List of giant squid specimens and sightings

The earliest known photograph of an intact giant squid, showing the arms, tentacles and buccal region of the head (including beak) of a specimen from Logy Bay, Newfoundland (#29 on this list), draped over Reverend Moses Harvey's sponge bath, November 1873. Harvey wrote in his journal: "I knew that I had in my possession what all the savants in the world did not […] what the museums in the world did not contain […] A photograph could not lie and would silence the gainsayers" (Frank, 2014:246; Offord, 2016). The photograph includes contemporaneous annotations by zoologist Addison Emery Verrill, including a 1-foot scale bar (top left) and detailed marginal notes.^{[nb 1]}

This list of giant squid specimens and sightings is a comprehensive timeline of recorded human encounters with members of the genus Architeuthis, popularly known as giant squid. It includes animals that were caught by fishermen, found washed ashore, recovered (in whole or in part) from sperm whales and other predatory species, as well as those reliably sighted at sea. The list also covers specimens incorrectly assigned to the genus Architeuthis in original descriptions or later publications.

Tales of giant squid have been common among mariners since ancient times, but the animals were long considered mythical, and often associated with the kraken of Nordic legend (Rees, 1949; Salvador & Tomotani, 2014). Scientific acceptance did not materialise until specimens became available to zoologists in the second half of the 19th century, beginning with the formal naming of Architeuthis dux by Japetus Steenstrup in 1857, from fragmentary Bahamian material collected two years earlier (#14 on this list; Steenstrup, 1857:183; validated in Harting, 1860:11). The giant squid came to public prominence in 1861 when the French corvette Alecton encountered a live animal at the surface (#18) while navigating near Tenerife. A report of the incident filed by the ship's captain (Bouyer, 1861) was almost certainly seen by Jules Verne and adapted by him for the description of the monstrous squid in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (Ellis, 1998a:79).

The giant squid's existence was established beyond doubt only in the 1870s, with the appearance of an extraordinary number of complete specimens—both dead and alive—in Newfoundland waters (beginning with #21; Earle, 1977; McConvey, 2015). These were meticulously documented in a series of papers by Yale zoologist Addison Emery Verrill (Coe, 1929:36; G.E. Verrill, 1958:69).^{[nb 2]} The earliest known photographs of the giant squid were of two of these Newfoundland specimens, both from 1873: first a single severed tentacle—hacked off a live animal as it "attacked" a fishing boat (#28; Murray, 1874b:121)—and weeks later an intact animal in two parts (#29);^{[nb 3]} the head and limbs of this latter specimen were famously shown draped over the sponge bath of Moses Harvey, a local clergyman, essayist, and amateur naturalist (Aldrich, 1987:109; Frank, 2014). Harvey secured and reported widely on both of these important specimens—as well as numerous others—and it was largely through his efforts that giant squid became known to North American and British zoologists (Aldrich, 1987:115). Recognition of Architeuthis as a real animal led to the reappraisal of earlier reports of gigantic tentacled sea creatures, with some of these subsequently being accepted as records of giant squid, the earliest stretching back to at least the 17th century (Ellis, 1994a:379, 1998a:257; Sweeney & Roper, 2001:[27]).

For a time in the late 19th century almost every major specimen of which material was saved was described as a new species. In all, some twenty species names were coined (Sweeney & Young, 2003). However, there is no widely agreed basis for distinguishing between the named species, and both morphological and genetic data point to the existence of a single, globally distributed species, which according to the principle of priority must be known by the earliest available name: Architeuthis dux (Aldrich, 1991:474; Förch, 1998:93; Winkelmann et al., 2013; Guerra et al., 2013).

It is not known why giant squid become stranded on shore, but it may be because the distribution of deep, cold water where they live is temporarily altered. Marine biologist and Architeuthis specialist Frederick Aldrich proposed that there may be a periodicity to the strandings around Newfoundland, and based on historical data suggested an average interval between mass strandings of some 30 years. Aldrich used this value to correctly predict a relatively small stranding event between 1964 and 1966 (beginning with #170; Aldrich, 1967a, 1968). Although strandings continue to occur sporadically throughout the world, few have been as frequent as those in Newfoundland in the late 19th century. A notable exception was a 15-month period between 2014 and 2015, during which an unprecedented 57 specimens were recorded from Japanese waters (beginning with #518; Kubodera et al., 2016).^{[nb 4]}

Though the total number of recorded giant squid specimens now runs into the hundreds, the species remains notoriously elusive and little known. By the turn of the 21st century, the giant squid remained one of the few truly large extant megafauna to have never been photographed alive, either in the wild or in captivity. Marine writer and artist Richard Ellis described it as "the most elusive image in natural history" (Ellis, 1998a:211). Early attempts to capture a glimpse of the animal in its natural habitat included a submersible expedition by Frederick Aldrich in the late 1980s (Ellis, 1998a:3).^{[nb 5]} A photograph purporting to show a live Architeuthis dux alongside a diver was published by Poppe & Goto (1993), but this turned out to be a sick or dying Onykia robusta (misidentification #[7]; Ellis, 1998a:211; Norman, 2000:174). A number of expeditions were mounted in the 1990s with the aim of capturing footage of a live giant squid in its natural habitat (Pope, 1994; Fisher, 1995; [Anonymous], 1996c), but all were unsuccessful. They included Smithsonian-backed expeditions to the Azores in July 1996 and to Kaikoura Canyon off New Zealand in January–March 1997 and February–March 1999 (the former covered by National Geographic; Allen, 1997; McCarey & Rubin, 1998). These expeditions—the latter two each costing around $10 million—employed a combination of sperm whale-mounted crittercams, baited "ropecams" or "drop-cams", an Odyssey IIB autonomous underwater vehicle, and the single-person submersible Deep Rover (Fisher, 1997; Ellis, 1997a; Grzelewski, 2002). All three were led by giant squid expert Clyde Roper, with the first two also involving marine biologist Malcolm Clarke (Gomes-Pereira et al., 2017:823) and the last two Steve O'Shea of NIWA (Roper et al., 1997, 1999; Roper, 1998a, 1998b, 2000, 2006, 2013). A couple of years later, in 2001, O'Shea succeeded in capturing the first footage of a live giant squid when he caught and filmed several paralarval individuals in captivity (Baird, 2002). This milestone was followed by the first images of a live adult giant squid (at the surface) on 15 January 2002, in Kyoto Prefecture, Japan (#442; [Anonymous], 2002b; O'Shea, 2003f). These were joined by a number of little-publicised photographs of live adults at the surface off Okinawa (#449, 450, and 464).^{[nb 6]} Another unsuccessful attempt to film a live giant squid in the wild was made off the Spanish coast of Asturias in September 2002, led by Ángel Guerra (Sitges, 2003; Soriano, 2003; Guerra, 2013). It was only on 30 September 2004 that a live giant squid was photographed in its natural deep-water habitat, off the Ogasawara Islands, by Tsunemi Kubodera and Kyoichi Mori (#466; Kubodera & Mori, 2005; Kubodera, 2010:25). Kubodera and his team, again working off the Ogasawara Islands, subsequently became the first to film a live adult giant squid on 4 December 2006 (#473; [Reuters], 2007; Kubodera, 2010:38). However, the quest to film a live giant squid in its natural habitat continued, with an unsuccessful National Geographic-backed attempt off the Azores in 2011, headed by camera expert Martin Dohrn and assisted by Clarke ([Anonymous], 2011a; Gomes-Pereira et al., 2017:824). The elusive footage was finally captured by a team comprising Kubodera, O'Shea and Edith Widder in July 2012 (#507; [NHK], 2013a, b; Widder, 2013a, b). Since then, live giant squid have been photographed and filmed at the surface on a number of occasions, mostly in Japanese waters (#519, 524, 556, 561, 565, and 581), but also off Spain (#583) and South Africa (#584).

Despite these recent advances and the growing number of both specimens and recordings of live animals, the giant squid continues to occupy a unique place in the public imagination (Guerra et al., 2011:1990). As Roper et al. (2015:83) wrote: "Few events in the natural world stimulate more excitement and curiosity among scientists and laymen alike than the discovery of a specimen of Architeuthis."

Overview

Sourcing and progenitors

Michael J. Sweeney (left) and Clyde F. E. Roper (center) with a giant squid (#240 on this list) being prepared for display at the National Museum of Natural History in 1983. Sweeney compiled the list on which the present one is based; Roper, an expert on Architeuthis, wrote its introduction (Sweeney & Roper, 2001).

The present list generally follows "Records of Architeuthis Specimens from Published Reports", compiled by zoologist Michael J. Sweeney of the Smithsonian Institution and including records through 1999 (Sweeney & Roper, 2001), with additional information taken from other sources (see Full citations). While Sweeney's list is sourced almost entirely from the scientific literature, many of the more recent specimens are supported by reports from the news media, including newspapers and magazines, radio and television broadcasts, and online sources.

Earlier efforts to compile a list of all known giant squid encounters throughout history include those of marine writer and artist Richard Ellis (Ellis, 1994a:379–384, 1998a:257–265), and these too have informed the present list. Records which appear in Ellis's 1998 list but are not found in Sweeney & Roper's 2001 list have a citation to Ellis (1998a:257–265) in the Additional references column of the main table.

In addition to these global compilations, a number of regional specimen lists have been published, including Förch (1998:105–110) for New Zealand, Guerra et al. (2006:258–259) for Asturias, Spain, and Roper et al. (2015) for the western North Atlantic. Though the number of authenticated giant squid records now runs into the hundreds, individual specimens still generate considerable scientific interest and continue to have scholarly papers unto themselves (e.g. Leite et al., 2016; Funaki, 2017; Romanov et al., 2017; Guerra et al., 2018).

Scope and inclusion criteria

The list includes records of giant squid (genus Architeuthis) either supported by a physical specimen (or parts thereof) or—in the absence of any saved material—where at least one of the following conditions is satisfied: the specimen was examined by an expert prior to disposal and thereby positively identified as a giant squid; a photograph or video recording of the specimen was taken, on the basis of which it was assigned to the genus Architeuthis by a recognised authority; or the record was accepted as being that of a giant squid by a contemporary expert or later authority (whether due to the perceived credibility of the source, the verisimilitude of the account, or for any other reason).

Nineteenth century engraving by W. A. Cranston of a giant squid attacking a boat (see #28). Only sightings deemed authentic by published experts are included in the list.

Purported sightings of giant squid lacking both physical and documentary evidence and expert appraisal (the most dubious tending towards "big fish stories") are generally excluded, with the exception of those appearing in the lists of Ellis (1994a:379–384), Ellis (1998a:257–265), or Sweeney & Roper (2001).^{[nb 7]}

The earliest records of very large squid date to classical antiquity, and the writings of Aristotle and Pliny the Elder (Muntz, 1995; Ellis, 1998a:11). But in the absence of detailed descriptions or surviving remains, it is not possible to assign these to the giant squid genus Architeuthis with any confidence, and they are therefore not included in this list. Basque and Portuguese cod fishermen observed what were likely giant squid carcasses in the waters of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland as early as the 16th century (Roper et al., 2015:78), but conclusive evidence is similarly lacking. The earliest specimens identifiable as true giant squid are generally accepted to be ones from the early modern period in the 17th and 18th centuries (Ellis, 1994a:379), and possibly as far back as the 16th century (Ellis, 1998a:257; Sweeney & Roper, 2001:[27]; though see Paxton & Holland, 2005).

All developmental stages from hatchling to mature adult are included. In the literature there is a single anecdotal account of a giant squid "egg case" (Gudger, 1953:199; Lane, 1957:129; Ellis, 1994a:144), but this is excluded due to a lack of substantiating evidence. Indirect evidence of giant squid (such as sucker scars found on sperm whales) falls outside the scope of this list.

Specimens misassigned to the genus Architeuthis in print publications or news reports are also included, but are clearly highlighted as misidentifications.

Number and origin of specimens

Locations of the 57 giant squid specimens encountered in the Sea of Japan between January 2014 and March 2015, in what remains the largest mass appearance of this species ever recorded, from Kubodera et al. (2016). The two maps show specimens (numbered chronologically) from the two main stranding events in January–May 2014 (A; spanning #518 to 543) and September 2014–March 2015 (B; spanning #544 to 577).

The genus Architeuthis has a cosmopolitan (Okutani, 2015) or bi-subtropical distribution (Nesis, 2003). The greatest numbers of specimens have been recorded in the North Atlantic around Newfoundland (historically) and the Iberian Peninsula (more recently), in the South Atlantic off South Africa and Namibia, in the northwestern Pacific off Japan (especially more recently), and in the southwestern Pacific around New Zealand and Australia (Roper & Shea, 2013:111; Kubodera et al., 2016). The vast majority of specimens are of oceanic origin, including marginal seas broadly open to adjacent ocean, especially the Tasman Sea and Sea of Japan, but also the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea (Roper et al., 2015), among others. A handful are known from the far western Mediterranean Sea (#380, 427, 469, and 508), but these records do not necessarily indicate that the Mediterranean falls within the natural range of the giant squid, as the specimens may have been transported there by inflowing Atlantic water (Roper & Shea, 2013:111). Similarly, giant squid are unlikely to naturally occur in the North Sea owing to its shallow depth (Roper & Shea, 2013:111; though see e.g. #108). They are generally absent from equatorial and high polar latitudes (Roper & Jereb, 2010:121).

According to Guerra et al. (2006), 592 confirmed giant squid specimens were known as of the end of 2004. Of these, 306 came from the Atlantic Ocean, 264 from the Pacific Ocean, 20 from the Indian Ocean, and 2 from the Mediterranean Sea. The figures for specimens collected in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans further broke down as follows: 126 in the northwestern Atlantic, 148 in the northeastern Atlantic, 6 in the southwestern Atlantic, 26 in the southeastern Atlantic, 28 in the northwestern Pacific, 43 in the northeastern Pacific, 183 in the southwestern Pacific, and 10 in the southeastern Pacific (Guerra et al., 2006).

Giant squid at the surface with an approaching ship in the background, from a painting by Herbert B. Judy, 1905. Specimens found stranded or floating at the surface constitute almost 50% of all records from the Atlantic Ocean (Guerra et al., 2011).

Guerra & González (2009) reported that the total number of recorded giant squid specimens stood at 624. Guerra et al. (2011) gave an updated figure of 677 specimens (see table below). Paxton (2016a) put the total at around 700 as of 2015, of which c. 460 had been measured in some way. This number has increased substantially in recent years, with 57 specimens recorded from Japanese waters over an extraordinary 15-month period in 2014–2015 (beginning with #518; Kubodera et al., 2016). The giant squid nevertheless remains a rarely encountered animal, especially considering its large size, with Ellis (1994a:133) writing that "each giant squid that washes up or is taken from the stomach of a sperm whale is still an occasion for a teuthological celebration".

Preserved giant squid specimens are much sought after for display (Landman & Ellis, 1998; Ablett, 2012), and around 30 are exhibited at museums and aquaria worldwide (Guerra et al., 2011). The Centro del Calamar Gigante in Luarca, Spain, had by far the largest collection on public display, but many of the museum's 14 or so specimens were destroyed during a storm on 2 February 2014 ([Anonymous], 2014b, c).

Records of giant squid specimens sorted by region and method of capture (from Guerra et al., 2011)

Region	Number of specimens	% of total	Found stranded or floating (%)	From fishing (%)	From predators (%)	Method of capture unknown (%)
NW Atlantic	148	21.9	61	30	1	8
NE Atlantic	152	22.5	49	31	15	5
SW Atlantic	6	0.9	50	16	1	33
SE Atlantic	60*	8.9	10	60	17	13
NW Pacific	30*	4.4	30	35	30	5
NE Pacific	43	6.4	7	56	30	7
SW Pacific	183	27.0	12	41	42	5
SE Pacific	10	1.5	90	10	0	0
Indian Ocean	33**	4.8	6	94	0	0
W Mediterranean	3	0.4	100	0	0	0
Equatorial/tropical	9	1.3	11	44	45	0
All regions	677	100.0

* Underestimates according to Guerra et al. (2011).

** Includes records from Durban, South Africa.

Caveats

Reported sizes

Further information: Cephalopod size

Giant squid found at Ranheim in Trondheimsfjord, Norway, on 2 October 1954 (#137 on this list), being examined by Professors Erling Sivertsen and Svein Haftorn. This specimen measured 9.24 m in total length and had a mantle length of 1.79 m.

Giant squid size, and particularly total length, has often been misreported and exaggerated. Reports of specimens reaching or even exceeding 18 m (59 ft) in length are widespread, but no animals approaching this size have been scientifically documented in recent times, despite the hundreds of specimens available for study. The 55 ft (16.76 m) "Thimble Tickle specimen" (#46) reported by Verrill (1880a:191) is often cited as the largest giant squid ever recorded, and the 55 ft 2 in (16.81 m) specimen described by Kirk (1888) as Architeuthis longimanus (#62)—a strangely proportioned animal that has been much commented on^{[nb 8]}—is sometimes cited as the longest (O'Shea & Bolstad, 2008; Paxton, 2016a). It is now thought likely that such lengths were achieved by great lengthening of the two long feeding tentacles, analogous to stretching elastic bands, or resulted from inadequate measurement methods such as pacing (O'Shea & Bolstad, 2008; Dery, 2013; Roper & Shea, 2013:113; Hanlon & Messenger, 2018:267).

Based on a 40-year data set of more than 50 giant squid (Architeuthis dux) specimens, Roper & Shea (2013:114) suggest an average total length at maturity of 11 m (36 ft) and a "rarely encountered maximum length" of 14–15 m (46–49 ft). Of the nearly 100 specimens examined by Clyde Roper, the largest was "46 feet (14 m) long" (Cerullo & Roper, 2012:22). O'Shea & Bolstad (2008) give a maximum total length of 13 m (43 ft) for females based on the examination of more than 130 specimens, measured post mortem and relaxed, as well as beaks recovered from sperm whales (which do not exceed the size of those found in the largest complete specimens). Steve O'Shea estimated the maximum total length for males at 10 m (33 ft) (O'Shea, 2003c). Older records of 18 m (59 ft) or more were likely exaggerated by stretching of the long feeding tentacles or resulted from inadequate measurement methods such as pacing (O'Shea & Bolstad, 2008; Roper & Shea, 2013:113). Charles G. M. Paxton performed a statistical analysis using literature records of giant squid specimens and concluded that "squid with a conservative TL of 20 m [66 ft] would seem likely based on current data" (Paxton, 2016a, b), but the study has been heavily criticised by experts in the field (Greshko, 2016).

Frequency distribution of total length, mantle length, and mass in Architeuthis dux, from McClain et al. (2015). The 2,000 lb (910 kg) extreme outlier (#22) is sourced from Verrill (1880a) and is unlikely to be accurate; the next most massive individual in the data set was only 700 lb (320 kg), and 95% of specimens were below 250 kg (550 lb) (McClain et al., 2015).

O'Shea & Bolstad (2008) give a maximum mantle length of 225 cm (7.38 ft) based on the examination of more than 130 specimens, as well as beaks recovered from sperm whales (which do not exceed the size of those found in the largest complete specimens), though there are recent scientific records of specimens that slightly exceed this size (such as #362, a 240 cm (7.9 ft) ML female captured off Tasmania, Australia, reported by Landman et al., 2004:686 and cited by Roper & Shea, 2013:114). Questionable records of up to 500 cm (16 ft) ML can be found in older literature (Roper & Jereb, 2010:121). Paxton (2016a) accepts a maximum recorded ML of 279 cm (9.15 ft), based on the Lyall Bay specimen (#48) reported by Kirk (1880:312), but this record has been called into question as the gladius of this specimen was said to be only 190 cm (6.2 ft) long (Greshko, 2016).

Including the head and arms but excluding the tentacles (standard length, SL), the species very rarely exceeds 5 m (16 ft) according to O'Shea & Bolstad (2008). Paxton (2016a) considers 9.45 m (31.0 ft) to be the greatest reliably measured SL, based on a specimen (#47) reported by Verrill (1880a:192), and considers specimens of 10 m (33 ft) SL or more to be "very probable", but these conclusions have been criticised by giant squid experts (Greshko, 2016).

O'Shea (2003c) put the maximum weight of female giant squid at 275 kg (606 lb), based on the examination of some 105 specimens as well as beaks recovered from sperm whales (which do not exceed the size of those found in the largest complete specimens; some of the heaviest recent specimens include #465 and 486). Giant squid are sexually size dimorphic, with the maximum weight for males estimated at 150 kg (330 lb) (O'Shea, 2003c), though heavier specimens have occasionally been reported (see #401 for 190 kg (420 lb) specimen). Roper & Jereb (2010:121) give a maximum weight of up to 500 kg (1,100 lb), and "possibly greater". Discredited weights of as much as a tonne (2,200 lb) or more are not uncommon in older literature (see e.g. #22, 115, and 118; O'Shea & Bolstad, 2008).

Species identifications

The taxonomy of the giant squid genus Architeuthis has not been entirely resolved. Lumpers and splitters may propose as many as eight species or as few as one, with most authors recognising either one cosmopolitan species (A. dux) or three geographically disparate species: A. dux from the Atlantic, A. martensi from the North Pacific, and A. sanctipauli from the Southern Ocean (Ellis, 1998a:73; Norman, 2000:150; Roper & Jereb, 2010:121). Historically, some twenty species names (not counting new combinations) and eight genus names have been applied to architeuthids (see Type specimens; Sweeney & Young, 2003). No genetic or physical basis for distinguishing between the named species has been proposed (Glaubrecht & Salcedo-Vargas, 2004:62), though specimens from the North Pacific do not appear to reach the maximum dimensions seen in giant squid from other areas (Roper & Jereb, 2010:123). There may also be regional differences in the relative proportions of the tentacles and their sucker counts (see Roeleveld, 2002). The phylogenetic analysis of Winkelmann et al. (2013) supports the existence of a single, globally distributed species (A. dux). The same conclusion was reached by Förch (1998) on the basis of morphological data.

The literature on giant squid has been further muddied by the frequent misattribution of various squid specimens to the genus Architeuthis, often based solely on their large size. In the academic literature alone, such misidentifications encompass at least the oegopsid families Chiroteuthidae (misidentification #[8]—Asperoteuthis lui), Cranchiidae (#[5] and [6]—Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni), Ommastrephidae (#[1]—Sthenoteuthis pteropus and #[2]—Dosidicus gigas), Onychoteuthidae (#[7]—Onykia robusta), and Psychroteuthidae (#[4]—indeterminate species) (see Ellis, 1998a; Salcedo-Vargas, 1999; Glaubrecht & Salcedo-Vargas, 2004). Many more misidentifications have been propagated in the popular press, involving—among others—Megalocranchia cf. fisheri (#[10]; Cranchiidae) and Thysanoteuthis rhombus (#[9]; Thysanoteuthidae). This situation is further confused by the occasional usage of the common name 'giant squid' in reference to large squids of other genera (Robson, 1933:681).

List of giant squid

Giant squid (Architeuthis dux), modified from an illustration by Addison Emery Verrill (Verrill, 1880a: pl. 20; based on #34), showing the exceptionally long feeding tentacles, which are often missing or damaged in recovered specimens. Some of the more extreme published giant squid measurements have been attributed to artificial lengthening of these tentacles (O'Shea & Bolstad, 2008). Almost the entire bulk of the animal—that is, the mantle, head, and arms—takes up less than half of its total length; the absence of the tentacles, therefore, has a great effect on the animal's total length but very little on its mass.

Records are listed chronologically in descending order and numbered accordingly. Specimens incorrectly assigned to the genus Architeuthis are counted separately, their numbers enclosed in square brackets, and are highlighted in pink (    ). Records that cover multiple giant squid specimens, or remains of more than a single animal (e.g. two lower beaks), are highlighted in grey (    ). Animals that were photographed or filmed while alive are highlighted in yellow (    ). Where a record falls into more than one of these categories, shading is used to indicate misidentifications ahead of multiple specimens, which in turn take precedence over animals that have been recorded alive. Where an image of a specimen is available this is indicated by a camera symbol (📷) that links to the image.

• Date – Date on which the specimen was first captured, found, or observed. Where this is unknown, the date on which the specimen was first reported is listed instead and noted as such. All times are local.
• Location – Site where the specimen was found, including coordinates and depth information where available. Given as it appears in the cited reference(s), except where additional information is provided in square brackets.
• Oceanic sector – The quadrant of a major ocean in which the specimen was found (see Oceanic sectors).
• Nature of encounter – Circumstances in which the specimen was recovered or observed. Given as they appear in the cited reference(s), although "washed ashore" encompasses all stranded animals.
• Identification – Species- or genus-level taxon to which the specimen was assigned. Given as it appears in the cited reference(s). Listed chronologically if specimen was re-identified. These designations are primarily of historical interest as most authorities now recognise a single species of giant squid: Architeuthis dux. Where only a vernacular name has been applied to the specimen (e.g. "giant squid" or a non-English equivalent), this is given instead.
• Material cited – Original specimen material that was recovered or observed. "Entire" encompasses all more-or-less complete specimens. Names of anatomical features are retained from original sources (e.g. "jaws" may be given instead of the preferred "beak", or "body" instead of "mantle"). The specimen's state of preservation is also given, where known, and any missing parts enumerated (the tentacles, arm tips, reddish skin and eyes are the parts most often missing in stranded specimens, owing to their delicate nature and/or preferential targeting by scavengers).
• Material saved – Material that was kept after examination and not discarded (if any). Information may be derived from outdated sources and therefore not current; the material may no longer be extant.
• Sex – Sex and sexual maturity of the specimen.
• Size and measurements – Data relating to measurements and counts. Abbreviations used are based on standardised acronyms in teuthology (see Measurements), with the exception of several found in older references. Measurements are given as they appear in the cited reference(s), with both arithmetic precision and original units preserved (though metric conversions are shown alongside imperial measurements). It should be noted that some of the more extreme lengths and weights found in older literature have been discredited.
• Repository – Institution in which the specimen material is deposited (based on cited sources; may not be current), including accession numbers where available. Institutional acronyms are those defined by Leviton et al. (1985) and Leviton & Gibbs (1988) (see Repositories). Where the acronym is unknown, the full repository name is listed. Type specimens, such as holotypes or syntypes, are identified as such in boldface. If an author has given a specimen a unique identifying number (e.g. Verrill specimen No. 27), this is given here as well, whether or not the specimen is extant.
• Main references – The most important sources, typically ones that provide extensive data on a particular specimen (often primary sources). Presented in author–date parenthetical referencing style, with page numbers included where applicable (page numbers in square brackets refer either to unpaginated works or English translations of originally non-English works; see Full citations).
• Additional references – Less important references that merely refer to the specimen without imparting substantive additional information (see Full citations), except where such are the only available sources, in which case they are listed under 'Main references'. Includes possibly unobtainable sources such as old newspaper articles, personal correspondence, and television broadcasts.
• Notes – Miscellaneous information, often including individuals and vessels involved in the specimen's recovery and subsequent treatment, and any dissections, preservation work or scientific analyses carried out on the specimen. Where animals have been recorded while alive and/or placed on public display this is also noted.