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 ]»art microscopic) wliich stand 

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

 neutral "Protista realm," play a consi)icuous part — the unicellular 

 diatoms and murracytes, dictyochea and palmellaria, thalaraophora 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 {logischer Bcgriff-Bcstim- 

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

 great organic realms the physiological antitliesis 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 witli more particular reference to the 

 important questions of the fundamental food supply ( Urnahrung) and 

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

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

 and dinoflagellates as Frotophyfes, the thalamophores, radiolarians, and 

 cystoflagellates as rrotozoa. 



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

 the expression halohios seems to be suitable, in opposition to limnobios 

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

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

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

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

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

 whole organic natural science, as opposed to the inorganic, the abiology. 

 In this sense, zoology aiul 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 fre(piently done to-day 

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

 instead of wcoJogy, this narrowingleads to misunderstandings. I mention 



* rroiista and Histona may both again bo divided into two groups, on the ground 

 of the difforrut aNsiniilation, into an animal and a vegclable group, the ProHsta into 

 Prolopln/ta and rn>lo:oa, tho Histona into Mclaphi/ta and Meta:oa. Compare my 

 "Natural History of Creation" {SatiirlUhe Sclw})fnn(j8<jc>ichichte), 8th edition, 1885), pp. 

 420 and 45;i. 



