32 
IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 
less than 200 fathoms, and, on the other, that the fauna as a 
whole is not blind as in caves, but that by far the majority of 
animals living at a depth of about 2,000 fathoms have eyes 
either like their allies in shallower water, or else rudimentary, 
or sometimes very large, as in the huge eyes developed out of 
all proportion in some of the abyssal Crustacea and fishes; and 
undoubtedly adapted to make the most of the little light exist- 
ing in deep water.” 
Verrill bears practically the same testimony; * 
“That light of some kind and in considerable amount 
actually exists at depths below 2,000 fathoms may be regarded 
as certain. This is shown by the presence of well -developed 
eyes in most of the fishes, all of the cephalopods, most of the 
decapod Crustacea and in some species of other groups. In 
many of these animals the eyes are relatively larger than 
in the allied shallow water species. ’ ’ This author thinks that 
the rudimentary eyes in many gastropods are due to burrow- 
ing habits. 
It may be said in general that a greater proportion of eyes 
in abyssal regions are either rudimentary or wanting, on the 
one hand, or unusually large and effective, on the other, than 
in shallow water. 
We now come to the main purpose of this paper — the 
attempt to explain the phenomena of coloration among 
animals of the deep sea. The theories heretofore advanced 
may be briefiy summarized as: 
First . — The vain and impotent conclusion that this profusion 
of color is meaningless. Beddard frankly makes the following 
statement: t “The inevitable conclusion, therefore, from 
these facts appears to be that the brilliant and varied colora- 
tions of deep-sea animals are totally devoid of meaning; they 
cannot be of advantage for protective purposes, or as warning 
colors, for the single and sufficient reason that they are 
invisible. ” 
This sort of unconditional surrender is unworthy of the 
scientific spirit of the age. Beddard, however, it must be 
remembered, delights in finding evidence whereby he can 
throw discredit on the Neo-Darwinian school. It would have 
been much more to the point had he contented himself with 
saying that the utility of these colors had not as yet been 
explained. 
‘Report of Commission of Fish and Fisheries, 1882, p. 1054. 
+ Animal Coloration, p 37. 
