.,
galathez, Sép.,
gronovii, Fér.,
hardwickei, Gray,
hemiptera, Howell, .
illecebrosa, Les. ,
indica, Pfr, . 5
japonica, Stp., f
kobiensis, Hoyle, .
lanceolata, Raf., .
laticeps, Owen, .
lepturo, Leach, 0
macrophthalma, Laf.,
magna, Ad., . 0
marmore, Ver., «
media (L.),
mediterranea, Targ.,
meneghini, Vér.,
microcephala, Laf.,
moulinsi, Laf.,
neglecta, Gray,
odogadium, Raf., i
oualaniensis, Less. ,
parva, dOrb., d
patagonica, #. A. Sm.,

pavo, Les., . .
pealei, Les., . °
pfefferi, 7. 7., 0

pille, Ver, 3
piscatorum, La Pyl.,
plei, Biv., 0
poecyanus, Fér.,
pulchra, Blv.,

Plate

XXIII.
XXIV.
XXyV.

» XXIV.

239

Page
30, 218
30, 220-
39
32
28
co0 41
30, 158, 219

35

» ss 29,158, 161, 208,215, 227

28, 155, 214
28

29, 31

29

31

... 29, 156, 219
os 33
29, 152, 206, 219

30, 160, 208, 227

cay 31
29, 111, 214, 216
29, 215, 221
30,159,205, 219, 227
31

31

31

a 34

29, 156, 205, 219, 227
30, 157, 206, 219
29,154, 207,219,227

tae 172

: 30
... 80, 214, 216

28

Ne 41

oe FR) ALG

28, 216

28

31

33, 162

30

29, 221

on CR, UGB

29, 153, 154, 215, 297
29, 221

34

he 34

co SO), PALES

4. 158) 154

28

240

Lorico—continued.

punctata, de Kay, . é
TONG PET) Ve hte a
reynaudii, d’Orb., -. 0

sagittata, Lmk., ~~. 4
sepioidea, Blv.,
smythii, Leach,
spectrum, P77.,
spiralis, Fér., b
subalata (Gere. et v. Ben. b
subulata, Lmk., .
sumatrensis, @ Orbs,
todaropterus, d. Ch:, 2
todarus, d. Ch.,
tricarinata, Gray,
vanikoriensis, Q. et'G., .
vulgaris, Link.,
vulgaris, Lenz, , 2
Louicorsis, Lmk.,
LOLIGopsis, Fér.,
LoLicopsis, @ Orb.,
LZovicoPsis, Owen,
bomplandi, Veér., z
ellipsoptera, Ad. et Ry., .

guttata, Grant, . .
hyperborea (Stp.),
ocellata, Owen, 5 :

pavo (Les.),

peronii, Lmk., F

reinhardtii (Stp.), b

schnechagenit, Pfr. ,

veranyt, Feér., . : u

vermicularis, Riipp.,

zygena, Vér.,.
Loutouvs, Sép.,

affinis, Stp.,

steenstrupi, Dall,

typus, Stp.,
LOLLIGUNCULA, Sép., 5

brevis (Blv.), . : 6
LOPHOSEPION, Rochebr., 3
MASTIGOTEUTHIDA, Vil.,. .
MasticoTrEuTHis, V7i.,

agassizi, V71.,

MEGALOCRANCHIA, Pffr.,°.
maxima, Pffr.,
MEGALOTEUTHIS, Kent.
harveyi, Kent,
MEGATEUTHUS, Hilg.
martensit, Hilg., .
Meraserria, Hoyle,
pfefferi, Hoyle,
tullbergi (App. ),
MOROTEUTHIS,
robusta, V1l.,
MovcueEzia, Vélain,
sancti-pauli, Vélain,
Myorsipa, d’0rb.,
NAvriLips, Owen,

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Plate

: XXIX.

XXI.

Page

29

: 28

°30, 155, 217

34

26

37

29, 221

30

30, 219

30

29, 219

32

34

31

ono 33, 162

28, 111,156, 214, 216

28

182

00 42

45, 46, 187, 189

42, 183

42

46, 102

46, 198

191

; 42, 183

& 188, 190

20, 46

184

45

42,

43

198

31

214

221

31

31

215

20

36, 170

... 86, 170, 232

36, 170, 201, 213,
229, 230, 232

45, 187

45

. 43, 46,

46,
31,
31,

31, 162,

35

Navritwvs, Z., . .
anerarmpineltt, Sow.,

pompilius, Z.,

serobiculatus, Soland.,

stenomphalus, Sow.,

umbilicatus, Lister,
Necrorevuruts, V71.,

pourtalesii, V77.,
OcToPrip&, @’Orb.,
Ocroropa, Leach,
Ocroropipa, d’Orb.,
OCTOPODOTEUTHIS, Krohn et

Riipp.,

sicula (Riipp.),
OCTOPOTEUTHIS, Riipp.

sicula, Riipp.,
Octopus, Lmk.,

aculeatus, d’Orb.,

egina, Gray,

alderii, Vér.,

aldrovandi, d. Ch.,

americanus, Bly.,

aranea, d’Orb., 6

arcticus, Prosch,

areolatus, de Haan,
argus, Krauss,
australis, Hoyle,
bairdii, V11.,
bandensis, Hoyle,
berenice, Gray,
bermudensis, Hoyle,
bimaculatus, V/71.,
boscii (Les. ),

var. pallida, Hoyle,

brevipes, @’Orb.,

brevitentaculatus, Blyv.,
cerulescens, Péron,
capensis, Z. et S.,
carena, Vér.,
carolinensis, VZ1U.,
casslopea, Gray,
catenulatus, Fér., .
cephea, Gray,
cirrhosus, Lmk.,
cocco, Vér.,
communis, Park,
cordiformis, Q. et G.,
cornutus (Owen),
cuviert, d’Orb.,
cyanea, Gray,

de filippi, Vé-.,
didynamus, Raf.,
dubius, EK. et §.,
duplex, Hoyle,
eudora, Gray,

Plate Page
: 506 se 47, 199
d doo ee 47, 221
- = 47, 199, 204, 220,221,

228

47, 221
47, 220
47, 221
18
18, 215, 228
7, 74
3 ew 3, 55
; aie a 7, 74
es a 38
; 38

ito 38

. 2,7, 67, 74,101, 110,211

9, 218, 220

12

11, 216

102

a We 78
Shee alo 75 955 211741020
' * 10, 91, 209, 210, 213,
| 202s am 208,207,

228, 229
» WI. 8,86,205,218, 219,228
III. 9,88,147, 203,219,226
oe 10, 91
vir. 11, 96, 205, 218, 227
aa ase 12
mm. 11, 94, 201, 215, 227
306 8, 86, 221
5 ves “ 8S; 210
I. Ii. 8,81,208,219, 226, 228
11, 101, 206, 213,214,

226

D 7
13
12
: 5
9, 215, 228
5 12
5
12
15, 102
14
13, 220
14
220
° 11, 95
12
8, 216
13
7

203, 219, 228
12, 95

vir. 10, 90,

Ocropus—continued.
fang-siao, d’Orb.,
favonia, Gray,

filosus, Howell, 0 a

fimbriatus, Riipp., .
fontanianus, d@’Orb.,
frayedus, Raf. ,
furvus, Gid.,
geryonea, Gray,
globosus, App.,
gracilis, E. et S.,
gracilis, V7.,
granosus, Blv.,

granulatus, Lmk.,

grenlandicus (Dewh.),
hardwickei, Gray,
harmandi, Rochebr.,
hawaiensis, 2. et S.,
heteropus, laf,
honkongensis, Stp.,
horridus, @’Orbd.,
hyalinus, Rang,
incertus, Targ.,
indicus, Rapp,

januarii, Stp.,

koellikert, Vér.,
lentus, V/l.,

levis, Hoyle,
longipes, Leach,
lunulatus, Q. et G.,

macropus, isso,

maculosus, Hoyle,
maorum, Hutton, .

marmoratus, Hoyle,

medoria, Gray, 0

megalocyathus, Gid.,

megalocyathus, Phil. ,

membranaceus, @. et G., .
* microstomus, Reyn.,

mimus, Gld., .

mollis, Gld.,

moschatus, Link.,

obesus, Vii., .

occidentalis, Stp.,

ocellatus, Gray,

ornatus, Gld.,

peronii (Les.),

(Philonexis) atlanticus,
@Orb.,

(Philonexis) quoyanus,
d’Orb.,

pictus, Brock,

var. fasciata, Nov.,

(ZOOL, CHALL. EXP.—PART XLIV.—1886,)

Plate

VII.

+ IT. TIT.

VI.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA.

se, 13

9, 75, 80, 221

13

10

12

9, 219

6, 71

11, 213, 229

ru 13

8, 80, 89, 202, 209,

215, 216, 217, 218,

221, 222, 223, 226

Me 92

12

13

9, 86, 220

14

11, 100

. 9, 217, 218

6

8, 80

er 14

11, 76, 97, 99, 184,

| 208 207, 214, 215,

224, 228, 229, 233

a 6

10, 212, 214, 228, 229

11, 76, 98, 208, 217

WE, 13

. 10, 75, 220

11, 75, 79, 95, 206,

216, 217, 218, 219,223

10, 92

13, 220

{8 76, 85, 207, 220,
226

12

9

89

9, 89, 218

6

13

12

3, 15

10, 76, 214, 228

7,77, 208, 215, 217,
226

6, 70

10, 75, 92, 219
94, 203, 220, 227

Ocrorus—continued.
pictus, Blv.,
pictus, VIl.,
pilosus, Risso,

piscatorum, Vul.,
polyzenia, Gray,
punctatus, Gabb,

pusillus, Gld.,

ruber, Raf., .
rugosus, Bose,

salutii, Vér., .
saphenia, Gray,
semipalmatus, Owen,
sinensis, @’Orb.,

sp., ; 5 6
superciliosus, Q. et G.,

tehuelchus, d@’Orb., .

tenebricus, #. A. Sm.,
tetracirrhus, d. Ch.,
tetradynamus, Raf.,
tetricus, Gid.,
tonganus, Hoyle,
troscheli, Targ.,

tuberculatus, Blv., .

tuberculatus, Risso,
unicirrhus, d. Ch.,
variolatus, Blv.,
velatus, Rang,
velifer, Fér.,
ventricosus, Grant,
verrilli, n. .,
verrucosus, Hoyle,
vitiensis, Hoyle,

vulgaris, Zmk.,

var. americanus,
d’Orb.,
OcyTHoR, Raf., 0
OcYTHOE, Leach et Auctt.,
tuberculata, Raf.,
(corsipA, d@’Orb.,

OMMASTREPHES, @’Orb.,

equipodus, Riipp., .
arabicus, (Khrbg.), .
ayresti, Gabb,
bartramii, (Les. ),
crassus, Laf., .
cylindricus, @’Orb.,
eblanee (Ball),
ensifer, Owen,
giganteus, ?Orb., .
gigas, @Orb., .
illecebrosa, @ Orb,
insignis, Gld.,

VIII.

Plate Page

10, 91, 210, 213, 214,

215, 228, 228, 229

8, 220

11, 76,100, 218,219,
221

8, 86
101, 205
9, 219
9, 89, 99, 201, 215,
221, 226
9, 219
14
za 13
8, 80, 82, 219
8, 83, 204, 220, 226
sae 7
7, 78, 85, 202, 215,
216, 217, 226, 227
5
14
8
6
6
15, 102
ap 10, 98, 215, 227
Iv. 7, 79, 202, 217, 226
vil, 8, 84, 204, 220, 226
hy 1, WG, GO TOR,
| 215, 217, 218,
219, 220, 223

Uy OF
5

ono 4

. 5, 214, 216

.. 82, 162

39, 34, 63, 102, 162,
163, 167, 169, 211

33, 216

30

i 33, 162

32, 213, 215, 216, 296

33, 216

32

33

32

32

32, 214

34

aa 83

Xx 31

242

OMMASTREPHES—continued.
megapterus (V7l.), .

oualaniensis (Less. ),

pacificus, (Stp.),
pelagicus, (Bosc),
peratoptera, d’Orb.
pteropus, Stp.,
robustus, Dall.
sagittatus, d’Orb.,
sloanti, Gray,
sp., 2 0
todarus, d’Orb.,
tryonti, Gabb,
OMMASTREPHIDA, Gill, .
OMMASTREPHINI, Sép.,

OMMATOSTREPHES. Sce Ommastrephes.

OnycHza, Les., 6 3
angulata, Les.,
binotata, Pfir.,
cardioptera (d’Orb.),
carribea, Les.,
curta, Pfir.,

Kkrohnii (Vér. ),
meneghini (Vér. ),

Onycutt, Stp., 0

ONYCHOTEUTHIDA, Gray, .

ONYCHOTEUTHIS, Licht.,
equimanus, Gabb,
amena, Meller,
armatus, Q. et G., .
banskii (Leach),
bartlingii (Les. ),
bellonii, Fér., .
bergi, Dall,
bergit, Licht., 9
brachyptera, Pffr., .
brevimanus, Gild.,
cardioptera, d’Orb., .
dussumieri, d’Orb., .
JSabricti, Licht.,
fleurii, Reyn., .
fusiformis, Gabb,
ingens, L. A. Sm,
kamtschatica, Middff.,
krohnit, Vér., .
lessonii, Fér., .
lichtensteinii, Feér.,
lobipennis, Dail,
longimanus, S¢p.,
lorigera, Stp., .
moline, Licht. ,
morisit, Vér., .
peratoptera, V’Orb., .
platyptera, @Orb., .
raptor, Owen, .
robusta, Dall,
tutilus, Gld., .

Sp., ; 0

OpisTHOTEUTHIS, /7Z1.,

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Plate Page
33, 215
33, 162, 204, 206,
213, 214, 226
34, 163
33, 213, 215

32, 213, 214, 216

34
34

162, 209

34, 163

33, 162

32, 162

‘ 32, 162
40, 172

39

40

40, 172

40, 172

41

41

41

Sy, iyi

woo BS TUGAAL
39,40,41, 172,173,211
eans9) 214

41, 174, 175

se 38

39, 218, 214, 220

i 39

40, 177

172, 207, 208

Owenra, Prosch,

OPpISTHOTEUTHIS—continued. Plate -. Page

4, 212, 214, 215
228, 229, 230
41, 173, 177

agassizii, V7i.,

OzZoENWA, Raf., . . 0 5 abe 00 15
aldrovandi, Raf., . 3 nee aap 15, 102
PARASIRA, Stp., . 5 o 606 Boi 5
catenulata (Fér.), . 5 506 noe 5, 93
tuberculata, Targ., . ; 200 oo 5
PEROTHIS, Rathke, . : 3 sate # 46
dubia, Rathke, 0 é bc 206 46
dussumiert, Rochebr., . ins S85 46
escholtzii, Rathke, . 0 He Re 46
pellucida, Rathke, . : sé0 ae 46
reinhardtii (Stp.), . , “ue ae 184
PHASMATOPSIS, Rochebr., : Ane ea 45, 187
cymoctypus, Rochebr., . ba ah 45
PHILONEXIDA, @’Orb., a . Me Bs 6, 70
PHILONEXIS, VOrb., . i 0 Bt Pg 6, 70
alexus, Gray, . m : ee is 5
atlanticus, VOrb., . 0 ood in 6, 71
dubia, Vér., . ‘ : hb a 7
eylais, @Orb., . : 0 ood ee 44
hyalinus, VOrb., . 0 ono Boe 6
microstomus, @Orb., 7 506 bai 6
quoyanus, VOrb., . : cos no 6, 70
tuberculatus, d’Orb., 0 ves Re 5
velifer (Fér.), 6 0 oo mas 6
Pinnoctopus, d’Orb., : . Shs ve 14
cordiformis (Q. ¢& G.), . vee we 14, 220
PLECTOTEUTHIS, Owen.
grandis, Owen, 4 0 200 s0 35
PROCALISTES, Lankester, . : ... 45, 187, 192
suhmit, Lankester, . 6 806 ee 45, 192
PROMACHOTEUTHIS, Hoyle, ae 19, 120
megaptera, Hoyle, . . XIv. 19, 120, 207, 214, 229
PTEROCTOPUS, Fischer.
tetracirrhus (d. Ch.), : isa ist 14
PTEROTEUTHIS, EKhrbg.
arabica, Ehrbg,. . ° son 208 30
Prerori, Reinh. et Pr... . 006 Bo 3, 55
Pyreopsis, Rochebr., . : 9 ae 50 45
thynchophorus, Rochebr., oc0 ob 45, 217
RHOMBOSEPION, Kochebr., 3 50d aor 20
Rossta, Owen, . ; ‘4 : He nee 18, 114
Rossia, Vér., . A ; 6 sit Picts 19, 122

brachyura, VU., at 18, 215, 228
dispar (Riipp.), ; : ni bad 19, 118
18, 116, 209, 214,

claucopis, Lovén.
Sa rae: ? 222, 223, 227, 298

(Heteroteuthis) dispar,Gray, vale oe 19

hyatti, 1., ; 18, 115, 215, 223, 227

jacobt, Ball, . ; . soo oho 18, 114

macrosoma (d. Ch.), J 18, 115, 116, 214,
( 216, 222

megaptera, Vl., 19, 213, 215, 228, 229

molleri, Stp., . 5 : ee one 19, 222

18, 114, 209, 210,
214, 222, 227
18, 115, 222

owenl, Ball, . 3 EVE

palpebrosa, Owen,

RosstA—continued.
panceri, Targ.,
papillifera, Jeftr.,

patagonica, #. A. Sm., .

sublevis, V7i.,

tenera (Vil.), .

Scaureus, Zrosch., .
coccot, Trosch.,
tetracirrhus (d. Ch.),
titanotus, Zrosch., .
unicirrhus (d. Ch.),

Scuizocropus, Stp., .

SCIADEPHORUS, Reiuh. et Pr., .

miilleri, Reinh. et Pr.,
Serr, Z.,

aculeata, v. Hass., .
afinis, E. et S.,
andreana, Sép.,

andreanoides, Hoyle,

antillarum, @’Orb., .
apama, Gray, .
australis, d’Orb.,
australis, Q. et G., .
bertheloti, d’Orb.,
bilineata, Q. et G., .
bisserialis, Mont.,
boscit, Les.

brachycheira, Tapp.-Can.,

brevimana, Sép.,
capensis, d@’Orb.,
capensis, Gray,
carunculata, Schn..,

cultrata, Stp., .

elegans, d’Orb.,

elliptica, Hoyle,
elongata, @’Orb.,
enoplon (Rochebr.), .

esculenta, Hoyle,

filliouxii, Laf.,
fischeri, Laf., .
gibbosa, Zhrbg.,
goreensis (Rochebr. ),
groenlandica, Dewh.,
hierredda, Rang,
indica, d’Orb.,
imermis, v. Hass.,
javanica (Rochebr.), .
jousseaumi, Rochebr.,

kiensis, Hoyle,

kobiensis, Hoyle,

. XVIII.

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA.

Plate Page
nde 18
18, 116, 117
ey, (19) 117, 119) 208;
221, 227

(28, 117, 208, 215
221, 227, 228

(29, 118, 201, 215,
297, 228

14

14

14, 216

14, 216

14, 216

81

3, 55

: ss 3

2, 20, 122, 128, 131,

133, 166, 197, 200,
211, 223

22, 126,130, 133, 218

= 26

23, 140, 142, 219

eel 23, 139, 206, 219

XXII.

25, 215, 223

24, 220 |

22, 220
23, 136
21, 217
27
24

eee oAvong
22, 130,133, 139, 218
23, 136, 217
133, 136
ss 42,
23, 128, 133, 203,

220, 228
{24 139, 147, 149

216

XIX, 22, 131, 205,218, 227
23, 218
25

XVIL 22, 129, 206, 219

XVIII.

20, 216

21, 216

24, 218

a 25

. 10, 91, 222

21, 217

22, 126, 218, 220

25, 149

25

Re 24

23, 141, 144, 205;
218, 228

23, 142,207, 219, 227

XVII.

SEPIA—continued.

latimanus, Q. et G.,
lefebrei, @’Orb.,
loligo, Fabr., .
loligo, L.,
lycidas, Gray, .
media, L.,
mestus, Gray, . 6 0
(Metasepia) pfefferi, Hoyle
6) tullbergi, App.,
microchetrus, Gray, .
mozambica, Rochebr.,
myrsus, Gray,
octopodia, Pennt.,
oculifera (Rochebr. ),
officinalis, Aud.,
officinalis, Z., .
orbignyana, Fér.,
ornata, Rang,
pagenstecheri, Pffr.,
palmata (Owen),
papillata, Q. et G.,.
papuensis, Hoyle,
pelagica, Bose,
peronit, Les., .
peterseni, App.,
pfefferi, Hoyle,
pharaonis, Ehrbg.,
plangon, Gray,
polynesica, P#r.,
recurvirostra, Sip., .
rostrata, @’Orb.,
rostrate affinis,
rouxti, d’Orb.,
rugosa, Bose, .
ruppellaria, d’Orb.,.
savignyi, Blv.,.
sinensis, Q’Orb.,
singaporensis, Pfr.,
sinope, Gray,
smithi, Hoyle,
suleata, Hoyle,
tourramnensis, BE. et S., .
trygonina (Rochebr.),
tuberculata, Limk., .
tullbergi, App...
unguiculata, Molina,
venusta, Pfr.,
vermiculata, Q. et G.,
verreauxi (Rochebr. ),
vicellius, Gray,
zanzibarica, Pfr.,

SEPIDA, VOrb.,
SEPIADARII, Stp.,
SEPIADARIUM, Stp., .

kochii, Stp.,

SEpPrarit, Stp., .
SEPIELLA, Gray,

affinis (Z. et S.),
curta, Pfr.,

Plate

XXI.

XVI.

Xvi.
XIX.

243

Page
22, 218, 220
; 24, 218
41, 173, 174
175
24
i 30
23, 135, 220
24, 145, 205
24, 148
25, 149
26 25
boo 21, 219
15, 102
25
spo 21
20, 214, 216, 217
23, 216
25, 149
21, 218
24, 220
ae 24
21, 126,205, 218, 227
33
18
Son PR, PA
24, 145, 218, 227
BS 22
21, 128, 220
vhs 21, 220
23, 137, 205, 218
22, 126,183, 218, 220
130
22, 218
8, 80, 82
24, 216
21, 218
Pe 25
21, 128, 218
a0 23
21, 124,205, 218, 227
23, 187,205, 218, 228
26
606 23
... 24, 147, 217
... 24, 148, 219
37
22, 217
22, 217
21
21
22, 217
19
19
20
20, 213
19, 122
25, 147, 149, 293
26
25, 218

244

SEPIELLA—continued. Plate
dabryi (Rochebr. ),

inermis (v. Hass.), .

maindroni, Rochebr., . XXII.

martini (Rochebr.), .

obtusata, Pffr.,

ocellata, Pffr.,

ornata (Rang),

ovata (Pfr.), . é

tourrannensis (Z. et S.), .
Seprona, Leach,

atlantica, d@’Orb.,

bursa, Pftr.,
dispar, Riipp.,
japonica, Til.,
leucoptera, V1l.,
lineolata, Q. et G., .
macrosoma, d. Ch.,
major, Targ.,
oceanica, d’Orb.,
oweniana, d’Orb.,
pacifica, Kirk,
penares (Gray),
pusilla, Pffr., .

rondeleti, Leach,

rossieformis, Pffr., .
schneehageni, Pfr.,
septola, Tryon,
stenodactyla, Grant,
subalata, Gery. et v. Ben.,
tasmanica, Pf7.,
SEPIOLINI, Stp.,
SEPIOLOIDEA, d’Ovb.,
lineolata (Q. et G.),
SEPIOTEUTHIS, Blv.,
arctipinnis, Gld.,
australis, @. ef G., .
pbilineata (Q. ct G.),
blainvilliana, Fér., .
brevis, Owen, .
ehrhardti, Pf7.,
guinensis, Q. et G.,
hemprichti, Ehrbg.,

lessoniana, Fér.,

loliginiformis (Zt. ),
lunulata, Q. et G., .
madagascariensis, Gray, .
major, Gray, .
mauritiana, @. et G.,
neoguinaica, Pffr., .
ovata, Gabb,
sepioidea (Biv. ),
sicula, Riipp.,
sinensis, @’O7b.,
sloanii, Leach,
SIPHONOPODA, .

25, 218
26, 149, 207, 218,
219, 227
26
26
25, 218
25, 217
25
ue 26
16, 110, 113, 122
poe 214, 216,
222
17, 112, 114
19
113
18
19
18
16
xo 1G, TO
17, 111, 216, 220
17, 220
17, 218
17, 218
16,110,209, 214, 216
217, 227

17,

17, 218

17, 218

110, 111

soo If adh, ONG?

ae 27

{ 27,151,204, 205, 219,
( 220, 221, 226

..- 27, 217, 218

.. 27, 220, 221

Di, OAlG/

27

217

218

215

215

32

28

27, 215

3, 55

27,
27,
27,
26,

THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER.

Plate
SPATHIDOSEPION, Rochebr.,
Sprruta, Lik.,
peronil, Link., 0 : 200 }
STAUROTEUTHIS, VU. ,
syrtensis, V7/., : : nen

STEENSTRUPIOLA, Pf7.,
atlantica, Pfr.,
chilensis, P7r.,

STHENOTEUTHIS, Vll.,
megaptera, V1l.,
pteropus (V1l.),

SroLoreutuis, V7i., .
leucoptera, V71.,

Taontus, Stp., . ; ‘
cymoctypus (Rochebr.),
elongatus, Stp.,

hyperboreus, Stp., . ie

XXXIII. !

maximus (Pf7.),

pavo (Les.), . : a3
schneehageni (Pf7r.),
suhmi (Lankester), . XXXII.

TAONOTEUTHI, Sép.,
TELEOTEUTHIS, VU1l.,
agilis, V.,

caribbeea (Les. ), OOS

curta (Pfr. ),
krohnii (Vér.),
meneghini (Vér.),
peratoptera (d’Orb.),
platyptera (d’Orb.), .
TETRABRANCHIATA, Owen,
TEUTHIS, Gray.
parva, Gray,
THYSANOTEUTHIDS, Kf, .
THYSANOTEUTHIS, Z7osch.,
elegans, T’rosch.,
rhombus, Z’rosch.,
ToDARODES, Stp.,
pacificus, Stp.,

sagittatus (Zmk.), . cee

XXVIII.

sloanii (Gray),

TRACHELOTEUTHIS, Sép.,
behnii, Stp.,
clouei (Rochebr. ),
riisei, S¢p., XXVIIL.
Sp.,-
velaini (Rochebr.),

TracHyGiossa, Ltk.,

Tremoctorvs, d. Ch.,

Page
20
20, 122
20,122,202, 204,205,
206, 209, 215, 218,
220, 228, 229
4, 60, 66

4, 212, 214, 228, 229,
230

36

36, 213

36, 221

32, 63

33

32

18

18, 215, 227, 228

45, 166, 169, 186, 187
45, 187, 188, 190, 213
45, 189
45,174, 189, 191, 201
209, 213, 215, 222

226, 228, 229

wo OR Mili

45, 188, 189, 213,
215, 226

45, 221

45,122, 189, 192,203

209,213, 214,226,230

42, 178

40, 172

41, 215, 226

40, 172, 201, 206,
213, 214, 226

41, 219

41, 217

a 41

40, 213, 214

40, 213, 214

47, 199

30

32

32

n soneie

. 27, 82, 216

34, 163

34, 163, 207, 219,227

34, 163, 213, 214,
216, 226

34, 214, 220

36, 163

36, 166, 213, 214,219

ie 36

36, 164, 210, 213,
217, 221

166, 207, 208, 210

36

4

6, 70, 74

TREMOCTOPUS—continued.
atlanticus (d’Ord.), .

dubius (Z, et S.),

gracilis (Z. et S.),

hyalinus (Rang),

microstomus (Rey. ),

ocellatus, Brock,

quoyanus (d’Orb.), .

REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA.

245

semipalmatus (Owen),
velifer (Fér.), .

Plate Page TREMOCTOPUS—continued. Plate Page
foe 6, 71, 201, 212, 226 violaceus, d. Ch., 6, 216
ee 6 7 | Trivaxeorus, Owen, 14

XUI. 6, 71, 206, 218, 226 cornutus, Owen, 14, 78

6, 212 | Veranta, Krohn, 60 ace 388

. 6, 212, 216 sicula, Krohn, . 000 060 38, 217

6, 216 VERRILLIOLA, Pfir., . ae 36, 163

xm, $5 70, 72, 207, 209, gracilis, Pffr., . 36, 164, 166
(212, 213, 296 nymphet, Pftr., 36

6 | ZyG#Nopsis, Rochebr., 46

6 zygena, Rochebr. , 46

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.

This List is intended to serve the purpose of a Bibliography of the works referred to in the present Report,

arranged under author’s name.

is made, and preference is given to those where the quotation is fullest.

Adams, 17.

Adams and Reeve, 5.
Appellof, 48.

Audouin, 21.

Ball, 18.

Barker, 78.

Blainville, 7, 21, 26, 28.
Bose, 8, 33.

Brock, 6, 19, 74.
Bronn, 30.

Cantraine, 96.
Carpenter, P. P., 33.
Carpenter, W. B., 191.
Chiaje, S. delle, 48.
Claus, 19.

Crosse and Fischer, 35.
Cunningham, 89.

Dall, 5, 40, 100.
Dewhurst, 10.

Dillwyn, 48.

Dunker, 4.

Ehrenberg, 22.
Eschricht, 3.

Eydoux and Souleyet, 48.
Fabricius, 41.
Feérussac, 30, 42.
Fischer, 3, 9, 24, 28, 103.
Forbes and Hanley, 18.

Gabb, 11, 27, 32.

Gervais, 35.

Gervais and van Beneden, 18, 30.
Gesner, 16.

Gould, 48.

Grant, 15, 17, 46.

Gray, 48, 27.

Grenacher, 198.

Giinther, 224.

Harting, 35.

Hilgendorf, 35.

See also VOrbigny.

Howell, 11.

Hoyle, 10, 19, 29, 48,
Hutton, 13.

Issel, 49.

Jeffreys, 18, 174, 191,
Kay, de, 29.
Keferstein, 158
Kent, 35.

lghate, By, alzfo
Kolliker, 197.
Krauss, 9.

Krohn, 38.

Kiister, 47.

Lafont, 20, 21, 28.
Lamarck, 4, 7, 46.
Lankester, 45, 53, 148
La Pylaie, 34.
Leach, 13.

Lenz, 49, 28.
Lesson, 27.

Lesueur, 8, 31.
Leuckart, 27.
Lichtenstein, 36.
Linné, 4, 20.

Lovén, 18.

Liitken, 3.
Macgillivray, 15.
Maltzan, 5.
Martens, E. von, 4.
M'‘Coy, 26.
Meuschen, 4.
Middendorff, 41.
Molina, 37.

Mgller, 49.
Montfort, 78.
Morch, 17, 28.
Niemiec, 114.
d’Orbigny, 9, 21, 49.

‘WOrbigny and Férussac, 49.

49.

224,

Owen, 6, 14, 18.

Park, 13.

Parker, 13.

Pennant, 15.

Pfeffer, 49.

Prosch, 10.

Quoy and Gaimard, 50.
Rafinesque, 50.

Rang, 6, 21, 172.
Rathke, 46.

Reeve, 4.

Reinhardt and Prosch, 3.
Reynaud, 6.

Rink, 222.

Risso, 5.

Rochebrune, A. T. de, 13, 15, 50.
Rumphius, 199.
Riippell, 19.

Sars, 10.

Schneider, 42, 152.
Seba, 34.

Shaw, 4.

Smith, E. A., 50, 19.
Solander, 4.

Sowerby, 47.
Steenstrup, 5, 7, 32, 33,786, 50, 51.
Suhm, 56.
Tapparone-Canefri, 24.
Targioni-Tozzetti, 51.
Thompson, 114.
Thomson, 191.

Tiberi, 14.

Troschel, 14.

Tryon, 1.

Vélain, 35.

Vérany, 5, 51.

Only those pages therefore are indicated where reference to published works

Verrill, 4, 7, 10, 18, 35, 38, 44, 51,"52,

118.
Vigelius, 32.

EXPLANATION OF PLATES.

The figures of the animals have been drawn upon the stone under my supervision by
Messrs. J. Reekie and A. Pollock, to whom I am indebted for the pains they have taken
to carry out my wishes. Most of the details of tentacles, suckers, &c., have been copied
from my own drawings, made with the assistance of the camera. For drawings of some

species I am indebted to Professor Steenstrup, as is indicated on the plates where they
are figured.

e

16

a ei

*
ath HE
cea at

H.M.S.CHALLENGER
Indicates the localities where litteal spectes were obtained.

e
o
+

|

md
- a,

es

Tenet

re

ie ra

: 5
‘

(Zoo, CHALE, BxP.—PART xuIV,—1886.)—XKx.

he wl - 2
¢ Wut
en

PLATE I.

PAGE
Octopus sosci (Lesueur), var. PALLIDA, nov., : ; 81

. Lateral view of the animal; the larger specimen somewhat reduced.

. Portion of the dorsal surface, to show the multifid papilla ; magnified

about 2 diameters.

. A large cirrus from the back; magnified 2 diameters.
. The dorsal mandible; natural size.

. The ventral mandible ; natural size.

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger” Cephalopoda PI. [

MtFarlane & Erskine Lith’} Edin?

OGROLUS —BOScil var IPALEUDIAD nov.

PLATE II.

PAGE
Figs. 1-4. Ocropus LEVIS, n. sp., : : 98
. Dorsal view of the largest specimen ; natural size.
. Extremity of the hectocotylised arm; magnified 3 diameters.
. The ventral mandible ; natural size.
. The dorsal mandible; natural size.
Fig. 5. Octopus BERMUDENSIS, 0. Sp., - 5 : 94

. Dorsal view of the specimen ; natural size.

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger.” Cephalopoda Pl. Il

M‘Farlane & Erskine, Lith'? Edin?

1242, OCTOPUS Mawils, sa sige 5 OGTOR US (IB ERIMUIDIEINISIES) misp-

a}
Rite
.Y

a gee i i

Sen Te ye a

(ZOOL. OHALL, EXP.—PART XLIV.—1886.)—Xx, :

Fig.

PLATE III.

Fig. 1. OcToPuUS LEVIS, n. sp.,

. Inner side of umbrella, showing the circumoral lip and the hectocotylised

arm ; natural size.

Fig. 2. Ocropus BOSCII (Lesueur), var. PALLIDA, Nov., .

. View of the inner surface of the umbrella, showing the circumoral lip and

the supernumerary sucker.

Figs. 4, 5. OCTOPUS AUSTRALIS, 0. sp., .

. Dorsal view of the larger specimen ; natural size.

. Ventral aspect, showing the raised ridges along either side of the mantle.

Figs. 6, 7. Octopus AREOLATUS, de Haan,

. Lateral view of the Challenger specimen ; natural size.

. The “ocellus” or eye-like spot, and some of the cutaneous warts, drawn

from a specimen in the Copenhagen Museum ; natural size.

PAGE

98

81

88

86

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger. Cephalopoda. Pl. Iil

M‘Farlane & Erskine, Lith'* Bins

1, OCTOPUS LEVIS, n.sp. 2, OCTOPUS BOSCII, sem, PYALLIDA mose
4,5, OCTOPUS AUSTRALIS, n. sp. S5% OCTOPUS AREOGLMATUS, de acm,

PLATE IV.

PAGE
OCTOPUS VERRUCOSUS, 0. Sp., : : : 79

Fig. 1. Dorsal view of the animal; somewhat reduced.

Fig. 2. One of the suckers ; natural size.

Fig. 3. Portion of a sucker, showing its radial grooves and rugose surface.
Fig. 4. The ventral mandible ; natural size.

Fig. 5. The dorsal mandible; natural size.

TAL, IN.

Cephalopoda

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger”

MtKarlane & Erskine, Lith™? Edin®

n.sp.-

VERRUCOSUS

OCTOPUS

by i
r

ma
o

");

an

(Z00L. CHALL. EXP.—PART xLiv.—1886.)—Xx. | 7

PLATE V.

Octopus PpuNcTaTus, Gabb.,*

g. 1. Dorsal view of the animal ; somewhat reduced.

. 2. The extremity of the hectocotylised arm ; natural size.

. 3. The dorsal mandible ; natural size.

4. The ventral mandible ; natural size.

1 The name has been changed since the plate was printed off.

PAGE

100

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger” Cephalopoda Tele We

McFarlane & Erskine, Lith"? Edint

OCTOPUS HONGKONGENSIS, Stp.

earn)
ee) "

PLATE VI.

Ocrorus MARMIORATT, SPs
Fig. 1. Dorsal view of one of the female specimens ; slightly reduced.
Fig. 2. Inner aspect of the extremity of the hectocotylised arm ; natural size.
Fig. 3y Ventral aspect of the same arm ; natural size.
Fig. 4. Dorsal mandible ; natural size. _
Fig. 5. Ventral Ava aablee setenv size. i

1

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger.”

Cephalopoda Pl. VI.

M¢tFarlane &Erskine, Litht Edin®

OSToORUS MEAGREMPONR VAMINUES cs anes pr

i

ge
ai

PLATE VII.

Figs. 1-4. Octopus JANUARII, Steenstrup,

. Lateral view of the larger specimen ; natural size.

. Extremity of the hectocotylised arm ; somewhat enlarged.

. The dorsal mandible ; natural size.

The ventral mandible ; natural size.

Fig. 5. OCTOPUS DUPLEX, n. sp.,

Dorsal view of the specimen ; natural size.

Figs. 6-8. OCTOPUS VITIENSIS, . sp.,

. Dorsal view of the specimen ; somewhat enlarged.

Adoral portion of two of the arms.
. A sucker, to show its papillate margin and the rugose nature of the
integument surrounding it ; magnified 6 diameters.
Figs. 9, 10. OcToPUS BANDENSIS, 0. sp.,
. Dorsal view of the specimen, slightly enlarged.

. Adoral portion of two of the arms, somewhat enlarged ; the four proximal
suckers should have been represented in a single series.

PAGE

97

90

84

96

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger.” Cephalopoda PI. VIL.

MéFatlane & Erskine, Lith"? Edin®
i-a OCTOPUS JANUAR, Siac S& OCTOPUS DWWiP Ibis, mm. op.
6-8, OCTOPUS VITIEN SIS, nu sp. 9,10, OCTOPUS BANDENS!S, n.sp

a ag
Nas.
.

Thy ys

vias

PLATE VIII.

Figs. 1, 2. OcTOPUS TONGANUS, 0. sp., .

. Lateral view of the animal; natural size.

. Extremity of the hectocotylised arm ; magnified 4 diameters.

Fig. 3. Ocropus pictus, Brock, var. FASCIATA, nov.,

. Lateral view of the specimen ; natural size.

Figs. 4-6. ELEDONE ROTUNDA, 0. sp.,

. Dorsal view of the animal; natural size.
. Dorsal mandible ; natural size.

. Ventral mandible ; natural size.

Fig. 7. ELEDONE BREVIS, 0. sp.,

. Lateral view of the largest specimen; natural size. By an error of the

draughtsman two of the cirri have been shown below the eye
instead of above it.

PAGE

83

94-

104

105

The Voyage of H.M.S. “Challenger.”

Cephalopoda Pl. VII.

MtFarlane & Erskine, Lith®S Edin?
1,2, OCTOPUS TONGANUS, n.sp. 3, OCTOPUS PICTUS, Brock, var. FASCIATA, now
au=(3}, (= (El= [p) ) (Nt [= ROTUNDA, n. sp.

NM
m

LE J= 0) ©). IN = Bin Ee WIS. st. Sis.

x b i

(ZOOL. CHALL. EXP.—PART XIV. —1886.)—Xx.

~ é e = f :

hig. 1
Fig. 2
Vig. 3:
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Wig. 6
Fig. 7
Vig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10.
Biora
Fig. 12.
Fig. 13.

PLATE IX.

Figs. 1, 2. JAPETELLA PRISMATICA, 0. gen., n. sp.,

. Ventral aspect of the specimen ; natural size.

. Dorsal aspect ; natural size.

Figs. 3-6. ELEDONELLA DIAPHANA, N. sp.,

. Ventral aspect of the specimen ; magnified 2 diameters.

. Ventral aspect, with the mantle divided a little to the left of the middle

line, and reflected to show the median septum, the arrangement of
the gills, &e.; magnified 2 diameters.

. View of the arms and umbrella from the front ; magnified 1°5 diameters.

. Portion of an arm with five suckers, showing the prismatic form which

they have assumed ; enlarged.

Figs. 7 9. AMPHITRETUS PELAGICUS, n. gen., n. sp.,

. Lateral view of the animal; magnified 2 diameters.

. Ventral view of one of the arms and of the mouth, the proximal suckers

are somewhat too close ; magnified nearly 2 diameters.

. Tip of one of the arms magnified about 4 diameters.

Figs. 10, 11. CIRROTEUTHIS sp.,

Sucker taken from large dead Cirroteuthis, with portion of cutaneous
membrane attached ; slightly reduced.

Section of a similar sucker ; slightly enlarged.

Figs. 12, 18. CrkROTEUTHIS MEANGENSIS, Hoyle,

Ventral view of the specimen; the postero-lateral angles should be a
little more pronounced ; magnified 4 diameters.

Side view of the same specimen ; magnified 4 diameters.

PAGE

109

107

67

66

63

Cephalopoda PI. IX.

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger.”

y
a
v
a
4
®
a

em
a
4
Oy

MFarlane & Erskine, Inth™} Edin?

§=6, EFLEDONELEA DIMAR TAINS, ssi

5 Sh
10,11, CIRROTEUTHIS, sp?

ce EAS PR iSiMEAM GAC wn: seme, 1

7-9, AMPHITRETUS PELAGICUS, n. gen.,n. sp.

IZ IB Clinin Owe W ri Sy) Sedo, yeh

ae
pm a an
7)

PLATE X.

7 PAGE
CIRROTEUTHIS PACIFICA, 0. Sp., , : ‘ 61

. View of the anterior surface of the umbrella with the arms and mouth;

natural size.

. Portion of the ventral aspect of an arm, showing the attachment of the

membrane and the nodule; natural size.

3. Portion of the ventral aspect of the body, showing the siphon and fin;

natural size.

. The ventral mandible; natural size.

. The dorsal mandible ; natural size.

PH OX.

ephalopoda

al
w)

(

& Erskine, ith"? Edin?

MSFarlane

ES)

Gin ik @ a te Wa is

ee

irene
Pipacay on

(Zoot. oan! _EXP,—PART xLiv.—1886.)—Xx. : Na i

PLATE XI.

PAGE
Figs. 1, 2. CIRROTEUTHIS MEANGENSIS, n. sp., . ; : 63
Fig. 1. Front view of right dorsal arm, showing the attachment of the web to it,
and the nodule on its ventral aspect ; natural size.
Fig. 2. View of the ventral side of the distal half of the same arm, showing the
cirri continued to the extremity of the arm, and the nodule,
with the margin of the web passing over it; magnified about 2
diameters.
Figs. 3-5. CIRROTEUTHIS MAGNA,’ D. sp., : 60

Fig. 3. Ventral view of the animal; the greater part of the ventral side of the
umbrella has been removed, and also the proximal portions of the
two ventral arms. The distal margin of the membrane has been
erroneously restored under the impression that the specimen was to
be referred to the genus Stawroteuthis (see p. 61); natural size.

Fig. 4. Distal portion of an arm, showing the suckers and cirri; enlarged about
3 diameters.

Fig. 5. Central portion of umbrella and mouth, showing the proximal suckers and
cirri; natural size.

1 The name has been changed since the plate was printed off.

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger.” Cephalopoda PI. XI.

:
:

M‘Farlane & Erskine, Lith? &

8=5, STAU ROWE Urls 7

CIRROTEUTHIS MEANGENSTS, sas sp:

0 ue

1
}

Fig.

PLATE XIL.

CIRROTEUTHIS MAGNA, 0. Sp.,

. The animal viewed from the left side; the lateral arms of that side and

the portions of the web attached to them have been removed so as
to show the arrangement of the umbrella and the intermediate
webs ; one-sixth natural size.

. The tip of an arm, seen from the dorsal aspect ; natural size.

. Portion of the ventral aspect of the right dorsal arm (the base being

towards the right), showing the expansion of the margin of the
web where it is fixed to the arm, and its attachment to the

membrane which passes backwards from the arm, forming the.

intermediate web; natural size.

. Portion of the middle of an arm, showing some of the longest cirri;

natural size.

. The mouth with the proximal suckers and ventral mandible ; natural size.
. The dorsal mandible ; natural size.

. The ventral mandible ; natural size.

PAGE

56

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger” Cephalopoda Pl. XI

M:f'aviane & f>skine, Litht? Edint™

Giik Oy Ew ay ri ls MIPASGENGAGE acasip

Fig

2

2 Bi

JA

Ha)

6

Wie

8

PLATE XIII.

Figs 1-4. CrrROTEUTHIS MAGNA, N. sp., .
. The dorsal cartilage, seen from the posterior aspect ; natural size.

. The same cartilage, seen from above, showing the thin margins bending
inwards over the dorsal surface so as to enclose a narrow space ;
natural size.

. Dorsal view of the cartilage of the specimen figured in Pl. XI. fig. 3;
natural size.

. Posterior aspect of the same cartilage ; natural size.

Figs. 5, 6. CIRROTEUTHIS MEANGENSIS, 0. sp., .

. Posterior aspect of the cartilage of the specimen shown in Pl. XI.
figs. 1, 2; natural size.

. Dorsal view of the same cartilage ; natural size.
Fig. 7. TREMocTOPUS QUOYANUS, d’Orb., .
View of the head and-arms, showing about five suckers of the hecto-

cotylised arm protruding from its sac; magnified 3 diameters.

Figs. 8, 9. TREMOCTOPSIS GRACILIS (?), Hydoux et Souleyet,

. The animal seen from the right ventro-lateral aspect, showing the hecto-

cotylised arm coiled up beneath the integuments ; magnified about
3 diameters.

. 9. The hectocotylised arm removed from the sac; magnified 20 diameters.

a, the swelling which afterwards forms the cyst near the extremity.

PAGE

56

63

70

(Ok

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger” Cephalopoda PI. XIl.

IS, \
& RS PN ea ff
v, OF /@. } co

A. Pollock, dele M‘Farlane & Erskine, Litht} Edin?

1-4, CIRROTEUTHIS MAGNA, n. sp. 5,6, CIRROTEUTHIS MEANGENSIS, n. sp.

7. TREMOCTOPUS QUOYANUS, (d’ Orb.) 8,9, TREMOCTOPUS GRACILIS(?) (Eet 5S)

/

» UO:

amplale

mls

. 14,

PLATE XIV.

PAGE
Figs. 1-9. [yioTEuTHIS MoRSEI, Verrill,’ : Ret Je

. Dorsal view of a specimen ; natural size.

. Lateral view of a sucker from one of the sessile arms; magnified 20

diameters.

. Front view of the same sucker ; magnified 20 diameters.

. View of the right tentacular club; magnified 2 diameters.

The right tentacular club of another specimen, seen from the outer
aspect, to show the row of chromatophores upon it; magnified 2
diameters.

. An urceolate tentacular sucker, magnified 250 diameters.
. The distal extremity of a similar sucker ; magnified 250 diameters.

. A similar sucker in optical section ; magnified 250 diameters.

Inner surface of the right ventral arm, to show the arrangement of the
So) 2
proximal suckers in two series ; natural size.

Figs. 10-14. PRoMACHOTEUTHIS MEGAPTERA, 0. gen., n. sp., » 2120

Side view of the head, arms, and siphon, with the almond-shaped pit for
articulation with the mantle; magnified 3 diameters.

Ventral aspect of the head and siphon; magnified 3 diameters.

. Portion of an arm, showing the arrangement of the suckers; magnified

7 diameters.

Circumoral region, showing the thick papillate lip and the bases of the
arms and tentacles ; magnified 2 diameters.

A sucker from one of the arms; magnified 30 diameters.

1 The name has been changed since the plate was printed off.

The Voyage of H.M.S Challenger.” Cephalopoda PI. XIV.

MéFarlauc & Erskine! Lith"? Rain?

1-9, SEPIOLA BURSA (2), Pffr. 10-14, PROMACHOTEUTHIS MEGAPTERA, n.gen.n-sp.

nie

=

Chet

Pity
LAY

Fig. J
Idee, 2,
Hig. 93
Fig. 4
Bigs
Fig. 6
IMey
Fig. 8
Inver, @,
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.
Fig. 12.
Fig. 13.
Fig. 14.
Riga.
Vio. 16.
Fig. -17.
Fig. 18.

PLATE XV.

Figs. 1-9. Rossta owent, Ball,

. Dorsal view of a female specimen ; natural size.

The left dorsal arm of a male, showing the form of hectocotylisation ;
magnified 2 diameters.

. A large sucker from one of the lateral arms of the male, seen from the

side; magnified 7 diameters.

. Front view of the same sucker; magnified 7 diameters.
. Second right arm of the male; natural size.

. Left tentacular club of the female specimen shown in fig. 1; very

shghtly enlarged.

. A large tentacular sucker ; magnified 20 diameters.

. Profile view of the two rings of conical papille which surround the

horny ring of a tentacular sucker ; magnified 200 diameters.

A portion of the horny ring of a similar sucker, with the papillary area
surrounding it ; magnified 200 diameters.

Figs 10-18. Rossta pataconica, E. A. Smith,

Third left arm of a male specimen ; magnified 2 diameters.
Second left arm of the same specimen ; magnified 2 diameters.

Inner aspect of the third left arm of another specimen; magnified 2
diameters.

The outer aspect of the left dorsal arm of the male, showing the form of
hectocotylisation ; magnified 2 diameters.

Lateral view of an enlarged sucker from one of the lateral arms of the
male; magnified 8 diameters.

The left tentacular club ; magnified about 5 diameters.

A sucker from the tentacular club; magnified 40 diameters.

Part of the horny ring of a tentacular sucker, with two teeth and the
adjacent papillary area; magnified 200 diameters.

Part of the horny ring of a sucker from one of the sessile arms; with the
adjacent papillary area; magnified 200 diameters.

PAGE

114

119

The Voyage of H.M.S Challenger.” Cephalopoda PI. XV.

MiFarlane & Erskine. Lith’? Edint

1=9, ROSSIA OWE IN th sete 10-18, ROSSIA PATAGONICA, E.A. Smith.

=

ds de.

gg oe ge Je

al je

da" de"

bo

m 9

oe ON OD

AO:
5 it
melts

PLATE XVI.

PAGE
Figs. 1-12. SEPIA SMITHI, n. sp., : ; . 124
. Dorsal view of one of the larger specimens ; natural size.
. Ventral view of the head and siphon; natura! size.
. View of the median aspect of the left tentacular club; natural size.
. View of the lateral aspect of the other club, to show the swimming-web
and both protective membranes ; natural size.
. Ventro-lateral view of the left tentacular club, showing one of the pro-
tective membranes (on the left of the figure) and the swimming-
web on the right; natural size. This and the two preceding
figures were taken from a somewhat larger specimen, whose mantle
measured 85 mm. in length.
. A sucker from one of the sessile arms; magnified about 20 diameters.
. A similar sucker ; magnified 20 diameters.
. One of the tentacular suckers; highly magnified.
One tooth of the horny ring and the adjacent papillary area; magnified
200 diameters.
Ventral aspect of the shell; natural size.
Lateral aspect of the shell; natural size.
Dorsal aspect of the shell; natural size.
Figs. 13-23. SEPIA PAPUENSIS, 0. sp., ; eG

. Dorsal view of the larger specimen ; natural size.

. View of the ventral surface of the head and siphon ; natural size.
. Tentacular club; magnified 6 diameters.

. Dorsal mandible; natural size.

. Ventral mandible ; natural size.

. A tentacular sucker; magnified 20 diameters.

A sucker of a sessile arm, seen from the side; magnified 20 diameters.

. Another sucker from a sessile arm, seen from the front; magnified 20

diameters.

. Dorsal view of the shel] ; natural size.
. Ventral view of the shell; natural size.

. Lateral view of the shell; natural size.

Pl. XVI

Cephalopoda

The Voyage of H.M.S ‘Challenger

Oe

AS

PEN aA

see

ian

spa

& Erskine, Lith®? Edin?

M‘Farlane

SERIA Sim ty tlt, a

aes

Meret

P

“zoo. OHALL, EXP.—PART xtiv.—1886,)—Xx.

.

PLATE XVII.

PAGE
Figs. 1-5. SEPIA ESCULENTA, 1. sp., . ; > LBs

. Dorsal view of the female specimen ; natural size.

. The left ventral arm of the same specimen ; magnified 1°5 diameter.

. Lateral aspect of the shell of the female specimen ; natural size.

. The ventral mandible; natural size.

. The dorsal mandible ; natural size.

Figs. 6-11. SEPIA KIENSIS, n. sp., : he jn AAG
. Ventral aspect of the specimen ; natural size.

. Dorsal aspect of the specimen; natural size. The head was somewhat
more retracted into the mantle than is indicated in the drawing.

. The left tentacular club; magnified 5 diameters.
. Ventral aspect of the shell ; natural size.
. Dorsal aspect of the shell; natural size.

. Lateral aspect of the shell; natural size.

The Voyage of H.M.S Challenger” Cephalopoda PI. XVII.

MoFarlane & Erskine, Lith™? Edint

1=5. SEPA BS GUEBINUASS, a6 Sex 6-11, SEPIA KIENSIS, n. sp.

ATE XVII

5 Ney

r, 14,

PLATE XVIII.

Figs. 1-6. SEPIA ESCULENTA, 0. sp.,

. Ventral aspect of the shell of the female ; natural size.
. Dorsal aspect of the shell of the female ; natural size.
. Ventral aspect of the shell of the male; natural size.

. Part of the margin of a sucker from one of the sessile arms. The upper

part of the drawing shows the smooth horny ring, while below it
is the papillary area; highly magnified.

Sucker from one of the sessile arms; magnified about 8 diameters.

. The parts surrounding the mouth of the male, showing the bases of the

arms, the hectocotylisation of the left ventral one, the buccal
membrane, and the inner and outer lips; natural size.

Figs. 7-14. SEPIA KOBIENSIS, n. sp.,

. Dorsal view of the specimen; natural size.

. Ventral view of the specimen; natural size. Showing the fins

terminating on the ventral surface some distance from the
extremity of the animal.

. Club of the left tentacle ; magnified 7 diameters.
. A sucker from one of the sessile arms ; magnified 20 diameters.

. Another view of a similar sucker, in which the distal depression is not

marked ; magnified 20 diameters.

. Lateral view of the shell; natural size.

Dorsal view of the shell; natural size.

Ventral view of the shell; natural size.

PAGE

129

142

Cephalopoda Pl. XVIII.

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger.”

iy
AN
L

2

Ry

Se,
—n

Tath™? E dan®

°

Sp.

ORE PAA GOs BiltEsN Sle sma

7-14,

SEPIA ESCULENTA, n. sp

- 6,

i

a)

iene
ae

PLATE XIX.

(Z00L, OHALL EXP,—PART xLIv.—1886,)—Xx. pane tae ; :

a

de

a

de de de"

aa ed

0Q”

Cy fs CY kh ie

We) (9) i Cp

ig. 14.
2, 6),
ig. 16.
1o7 hii.

ig. 18.

neg IG),

PLATE XIX.

PAGE
Figs. 1-13. SEPIA SULCATA, D. sp.,_. : 2 WS7

. Ventral aspect of the specimen ; natural size.

. Dorsal aspect of the specimen ; natural size.

. The left tentacular club; magnified 7 diameters.
. The hectocotylised arm; magnified 2 diameters.

. A transverse section of the same, to show the groove and the rounded

fillet lying in it; magnified 3 diameters.

. A tentacular sucker; magnified 40 diameters.

. A sucker from one of the sessile arms; magnified 40 diameters.
. A portion of the papillary area; magnified 200 diameters.

. The ventral mandible ; natural size.

. The dorsal mandible; natural size.

. Ventral aspect of the shell; natural size.

. Lateral aspect of the shell; natural size.

. Dorsal aspect of the shell; natural size.

Figs. 14-24. SEPIA ELLIPTICA, 0. sp.,_ . : an Lol

Dorsal view of a specimen ; natural size.

Ventral view of a specimen ; natural size.

Inner aspect of the hectocotylised arm; magnified 2 diameters.

A sucker from a sessile arm, with smooth horny ring; magnified
20 diameters.

A portion of the papillary area, the upper margin is the horny ring ;
magnified 200 diameters.

A somewhat compressed sucker from a sessile arm, showing slight toothing
of the distal margin of the horny ring; magnified 20 diameters.

. Ventral mandible ; natural size.

. Dorsal mandible ; natural size.

. Dorsal aspect of the shell; natural size.
. Lateral aspect of the shell ; natural size.

. Ventral aspect of the shell; natural size.

PL. XIX.

Cephalopoda

e of H.M.S “Challenger”

e Voyag

The

eres

BETA op awa
in ies ee Sys Dos 845 5' 68

st

Fatlane & Erskine, LithT? Edin?

M

ELLIPTICA, n. sp.

Sie PA

14-24,

, SERIA SUEGATA, nm. sp.

15

1-

PLATE XX,

Fig. 7
Fig. 8

PLATE XX.

PAGE
SEPIA CULTRATA, Steenstrup, i : a LBS

. Dorsal aspect of the specimen ; natural size.
. Ventral aspect of the specimen ; natural size.

. The circumoral region, showing the bases of the arms, the inner and

outer lips, and the spermatic pad with a few spermatophores ad-
hering to it; magnified 2 diameters.

. Inner aspect of one of the sessile arms ; magnified 2 diameters.

. Right tentacular club; magnified 7 diameters.

. Sucker from one of the sessile arms; magnified about 15 diameters.
. The ventral mandible ; natural size.

. The dorsal mandible; natural size.

. Dorsal aspect of the shell; natural size.

Ventral aspect of the shell; natural size.

Side view of the extremity of the shell, showing the knife-like ridge on
the spine ; natural size.

Cephalopoda Pl. XX

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger.”

McFarlane J Erskine, Lith! Edin®

CU EAR AWA

SE IP AS

es PLATE Oa Loo

(2ooL. CHALL, EXP.—PART XLIv.—1886.)—Xx.

Rie at
Hig. 2
Fig. 38
Fig. 4
ine
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.
Fig. 12.
Fig. 13.
Fig. 14.
Fig. 15.
Fig. 16.
Iaitee, e/a
Fig. 18.
Fig. 19.

PLATE XXI.

PAGE
Figs. 1-10. Sepra (METASEPIA) PFEFFERI, 0. sp., 5p) lates

. Dorsal view of the specimen ; natural size.
. Ventral view of the anterior portion ; natural size.

. Circumoral region, showing the lips, buccal membrane, spermatic pad

with some spermatophores upon it, and the bases of the arms;
magnified 2 diameters.

. Dorsal aspect of the shell ; natural size.

. Ventral aspect of the shell; natural size.

. Inner aspect of one of the arms ; natural size.

. The left tentacular club; magnified about 3 diameters.
. The ventral mandible; natural size.

. The dorsal mandible; natural size.

A sucker from one of the sessile arms ; magnified 15 diameters.

Figs. 11-19. SEPIA ANDREANOIDES, 0. sp., : eso
Ventral view of a specimen, with the tentacles retracted ; natural size.
Dorsal view, with extended tentacles; natural size.
The right tentacular club; magnified about 3 diameters.
Dorsal aspect of the shell; natural size.
Ventral aspect of the shell; natural size.
Lateral aspect of the shell; natural size.
A sucker from one of the sessile arms; magnified 12 diameters.
Ventral anewelil ; natural size.

Dorsal mandible ; natural size.

Cephalopoda PI. XXT.

The Voyage of H.M.S ‘Challenger””

Ve.
PATS

Pea ius

o)
tal

hE® Edin®

MtFarlane & Erskine, lit

11-19, SEPIA ANDREANOIDES, n. sp.

1-10, SEPIA (METASEPIA) PFEFFERI, n.sp.

ioe!
Rosa?
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Iea 7
Fig. 8
ives)
Fig. 10

Fig. 11

PLATE XXII.

PAGE
Figs. 1-10. SEPIELLA MAINDRONI, de Rochebrune, —. es 11219)

. Ventral aspect of the specimen; natural size.

. Side view of a sucker from one of the sessile arms; magnified 20

diameters.

. Front view of the same sucker ; magnified 20 diameters.
. A tentacular sucker on its peduncle; magnified 20 diameters.
. Front view of a similar sucker; magnified 20 diameters.

. The distal half of the horny ring of a similar sucker, to show the denticu-

lation ; magnified 30 diameters.

. A portion of the papillary area from a similar sucker; magnified 200

diameters.

. Ventral aspect of the shell ; natural size.

. Dorsal aspect of the shell; natural size.

Lateral aspect of the shell; natural size.

Fig. 11. SEPIA ANDREANOIDES, 0. sp., . : 5 eso

The hectocotylised arm of the male specimen ; magnified 2 diameters.

Pl. XXIL

Cephalopoda

oer

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challen

LYS OF

ail i

10

©Farlame & Erskine, Litht? Edin?

mM

=

=P

SEPIA ANDREANOIDES, 2.

an

SEPIELLA MAINDRON|! (?) Rochebr.

seouuiaal

Wy
1
-
. {
i
ts a
i

me

| (ZOOL, CHALL. EXP,—PART XLIv.—1886,)—Xx. ;

PLATE XXIII

PAGE
LOLIGO EDULIS, 0. sp., . : : 5 LS

. Ventral aspect of the specimen ; natural size.
. Dorsal aspect of the head ; natural size.

. Lateral view of a sucker, from one of the sessile arms; magnified 11

diameters.

. Front view of a similar sucker ; magnified 11 diameters.

. Portion of the hectocotylised arm, showing the transition from the suckers

to the conical papillz, seen from the ventral side; magnified 3
diameters.

. The tentacular club; magnified 2 diameters.
. Lateral sucker, from the tentacular club; magnified 20 diameters.

. Horny ring, from one of the large tentacular suckers; magnified 20

diameters.

. Dorsal aspect of the gladius ; natural size.

The Voyage of H.M.S Challenger.” Cephalopoda PI. XXIII.

SS
Yijjis
Ae

es
Ye

SS

SroPPPEOT FET

Nae ALI LOU ht

i) \
Wy) \
i,
G
to

M‘Farleno % Erskine, LithT? Edin®

LOLIG® EDULIS, = ap.

PLATE XXIV. -

» I,

y. 14,

IL

PLATE XXIV.

PAGE
Figs. 1-6. LOLIGO ELLIPSURA, 1. sp.,_ . : e 160

. The specimen, seen from the ventral aspect ; natural size.
. The dorsal surface of the head; natural size.

. Part of the horny ring and papillary area, from a large tentacular sucker ;

magnified 450 diameters.

. Side view of a sucker, from one of the sessile arms ; magnified 60 diameters.
. Front view of a similar sucker; magnified 60 diameters.

. A lateral tentacular sucker ; magnified 100 diameters.

Figs. 7-15. Lotico saponica, Steenstrup, = a
The specimen, seen from the ventral aspect ; natural size.

Side view of a sucker, from one of the sessile arms; magnified 10
diameters.

A terminal tentacular sucker ; magnified 50 diameters.

The hectocotylised arm of a specimen in the Copenhagen Museum ;
magnified 2 diameters. Drawn by Mr. Thornam.

a. A small portion, still more enlarged, to show the form of the papille.

. Inner aspect of the tentacular club; magnified 2 diameters.
. Lateral aspect of the tentacular club; magnified 2 diameters.

. A lateral tentacular sucker ; magnified 20 diameters.

A median tentacular sucker ; magnified 10 diameters.

The gladius ; natural size.

The Voyage of H.M.S ‘Challenger’ Cephalopoda Pl. XXW.

M‘Farlane & Ersxine, Lith™? Edin®

I>—6, LOLICGO ELLIPSURA, ss): (aio. EOENGIO! WAIPOINIGA, <sitp:

Caan

ta -
7 a

Be
hs
eae

10.

iene lel
By Ex
B les
r. 14.

5 bey,

PLATE XXV.

PAGE
Figs. 1-10. LoLigo KOBIENSIS, n. sp., . 4 eal

. Ventral view of the animal; natural size.

. Side view of a sucker from one of the sessile arms; magnified 10

diameters.

. Front view of a similar sucker; magnified 10 diameters.

The circumoral region, showing the ventral mandible, the lips, and the
buccal membrane, with suckers upon its points and the spermatic
pad in the ventral median line; there are no spermatophores on
the pad, but a few may be seen on the left ventral arm (a).

. The tentacular club ; slightly enlarged.

. Side view of a median tentacular sucker ; magnified 7 diameters.
. Front view of a similar sucker ; magnified 7 diameters.

. A terminal tentacular sucker ; magnified 20 diameters.

. A lateral tentacular sucker; magnified 10 diameters.

The gladius ; natural size.

Figs. 11-15. Loico ELLIPSURA, 0. sp., . : & | 80
The left tentacular club ; magnified 7 diameters.
Front view of a median tentacular sucker; magnified 40 diameters.
Oblique view of a similar sucker ; magnified 40 diameters.
The horny ring of a similar sucker ; magnified 200 diameters.

The gladius ; natural size.

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger”

Cephalopoda PI. XXV.

=s

CEL:

MiFarlane & Erskine, Litht? Edin®

I—10y ORE VGO) KOR! EN SIS) 2. sp. H=15. E@EVGO BEEP SW RA,

n, Sp.

Peo ei
ON

Bis, 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
lates
Fig. 6
ig 7,
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

PLATE XXVI.

Lotico rnpica, Pfeffer, . ; , a) KG
. Ventral aspect of the largest specimen ; natural size.

. Dorsal aspect of the head; natural size.

. Front view of a sucker, from one of the sessile arms; magnified 20

diameters.
. Side view of the same sucker; magnified 20 diameters.
. A median tentacular sucker ; magnified 20 diameters.
. The right tentacular club ; magnified 7 diameters.
. The horny ring of a median tentacular sucker; magnified 20 diameters.

. A terminal tentacular sucker; magnified 20 diameters.

9. A lateral tentacular sucker ; magnified 20 diameters.

. The gladius of a smaller specimen; natural size.

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger.” Cephalopoda Pl. XXVI

<a

oe

Lee

ne

en

M‘Farlane & Erskine, Lith®® Edint

EO Li @@ |

ie

OHALL, EXP,—PART XLIV.—1886,)—Xx.

Bice
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Inez, 4)
Fig. 6
Tyres) 7/
Fig. 8
lie, @)
Fig. 10
Fig. 11.
Fig. 12.

Figs.

PLATE XXVII.

PAGE
LoLico GALATHEZ, Steenstrup, : 5 159

. Dorsal view of a male specimen ; natural size.
. Suckers from one of the sessile arms of the same individual ; enlarged.

. Side view of a sucker, from the proximal third of the third left arm;

magnified 70 diameters.

. Front view of the same sucker; magnified 70 diameters.

. The hectocotylised arm of the individual shown in fig. 1; magnified

2 diameters.

. Two pairs of papille from about halfway up the arm ; enlarged.
. A papilla with a very small sucker at its tip ; enlarged.

. A papilla whose sucker has entirely disappeared ; enlarged.

. A portion of the tentacular club; magnified 2 diameters.

. A median tentacular sucker; magnified 30 diameters.

A lateral tentacular sucker ; magnified 30 diameters.

The gladius ; natural size.

1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 were drawn by Mr. Thornam from a specimen in the Copenhagen Museum;

the remainder are from the immature Challenger specimens.

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger” Cephalopoda Pl. XXVII.
Be

“
Hf

Sa ee

A. Pollock, lith M*%Farlane & Erskine, Lith"? Edin®

EO LI Ge GwWwillAvT iS ne 5) Slax

Bese: A

Ni

Ay
Toy
rea

iy ny,
i i "
a a
‘ t
; ie
ie f
|
' }
;
1 7

C - )

Po) Poe en,

PLATE XXVIII.

Figs. 1-5. ToDARODES PACIFIOUS, Steenstrup, : 168
Fig. 1. Dorsal aspect of a female specimen ; two-thirds the natural size.
Fig. 2. The third right arm; magnified 1°5 diameter.
Fig. 3. Two suckers from about one-third up the same arm; magnified 4
diameters.
a. A portion of the horny ring still more enlarged.
Fig. 4. The left tentacular club; natural size.
Fig. 5. Two median tentacular suckers; magnified 2 diameters.
All the above figures were drawn by Mr. Thornam from a specimen in the Copenhagen Museum.
Figs. 6-12. TRACHELOTEUTHIS RIISEI, Steenstrup, ra key
Fig. 6. Dorsal view of the specimen ; natural size.
Fie. 7. Ventral aspect of the siphon; magnified 2 diameters.
Fig. 8. A sucker from one of the sessile arms; magnified 60 diameters.
Fig. 9. The tentacular club; magnified about 7 diameters.
Fig. 10. A large tentacular sucker; magnified 60 diameters.
Fig. 11. A terminal tentacular sucker ; magnified 100 diameters.
Fig. 12. A small tentacular sucker; magnified 250 diameters.
Fig. 13. Taonrus ELoNGaATUS, Steenstrup, : 5 Se

Fig. 13. Dorsal view of the type specimen ; one-fourth the natural size. Froma
sketch by Mr. Thornam.

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger” Cephalopoda Pl. XXVIII

e, Litht§ Edin?

Farlane &E

1-5, TODARODES PACIFICUS, Stp 12, TRACHELOTEUTHIS RIISE}!, Stp

6
13, TAONIUS~ ELONGATUS, Stp

ei ys

PLATE XXIX.

(ZOOL. CHALL, EXP.—PART XLIV.—1886.)— Xx.

Fig. 1
Mig. 2
1iitee, | By
Fig. 4.
jitiay,
ites) (3.
RES 7
Fig. 8
Wes ©)
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.

PLATE XXIX.

PAGE
Figs. 1-7. BATHYTEUTHIS ABYSSICOLA, 0. gen., n. sp., . ics

. Dorsal view of the specimen ; natural size.

. View of the ventral aspect of the siphon, to show the mantle-connective ;

somewhat enlarged.

Anterior aspect of the arms and circumoral region; magnified 3
diameters.

A sucker from one of the sessile arms; magnified 200 diameters.
The extremity of the left tentacle ; magnified 10 diameters.
A tentacular sucker; magnified 200 diameters.

The gladius ; natural size. The dotted line indicates the presumed out-
line of the damaged posterior extremity.

Figs. 8-10. Masticorevutuis acassizit, Verrill, é ; 170

. Front view of a tentacular sucker ; magnified 60 diameters.

. Side view of a similar sucker; magnified 30 diameters.

Part of a front view of a similar sucker, to show the form of the horny
ring and the papillary area.

Fig. 11. ENOPLOTEUTHIS MARGARITIFERA, Riippell, ; i 17

The left tentacular club ; magnified 25 diameters.

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger” Cephalopoda Pl. XXIX

MoSnclauo &. Erskine, Litht} Edin?

1-7, BATHYTEUTHIS ABYSSICOLA, n. gen, n.sp. 8-10, MASTIGOTEUTHIS AGASSIZII, VU
ll, ENOPLOTEUTHIS MARGARITIFERA, Rupp.

Ors i)
ne i

oF ¢

. 14,

5 a

PLATE XXX.

PAGE
Figs. 1-8. TELEOTEUTHIS CARIBB&A (Lesueur), : eee

. The tentacular club ; magnified:
. A large marginal sucker.
. A terminal sucker ; very highly magnified.

. A median sucker from the second transverse row, showing the incipient

hook.

. A similar sucker, but slightly further up the club, showing a longer hook.
. Front view of a median hook.
. Side view of a similar hook.

. A similar hook, viewed from above.

Figs. 9-15. HIsTIOPsIS ATLANTICA, D. gen., N. Sp., ; > LXO)

. Ventral aspect of the specimen ; natural size.
. Dorsal aspect of the specimen ; natural size.

. Cireumoral region, showing the buccal membrane and the bases of the

arms and tentacles; natural size.

. Front view of the larger suckers, from the distal half of the arms.

. Side view of the same sucker.

One of the smaller suckers, from the proximal part of the arm.

The gladius; natural size.

The Voyage of H.M.S Challenger.” Cephalopoda Pl. XXX

A. Pollock, del> M‘Farlane & Erskine, Lith"? Edm

1-8, TELEOTEUTHIS CARIBBAA (Lesr)) 9-15, HISTIOPSIS ATLANTICA, n.gen., n. sp.

Wwe
4 i

Pete cat
ye

PLATE XXXI.

(ZOOL, OHALE. EXP.— PART XLIV.—1886.)—Xx.

iBhioay al
Fig. 2
ic we3:
Fig. 4
Fig.
lines 4,
Fig. 6
ion vie
Fig. 8
Imire, {9
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.
Fig. 12

4a. Section through the anterior part of fig. 2; natural size.

PLATE XXXI.

Figs. 1-5. Curroreuruis (2) sp.,

Side view of a portion of the pen; natural size.
Dorsal view of a portion, anterior to the last ; natural size.
Section through the anterior part of fig. 1; natural size.

Section through another portion situated some distance behind that shown
in fig. 1; natural size. -

Section through the extremity of the smallest portion in the collection :
natural size.

Figs. 6-10. TRACHELOTEUTHIs (?) sp.,

. Dorso-lateral view of a specimen, which had been mounted as a micro-

scopic object, and was much compressed ; magnified 4 diameters.

Similar view of another specimen, which had been preserved in alcohol -
‘magnified 4 diameters.

Dorsal aspect of the head, showing the prominent lip between the arms:
magnified 7 diameters.

Ventral view of the siphon, showing the pits for articulation with the
mantle ; magnified 20 diameters.

The posterior extremity, showing the form of the pen and the fins:
magnified 4 diameters.

Figs. 11-14. CRANCHIA REINHARDTI, Steenstrup,

Ventral aspect of the head and anterior part of the mantle; magnified 4
diameters.

The extremity of the tentacle; magnified 20 diameters.

Fig. 13. One of the larger suckers from the tentacle ; magnified 200 diameters.

Fie.

14

One of the smaller suckers from the tentacle ; magnified 200 diameters.

PAGE

178

166

184

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger”

A, Pollock, delt

1—5, CHIROTEUTHIS (?) sp.

6-10, TRACHELOTEUTHIS(?)

1114, CRANCHIA

Cephalopoda Pl. XXXI

McFarlane & Erskine, Lith"? Edint

REINHARDTI!, Stp.

Ibis A
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
ine, By
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
imney, &),
Fig. 10.
Fig. ial
Fig. 12.

PLATE XXXII.

PAGE
Figs. 1-4. CRANCHIA REINHARDTII, Steenstrup, : . 184

. Anterior aspect of the head and arms; magnified 7 diameters.

Dorsal view of the posterior extremity of the body, showing the form of
the fin; magnified about 3 diameters.

. Lateral aspect to show the form of the end of the body; magnified about

3 diameters.

. A specimen showing a tapering posterior extremity to the body;

shghtly enlarged.

Figs. 5-11. Taonrus Sue (Lankester), . a 5 19x
Ventral aspect of one of the specimens ; natural size.
A sucker from one of the sessile arms; considerably enlarged.
One of the median tentacular suckers; magnified 30 diameters.
The horny ring of a similar sucker ; magnified 30 diameters.
The extremity of the tentacle ; magnified 8 diameter.

A specimen from the Atlantic Ocean, preserved in alcohol; magnified
8 diameters.

The “complete” specimen, drawn from a microscopic preparation of
Dr. v. Willemoes-Suhm ; magnified 8 diameters.

Fig. 12. Taontus HYPERBOREUS, Steenstrup, 5 US

Anterior view of the arms and circumoral region, showing the enlarged
suckers on the lateral arms; the dorsal aspect is downwards ;
natural size. Drawn by Mr. Thornam from the type specimen in
the Copenhagen Museum.

The Voyage of H.M.S “Challenger.” Cephalopoda Pl. XXXII.
oie

A.Pollock, lith MtFarlane & Erskine, Lithtt Edit

1-4, CRANCHIA REINHARODTII, Stp. 5-11, TAONIUS SUHMI (Lankester)
12, TAONIUS HYPERBOREUS, Stp.

PLATE XXXII.

(Z00L. CHALL. EXP.—PART XLIv.—1886.)—Xx.

PLATE XXXIII.

Figs. 1-11. Taonrus HYPERBOREUS, Steenstrup,
Fig. 1. Dorsal view of the type specimen ; one-half natural size.

Fig. 2. Front view of an enlarged sucker, from one of the lateral arms ; magnified
4 diameters.

Fig. 3. Side view of the same sucker; magnified 4 diameters.
Fig. 4. Front view of a similar sucker; less enlarged.

Fig. 5. Side view of the same sucker as fig. 4; less enlarged.
Fig. 6. The inner aspect of the tentacular club ; natural size.

Fig. 7. A portion of the stem; enlarged to show the suckers and fixing-
cushions.

Fig. 8. Three views of a large tentacular sucker ; somewhat magnified.
Fig. 9. Front view of a similar sucker ; magnified about 10 diameters.

Fig. 10. A sucker and fixing-cushion from the stem of the tentacle; magnified
about 30 diameters.

Fig. 11. The gladius of a smaller specimen from the “ Poreupine ” collection ;
natural size.

Figures 1, 4, 5, 6,7, 8, were drawn by Mr. Thornam from the type specimen in the Copenhagen
Museum.
Figs. 12-15. CALLITEUTHIS REVERSA, Verrill,
Fig. 12. The right tentacular club; magnified about 5 diameters.
Fig. 13. One of the larger tentacular suckers; magnified 40 diameters.

Fig. 14. A portion of the horny ring and papillary area; magnified 250
diameters.

Fig. 15. Dorsal and lateral views of the gladius; natural size.

PAGE

191

183

The Voyage of H.M.S ‘Challenger.” Cephalopoda PI. XXXIll.

M‘Farlane & Erskine, Lith®$ Edin?

A. Pollock, lith

1—11, TAONIUS HYPERBOREUS, Stp. 12-15, CALLITEUTHIS REVERSA, VIL.

mona
i

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES

|

mies

'
ale

Il

|

MN

3 9088 00892 7139

3
Tet

tet Tet.

3 Tar elaTaTete ter
Hetty iat tats

Teistyly
gat at

saat

Ter
seittt feletyty

r

-

riety

‘3

eitiele

‘ates
Tate
.

eh

Tet,
Le:

T,
Te

*
aietetetets
stotety

2}

gee ath

est 7

etter:
staisty

sith2

Tete!
Teter
sty

oa
ial
oe.

sie

firey

a

2

aie by

ooh

aie

aaa

*

4.

it

ter
ta

7

Trteler

mt

Te

ef

ats

Fett
aCe
Sraaigtyl

pases)

<f

Bri
tie

Je arate

°

es
>
i

at
434 tetas
rretst.

=

TF

beh

i)

cf

.

?

24)

Tei

Tat.

133
i

Fi

f,

.

7, tet
Borate

Meter

Tei:

3g
‘e

ot

cy

if
ai:

*

te
140

Ci
at

* fh
Tel

tahoe

i.

+.
oS

Tes
vistas
arts

T
Te

T,

a
a

% a

aie

‘ot

.

Gi

rir!

?,

Ti

i

te

i
pla

Tele’
ie

‘an

ag2t

on
rn

aah.
7, at

Tat

134,

tata,
thy
sete
tr

5

ty

T

7.

:

a

7
8

if

seat

T.

Te

i.

ei

iT

ayn

iu
raf
T.
Te
Tet
a
e
at

Ts
ae

Meteletrraty

rinetyten
nevtrtreetate
siateh

ely
+f
tare

ele

se
te
Si

ravarah

Tet,
etal
at
$53
17
7. Th
ry

i
tii
are

f
pat

ah

7.

as!

i

ra
rite

53

7
Ri

i
ars
taey

i

7
Te

Bo

7
eT,
neh 34

ri
t,

Tsiy)
een
Frese aban se 8 3t
erelytately isin
+ 7

sf

Figieiete

siete tie tieigie

T+

i

by

rine

spit
Tete,
at
ist
rats
7.

Teletet
mF
seca

i

er

if

sit}

eit,

tf,

7,
7
‘2
x
Te

+?

sit.

a2

raat
pas ea tae
1p
ut
ey
att
restate

<3
ay
Tar hTs

ret.

i

Take
Te tattsteten
serait ate sit

1

seh
pints

ante neta tet
Nalgene sss ig

+

Tetetat

7,
¥.

7.

Toe

7,

rT

28)
536352
Ene $2
sanpstretee,

23) F
Arsraratytarergte carat tote Tete ai

ot

site

Naratelatereet erastetey Seis} 36
ReaD saesaa tena Totes Tat teeta
3

Tat
att

4

pistyitts
5 hoe
Ta

if

st

at

Tete
frets
Tekatet

TTets
wat Uglgletece

Tet,

}

1

if

Sole

ST

359)
the ateT,
Tel, *.
Nraretararaetacestr esas rena tareeTT
WE EEANNT i
ipisiatetetat et
Halt

i nit!

-
ai s28
rane 7 ny Te
guitar ae
Tqlatetars Tere
min 3 3 ;
a +5355 rattan
eighige

ne 234

seas

ats)

tele,

Tele

eaters
Neteiate telat ate aT 4T
325 SgapateaeygaL HD ig)

2h Totere

tratatls Tat
a irtetraterira
aiskafen
e073

peristse tt “: i
MTT Tr seats

Naini oe
verano te rary i

Hetty

tee
ttle age4 Hag)

it
4

repitty ieee THT
igiate aS

TeTar.
at

reiaTat

at? iste

x2
sarnitatt
Ne
ate

T, Tai,
nivleitze dake
eatetseloieetanytetrepisrya peat

?.

aieiaigte *
reladatie reas i

Talglatet
5}

7.3.

sis eep aes pistsigey
cDeMe AA AES tea hae gh it
sina ly He

iiss vet

lett
tata

> ke

sf
; c?
ipletyiete Tate

rister
Tetatelpgiet stele TatelasTats te!

i si 4+ ry
seed tag aaah ssaaatt
erate tatate re TeteTe Ta

mata saetete

a saat Ne
Hinereeeyrrartrrt
Patan tat tetaaatentey ;

3 sata

reiebete rere "

1
a 3
untae :

F. “oy Ts

z
3G :

i
-

NareraTentens 33

piytpaietereet terete
Tepe

eigT a:

2th

e

af ay, raters

at 13a} irae

soe eset teistehe

silntetet
nTeletetetety bs ae ae
Lareletatelpia intents bgeSRSD HRSG teat

aos the
rgtreneay
reiananetatars
a 42) st

priahaisiaes!

tel statet. aieitits 3
Tghytatstenareneeratieettat nase! ae
7, 36)
Myers
2444 Tercera
Tiserdtiire. eae shah eee tae Le T,
F525 74343 relgtet i art aH

Pirate se Faith

i
Fe

Tat s¢
riparia anipeale

i
erates

i
a

art
; 143535) ras Te ss
PeveTD a eeneaet tate ER RATE

tele sie
TaTah

7,
Y.
streets

aie

Tatars

iS}
atetaty

Fer,
+
Ta?
ee
7 i
iat Tyrety ee i
Beane SAD ees
nist
it reel Ts 1)
23 aigty gigtel
REMAB Ae
Aatrtrtete inte
ise
o ints Hi
azaahe
egret

7
af

7: 4
3

ie
7.
5

fe? re
Titotelelely etele ts
arterial ah

; eirigleiets,
aieipent a
sieht tye

sta Tat
t

Ts]st

e528)

Fer. <9et.
7
bese hha
satis
rarer

te
athe

Be Sea SUEACA CS
eabahae tt
ti

3535)
a

1
sae

i 1?
7, 7,
7. *}

2} a

neat a3
i Bee Ty
is

ts it
. 7

i

7,
rat
7

7}

.

se seeett att

ee

oSeett

Bh

3

hh.