OCR Text |
Show 492 MR. W. S. KENT ON CERTAIN [June 16, describes a pair of jaws (also preserved in the Smithsonian Institution) as being much more slender than those of the last example mentioned, and entirely wanting its deep notch and prominent angular lobe. This description, however, clearly indicates that neither this particular individual nor the three others associated with it, if of the same species, can be identical with A. dux, as in the latter it is distinctly shown, both by M . Harting and by Prof. Steenstrup's own figures, that a distinct notch and prominent angular lobe exist. Both A. dux and A. monachus, indeed, seem to approach one another so nearly in the character of the mandibles (the only portions yet available for comparison), that it is difficult to refrain from the suspicion that they represent one and the same species. If, again, M . Harting is correct in his identification of Architeuthis dux, Steenstr., with Ommastrephes todarus, D'Orb., we have further conclusive evidence that the Newfoundland examples are distinct from that form, their tentacular arms presenting the character of the ordinary cuttlefish, and wanting the anomalous feature of these organs already observed of D'Orbigny's species. It would appear, then, that the individuals encountered in Conception and Logie Bays, represented in the St. John's Museum by a tentacular arm and an entire specimen, and which, in a previous communication, we provisionally proposed to distinguish by the title of Megaloteuthis harveyi, belong, if identical (as Prof. Verrill surmises) with the three examples that have fallen beneath his notice, to a species distinct from either representative of the genus Architeuthis (even should two exist) as characterized by Prof. Steenstrup, or from any other species of the same order recognizably described. At the same time it would seem, from the evidence of M . Harting and others, with the further testimony adduced from the Newfoundland examples, that the two species of Architeuthis, Steenstr., cannot be separated from the genus Ommastrephes, D'Orb., of which they are merely gigantic representatives. Concerning the species represented by the magnificent example and fragment in the St. John's Museum-in the seeming absence of characters that identify it with any form hitherto described, it appears desirable to retain for it the same specific title proposed in our earlier communication, and thus to distinguish it as Ommastrephes harveyi, the arrangement of the suckers on the tentacular club, already enumerated, constituting a sound specific diagnosis. As, however, these examples, with other material of a kindred nature, have had the good fortune to engage the attention of so eminent an authority as Prof. A. E. Verrill-a circumstance of which I was unaware at the time of penning my first communication, we may confidently leave it in his hands to demonstrate to us the many essential details yet wanting to complete our perfect knowledge of these noble specimens, and to clear up the several apparent discrepancies with which, owing to the previous paucity of material, the literature of this most interesting subject has been encumbered. With the above end in view, I wish to place on record the results of a recent and more minute examination of the colossal arm pre- |