Search

Computed tomography (CT) scanning and other high-throughput three-dimensional (3D) visualization tools are transforming the ways we study morphology, ecology and evolutionary biology research beyond generating vast digital repositories of anatomical data. Contrast-enhanced chemical staining methods, which render soft tissues radio-opaque when coupled with CT scanning, encompass several approaches that are growing in popularity and versatility. Of these, the various diceCT techniques that use an iodine-based solution like Lugol's have provided access to an array of morphological data sets spanning extant vertebrate lineages. This contribution outlines straightforward means for applying diceCT techniques to preserved museum specimens of cartilaginous and bony fishes, collectively representing half of vertebrate species diversity. This study contrasts the benefits of using either aqueous or ethylic Lugol's solutions and reports few differences between these methods with respect to the time required to achieve optimal tissue contrast. It also explores differences in minimum stain duration required for different body sizes and shapes and provides recommendations for staining specimens individually or in small batches. As reported by earlier studies, the authors note a decrease in pH during staining with either aqueous or ethylic Lugol's. Nonetheless, they could not replicate the drastic declines in pH reported elsewhere. They provide recommendations for researchers and collections staff on how to incorporate diceCT into existing curatorial practices, while offsetting risk to specimens. Finally, they outline how diceCT with Lugol's can aid ichthyologists of all kinds in visualizing anatomical structures of interest: from brains and gizzards to gas bladders and pharyngeal jaw muscles., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Fish Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Fisheries Society of the British Isles.)

A survey of 280 fish biologists from a diverse pool of disciplines was conducted in order to assess the use made of biodiversity collections and how collections can better collect, curate and share the data they have. From the responses, data for how fish biologists use collections, what data they find the most useful, what factors influence the decisions to use collections, how they access the data and explore why some fish biologists make the decision to not use biodiversity collections is collated and reported. The results of which could be used to formulate sustainability plans for collections administrators and staff who curate fish biodiversity collections, while also highlighting the diversity of data and uses to researchers., (© 2019 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles.)