Miscellaneous, 3 5 7 which was thus recognised in the charter of Hen. I. and those of se-veral succeeding reigns : " et cives London" habeant fugaciones suas ad fugandum sicut melius et plenius habuerint antecessores eorum, sc. in Chiltre, &c."— R. T. ON A NEW SPECIES OF SEPJOLA. MM. Gervais and Vanbeneben have lately presented to the Acad, des Scienc. de Bruxelles a memoir on the genus Sepiola, and in a subsequent note have described a new species under the name of macrosoma from the Bay of Naples, and figured in Delia Chiaje's * Memorie sugli animali senza vertebre/ pi. 71. fig. 1 — 2. The most remarkable fact found by the authors in examining this species was the existence of an inferior eyelid, which in a certain degree calls to mind the principal character on which R. Owen established his Rossia palpebrosa. The Sep. macrosoma has moreover in common with this a very extraordinary size. It would perhaps be necessary, did we not place entire confidence in the accurate descriptions of the learned Englishman, to compare individuals of the two species. How-ever their geographical distribution alone would authorize their se-paration, the one having been discovered by Capt. Ross at the Arctic Pole, while our species inhabits the Bay of Naples. The body is globular and perfectly rounded at its posterior part. The arms are placed about middle way, they are by some lines closer together beneath than above. The mantle does not present any point of adhesion with the body in its inferior or anal portion ; it is only at the nuchal or superior part that a junction of a small extent is perceived. The dorsal plate is larger in front than behind, and gra-dually becomes narrow. It is undoubtedly the largest species of the genus. If we compare it with the S. palpebrosa we first see the eye-ball protected by a palpebral fold in both species, but in the northern one the eyelids completely hide the eyes, and there exists one above and one below, although the latter is the largest. In our species we cannot find a trace of any superior eyelid, conse-quently the eye is not completely closed. R. Owen supposes that these eyelids serve the species inhabiting the cold countries to protect the eye-ball against the fragments of ice, but the existence of eyelids in a Neapolitan species necessarily destroys this supposition. The body is much less elongated in our species, and the arms are not inserted so near the front margin of the mantle, they are also perfectly rounded. The arms have the same proportions in the two species, with this exception, that in the northern species the third pair surpasses the fourth considerably. The tentacula are longer in the Neapolitan species.
BioStor
