BROTHERS: OTOLITH STUDIES 



57 



IOh" 



B 



Fig. 26. Transitions in otolith microstructure associated with settlement and transformation from the larval to juvenile stage. (A) Striped 

 parrotfish (Scarus iserti) sagitta. (B) Queen angelfish (Holacanthus ciliaris) sagitta. 



cation. Under the best of circumstances, when spawning is rel- 

 atively discrete in time, differences of only a few days could 

 potentially be resolved. 



The last area in which otolith studies might be of value in 

 systematic studies is in the presentation of descriptive papers 

 on fish development. Until now all illustrations and descriptions 

 of development of wild caught larvae were related to body size 

 since we had no information on the age of these specimens. We 

 suspect, and in some cases have direct knowledge (cited earlier) 

 that growth rates of larvae are moderately to highly variable, 

 yet we have no data on the relationship between age and growth 

 rate and the appearance and form of standard characters such 

 as pigment, ossification, meristics, and morphometries. Perhaps 

 some of the variability seen in size specific descriptive accounts 

 is the result of the effects of different growth rates on the char- 



acters. I urge that we should make an extra effort to determine 

 the age of wild-caught larvae, used in descriptive studies so we 

 may be able to establish age and/or growth rate specific accounts 

 as well as size specific ones. Of course another problem with 

 size is the highly variable shrinkage rates caused by handling 

 and preservation. Alternately we should perform laboratory ex- 

 periments to examine the relationship between growth rate and 

 developmental rate. In this way we may be able to understand 

 some of the underlying causes for intraspecific variation in larval 

 fish characters. 



Section of EcoLOCiv and Systematics, Cornell University, 

 Ithaca, New York 14853. Present Address: 3 Sunset 

 West, Ithaca, New York 14850. 



Preservation and Curation 

 R. J. Lavenberg, G. E. McGowen and R. E. Woodsum 



THOSE processes by which we fix or kill living tissues without 

 significantly altering their gross anatomy, and preserve or 

 maintain these tissues on a long-term basis have routinely re- 

 quired the use of formalin solutions (Fink et al., MS; Markle, 

 1984). This certainly is the case for fish eggs and larvae. The 

 protocols for use of formalin as a fixative and preservative for 

 ichthyoplankton have been reviewed and standardized in sev- 

 eral techniques manuals (Ahlstrom, 1976; Castle, 1976; Smith 

 and Richardson, 1977). These protocols are well established and 

 it is not our intention to repeat them here. Rather we wish to 

 elaborate on some of the problems associated with preservation 

 and curation, and to propose recommendations to resolve those 

 areas of real or potential conflict. 



There are two areas of special concern to us that dictated how 

 our investigations proceeded. First, we wish to ensure that em- 

 bryonic pigment is retained in both the egg and larval stages in 

 both the fixation and long-term preservation procedures. Sec- 

 ond, for ontogenetic stages of larvae we were guided by a concern 

 for protection of mineralized structures, guarding particularly 

 against their loss. 



Specimens that are well-fixed and properly preserved are im- 

 portant not only to ichthyoplanktologists but to a broad spec- 

 trum of biologists, fish systematists, and museum curators. 

 Among fixatives, bufters and preservatives there is no unani- 

 mous agreement on the most appropriate ones. The problems 

 that plague our understanding of the processes associated with 



