Killi-Data News KILLI-DATA INTERNATIONAL Killi-Data News Volume 1, Issue 2, Pages 16–37, July 2016
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Genade: Killi-Data News KILLI-DATA INTERNATIONAL Killi-Data News Volume 1, Issue 2, Pages 16–37, July 2016 ISSN 2495-330X What is new on Killi-data.org Executive editor: Tyrone Genade (killifl[email protected]) Editor: Jean H. Huber We have started a new project to aid killifish research and Contributors: Jean Huber (text), Jouke van der Zee (text), Frans Vermeulen have made some progress towards creating an interactive (text & photos), Milan Vrtílek (text), Mogens Juhl (text & photos), Andrew website to which hobbyists and scientist can contribute data. Thompson (text) Jean Huber is working hard to code the webpage for mem- ber participation. One success thus far is the contribution Contents button that you can click to submit information for a par- ticular page. The button is indicated in figure below. What is new on Killi-data.org ....................... 16 Questions to KDI ................................... 18 In situ Killifish Reports ............................. 19 Internet Review ..................................... 20 Habitat & Collections ............................ 20 Killifish Care ...................................... 21 New Websites .................................... 22 In the news ....................................... 22 Review of new research publications ................ 22 Systematics & Taxonomy.........................22 Killifish Biology ................................... 27 Screenshot of example KDI page. Note magenta circle and arrow Posters & Conference Abstracts .................. 32 pointing out the location of the contribution button. Theses & Dissertations ........................... 32 Interesting research ............................... 33 We are especially interested in collection data and dis- tribution data for species. For many species we lack de- tailed data concerning breeding reports, early development PublishedKilli-Data by NWCommons, News, Volume2016 1, number 2, Summer 2016 16 1 Killifish Research Review, Vol. 1 [2016], Iss. 2, Art. 1 in aquarium up to juvenile stage as well as pattern variations 3. Place the fish in a large volume of Molecular Biol- of adults. Also, if any errors are discovered this is an easy ogy Grade 100% ethanol (free of denaturing agents) way to point this out to us. Those who contribute data will overnight at 4 ◦C. This step serves to dehydrate the be acknowledged on the relevant pages. fish’s tissues and in so doing preserving the DNA. If In general we are interested in collection data of both the volume of ethanol is too small, all the water will not old and new collections and any information in addition to be drawn out of the specimen’s tissues and the remain- the GPS coordinates such as water parameters and sympatric ing water will degrade the DNA. Also, if an ethanol species and descriptions of the habitat. Such data can be sent is used that contains denaturing agents (used to make to Frans Vermeulen: [email protected]. This data is the ethanol undrinkable) the denaturing agents will de- very useful to scientists and we hope that expanding this data grade the DNA and make is difficult to obtain useful will attract more members from academia. Of course, such DNA from the tissue. The optimum ratio of fish to data is also valuable to hobbyist-collectors seeking to capture ethanol is 1 to 20. A small juvenile fish of about 12– fish. 15 mm would need about 2 mL of ethanol. We have begun the construction of a Platform of cooper- ation for a better molecular knowledge on killifishes. The goal of this project is to establish a tissue bank from which 4. Remove the fish to a test tube with a small volume of DNA samples can be obtained for researchers. A descrip- ethanol (since the 100% ethanol has dehydrated the tion of the project and list of current specimens are available tissue it doesn’t need to be kept in a large volume of at http://www.killi-data.org/list-names-molecular.php. We ethanol, just enough is needed to prevent the ethanol still require many more specimens to make this a valuable re- in the fish from evaporating). The fish can also be source for researchers. We are establishing a list of regional wrapped in ethanol soaked tissue paper and placed in project leaders (curators) to whom live specimens can be sent a small plastic packet. for fixation or who could furnish hobbyists with the equip- ment and reagents needed to properly store the specimen. KDI will refund curators the purchase of materials (ethanol 5. Contact Molecular Platform by emailing molecular- to preserve specimens, tubes for storage etc. ). The protocol [email protected]. A regional curator will con- is as follows: tact you with details for to where to post the samples. 1. Kill the fish: immersing the fish in ice-water will kill it very fast (no need to buy anesthetic product such as It is very important that the specimen be positively identified MS-222). and the correct location code be sent with the specimen. For certain species where the taxonomy is unresolved, such as 2. Slit the belly of the fish open or simply cut it’s head off for some Chromaphyosemion populations, a photo of the fish to expose the internal tissues. This is unnecessary for would be very helpful. Once the fish has been killed in the small specimens and juveniles. For larger specimens ice-water it can be laid out on a flat surface, its fins spread this is important to ensure rapid penetration of the fix- out and photographed before ethanol fixation such as for the ative, ethanol, into the tissues to preserve the DNA. Fundulopanchax deltaensis shown on the next page. https://nwcommons.nwciowa.edu/killiresrev/vol1/iss2/1Killi-Data News, Volume 1, number 2, Summer 2016 17 2 Genade: Killi-Data News a quite distinct fish I think from what I know of a fish I had a long time ago, now as Moema piriana from a trade import (NSC) (46)? (Anonymous, USA, March 2016) Answer: First, thank you for this interesting question which tackles the hot issue of generic naming but with a dif- ferent angle, i.e. with the angle of the scientific magazine where a name is published (and specifically here you speak of the Journal of A.K.A. where Moema kenwoodi was described lately); you are absolutely right, that is puzzling, and on the other hand, the describer of the new name, the editor of the journal and the reviewers of the manuscript are also right ; Photo of an ice-killed Fundulopanchax deltaensis taken with a that may look paradoxical but everybody is right, and before Samsung Galaxy S4 smart phone. giving an explanation, let’s tell you that for the specific case of Moema and Aphyolebias there is already a discussion in this We are also exploring another method to collect samples. FAQ page (question 41) and that there is for you a practi- This method will be based on colleting fin clips according cal solution (to the paradox) also discussed in this FAQ page to Prof Ryan Earley’s method at https://www.youtube.com/ (question 45); you are right because still very recently (maybe watch?v=a9bp-A_SOfY&feature=youtu.be. This method has also now) in the websphere (including in group discussions the advantage of not killing the fish but fin clips from several or in Facebook public or closed pages) those annual killifish fish (at least six) would be needed to meet our goals of a tis- collected by Brian Perkins around his company base are still sue bank from which researchers can quickly obtain samples named as Aphyolebias; however, the describer (and the editor, for research. Another alternative is to obtain fry and juvenile and the reviewers) could not escape from naming the fish in culls which can be fixed in volumes of ethanol small enough the Moema genus because there is an unwritten but preva- to ship by post. lent rule for any genus naming in scientific publications that is to use the latest published evidence, i.e. the last published systematic research results on the subject; and specifically Questions to KDI for your fish, they had to use a recent work by Costa (2014) where he synonymizes the genus Aphyolebias (he had cre- Question Number 46: I am confused and lost. A few years ated himself) into another genus, Moema (he also had created ago I have received from a friend aquarist who got it through himself but previously) based on the results of his newest WildPeru (Brian Perkins) an annual fish that was labeled study; that rule is neutral or a sort of gentleman’s sound and Aphyolebias sp., or Aphyolebias aff. rubrocaudatus. Now I fair agreement which imposes to take into account the latest see that it has a new name (if it is the same fish, I am not evidence-based research on a given subject and that is a good sure) as Moema kenwoodi, a fish named after Perkins, pre- rule; here, in the present case, it is even simple to apply be- cisely. Why [the hell] that fish had an Aphyolebias label say cause nothing had been published to discuss systematics on 2–3 years ago and even less, and now it is named in Moema, Moema and Aphyolebias (maybe some doubts here and there, PublishedKilli-Data by NWCommons, News, Volume2016 1, number 2, Summer 2016 18 3 Killifish Research Review, Vol. 1 [2016], Iss. 2, Art. 1 but nothing based on evidence) since their descriptions over tus “generously” feeding on smaller species. originally de- 15 years ago until Costa’s move 2 years ago; besides (but that scribed in the full genus Paranothobranchius); then, yes, as a is another story because it does not apply in this case) the final word you are right and they are right, and all that is rule has a subrule which says that if several—not only one— just automatic consequences of unwritten but useful rules, evidence-based works are available and with alternative or but we can live with that paradoxical complexity, can’t we? conflicting results on a given subject and published in about (Jean Huber, finalized April 2016) the same period of time, the describer must use the latest ev- idence, must present the various alternative results, and if he does not use the latest published work, he must provide with In situ Killifish Reports an argumentation against it (or the editor or the reviewers must require that from him); actually the describer of Moema From Mogens Juhl: “In April 2016 I was in Costa Rica on kenwoodi could have argued against the genus placement in vacation.