NIWA's Freshwater Collection and Catalogue data recovery

Prepared for TFBIS

September 2012

Authors/Contributors : Nelson Boustead Graham Fenwick

For any information regarding this report please contact: Graham Fenwick Principal Scientist Marine Biodiversity and Biosecurity +64-3-343 8051 [email protected]

National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd 10 Kyle Street Riccarton Christchurch 8011 PO Box 8602, Riccarton Christchurch 8440 New Zealand

Phone +64-3-348 8987 Fax +64-3-348 5548

NIWA Client Report No: CHC2012-116 Report date: September 2012 NIWA Project: DOC12505

2 NIWA's Freshwater Fish Collection and Catalogue

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 5

2 Treatment of specific issues ...... 7 2.1 Collecting locality ...... 7 2.2 Collecting dates ...... 7 2.3 Labels ...... 7 2.4 Preservatives ...... 7 2.5 The nature of lots in the collection ...... 7 2.6 Identifications ...... 8 2.7 Reliability of identifications ...... 10 2.8 Type specimens ...... 11 2.9 Freshwater Fish Collection Catalogue records in the Freshwater Fish Database ...... 11

3 .Conclusions ...... 13

4 Acknowledgements ...... 14

5 References ...... 14

Tables Table 2-1: Current valid scientific names, common names and other names variously assigned to some species of New Zealand freshwater , as used in the Freshwater Fish Database. 9

Figures Figure 2-1: Collecting localities (red and blue dots) of freshwater fishes held in NIWA’s Freshwater Fish Collection and Catalogue, showing localities of those also recorded in the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database (red dots). 12

Reviewed by Approved for release by

Paul Sagar Jochen Schmidt

1 Introduction Conservation and management of New Zealand’s freshwater fish biodiversity requires data on the distribution of species, backed by accurate identifications and archived specimens that can be accessed in perpetuity. NIWA’s valuable freshwater fish collection, with some material dating from 1929, includes collections made by the late Dr RM McDowall, New Zealand’s foremost freshwater fish taxonomist and biogeographer. The collection was inadequately maintained and uncatalogued, yet comprised the largest set of distribution records backed by actual specimens. Their on-going availability is important for verifying historical identifications and distributions in a changing landscape, and as new molecular methods reveal increasing complexity within the species (e.g., Waters & Craw 2008; Crow et al. 2009; Wallis et al. 2009).

This report and catalogue describes NIWA’s Freshwater Fish Collection which comprises approximately 38,000 specimens representing 58 indigenous taxa. These numbers have been boosted by several collections of large numbers of whitebait (young galaxiids, captured entering freshwater). The collection comprises 1985 jars of fish collected from throughout New Zealand, including Chatham and Stewart islands. The earliest specimens were collected in 1929 and most recent in 2012. The collection was a valuable resource for the late Dr Robert McDowall and is now available for bona fide researchers, primarily for taxonomic and systematic investigations.

The collection includes specimens obtained by or for Dr McDowall, as well as his predecessors and contemporaries (e.g., CS Woods, John Cranfield, Tony Eldon, Peter Todd, Keith Maynard). It also includes specimens from other institutions and workers, such as Donald Scott (University of Otago), the University of Canterbury, Richard Allibone, Department of Conservation, and members of the public. Several specimens (collected and retained only to confirm identifications) from Canterbury by the former Fisheries Research Division’s Water Abstraction Team during the late 1970s and 1980s are also held in the collection.

The collection is considerable, occupying 17 square metres of shelf space. With the limited resources available for this project, work focussed on

 cataloguing all lots 1 under unique Freshwater Fish Collection Catalogue (FFCC) numbers;

 adding Freshwater Fish Collection labels with a unique catalogue (lot) number (plus a summary of other label information) printed on archival quality paper using standard museum methods were placed into each container (original and other labels within each container were retained with the lot);

 placing specimens in museum quality, leak-proof, glass containers ; and,

 where possible, data matching lots with records in NIWA’s Freshwater Fish Database (FFDB; http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-services/online-

1 Following standard museum terminology, a lot is a group of specimens from the same collection locality, collected on the same date by the same collector, usually kept within a single container. As the specimens are identified, they are still associated as a sample, but are broken into separate lots based on identifications (i.e., phylum, class, order, family, genus or species).

services/freshwater-fish-database) and adding lot details (FFCC numbers) to that database.

The catalogue includes all available relevant information for each lot: the freshwater fish collection lot number, the species identification, the identifier (where available), number of specimens, collection location, date and collector. In addition, any map references and information on any type specimens retained in the collection were recorded.

6 NIWA's Freshwater Fish Collection and Catalogue 2 Treatment of specific issues

2.1 Collecting locality Localities given on the original labels were reproduced in the catalogue. Many were imprecise and may only include the river or stream name. Such coarse geographic definition precludes assigning geographic co-ordinates and was considered inadequate for entry into the Freshwater Fish Database. Others lacked sufficient detail to be useful. For example, several jars were labelled as Totara Creek. Excluding North Island locations, there are three different Totara creeks in Otago and, while the label probably referred to Totara Creek at Poolburn, this is not stated.

2.2 Collecting dates In some cases, original labels recorded a range of dates over which the lot was collected. Where this was the case, the date of the most recent collecting day was recorded in the catalogue. No date or a partial date of collection only was recorded on the labels for some lots. Where the whole date or year was missing and not otherwise determinable, the lot was not catalogued, unless there was a compelling reason to do so. For example, a few lots comprising recently describedspecies of galaxiids lacked any date of collection, but were catalogued because of the scarcity of records and specimens of these species. Lots labelled with the month and year of collection were usually kept and catalogued, particularly for newly described species and lots collected several decades ago.

2.3 Labels All original labels within each lot were retained and placed in the new container with the specimens. In addition, new labels were generated from the database and laser-printed onto Resistal archival paper. Printed labels were then heat treated for at least 30 minutes after printing to set the ink into the paper. These new labels were supplementary to existing lot labels and were placed within the jar or other container holding each lot. An example label follows:

NIWA Freshwater Fish Collection FFnum: FF0010 Species: Geotria australis Date: 5/05/1978 Location: Kakanui River

2.4 Preservatives In almost all cases the preservative was not specified on the label. A very few jars were labelled with “formalin” and that was retained. Advice from collectors indicated that most of the collection is in 70% ethanol. Some lots had been initially preserved in formalin and then transferred to alcohol. Where necessary, jars were topped up with 70% ethanol.

2.5 The nature of lots in the collection The number of fish specimens in each lot was recorded in the database. These numbers were actual counts for lots comprising up to five specimens. Numbers in lots comprising more than five specimens were estimated, so should be treated as such.

NIWA's Freshwater Fish Collection and Catalogue 7

Almost all lots are now in glass containers. Larger jars have white polypropylene lids with liners. Some smaller containers were glass vials with push in plastic seals or universal bottles with a rubber seal and metal screw cap.

Some lots within the collection comprised two or more jars. This was noted within the lot entry in the FFCC. Seven of these are notable:

FF1736 Seventy-five jars of smelt all from the Rakaia River. There is an additional 77 lots of smelt containing over 4000 specimens within the FFCC.

FF1737 Thirty-six jars of bluegill bullies all from Rakaia River. There are 17 other lots of bluegill bullies comprising 200 specimens within the FFCC.

FF1738 Seventeen jars of torrentfish collected from the Rakaia River on unspecified date/s in 1980. The collection includes 132 other lots of torrentfish containing 1300 specimens.

FF1739 Thirteen jars each of 200 unidentified whitebait from Ngaruroro and Tuki[tuki rivers], 1996.

FF1740 Twenty-five jars of whitebait from the Hokitika River collected Oct-Nov 1993 at intervals of a few days.

FF1741 Thirty-one jars of mudfish without species identification from repeated sampling from similar locations. These are additional to another 46 lots containing 513 mudfish from the same and different locations under different lot numbers in the FFCC.

FF1742 Two 30 litre buckets of ethanol preserved whitebait. Each bucket contained several larger bags of ten or so smaller bags, each with c. 40->100 fish collected on different dates. Most were from 1997 and include specimens from the Wanganui, Buller, Mataura, Waimea and Orowaiti Rivers. Labels gave only a river name and date.

Other jars contained more than one species and, in those cases, the identities of the additional species were recorded in the comments field for the same lot number within the catalogue.

2.6 Identifications Scientific and common names used follow the current species list within the Freshwater Fish Database (NZFFDB) (Table 3-1). If the species name was recorded on the label, then that was the recorded identification 2 within the lot’s catalogue entry. There were some exceptions, however. Many lots were not identified to species when collected and preserved, probably assuming that this would be undertaken soon after in the laboratory. Wherever a lot lacked an identification on its label, one of the project team members identified it as far as practical and recorded that identification on the label and in the catalogue. Lots lacking identifications and belonging to taxa requiring some expertise for reliable identification were identified to genus only, due to the limited resources available (e.g., Galaxias sp. or Gobiomorphus sp.).

2 We follow standard museum practice in treating an identification as an attribute of each specific lot. Successive workers may assign different identifications to a lot and the history of identifications of each lot is available via all identification labels retained within the lot. Generally, we have used the most recent identification. 8 NIWA's Freshwater Fish Collection and Catalogue Lots identified as historically invalid taxa or otherwise meaningless names were re-assigned valid, current names. For example, some were labelled as “ Gobiomorphus vulgaris lacustris C S Woods 1964”, a currently invalid name. Lots so labelled were recorded as Gobiomorphus spp. Lots identified as Gobiomorphus radiata were relabelled and catalogued as G. huttoni , the taxon’s current name. Likewise, lots labelled Philypnodon hubbsi were relabelled and catalogued as Gobiomorphus hubbsi , and G. lynx as G. brevipinnis .

Table 2-1: Current valid scientific names, common names and other names variously assigned to some species of New Zealand freshwater fishes, as used in the Freshwater Fish Database.

Current scientific name Correct common name Wrong name Galaxius brevipinnis Galaxius lynx Galaxias gollumoides Gollum galaxias Stewarti galaxias Galaxias gracilis dune lakes galaxias Galaxius huttoni Gobiomorphus radiata Galaxias species D Clutha flathead galaxias Galaxias depressiceps Galaxias species N Northern flathead galaxias Galaxias depressiceps Galaxias species T Teviot galaxias Galaxias depressiceps Galaxias species S Southern flathead galaxias Galaxias depressiceps Galaxias vulgaris Canterbury galaxias Gobiomorphus hubbsi Philypnodon hubbsi “Gobiomorphus vulgaris lacustris CS Gobiomorphus spp. Woods 1964” heleios Northland mudfish Burgundy mudfish Neochanna rekohua Chatham mudfish Chatham galaxias, Galaxias rekohua

Some of the newly identified galaxiids, such as Eldon’s galaxiid, dusky galaxiid, and , were not identified correctly in many older lots (Table 3-1). This reflects recent developments in the and other unfinished work on galaxiid species. It also shows that identifications of some galaxiids within the collection are probably incorrect, and that these should be checked. In one example, boxes cryptically labelled with a new species name contained several lots, some of which contained specimens with no identification on the label or the label identification differed from that on the box. A box labelled “dusky” (presumably G. pullus ) contained lots labelled G. depressiceps , i.e., flathead galaxias, (lot numbers FF0847 and FF0848). Similarly, lots FF0849 to FF0852 came from a box labelled “Eldons” and identifications recorded on their labels read “eldoni”, “depressiceps?” and “vulgaris”, and others contained no identification. Similarly a box labelled “depressiceps” contained both G. depressiceps paratypes and lots labelled as belonging to other species (FF0853 to FF0864). Another example was a collection of eight lots (FF0893-FF0900) all in a container labelled “northern flats”, which appear to be flathead galaxiids. In these situations, all lots were assigned the identification that was written on the box and an explanatory note was provided in the comments field of the catalogue. To facilitate future checking of these lots, each such set was kept together in its original box.

NIWA's Freshwater Fish Collection and Catalogue 9

The basis for using these names follows.

1. Dwarf inanga is generally accepted as the common name for G. gracilis (see Allibone et al. 2010), not dune lakes galaxias as advocated by McDowall (2000).

2. Chatham galaxias ( Galaxias rekohua ). McDowall (2000) used this common name and invalid scientific name in the Reed Field Guide because he recognised that the species did not belong to Neochanna , nor was it a mudfish, as indicated in its previous common name (Chatham mudfish). Reassignment from Neochanna to Galaxias was not proposed within a peer-reviewed scientific forum and, hence, has not gained acceptance (e.g., Allibone et al. 2010).

3. Neochanna heleios was originally called the Northland mudfish and that still stands (see Allibone et al. 2010) despite McDowall (2000) using the Burgundy mudfish.

4. The common river galaxias ( Galaxias vulgaris ) is now termed the Canterbury galaxias (McDowall 2000; Allibone et al. 2010).

5. The accepted common name for Galaxias gollumoides is “Gollum galaxias” (McDowall 2000; Allibone et al. 2010), not “Stewarti galaxias”.

6. Southern flathead, currently a taxonomically indeterminate entity ( Galaxias “southern sp.”) (NZFFDB; Allibone et al 2010), is identified as “ Galaxias species S” in the collection and catalogue.

7. Teviot galaxias (NZFFDB; Allibone et al. 2010) is also indeterminate ( Galaxias “Teviot”) and is identified as “species T” in the collection and catalogue.

8. Northern flathead galaxias (NZFFDB; Allibone et al. 2010), another undescribed species, is recorded as “species N” in the collection and catalogue.

9. Clutha flathead galaxias (Allibone et al. 2010), another undescribed species, is not recorded in the NZFFDB. Consistent with Allibone et al. (2010), it is identified as “species D” in the collection and catalogue.

2.7 Reliability of identifications Research by Dr RM McDowall on galaxiid taxonomy led to several new species being recognised recently (McDowall 2010). This sometimes involved re-examining specimens collected and identified in the past and assigning new names to these. For example, the box labelled Eldon’s galaxiid included specimens labelled with other species’ names. Similarly, lot FF0889 collected by CS Woods in 1962 contains a label in McDowall’s handwriting identifying this as Galaxias paucispondylus and stating “misidentified by CSW as G. divergens ”. Thus, for galaxiid in this collection, in particular, older lots may be labelled with outdated names and/or identifications.

There is some evidence of work in progress in updating identifications. For example, McDowall considered that G. depressiceps comprised four species (S, T, N and D). One box of jars was labelled as Galaxias depressiceps species D ( lots FF1140 to FF1156) a group found to differ genetically from the more common G. depressiceps .

10 NIWA's Freshwater Fish Collection and Catalogue 2.8 Type specimens Fourteen lots labelled as paratypes and one labelled as topotypes were located within the collection and were recorded as such and identified in the database. We note that the “Catalog of fishes” (Eschmeyer 2012) reported paratypes of Galaxius eldoni as held within this collection (no other collection of freshwater fishes was located in NIWA):

eldoni, Galaxias McDowall [R. M.] 1997:213, Fig. 9 [Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand v. 27 (no. 2); ref. 23246] Smugglers Creek, tributary of Traquair Burn, Taieri River system, southern New Zealand. Holotype: NMNZ P.33177. Paratypes: NIWA uncat. (10, 10, 10, 5, 5), NMNZ P.33178 (9). •Valid as Galaxias eldoni McDowall 1997 -- (McDowall & Chadderton 1999:81 [ref. 23815], McDowall & Waters 2002:43 [ref. 26027]). Current status: Valid as Galaxias eldoni McDowall 1997. : Galaxiinae. Distribution: New Zealand. Habitat: freshwater.

No specimens of this species from this location (or river system) or labelled as paratypes were located. We did not check to determine whether any other type material is reported as residing in this collection.

2.9 Freshwater Fish Collection Catalogue records in the Freshwater Fish Database The FFCC is simply that, an inventory of specimens in the collection to assist users and managers of the collection. The FFDB is a GIS-based system, intended to provide users with species-distributional and locality-species information. Thus, the minimum requirement for entry into the FFDB is an identification and geographic co-ordinates for the locality at which the specimen/s was/were found. Thus, the FFCC can usefully support the FFDB in two ways. First, all records in the FFCC could be added to the FFDB, if the FFCC record includes adequate data, especially collecting locality data. Labels in only four per cent of lots included geographic co-ordinates of collecting localities so essential to the FFDB. Comparing records between the FFCC and FFDB matched 475 records of which 414 were already in the FFDB. Thus, 61 new records were added to the FFDB.

Second, matching FFDB records with FFC specimens and recording the FFDB record number in the FFCC added substantial value to these FFDB records. Perhaps the main weakness of the FFDB is that its records are variable in identification quality and unverifiable, other than by recollecting at the original locality. Linking the FFDB record to the actual specimen via the FFCC number resolves this, enabling future workers to verify and re-verify identifications (and locality records) in perpetuity, invaluable as newer techniques reveal increasing complexity in New Zealand’s freshwater fish biodiversity. Figure 2-1 shows the locations for which geographic co-ordinates are known.

The FFCC currently includes specimens of 58 of the 63 freshwater fish taxa in the FFDB, although these figures may change as new identifications are confirmed. It also includes a few non-indigenous taxa (e.g., North Atlantic lamprey Petromyzon marinus , North American eel Anguilla rostrata ) which may have originally been obtained for taxonomic comparisons. These have been retained, but no attempt was made confirm their identifications or collecting localities.

NIWA's Freshwater Fish Collection and Catalogue 11

Figure 2-1: Collecting localities (red and blue dots) of freshwater fishes held in NIWA’s Freshwater Fish Collection and Catalogue, showing localities of those also recorded in the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database (red dots). 12 NIWA's Freshwater Fish Collection and Catalogue 3 Conclusions NIWA’s Freshwater Fish Collection now comprises 1747 lots backed by a catalogue that captures essential label data and integrates the collection data with identifications into the widely used FFDB. The project has dramatically improved the collection’s quality and, with the FFCC, its value. Its future is uncertain. However, NIWA will endeavour to maintain it, but it more properly belongs in a fully functioning museum 3 which has an active curatorial and research interest in fishes. Our next step is to formally offer the collection to the National Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, New Zealand’s primary natural history museum and principal repository of fishes for taxonomic and systematics research. We anticipate that all records within the FFCC will then become available once incorporated into that institution’s on-line catalogue ( http://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/Theme.aspx?irn=2510 ).

This project made no attempt to verify identifications of fishes within each lot; identifications on labels were taken as accurate, unless it was obvious that they were incorrect. Thus, re- identification of all lots by a skilled expert would enhance the collection’s value further and we anticipate that this will happen as experts use the collection in the future.

Regardless of the collection’s location, it is nationally significant, especially because it provides specimen-backed identifications and distribution records. The availability of specimens for verifying identifications means that the collection’s records are amongst the most important of those within in the FFDB. We anticipate that the collection, its catalogue and its integration into the FFDB will provide impetus for future judicious additions to further enhance the verifiable basis for this invaluable information system.

3 NIWA’s museum is known as the NIWA Collection (NIC) because its primary focus is on marine . It includes a small but increasing number of freshwater crustaceans. An MOU with the National Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa ensures that all marine fishes taken during NIWA’s work are offered to that institution.

NIWA's Freshwater Fish Collection and Catalogue 13

4 Acknowledgements NIWA acknowledges the financial assistance of the Terrestrial and Freshwater Biodiversity Information System (TFBIS) Programme towards the collation and protection of historic freshwater fish data. The TFBIS Programme is funded by the Government to help to achieve the goals of the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and is administered by the Department of Conservation.

We are grateful of Martin Unwin’s valuable assistance for the project, specifically his work on the data, data matching and for preparing Figure 1, and for his review of this report. Thanks also top Paul Sagar for further comments on the draft report and for overseeing all aspects of the project.

5 References

Allibone, R.; David, B.; Hitchmough, R.; Jellyman, D.; Ling, N.; Ravenscroft, P.; Waters, J. 2010. Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater fish, 2009, New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44(4): 271-287.

Crow, S.K., Waters, J.M., Closs, G.P., and Wallis, G.P. 2009. Morphological and genetic analysis of Galaxias 'southern' and G. gollumoides: interspecific differentiation and intraspecific structuring. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 39:43-62.

Eschmeyer, W. N. (ed). 2012. Catalog of Fishes (on-line version, accessed 30 August 2012). California Academy of Sciences. (http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp ).

McDowall, R.M. 2000. The Reed field guide to New Zealand freshwater fishes. Auckland, Reed. 224 p.

McDowall, R.M. 2010. New Zealand freshwater fishes: an historical and ecological biogeography. Springer, Fish and Fisheries Series, 32. 449 p.

Wallis, G., Wallis L. and Waters, J. 2009. What, if anything, is Galaxias vulgaris? 20 years of research on galaxiid speciation. New Zealand Science Review 66:21-25.

Waters, J.M. & Craw, D. 2008. Evolution and biogeography of New Zealand's longjaw galaxiids ( : Galaxiidae): the genetic effects of glaciation and mountain building. Freshwater Biology 53, 521-534.

14 NIWA's Freshwater Fish Collection and Catalogue