572 REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FlSII AXD FISHERIES. 



Academy gave, from the income of tlit; Humboldt fund, 24,000 marks, 

 and by further contributions the entire sum at the disposal of tlie ex- 

 pedition was raised to 105,000 marks — a sum never befine made avail- 

 able in Germany for a biological expedition. The new steamer Xd- 

 tional, of Kiel, was chartered for tliree months, and was fitted out " with 

 all the admirable contrivances for obtaining plankton, for deep-sea 

 fishing, and for sounding." Besides the leader of the expedition. Prof. 

 Hensen, live oth<'r naturalists participated: the zoologists Brandt and 

 Dahl; the botanist Schiitt; the bacterioh)gist Fischer; the geographer 

 Ej-iimmel; and the marine artist Richard l^^schke. The voyage of 

 the Natio7ial lasted 03 days (July 7 to November 15). The course was 

 westward through the north Atlantic (Gulf Stream, Sargasso Sea), 

 then southward (Bermudas, Cape Verde, Ascension) to Brazil, and 

 eastward back by the Azores. During this voyage 400 casts were 

 made, 140 with the plankton nets, 200 with other nets. 



Our German navy has been but little used for scientific, still less 

 for biological, investigations; much "less than the navies of England, 

 France, Italy, Austria, and the United States. The remarkable serv- 

 ices which many distinguished German zoologists have rendered in the 

 last half .century for the advancement of marine biology have been car- 

 ried on almost entirely without government aid. The German govern- 

 ment has hitherto had very little means available for this branch of 

 science. Therefore, great was the satisfaction when, by the liberal en- 

 dowment of the plankton expedition of Kiel, the first stej) was taken 

 for the more extensive investigation, with better apparatus, of the biol 

 ogy of the ocean, and for emulation of the results Avhicih the English 

 Challenger and the Italian Yetior Pisani had lately obtained in this 

 region. 



Accounts have been i)ublished of the results of the plankton expedi- 

 tion of Kiel, by Victor Hensen (22), Karl Brandt (23), E. du Bois Rey- 

 mond (21), and Kriinimel. The essential details of these accounts have 

 been repeatedly published in the German newspapers, to the general 

 eftect that the proposed goal was reached and the most important 

 question of the plankton was hai)pily solved. I very greatly regret 

 that I can not agree with this favorable verdict. (I) The most impor- 

 tant generalizations which the plankton expedition of Kiel obtained on 

 the comi^osition and distribution of the plankton in the ocean stand in 

 sharp contradiction to all previous experience; one or the other is 

 wrong. (2) It seems to me that Hensen has incauti<msly founded a 

 number of far-reaching erioneons conclusions on very insnllicient ])rem- 

 ises. Finally, I am convinced that the whole method employed by 

 Hensen for determining the plankton is utterly worthless, and that the 

 general results obtained thereby ai'e not only false, but also throw a 

 very incorrect light on the most important problems of pelagic biology. 

 Before I establish this dissenting oi)inion let nu^ give an account of my 

 own planktonic studies and theii- results. 



