68
R. K. DELL
Aerothyris. Otherwise there seems to be no obvious relationship with
Australia, and none with South Africa.
Allan’s more recent studies of the distribution of austral brachiopods
(Allan, 1963) has borne out Thomson’s (1918) major conclusions.
Genera which are common to New Zealand, Australia, South America
and Antarctica belong to wide-ranging forms such as Lingula, Crania,
Terebratulina and Liothyrella, which have little biogeographical significance. In general therefore the brachiopods at present living in
southern Australia, New Zealand and southern South America are
largely characteristic of these areas, and represent the descendants of
Tertiary species.
M. Bryozoa
As with so many other groups the first truly Antarctic Bryozoa
were obtained by the BeZgica (Waters, 1904), Southern Cross (Kirkpatrick, 1902), and the Franpis (Calvet, 1909). Reports on subsequent
expeditions added to our knowledge of Antarctic Bryozoa, the major
accounts being Kluge (1914), Livingstone (1928) and Johnston and
Angel (1940). A major contribution was the publication of Hasting’s
work (1943) on the Discovery Collections followed by Borg
(1944) on the material collected by the Swedish Antarctic Expedition.
Vigeland (1952) reported on material collected by the Norwegian
Antarctic Expedition. Dr Mary Rogick published a series of papers
(1955-62) culminating in a review of the fauna (1965). Apart from a
paper by Redier (1965) on material collected by the Belgian Antarctic
Expedition, and a paper by Androsova (1968) on some of the Soviet
collections, the enormous collections amassed in the last decade do not
appear to have been worked on, and the review by Bullivant (1969) was
based on the older published results. Bullivant’s (1969, p. 22) remark,
“The Bryozoa are less well known than most other groups of the
Antarctic benthos ” seems amply borne out by comments by both Hastings and Rogick. A point that is easily forgotten is that Hastings’ 200odd pages deal only with a small part of the fauna and that Borg (1944)
dealt only with the Stenolaemata (= Cyclostomata) in his 276 pages. At
the same time the group forms a not inconsiderable part of the Antarctic
benthos in many areas (Bullivant, 1969), a point forcibly brought home
to all biologists who have sorted bulk dredge hauls.
Borg (1944, p. 14) has pointed out some of the difficulties in assessing
earlier work on the Bryozoa and shown that many of the earlier identifications must be regarded as suspect (a stricture by no means confined
to this group of animals). They are certainly a difficult group for a
non-specialist to review, partly because they are numerous, partly
R. K. DELL
Aerothyris. Otherwise there seems to be no obvious relationship with
Australia, and none with South Africa.
Allan’s more recent studies of the distribution of austral brachiopods
(Allan, 1963) has borne out Thomson’s (1918) major conclusions.
Genera which are common to New Zealand, Australia, South America
and Antarctica belong to wide-ranging forms such as Lingula, Crania,
Terebratulina and Liothyrella, which have little biogeographical significance. In general therefore the brachiopods at present living in
southern Australia, New Zealand and southern South America are
largely characteristic of these areas, and represent the descendants of
Tertiary species.
M. Bryozoa
As with so many other groups the first truly Antarctic Bryozoa
were obtained by the BeZgica (Waters, 1904), Southern Cross (Kirkpatrick, 1902), and the Franpis (Calvet, 1909). Reports on subsequent
expeditions added to our knowledge of Antarctic Bryozoa, the major
accounts being Kluge (1914), Livingstone (1928) and Johnston and
Angel (1940). A major contribution was the publication of Hasting’s
work (1943) on the Discovery Collections followed by Borg
(1944) on the material collected by the Swedish Antarctic Expedition.
Vigeland (1952) reported on material collected by the Norwegian
Antarctic Expedition. Dr Mary Rogick published a series of papers
(1955-62) culminating in a review of the fauna (1965). Apart from a
paper by Redier (1965) on material collected by the Belgian Antarctic
Expedition, and a paper by Androsova (1968) on some of the Soviet
collections, the enormous collections amassed in the last decade do not
appear to have been worked on, and the review by Bullivant (1969) was
based on the older published results. Bullivant’s (1969, p. 22) remark,
“The Bryozoa are less well known than most other groups of the
Antarctic benthos ” seems amply borne out by comments by both Hastings and Rogick. A point that is easily forgotten is that Hastings’ 200odd pages deal only with a small part of the fauna and that Borg (1944)
dealt only with the Stenolaemata (= Cyclostomata) in his 276 pages. At
the same time the group forms a not inconsiderable part of the Antarctic
benthos in many areas (Bullivant, 1969), a point forcibly brought home
to all biologists who have sorted bulk dredge hauls.
Borg (1944, p. 14) has pointed out some of the difficulties in assessing
earlier work on the Bryozoa and shown that many of the earlier identifications must be regarded as suspect (a stricture by no means confined
to this group of animals). They are certainly a difficult group for a
non-specialist to review, partly because they are numerous, partly