The Zoological Museum Hamburg (ZMH) fish collection as a global biodiversity archive for elasmobranchs and actinopterygians as well as other fish taxa

Abstract

Based on the analysis of the Zoological Museum Hamburg (ZMH) fish collection database, a current status report of the ZMH fish collection is provided with a focus on Elasmobranchii and Actinopterygii. Therein, development of the collection, systematic and geographic coverage of the collection material, and the volume and structure of the ZMH type collection are presented and analysed. The majority of the specimens in the ZMH fish collection is preserved in 70% ethanol and arranged in phylogenetic order. The basis of the collection originates from the former Natural History Museum in Hamburg. Initially low in numbers, in 1850 amounting to only 119 lots, the fish collection increased markedly during the second half of the 19th century. By the end of 1875 the number of registered lots was 550, surpassing the 4400 mark in 1900. Expeditions exploring unknown habitats and territories were the main source of material during the first half of the 20th century. The first two decades of the 20th century marked a period of relatively rapid expansion in the number of fish species and specimens collected at the ZMH, with about 11.1% of the material indexed in the collection database originating from 1901 to 1920. Much of the additional expansion derived from the 1993 takeover of 23 860 marine fish lots from the former ISH (Institut fu¨r Seefischerei, Hamburg) collection, the main reason for which about 74.6% of all actual catalogued lots were stored in the ZMH fish collection during the 1951-2000 period. In February 2008, the number of catalogued entries reached 45 640, with about 257 967 specimens. Some 8100 nominal species in 60 orders and 378 families are represented in the ZMH fish collection. The collection maintains worldwide coverage, with large numbers of lots originating from the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, Caribbean Sea, from Asia, Africa, Europe, South America and Middle America. Actinopterygii and Elasmobranchii together comprise more than 93% of the known orders, more than 98% of the families and more than 99% of the lots and individuals represented in the collection database. The collection contains about 1321 type series (lots) and 3656 type specimens; 41.8% of the type lots are primary types. Actinopterygians contribute 90.6% to the type series and 94.6% to the type specimens. Elasmobranchs are represented with 8.1% of the type series and 4.7% of the type specimens in the ZMH fish collection. Sharks are represented with 27 type series (25.2%), whereas the contribution of batiods amounts to 80 type series (74.8%). Comprising 69.2% of all elasmobranch types, the family Rajidae is the most important group of batoid fishes represented. The family Scyliorhinidae with 14.0% of all elasmobranch types is the best-represented shark family in the ZMH type collection.Further development and future research of the ZMH Ichthyology Group is discussed and is to include modern taxonomic and biogeographic approaches important in present global biodiversity research, thereby rendering the ZMH fish collection as...

The evolutionary origins of Syngnathidae: pipefishes and seahorses

“…His Gastrophori (literally, abdominal‐bearing) and Urophori (tail‐bearing) were further divided into six subfamilies [Kaup's (1856) four plus the Gastrotokeinae = Syngnathoidinae and Solenognathinae, with three in both the Gastrophori and Urophori] according to the complexity of male brooding structures (Duncker, 1912). Unfortunately, Duncker's planned ‘Synopsis of the Syngnathidae’ was never published, and his rich collection of syngnathid fishes housed in the Natural History Museum, Hamburg, Germany was lost during the bombing of the city in 1939–45 (Thiel et al , 2009).…”

Taxonomic assessment of sharks, rays and guitarfishes (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii) from south-eastern Arabia, using the NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2 (NADH2) gene

“…In recent years, taxonomic investigations into the ichthyofauna of large geographical areas have been facilitated by these techniques, often revealing cryptic diversity and/or leading to taxonomic revision (Ward et al, 2005;Hubert et al, 2008;Steinke et al, 2009;Lara et al, 2010;de Oliveira Ribeiro et al, 2012;McCusker et al, 2012;Rosso et al, 2012;Puckridge et al, 2013). Therefore, it is to be expected that molecular-assisted taxonomy will become increasingly common in the preliminary assessment of large ichthyological collections (Thiel, Eidus & Neumann, 2009), particularly where samples have been collected from geographical regions in which previous taxonomic studies have been limited. The Arabian Sea and its associated gulfs represent one such region.…”

The ichthyology collection at the Natural History Museum of El Salvador (MUHNES): Species checklist and new country records

“…The MUHNES ichthyology collection hosts a relative small number of eggs and larvae. However, the highly variable nature of fish eggs and larval traits make them difficult to identify using only morphological characters (Thiel et al 2009;Ko et al 2013;Leis 2015), and the collection of material for DNA barcoding should be consider. Eventually, the MUHNES ichthyology collection could focus efforts on being a reference collection in the region, promoting the incorporation other biogeographical areas within the TEP, and when possible, from other regions in the world, as well as specimens from other taxonomic groups, such as Myxini (hagfishes), Petromyzontida (lampreys), Holocephali (chimaeras) and Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fishes).…”

“…Natural history collections around the world play a key role in advancing the understanding of the diversity of life. The biological material contained in collections allow us (1) to have basic knowledge on species diversity and distribution patterns; (2) to answer questions on phylogenetic systematics; (3) to understand changes in distribution at different temporal and spatial scales, for example due to habitat loss; and (4) to understand patterns of introduction of invasive species, as well as the effects of climate change on species diversity and distribution, among others (see Shaffer et al 1998;Sala et al 2000;Ponder et al 2001;Vörösmarty et al 2003;Thiel et al 2009;Vörösmarty et al 2010;Hammer 2012). Furthermore, the biological specimens or material (e.g.…”