38 BULLETIN OF THE 
resentations and scientific dishonesty, nor is it bolstered up or strength- 
ened by abuse of one’s opponents. 
The majority of the organisms of the so called intermediate oceanic 
zones, as enumerated by Haeckel, have thus far proved to be inhabitants 
of the upper belt of less than 300 fathoms from the surface, and his 
attempts to subdivide this comparatively narrow belt of vertical distri- 
bution by expanding it to depths of which nothing is known, is thor- 
oughly Haeckelian. 
I can imagine no more disingenuous statement than the following, 
where Haeckel is speaking of Murray’s account of the probable conteuts 
of the “Challenger” tow-nets coming up from great depths: “ Er 
konnte aber dabei nicht dem Einwand entgehen, dass der Inhalt dieser 
bestiindig offenen bleibenden Taunetze aus sehr verschiedenen Tiefen, 
oder auch nur von der Oberfldche stammen kinne. Den beim Herauf- 
ziehen des offenen Taunetzes konnten méglicherweise Thiere aus den ver- 
schiedensten Tiefen-Zonen zufdallig in dasselbe hineingelangen.” The 
italics are mine, and the kindness of the inhabitants of the deep in 
marshalling themselves, for Haeckel’s? special edification, according to 
the depth from which they came, must be self-evident. 
The subdivisions of bathymetrical distribution of the Radiolarians in 
the intermediate zones adopted by Haeckel are based upon the kind of 
evidence detailed above. Their true value, as well as that of the new 
nomenclature he has been good enough to flood us with in order to 
denote his imaginary bathymetrical ranges and their organic contents, 
can be accurately measured by those who do not allow themselves to be 
deceived by the dust and mud thrown up by Haeckel in the discussion 
of this subject. 
I should be the last to question the indefatigable industry of Haeckel, 
which has produced the Monographie der Radiolarien, the System der 
1 It is one thing to clear up an old subject and introduce precision by a judi- 
cious manufacture of new terms, but it is quite another thing to burden a com- 
paratively new and confused subject with such a superabundance of new names 
as are found in Haeckel’s “ Plankton-Studien.” Moseley, in his Address on Pelagic 
Life, in 1882, was among the first to distinguish the different elements which go 
to form the pelagic fauna and flora, and his analysis has formed the basis of 
the endless subdivisions baptized by Haeckel. It is unfortunate that the value of 
Haeckel’s analysis should be limited in so great a degree to his redundant termi- 
nology. Haeckel has enriched our nomenclature of deep-sea and pelagic faunistic 
combinations with a few dozen names which correspond usually not to anything 
known from observation or existing in nature, but to the pigeon holes skilfully put 
together by him. 
