ANTARUTIU BlDNTHOS
16
water, the term " province " will probably always require qualification
in some way. The terms " littoral algal province ", or " shelf molluscan
province " may have some relevance, but a " Rossian marine province "
can only be the result of the sum of many compromises, and thus have
little real meaning.
The compilation of detailed geographical and bathymetrical ranges
is of far more value for studies on distribution, than discussions about
systems of provinces. There is evidence that discussing distribution in
terms of provinces leads biologists into fundamental errors of outlook.
There is always a tendency to consider that the fauna of a province is
uniformly distributed throughout an area, or that the province has
some objective validity of its own. It is often claimed that additional
records for the distribution of a species shows that it has extended its
range to an additional province. Isolated areas such as South Georgia,
or Kerguelen or Macquarie Island are always difficult to fit into a provincial concept. For example the statement that a species occurs in
the Kerguelenian Province does not tell the reader very much. It may
occur on Kerguelen, or on Macquarie or on both. It may also occur in
the Ross Sea or on South Georgia. A more useful piece of knowledge
would be that the species has been recorded from off Kerguelen in
depths from 10 to 76 m and in the Ross Sea in 300 m.
The kind of information we do require for biogeographical discussions is the type of detailed distribution records presented for the
marine algae by Papenfuss (1964) and for ascidians by Kott (1969).
Even in groups such as these the distributional evidence available to us
still indicates the areas in which the major expeditions have worked
rather than the actual distribution of the organisms concerned. The
study of actual distribution patterns seems a far more useful biological
exercise than division of an area into provinces, districts, regions or
zones, and into subdivisions of these with groupings into hierarchies of
relationship. This method of approach seems doubly necessary in areas
where there is obviously a dynamic ebb and flow of species in several
directions as there undoubtedly is through the islands of the Scotia Arc.
The major part of the shelf fauna of the Antarctic seems effectively
cut off from the rest of the world by the major barrier of the Southern
Ocean. The one area where the barrier starts to break down is the
Antarctic Peninsula and the associated sections of the Continent. The
stepping stones of the islands and island shelves of the Scotia Arc here
supply a pathway between the Antarctic and South America which
different organisms have used to varying degrees. It is precisely in this
area that most discussion about faunal subdivisions occurs, where the
boundaries proposed by previous workers are shifted and where
16
water, the term " province " will probably always require qualification
in some way. The terms " littoral algal province ", or " shelf molluscan
province " may have some relevance, but a " Rossian marine province "
can only be the result of the sum of many compromises, and thus have
little real meaning.
The compilation of detailed geographical and bathymetrical ranges
is of far more value for studies on distribution, than discussions about
systems of provinces. There is evidence that discussing distribution in
terms of provinces leads biologists into fundamental errors of outlook.
There is always a tendency to consider that the fauna of a province is
uniformly distributed throughout an area, or that the province has
some objective validity of its own. It is often claimed that additional
records for the distribution of a species shows that it has extended its
range to an additional province. Isolated areas such as South Georgia,
or Kerguelen or Macquarie Island are always difficult to fit into a provincial concept. For example the statement that a species occurs in
the Kerguelenian Province does not tell the reader very much. It may
occur on Kerguelen, or on Macquarie or on both. It may also occur in
the Ross Sea or on South Georgia. A more useful piece of knowledge
would be that the species has been recorded from off Kerguelen in
depths from 10 to 76 m and in the Ross Sea in 300 m.
The kind of information we do require for biogeographical discussions is the type of detailed distribution records presented for the
marine algae by Papenfuss (1964) and for ascidians by Kott (1969).
Even in groups such as these the distributional evidence available to us
still indicates the areas in which the major expeditions have worked
rather than the actual distribution of the organisms concerned. The
study of actual distribution patterns seems a far more useful biological
exercise than division of an area into provinces, districts, regions or
zones, and into subdivisions of these with groupings into hierarchies of
relationship. This method of approach seems doubly necessary in areas
where there is obviously a dynamic ebb and flow of species in several
directions as there undoubtedly is through the islands of the Scotia Arc.
The major part of the shelf fauna of the Antarctic seems effectively
cut off from the rest of the world by the major barrier of the Southern
Ocean. The one area where the barrier starts to break down is the
Antarctic Peninsula and the associated sections of the Continent. The
stepping stones of the islands and island shelves of the Scotia Arc here
supply a pathway between the Antarctic and South America which
different organisms have used to varying degrees. It is precisely in this
area that most discussion about faunal subdivisions occurs, where the
boundaries proposed by previous workers are shifted and where