Pogonophora in the Sub-antarctic

Abstract

I HESITATE to ask for valuable space to try to put right some errors; but I think the matter is both biologically and historically important. I have only just seen Dr. D. B. Carlisle's translator's preface to his English edition of Dr. A. V. Ivanov's Pogonophora (Academic Press, London, 1963). I regret that it contains most serious misstatements, giving not only an entirely false impression of the abundance of pogonophores in the Sub-antarctic, but also making quite untrue accusations against the scientific staff of the R.R.S. Discovery working in those waters in the 1920's. These errors have unfortunately grown from his misunderstanding and exaggeration of a light-hearted and no doubt foolish remark I made, so I feel I must try to correct this unfortunate impression. All the dredge and trawl hauls taken by the Discovery and Discovery II (Dr. Carlisle confuses the two ships) were gone through with meticulous care and all the species sorted out and preserved in separate tubes or jars, an operation often taking many hours. At the end there sometimes remained odd bits of debris, perhaps bits of twine or wire broken from the net or lashings of the dredge and so forth, which we classed as ‘gubbins’, or jokingly, the ‘Gubbinidae’, to be more carefully examined before being thrown away. Years later, on looking at specimens of Pogonophora with their long exceedingly thin tubes looking like bits of twine, I told the story of our sorting operations on the Discovery and said, just to emphasize how fibre-like they are: “I would not be surprised if I had thrown some pogonophores away as twine among the Gubbinidae !” It was no doubt a silly thing to say, but I never dreamt it could be taken seriously. If it did happen, not more than one or two specimens might have been lost that way. No large quantity could possibly have been so missed. Dr. Carlisle, who heard me say this, let this story grow in his mind. It may seem childish to worry with it, but his statements are so damaging to British oceanography and scientifically so false, that I feel a correction should be made. Dr. Sidnie Manton has not unnaturally directed attention to his comments in her review of the book in Nature (204, 1020; 1964).