The owners of Guana Island make available a certain number of hotel rooms for scientists during the slow part of the tourist season as part of a program to promote research on the island. Because our field research is conducted in the midst of both vacationing guests and other scientists (mostly ecologists), we are in constant close contact with people unfamiliar with both our motives and our methods. Surprisingly it is usually the ecologists who have asked us such pointed questions as "Why is taxonomy useful?" "Why do you have to collect and preserve the animals (can't you just take a picture and let them go)?" "Who is going to use this information?" "What is this animal?"
At the same time our colleagues ask us such questions as "Why aren't you going to other locations?" "Why are you spending so much time sorting live animals and taking pictures?" "Why aren't you preserving everything in Alcohol?" and the converse "Why aren't you preserving everything in formalin?"
We have found all of these questions to be valuable in that it makes us step out of the mindset of "We like to do it, we are trained to do it, we are doing it to advance our field of science" and look at the bigger picture. Luckily our team members consist of more than just academic taxonomist/systematists so answers to the questions of practicality/application are readily at hand.
One day we had a round table discussion to discuss this question posed by a fisheries ecologist in charge of the Caribbean regional office for a global aquatic resource management organization. Even though some of her team members were trying to identify and count the marine invertebrates that could be sustaining the local populations of larval and juvenile commercial fish species, she did not have a clear argument for the question in her mind. It became clear to us through our conversation that this was mainly because ecological models are formulated around that information which is readily available to the model makers and is general enough so that the model will work with some accuracy. Therefor ecologists often go out to study local ecosystem dynamics with nothing more than popular field guides and what ever dated regional identification manuals they can find. Individual studies are often on the order of a few years at most, and so the scientist involved do not have time to amass the primary literature needed to become familiar with/ identify the animals being counted.
It should be noted that in the light trap samples they were using to catch both fish and their invertebrate prey items we found that a large proportion of the sample consisted of Cumacean crustaceans, and that more than half of those were undescribed species. Some of the known species that turned up frequently in samples, such as Cubanocuma gutzei (not entered into the website yet), are reported in but a single publication over a hundred years old.
Nearly every state and/or major metropolitan area in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe that borders on a large body of water has monitoring and regulatory agencies to ensure the health of that body of water, and in turn the health of those people using it. Teams of taxonomists are employed to identify and count the marine invertebrates and fishes collected as part of ongoing coastal sampling programs. This information on species composition and abundance is used to determine both long term and short term effects of industrial, agricultural, and urban (street runoff and sewage treatment products) pollutants on the coastal ecosystem. This monitoring accounts for such things as restricted fishing areas and beach closures that protect public health, as well as mitigation projects to restore heavily impacted areas. Environmental laws in these areas also require studies to assess the impact any public or private construction project may have on the environment. These studies are carried out by independent biological consulting companies who employ their own teams of taxonomists.
It is these many taxonomists, along with the a handful of academic experts studying the evolution and systematics of specific groups, who rely on both published species descriptions, and the actual preserved specimens upon which the descriptions are based, in order to carry out their work. These people not only enter an environment where much of the classical old primary literature is available either as a part of onsite libraries, or through professional contacts, but the also spend their careers learning and accumulating the most recent publications on newly described species.
Unfortunately very few of even the larger universities are offering courses in invertebrate zoology, and those people teaching it are often not hired as systematist-taxonomists but are ecologists, behaviorists, or physiologists working on invertebrates. The few larger museums are the centers for systematic and taxonomic research, but because the scientists in these places are not always affiliated with a university, graduate students being trained in these labs are rare.
That being said, it is difficult for developing countries to monitor their coastal areas because trained people and informational resources are unavailable. Any impact studies for construction projects in coastal areas (harbor expansion, construction of hotels, airports, roads etc) either must be conducted by hiring outside consultants, or are simply not done because of the costs involved.
Click on image to enlarge 
In order to identify most species it is necessary to look at fine structural details, often using a microscope. There is also a certain amount of unknown variability within each species, so a sample of the population including different sizes, sexes, and developmental stages is most useful. A written species description is used to identify the animal in relation to all closely related species known at the time, and therefor may exclude detail of structures deemed unimportant at the time of writing. There is also the problem of conveying a visual concept using words so while relying on any publication there is always the uncertainty that the specimen you are looking at is the same species as that described. Museum collections, and onsite voucher collections of positively identified specimens allow one to make adequate comparisons when necessary, and in fact it would be nearly impossible to publish a description of a new species without the author actually comparing his/her animals with actual specimens of closely relate species.
A picture of the living animal serves as a record of a single characteristic (color pattern), and although this may turn out to be useful for quick identification in the field, it is usually not enough to positively identify the species. As a result, we need the preserved specimen to put a name on the picture. Most studies rely on preserved specimens anyway, and so the actual color of the living animal is often never seen.
Our first priority is to use this opportunity to find and describe new species, report on range extensions, and provide whatever observational information on natural history that we can. This information is or will be published in scientific journals to ensure its wide spread dissemination and long term availability. It will thus be available both through direct access to science libraries (universities and museums), and through interlibrary loan. The specimens we collect are held in museums in perpetuity (we hope) and are available for loan. Many of these specimens have been preserved in such a way that tissue samples can, and are being used for DNA analysis
Much of the information we gather will not make it to the primary literature, either because it is inappropriate, insubstantial, or because it has been reported on before. This does not mean that it is not important or useful, therefore our second priority is to get this information out to those people who do not follow the primary taxonomic literature. We hope that the images and information on this web page will enable scientists, students, and governmental agencies, especially in the Caribbean, to carry out studies not normally possible due to lack of informational resources. We also hope that teachers at all levels can use our images to strengthen their curricula, and that the general public will become more aware of what is out there and of what little we know.
Contrary to popular opinion, we usually cannot (and should not) make a quick identification based on our memory and a look at a living animal or picture of it. This is why many of the images on the website, even though of seemingly common and easily recognizable species, still do not have names on them. We have simply not gotten around to positively identifying the specimen of which the photo was taken. Much of taxonomic science today is concerned with separating out species that have been traditionally grouped together as one. As our understanding of evolution, biogeography, and life history strategies increases, we find that we must go back and reevaluate many of the species initially thought to have wide ranges and high levels of variability. As additional specimens are made available it is easier to recognize the variability and define species groups. It is all too easy to simply believe ourselves when we make a quick visual identification, put a name tag in the jar and place the specimen on a shelf. A closer look to confirm the identification may very well have recognized the animal as an important new species.
One problem in science today is the common practice of discarding the remains of organisms used for studies of behavior, physiology, genetics, cell biology etc. after the study is completed. Often the identities of the study organisms are never questioned by the scientist carrying out the study. The organism may have been received from any number of sources (without any collection data), who may in turn have receive them from local collectors (not trained taxonomists) who put a name on them. Two very similar looking species (possibly tested side by side) may have very different behaviors, physiological tolerances, modes of reproduction etc. Unless the remains are preserved as vouchers, the identity of the organisms can never be confirmed and the data from the resultant publications are questionable and could affect numerous related studies down the line.
Click on image for more info
Occasionally the opportunity arises to visit nearby areas, and the immediate response is "lets go, who knows what might be there". However, after studying the Guana Island for four years, we are finding that the fauna in a particular spot can change from year to year, small pockets (some no larger than a few square meters) within reef areas we have gone through previously have turned out to be very different and valuable micro habitats, and even sandy silty deep water areas at the base of the reef, thought to be homogenous over wide areas are turning out to be nearly as variable with distance as the shallower areas. We have barely sampled the symbiotic faunas, those smaller invertebrates living in and on sponges, gorgonians, blades of seagrass etc. In some ways it is more valuable to know what you have sampled so that you can recognize subtly different habitats, which may contain species not seen yet.
The diversity and abundance of organisms in even the smallest marine sample is astounding, and these many organisms usually come to the surface mixed in with mud, sand, rubble, algae etc. so fully sorting even a handful can take one or more days of microscope work. The specialists who make up normal scientific survey teams are there first and foremost to collect specimens useful to their own research and so it would be unproductive for them to sort through say a small algae sample to get all of the microscopic organisms that they may not work on when they could spend that time more quickly going through a larger amount of sample pulling out only the most interesting organisms.
So standard operating procedure for marine collecting expeditions is that individual specialists search out and care for mainly their organisms of interest when out in the field. Also, when a net, or dredge haul is brought on deck, animals must be sorted out quickly to clear the decks as fast as possible before the next haul comes aboard. This means that mainly the larger easily seen organisms are taken. Scientists then spend the rest of the time preparing/preserving specimens, taking notes, using colored pencils to make drawings of live specimens etc. A great deal of down time, (when no work can be done) is spent traveling long distances from station to station.
We have developed ways to collect more animals per unit effort, so what would have taken over a hundred man-hours underwater on scuba to hand collect is now accomplished in ten man-hours by deploying ARMs, or by using simple net dredging techniques coupled with air bag or tethered buoy sample retrieval by scuba divers.
Because we do not have the down time associated with traveling long distances, nor are we limited in working space, we can and do spend more time on each sample. The working environment and logistical situation is such that team members are aware of the interests and expertise of the people working next to them, and so tend to consider a wider diversity of organisms while sorting.
Color notes have never been a high priority with marine invertebrate taxonomists. Most animals studied have long been preserved and are much faded, so comparison of color patterns is not possible. The amount of time it takes to accurately describe color in life is also prohibitive since there is usually other work that needs to be done. Because our scientist/photographers are confident that other team members are adequately sorting out their research organisms, they can take the time out from their own sorting to photograph as many animals as possible. The photographers are also the ones taking the bulk of responsibility for properly relaxing and preserving the most scientifically important specimens. The photographs save everyone the time of making drawings with colored pencils, they provide an additional piece of scientific information about the animal, and have been invaluable for education and public awareness.
Formalin, a mixture of formaldehyde and water, is the traditional method of choice for preserving marine invertebrates. Formalin fixes the tissue so that it resists breakdown over time. Once the organism is fixed it is placed into ethanol, a preservative, acts as a desiccant, pulling water out of the tissues and preventing bacterial or fungal growth. Unfortunately formalin also breaks up strands of DNA making those specimens coming into contact with it nearly impossible to use for modern molecular analysis. And its acidic nature quickly ruins the microsculpture on mollusk shells.
It is becoming popular to preserve animals using only ethanol so that they can be available for molecular as well as morphological study. Ethanol preservation has the draw back that soft-bodied organisms like polychaete worms tend to deteriorate over time, and smaller arthropod specimens become misshapen as the water is drawn from their soft tissues. We therefore try to compromise and fix the majority of soft bodied creatures and bulk samples/ washings with formalin. Larger arthropods were almost always preserved with alcohol in the last years.