MIDLAND NATURALIST. 9 
helpful knowledge to the middle class of naturalists scattered over 
our territory. 
Without entering deeply into the historical part of the literature 
of Noctiluca, we may mention that in regard to the phosphorescence 
of sea-water so often noticed along the sea-coast it was very early 
found that Noctiluca was one of the causes of this phenomenon. 
J. Sparshall in 1742 investigated this phosphorscence, and Biitchli 
states that he has no doubt that the glimmering sea animalculae 
observed by Sparshall were really Noctiluca. 
The Abbé Dicquemare in 1775 also observed and studied the 
phenomenon of phosphorescence on the coast at Havre, France, 
and by filtering the water proved that the phosphorescence was 
not due to the water, but to the small animals which he had gathered 
on the filter. The physician Suriray of Havre, however, left us 
in no doubt whatever that the animalculae were observed, and 
recognized by him. His illustrations and especially that of the 
striated structure of the tentacle of the animal, together with his 
accurate description have given him the right to name the animal 
Noctiluca miliaris, a name by which it is still known. In 1811 
he had sent his treatise on the animal to the Academy at Paris 
but it was not published until 1836. 
Suriray classified the Noctiluca among the polyps, and others 
had placed it in with the medusae. Doyére and P.van Beneden, how- 
ever, regarded Noctiluca as a member of the sarcode animalculae 
of Dujardin. The latter himself placed it among the Foraminifera 
or the Rhizopoda, but Ernst Haeckel placed it among the Flagellata 
(Mastigophora), and created for it a special order called the Cysto- 
flagellata. Into this order was also placed Leptodiscus of R. 
Hertwig, 1877, so that at present the Cystoflagellata contain only 
two genera, Noctiluca and Leptodiscus. 
Noctiluca miliaris, Suriray, is at present the only commonly 
recognized species. Bush in 1851 had described a second species 
under the name of Noctiluca punctata, but this was considered 
as not different essentially from N. miliaris. Gigioli (1865-68) 
after his journey around the world described what he called 
Noctiluca homogenea, and Noctiluca Pacifica. — Bütschli says 
concerning these supposed species: “Since there are no illustrations 
given and as the short descriptions do not inspire confidence, I 
regard them as doubtful species." j 
All authors so far seem to agree that Noctiluca miliaris 
is cosmopolitan and the genus monotypic, and therefore more 
