TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION D. 1053 
Very many of the young that have been indicated as so brilliantly luminous become 
surface-forms soon after leaving the egg, and thus at their several stages more or 
less affect the three recions—of surface, mid-water, and bottom. 
A survey of the life-histories of the several phosphorescent groups affords at 
present no reliable data for the foundation of a theory as to the functions of 
luminosity, especially in relation to food. No phosphorescent form is more generally 
devoured by fishes or other animals than that which is not; and, on the other 
hand, the possessor of luminosity, if otherwise palatable, does not seem to escape 
capture, An examination of the stomachs of fishes makes this clear, except perhaps 
in the case of the herring, which, however, is chiefly a surface-fish. Further, it is 
not evident that such animals are luminous at all times, for it is only under 
stimulation that many exhibit the phenomenon. 
Moreover, the irregularity of its occurrence in animals possessing the same 
structure and habits in every respect, strengthens the view just expressed. Thus, 
while Pholas dactylus has been known from the days of Pliny to be luminous, the 
common Pholas crispata is not so endowed. Two annelids (Harmothoé imbricata 
and Polynoé floccosa), abound between tide-marks and closely resemble each 
other in habits and appearance ; yet one is brightly luminous, while the other 
shows no trace. Instead of luring animals for prey, or affording facilities for being 
easily preyed upon, the possessors of phosphorescence in the annelids are often the 
inhabitants of tubes, or are commensalistic on starfishes. Indeed, every variety of 
condition accompanies the presence of phosphorescence in the several groups, so 
that the greatest care is necessary in making deductions, especially if these are 
to have a wide application. 
In the foregoing brief outline of the remarkable phenomenon of phosphorescence 
as it affects marine animals, it is apparent that, though a considerable increase in 
our knowledge has taken place during the last quarter of a century, much more yet 
remains to be done. I, however, confidently look forward for further advances, in 
this as well as in other departments, to the marine laboratories of the country—I 
mean such institutions as those now in working order at Granton, St. Andrews and 
Tarbert, as well as the larger establishment proposed to be erected by the Biological 
Association at Plymouth. These laboratories, it is true, have been tardily instituted, 
but it is satisfactory to think that at last the zeal and methods of the workers have, 
and will have, a better field for their exercise than formerly, and that the zoology 
of the fisheries will obtain that attention which its importance to the country 
necessitates. 
The following Papers and Reports were read :— 
1. On the Tay Whale (Megaptera longimana) and other Whales recently 
obtained in the district. By Professor Srrurners, M.D., DL.D. 
1. Megaptera longimana. Male, 40 feet long. January 1884. Wounded near 
Dundee. Brought ashore dead at Stonehaven, near Aberdeen. Presented the usual 
external characters of this species. Pectoral fin 12 feet long, but finger muscles 
only about half as well developed as in B. musculus. Femur entirely cartilaginous, 
conical form, right 5} inches, left 4 inches in length. ‘The skeleton was 
exhibited to the Section, and its chief characters commented on. 
2. Balenoptera musculus. Male, 50 feet long. Stranded at Nairn, December 
1884; exhibited and dissected at Aberdeen. Presented the usual external 
characters of B. musculus. Finger muscles, the same arrangement as described by 
the author in B. musculus, at the 1871 meeting of the Association. Femur 
cartilaginous, oval form, about an inch in length. The skeleton was exhibited to 
the Section, 
3. Balenoptera borealis. Male, 36 feet long. Killed at Widewall Bay, Orkney, 
December 1884, Whalebone fringe presented soft character since noticed by 
Guldberg. Femur absent. Finger-muscles nearly the same as in B. musculus, 
Skeleton exhibited to the Section, and the osteological characters which further 
distinguish it from B, musculus commented on, especially stylo-hyal, nasal, cervical 
