OCR Text |
Show 490 MR. W. S. KENT ON CERTAIN [June 16, that both this and the Conception-Bay example are specifically identical, while, at the same time, the much fuller details now made known to us through this last capture greatly facilitate our efforts towards its correct appreciation. Particular interest attaches itself to the fact, recorded in association with the tentacular club of this latter specimen, that an outer row of minute suckers supplements the two central rows of larger ones on each side. These small suckers alternate with the larger, and, while of such inconspicuous size as to have escaped notice in Mr. Harvey's first report, are of especial importance inasmuch as they indicate that the animal is most nearly allied to the genera Loligo and Ommastrephes. So closely indeed is the formula of the tentacular club, in addition to all other essential points, now shown to correspond with certain species of Ommastrephes that it will be evidently desirable to retain it in that genus, thus avoiding the creation of a new generic title, as previously proposed, and which would have been requisite bad the two rudimentary rows of suckers on the outer margin of the tentacular club been wanting, as the earlier description seemed to indicate. The specific distinctness of this form, however, appears to be still more clearly indicated by the more extensive information recently eliminated. Prof. A. E. Verrill, in a very interesting communication to the 'American Journal of Science and Art,' reprinted in the 'Annals and Magazine of Natural History ' for March last, brings forward, in addition to the accounts of the two monsters here especially mentioned, reliable evidence concerning several other Cephalopods of gigantic size encountered on the same coast-line within the last few years. Having examined the beaks and other portions of several of these, Prof. Verrill is of the opinion that they include two species respectively identical, in all probability, with Prof. Steenstrup's Architeuthis dux and Architeuthis monachus. Our information, however, relative to both the genus Architeuthis and the two forms referred to it, is at present so limited, that considerable difficulty is associated with the establishment of this identity. This difficulty is, furthermore, greatly enhanced by the very antagonistic evidence concerning these species adduced by different authorities. Thus, in the absence of means of access to Prof. Steenstrup's original description of the genus Architeuthis, the present author accepted the authority of M M . Crosse and Fischer,\ who in their well known 'Journal de Conchologie ' (vol. x. 1862, pp. 129 & 130), state that the generic title was instituted by its founder in the year 1856 for the reception of three gigantic Cephalopods, two of which were captured on the coast of Iceland in the years 1639 and 1790, and of which popular record alone remains ; to these Prof. Steenstrup provisionally applied the title of Architeuthis monachus. A third was stranded on the coast of Jutland in 1854, and upon the pharynx and beak of this, the only parts preserved ; the same authority founded his species Architeuthis dux. Evidently assuming that the genus Architeuthis had not been sufficiently characterized for reidentification, M M . Crosse and Fischer, in this |