34 BULLETIN OF THE 
obtained which have not occurred in the surface nets. Of course, as 
Professor Verrill remarks, it is impossible to know whether such species 
actually live at or near the bottom, at the surface or in intermediate 
depths, for they are liable to enter these nets at any time during the 
descent or ascent of the trawl, as well as during the time that it drags 
vn the bottom. 
There is also a more detailed account of the Meduse collected by the 
‘“ Albatross,” by J. Walter Fewkes, in the Annual Report of the Com- 
missioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1884, Washington, 1886; but to 
give the lists of depths, varying from the surface to 2,369 fathoms, of 
specimens brought up with the trawl or in the “ trawl rings,” does not 
add to our knowledge of the bathymetrical range of the Medusz col- 
lected. These localities and depths would have supplied Haeckel with 
many valuable bathymetrical stations. It is astonishing that he should 
not have availed himself of such appropriate data. We can only sup- 
pose that Haeckel wilfully ignores whatever does not bring grist to his 
mill, or does not chime with his preconceived notions of the order of 
nature. 
If Haeckel had taken the trouble to read the statements I made re- 
garding the bathymetrical range of pelagic life,? he would have found 
that I stated in the “Three Cruises of the Blake” (Vol. I. p. 37): “ These 
experiments serve to prove that the pelagic fauna does not extend to 
considerable depths, and that there is at sea an immense intermediate 
belt in which no living animals are found, — nothing but the dead bod- 
ies which are on their way to the bottom.” I may also refer Haeckel to 
another and similar statement in the same volume (p. 202), in the chap- 
ter on the Pelagic Fauna and Flora: “The above experiments appear 
to prove conclusively that the surface fauna of the sea is really limited 
to a comparatively narrow belt in depth, and that there is no interme- 
diate belt, so to speak, of animal life, between those living on the bot- 
tom, or close to it, and the surface pelagic fauna. It seems natural to 
suppose that this surface fauna only sinks out of reach of the disturb- 
ances of the top, and does not extend downward to any depth. The 
dependence of all the pelagic forms upon food which is most abundant 
at the surface, or near it, would naturally keep them where they found 
it in quantity.” And again (p. 178): ‘“ How far down the pelagic fauna 
sinks during the day or night, to get out of reach of disturbances, is not 
1 Haeckel likewise omits all reference to the experiments of the Prince of 
Monaco, as well as those of Professor Fol off the Riviera. 
2 Bull. Mus. Comp. Zodl., Vol. VI. Nos. 8, 9, 1880. Letter No. 4, on the results 
of the third cruise of the “ Blake,” and description of Sigsbee’s gravitating trap. 
