ANTARCTIC BENTHOS
127
Harpagiferidae, Bathydraconidae and Chaenichthyidae, are again
three very distinctive and most characteristic groups of Antarctic fishes,
while the third family has proved to have a character unique in the
vertebrates, colourless blood, with no haemoglobin and no erythrocytes.
2. The giant Antarctic fish, Dissostichus mawsoni
The development of our knowledge of Dissostichus mawsoni is
worth outlining as an example of some of the problems which have
faced Antarctic biology. Only the major steps in a complicated story
can be mentioned here.
The species was described by Norman (1937, p. 71) from a unique
specimen, 370 mm in length trawled from 66’45‘5, 62’03’E in 219 m.
Norman had no reason to believe that this was in fact a small example
of what had been long before recognized as the giant of Antarctic fishes
in popular knowledge though it had not been scientifically described.
A large headless fish had been harpooned together with a seal on Scott’s
National Antarctic Expedition (1901-04). It was recorded in objective
fashion as Notothenia sp. by Boulenger (1907) in the scientific account
of the fishes of this expedition, but the body had been long before eaten
by the expedition members. Scott (1929, p. 570) gave a much more
spirited account, perhaps with gastronomic bias, of this specimen,
3 ft 10 in in length and weighing 39 lb. It was a long time before the
‘‘ giant Antarctic fish ’’ of the expeditions was to be properly linked
with Norman’s scientific description.
The I.G.Y. and post-I.G.Y. flurry of activity in Antarctica brought
many more men to the ice. Observations of giant fish began to accumulate. Swithinbank, Darby and Wohlschlag (1961) recorded finding
several large fish, the largest 142 cm in length, on the surface of the ice
in McMurdo Sound. Stimulated by this account, Debenham (1961)
discussed the six headless specimens encountered by Scott’s two expeditions and postulated methods by which all of these could have reached
the ice surface. This account is of interest since it demonstrates the
long period over which “ the headless giant fish of McMurdo Sound ”
had remained unidentified, and also the lack of appreciation of the role
of what is now known as “ anchor ice ” in these extremely cold waters.
Andriashev (1962) showed that the large fish mentioned by Boulenger
from McMurdo Sound was in fact what Norman had described as
Dissostichus mawsoni, and also recorded the occurrence of pelagic
young in Antarctic waters. By this time records of large (often headless) fish from around the holes used by Weddell Seals in McMurdo
Sound were becoming moderately common, although popular accounts
often still referred to the fish as “ unknown to science ”.
127
Harpagiferidae, Bathydraconidae and Chaenichthyidae, are again
three very distinctive and most characteristic groups of Antarctic fishes,
while the third family has proved to have a character unique in the
vertebrates, colourless blood, with no haemoglobin and no erythrocytes.
2. The giant Antarctic fish, Dissostichus mawsoni
The development of our knowledge of Dissostichus mawsoni is
worth outlining as an example of some of the problems which have
faced Antarctic biology. Only the major steps in a complicated story
can be mentioned here.
The species was described by Norman (1937, p. 71) from a unique
specimen, 370 mm in length trawled from 66’45‘5, 62’03’E in 219 m.
Norman had no reason to believe that this was in fact a small example
of what had been long before recognized as the giant of Antarctic fishes
in popular knowledge though it had not been scientifically described.
A large headless fish had been harpooned together with a seal on Scott’s
National Antarctic Expedition (1901-04). It was recorded in objective
fashion as Notothenia sp. by Boulenger (1907) in the scientific account
of the fishes of this expedition, but the body had been long before eaten
by the expedition members. Scott (1929, p. 570) gave a much more
spirited account, perhaps with gastronomic bias, of this specimen,
3 ft 10 in in length and weighing 39 lb. It was a long time before the
‘‘ giant Antarctic fish ’’ of the expeditions was to be properly linked
with Norman’s scientific description.
The I.G.Y. and post-I.G.Y. flurry of activity in Antarctica brought
many more men to the ice. Observations of giant fish began to accumulate. Swithinbank, Darby and Wohlschlag (1961) recorded finding
several large fish, the largest 142 cm in length, on the surface of the ice
in McMurdo Sound. Stimulated by this account, Debenham (1961)
discussed the six headless specimens encountered by Scott’s two expeditions and postulated methods by which all of these could have reached
the ice surface. This account is of interest since it demonstrates the
long period over which “ the headless giant fish of McMurdo Sound ”
had remained unidentified, and also the lack of appreciation of the role
of what is now known as “ anchor ice ” in these extremely cold waters.
Andriashev (1962) showed that the large fish mentioned by Boulenger
from McMurdo Sound was in fact what Norman had described as
Dissostichus mawsoni, and also recorded the occurrence of pelagic
young in Antarctic waters. By this time records of large (often headless) fish from around the holes used by Weddell Seals in McMurdo
Sound were becoming moderately common, although popular accounts
often still referred to the fish as “ unknown to science ”.