Use of laser scanning confocal microscopy for morphological taxonomy and the potential for digital type specimens (e-types)

The use of laser scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM) for creating taxonomic descriptions of copepods is investigated. A new technique is described, which employs a contour filter to process digital LSCM images, allowing taxonomic information to be quickly and accu- rately distilled into a simple illustration. LSCM allows the imaging of whole specimens, which can be rotated and viewed from any angle—a major benefit over light microscopy. Using this tech- nique, it is suggested that taxonomic descriptions can be rapidly produced in a fraction of the time required to produce similar descriptions using traditional light microscopy and hand drawing techniques. Good staining of specimens is, however, essential to produce accurate descriptions and more research is required in this area. The use of LSCM for morphological taxonomy shows great potential, not only for producing taxonomic descriptions, but also providing a comple - mentary adjunct to traditional type specimens in the form of 3D digital 'e-types' deposited in recognised international databases.

[1]  J. Bron,et al.  Development of a light microscopy stain for the sclerites of Gyrodactylus von Nordmann, 1832 (Monogenea) and related genera , 2012, Parasitology Research.

[2]  Paul Monis Invited review The importance of systematics in parasitological research , 1999 .

[3]  B. Dayrat,et al.  Towards integrative taxonomy , 2005 .

[4]  V. Kulasekera,et al.  Three‐dimensional visualization of insect morphology using confocal laser scanning microscopy , 2003, Journal of microscopy.

[5]  R. Balakrishnan Species concepts, species boundaries and species identification: a view from the tropics. , 2005, Systematic biology.

[6]  Jeremy A. Miller,et al.  Linking of digital images to phylogenetic data matrices using a morphological ontology. , 2007, Systematic biology.

[7]  H. Godfray Challenges for taxonomy , 2002, Nature.

[8]  James Mallet,et al.  Taxonomy: renaissance or Tower of Babel? , 2003 .

[9]  H. C. J. Godfray Towards taxonomy's 'glorious revolution' , 2002, Nature.

[10]  C. Dunn Keeping taxonomy based in morphology , 2003 .

[11]  M. O'Neill,et al.  Automated species identification: why not? , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[12]  J. Bron,et al.  GyroDb: gyrodactylid monogeneans on the web. , 2008, Trends in parasitology.

[13]  Christopher H. Dietrich,et al.  Automated identification of leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Draeculacephala Ball) , 1994 .

[14]  V. Gewin Taxonomy: All living things, online , 2002, Nature.

[15]  K. Will,et al.  Myth of the molecule: DNA barcodes for species cannot replace morphology for identification and classification , 2004, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[16]  Lynne Boddy,et al.  Automated identification and characterisation of microbial populations using flow cytometry: the AIMS project , 2000 .

[17]  J. Michels,et al.  Assessment of Congo red as a fluorescence marker for the exoskeleton of small crustaceans and the cuticle of polychaetes , 2010, Journal of microscopy.

[18]  Simon D. Rycroft,et al.  Scratchpads: a data-publishing framework to build, share and manage information on the diversity of life , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[19]  S. Doglia,et al.  Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional morphometry of monogenoidean sclerites. , 2007, International journal for parasitology.

[20]  P. Alberch Museums, collections and biodiversity inventories. , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[21]  Giovanni Strona,et al.  Three-Dimensional Imaging of Monogenoidean Sclerites by Laser Scanning Confocal Fluorescence Microscopy , 2006, The Journal of parasitology.

[22]  Ingi Agnarsson,et al.  Taxonomy in a changing world: seeking solutions for a science in crisis. , 2007, Systematic biology.

[23]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Driving miss daisy: the performance of an automated insect identification system. , 2000 .

[24]  A. H. Malik,et al.  Exploring an inherent interface between taxonomy and biodiversity: Current problems and future challenges , 2007 .

[25]  Mark A. O'Neill,et al.  Automated identification of live moths (Macrolepidoptera) using digital automated identification System (DAISY) , 2004 .

[26]  D. Hillis,et al.  Molecular Versus Morphological Approaches to Systematics , 1987 .

[27]  G GOMORI,et al.  A rapid one-step trichrome stain. , 1950, American journal of clinical pathology.

[28]  E. Wilson Taxonomy as a fundamental discipline. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[29]  P. Thacker Morphology: The Shape of Things to Come , 2003 .

[30]  Q. Wheeler,et al.  Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[31]  N. Platnick,et al.  The intellectual content of taxonomy: a comment on DNA taxonomy , 2003 .

[32]  Stefan Schröder,et al.  Biodiversity Informatics in Action: Identification and Monitoring of Bee Species using ABIS , 2001 .

[33]  Paul Monis The importance of systematics in parasitological research. , 1999, International Journal of Parasitology.

[34]  Tom Arbuckle AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION OF BEES' SPECIES FROM IMAGES OF THEIR WINGS , 2002 .