The Nature of Animal LightHarvey, E. Newton (Edmund Newton)
Science
The Nature of Animal Light
Harvey, E. Newton (Edmund Newton)
Phosphorescence
Since Spallanzani's observation that the luminous material of medusæ
could be dried, and upon moistening would again give light, many
confirmatory observations have been made on other forms. _Pyrosoma_,
_Pholas_, _Phyllirrhoë_, fireflies, _Pyrophorus_, copepods, ostracods,
pennatulids, fungi, and bacteria can all be dessicated and the
photogenic material preserved for a greater or less time. In a
dessicator filled with CaCl_{2}, dried luminous bacteria lose, after a
few months, their power to give light on being moistened. On the other
hand, ostracods and copepods will still luminesce after years of
dessication. The luminous material in the latter case appears capable of
indefinite preservation, but it is possible that the quick loss of
photogenic power with dried luminous bacteria is merely an indication
that they contain very little photogenic substance and that the dried
ostracods would also in time lose their power to luminesce. It is
certainly a fact that the amount of luminous material in a single gland
cell of an ostracod is vastly greater than that in the same mass of
bacterial colony.
When the dried powdered luminous material of an ostracod is sprinkled
over the surface of water, it goes into solution and leaves luminous
diffusion and convection trails plainly visible in the water. Many
luminous marine forms give off a phosphorescent slime when they are
handled, which adheres to the fingers. It is not surprising that this
luminous matter should have early received a name. In 1872, Phipson
called it _noctilucin_ and described some of its properties. He regarded
the luminous matter which can be scraped from dead fish (luminous
bacteria) and the mucous secretion of _Scolopendra electrica_ or the
luminous matter of the glowworm to be this material, noctilucin, which,
"in moist condition, takes up oxygen and gives off CO_{2} and when dry
appears like mucin." Phipson says that it forms an oily layer over the
seas in summer (he probably refers to masses of dinoflagellates), is
liquid at ordinary temperatures and less dense than water, smells a
little like caprylic acid, is insoluble in water but miscible with it,
insoluble in alcohol and ether, dissolves with decomposition in mineral
acids and alkalies and contains no phosphorus. We can see from this
description that the word "noctilucin" does not indicate a chemical
individual, but it is the earliest attempt to definitely designate the
luminous substance.
The idea of a definite substance oxidizing and causing the light has
been upheld by a number of investigators, and many years later Molisch
called this substance the _photogen_. He contrasts the "photogen theory"
with certain other views of light production, which may be spoken of as
"vital theories," notably those of Pflüger (1875), who looked upon
luminescence as a sign of intense respiration, and of Beijerinck (1915),
who regarded the light as an accompaniment of the formation of living
matter from peptone.
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