An introduction to the study of fishes

by Albert C. L. G. Günther

1. All the different kinds of organs are sensory, or, in other words, accessory eyes.

2. Only the organs with a lenticular body are sensory, and those with a glandular structure produce and emit phosphorescent light.

3. All are producers of light.

There are very serious objections to adopting the first view. Scopelus and Argyropelecus possess not only perfectly developed, but even large eyes, specially adapted for a nocturnal life; and therefore accessory organs of vision must appear to be quite superfluous to them. On the other hand, in Deep-sea fishes without external eyes, which would seem to especially require these metameric organs of sense, they are invariably absent. And, finally, it is quite inconceivable that the glandular structures should have the faculty of conveying impressions of light to the nervous centre. The second supposition seems therefore to be nearer the truth; and is supported by the fact that the glandular organs of Scopeli have actually been observed to gleam with phosphorescent light, and by the obvious morphological similarity of the organs with a lenticular body and retina-like membrane to an organ of vision. We are, moreover, justified, from an à priori consideration, in supposing that in depths to which no sunlight descends, and which are illuminated by phosphorescent light only, peculiar organs of vision would have been developed. On the other hand, this supposition is opposed by the fact that many fishes which dwell in those abyssal depths are provided with large ordinary eyes (as the Trachypteri, the majority of Macruridæ), and, therefore, that the ordinary organ of vision is quite sufficient for seeing by phosphorescent light. Thus, whilst we must admit that those compound organs may prove to be organs of sense, we maintain at the same time that their morphological nature is not opposed to the belief that they too, like the glandular organs, are producers of light. It may be produced at the bottom of the posterior chamber, and emitted through the lenticular body in particular directions, with the same effect as light is sent through the convex glass of a “bull’s eye.” This hypothesis seems to be less bold than the other, which would require us to believe that vertebrate animals, with a nervous centre specialised for the reception of the impressions of the higher senses, should receive them through the spinal chord.

[See Ussow, “Ueber den Bau der sogenannten augenaehnlichen Flecken einiger Knochenfische.” St. Petersburg, Bullet. 1879.]

Whenever we find in a fish long delicate filaments, developed in connection with the fins or the extremity of the tail, we may conclude that it is an inhabitant of still water and of quiet habits. Many deep-sea fishes (Trachypteridæ, Macruridæ, Ophidiidæ, Bathypterois) are provided with such filamentous prolongations, the development of which is perfectly in accordance with their sojourn in the absolutely quiet waters of abyssal depths.

Some of the raptatorial Deep-sea fishes have a stomach so distensible and capacious that it can receive a fish of twice or thrice the bulk of the destroyer (Melanocetus, Chiasmodus, Saccopharynx). Deglutition is performed in them not by means of the muscles of the pharynx, as in other fishes, but by the independent and alternate action of the jaws, as in Snakes. These fishes cannot be said to swallow their food, but rather draw themselves over their victim, in the fashion of an Actinia.

Before the voyage of H.M.S. “Challenger,” scarcely thirty Deep-sea fishes were known. This number is now much increased by the discovery of many new species and genera; but, singularly, no new types of families were discovered: nothing but what might have been expected from our previous knowledge of this group of fishes. Modifications of certain organs, perfectly novel, and of the greatest interest, were found, as we shall see in the “Systematic Part;” but the most important results of this voyage are that the general character of the abyssal fish-fauna, the abundance of fishes, and the exact depths to which fishes may descend, have been ascertained.

However, the statements of the depths at which the fishes collected by the “Challenger” were taken cannot be received without some critical examination of each individual species. No precaution was taken to keep the mouth of the dredge closed during its descent or ascent, and therefore it is quite within the limits of probability that sometimes fishes were accidentally enclosed within the dredge, whilst it was traversing the surface strata. And this has happened more than once; for it is quite certain that common surface fishes like Sternoptyx and Astronestles, never ranged to a depth of 2500 fathoms. On the other hand, the majority of the fishes obtained offer sufficient evidence from their own organisation that they live on the bottom, and are unable to support themselves in the water at a certain distance from the bottom or surface; and, consequently, that they actually were obtained at the depth to which the dredge descended.

As far as the observations go at present, no distinct bathymetrical regions, which would be characterised by peculiar forms, can be defined. The depths from 200 to 600 fathoms are inhabited by numerous forms, still strongly reminding us of surface types. To this fauna belong the few Chondropterygians of the deep sea, a Sebastes and Setarches, a Beryx and Polymixia, a Cottus, etc.; but they are associated with many others which descend to the greatest depths. And before anything like a division into bathymetrical zones can be attempted, the observations of the “Challenger” expedition must be confirmed and supplemented by other series of similar systematic observations. One of the most startling conclusions at which we would have to arrive from the “Challenger” observations is, that some of the species of Deep-sea fishes would range from a depth of some 300 fathoms down to one of 2000 fathoms; or, in other words, that a fish which has once attained in its organisation to that modification by which it is enabled to exist under the pressure of half a ton, can easily accommodate itself to one of two tons or more,—a conclusion which is not in accordance with anatomical facts, and which must be confirmed by other observations before we can adopt it. But if the vertical range of Deep-sea fishes is actually as it appears from the “Challenger” lists, then there is no more distinct vertical than horizontal distribution of Deep-sea fishes.