CURATION NEWSLETTER Number 11

American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
May 5, 1995

SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL

In the past, the Curation Newsletter has been distributed at ASIH meetings and sent by mail to approximately 400 addresses. In the interest of minimizing reproduction and mailing costs, we are asking interested recipients of the Newsletter to access it by electronically rather than requesting a printed copy. This issue of the Newsletter will be mailed to all on the current mailing list but we are requesting a subscription renewal ONLY by those who do not have access (or do not expect it within the next year) to Gopher or WWW, or can not otherwise access the Newsletter electronically. Libraries and those wishing to renew should send their name, title, institution name, department and address to Susan Jewett (see address listing at the end of newsletter for Susan's address as well as complete physical and email addresses of all contributors).

Future issues of the curation newsletter will be mailed only to those who renew at this time.

ARTICLES

BIS-CARBONYL FIXATIVES FOR MUSEUM SPECIMENS?

Douglas W. Nelson, Philip W. Willink, Barbara A. Shields

The effectiveness of a bis-carbonyl "fixative" for preservation of fish specimens for archival storage was tested at the Division of Fishes, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan (UMMZ). These observations and tests were undertaken as part of an ongoing program of the Ichthyological and Herpetological Collections Committee (IHCC) of the ASIH to test and report on products, procedures, and policies relevant to acquisition, maintenance, and uses of ichthyological and herpetological collections.

Materials and Methods.

NoTox Histological Fixative (Earth Safe Industries, Inc., Belle Mead, NJ 08502), a bis-carbonyl based "fixative", which also contains ethanol, propylene glycol, and "antiseptic and antifungal agents", was used to fix a collection of Michigan freshwater fishes taken by R. M. Bailey and W. C. Latta in July, 1994. Following the manufacturer's directions, the fish were placed into a 100% solution of NoTox and were left in this solution for a period of one week. After one week approximately one-half of the fish in the collection were transferred (after a brief rinse in cold water) into successive baths of 50% and 70% ETOH and were then placed into a final 70% ETOH solution for archival storage. A second collection, made by Bailey and Latta in August, 1994, was also fixed in NoTox Histological Fixative. Approximately one-half of the fish in the second collection were transferred into NoTox Biological Preservative, a preservation solution containing essentially the same ingredients. This product is also stated by the manufacturer to be capable of "fixing" animals and cadavers; however, in these tests this product is treated as a "preservative" and only its effectiveness as a solution for long-term specimen storage is being evaluated. Results of these longer-term tests will be reported later. The remainder of both collections were left in the original "fixative". Control samples of fish, taken by Bailey and Latta during these same surveys, were fixed in a 10% formalin solution and transferred to ETOH using these same procedures. All specimens have been placed into permanent archival storage in an unsorted condition for further observation and testing. Loans and gifts from these collections may be made to persons interested in conducting further investigations.

Results.

Observations made on the fish "fixed" in NoTox Histological Fixative approximately 24 hours after initial fixation revealed the following morphological features. The eyes of the specimens were white and cloudy -- similar to the eyes of fish that have been initially preserved in ethanol. The coloration of the fish had begun to fade badly in comparison with the formalin-fixed samples. Although not quantified, the fish had apparently begun to shrink: this was particularly evident in the abdominal region. Some specimens exhibited considerable discoloration and clearing of the abdominal region, similar in appearance to autolysis of tissue resulting from incomplete fixation of digestive enzymes immediately after death. In addition, the NoTox fluid had acquired an oily appearance.

Upon transfer into 50% ETOH the specimens initially floated: some specimens continued to float after 20+ hours in this solution. After transfer to 70% ETOH, almost all specimens had sunk after 6 hours.

During sorting and identification of these specimens (both the fish left in NoTox and those that had been transferred into ETOH) by Bailey and Latta, the following observation were made by these investigators. The coloration of the fish had faded badly. The fin membranes had become fragile and tended to tear badly when elevated to count fin rays or to examine the fins for color patterns. The fish had an unpleasant "coating" on the body. In addition, the fish appeared to have undergone some differential shrinkage, especially noticeable in the abdominal region and in the lateral components (i.e., the girth dimensions of the fish).

Subsamples (from both the NoTox and formalin-fixed lots) of three taxa(Cyprinella spiloptera, Fundulus diaphanus, and Etheostoma nigrum) werecleared and stained for bone and cartilage following the procedures ofTaylor and Van Dyke (1985). The osteological preparations from theformalin-fixed specimens stained well and maintained their body integrity. The specimens fixed in NoTox stained well for cartilage, but disintegratedafter a short period of time in trypsin. The bones of the disarticulatedspecimens later stained well with alizarin red S. All osteologicalpreparations were then placed into archival storage in 100% glycerin.

An independent test, using muscle tissue from a pink salmon (Oncorhynchusgorbuscha), was conducted to evaluate the suitability of this preservativefor DNA studies. Specifically, the manufacturer claims NoTox to bepolymerase chain reaction (PCR) compatible. Neither extraction of highmolecular weight DNA nor PCR amplification was successful using thistissue, although these procedures worked well for tissue that had beenfrozen or preserved in other media (Queen's buffer, several alcohols). Detailed results of these tests will be published later.

Discussion.

In the discussion below the authors are not seeking to attribute any of theobservations or results of these tests to any particular chemicalconstituent in NoTox Histological Fixative. We consider that theseconclusions are preliminary and are representative of the effectiveness ofthe solution AS A WHOLE (authors' emphasis).

The observations suggest that NoTox Histological Fixative does not behave asa true fixative for whole specimens as traditionally understood, forexample, in the cases of formaldehyde or glutaraldehyde solutions. Themorphological appearance of the specimens (white eyes, loss of pigment, bodyshrinkage) tends to indicate that this solution relies on a high percentageof an alcohol to preserve rather than fix the tissues. The low specificgravity of the NoTox-fixed material (which floated in 50% ETOH) furthertends to corroborate this. The disarticulation of the specimens during thetrypsin digestion portion of the clearing and staining procedure also issimilar to that experienced with non- fixed, alcohol-preserved material. Wealso suggest that the shrinkage of the specimens, presumably due to the lossof lipid material (fats and oils) and water (possibly due to large amountsof propylene glycol and alcohols in the solution), may make accuratemorphometric comparisons with specimens fixed using more traditional methodsdifficult.

The lack of success with molecular testing of the tissue, however, indicatesthat some denaturation or destruction of the DNA had occurred duringpreservation in NoTox Histological Fixative. Further histological andbiochemical examinations of the tissues is required to clarify the precisenature of the behavior of this product on both tissues and whole specimens.

Based on these preliminary observations and tests, we do not think that thisproduct is an adequate substitute for formaldehyde as a fixative forspecimens destined primarily for morphological examination. However, thespecimens appear to be adequately preserved for purposes of identificationand may be suitable for archival storage. The UMMZ presently will acceptfish "fixed" in this fluid as identification voucher specimens, recognizingthe apparent limited scope of ichthyological value of these materials.

Acknowledgments.

The authors thank R. M. Bailey and W. C. Latta for the collection and fieldpreservation of the specimens used in these experiments. We also thank JohnSimmons (Univ. of Kansas) and Susan Jewett (National Mus. Nat. History) fortheir critical reviews of the manuscript.

Literature Cited

Taylor, W. R. and G. C. Van Dyke. 1985. Revised procedures for stainingand clearing small fishes and other vertebrates for bone and cartilagestudy. Cybium 9(2):107-119.

ISOPROPANOL REVISITED

H.J. Walker, Jr., George H. Burgess, Arnold Y. Suzumoto, Cynthia I.Klepadlo, L. VanGuelpen, Julian M. Humphries, Jr.

In recent years the preferability of using ethanol or isopropanol inichthyological collections has been the subject of much discussion.Establishing cause for the occasional, poorly-preserved specimen stored ineither isopropanol (ISO) or ethanol (ETH) collections is difficult since theprecise curatorial history of many specimens is sketchy at best.Deteriorated specimen condition may reflect inadequate original fixationprocedures, poor post-fixation curatorial attention, or the type of alcoholutilized. Fixation and preservation methods have changed little since theadvent of collections and are in use because, by trial and error or purechance, they were found to work (Simmons 1992). It is clear that there is apressing need for well-documented studies addressing the comparativeutilities of these alcohols and also other preservatives. Such studies mustbe made prior to making recommendations for collection-wide uniformity inchoice of an ichthyological preservative. This is not an attempt to promoteone preservative over another, but simply an article reporting ourobservations.

Our combined experience in ichthyological collections represents over 80years of working with isopropanol on a daily basis. We have found virtuallynone of the problems that have been anecdotally associated with ISO fishcollections. The group discussion following the recent Curation Workshop(see Laframboise, et al. 1992) raised some issues which should be addressed. The two major concerns associated with preservatives are specimen conditionand safety. Generally, one of the desired qualities for a preservedspecimen is to be lifelike (Simmons 1992). During the typical fixation(formalin)/preservation (ETH or ISO) process all colors except brown orblack are lost, regardless of the choice of ISO or ETH. However, bonyfishes in ISO are more flexible, seem to shrink less (Laframboise, et al1992, found noticeable dehydration when transferring specimens from 45% ISOto 70% ETH and a graded series of solutions was needed to minimize thisshrinkage; see also Figures in Lai 1963) and fin rays are often less brittlethan those stored in ETH. One criticism of ISO is that this more lifelikecondition "may mask" specimen deterioration, but after decades ofobservations on millions of specimens, we find virtually no deterioration(clearing, fragmentation, swelling, discoloration of specimen or cloudinessof fluid, dehydration beyond the initial processing, flotation, shapedistortion, fungal growth, etc.). Clearing and staining specimens presentsno problem; we simply soak out the ISO in water and put the specimens inETH. The specimens come through the process just fine.

The reported immiscibility of ISO and water is easily overcome by thoroughlymixing the stock solution initially and exchanging the liquid for newlypreserved specimens two or three times depending on the volume of fish inthe container. The percentage of ISO in solution can quickly andeffectively be obtained using a calibrated hydrometer. Although digitaldensity meters are handy and quite accurate, they may not be cost effectivewith negligible levels of contaminants in jars and even large specimentanks. In reference to other contaminants, we represent different parts ofthe U.S. and Canada and we have always been able to locate reliable sourcesof pure, technical grade (inexpensive) ISO. (Using ISO also saves moneysince ETH collections (at 75%) are using approximately 50% more alcohol thanwe use.)

Recent conversations/inspections with safety personnel at SIO, CU and ARCraised other issues. Although ISO is technically more toxic than ETH, allour labs have no safety problems related to toxicity. However, the UniformFire Code exempts 50% ISO (or ETH) solutions from those requirements forstoring 70-75% ETH (or ISO) solutions (Canada recognizes all solutions as100%.). Thus a 50% ISO collection requires a less costly system and/orequipment to meet the Fire Code.

Based on these observations we conclude that ISO ichthyological collectionsare not substandard facilities for scientific specimen storage. There is,as yet, no quantifiable data on the two alcohols which suggests whether ornot a choice should be made (Fink, et al 1979). Although we prefer thesmell of ETH, ETH has not been shown clearly superior or the obvious choiceas the best preservative. We believe that valuable curatorial dollarsshould not be spent financing a conversion of a collection from onepreservative to another until documented studies have been performed and wecall upon the collections community to initiate such studies.

Literature Cited

Fink, W. L., K. E. Hartel, W. G. Saul, E. M. Koon and E. O. Wiley. 1979. Areport on current supplies and practices used in curation of ichthyologicalcollections. [available at: gopher://muse.bio.cornell.edu]

Laframboise, S., R. M. Rankin and M. M. L. Steigerwald. 1992. Managingchange: alcohol transfer at the Canadian Museum of Nature. Paper 4. ASIH Workshop on Collection Issues in Herpetology and Ichthyology.[available at: gopher://muse.bio.cornell.edu]

Lai, Y. 1963. Effects of several preservatives on proportionalmeasurements of the fat-headed minnow, Pimephales promelas. University ofKansas. Unpub. M.A. Thesis. 40 p.

Simmons, J. E. 1992. Blithe spirits: problems and potentials for fluidpreservation. Paper 3. ASIH Workshop on Collection Issues in Herpetologyand Ichthyology. [available at: gopher://muse.bio.cornell.edu]

MUSE

Julian Humphries, Jr.

The MUSE project has recently been funded by the National Science Foundationfor another three years. The purpose of the MUSE Project is to design,program, distribute and support software for the management and curation ofnatural history collections. The new round of funding will allow the MUSEstaff to continue support for existing and new MUSE users. Effort will alsobe continued in the improvement of MUSE software, geographic authorityfiles, user security, as well as other improvements. We will also beworking towards adding new taxonomic disciplines to the project and creatinga version of MUSE for Windows users.

Currently we have approximately eighty sites supported by the MUSE Project,spanning a broad array of taxonomic disciplines. Ichthyology was our firstspecialization and because of the large number of MUSE sites in Ichthyologywe have dealt with most issues that fish collections face.

To date we have produced fifty-two Ichthyology versions of MUSE, evenlysplit between national and international institutions including collectionswith extensive freshwater and marine holdings. Five (soon six) of the eightsites rated International Centers (Poss and Collette, Copeia, 1995) use MUSEto manage their collections. Collections in this discipline range in sizefrom small university collections (&lt 20,000 lots) to large internationalcenters (&gt 200,000 lots). Complete taxonomic authority files down to thelevel of genus are available with species level data available for limitedgeographic areas (primarily North America).

Our second area of strength is Herpetology, with fourteen institutions usingMUSE. Again, the breadth of collections is extensive including eight USAand six international collections. Taxonomic authority files areincomplete, consisting of currently accepted names down to the level ofgenus.

MUSE has also moved to the Internet. The latest version of our newsletter"MUSENEWS" was dedicated to our use of the Internet. We have a home page onthe World Wide Web; The Biodiversity and Biological Collections WWW Server(http://muse.bio.cornell.edu/), which includes up to date information on theMUSE Project. The WWW Server also contains valuable information aboutspecimens in major biological collections and allows users access todirectories of biologists including ASIH, and an archive of listservsincluding Taxacom, Cichlid-L, and our own listserv - MUSE-L. Numerousdocuments including ASIH curatorial reports and workshop proceedings areavailable on the server. The WWW server allows real time query access toseveral hundred thousand records of fish data in MUSE databases as well asthe ability to view those query results as distribution maps.

Another recent addition to the MUSE project Internet resources is the MUSEServer. This is a Windows based add-on to MUSE databases that allows WWWand Gopher based queries of collection data. The MUSE Server requires anInternet connection, Winsock software and a spare 386 or faster computer. Currently, Cornell, Michigan, Harvard and Sweden fish collections arerunning MUSEServers.

The FishGopher located at URL gopher://muse.bio.cornell.edu:70/11/fishgopher is acollaboration between free-standing museums and university collections inthe development of open-access biological collection community databases. Itwas funded by a grant from the NSF program on Research Collection inSystematics and Ecology and facilitated by support from the MUSE Project.Currently seven large fish collections are searchable through FishGopher.

More information on the MUSE Project can be obtained by subscribing to theMUSE-L listserve at cmsa.berkeley.edu or by sending an e-mail message toMUSE@cornell.edu.

PRESERVATION OF COLOR IN LARVAL FISHES

David G. Smith

It is not generally appreciated that larval fishes have colors. Reds andyellows are most common and are distributed in characteristic patterns.Freshly caught larvae observed under a microscope can be as aestheticallystriking as any adult fish, and their color patterns often form importanttaxonomic characters.

The problem with color in fishes is that it does not persist inpreservative. In a matter of days or weeks after death, the brilliantcolors fade and leave only patterns of light and dark pigmentation which mayalso disappear in time. With adult fishes, this problem is usually solved byphotographing freshly caught specimens. Photography is not as practical withlarvae, as it requires elaborate photomicrographic apparatus. During the1960's, the antioxidant BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene, also known by thetrade name "ionol") was introduced and enjoyed a brief period of popularityamong ichthyologists (although, to my knowledge, it was not used on larvae). For some reason, BHT lost its appeal and was largely abandoned. In recentyears, it has begun a modest comeback among certain larval-fish workers.

I have experimented extensively with BHT during the past three field seasonsin Belize. Many of the larvae collected there display striking anddistinctive colors. Using standard preservation techniques, thesetaxonomically important colors rapidly fade and are gone by the time thespecimens are returned to the museum.

BHT in its pure form is an odorless, white, crystalline substance. It isnearly insoluble in water, and thus in formalin. In its earlierincarnation, it was used mainly in an emulsified form, placed directly inthe formalin in which the fish were fixed. My current use of BHT involvessome differences from earlier procedures. These differences are dueprincipally to the following: 1)although BHT is essentially insoluble inwater, it is readily soluble in ethyl alcohol; 2) colors do not fadeinstantly (except for certain structural colors that are not important inlarvae) but gradually over a period of days or weeks; 3) larvae are smalland require only a short time to be adequately fixed in formalin. Mystandard procedure is to fix the larvae as usual in ca. 10% formalin,without BHT, and let them stand overnight. The following day I transferthem to 75% ethanol (usually going through at least one intermediate stage)with some BHT added (see below). BHT dissolves very slowly in 95% ethanol;it requires a lot of stirring. As the concentration of ethanol is reduced,the solubility of BHT declines sharply. I can dissolve at least 10teaspoons of BHT in a quart of 95% ethanol, but barely a third of ateaspoon will dissolve in a quart of 75% ethanol. After preparing thesolution in 95% ethanol, I diluted it to 75% with rain water. The excessBHT precipitates out, leaving a saturated solution of BHT in 75% ethanol. Totest the effect of different concentrations, I did three 1:1 dilutions ofthe BHT saturated 75% ethanol solution with plain 75% ethanol and ended upwith four samples: saturated, one-half, one-quarter, and one-eighthsaturated. I also included one sample of 95% ethanol with about 10teaspoons of BHT per quart. For controls, I used 75% ethanol without BHTand 5% formalin in seawater, also without BHT. I then filled each of thesamples with representatives of the various larvae collected that night.

The sample with the worst color preservation was that in 5% formalin; thecolors faded completely after a few weeks. The second-worst colorpreservation was the sample in 75% ethanol without BHT. The colors werebadly faded, but traces were still visible after the formalin-preservedspecimens had lost all their color. At the other extreme, the specimens in95%, BHT-enriched ethanol faded rather quickly. The other four samples of75% ethanol/BHT produced excellent results and seemed to result in about thesame degree of color preservation. I noticed little obvious differencebetween the specimens preserved in saturated BHT and those in one-eighthsaturated BHT. A year and a half later, these samples still retain color.

BHT is by no means a panacea. It is impractical to use in standard samplingprograms because it requires specimens to be transferred to ethanol a dayafter collection. The long-term effects on specimens are still unknown. After two and a half years, all of the specimens I preserved in BHT arestill in good condition, and I have cleared and stained many of them withexcellent results. Whether colors will last permanently or whether theywill eventually fade is still to be determined. Although many questionsremain and much work must be done, BHT has proven itself a useful tool. The delicate red and yellow pigments of larval fishes can be captured andpreserved, at least long enough to return the specimens to the laboratoryand examine them at leisure.

LASER PRINTER LABELS: POTENTIAL DISASTER WHILE SPECIMENSARE ON LOAN

Susan L. Jewett

Many fish collections are now using laser printer labels for their wetspecimen catalog labels. It has been known for some time that labelsgenerated by the usual office variety laser printer (unlike the hightemperature/pressure laser printers) are not very durable and that theletters are susceptible to rubbing off if the label is abraded. Most fishcollections have made a practice of including a catalog number tag in eachjar in addition to the wet label, and this serves as a backup system shouldthe label get destroyed or otherwise become illegible.

The purpose of this note is to forewarn all managers of wet specimencollections using laser printer labels to provide a backup system whensending specimens on loan, as well. We have received fish on loan from alarge U.S. ichthyological collection, accompanied by labels that wereillegible on arrival, presumably due to the abrasive forces of wrapping andpacking. Fortunately we discovered this when we were unpacking andprepared, by hand, a backup label with pertinent data (copied from the loaninvoice). I wish to make the following suggestion to all those who sendlaser printed labels with fish loans: send a copy of the label data on theshipping invoice AND send a catalog number tag to keep in the jar with thespecimen, while on loan.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

ASIH SUPPLIES AND RESOURCES SURVEY OF 1994-1995.

In January 1995, the ASIH Supplies and Resources Subcommittee began itssurvey of products, manufacturers and vendors used by collections of fishesand herps. We started with 22 collections and will expand the survey list toinclude more collections in South America. The Subcommittee hopes thatthose of you who asked to participate in the survey this year will do so andreturn the forms in a timely manner. We know that surveys are timeconsuming and tedious. However, once we have a products and suppliesdatabase established and available on the Internet GOPHER, future surveysand access to the information will be much easier. Our Subcommittee wouldlike to thank (ahead of time) all the participating collections for theirpatience and effort in responding to this survey. We will be sending thesesurvey forms out over the next year (or two?) so "do not despair" if youdon't receive a survey at the beginning of the year; we will not forget you!

ASIH SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPPLIES AND RESOURCES, Lex Snyder, Chair Museum ofSouthwestern Biology, Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131[amsnyder@bootes.unm.edu].

SPNHC

The 1995 Annual Meeting of the Society for the Preservation of NaturalHistory Collections will take place 2-6 June at the Royal Ontario Museum inToronto, Canada. A training workshop, "Managing the Modern Herbarium" isplanned for 5-6 June. For more information about this meeting, pleasecontact Janet Waddington, SPNHC'95 Organizing Committee, Royal OntarioMuseum, 100 Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5S 2C6, Telephone 416-586-5593 or FAX 416-586-5863.

DIGITAL DENSITY MEASUREMENT OF PRESERVATIVES.

The most accurate way to determine the strength of alcoholic preservativesolutions is to use a digital density meter. A hand-held model made by PAARcompany is available from Fisher Scientific for US $2024. This unitmeasures density accurately to within 0.001. Density in g/cm3 andtemperature in degrees C are shown in an LED digital readout. The telephonefor Fisher Scientific is 1-800-766-7000. The meter is item number 10-820-10in their catalog.

The temperature and density readings obtained with this meter can be quicklyand accurately converted to percent alcohol with a "shareware" programavailable from the Canadian Conservation Institute. The program isavailable in two versions, for both ethyl alcohol and isopropyl alcoholconcentrations. For further information, contact Thomas Strang, CanadianConservation Institute, 1030 Innes Road, Ottawa K1A 0C8, CANADA, telephone613-998-3721.

SUPPLIER FOR SMALL ORDERS OF JARS AND LIDS.

A company which will accept small orders (minimum US $20) for glass jarswith polypropylene lids and polyethylene liners is Scientific SpecialtiesService, Inc., telephone 1-800-648-7800.

INSERTS FOR SCREW-TOP JARS.

Clear, flexible polyethylene inserts that fit down into the necks of screw-top jars provide a much more effective seal than do flat lid liners. Previously, these have only been available for jars made by the Abico Company in Japan. However, there is now a United States manufacturer for inserts in four standard sizes. For information on prices, contact Dr. Robert Timm, Division of Mammalogy, Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2454. The inserts were developed under an IMS grant to the Natural History Museum of the University of Kansas.

The previous four items were submitted by John E. Simmons.

RECENT LITERATURE OF INTEREST

Camacho, A.I. and J. Bedoya. 1994. Evaluation of the effects differentpreservative and fixative fluids on aquatic invertebrates from interstitialwaters. Collection Forum 10(1):20-31.

Child, R.E. 1994. Labelling of specimens preserved in spirit collections. Biology Curator's Group Newsletter 6(4):42.

Clark, P.A., O.A. Crimmen, F.C. Naggs, A.D. Wahl and M.C. Mansfield. 1994.Transportation of fluid-preserved natural history specimens stored in glasscontainers: new solutions to an old problem. Collection Forum 10(1):1-9.

Criscuolo, G. 1994. On the state of preservation of DNA from museum spiritcollections. Biology Curator's Group Newsletter 6(4):39-41.

Gisbert, J. and R. Garcia-Perea. 1990. Coloring labels for type specimens. Collection Forum 6(1):33-34.

Gisbert, J., F. Palacios and R. Garcia-Perea. 1990. Labeling vertebratecollections with Tyvek synthetic paper. Collection Forum 6(1):35-37.

Hodges, Elaine R.S. and E.S. Brickler. 1992. Don't shake that pen! Koh-I-Noor and technical pen and ink with Ed. S. Brickler. Guild of NaturalScience Illustrators Newsletter 1992(7):6-7.

Horie, V. 1994. Environmental control for spirit specimens. BiologyCurator's Group Newsletter 6(4): 43-44.

Hughes, G.W. and J.A. Cosgrove. 1990. pH change in a formalin boraxsolution with inferences about uses of neutralized formalin in vertebratecollections. Collection Forum 6(1):21-26.

Kishinami, C. 1995. Alternative sources for museum label paper. SPNHCNewsletter 9(1):10.

Masner, L. 1994. Effect of low temperature on preservation and quality ofinsect specimens stored in alcohol. Insect Collection News No. 9, August1994.

McCoy, C.J. 1993. Packing fluid-preserved herpetological specimens forshipment. Collection Forum 9(2):70-75.

McGinley, R.J. 1993. Where's the management in collection management?Planning for improved care, greater use, and growth of collections. Pp.309-338 in Rose, C.R., S.I. Williams and J. Gisbert (editors). CongressBook. Volume 3. Current Issues, Initiatives and Future Directions for thePreservation and Conservation of Natural History Collections. xxviii + 439p. International Symposium and First World Congress on the Preservation andConservation of Natural History Collections, Madrid 1992.

Merritt, Elizabeth. 1992. Conditions on outgoing research loans. Collection Forum 8(2):78-82.

Moore, J.A. 1994. Liquid preservation--how little we know. BiologyCurator's Group Newsletter 6(4):45-47.

Moore, S.J. 1994. What fluid is in this bottle? Biology Curator's GroupNewsletter 6(4):44-45.

Nicol, A. 1994. A short note on preservatives: the identification problem--a possible solution. Biology Curator's Group Newsletter 6(4):45.

Poss, S.G. and B.B. Collette. 1995. Second survey of fish collections inthe United States and Canada. Copeia 1995(1):48-70.

Rose, C.L. and A. R. de Torres (editors). Storage of Natural HistoryCollections: Ideas and Practical Solutions. xvi + 346p. Society for thePreservation of Natural History Collections, Pittsburgh, 1992.

Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections. 1994.Guidelines for the care of natural history collections. Collection Forum10(1):32-40.

Song, Jiakun and L.R. Parenti. 1995. Clearing and staining whole fishspecimens for simultaneous demonstration of bone, cartilage, and nerves. Copeia 1995(1):114-118.

Suzumoto, A.Y. 1992. New materials for sealing old crocks. CollectionForum 8(2):68-72.

Von Endt, D.W. 1994. Spirit collections: a preliminary analysis of someorganic materials found in the storage fluid of mammals. Collection Forum10(1):10-19.

Wood, R.M. and S.L. Williams. 1993. An evaluation of disposable pens forpermanent museum records. Curator 36(3):189-200.

Literature compiled by John E. Simmons and Susan Jewett.

Except where noted, this Newsletter is written and compiled by theNewsletter Subcommittee of the Ichthyological and Herpetological CollectionsCommittee, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, and isintended for use by its membership. Comments are not to beconstrued as anendorsement of practices or products by ASIH.

Members of the Subcommittee are:

H.J. Walker, Jr. (chair), Scripps Institution of Oceanography, U.C.S.D.0208, La Jolla, CA 92093-0208 [hjwalker@ucsd.edu] phone: 619-534-2199 FAX: 619-534-5306

George H. Burgess, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida,Gainesville, FL 32611 [gburgess@flmnh.ufl.edu]

Julian M. Humphries, Jr., Cornell Vertebrate Collections, 83 Brown Road,Bldg 3, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850-1247 [jmh3@cornell.edu]

Susan L. Jewett, Division of Fishes, National Museum of Natural History, MRC159, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560 phone: 202-357-3300 [mnhvz020@sivm.si.edu]

Cynthia I. Klepadlo, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, U.C.S.D. 0208, LaJolla, CA 92093-0208 [klepadlo@ucsd.edu]

Lou VanGuelpen, Atlantic Reference Centre, Huntsman Marine Science Centre,St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada E0G 2X0 [arc@bionet.bio.dfo.ca]

Other Contributors:

Douglas W. Nelson; Museum of Zoology, Universityof Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,48109-1079 [dwnelson@umich.edu]

Barbara A. Shields; Department of Biology, 316 Mark Jefferson, EasternMichigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197.

John Simmons; Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas66045-2454 [jsimmons@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu].

David G. Smith; Division of Fishes, MRC-159;National Museum of Natural History; Washington, DC 20560[mnhvz077@sivm.si.edu].

Arnold Suzomoto; Bishop Museum; 1525 Bernice St., P.O. Box 19000-A, Honolulu,HI, 96817

Philip W. Willink; Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,48109-1079