8
R. K. DELL
clature solely for the sake of semantics. Biogeography has already bedevilled itself in the search for better words, rather than better concepts.
The term “ Subantarctic ” was apparently introduced by plant geographers around the turn of the century and soon came into common
use in a collective geographical use, as in Chilton (1909). It was also
taken over by hydrologists. The terms Antarctic and Subantarctic
have been in common usage in discussions of southern biogeography for
many years. Ekman (1935), in his classic book on marine zoogeography,
and perhaps with more effect in the English (1953) translation, advocated a usage corresponding to that in the Northern Hemisphere, and
coined the term “Antiboreal ” to replace “ Subantarctic ”. Oceanographers have not used Ekman’s proposed “Antiboreal Convergence ”
to replace the “ Subtropical Convergence ”, and the term Antiboreal
has gained little acceptance. Several Soviet authors have used the term
“ notal ” (Vinogradova, 1962; Andriashev, 1965) instead of “ Subantarctic ” for the area between the Convergences. Hedgpeth (1970)
has been rather scathing about the term “ notal ” and such derivatives
as “ notalian ”.
Knox (1960) influenced no doubt by the general title of the symposium to which he was contributing, used the term “ cold-temperate ”
and sometimes “ Subantarctic cold-temperate ” for Subantarctic surface water. There does not really seem to be a case for uniform practice
in naming major northern and southern zones, particularly in relation
to marine biogeography. Southern Hemisphere conditions are not the
same as comparable latitudinal zones in the Northern Hemisphere, and
the basic difference between the relationships of water to land masses
in the two polar areas precludes any chance of fruitful close comparison.
Workers in the Northern Hemisphere, who are the main critics of
“ Subantarctic ” and the main protagonists for uniform nomenclature
between the hemispheres, might first consider that while the parallel of
55”s cuts through Tierra del Fuego and that there are no permanently
inhabited areas south of this (much less cities), the parallel of 55”N
leaves the northern tip of Ireland and the cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh,
Copenhagen and Moscow somewhat to the north, with Oslo, Stockholm
and Helsinki well to the north. Human habitation patterns are very
different in the two hemispheres, are not most other factors also
different?
Hedgpeth (1969) came out very strongly in favour of the terms
“Antarctic ” and “ Subantarctic ”, as would many marine biologists,
especially in the Southern Hemisphere. The whole matter seems to be
causing fresh discussion at present between workers concerned with
terrestrial biogeography who find a need to subdivide “ Subantarctic ”
R. K. DELL
clature solely for the sake of semantics. Biogeography has already bedevilled itself in the search for better words, rather than better concepts.
The term “ Subantarctic ” was apparently introduced by plant geographers around the turn of the century and soon came into common
use in a collective geographical use, as in Chilton (1909). It was also
taken over by hydrologists. The terms Antarctic and Subantarctic
have been in common usage in discussions of southern biogeography for
many years. Ekman (1935), in his classic book on marine zoogeography,
and perhaps with more effect in the English (1953) translation, advocated a usage corresponding to that in the Northern Hemisphere, and
coined the term “Antiboreal ” to replace “ Subantarctic ”. Oceanographers have not used Ekman’s proposed “Antiboreal Convergence ”
to replace the “ Subtropical Convergence ”, and the term Antiboreal
has gained little acceptance. Several Soviet authors have used the term
“ notal ” (Vinogradova, 1962; Andriashev, 1965) instead of “ Subantarctic ” for the area between the Convergences. Hedgpeth (1970)
has been rather scathing about the term “ notal ” and such derivatives
as “ notalian ”.
Knox (1960) influenced no doubt by the general title of the symposium to which he was contributing, used the term “ cold-temperate ”
and sometimes “ Subantarctic cold-temperate ” for Subantarctic surface water. There does not really seem to be a case for uniform practice
in naming major northern and southern zones, particularly in relation
to marine biogeography. Southern Hemisphere conditions are not the
same as comparable latitudinal zones in the Northern Hemisphere, and
the basic difference between the relationships of water to land masses
in the two polar areas precludes any chance of fruitful close comparison.
Workers in the Northern Hemisphere, who are the main critics of
“ Subantarctic ” and the main protagonists for uniform nomenclature
between the hemispheres, might first consider that while the parallel of
55”s cuts through Tierra del Fuego and that there are no permanently
inhabited areas south of this (much less cities), the parallel of 55”N
leaves the northern tip of Ireland and the cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh,
Copenhagen and Moscow somewhat to the north, with Oslo, Stockholm
and Helsinki well to the north. Human habitation patterns are very
different in the two hemispheres, are not most other factors also
different?
Hedgpeth (1969) came out very strongly in favour of the terms
“Antarctic ” and “ Subantarctic ”, as would many marine biologists,
especially in the Southern Hemisphere. The whole matter seems to be
causing fresh discussion at present between workers concerned with
terrestrial biogeography who find a need to subdivide “ Subantarctic ”