Explain the reason that many organisms found in the oceanic zone are unique and cannot be found anywhere else. be sure to include two ways organisms have adapted to live in this zone

Explanation:

There are four ocean zones named as the neritic zone, midnight zone, twilight zone and abyssal zone depending upon the depth of water and the availability of sunlight. Other factors like pressure, oxygen, salinity contributes to the diversity of organisms found and develop in these zones. These factors also makes the organism unique in forms due to living in the oceanic zone.  

The two adaptations are as follows:

1. Many organisms which live in the neritic zone are adapted to bouyancy. Some organisms float to conserve the energy for swimming, others float to fatch food near the surface of shallow waters.  

2. The animals in the twilight or disphotic zone are adapted to live life in darkness which is found in cold water and high pressure. They have adaptations such ability to see in dark waters and they produce  bioluminescence to catch food in darkness.

hey bro i looked it up on google the structure of the eye-spot in euglena viridie, e. ehrenbergii, and phacus pyriyorme is not as franzé haa described it. the so-called “crystal body” and “lens bodies” were not found in any of the individuals of the species examined by me. as earlier observers have stated, the eye-spot consists simply of a mass of pigment granules arranged in a single layer, and probably embedded in a protoplasmic framework, but the latter could not be seen, and its presence was only inferred from the fact that the pigment granules must be held together in some way, thd the eye-spot as a whole is capable of expansion, and that the pigment granules can be separated from each other.

hope this   and an i get brainlsiest

"1. it should be, it has been for about 20 years, and it's really not much different in the end than breeding animals to have particular traits. there are always concerns about genetically engineered animals/plants affecting the environment in unexpected negative ways, but i can't think of an example where the fears didn't turn out to be baseless.  

first, as you point out, it would be a great advance in pharmacology, to be able to tailor drugs and their doses to me. the pros involve better medical treatment. the cons involve privacy issues like insurance companies denying coverage to people with genetic risk factors. looking at dna markers wouldn't affect the frequency of genetic diseases, but it would allow detection of them earlier. and ok, actually i suppose that if people used this information to avoid having children with genetic diseases, some might decrease in frequency."