ArticlePDF Available

Codes for Natural History Collections in Ichthyology and Herpetology

October 2020
Copeia 108(3):593-669

DOI:10.1643/ASIHCODONS2020

Authors:

Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University

Assembled here is a reasonably complete list of annotated codes for historical and modern natural history collections associated with lost and extant specimens of fossil and Recent fishes, amphibians, and reptiles. A total of 3,845 codes are anchored to about 2,064 distinct collections and/or institutions in 155 countries. At least 633 of those collections are exclusively paleontological or include fossil specimens. The list is primarily derived from the scientific literature and may serve as a resource for plainly citing specimens in publications and for linking such citations to records in online databases. © 2020 by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists

Content uploaded by Mark Henry Sabaj Pérez

Content may be subject to copyright.

Codes for Natural History Collections in Ichthyology and

Herpetology

Author: Sabaj, Mark Henry

Source: Copeia, 108(3) : 593-669

Published By: The American Society of Ichthyologists and

Herpetologists

URL: https://doi.org/10.1643/ASIHCODONS2020

BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles

in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations,

museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your

acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use.

Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non - commercial use.

Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit

publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to

critical research.

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Copeia on 14 Oct 2020

Codes for Natural History Collections in Ichthyology and Herpetology

Mark Henry Sabaj

Assembled here is a reasonably complete list of annotated codes for historical and modern natural history collections

associated with lost and extant specimens of fossil and Recent fishes, amphibians, and reptiles. A total of 3,845 codes

are anchored to about 2,064 distinct collections and/or institutions in 155 countries. At least 633 of those collections

are exclusively paleontological or include fossil specimens. The list is primarily derived from the scientific literature and

may serve as a resource for plainly citing specimens in publications and for linking such citations to records in online

databases.

WELL-curated natural history specimens physically

document the distribution of living organisms in

space and time. They are essential for taxa to be

fully conceived, formally named, and firmly supported or

refuted from one generation to the next. As such, they secure

taxonomy to the scientific method by allowing one to

iteratively test and refine hypotheses of phylogenetic

relatedness.

Thus, it is no surprise that taxonomists and museum staff

devote a significant part of their career to collecting, curating,

and carefully documenting natural history specimens and

their custodial institutions (e.g., Pietsch and Anderson, 1997;

Del Moral-Flores et al., 2016; Beck, 2018; Beck and Joger,

2018). As a result, we know the oldest museum specimens of

amphibians and reptiles are attributable to the Italian

polymath Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522–1605) and remain pre-

served in the Palazzo Poggi Museum in Bologna (Bauer et al.,

2013). The holotype of Atlantochelys mortoni,agiant

Cretaceous sea turtle, is not limited to the proximal half of

the right humerus (ANSP 9234) described by Louis Agassiz in

1849, but includes the distal half (NJSM GP23363) unearthed

as much as two centuries later (Parris et al., 2014). And, Dr.

William Alexander Hammond did not collect the holotype of

Edward Drinker Cope’s Salmo stomias during the U.S. Army

expedition from Fort Riley, Kansas, to Fort Bridger, Wyoming

in 1857 (as was commonly held for over 150 years), but

during his station near Santa Fe, New Mexico from 1849–

1852, rendering Cope’s species a junior synonym of

Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis (Girard, 1856) and the Green-

back Cutthroat Trout native to the South Platte River,

Colorado, scientifically nameless (Metcalf et al., 2012; Sabaj,

2013).

The objective of this paper is to present a comprehensive,

but by no means exhaustive, list of annotated codes

associated with natural history specimens of fossil and

Recent fishes, amphibians, and reptiles. This list is intended

to tie together the long and sometimes complex history of

applying codes to such specimens, and to serve as a resource

for plainly citing such specimens in publications and online

databases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The current list was seeded in 2010 with codes from three

sources: Leviton et al. (1985), Leviton and Gibbs (1988), and

the online Guide to Fish Collections in the Catalog of Fishes

(Fricke and Eschmeyer, 2010). The first version of the list (v1)

was made available online via the American Society of

Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH) website on 5

October 2010. It was replaced with revised versions on 8

November 2010 (v2), 23 February 2012 (v3), 28 June 2013

(v4), 22 September 2014 (v5), 16 August 2016 (v6.5), and 1

April 2019 (v7.1). Over that time, the list was significantly

expanded and improved via personal communications with

the collections community and the incorporation of other

extensive lists available for fishes (e.g., Poss and Collette,

1995), amphibians (Frost, 2020), and reptiles (Wallach et al.,

2014). Other important sources included catalogs of types

specimens (e.g., Gilbert, 1998; Bo

¨hme, 2010) and natural

history collections themselves (e.g., Roselaar, 2003; Del

Moral-Flores et al., 2016; Beck, 2018; Beck and Joger, 2018).

Publications were accessed via the Biodiversity Heritage

Library, ResearchGate, and other freely available online

sources. Efforts were made to coordinate the current list with

additional databases that include or manage data on natural

history specimens, such as The Reptile Database (Uetz et al.,

2020), VertNet, and Integrated Digitized Biocollections

(iDigBio). Unlike the lists assembled by Leviton et al.

(1985) and Leviton and Gibbs (1988), the current one

benefitted immeasurably from email, the internet, and the

Google search engine.

The codes are divided among two lists: Appendix 1 and a

Supplemental Appendix (see Data Accessibility). Appendix 1

lists 2,064 commonly used or otherwise preferred institution

codes sorted first by country, then state (or close equivalent),

then alphabetically by code. The code prioritized here serves

to anchor information relevant to its origin and application,

as well as synonymous codes. When multiple codes have

been used to cite specimens at a particular institution,

priority generally was given to the one 1) confirmed via

personal correspondences with institutional staff or other-

wise knowledgeable colleagues, 2) cited in type catalogs

published by institutional staff, 3) cited in other publications

co-authored by institutional staff, 4) cited by outside authors

with a preference towards younger and taxonomically

oriented publications. Thus, the current list focuses on codes

as they appear in published papers. Those may differ from

codes used to database specimens in a particular collection,

aggregate specimen records across collections, or link

specimen records to other databases.

Department of Ichthyology, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103; Email: Sabaj@ansp.org or mhs58@drexel.edu.

Submitted: 16 March 2020. Accepted: 3 May 2020. Associate Editor: W. L. Smith.

Ó2020 by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists DOI: 10.1643/ASIHCODONS2020 Published online: 14 October 2020

//titan/Production/c/cope/live_jobs/cope-108/cope-108-02/cope-108-02-23/layouts/cope-108-02-23.3d  1 October 2020  8:44 pm  Allen Press, Inc.  COPEIA-D-20-00040 Page 593

Copeia 108, No. 2, 2020, 593–669

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Copeia on 14 Oct 2020

Not all institutions were contacted and not all type

catalogs were consulted for the current list, but such efforts

were made for large institutions with complex histories and

numerous synonyms. Codes cited for privately held collec-

tions are included. Leviton et al. (1985) deliberately omitted

private collections to avoid any sign of legitimation. Private

collections appear in the current list merely for completeness,

and their inclusion here should not be mistaken for

encouragement or legitimacy. The current list also includes

a number of historically important, but defunct collections.

Each institution code in Appendix 1 is followed by the full

name of the institution and city. Many entries include

various annotations in this order:

Also known as.—Alternative name currently in use for

institution.

Formerly.—Names historically associated with institu-

tion.

Includes.—Collections/specimens incorporated into in-

stitution from other sources.

Note.—Comments on the institution and its collections

including date of establishment, history, institutional

affiliations and related collections, and current status

when known.

In error as.—Code(s) wrongly attributed to institution in

print publications.

Obsolete as.—Codes discouraged from use based on their

association with former institutional names or on explicit

correspondence with institutional staff (not included are

codes associated with a former institutional name, but

explicitly retained by staff for consistency).

Current as.—Code most commonly (or recently) associ-

ated with institution or otherwise explicitly codified by

institutional staff; replaced by Assigned here for a

collection cited in the literature without a code, and

thereby receiving a tentative code in this paper.

Also as.—Other codes currently used for institution.

See also.—Closely associated collections often held by the

same institution, but administered separately (e.g., fossils

in ‘‘Museum of Geology’’ vs. Recent specimens in ‘‘Muse-

um of Zoology’’).

The second list, the Supplemental Appendix (see Data

Accessibility), is an alphabetical index of all 3,845 codes

found during the current search. As such, it highlights cases

where the same code has been applied to different institu-

tions. The Supplemental Appendix provides extra columns

that include the sources for each code, a bibliography of

those sources (1,816 total), and a list of 331 personal

correspondents from 2006 to present.

RESULTS

Codes for natural history collections are conceived and

expressed in an extraordinary number of ways (Table 1).

Codes are generally derived from one or a combination of

sources including: specimen preparation (e.g., fossil vs.

Recent), collector (for privately held specimens), collection,

institution, meta-institution, para-institution, former insti-

tution, taxonomic group, and geology (e.g., fossils). The code

or combination of codes is generally followed by a catalog

number unique to the particular collection. In print

publications, the code(s) and catalog number may be

confluent or variably set apart by a space or punctuations

(e.g., period, dash, slash, etc.).

That said, most codes have two components, an institution

code and a collection code, that may or may not be

confluent. For example, collections at the University of

Kansas (KU) Biodiversity Institute are now cited as KUH

(herps), KUI (fishes), KUIT (fish tissues), and KUVP (verte-

brate fossils). Specimens at the Naturhistoriska riksmuseet are

divided between the Department of Zoology (NRM) and

Department of Paleontology (NRM-PZ), and the latter is

subdivided by taxonomic codes into NRM-PZ C (fossil

Cyclostomata), NRM-PZ P (fossil Pisces), NRM-PZ B (fossil

Batrachia), and NRM-PZ R (fossil Reptilia; S. Kullander, pers.

comm., 2010; E. A

˚hlander, pers. comm., 2020).

A single institution does not always employ the same

institution code for all constituent collections, especially for

fossil vs. Recent specimens. Hence, the University of

California, Berkeley, uses MVZ for the Museum of Vertebrate

Zoology and UCMP for the Museum of Paleontology. The

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia employs ANSP

for specimens in the zoological collections and diatom

herbarium, but PH (Philadelphia Herbarium) for botanical

specimens. Institution codes also may differ between modern

and historical collections extant within a single institution.

Hence, MRSN applies to modern collections at the Museo

Regionale di Scienze Naturali di Torino, whereas MACUT and

MZUT are used for Universita

`di Torino historical collections

associated with Museo di Anatomia Comparata and Museo di

Zoologia, respectively (Andreone and Gavetti, 2010).

Alternatively, the institution code may be annotated to

distinguish modern from historical collections. Hence,

collections at the Martin-Luther-Universita

¨t Halle-Witten-

berg may be cited as MLUH for modern specimens or MLUH

(IZH) for historical specimens associated with its predecessor,

Institut f¨

ur Zoologie, Halle (F. Steinheimer, pers. comm.,

2018). Annotated institution codes also may be used to

distinguish native holdings from those received from

external sources (i.e., other institutions or private collectors).

Hence, specimens from the historical collection of Stanford

University (SU) now housed at the California Academy of

Sciences (CAS) may be cited as SU (institution code) or CAS-

SU (annotated institution code).

Finally, some institutions are part of a more inclusive meta-

institution that may or may not be expressed in the

institution code. Examples of meta-institutions include the

Zoological Society of India (ZSI) with ZSI-ANRC (or ZSI/

ANRC) used to cite specimens in collections of the Andaman

and Nicobar Regional Center, one of many different ZSI

regional centers that maintain natural history collections.

Another example is National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

(NASU), with which collections of the I. I. Schmalhausen

Institute of Zoology (SIZK) and National Museum of Natural

History (NMNHU) are both associated. Additional examples

of meta-institutions are large universities with collections

separated between the main campus and satellite campuses

and/or field stations. In such cases, a collection (vs.

institution) code may be used to cite specimens. Universidad

Nacional Auto

´noma de Me

´xico (UNAM) provides a complex

example. Specimens associated with the main campus in

´xico City are cited as CNAR (herps in Coleccio

´n Nacional

de Anfibios y Reptiles), CNPE-IBUNAM (fishes in Coleccio

´n

Nacional de Peces), IGM (fossils in Coleccio

´n Nacional de

Paleontologı

´a, Instituto de Geologı

´a), and IGM-CMR (Colec-

//titan/Production/c/cope/live_jobs/cope-108/cope-108-02/cope-108-02-23/layouts/cope-108-02-23.3d  1 October 2020  8:46 pm  Allen Press, Inc.  COPEIA-D-20-00040 Page 594

594 Copeia 108, No. 2, 2020

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Copeia on 14 Oct 2020

Table 1. Variation in derivation of codes for citing natural history specimens.

Published citation of specimen(s)

[underscores added here]

Source of code or component of code underscored in column 1

ReferenceCategory Name

Administrative

SNSB-BSPG AS VI 504 Meta-institution Bayerische Staatssammlung f ¨

ur Pala

¨ontologie und Geologie, part of Staatliche

Naturwissenschaftliche Sammlungen Bayerns, M ¨

unchen [Munich], Germany

Maxwell and Lo

´pez-

Arbarello, 2018

ANSP 182322 Institution with custody and

ownership

The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, USA Carvalho et al., 2017

ANSP 187723 (NPS UPDE 2153) Institution with custody

(Institution with ownership)

National Park Service, Department of the Interior (Upper Delaware Scenic and

Recreational River), USA

Sabaj, 2020 (this study)

CSBD F1702/AUM 44721 Para-institution (dual accession) specimen accessioned at both the Center for the Study of Biological Diversity,

University of Guyana and Auburn University Museum of Natural History, USA

Tan et al., 2016

FACEN 0012 Faculty Facultad Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Catamarca,

Catamarca, Argentina

Ferna

´ndez and Andreoli

Bize, 2015

FBGN-SAU_F1612sb-186 Department Aquatic Bioresource Research Laboratory, Department of Fisheries Biology and

Genetics, Faculty of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural

University, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Habib et al., 2019

LBP Laboratory Laborato

´rio de Biologia e Gene

´tica de Peixes, Departamento de Morfologia,

Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘‘Ju

´lio de Mesquita Filho’’, Campus de

Botucatu, Brazil

Ochoa et al., 2020

Taxonomic or Geological

KUI 22082 Collection University of Kansas Ichthyology collection, Lawrence, USA Schultze and Gonza

´lez-

Rodrı

´guez, 2016

MMM-CI-E Public Exhibition Museo Marino de Margarita (coleccio

´n ictiolo

´gica-exhibicio

´n), Boca del Rı

´o, Isla

Margarita, Venezuela

Cervigo

´n, 2016

CAR 187 Collector Private collection of Carlos A. Ardila Rodrı

´guez, Barranquilla, Colombia Netto-Ferreira et al., 2011

JME ETT 365 Geological Setting fossil from the Upper Jurassic of Ettling deposted at the Jura-Museum Eichsta

¨tt,

Germany

Schultze and Arratia, 2013

Specimen Preparation

RMNH.PISC.D 1543 Preservation type Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; dry fish specimen Han et al., 2017

MNRJ 41520 [MNTI 8664-8666] Tissue sample Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; tissues from

three ichthyological specimens cataloged as MNRJ 41520

Moreira et al., 2016

GSDNA1 DNA extract Galleria di Storia Naturale di Casalina, Italy; DNA extract from holotype of Esox

flaviae cataloged as GS1

Lucentini et al., 2011;

Chakrabarty et al., 2013

Geographic

NHMUK Country (or Sovereign State) Natural History Museum, London, England, United Kingdom O’Leary et al., 2019

IEPA State (or equivalent) Instituto de Pesquisas Cientı

´ficas e Tecnolo

´gicas do Estado do Amapa

´, Macapa

´,

Brazil

Andrade et al., 2018

AMS IB.6315 City Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia McGrouther, 2006

Collaborative

MUS.FSI.PB/EB/09/2016 Survey Museum of the Zonal Base, Fishery Survey of India, Port Blair, Andaman

Islands

Shirke et al., 2017

PMOL-SGP A0100-1 Project Sino-German Cooperation Project fossils housed at the Paleontology Museum

of Liaoning (PMOL) and to be integrated into the municipal museum of

Shanshan, Xinjiang Autonomous Province, China

Rabi et al., 2013

//titan/Production/c/cope/live_jobs/cope-108/cope-108-02/cope-108-02-23/layouts/cope-108-02-23.3d  1 October 2020  8:46 pm  Allen Press, Inc.  COPEIA-D-20-00040 Page 595

Sabaj—Codes for ichthyology and herpetology collections 595

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Copeia on 14 Oct 2020

cio

´n de Material Reciente del Museo de Geologı

´a). Fish

specimens associated with the UNAM campus in Sisal may be

cited as CIRR UMDI, Coleccio

´n Ictiolo

´gica Regional de

Referencia, Unidad Multidisciplinaria de Docencia e Inves-

tigacio

´n (Gallardo-Torres et al., 2016).

A special case of a meta-institution is the National Park

Service (NPS) in the U.S. Department of the Interior. Natural

history specimens collected on lands administered by the

National Park Service are the property of NPS, but may be

deposited on loan at non-NPS repositories that meet federal

requirements. The non-NPS repository generally assigns its

own institution/collection code and catalog number (e.g.,

ANSP 187723) with a cross-reference to the corresponding

NPS collection and catalog number (e.g., NPS UPDE 2153,

Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River NPS unit). In

publications, both the NPS and non-NPS repository catalog

numbers should be cited, as in: ANSP 187723 [NPS UPDE

2153] (Lauren Finn Hauptman, pers. comm., 2016).

Codes may change as institutions and collections are

subject to various forms of rebranding, takeover, and merger

(Schindel et al., 2016; Sharma et al., 2018). Omitted from

such scenarios are small-scale transfers between institutions.

Curators have long exchanged natural history specimens,

and those received are generally cited and/or cataloged using

‘‘ex,’’ as in ANSP 203158 (ex. ZUEC 11694). The ‘‘ex’’

notation also is commonly used when specimen(s) are

transferred from one lot to another within a particular

collection, such as ANSP 203169 (ex. 185074) for the

holotype of Trachydoras gepharti cited in Sabaj and Arce

(2017).

Rebranding is often associated with institutional reorgani-

zation and new affiliations, especially when new adminis-

trators measure success by renaming levels of administration.

Even ‘‘trademark’’ codes (Schindel et al., 2016) are vulnera-

ble. In 2011, for example, NHMUK replaced BMNH as the

official code for the Natural History Museum in London (ex-

British Museum of Natural History). Mergers and takeovers

often accompany the demise of institutional interest in

natural history collections. Large-scale transfers are generally

well documented for collections of historical importance,

especially in Europe, but invariably include the loss or

misplacement of specimens. University collections are

among the most difficult to track since colleges, departments,

labs, and field stations may hold separate collections. Any

university that has employed a particularly conscientious

taxonomist is likely to have a natural history collection of

sorts. Such collections may thrive under faculty who do

collections-based research involving students (Humphrey,

1992). If a university collection, however, fails to reach a

certain threshold of size and importance, they become highly

vulnerable to neglect with changes in institutional priorities

and staff. Many orphaned collections are adopted whole or in

part by institutions with greater resources. But, some are

simply shuttered and eventually discarded.

DISCUSSION

Museum and collection codes are born of catalogs, checklists,

and monographs, nurtured by printed indices, and fledged

via online databases. Botanists mounted the first coordinated

effort to standardize such codes by establishing the Index

Herbariorum in 1935 (Lanjouw and Stafleu, 1952). The Index

Herbariorum is an active global registry of botanical institu-

tions and collections, and maintains a list of 4,175 codes of

which 3,324 pertain to active herbaria (Thiers, 2020).

Entomologists assembled taxon-specific lists for Coleoptera

(Arnett and Samuelson, 1969) and insects with an emphasis

on Lepidoptera (Heppner and Lamas, 1982). Those were

eventually integrated and expanded into a list of insect and

spider collections of the world (Arnett et al., 1993) that is

currently maintained and updated by Neal Evenhuis at the

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum (Evenhuis, 2020). Among

vertebrates, lists of codes were assembled first for collections

of amphibians and reptiles (Duellman et al., 1978; Leviton et

al., 1980), and later expanded to include fishes (Leviton et al.,

1985) and revised (Leviton and Gibbs, 1988). The list of

codes for fish collections passed through subsequent itera-

tions via type catalogs in print (Eschmeyer, 1998; Ferraris,

2007) and online (Fricke and Eschmeyer, 2020). Though

taxonomically siloed, such lists have proven invaluable for

communities of biologists to efficiently locate and cite

specimens in their research and publications.

The electronic capture of collections data in the late 1970s

and 80s (Wiley and Peterson, 2004) and subsequent rise of

the internet prompted the museum community to develop

open standards for the exchange and aggregation of such

data. In 1985, the Taxonomic Databases Working Group

(TDWG) was founded to address the needs for natural history

specimens. Renamed Biodiversity Information Standards

(with the TDWG code retained), this non-profit organization

eventually released a set of standards for sharing biodiversity

information (Darwin Core Task Group, 2009). The Darwin

Core includes four record-level fields (or properties) for

parsing data related to the specimen repository: dwc:institu-

tionID, dwc:collectionID, dwc:institutionCode, and dwc:col-

lectionCode. The two ‘‘ID’’ fields are essentially unique

identifiers (e.g., LSIDs) created and used by data aggregators.

The two ‘‘Code’’ fields are created and used by the

institutions and collections that curate the specimen data.

A fifth Darwin Core field, dwc:catalogNumber, serves to

identify the specimen (or lot) and is presumably unique

within a particular collection. Strung together, the institution

code, collection code, and catalog number constitute the

Darwin Core Triplet. The Darwin Core Triplet has become a

de facto globally unique identifier (GUID) for specimen

records despite its shortcomings as such, and the most widely

deployed identifier scheme for aggregating data on speci-

mens across natural history collections (Guralnick et al.,

2014; Schindel et al., 2016).

For linking genetic sequence records to museum voucher

specimens, GenBank established and maintains a BioCollec-

tions Database (Sharma et al., 2018) that appends a three-

letter country code to the Darwin Core Triplet to distinguish

institutions with the same code (i.e., dwc:institutionCode).

The country codes are supplemented by two-letter state codes

when necessary. For example, the BioCollections institution

code for University of Alaska, Museum of the North is UAM

vs. UAM,USA-AR.for University of Arkansas at Monticello

and UAM,ESP.for Universidad Autonoma De Madrid

culture collection of cyanobacteria. Although users are asked

to provide information on the voucher specimen when

submitting sequences to GenBank, many do not provide

enough data to establish reliable links to the BioCollections

Database (Sharma et al., 2018).

A variety of ongoing initiatives rely on institution and

collection codes to aggregate digitized data on natural history

//titan/Production/c/cope/live_jobs/cope-108/cope-108-02/cope-108-02-23/layouts/cope-108-02-23.3d  1 October 2020  8:46 pm  Allen Press, Inc.  COPEIA-D-20-00040 Page 596

596 Copeia 108, No. 2, 2020

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Copeia on 14 Oct 2020

specimens at a variety of scales (Nelson and Ellis, 2018)

roughly separable into: 1) global, 2) regional, 3) taxonomic

(e.g., online type catalogs), 4) fossil, 5) institutional, and 6)

‘‘niche.’’ The two largest initiatives are the Global Biodiver-

sity Information Facility (GBIF) established in 2001 and the

Integrated Digitized Biocollections (iDigBio) established ten

years later. The latter (iDigBio) is the central coordinating

unit for digitization efforts funded by the U.S. National

Science Foundation’s Advancing Digitization of Biodiversity

Collections (ADBC) program (Thiers et al., 2019), and the

largest U.S. network for sharing specimen data with GBIF.

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Biodiversity Information Serv-

ing Our Nation (BISON) also serves as a regional aggregator

(U.S. node) for contributing records to GBIF.

More focused efforts (e.g., regional to ‘‘niche’’) may capture

or curate specimen records more reliably and/or include

collections outside of the GBIF and iDigBio networks.

Regional examples of specimen-based aggregators include

the Atlas of Living Australia, Mexico’s National Commission

for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO),

Brazil’s speciesLink, China’s National Specimen Information

Infrastructure (NSII), and SYNTHESYSþ, a newly funded

project within the European Distributed System of Scientific

Collections (DiSSCo).

Taxonomic databases generally focus on records for type

specimens and often employ the most up-to-date classifica-

tion schemes. Type catalogs must contend with historical

specimens cited for defunct collections, and often generate

modern codes for such cases. Examples of taxonomic

databases include WoRMS, the World Register of Marine

Species (Horton et al., 2018), and associated World Porifera

Database (Van Soest et al., 2018), the Freshwater Mussels

(Unionoida) of the World (MUSSELp; Graf and Cummings,

2018), Shark-references.com (Pollerspo

¨ck and Straube, 2020),

Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes (Fricke et al., 2020), Amphib-

ian Species of the World (Frost, 2020), and the Reptile

Database (Uetz et al., 2019, 2020). The Paleobiology Database

(PBDB) founded by John Alroy and Charles Marshall in 2000

curates 157,370 specimen records as of 1 January 2019 with

about 75–80% of those records tied to museums. At large

institutions, specimen records often remain taxonomically

siloed in separate databases for each collection. Noteworthy

exceptions are the Muse

´um national d’Histoire naturelle in

Paris and the Smithsonian Institution’s online Collections

Search Center. Large institutions struggling to aggregate

specimen records in situ may find it easier do so ex situ by

having their collections separately contribute records to

global aggregators such as GBIF and iDigBio. A variety of

‘‘niche’’ databases exist online with the Fishes of Mainland

Southeast Asia (Kano et al., 2013) as a keen example. All of

the aforementioned online databases maintain digital indices

of museum and collection codes descended from earlier

printed lists.

Institution and collection codes have proliferated in recent

decades, due in part to the establishment of new collections

in species-rich parts of the world and an increase in the

number of journals and online databases that publish on

biodiversity. Online registries for natural history collections

exist at a variety of scales, although some have gone offline

in recent years. At the national level, a noteworthy (and

active) example is the Cata

´logo de las colecciones mexicanas

(CONABIO, 2018) which includes 751 Mexican collections

with holdings ranging from germplasm and bacteria to

mammals and fossils. Since 2001, the Instituto de Inves-

tigacio

´n de Recursos Biolo

´gicos Alexander von Humboldt has

maintained the Registro U

´nico Nacional de Colecciones

Biolo

´gicas (RNC), a detailed registry of biological collections

in Colombia. The Zentralregister botanischer und zoolog-

ischer Forschungssammlungen (ZEFOD) once provided a

wealth of online information for German natural history

collections (Weber, 2018), but its web-presence, as such, has

disappeared.

The Global Registry for Biodiversity Repositories (GRBio)

assembled one of the largest lists of institution and collection

codes (Table 2). GRBio was developed by the Consortium for

the Barcode of Life (CBOL, 2004–2011) to help link voucher

specimens to DNA barcodes in GenBank (Schindel et al.,

2016). GRBio incorporated data from CBOL, the U.S.

National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), Index

Herbariorum (IH), and the Biodiversity Collections Index

(BCI, now offline). GRBio was released by CBOL in June 2013

and its management was transferred to Scientific Collections

International (GRSciColl) in December 2013. In 2018, the

website for GRBio/GRSciColl was hacked and went offline.

The data it once managed were dumped on 29 May 2018 and

remain available online at DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1285615.

Their abandoned list (grbio_institutions_05_29_18.csv) in-

cluded 7,097 institution and collection codes. Those data

have since been migrated into a newly updated Global

Registry of Scientific Collections (GRSciColl) hosted by the

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF, 2018, 2019;

Hobern et al., 2020). The new GRSciColl is a comprehensive,

community-curated clearinghouse of data on scientific

collections in natural history as well as those in other

disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, and biomed-

icine. GRSciColl’s online registry lists 5,263 collection codes

linked to 8,037 institution codes as of 19 May 2020. GBIF

uses GRSciColl to help provide valuable data on the natural

history collections (i.e., ‘‘publishers’’) that contribute speci-

men records to their database (e.g., 1,985 publishers from

1,606 institutions as of 19 May 2020). iDigBio also maintains

data on natural history collections contributing records to

their database with 1,621 ‘‘Recordsets’’ (individual collec-

tions) as of 19 May 2020. For a comparison of well-

established indices to institution and collection codes, see

Table 2.

The standardization of codes is challenged in part by the

lack of a clear ontology for the description of natural history

holdings at the collection level. In 2008, the Biodiversity

Information Standards (TDWG) community drafted data

standards for describing all types of natural history collec-

tions including mixed ones resulting from expeditions and

voyages of discovery (NCD, 2008). This effort is currently

maintained by TDWG’s Collection Descriptions Interest

Group, which intends to deliver a metadata standard for

natural history collections in 2020 (CD, 2019; Hobern et al.,

2020). Such standards are necessary to facilitate the discov-

ery, management, and attribution of collections relative to

the specimen-level records they curate and provide.

From a bioinformatics point of view, stable institution and

collection codes are essential to accurately and efficiently

share data on natural history specimens (Schindel et al.,

2016; Hobern et al., 2020). Such codes facilitate online type

catalogs, aggregators of specimen-based records, and deriva-

tive databases that link natural history specimens to genomic

information (e.g., GenBank; International Barcode of Life,

//titan/Production/c/cope/live_jobs/cope-108/cope-108-02/cope-108-02-23/layouts/cope-108-02-23.3d  1 October 2020  8:46 pm  Allen Press, Inc.  COPEIA-D-20-00040 Page 597

Sabaj—Codes for ichthyology and herpetology collections 597

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Copeia on 14 Oct 2020

Table 2. Comparison of established indices to codes for natural history collections.

Title Maintained or published by

Total

codes

Distinct

institutions or

collections

Synonymous

codes

Codes publicly

available for

download Annotation

The Global Registry of Scientific

Collections (GRSciColl)

Global Biodiversity Information Facility

(GBIF)

8037 8037 NA Yes (copy & paste) as of 19 May 2020; includes herbaria,

museums, zoos, botanical gardens,

biobanks, among others

BioCollections Database US National Center for Biotechnology

Information (NCBI; see Sharma et

al., 2018)

7421 7421 NA Yes (FTP: Unique_

institution_

codes.txt)

as of 9 May 2020; biorepositories

(museums, herbaria, culture collections,

etc.) linked to sequence records in

GenBank

Global Registry for Biodiversity

Repositories (GRBio)

Scientific Collections International

(GRSciColl)

7097 7097 NA Yes (CSV file) orphaned 29 May 2018, but data migrated

to GBIF/GRSciColl in 2019

Index Herbariorum B. Thiers, New York Botanical

Garden’s Virtual Herbarium

4175 4175 NA Yes (CSV file) as of 15 Dec 2019; 3324 codes pertain to

active herbaria

Codes for natural history

collections in ichthyology and

herpetology

Sabaj, 2020 (this study) 3845 2064* 1781 Yes (Excel file) *includes defunct institutions/collections

The Insect and Spider

Collections of the World

Website

N.L. Evenhuis, The Bernice Pauahi

Bishop Museum

1872 1528 342 Yes (copy & paste) as of 16 Mar 2020

A Guide to Fish Collections in

the Catalog of Fishes

R. Fricke and W.N. Eschmeyer, 2020 1122 ? ? No as of 16 Mar 2020; includes synonymous

codes

World Porifera Database (WPD)

& World Register of Marine

Species (WoRMS)

R.W.M. Van Soest et al., 2018 (WPD)

& WoRMS Editorial Board, 2018

714 ~700 ~14 No based on subset of GRSciColl plus

additional codes cited in papers (Bart

Vanhoorne, pers. comm., 2018)

Standard Symbolic Codes for

Institutional Resource

Collections in Herpetology

and Ichthyology

A.E. Leviton et al., 1985 690 518 172* No (printed) *listed as ‘‘Rejected Symbolic Codes’’

Cata

´logo de las colecciones

mexicanas

CONABIO 541 541 NA Yes (copy & paste) as of 15 May 2020; *institution codes span

751 Mexican collections from germplasm

to mammals

speciesLink D. Canhos, Centro de Refere

ˆncia em

Informac¸a

˜o Ambiental (CRIA)

~308* ~308* NA Yes (copy & paste) as of 19 May 2020; *institution codes span

~520 collections mostly in Brazil

An inventory of major

European bird collections

C.S. Roselaar, 2003 164 152 12 No (printed) list includes details on collections, holdings

and staff; online version maintained and

updated by NHMUK

VertNet VertNet Team 125* 125* NA Yes (copy & paste) as of 19 May 2020; *institution codes span

312 data resources and 398 collections

//titan/Production/c/cope/live_jobs/cope-108/cope-108-02/cope-108-02-23/layouts/cope-108-02-23.3d  1 October 2020  8:46 pm  Allen Press, Inc.  COPEIA-D-20-00040 Page 598

598 Copeia 108, No. 2, 2020

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Copeia on 14 Oct 2020

iBOL) and media records such as 3D images (e.g., Morpho-

Source). Stable codes also allow for comparative studies and

surveys of collections’ growth, strengths, and value to science

and society (e.g., Funk, 2017; Singer et al., 2018). Future

directions for the assembly and use of natural history

collections in research and education, such as the Extended

Specimen Network (Schindel and Cook, 2018; Lendemer et

al., 2019), will need a stable index of codes and, at a finer

scale, persistent identifiers for the specimens themselves to

improve the interoperability of associated data (G¨

untsch et

al., 2017). GBIF’s new online global registry of scientific

collections (GRSciColl) will certainly stabilize codes within

the bioinformatics community. Taxonomists and systema-

tists, however, often reference the codes in long-standing

indices compiled for their particular group, or simply copy

and paste a relevant subset of such indices from one paper to

the next, substituting or creating new codes when needed.

The current study provides context for the idiosyncratic

origins, applications, and tenures of codes for natural history

collections and institutions, and may help bridge the gap

between those used in bioinformatics vs. the scientific

literature.

Concluding remarks.—In the early days of Linnaean taxono-

my, authors were relatively casual about citing the natural

history specimens from which their conclusions were drawn.

Left to later taxonomists was the complicated task of

divining the basis and application of old scientific names.

In the early days of molecular taxonomy, authors were

similarly casual about clearly citing repositories for specimen

vouchers (if extant), making it difficult, if not impossible, for

others to verify their work. Faunal surveys and ecological

studies do not always involve the preservation of specimens,

but those that do often neglect to specify repositories in

published results. Linnaean taxonomists today, especially

paleontologists, are far more careful about clearly citing

repositories for the specimens they studied. Practices among

molecular taxonomists have improved, but still fall short on

too many occasions. Ecologists remain the most negligent at

citing specimen repositories, inviting criticisms that the

taxonomic aspects of their work are irreproducible (Bortolus,

2008; Vink et al., 2012). The current list intends to encourage

those who collect or employ natural history specimens in

their research to carefully document not only the origin, but

the final destination of such specimens.

Closing recommendations.—General advice for the creation

and management of museum codes to promote their

standardization and proper use.

1. Newly created or modified codes should include at least

two components, an institution code and collection

code. Ideally, the institution code should be listed first

and globally unique among institutions holding natural

history specimens. The collection code should be

unique within its parent institution.

2. Institutions holding natural history specimens should

clearly identify preferred codes for citing such speci-

mens, especially via homepages, type catalogs, and

other articles specifically related to their collections.

3. Published studies that use or yield natural history

specimens should clearly identify the repository(ies)

for such specimens either by name and physical

location (preferred) or by reference to a well-established

and readily available index of institution and collection

codes.

4. Indices to institution and collection codes should

include relevant sources such as personal communica-

tions with staff and primary literature (e.g., collection

type catalogs).

5. Online databases that register institutions and collec-

tions and/or serve records or media based on natural

history specimens should make their index of codes

publicly available for download, especially in anticipa-

tion of going offline.

6. The so-called ‘‘Darwin Core Triplet’’ (concatenation of

dwc:institutionCode, dwc:collectionCode and dwc:ca-

talogNumber) is inadequate as a globally unique

identifier. Efforts to create true globally unique identi-

fiers for natural history collections should consider

incorporating a fourth Darwin Core field, dwc:owner-

InstitutionCode, to tie together collections with sepa-

rate institution codes (e.g., Museum of Vertebrate

Zoology and Museum of Paleontology) into a larger

meta-institution (University of California, Berkeley).

DATA ACCESSIBILITY

An excel file containing all abbreviations and additional

information on sources (bibliography and personal corre-

spondences) is available at: https://asih.org/standard-

symbolic-codes/about-symbolic-codes. Supplemental materi-

al is available at https://www.copeiajournal.org/

ASIHCODONS2020.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I express my sincerest thanks to all who responded to

requests for information pertaining to the natural history

collections in their care. For sharing information from

particular databases and indices, special thanks to Jan K.

Legind (GBIF), Shobha Sharma (NCBI), Peter Uetz (The

Reptile Database), and Mark D. Uhen (PaleoDB). Effort

supported in part by The Academy of Natural Sciences of

Philadelphia, Drexel University and NSF DEB 0315963 (PI L.

Page), DBI 1701714 (PI D. Blackburn), DBI 1701943 (PI M.

Sabaj).

LITERATURE CITED

Andrade, M. C., M. Je

´gu, and C. S. Gama. 2018. A new

species of Myloplus Gill (Characiformes, Serrasalmidae)

from the Tumucumaque Mountain Range, Brazil and

French Guiana, with comments on M. rubripinnis. Zootaxa

4403:111–122.

Andreone, F., and E. Gavetti. 2010. I musei naturalistici

metropolitani nello studio e nella conservazione della

biodiversita

`erpetologica: il caso del Museo Regionale di

Scienze Naturali di Torino. Museologia Scientifica Memorie

5:49–61.

Arnett, R. H., Jr., and G. A. Samuelson (Eds.). 1969.

Directory of Coleoptera collections of North America

(Canada through Panama). Purdue University, Lafayette,

Indiana.

Arnett, R. H., G. A. Samuelson, and G. M. Nishida. 1993.

The Insect and Spider Collections of the World. Sandhill

Crane Press, Gainesville, Florida.

//titan/Production/c/cope/live_jobs/cope-108/cope-108-02/cope-108-02-23/layouts/cope-108-02-23.3d  1 October 2020  8:46 pm  Allen Press, Inc.  COPEIA-D-20-00040 Page 599

Sabaj—Codes for ichthyology and herpetology collections 599

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Copeia on 14 Oct 2020

Bauer, A. M., A. Ceregato, and M. Delfino. 2013. The oldest

herpetological collection in the world: the surviving

amphibian and reptile specimens of the Museum of Ulisse

Aldrovandi. Amphibia–Reptilia 34:305–321.

Beck, L. A. (Ed.). 2018. Zoological Collections of Germany.

The Animal Kingdom in its Amazing Plenty at Museums

and Universities. Springer.

Beck, L. A., and U. Joger (Eds.). 2018. Paleontological

Collections of Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Springer.

¨hme, W. 2010. A list of the herpetological type specimens

in the Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig,

Bonn. Bonn Zoological Bulletin 59:79–108.

Bortolus, A. 2008. Error cascades in the biological sciences:

the unwanted consequences of using bad taxonomy in

ecology. Ambio 37:114–118.

Carvalho, T. P., R. E. Reis, and M. H. Sabaj. 2017.

Description of a new blind and rare species of Xyliphius

(Siluriformes: Aspredinidae) from the Amazon Basin using

high-resolution computed tomography. Copeia 105:14–28.

CD (Collections Descriptions Interest Group). 2019. Col-

lection Descriptions (CD), in development. Biodiversity

Information Standards (TDWG) https://www.tdwg.org/

standards/

Cervigo

´n, F. 2016. Coleccio

´n Ictiolo

´gica: MMM CI y CI-E (de

referencia y de exhibicio

´n), p. 431–439. In: Colecciones

Ictiolo

´gicas de Latinoame

´rica. L. F. Del Moral-Flores, A. J.

Ramı

´rez-Villalobos, J. A. Martı

´nez-Pe

´rez, A. F. Gonza

´lez-

Acosta, and J. Franco-Lo

´pez (eds.). Universidad Nacional

Auto

´noma de Me

´xico, Facultad de Estudios Superiores

Iztacala, Sociedad Ictiolo

´gica Mexicana A.C., Carrera de

Biologı

´a.

Chakrabarty, P., M. Warren, L. M. Page, and C. C. Baldwin.

2013. GenSeq: an updated nomenclature and ranking for

genetic sequences from type and non-type sources.

ZooKeys 346:29–41.

CONABIO (Comisio

´n Nacional para el Conocimiento y

Uso de la Biodiversidad). 2018. Cata

´logo de las colec-

ciones mexicanas. https://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/

fichas-conabio-war/resources/

Darwin Core Task Group. 2009. Darwin Core. G. Kampme-

ier (review manager). Biodiversity Information Standards

(TDWG). https://www.tdwg.org/standards/450

Del Moral-Flores, L. F., A. J. Ramı

´rez-Villalobos, J. A.

Martı

´nez-Pe

´rez, A. F. Gonza

´lez-Acosta, and J. Franco-

´pez (Eds.). 2016. Colecciones ictiolo

´gicas de Latin-

oame

´rica. Universidad Nacional Auto

´noma de Me

´xico,

Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Sociedad Ictiolo

´g-

ica Mexicana A.C., Carrera de Biologı

´a.

Duellman, W. E., T. Fritts, and A. E. Leviton. 1978. Museum

acronyms. Prepared by Electronic Data Processing Sub-

committee, Herpetological Resources Committee. Herpe-

tological Review 9:5–9.

Eschmeyer, W. N. (Ed.). 1998. Catalog of Fishes. Special

Publication No. 1 of the Center for Biodiversity Research

and Information, California Academy of Sciences.

Evenhuis, N. L. 2020. The insect and spider collections of

the world website. http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/codens/

(last accessed: 16 March 2020).

Ferna

´ndez, L., and J. Andreoli Bize. 2015. Hatcheria macraei

(Girard, 1855) (Siluriformes, Trichomycteridae): new record

from northwestern Argentina. Check List 11:1–3.

Ferraris, C. J., Jr. 2007. Checklist of catfishes, recent and

fossil (Osteichthyes: Siluriformes), and catalogue of siluri-

form primary types. Zootaxa 1418:1–628.

Fricke, R., and W. N. Eschmeyer. 2010. A Guide to Fish

Collections in the Catalog of Fishes Database. Online

version of 15 January 2010.

Fricke, R., and W. N. Eschmeyer. 2020. A Guide to Fish

Collections in the Catalog of Fishes Database. Online

version of 16 March 2020.

Fricke, R., W. N. Eschmeyer, and R. van der Laan (Eds.).

2020. Catalog of Fishes: Genera, Species, References.

Electronic version.

Frost, D. R. 2020. Amphibian Species of the World: An

Online Reference. Version 6.0. Electronic Database acces-

sible at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/

index.html. American Museum of Natural History, New

York.

Funk, V. A. 2017. North American Herbaria and their

Tropical Plant collections: what exists, what is available,

and what the future may bring. Scientia Danica, Series B,

Biologica 6:73–96.

Gallardo-Torres, A., M. Badillo-Alema

´n, H. Gutie

´rrez-

Oliva, and X. Chiappa-Carrara. 2016. Coleccio

´n Ictiolo

´g-

ica Regional de Referencia (CIRR), UMDI Sisal, p. 358–369.

In: Colecciones Ictiolo

´gicas de Latinoame

´rica. L. F. del

Moral Flores, A. J. Ramı

´rez Villalobos, J. A. Martı

´nez Pe

´rez,

A. F. Gonza

´lez Acosta, and J. Franco Lo

´pez (eds.).

Universidad Nacional Auto

´noma de Me

´xico, Facultad de

Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Sociedad Ictiolo

´gica Mexicana

A.C., Carrera de Biologı

´a.

GBIF. 2018. GBIF Implementation Plan 2017-2021 and

Annual Work Programme 2019. https://www.gbif.org/

document/4Pcu4jX68UE2iMOMQgQEE8/gbif-

implementation-plan-2017-2021-and-annual-work-

programme-2019

GBIF. 2019. News: GBIF provides new home for the Global

Registry of Scientific Collections. https://www.gbif.org/

news/5kyAslpqTVxYqZTwYn1cub/gbif-provides-new-

home-for-the-global-registry-of-scientific-collections

Gilbert, C. A. 1998. Type catalog of Recent and fossil North

American Freshwater fishes: families Cyprinidae, Catosto-

midae, Ictaluridae, Centrarchidae and Elassomatidae. Flor-

ida Museum of Natural History, Special Publication No. 1:i–

ii þ1–284.

Graf, D. L., and K. S. Cummings. 2018. The Freshwater

Mussels (Unionoida) of the World (and other less conse-

quential bivalves), updated 9 August 2018. MUSSEL Project

Web Site. http://www.mussel-project.net/

G¨

untsch, A., R. Hyam, G. Hagedorn, S. Chagnoux, D.

¨pert, A. Casino, G. Droege, F. Glo

¨ckler, K. Go

¨dderz, Q.

Groom, J. Hoffmann, A. Holleman, M. Kempa, H.

Koivula . . . D. Triebel. 2017. Actionable, long-term stable

and semantic web compatible identifiers for access to

biological collection objects. Database 2017:bax003.

Guralnick, R., T. Conlin, J. Deck, B. J. Stucky, and N.

Cellinese. 2014. The trouble with triplets in biodiversity

informatics: a data-driven case against current identifier

practices. PLoS ONE 9:e114069.

Habib, K. A., A. K. Neogi, J. Oh, Y.-H. Lee, and C.-G. Kim.

2019. Chelonodontops bengalensis (Tetraodontiformes: Tet-

raodontidae): a new species of puffer fish from the

Northern Bay of Bengal based on morphology and DNA

barcode. Ocean Science Journal 54:79–86.

//titan/Production/c/cope/live_jobs/cope-108/cope-108-02/cope-108-02-23/layouts/cope-108-02-23.3d  1 October 2020  8:46 pm  Allen Press, Inc.  COPEIA-D-20-00040 Page 600

600 Copeia 108, No. 2, 2020

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Copeia on 14 Oct 2020

Han, S.-Y., J.-K. Kim, Y. Kai, and H. Senou. 2017. Seahorses

of the Hippocampus coronatus complex: taxonomic revision,

and description of Hippocampus haema, a new species from

Korea and Japan (Teleostei, Syngnathidae). ZooKeys 712:

113–139.

Heppner, J. B., and G. Lamas. 1982. Acronyms for world

museum collections of insects, with an emphasis on

Neotropical Lepidoptera. Bulletin of the Entomological

Society of America 28:305–315.

Hobern, D., A. Asase, Q. Groom, D. Paul, T. Robertson, P.

Semal, B. Thiers, and M. Woodburn. 2020. Advancing

the Catalogue of the World’s Natural History Collections.

v1.0. GBIF Secretariat, Copenhagen. https://doi.org/10.

15468/doc-wnsx-ep77

Horton, T., A. Kroh, S. Ahyong, N. Bailly, C. B. Boyko, S. N.

Branda

˜o, S. Gofas, J. N. A. Hooper, F. Hernandez, O.

Holovachov, J. Mees, T. N. Molodtsova, G. Paulay, W.

Decock . . . Z. Zhao. 2018. World Register of Marine

Species. https://www.marinespecies.org at VLIZ (accessed

2018-12-31).

Humphrey, P. S. 1992. University Natural History Museum

Systems. Curator 35:49–70.

Kano, Y., M. S. B. Adnan, C. Grudpan, J. Grudpan, W.

Magtoon, P. Musikasinthorn, Y. Natori, S. Ottomanski,

B. Praxaysonbath, K. Phongsa, A. Rangsiruji, K. Shibu-

kawa, Y. Shimatani, N. So . . . T. Yamashita. 2013. An

online database on freshwater fish diversity and distribu-

tion in Mainland Southeast Asia. Ichthyological Research

60:293–295.

Lanjouw, J., and F. A. Stafleu. 1952. Index herbariorum: a

guide to the location and contents of the world’s public

herbaria, part I: the herbaria of the world. Regnum

Vegetabile 2(1).

Lendemer, J., B. Thiers, A. K. Monfils, J. Zaspel, E. R.

Ellwood, A. Bentley, K. Levan, J. Bates, D. Jennings, D.

Contreras, L. Lagomarsino, P. Mabee, L. S. Ford, R.

Guralnick ...M.C.Aime. 2019. The Extended Specimen

Network: a strategy to enhance US biodiversity collections,

promote research and education. BioScience 70:23–30.

Leviton, A. E., and R. H. Gibbs, Jr. 1988. Standards in

Herpetology and Ichthyology: Standard Symbolic Codes

for Institutional Resource Collections in Herpetology and

Ichthyology. Supplement No. 1: Additions and Correc-

tions. Copeia 1988:280–282.

Leviton, A. E., R. H. Gibbs, Jr., E. Heal, and C. E. Dawson.

1985. Standards in Herpetology and Ichthyology: Parts I–

III. Standard Symbolic Codes for Institutional Resource

Collections in Herpetology and Ichthyology. Copeia 1985:

802–832.

Leviton, A. E., R. McDiarmid, S. Moody, M. Nickerson, J.

Rosado, O. Sokol, and H. Voris. 1980. Museum acro-

nyms—second edition. Herpetological Review 11:93–102.

Lucentini, L., M. E. Puletti, C. Ricciolini, L. Gigliarelli, D.

Fontaneto, L. Lanfaloni, F. Bilo

`,M.Natali,andF.

Panara. 2011. Molecular and phenotypic evidence of a

new species of genus Esox (Esocidae, Esociformes, Actin-

opterygii): the Southern Pike, Esox flaviae. PLoS ONE 6:1–

14.

Maxwell, E. E., and A. Lo

´pez-Arbarello. 2018. A new

species of the deep-bodied actinopterygian Dapedium from

the Middle Jurassic (Aalenian) of southwestern Germany.

PeerJ 6:e5033.

McGrouther, M. A. 2006. Ichthyology at the Australian

Museum: Collections, databases and the Web, p. 103–116.

In: Proceedings of the 7

and 8

Symposia on Collection

Building and Natural History Studies in Asia and the Pacific

Rim. Y. Tomida, T. Kubodera, S. Akiyama, and T. Kityama

(eds.). National Science Museum Monographs 34.

Metcalf, J. L., S. Love Stowell, C. M. Kennedy, K. B. Rogers,

D. McDonald, J. Epp, K. Keepers, A. Cooper, J. J. Austin,

and A. P. Martin. 2012. Historical stocking data and 19

century DNA reveal human-induced changes to native

diversity and distribution of cutthroat trout. Molecular

Ecology 21:5194–5207.

Moreira, D. A., P. A. Buckup, M. R. Britto, M. G. P.

Magalha

˜es, P. C. C. de Andrade, C. Furtado, and T. E.

Parente. 2016. The complete mitochondrial genome of

Corydoras nattereri (Callichthyidae: Corydoradinae). Neo-

tropical Ichthyology 14:e150167.

NCD (Natural Collections Descriptions Interest Group).

2008. Natural Collections Descriptions (NCD), version

2008-08-12. Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG).

https://www.tdwg.org/standards/312 (also: https://www.

tdwg.org/standards/ncd/)

Nelson, G., and S. Ellis. 2018. The history and impact of

digitization and digital data mobilization on biodiversity

research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B

374:20170391.

Netto-Ferreira, A. L., O. T. Oyakawa, J. Zuanon, and J. C.

Nolasco. 2011. Lebiasina yepezi, a new Lebiasininae

(Characiformes: Lebiasinidae) from the Serra Parima-

Tapirapeco

´mountains. Neotropical Ichthyology 9:767–

775.

Ochoa, L. E., A. Datovo, C. DoNascimiento, F. F. Roxo, M.

H. Sabaj, J. Chang, B. F. Melo, G. S. C. Silva, F. Foresti, M.

Alfaro, and C. Oliveira. 2020. Phylogenomic analysis of

trichomycterid catfishes (Teleostei: Siluriformes) inferred

from ultraconserved elements. Scientific Reports 10:2697.

O’Leary, M. A., M. L. Bouare

´, K. M. Claeson, K. Heilbronn,

R. V. Hill, J. McCartney, J. A. Sessa, F. Sissoko, L.

Tapanila, E. Wheeler, and E. M. Roberts. 2019. Stratig-

raphy and paleobiology of the Upper Cretaceous-Lower

Paleogene sediments from the Trans-Saharan Seaway in

Mali. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History

436:1–177.

Parris, D. C., J. P. Schein, E. B. Daeschler, E. S. Gilmore, J.

C. Poole, and R. A. Pellegrini. 2014. Two halves make a

holotype: two hundred years between discoveries. Pro-

ceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadel-

phia 163:85–89.

Pietsch, T. W., and W. D. Anderson, Jr. 1997. Collection

Building in Ichthyology and Herpetology. American

Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Special

Publication No. 3.

Pollerspo

¨ck, J., and N. Straube. 2020. Bibliography Data-

base of living/fossil sharks, rays and chimaeras (Chon-

drichthyes: Elasmobranchii, Holocephali). https://www.

shark-references.com, World Wide Web electronic publica-

tion, Version 2020.

Poss, S. G., and B. B. Collette. 1995. Second survey of fish

collections in the United States and Canada. Copeia 1995:

48–70.

Rabi, M., C.-F. Zhou, O. Wings, S. Ge, and W. G. Joyce.

2013. A new xinjiangchelyid turtle from the Middle

Jurassic of Xinjiang, China and the evolution of the

//titan/Production/c/cope/live_jobs/cope-108/cope-108-02/cope-108-02-23/layouts/cope-108-02-23.3d  1 October 2020  8:46 pm  Allen Press, Inc.  COPEIA-D-20-00040 Page 601

Sabaj—Codes for ichthyology and herpetology collections 601

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Copeia on 14 Oct 2020

basipterygoid process in Mesozoic turtles. BMC Evolution-

ary Biology 12:203.

Roselaar, C. S. 2003. An inventory of major European bird

collections. Bulletin of The British Ornithologists’ Club

123A:253–337.

Sabaj, M. H. 2013. Academy Collections, Year-End Report,

Ichthyology, 2012. Department of Ichthyology, The Acad-

emy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University.

Sabaj, M. H., and M. Arce Herna

´ndez. 2017. Taxonomic

assessment of the Hard-Nosed Thornycats (Siluriformes:

Doradidae: Trachydoras Eigenmann 1925) with description

of Trachydoras gepharti, n. sp. Proceedings of the Academy

of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 166:1–53.

Schindel, D. E., and J. A. Cook. 2018. The next generation

of natural history collections. PLoS Biology 16:e2006125.

Schindel, D. E., S. E. Miller, M. G. Trizna, E. Graham, and

A. E. Crane. 2016. The Global Registry of Biodiversity

Repositories: A Call for Community Curation. Biodiversity

Data Journal 2016:e10293.

Schultze, H.-P., and G. Arratia. 2013. The caudal skeleton of

basal teleosts, its conventions, and some of its major

evolutionary novelties in a temporal dimension, p. 187–

246. In: Mesozoic Fishes 5—Global Diversity and Evolu-

tion. G. Arratia, H.-P. Schultze, and M. V. H. Wilson (eds.).

Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, M¨

unchen, Germany.

Schultze, H.-P., and K. A. Gonza

´lez-Rodrı

´guez. 2016.

Actinistian gular plates from the Cretaceous of Mexico

and the problems assigning gular plates taxonomically.

Fossil Record 19:101–117.

Sharma, S., S. Ciufo, E. Starchenko, D. Darji, L. Chlumsky,

I. Karsch-Mizrachi, and C. L. Schoch. 2018. The NCBI

BioCollections Database. Database, The Journal of Biolog-

ical Databases and Curation 2018:bay0006.

Shirke, S. S., M. Nashad, M. D. Sukham, and H. D. Pradeep.

2017. A first record of the Bentfin Devil Ray Mobula

thurstoni (Lloyd, 1908) (Myliobatiformes: Mobulidae) from

the Indian EEZ of the Andaman Sea. Journal of Threatened

Taxa 9:11074–11080.

Singer, R. A., K. J. Love, and L. M. Page. 2018. A survey of

digitized data from U.S. fish collections in the iDigBio data

aggregator. PLoS ONE 13:e0207636.

Tan, M., L. S. de Souza, and J. W. Armbruster. 2016. A new

species of Panaqolus (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from the

rio Branco. Neotropical Ichthyology 14:e150033.

Thiers, B. 2020. The World’s Herbaria 2019: A Summary

Report Based on Data from Index Herbariorum, Issue 3.0.

http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/docs/The_Worlds_

Herbaria_2019.pdf

Thiers, B., A. Monfils, J. Zaspel, E. Ellwood, A. Bentley, K.

Levan, J. Bates, D. Jennings, D. Contreras, L. Lagomar-

sino, P. Mabee, L. Ford, R. Guralnick, R. Gropp . . . M. C.

Aime. 2019. BCoN Report: Extending U.S. Biodiversity

Collections to Promote Research and Education. Biodiver-

sity Collections Network.

Uetz, P., S. Cherikh, G. Shea, I. Ineich, P. D. Campbell, I. V.

Doronin, J. Rosado, A. Wynn, K. A. Tighe, R. McDiar-

mid, J. L. Lee, G. Ko

¨hler, R. Ellis, P. Doughty . . . V.

Wallach. 2019. A global catalog of primary reptile type

specimens. Zootaxa 4695:438–450.

Uetz, P., P. Freed, and J. Hos

ˇek (Eds.). 2020. The Reptile

Database. http://www.reptile-database.org

Van Soest, R. W. M., N. Boury-Esnault, J. N. A. Hooper, K.

R¨

utzler, N. J. de Voogd, B. Alvarez, E. Hajdu, A. B. Pisera,

R. Manconi, C. Scho

¨nberg, M. Klautau, B. Picton, M.

Kelly, J. Vacelet ...R.Downey. 2018. World Porifera

database. https://www.marinespecies.org/porifera/ (ac-

cessed 2018-12-30).

Vink, C. J., P. Paquin, and R. H. Cruickshank. 2012.

Taxonomy and irreproducible biological science. BioSci-

ence 62:451–452.

Wallach, V., K. L. Williams, and J. Boundy. 2014. Snakes of

the World: A Catalogue of Living and Extinct Species.

Taylor and Francis, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Weber, C. 2018. National and international collection

networks, p. 29–36. In: Zoological Collections of Germany.

The Animal Kingdom in Its Amazing Plenty at Museums

and Universities. L. A. Beck (ed.). Springer International

Publishing.

Wiley, E. O., and A. T. Peterson. 2004. Biodiversity and the

internet: building and using the virtual world museum, p.

91–99. In: Environmental Online Communication. Ad-

vanced Information and Knowledge Processing. A. Scharl

(ed.). Springer, London.

APPENDIX 1

Codes for natural history collections in ichthyology and

herpetology. Codes are listed alphabetically by country, then

state (where applicable), and assigned an index number

(Supplemental Appendix; see Data Accessibility). Word, PDF,

and Excel versions of this appendix are available as

supplemental material (see Data Accessibility).

1. KUZM: Zoological Museum, Faculty of Science, Kabul

University (KU), Kabul. Also known as: Kabul University

Science Museum. Note: established by Clas Naumann, KU

professor from 1970–1972, during which time herpetological

specimens were shared with ZFMK; zoological museum

destroyed during Taliban regime (1996–2001). Assigned here:

KUZM. Afghanistan.

2. MNST: Natural Sciences Museum of Albania, Tirana.

Note: affiliated with the University of Tirana. Current as:

MNST (herps). Albania.

3. FSB/HAL: Faculte

´desSciencesBiologiques(FSB),Uni-

versite

´des sciences et de la technologie Houari-Boumediene

(USTHB), Bab Ezzouar. Also known as: University of Bab Ezzouar.

Current as:FSB/HAL(fishes).See also: ZAR (fossils). Algeria.

4. UTL: University of Abou Bakr Belka¨

ıd [Abou Bakr Belkaid

University of Tlemcen], Tlemcen. Current as: UTL (fossils,

Laboratory). Algeria.

5. ZAR: Muse

´edelaFaculte

´des Sciences de la Terre de la

´ographie et de l’Ame

´nagement du Territoire (FSTGAT),

Universite

´des sciences et de la technologie Houari-Boumediene

(USTHB), Bab Ezzouar. Current as: ZAR (fossils from Zarza¨

ıtine

Series). See also:FSB/HAL(fishes).Algeria.

6. JPHM: Jean P. Haydon Museum, Pago Pago. American

Samoa.

7. ISCED: Instituto Superior de Cie

ˆncias de Educac¸a

˜oda

Huı

´la (ISCED-Huı

´la), Lubango [ex Sa

´da Bandeira]. Also known

as: Lubango Museum. Includes: collections of Instituto de

Investigac¸a

˜oCientı

´fica de Angola (IICA). Current as:ISCED.

Huı

´la. Angola.

8. INBAC: Instituto Nacional da Biodiversidade e A

´reas de

Conservac¸a

˜o, Ministe

´rio do Ambiente de Angola, Kilamba

Kiaxi, Luanda. Current as:INBAC(herps).Luanda.Angola.

//titan/Production/c/cope/live_jobs/cope-108/cope-108-02/cope-108-02-23/layouts/cope-108-02-23.3d  1 October 2020  8:46 pm  Allen Press, Inc.  COPEIA-D-20-00040 Page 602

602 Copeia 108, No. 2, 2020

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Copeia on 14 Oct 2020

9. MGUAN: Museu de Geologia da Universidade Agostinho

Neto, Luanda. Current as: MGUAN (fossils), MGUAN-PA (fossils,

PaleoAngola Collection). Luanda. Angola.

10. MNHNL: Museu Nacional de Histo

´ria Natural de Angola,

Largo do Kinaxixe, Luanda [ex Sa

˜o Paulo da Assunc¸a

˜ode

Loanda]. Note: descended from Angolan Museum founded in

1938 in Sa

˜o Miguel Fort, Luanda Bay area. Current as: MNHNL/

ANF (amphibians), MNHNL/Rep (reptiles). Luanda. Angola.

11. MD: Museu Regional do Dundo, Dundo, Chitato. Also

known as: Museu do Dundo; Laborato

´riodeBiologiadoMuseu

do Dundo; Dundo Museum. Current as: MD. Lunda Norte.

Angola.

12. AI: Asociacio

´nIctiolo

´gica, La Plata. Note:collection

separate from, but in same building as MLP. Current as:AI

(fishes). Buenos Aires. Argentina.

13. CENAI: Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Iolo

´gicas,

Buenos Aires. Also as: Coleccion Herpetologica, Instituto

Nacional de Microbiologı

´a ‘‘Gustav G. Malbra

´n’’ (CENAI/

CHINM, INM, IINM). Note:‘‘Iolo

´gicas’’ correct, derived from

Greek word for venom; institution founded by Avelino Barrio

and closed in 1979; herps (including types) transferred to

MACN.BuenosAires.Argentina.

14. CFA: Fundacio

´n de Historia Natural Fe

´lix de Azara

Coleccio

´n, Universidad Maimo

´nides, Buenos Aires. Includes:

fish collection formerly at Instituto de Limnologı

´a‘‘Dr.Rau

´lA.

Ringuelet’’, La Plata (ILPLA, ILLPA). Note: older CFA collections

assembled by Julio Rafael Contreras for Programa de Biologı

´a

´sica, Corrientes, transferred to MACN and re-numbered.

Current as: CFA-IC (fishes), CFA-AN (amphibians), CFA-RE

(reptiles). Buenos Aires. Argentina.

15. GCF: Grupo Conservacionista de Fo

´siles, Museo Paleon-

tolo

´gico ‘‘Fray Manuel de Torres’’, San Pedro. Current as:GCF

(fossils). Buenos Aires. Argentina.

16. IAA: Instituto Anta

´rtico Argentino, Museo Anta

´rtico

de la Fundacio

´n Marambio, Buenos Aires. Note: research

institution; status of collections unknown. Buenos Aires.

Argentina.

17. MCA: Museo Municipal de Ciencias Naturales ‘‘Car-

los Ameghino’’, Mercedes. Current as: MCA (fossils). Buenos

Aires. Argentina.

18. MCNL: Museo de Ciencias Naturales ‘‘Gesue

´Pedro

Noseda’’, Loberı

´a. Current as: MCNL (fossils). Buenos Aires.

Argentina.

19. MCNLF: Museo de Ciencias Naturales ‘‘Florentino

Ameghino’’, Las Flores. Current as: MCNLF (fossils). Buenos

Aires. Argentina.

20. MHRA: Museo Histo

´rico Regional Ayacucho, Ayacu-

cho. Current as:MHRA(fossils).BuenosAires.Argentina.

21. MMCNP: Museo Municipal de Ciencias Naturales

Pachamama, Santa Clara del Mar. Current as:MMCNP

(fossils). Buenos Aires. Argentina.

22. MMH: Museo de Ciencias Naturales ‘‘Vicente Di

Martino’’, Monte Hermoso. Current as: MMH-QEQ (fossils

from Puente Vanoli). Buenos Aires. Argentina.

23. MMP: Museo Municipal de Ciencias Naturales ‘‘Lor-

enzo Scaglia’’, Mar del Plata. Current as: MMP (fossils).

Buenos Aires. Argentina.

24. CPBA: Departamento de Ciencias Geolo

´gicas, Uni-

versidad de Buenos Aires (UBA), Buenos Aires. Current as:

CPBA (fossils). See also: FCEN (Recent vertebrates). Buenos

Aires. Argentina.

25. FCEN: Vertebrate Collection, Facultad de Ciencias

Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA),

Buenos Aires. Current as: FCEN-V (herps). See also:CPBA

(fossils).BuenosAires.Argentina.

26. INIDEP: Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones desar-

rollo pesquero, Mar del Plata. Formerly: Instituto de Biologı

´a

Marina (IBMC) until 1977. Current as: INIDEP (fishes).

Buenos Aires. Argentina.

27. MACN: Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales

‘‘Bernardino Rivadavia’’, Buenos Aires. Formerly:Museo

Nacional de Argentina; Museo Nacional de Buenos Aires

(MNBA). Includes: herpetological collections from Centro de

Ecologı

´aaplicadadelLitoral(HB)andInstitutoNacionalde

Microbiologı

´a ‘‘Carlos G. Malbra

´n’’ (CENAI/CHINM, INM,

IINM); collection assembled by Julio Rafael Contreras for

Programa de Biologı

´aBa

´sica, Corrientes (now CFA); Colec-

cio

´nCarlosGrisolı

´a (CCG). Obsolete as:MBR,MNBA,

SHNBA. Current as:MACN-Ict(fishes,Coleccio

´nNacional

de Ictiologı

´a), MACN-He (herps, Coleccio

´n Nacional de

Herpetologı

´a);MACN-Pv(fossils,Coleccio

´nNacionalde

Paleovertebrados). Buenos Aires. Argentina.

28. MD: Museo Municipal de Ciencias Naturales Carlos

Darwin. Current as:MD(fossils).BuenosAires.Argentina.

29. MLP: Museo de La Plata, Facultad de Ciencias

Naturales y Museo (FCNyM), Universidad Nacional de La

Plata, La Plata. Also known as: Museo de Ciencias Naturales

de La Plata (CHMLPA). Formerly: Museo Antropolo

´gico y

Arqueolo

´gico de Buenos Aires based on collections donated

by Francisco Pascasio Moreno. Note: fish collection in same

building but separate from Asociacio

´n Ictiolo

´gica (AI)

collection. In error as: ILPLA (herps). Obsolete as:CHMLPA,

MLPA. Current as: MLP (fishes), MLP (fossils, Divisio

´n

Paleontologı

´a de Vertebrados), MLP A (amphibians), MLP

R (reptiles, for catalog numbers 5000), MLP S. & MLP JW.

(lizards & snakes, respectively, for catalog numbers ,5000),

MLP DB (Diego Baldo herpetological collection). Also as:

UNLP (amphibians). Buenos Aires. Argentina.

30. PV-UNS: Coleccio

´nPaleontolo

´gica de la Universidad

Nacional del Sur, Bahı

´aBlanca.Current as: PV-UNS (fossils).

Buenos Aires. Argentina.

31. UNMDP: Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata,

Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Laboratorio

Vertebrados, Mar del Plata. Note: includes Instituto de

Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras (IIMyC). Current as:

UNMDP (fishes), UNMdP (Coleccio

´nHerpetolo

´gica). Bue-

nos Aires. Argentina.

32. FACEN: Facultad Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Uni-

versidad Nacional de Catamarca, Catamarca. Includes:fish

collection formerly known as UNCa. Current as: FACEN

(fishes). Catamarca. Argentina.

33. MCNCH: Museo de Ciencias naturales ‘‘Augusto

Gustavo Schulz’’, Resistencia. Note:reportedasclosedin

2016. Chaco. Argentina.

34. CENPAT: Centro Nacional Patago

´nico, Puerto Ma-

dryn. Note: exclusive unit of Consejo Nacional de Inves-

tigaciones Cienctı

´ficas y Tecnolo

´gicas (CONICET). Includes:

Coleccio

´nHerpetolo

´gica, Luciano Javier Avila Mariana

Morando (LJAMM-CNP) began in 1998 and dontaed to

CENPAT in 2009. Obsolete as:CH-CNP(herps).Current as:

CENPAT (fossil fishes), CNP-A (amphibians), CNP-P (fishes),

LJAMM-CNP (Coleccio

´nHerpetolo

´gica). Chubut. Argenti-

na.

35. JAS-DC: Jose

´A. Scolaro Diagnostic Collection (herps).

Current as: JAS-DC (herps). Also as: CH-JAS (Coleccio

´n

Herpetolo

´gica de Jose

´A. Scolaro). Chubut. Argentina.

//titan/Production/c/cope/live_jobs/cope-108/cope-108-02/cope-108-02-23/layouts/cope-108-02-23.3d  1 October 2020  8:46 pm  Allen Press, Inc.  COPEIA-D-20-00040 Page 603

Sabaj—Codes for ichthyology and herpetology collections 603

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Copeia on 14 Oct 2020

36. MPEF: Museo Paleontolo

´gico ‘‘Egidio Fe ruglio’’ , Tre-

lew. Current as: MPEF-PV (fossil vertebrates). Chubut.

Argentina.

37. UNPSJB: Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia San

Juan Bosco, Chubut Province. Note: created in 1980 via

merger of Universidad de San Juan Bosco and Universidad

Nacional de la Patagonia. Current as: UNPSJB (fossils).

Chubut. Argentina.

38. AGM: Archivo Gra

´fico y Museo Histo

´rico de San

Francisco y la Regio

´n, San Francisco. Current as:AGM

(fossils). Co

´rdoba. Argentina.

39. CORD: Museo de Paleontologı

´a, Universidad Nacio-

nal de Co

´rdoba, Co

´rdoba. Current as: CORD-PZ (fossils). See

also: MZUC (Recent fishes, herps). Co

´rdoba. Argentina.

40. MAMM: Museo de Ciencias Naturales de la Regio

´nde

Ansenuza ‘‘Anı

´bal Montes’’, Miramar. Current as:MAMM-PV

(fossils, Seccio

´n Paleovertebrados). Co

´rdoba. Argentina.

41. MBM: Museo Provincial de Ciencias Naturales ‘‘Bar-

tolome

´Mitre’’, Co

´rdoba. Current as: MBM-PV (fossils).

´rdoba. Argentina.

42. MCNC: Museo Provincial de Ciencias Naturales ‘‘Dr.

Arturo Umberto Illı

´a’’, Co

´rdoba. Current as:MCNCPV

(fossils). Co

´rdoba. Argentina.

43. MHM: Museo Histo

´rico Municipal de Arroyito,

Arroyito. Current as: MHM (fossils). Co

´rdoba. Argentina.

44. MPH: Museo Municipal Punta Hermengo, Miramar.

Current as: MPH (fossils). Co

´rdoba. Argentina.

45. MZUC: Museo de Zoologı

´a, Facultad de Ciencias

Exactas, Fı

´sicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de

´rdoba, Co

´rdoba. Current as:MZUC(herps).Also as:CZA

(herps, Centro de Zoologı

´a Aplicada). See also:CORD

(fossils). Co

´rdoba. Argentina.

46. UNRC-ZV: Coleccio

´nHerpetolo

´gica de Zoologı

´aVer-

tebrados, Departamento de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad

Nacional de Rı

´oCuarto,Co

´rdoba. Obsolete as:DCN-UNRC,

ZVUNRC, UNRC-DCN-ZV. Current as:UNRC-ZV.Co

´rdoba.

Argentina.

47. CIPBV: Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras ‘‘Bella

Vista’’, Bella Vista. Note: no longer extant; disposition of

collection unknown. Corrientes. Argentina.

48. INALI: Instituto Nacional de Limnologı

´a, Consejo

Nacional de Investigaciones Cienctı

´ficas y Tecnolo

´gicas

(CONICET), Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Santo Tome

´.

Note: fish collection transferred to Museo Provincial de

Ciencias Naturales ‘‘Florentino Ameghino’’, Santa Fe

´(MFA).

Codes for Natural History Collections in Ichthyology and Herpetology

Abstract

Recommended publications

Technology and Innovation in Herpetology and Ichthyology Collections.

Lack of country-wide systematic herpetology collections in Portugal jeopardizes future research and...

Patterns and Trends in the Publication of Natural History Notes in Herpetology Journals Over the Pas...

Cold-blooded vertebrates