122
R. E. DELL
the major one concerning the Antarctic in the restricted sense being on
Antarctic coast fishes (1938). He also wrote up the collections of the
B.A.N.Z.A.R. Expedition (1937b), with some preliminary diagnoses of
nototheniiform fishes (1937a). Schultz (1945) commented on the small
collection of the United States Antarctic Service Expedition (1939-41).
Nybelin (1947) published an important contribution to Antarctic
ichthyology in describing the collections of the Norwegian Antarctic
Expedition, followed by an account of the fishes of the Brategg (1951),
and of the Norwegian-British-Swedish Antarctic Expedition (1 949-52)
(1952).
From here on it may be simpler to treat the historical account on a
national basis. The entry of Soviet expeditions into Antarctica with
the I.G.Y. brought another very distinguished ichthyologist into intimate contact with southern faunas in the person of Andriashev. He
has been concerned with the total fish fauna and has made important
contributions to our knowledge of pelagic fishes as well as the benthic
fauna, apposite to the present review. In a series of papers (1958 to
1964) he, together with co-authors, has summarized Soviet investigations, culminating in a masterly summary (1965) of the Antarctic fish
fauna. Other Soviet ichthyological contributions have come from
Barsukov and Permitin (1958) and Korotkevich (1964).
Modern French biological work in the Antarctic has produced a
series of useful contributions on the fishes. Blanc (1952, 1961a, b),
Blanc and Hureau (1962), and Hureau (1962b, 1963a, 1964b, 1970) and
Hureau and Arnaud (1964) have published papers concerned mostly
with systematics and distribution. Other aspects have been treated
also, e.g. otoliths (Hureau, 1962a), thyroid glands (Hureau, 1963b) and
general biology (Hureau, 1964a).
Two papers on the fishes of the South Orkneys resulting from Argentinean biological work have been contributed by Bellisio (1964, 1965).
The recent work of United States scientists falls into two main
categories, systematics (and distribution) and physiology. Reviews of
previous work were given by Rofen and DeWitt (1961) and for the Ross
Sea by Miller (1961a). The main contributions to systematics have
come from DeWitt (1962a, b, 1964a, b, 1965), DeWitt and Tyler (1960),
Miller (196lb), Miller and Reseck (1961) and Reseck (1961).
American physiological work has centred around Wohlschlag who
in a long series of papers from 1969 to 1965 has reported the results of
investigations particularly those carried out at the laboratory at McMiirdo Sound. Dearborn (1 965) reported on investigations on reproduction in the common Antarctic fish (Trematmnus). Other physiological
work is summarized under the general account later. Papers dealing
R. E. DELL
the major one concerning the Antarctic in the restricted sense being on
Antarctic coast fishes (1938). He also wrote up the collections of the
B.A.N.Z.A.R. Expedition (1937b), with some preliminary diagnoses of
nototheniiform fishes (1937a). Schultz (1945) commented on the small
collection of the United States Antarctic Service Expedition (1939-41).
Nybelin (1947) published an important contribution to Antarctic
ichthyology in describing the collections of the Norwegian Antarctic
Expedition, followed by an account of the fishes of the Brategg (1951),
and of the Norwegian-British-Swedish Antarctic Expedition (1 949-52)
(1952).
From here on it may be simpler to treat the historical account on a
national basis. The entry of Soviet expeditions into Antarctica with
the I.G.Y. brought another very distinguished ichthyologist into intimate contact with southern faunas in the person of Andriashev. He
has been concerned with the total fish fauna and has made important
contributions to our knowledge of pelagic fishes as well as the benthic
fauna, apposite to the present review. In a series of papers (1958 to
1964) he, together with co-authors, has summarized Soviet investigations, culminating in a masterly summary (1965) of the Antarctic fish
fauna. Other Soviet ichthyological contributions have come from
Barsukov and Permitin (1958) and Korotkevich (1964).
Modern French biological work in the Antarctic has produced a
series of useful contributions on the fishes. Blanc (1952, 1961a, b),
Blanc and Hureau (1962), and Hureau (1962b, 1963a, 1964b, 1970) and
Hureau and Arnaud (1964) have published papers concerned mostly
with systematics and distribution. Other aspects have been treated
also, e.g. otoliths (Hureau, 1962a), thyroid glands (Hureau, 1963b) and
general biology (Hureau, 1964a).
Two papers on the fishes of the South Orkneys resulting from Argentinean biological work have been contributed by Bellisio (1964, 1965).
The recent work of United States scientists falls into two main
categories, systematics (and distribution) and physiology. Reviews of
previous work were given by Rofen and DeWitt (1961) and for the Ross
Sea by Miller (1961a). The main contributions to systematics have
come from DeWitt (1962a, b, 1964a, b, 1965), DeWitt and Tyler (1960),
Miller (196lb), Miller and Reseck (1961) and Reseck (1961).
American physiological work has centred around Wohlschlag who
in a long series of papers from 1969 to 1965 has reported the results of
investigations particularly those carried out at the laboratory at McMiirdo Sound. Dearborn (1 965) reported on investigations on reproduction in the common Antarctic fish (Trematmnus). Other physiological
work is summarized under the general account later. Papers dealing