A Historical Account of Biodiversity Studies on Philippine Seaweeds (1800–1999)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Coastal Marine Science 35(1): 182–201, 2012 A historical account of biodiversity studies on Philippine seaweeds (1800–1999) Edna T. GANZON-FORTES Marine Science Institute, College of Science, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines *E-mail: [email protected] Received 8 September 2010; accepted 13 February 2011 Abstract — A historical account of seaweed biodiversity studies in the Philippines is reviewed starting from its early beginnings (1750) until the end of the 20th century (1999). It is said that the birth of Philippine phycology started with the publication of the book “Flora de Filipinas” by the resident Augustinian monk, Fr. Blanco. Oceanographic expeditions that passed by the Philip- pine archipelago during the latter half of the 19th century, in particular, the Dutch Siboga Expedition, contributed significantly to the country’s seaweed biodiversity data through the monographs and other comprehensive taxonomic and morphological liter- atures written on the marine algae that were collected. During the Commonwealth period, duplicate herbarium specimens of marine algae that were sent to herbaria abroad by two American botanists, E.D. Merrill and H.H. Bartlett, were later published on by noted phycologists, namely, M. A. Howe, W. R. Taylor, W. J. Gilbert, R. C.-Y. Chou, and C. K. Tseng. The “Father of Philip- pine Phycology”, G. T. Velasquez, is said to have catalysed studies on Philippine algae starting in the late 50’s especially for Fil- ipinos. The success brought about by seaweed farming in the Philippines heightened interest on the marine benthic algae, such that, in 1970–1989, there was a surge of taxonomic/floristic/monographic/morphological publications on seaweeds written mostly by Filipino authors. In 1987, 879 binomials of marine benthic algae was compiled by Silva et al. This number is updated to 949 in this paper and a checklist of the binomials is included, as well. During the last decade of the 20th century, seaweed re- search trend shifted to the more applied aspects. Most taxonomic studies not only focused on the commercial species but also included aspects of their population biology, seasonality, phycocolloid yield and quality. Key words: checklist, historical review, Philippine biodiversity, seaweeds ϳ Introduction 1800–1900 It is interesting to note that the specimen of the present Sources of information on the following account of the day species known as Gracilaria salicornia (C. Agardh) early history of Philippine phycology with emphasis on ma- Dawson is based on the very first reported collection of ma- rine algae until 1970 came primarily from Velasquez (1962), rine algae from the Philippine waters. Collection was done Velasquez et al. (1972), Cordero (1972) and Silva et al. by A. von Chamisso, a botanist of the Romanzoff Exploring (1987). Others details were obtained from the seaweed data- Expedition (1817–1818), when their Russian ship Rurik was base of SICEN (Seaweed Information Center) of the Marine forced to seek shelter in the Manila harbor during a heavy Science Institute, C.S., University of the Philippines), created storm in the Pacific. A. C. Agardh (1820) described and il- by this author though a grant from the International Develop- lustrated Chamisso’s collected material (type specimen) and ment Research Center of Canada (IDRC) in 1987–1994. named it Sphaerocococus salicornia, which was later re- The scope of this historical review focuses on published named by Greville (1830) as Corallopsis salicornia (C. information related to diversity studies on Philippine marine Agardh) Greville in his monographic treatment of the genus benthic algae with a cut-off date of 1999. The ‘Literature Corallopsis. Meanwhile, Ruprecht (1851) commented that cited’ section of this review includes, not only the cited liter- “Chamisso himself was not sure of the locality from which ature in the text but also, all published documents bearing in- he obtained the specimen”. This notion was verified more formation on the diversity of Philippine marine benthic algae than a century later, when Dawson, in 1953, collected a simi- (for instance, foreign studies include Philippine data). This lar material along the Manila Harbor. Internal examination of author wishes to apologize for the literature (on the topic the specimen led Dawson to conclude that his material was a mentioned) that may have been missed out in the compila- topotype of Chamiso’s material. He, then transferred Coral- tion. lopsis salicornia to Gracilaria salicornia (C. Agardh) Daw- son, as reported in his 1954 publication of the Pacific marine algae. 182 Ganzon-Fortes E. T: Seaweed research in Philippines The birth of Philippine phycology as a science is began after his arrival in Manila in October 1836. The mate- thought to have begun in 1837 through the pioneering work rials were deposited in Kew Herbarium in England. It was of the resident Augustinian monk, Father M. Blanco when he from this collection that Decaisne (1842) based his descrip- published his book, ‘Flora de Filipinas’. The book included tion of the species, Galaxaura fastigiata and Liagora caeno- descriptions and geographic distribution of the Philippine myce. vascular plants and algae. Two more editions of the book fol- Further knowledge on Philippine marine algae was pro- lowed: one in 1845, and another in 1877–1883; the latter edi- vided by collections of foreign oceanographic expeditions tion was completed through the efforts of Fathers Ignacio conducted during the last half of the 19th century. Table 1 Mercado and Antonio Llanos. Although considered signifi- summarizes relevant details about these expeditions and their cant contributions, there were no specimens extant represent- contributions to Philippine phycology. ing the described species and the published descriptions were The Dutch Siboga Expedition in 1899 (Table 1) is con- inadequate (Merrill 1918 in Robbins 1958). There were sidered to be the most important. In the beginning of the 20th many misidentifications and duplication of scientific names century, outputs from this expedition resulted in a surge of probably due to the dearth of botanical references and phyco- monographic and comprehensive taxonomic and morpholog- logical taxonomists, and unavailability of these to the authors ical literatures on the algae that were collected. Published at that time. were monographs on the genus Halimeda (Barton 1901), the In 1844, another noteworthy contribution to Philippine Codiaceae (A. and E. S. Gepp 1911), and the Corallinaceae algal diversity came out in a publication by Montagne. He (Weber van Bosse and Foslie 1904), and on all the other algal described the few, but important collection of marine algae taxa published in four parts by Weber van Bosse in the fol- made by the English naturalist, Hugh Cumming, during the lowing years: 1913, 1921, 1923, and 1928. latter’s 3-year exploration of the Philippine archipelago that Table 1. Listing of expeditions that included the Philippines in their itinerary for seaweed collection before 1900. Place of collection Outputs reported Year Expedition name Collector Remarks on the outputs of the expedition in the Philippines by 1851 U.S. Exploring Morongas Is.; Under the Bailey & Harvey Two listings came up: the first was a short Expedition Northeastern coast command of (1851) list of marine algae (which included of Jolo (southern Charles Wilkes Dictyota dichotoma), and a second and Philippines) longer list that included the diatoms. 1861 Preussische Manila, Edward von George von G. Martens made a comprehensive listing of Expedition nach Zamboanga Martens (zoologist) Martens 1868 all algal species so far reported from Tropical Ost-Asien (father of E. Asia and Tropical Pacific at that time and Martens) their corresponding geographic distribution. He also evaluated the identity of the algal species reported by Fr. Blanco. 1874– Challenger Gigantes Is. (Iloilo), H. N. Moseley Dickie 1874a, Dickie made listings of Philippine algae 1875 Expedition Mactan I. (Cebu), (naturalist) 1876a, b, 1877) collected by H. N. Moseley in the expedition. Zamboanga 1884 Vettor Pisani Ticao I.(Masbate), Cesare Marcacci Piccone 1886, Piccone reported new species collected (Italian Cavite (lieutenant on 1889 during the expedition. circumnavigation board) of the ship) 1899 Siboga Expedition Sulu Archipelago Phycologists on Barton 1901 The expedition produced significant and the (to the Indonesian board (Halimeda), Gepp most number of comprehensive and useful region) & Gepp 1911 taxonomic references: monographs of (Codiaceae), Foslie various taxonomic taxa (Halimeda, 1904, Weber van Codiaceae, Corallinaceae), as well as Bosse 1904 detailed taxonomic treatments of the (Corallinaceae), entire phycological harvest Weber van Bosse 1913, 1921, 1923, 1928 (all groups) 183 Coastal Marine Science 35 ϳ1900–1950 that had profound influence on his students, colleagues, During the Commonwealth period of Philippine history, friends, and other acquaintances. This earned him the title, two American botanists that were connected with the Depart- ‘Father of Philippine Phycology’, not formally or officially ment of Botany of the University of the Philippines played a given, but as a fitting tribute to a man for his significant con- major role in the advancement of Philippine phycology. One tribution to this field of science in the country. His publica- was the foremost botanist, Elmer D. Merrill, who was, then, tion, “Bluegreen Algae of the Philippines” (Velasquez 1962) appointed Botanist of the Bureau of Science