170
R. K. DELL
Recent work on the material collected from the Antarctic deep-water
basins by the Eltanin have indicated that these faunas form a faunal
entity with little direct relationship to the Antarctic fauna (Newman
and Ross, 1971 ; Kott, 1969a; Hartman, 1967b).
Consideration of the depth ranges of Antarctic benthic animals
shows a similar pattern for many different groups. A very small element is confined to the shelf, while a large number of species is found in
archibenthal (or bathyal) depths. At the same time a large number of
forms show wide depth tolerances across the shelf and slope. One is
tempted to postulate a possible history of a fauna with these elements,
and is confronted with the almost inescapable conclusion that the
shallow-water element was almost completely eradicated at the height
of Pleistocene glaciation. It is amongst the remaining shallow-water
molluscs that some of the " old " elements still occur, e.g. Adamussium,
Laternula elliptica, Yoldia (Aequiyoldia) eightsi and Neobuccinum eatoni.
Similar examples can be cited for other groups, e.g. Glyptonotus (Isopoda), Xterechinus neumayeri (Echinoidea) .
It is probably premature to pursue any further the question of the
origins and relationships of the Antarctic fauna. Too few of the collections made since the I.G.Y. have been written up, and those which
have been raise so many new lines of evidence, that speculation at
present seems unwise. One of the most productive " studies " for
Antarctic biogeography would be an analysis of the distribution of
plants and animals along the islands of the Scotia Arc and into the
Antarctic Peninsula at one end and into the Magellan Region at the
other. Even full studies on the distribution of single well represented
groups of animals would be indicative, but studies involving all possible
groups would be most valuable.
X. CONCLUSIONS
The writer (Dell, 1968, p. 116) has stressed some of the difficulties
encountered in working with Antarctic Mollusca. These difficulties are
probably equally true of other groups but accentuated in the case of
the Mollusca by the bulk of the contributions.
First, expeditions have usually been nationally inspired and
financed, the countries mainly concerned being England, Scotland,
France, Germany, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, the United States, the
Soviet Union, Argentina, Australia, and New Zealand. Science may be
international, and science in the Antarctic is demonstrably so, but the
publication of biological results has certainly tended to be national. A t
the peak periods of expedition activity one detects a rivalry to achieve
prior publication that goes beyond the bounds of being healthy. How-
R. K. DELL
Recent work on the material collected from the Antarctic deep-water
basins by the Eltanin have indicated that these faunas form a faunal
entity with little direct relationship to the Antarctic fauna (Newman
and Ross, 1971 ; Kott, 1969a; Hartman, 1967b).
Consideration of the depth ranges of Antarctic benthic animals
shows a similar pattern for many different groups. A very small element is confined to the shelf, while a large number of species is found in
archibenthal (or bathyal) depths. At the same time a large number of
forms show wide depth tolerances across the shelf and slope. One is
tempted to postulate a possible history of a fauna with these elements,
and is confronted with the almost inescapable conclusion that the
shallow-water element was almost completely eradicated at the height
of Pleistocene glaciation. It is amongst the remaining shallow-water
molluscs that some of the " old " elements still occur, e.g. Adamussium,
Laternula elliptica, Yoldia (Aequiyoldia) eightsi and Neobuccinum eatoni.
Similar examples can be cited for other groups, e.g. Glyptonotus (Isopoda), Xterechinus neumayeri (Echinoidea) .
It is probably premature to pursue any further the question of the
origins and relationships of the Antarctic fauna. Too few of the collections made since the I.G.Y. have been written up, and those which
have been raise so many new lines of evidence, that speculation at
present seems unwise. One of the most productive " studies " for
Antarctic biogeography would be an analysis of the distribution of
plants and animals along the islands of the Scotia Arc and into the
Antarctic Peninsula at one end and into the Magellan Region at the
other. Even full studies on the distribution of single well represented
groups of animals would be indicative, but studies involving all possible
groups would be most valuable.
X. CONCLUSIONS
The writer (Dell, 1968, p. 116) has stressed some of the difficulties
encountered in working with Antarctic Mollusca. These difficulties are
probably equally true of other groups but accentuated in the case of
the Mollusca by the bulk of the contributions.
First, expeditions have usually been nationally inspired and
financed, the countries mainly concerned being England, Scotland,
France, Germany, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, the United States, the
Soviet Union, Argentina, Australia, and New Zealand. Science may be
international, and science in the Antarctic is demonstrably so, but the
publication of biological results has certainly tended to be national. A t
the peak periods of expedition activity one detects a rivalry to achieve
prior publication that goes beyond the bounds of being healthy. How-