Preface
There are few achievements of modern man which can compare to the Suez
Canal. In Egypt-the land of the most famous wonders of antiquity-the Suez
Canal was built as the first technical wonder ofthe industrial revolution. Ferdinand
de Lesseps was a man straddling two epochs-the romantic utopism of SaintSimon and the modern world of technocracy. The gigantic project was at its start
shouldered by the crowds of tens of thousands of forced laborers still available
and ended as a show-piece for modern mechanical earth-moving techniques.
The canal builders themselves were still polyhistors in the old sense: engineerscum-zoologists; naval officers-cum-geologists; diplomats meddling with chemistry. During the four generations of the existence of the Suez Canal, the fateful
professional narrowmindedness became progressively worse. The engineers continued their work in and around the Canal, but they became oblivious and
unresponsive to the environmental impact, to the fascinating changes in the biotic
scenery which they were producing with their own hands.
The Suez Canal started as an international enterprise, a center of preoccupation
for the most enlightened minds ofthe mid 19th century. The same was true for the
nascent study of marine biology. During the century which has since passed,
however, the international commonwealth of scientific research has fallen apart,
and the Suez Canal has become an increasingly coveted object in the international
power struggle. The more the cannons roared, the more the muses of science fell
silent. Once the center of the intellectual world, the Suez Canal has disappeared
from the map of modern science.
The biggest scientific enterprise carried out in the Suez Canal in this century was
the Cambridge Expedition-a short research trip (some 2 months) of three young
English scientists headed by H. Munro Fox (November-December 1924). The
situation changed somewhat with the work of the first generation of local marine
biologists-H. A. F. Gohar in Egypt and W. and H. Steinitz (father and son) in Israel.
For an ephemerous moment in 1951, Gohar, Steinitz and two other promoters
ofSuez Canal research, Kosswig and Tortonese, met in Istanbul under the auspices
of UNESCO. Fifteen years later UNESCO tried to sponsor a regional meeting on
the impact ofthe Suez Canal migration on the Mediterranean biota. The projected
conference changed conveners and proposed meeting place from Cyprus to
Dubrovnik until, in 1970, the plan was finally abandoned.
In 1966, at the suggestion ofProfessor G. Thorson, Professor H. Munro-Fox
asked Professor H. Steinitz and myself to write a review on migration through the
Suez Canal. It is with a sense ofveneration towards my recently deceased teachers
and colleagues that I have now carried out this project. It is also as a token of
admiration to Ferdinand de Lesseps that I coined the term "Lessepsian migration"
There are few achievements of modern man which can compare to the Suez
Canal. In Egypt-the land of the most famous wonders of antiquity-the Suez
Canal was built as the first technical wonder ofthe industrial revolution. Ferdinand
de Lesseps was a man straddling two epochs-the romantic utopism of SaintSimon and the modern world of technocracy. The gigantic project was at its start
shouldered by the crowds of tens of thousands of forced laborers still available
and ended as a show-piece for modern mechanical earth-moving techniques.
The canal builders themselves were still polyhistors in the old sense: engineerscum-zoologists; naval officers-cum-geologists; diplomats meddling with chemistry. During the four generations of the existence of the Suez Canal, the fateful
professional narrowmindedness became progressively worse. The engineers continued their work in and around the Canal, but they became oblivious and
unresponsive to the environmental impact, to the fascinating changes in the biotic
scenery which they were producing with their own hands.
The Suez Canal started as an international enterprise, a center of preoccupation
for the most enlightened minds ofthe mid 19th century. The same was true for the
nascent study of marine biology. During the century which has since passed,
however, the international commonwealth of scientific research has fallen apart,
and the Suez Canal has become an increasingly coveted object in the international
power struggle. The more the cannons roared, the more the muses of science fell
silent. Once the center of the intellectual world, the Suez Canal has disappeared
from the map of modern science.
The biggest scientific enterprise carried out in the Suez Canal in this century was
the Cambridge Expedition-a short research trip (some 2 months) of three young
English scientists headed by H. Munro Fox (November-December 1924). The
situation changed somewhat with the work of the first generation of local marine
biologists-H. A. F. Gohar in Egypt and W. and H. Steinitz (father and son) in Israel.
For an ephemerous moment in 1951, Gohar, Steinitz and two other promoters
ofSuez Canal research, Kosswig and Tortonese, met in Istanbul under the auspices
of UNESCO. Fifteen years later UNESCO tried to sponsor a regional meeting on
the impact ofthe Suez Canal migration on the Mediterranean biota. The projected
conference changed conveners and proposed meeting place from Cyprus to
Dubrovnik until, in 1970, the plan was finally abandoned.
In 1966, at the suggestion ofProfessor G. Thorson, Professor H. Munro-Fox
asked Professor H. Steinitz and myself to write a review on migration through the
Suez Canal. It is with a sense ofveneration towards my recently deceased teachers
and colleagues that I have now carried out this project. It is also as a token of
admiration to Ferdinand de Lesseps that I coined the term "Lessepsian migration"