| Stomias Boa. After Filhol, ‘La Vie au Fond des Mers’ | [Frontispiece] | |
| FIG. | PAGE | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Diagram illustrating the Passage of an Ocean Current across a Barrier | [32] |
| 2 | Sicyonis crassa. After Hertwig, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [36] |
| 3 | Globigerina Ooze. After Agassiz, ‘Voyages of the “Blake”’ | [38] |
| 4 | Section through the Eye of Serolis schythei. After Beddard, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [74] |
| 5 | Section through the Eye of Serolis bromleyana. After Beddard, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [74] |
| 6 | Opostomias micripnus. After Günther, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [78] |
| 7 | Head of Pachystomias microdon. After Von Lendenfeld, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [79] |
| 8 | Section through the Anterior Sub-orbital Phosphorescent Organ of Pachystomias microdon. After Von Lendenfeld, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [80] |
| 9 | Challengeria Murrayi. After Haeckel, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [90] |
| 10 | Umbellula Güntheri. After Agassiz, ‘Voyages of the “Blake”’ | [97] |
| 11 | Rhizocrinus lofotensis. After Carpenter, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [100] |
| 12 | Rhabdopleura normani. After Lankester, ‘Contributions to our Knowledge of Rhabdopleura and Amphioxus’ | [112] |
| 13 | A Single Polypide of Rhabdopleura normani. After Lankester, tom. cit. | [114] |
| 14 | Bathyteuthis abyssicola. After Hoyle, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [121] |
| 15 | Bathynomus giganteus. After Filhol, tom. cit. | [131] |
| 16 | Euphausia latifrons. After Sars, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [134] |
| 17 | Bentheuphausia amblyops. After Sars, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [134] |
| 18 | Polycheles baccata. After Spence Bate, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [136] |
| 19 | Colossendeis arcuatus. After Filhol, tom. cit. | [141] |
| 20 | Hypobythius calycodes. After Moseley, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [145] |
| 21 | Melanocetus Murrayi. After Günther, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [156] |
| 22 | Saccopharynx ampullaceus. After Günther, ‘“Challenger” Reports’ | [164] |
THE FAUNA OF THE DEEP SEA
CHAPTER I
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE INVESTIGATIONS
Our knowledge of the natural history of the deep seas may be said to have commenced not more than fifty years ago. There are, it is true, a few fragments of evidence of a fauna existing in depths of more than a hundred fathoms to be found in the writings of the earlier navigators, but the methods of deep-sea investigation were so imperfect in those days that naturalists were disposed to believe that in the abysses of the great oceans life was practically non-existent.
Even Edward Forbes just before his death wrote of an abyss ‘where life is either extinguished or exhibits but a few sparks to mark its lingering presence,’ but in justice to the distinguished naturalist it should be remarked that he adds, ‘Its confines are yet undetermined, and it is in the exploration of this vast deep-sea region that the finest field for submarine discovery yet remains.’
Forbes was only expressing the general opinion of naturalists of his time when he refers with evident hesitation to the existence of an azoic region. His own dredging excursions in depths of over one hundred fathoms proved the existence of many peculiar species that were previously unknown to science. ‘They were like,’ he says, ‘the few stray bodies of strange red men, which tradition reports to have been washed on the shores of the Old World before the discovery of the New, and which served to indicate the existence of unexplored realms inhabited by unknown races, but not to supply information about their character, habits, and extent.’
In the absence of any systematic investigation of the bottom of the deep sea, previous to Forbes’s time the only information of deep-sea animals was due to the accidental entanglement of certain forms in sounding lines, or to the minute worms that were found in the mud adhering to the lead.
As far back as 1753, Ellis described an Alcyonarian that was brought up by a sounding line from a depth of 236 fathoms within eleven degrees of the North Pole by a certain Captain Adriaanz of the ‘Britannia.’ The specimen was evidently an Umbellula, and it is stated that the arms (i.e. Polyps) were of a bright yellow colour and fully expanded when first brought on deck.
In 1819 Sir John Ross published an account of his soundings in Baffin’s Bay, and mentions the existence of certain worms in the mud brought from a depth of 1,000 fathoms, and a fine Caput Medusæ (Astrophyton) entangled on the sounding line at a depth of 800 fathoms.
In the narrative of the voyage of the ‘Erebus’ and ‘Terror,’ published in 1847, Sir James Ross calls attention to the existence of a deep-sea fauna, and makes some remarks on the subject that in the light of modern knowledge are of extreme interest. ‘I have no doubt,’ he says, ‘that from however great a depth we may be enabled to bring up the mud and stones of the ocean, we shall find them teeming with animal life.’ This firm belief in the existence of an abysmal fauna was not, as it might appear from the immediate context of the passage I have quoted, simply an unfounded speculation on his part, but was evidently the result of a careful and deliberate chain of reasoning, as may be seen from the following passage that occurs in another part of the same book:—‘It is well known that marine animals are more susceptible of change of temperature than land animals; indeed they may be isothermally arranged with great accuracy. It will, however, be difficult to get naturalists to believe that these fragile creatures could possibly exist at the depth of nearly 2,000 fathoms below the surface; yet as we know they can bear the pressure of 1,000 fathoms, why may they not of two? We also know that several of the same species of creatures inhabit the Arctic that we have fished up from great depths in the Antarctic seas. The only way they could get from one pole to the other must have been through the tropics; but the temperature of the sea in those regions is such that they could not exist in it, unless at a depth of nearly 2,000 fathoms. At that depth they might pass from the Arctic to the Antarctic Ocean without a variation of five degrees of temperature; whilst any land animal, at the most favourable season, must experience a difference of fifty degrees, and, if in the winter, no less than 150 degrees of Fahrenheit’s thermometer—a sufficient reason why there are neither quadrupeds, nor birds, nor land insects common to both regions.’