578 REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 

 MARINE FLORA AND FAUNA. 



Since the old mooted question about "the limits of the animal and 

 vegetable kingdom " comes anew into the foreground in the planktonic 

 studies, a few words must first be devoted to its consideration. In the 

 plankton, those organisms (for the most i)art microscopic) which stand 

 on the boundary liue and which may be regarded as examples of a 

 neutral "Protista realm," play a conspicuous part — the unicellular 

 diatoms and murracytes, dictyochea and palmellaria, thalamophora and 

 radiolaria, dinoflagellata and cystoflagellata. Since it is still asserted 

 that for replies to this boundary question we need new researches, 

 "more exact observations and experiments," I must here express the 

 opposing belief, that the desired answer is not to be obtained by this 

 empirical and inductive method, but only by the philosophic and deduct- 

 ive method of more logical definite conception {logisclier Begriff-Bestim- 

 mung). Either we must use as a definite distinction between the two 

 great organic realms the physiological antithesis of assimilation, and 

 consider as "plants" all "reducing organisms" (with chemical-synthetic 

 functions) and as "animals" all "oxidizing organisms" (with chemical- 

 analytical functions) or we may lay greater weight on the morphological 

 differences of bodily structure and place the unicellular '■'■Protista'''' (with- 

 out tissues) over against the multicellular Histona (with tissues).* 



For the problem before us, and with more particular reference to the 

 important questions of the fundamental food suj)ply ( Urnahrung) and 

 the cycle of matter in the sea {Stoffwechsel des Meeres), it is here more 

 suitable to employ the first method. I regard the diatoms, murracytes, 

 and dinoflagellates as Protoplujtes^ the thalamophores, radiolarians, and 

 cystoflagellates as Protozoa. 



For a term to designate the totality of the marine flora and fauna, 

 the expre>ssion halohios seems to be suitable, in opposition to Uunwbios 

 (the organic world of fresh water) and to geohios (as the totality of the 

 land-dwelling or terrestrial plant and animal world). The term hios 

 was applied by the father of natural history, Aristotle, "to the whole 

 world of living " as opposed to the lifeless forms, the ahion. The term 

 biology should be used only in this comprehensive sense, for the 

 whole organic natural science, as oi)posed to the inorganic, the abiology. 

 In this sense, zoology and botany on the one side, and morphology 

 and physiology on the other, are only subordinate parts of biology, 

 the general science of organisms. But if (as is frequently done to-day 

 even in Germany) the term biology is used in a much narrower sense, 

 instead of(»co/o;7^, this narrowingleads to misunderstandings. I mention 



^ rrotlsta aud Hiaiona may both again be divided into two groups, on the ground 

 of the different assimilation, into an auimial and a vegetable group, the Protista into 

 Protophrita and Protozoa, the Histona into Metaplnjta aud Metazoa. Compare my 

 "Natural History of Creation" (XatUrliche Schopfungsijeschichte), 8th edition, 1889, pp. 

 420 aud 453. 



