code for that species — the latter entered at 

 puching time. 



Species cards are filed numerically by bio- 

 numeric code to expedite data retrieval and 

 processing. Station cards are filed numerically 

 by station number. 



Since automated data processing is carried 

 on with the UNIVAC 9200 computer system 

 maintained at the Pascagoula Laboratory, the 

 bionumeric code offers many advantages over 

 an alphabetic or alphanumeric code particularly 

 in sorting, both on the electronic card sorter 

 and in the computer. 



Additions to the bionumeric code are provided 

 through identifications furnished by either staff 

 biologists or by cooperating scientists. Much of 

 the material collected at sea is distributed to 

 numerous cooperating institutions, museums, 

 and individual taxonomists. These, in turn, 

 furnish identifications of the received material 

 which are punched on species cards and added 

 to the data file as corroborative identifications. 

 When species not previously taken by us are 

 encountered, entries are added to the bionumeric 

 file. Initials and location (coded) of the identifier 

 are entered on the new species cards to verify 

 feed records and to avoid duplication during 

 data processing. Synonyms (when known) are 

 given the same bionumeric code as accepted 

 names and are distinguished in the listing by a 

 preceding asterisk (*). Identifications by co- 

 operating scientists or institutions are not 

 changed within the decks although there is 

 constant screening of current literature to iden- 

 tify and correct inconsistencies and identifica- 

 tions. The problem of identifying synonyms and 

 cross-indexing changing nomenclature is evi- 

 dently unresolved in all other attempts to 

 numerically code biological names as well. The 

 problem has not proved critical under the 

 workloads imposed by the card and data volumes 

 described above, so, recognizing the eventual 

 need to face the problem for archiving data, the 



matter can be conveniently sidestepped for 

 the present. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



We are deeply indebted to many in the ichthyo- 

 logical community for the editorial assistance 

 they have given in preparation of this code. 

 Special thanks are extended to Dr. Daniel Cohen, 

 Charles Karnella, Dr. Bruce CoUette, and Stew- 

 art Springer, NMFS National Systematics 

 Laboratory, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Victor G. 

 Springer, Division of Fishes, U.S. National 

 Museum. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, 

 D.C. ; Dr. James Bohlke and Dr. James Tyler, 

 Department of Ichthyology and Herpetology, 

 The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 

 Pa.; Elmer J. Gutherz, NMFS Southeast 

 Fisheries Center, Pascagoula Laboratory, Pas- 

 cagoula. Miss.; and Luis R. Rivas. NMFS 

 Eastern Gulf Sport Fisheries Marine Labora- 

 tory, Panama City, Fla., for their many sug- 

 gestions and corrections and for patiently re- 

 viewing and editing the completed fish code. 

 The code does not represent a consensus among 

 the above, and we assume responsibility for 

 both seemingly arbitrary decisions and all 

 technical errors. 



LITERATURE CITED 



BERG. LEO S. 



1940. Classification of fishes both recent and fossil. 

 Trav. Inst. Zool. Acad. Sci. URSS 5(5):87-517. 

 BULLIS. HARVEY R., JR., and RICHARD B. ROE. 



1967. A bionumeric code application in handling 

 comple.x and massive faunal data. Syst. Zool. 

 16:.52-.55. 

 F^AO Fisheries Biolog>' Branch. 



1960. E,\planation of coverage and arrangement. 

 hi Current bibliography for aquatic sciences and 

 fisheries, 8, p. E.\ 1-88. Taylor and P'rancis, Ltd., 

 London. 



IV 



