Phosphorescence of the Sea 527 



anonymous writer who sent an article " Sur le Phenomene des 

 Lueurs de la Mer Baltique," to the Journal de Physique (24: 56) 

 in 1781 and declared that phosphorescence near Copenhagen was 

 due either to phosphoric gas or acid. 



Another was Conti di Borch, who noticed the light of the sea 

 on a trip from Naples to Sicily in 1776, and when he arrived at 

 Messina found that swordfish eaten by the Messinians were brightly 

 luminous. In his publication " Memoria sopra il Fosforo Marino," 

 in the Atti of the Academy of Sienna (1781) , he claimed to have 

 obtained a phosphorescent oil by collecting and distilling the oily 

 material which dripped from the heads of these swordfishes. The 

 oil was kept in bottles for a year and " gave a light as pleasing as 

 Kunckel's phosphorus or at least as pleasing as those [preparations] 

 sold under this name." However, his method of simple distillation 

 would not produce phosphorus, nor Avould such an oil be phospho- 

 rescent. Borch implied that his preparation explained the light of 

 the sea. 



Reinhold Forster (1729-1798), the naturalist of Captain Cook's 

 second world voyage in 1772-1775, considered (1778) that at least 

 one kind of sea light, the homogeneous glow, was due to phosphorus 

 and Christoph Bernoulli (1803) had a similar view. He held that 

 phosphorus might be concerned in the luminescence of dead or- 

 ganisms, which in turn contributed to the diffuse phosphorescence 

 of the sea. 



PUTREFACTION 



Other explanations considered the sea light organic but did not 

 realize the organisms were living. It is not surprising that phospho- 

 rescence of the sea should be attributed to putrefaction of animal 

 bodies, since that was a common explanation of the light of shining 

 fish, flesh, and wood before the bacterial and fimo^al origin of the 

 light was discovered. A. Martin (1761, 1764) and John Canton 

 (1769) both studied dead luminous fish and concluded from their 

 observations that sea luminescence was the result of a similar decom- 

 position. The light was believed to arise from the greasy or oily 

 luminous slime of the fish. 



The view of Canton was quite plausible. In his paper, " Experi- 

 ments to prove that the Luminousness of the Sea arises from the 

 Putrefaction of its Animal Substances," the argument is based on 

 the fact that salt-water fish, placed in sea water became luminous 

 but not if placed in fresh water. However, when salt was added to 

 fresh water, herring placed therein became luminous also. Canton 

 was particularly struck with the light that appeared on agitation of 



