72
R. IS. DELL
used by the earlier workers, particularly shows the need for modern
systematic treatment of the Antarctic collections which must exist
either as collections or incorporated in sediment samples. Neale was
reduced effectively to comparisons with the species listed by Mueller
(1908) and Benson (1964) from East Antarctica. Of the Halley Bay
fauna 16 species (62%) are the same as ones recorded by Mueller from
his fauna a t Gauss Station (42% of this fauna). Similarly eight of the
Halley Bay species (31%) are listed by Benson from the Ross Sea
(62% of his fauna). It is extremely likely that the species occurring in
common in these three collections represent a strong circumpolar
element, e.g. Bairdia labiata (Miiller), Paradoxostoma antarcticum
Miiller, P. hypselum Miiller, Sclerochilas antarcticus Miiller, S. meridionalis Miiller, S. reniformis Miiller, Antarcticythere laevior (Miiller),
Bythoceratina dubia (Miiller), Xestoleberis rigusa Miiller, Myrena
meridionalis (Miiller), Loxoreticulatum fallax (Miiller), Hemicytherura
anomala (Miiller), H . irregularis Miiller, Cytheropteron gaussi Miiller,
Copytus elongatus Benson, Cativella bensoni Neale, Australicythere
polylyca (Miiller), and Patagonacythere devexa (Miiller). Three species
were very well represented in both general areas. Australicythere polylyca
and Loxoreticulatum fallax were common at Halley Bay, Gauss and the
Ross Sea while only one species, Patagomythere devexa is common to
Halley Bay (and Gauss) and to South Georgia. This species also
extends to the Magellan area.
There appear to be some few a m t i e s with forms from off Kerguelen
and Heard Islands but Subantarctic faunas in general seem so poorly
known that comparisons become rather forced.
4. Amphipoda (Fig. 7)
For all the number of pages that have been published on Antarctic
amphipods we still do not have much more than a collection of catalogues (some of them admittedly very extensive) of the collections
made by various individual expeditions. To gain any general impresaion of the Antarctic fauna itself or its biogeography requires a synthesis
of a great many papers, and certainly some critical systematic revisions
will also be required. The amphipods are still obviously a group for the
specialist, any attempt by the general biologist to draw general conclusions being largely thwarted by the sheer mass of data available.
The 11 main expedition reports on the group total about 1 317 pages for
example. The last attempt to discuss the Antarctic fauna in a general
way seems to be that of Schellenberg (1926a,b).
Bate (1862) described Cyllolpus &we, C. lzccasi and Vibilia edwardsi
from material collected by La ZeWe (1837-40) off the South Orkneys.
R. IS. DELL
used by the earlier workers, particularly shows the need for modern
systematic treatment of the Antarctic collections which must exist
either as collections or incorporated in sediment samples. Neale was
reduced effectively to comparisons with the species listed by Mueller
(1908) and Benson (1964) from East Antarctica. Of the Halley Bay
fauna 16 species (62%) are the same as ones recorded by Mueller from
his fauna a t Gauss Station (42% of this fauna). Similarly eight of the
Halley Bay species (31%) are listed by Benson from the Ross Sea
(62% of his fauna). It is extremely likely that the species occurring in
common in these three collections represent a strong circumpolar
element, e.g. Bairdia labiata (Miiller), Paradoxostoma antarcticum
Miiller, P. hypselum Miiller, Sclerochilas antarcticus Miiller, S. meridionalis Miiller, S. reniformis Miiller, Antarcticythere laevior (Miiller),
Bythoceratina dubia (Miiller), Xestoleberis rigusa Miiller, Myrena
meridionalis (Miiller), Loxoreticulatum fallax (Miiller), Hemicytherura
anomala (Miiller), H . irregularis Miiller, Cytheropteron gaussi Miiller,
Copytus elongatus Benson, Cativella bensoni Neale, Australicythere
polylyca (Miiller), and Patagonacythere devexa (Miiller). Three species
were very well represented in both general areas. Australicythere polylyca
and Loxoreticulatum fallax were common at Halley Bay, Gauss and the
Ross Sea while only one species, Patagomythere devexa is common to
Halley Bay (and Gauss) and to South Georgia. This species also
extends to the Magellan area.
There appear to be some few a m t i e s with forms from off Kerguelen
and Heard Islands but Subantarctic faunas in general seem so poorly
known that comparisons become rather forced.
4. Amphipoda (Fig. 7)
For all the number of pages that have been published on Antarctic
amphipods we still do not have much more than a collection of catalogues (some of them admittedly very extensive) of the collections
made by various individual expeditions. To gain any general impresaion of the Antarctic fauna itself or its biogeography requires a synthesis
of a great many papers, and certainly some critical systematic revisions
will also be required. The amphipods are still obviously a group for the
specialist, any attempt by the general biologist to draw general conclusions being largely thwarted by the sheer mass of data available.
The 11 main expedition reports on the group total about 1 317 pages for
example. The last attempt to discuss the Antarctic fauna in a general
way seems to be that of Schellenberg (1926a,b).
Bate (1862) described Cyllolpus &we, C. lzccasi and Vibilia edwardsi
from material collected by La ZeWe (1837-40) off the South Orkneys.