146
R. I ( . DELL
The more recent biogeographical history offered no serious problems
Skottsberg believed, but threw no light on the ultimate origin of the
specially cold adapted Antarctic flora which could not be of geologically
ancient age,
VI. BENTHIC ASSEMBLAGES
Study of Antarctic sea bottom assemblages is in a fairly primitive
state. This probably mirrors a general lack of certainty of approach
towards methods of describing and codifying the groupings of plants
and animals found on the sea floor in other parts of the world. Biologists
seem to have lost confidence in the underlying bases of the ‘‘ community” hypothesis of Petersen, and have tended to use the noncommittal concept of “ assemblages ”, without any real change of
technique or outlook. The almost insuperable difficulties in having all
organisms identified to a reasonable standard of accuracy within a
reasonable period of time, and the acknowledged uselessness of including discussions and measurements based only upon those groups which
can be identified, mean that detailed studies of assemblages are only
profitable in well settled areas where the biota is well known. What
work has been done in Antarctica is at the basically preliminary
descriptive stage with quantitative work at a minimum. At the same
time the use of self-contained diving apparatus has allowed direct
observation to be made down to about 30 m or so, and thus descriptions can be much more accurate.
Published work on Antarctic benthic assemblages is at present
based upon descriptions of very restricted areas, or if dealing with a
larger area is still extremely objective, with few firm identifications,
no real assessment of major faunal elements, and little comparison
between one assemblage and another. At the same time one must
wonder how many years will pass before total faunal lists for major
Discovery benthic stations are available, much less the mass of material
collected since.
The brave authors who have attempted to describe assemblages in
the Antarctic probably realize all too well the difficulties involved.
What little we know of Antarctic benthic ecology we owe to their
efforts.
One technique devised for other purposes, but which gives a total
quantitative figure fairly rapidly, is the measurement of biomass which
has almost become the fashionable measurement to take. Much of what
has been published on Antarctic benthic biomass has come from the
work of Soviet scientists. Andriashev (1966) has given a summary of
this work in East Antarctica. In depths from 100 to 200 m average
R. I ( . DELL
The more recent biogeographical history offered no serious problems
Skottsberg believed, but threw no light on the ultimate origin of the
specially cold adapted Antarctic flora which could not be of geologically
ancient age,
VI. BENTHIC ASSEMBLAGES
Study of Antarctic sea bottom assemblages is in a fairly primitive
state. This probably mirrors a general lack of certainty of approach
towards methods of describing and codifying the groupings of plants
and animals found on the sea floor in other parts of the world. Biologists
seem to have lost confidence in the underlying bases of the ‘‘ community” hypothesis of Petersen, and have tended to use the noncommittal concept of “ assemblages ”, without any real change of
technique or outlook. The almost insuperable difficulties in having all
organisms identified to a reasonable standard of accuracy within a
reasonable period of time, and the acknowledged uselessness of including discussions and measurements based only upon those groups which
can be identified, mean that detailed studies of assemblages are only
profitable in well settled areas where the biota is well known. What
work has been done in Antarctica is at the basically preliminary
descriptive stage with quantitative work at a minimum. At the same
time the use of self-contained diving apparatus has allowed direct
observation to be made down to about 30 m or so, and thus descriptions can be much more accurate.
Published work on Antarctic benthic assemblages is at present
based upon descriptions of very restricted areas, or if dealing with a
larger area is still extremely objective, with few firm identifications,
no real assessment of major faunal elements, and little comparison
between one assemblage and another. At the same time one must
wonder how many years will pass before total faunal lists for major
Discovery benthic stations are available, much less the mass of material
collected since.
The brave authors who have attempted to describe assemblages in
the Antarctic probably realize all too well the difficulties involved.
What little we know of Antarctic benthic ecology we owe to their
efforts.
One technique devised for other purposes, but which gives a total
quantitative figure fairly rapidly, is the measurement of biomass which
has almost become the fashionable measurement to take. Much of what
has been published on Antarctic benthic biomass has come from the
work of Soviet scientists. Andriashev (1966) has given a summary of
this work in East Antarctica. In depths from 100 to 200 m average