MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. 39 
Medusen, the deep-sea Medusz, the Siphonophores, and the Radiolaria of 
the “Challenger” expedition. Yet I must remind the reader of Haeckel, 
that, in spite of the graphic account he gives of his own pelagic studies, 
and in spite of his activity as a surface collector from localities near 
shore, he has had no experience whatever at sea of the sort of pelagic 
work which he so complacently condemns ex cathedra. The observa- 
tions on the pelagic fauna on which Haeckel prides himself, made as 
a passenger in an East India steamer running from Suez to Bombay 
and to Ceylon, are of necessity, like its phosphorescent track, somewhat 
superficial. 
The assumption made by Haeckel’s satellite, Carus Sterne, that the 
cost of this expedition might have been saved had Haeckel been con- 
sulted as to its probable value, is as silly as it is unscientific. But it is 
fully in accordance with the dictum of the zodlogical pope at Jena that 
such an expedition was useless because he did not believe in its results. 
It is surprising that no one should as yet have objected to the cost of 
printing so many zodlogical fancy sketches as have come from Haeckel’s 
facile pencil. 
The account given by Haeckel of the distribution of the pelagic 
fauna and flora is premature, and as an accurate catalogue representing 
our knowledge is worthless. No attempt has been made to eliminate 
data which are in the least doubtful, but everything is enumerated as 
a correct observation of depth from the contents of the open tow- 
nets of the “Challenger” to the material bronght up on dredging and 
fishing lines and in the imperfectly self-closing nets of the “ Vettor 
Pisani.” The material obtained by Chun in the Mediterranean is not 
compared with that of the oceanic basins, and of the doubts which Chun 
himself and Hensen have thrown on the efficiency of the Petersen-Chun 
net he does not even speak. As a mere enumeration of the surface 
material, Haeckel’s account will be useful if the future observer learns 
to separate fact from fiction. 
The first observations of Chun,? as I have already stated, were made 
comparatively near shore and in the Mediterranean to a depth of 1,400 
meters, and the conditions existing there or in the deep fiords of the 
coast of Scotland are of no value regarding the extension of the pelagic 
fauna in an open oceanic basin; and it certainly is noteworthy that 
Hensen should have considered it sufficient to explore a belt of only 400 
meters in depth, to get an adequate idea of the Plankton of the Atlantic 
Ocean, during the “ National” expedition. 
1 Plankton-Studien, p. 16. 2 Bibliotheca Zoologica, Heft I. 
