BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF WOODS HOLE AND VICINITY. 13 



of these have been pubHshed by the United States Fish Commission, others by the 

 National Museum and by the Boston Society of Natural History. So far as they have 

 dealt with the fauna of the Woods Hole region, it is fair to say that these papers are 

 based chiefly, some of them perhaps wholly, upon records or collections made by the 

 United States Fish Commission or by its successor, the Bureau of Fisheries. Within 

 recent years reports have appeared comprising the following groups of animals repre- 

 sented in our local marine fauna " Protozoa, Foraminifera, Hydrozoa, Medusae, Entozoa 

 (of fishes), Copepoda (free), Copepoda (parasitic), Ostracoda, Amphipoda, Echinoder- 

 mata, and fishes. Others dealing with the local Actinozoa, Bryozoa, and Polychaeta 

 are ready for press, and it is the policy of the Bureau of Fisheries to continue this work 

 until every group having any considerable biological or economic importance has been 

 treated in this way. 



The task undertaken by the present authors has been twofold: First, to make as 

 complete a census as possible of the marine fauna and flora of an arbitrarily limited 

 region within the vicinity of Woods Hole; and, second, to carry on svstematic dredg- 

 ing operations throughout that portion of this region comprising Vineyard Sound and 

 Buzzards Bay.* 



In carrying out the former division of our work, i. e., the "census," which appears 

 as sections in and iv of this report, we have resorted for data to a variety of sources. 

 First of all we may mention the records of the dredging operations, including, on the 

 one hand, those of the survey, in the restricted sense, and on the other hand the results of 

 many special trips to various points within the region. It must be admitted, however, 

 that out of the grand total of over 1,600 species of animals there listed, scarcely more 

 than 500 are included in the dredging records; while of those species encountered in the 

 dredging operations, the great majority had already been listed by previous writers. 

 On the zoological side, at least, the main source of the data recorded in the catalogue 

 was thus necessarily the literature treating of the local marine fauna. And of this 

 the quantity is very great.'' For ,^0 years or more Woods Hole has been the chief 

 station for the pursuit of studies in marine biology on this side of the Atlantic. 

 Fortunately, from the compiler's point of view, a relatively small proportion of the 

 resulting literature contains data relevant to the present work, since the trend of modem 

 biological work is at present physiological and morphological rather than taxonomic 

 and ecological.'' But the list of papers abstracted for the catalogue of marine fauna and 



o The papers coniprised in the "Fauna of New England" series publislied by the Boston .Society of Natural History are 

 not included here, since they have a different scope. 



f> A brief report upon some of the results of tliis undertaking was prepared by the senior author of the present work for 

 the Fourth International Fisheries Congress. (Sumner, 1910.) 



^ In addition to making a general search for appropriate bibliographic references, almost to the date of publication of this 

 report, the following periodicals were examined systematically for data relating to the local fauna: 



American Journal of Science (from 1870 to igo?). 



American Naturalist (from 1S75 to 1909). 



Biological Bulletin (complete to 1909). 



Boston Journal of Natural History (complete). 



Journal of Morphology (complete to 1909). 



Memoirs Boston Society of Natural History (complete to 1909). 



Proceedings Boston Society of Natural History (complete to 1909). 



Proceedings Washington Academy of Sciences (1899 to 1907). 



Proceedings U. S. National Museum (complete to 1911). 



Transactions Connecticut Academy of Sciences (1870 to 1907). 



U. S. Fish Commission bulletins and reports (complete to 1909). 



d A noteworthy illustration of this fact is the paucity of our data regarding the reproductive period of local animals. The 

 meager notes of Bumpus, Mead, and Thompson comprise the larger part of such definite observations as have been recorded 

 on this subject. 



