Diversions of a NaturalistLankester, E. Ray (Edwin Ray), Sir
History
Diversions of a Naturalist
Lankester, E. Ray (Edwin Ray), Sir
Natural history
having the mouth opening at its end, instead of a nostril), which hangs
from the centre of the disk-like jelly-fish.[2]
[2] See "Science from an Easy Chair" (First Series, 1910), p. 60, for a
further account and figure of the freshwater jelly-fish.
There are some glass-like transparent creatures, including some small
fishes, which live at 500 fathoms depth and a good deal deeper on the
sea bottom. We know that the sun's light does not penetrate below
200 fathoms, so that one is led to ask--What is the good of being
transparent if you live at the bottom of the sea, at a greater depth
than this? There is also a very beautiful prawn, which I dredged in
Norway in 200 fathoms, which looks like a solid piece of clearest,
colourless glass. And then there are some very beautiful little stalked
creatures (called Clavellina), fixed to the under-side of rocks in the
tidal zone, which are absolutely like drops of solid glass an inch
long. One cannot easily imagine how colourless transparency can be of
"life-saving value" to these varied inhabitants of the dark places of
the sea bottom--any more than we can assign any life-saving value to
the brilliant, gem-like colouring of some of the sea-anemones which
live in the dark on the under-surface of rocks.
The most probable view of the matter is that neither the colourless
transparency of the one set nor the brilliant colouring of the other
has any value; it just happens to be so, and is not harmful. So, for
instance, some crystals are colourless, some blue or green or yellow
or red, without any advantage to them! On the other hand, we know that
a large number of the animals which live in the dark unfathomed depths
themselves produce light, that is to say, are phosphorescent, and it
seems probable that at great depths, though there is no sunlight,
the sea bottom is illuminated--we can only vaguely guess to what
degree--by the strange living lanterns--fish, crustaceans, worms,
and even microscopic creatures--which move about in quest of their
food, carrying their own searchlight with them. Another suggestion is
that the eyes of these inhabitants of the dark may be more sensitive
than our own, and even be affected by rays invisible to us. This,
however, is not probable, since whilst there are among them some with
enormous eyes, we find that at the greatest depths (2 to 4 miles)
even the fishes have no eyes at all, and at a depth of a mile there
are many shrimp-like creatures in which the eyes have been completely
transformed into peculiar "feelers," or otherwise aborted. So that we
cannot suppose there is a possibility of developing the eye of the
dwellers in deep-sea darkness to a degree of sensitiveness greatly
beyond that of terrestrial animals. A limit of obscurity is reached
at which it is of no use having an eye at all, and eyes cease to have
life-saving value, and accordingly are not maintained by natural
selection.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account