PREVIOUS WORK IN THE AREA ii 



fera are most abundant, both as regards species and specimens, in the Discovery region 

 between 60° and 65° S, and there is a distinct falHng off in both respects in most of the 

 gatherings received from south of 65°. 



An analysis of Pearcey's report shows that he records eighty-three species or 

 varieties from Weddell Sea stations. Sixty-five of these figure in the present report, a 

 few of them under other names when Pearcey's nomenclature is out of date. The 

 eighteen species which I have not met with are : 



Keramosphaera imirrayi 



Astrorhiza arenaria 

 *Syringommina wimita 



Rhabdammina cornuta 



Rhizammina indivisa 



Saccammina sodalis 



Teclniitella raphaiuis 

 * Technitella osciformis 

 *Thuramtnina favosa var. reticulata 



Aschemonella catenata 



*Reophax robustus 

 Hormosina normani 



*Hormosina irregularis 



*Haplophragmoides umbilicatum 



*Cyclammina contorta 

 Gaudryina pseudofiliformis 

 Truncatulina tenuimargo 

 Anomalina polymorpha 



Seven of the foregoing, marked with an asterisk, are described as new species, some 

 from single specimens. Of the remainder several are open to suspicion as to their 

 identity, e.g. Technitella raphanus, Brady, known previously only from a Challenger 

 record at Fiji. It seems possible that this was Hyperammina novae- zealandiae, H.-A. 

 and E. (No. 119), which externally bears some resemblance to Brady's species, and 

 occurs in the Discovery material. On the other hand, Wiesner describes and figures a 

 specimen from Kaiser Wilhelm's Land under the name Technitella raphanus, Brady, which 

 is not very much like Brady's figure, but is certainly not H. novae-zealandiae . It would 

 be interesting to compare Pearcey's and Wiesner's specimens with the original type. 

 Gaudryina pseudofiliformis was possibly G. apicidaris (No. 243). Haplophragmoides 

 tmibilicatum seems inseparable from H. rotidatus (No. 168). The most interesting 

 record of all is Keramosphaera murrayi, known until then only from a few specimens 

 dredged by the 'Challenger' in 53° 55' S, 108° 35' E, 1950 fathoms, i.e. nearly due 

 south of Cape Leeuwin in Australia. Wiesner (W. 193 1, FDSE, p. iii, pi. xvii, 

 figs. 199, 200) has recently recorded Keramosphaera, but his specimens also were found 

 in the Indian Ocean (65° 15' S, 80° 19' E), and but for the fact that Pearcey had worked 

 in the Challenger office and from his own statement was familiar with the types, his 

 record would be suspect. Pearcey's record of Keramosphaera marks a notable extension 

 of the range of this rare and interesting genus, and its occurrence at these widely 

 separated localities, combined with its absence elsewhere both eastwards and westwards, 

 may be regarded as evidence that the Antarctic includes two distinct regions, separated 

 from each other by Graham Land on the west, and some unknown line to the E of the 

 Kerguelen Plateau on the east. 



Perhaps the most significant feature in Pearcey's list is the absence of Miliammina. 

 He does not record any arenaceous species of Miliolina, as no doubt he would have 

 called it. Nor does any species of Miliammina figure in the few Discovery lists from the 



