Untitled - Alaska Resources Library

2) Regional guides. In most instances, we have accepted the data found in older, but not ancient, guides such as
Miller and Lea (1972), Hart (1973), and Eschmeyer and Herald (1983), because we know those were based on solid
review of the literature and examination of permanent vouchers. Where we or other authors have uncovered errors
in those works, and we feel the corrections may have been or are likely to be overlooked otherwise, we have made
and annotated the corrections. However, numerous such mistakes have already been pointed out in recent works
such as for species occurring in Alaska (Mecklenburg et al. 2002) and we generally do not repeat the information.
In the interests of time, we did not attempt to track down or cite the original sources of all the data found in earlier
compendia. For example, data sources are cited for each species in Mecklenburg et al. (2002), and the information
can be tracked from that work when we do not repeat the original source citations here.
3) Museum specimens. To find potential new extensions of known size or geographic range as represented
by voucher specimens in museums we reviewed the fish collections of the National Marine Fisheries Service,
Auke Bay Biological Laboratory (fish catalog prefix AB); California Academy of Sciences (CAS); Los Angeles
County Museum of Natural History (LACM); Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO); University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAM); National Museum of Natural History (USNM [collection abbreviation is from the older
name, U.S. National Museum]); and University of Washington (UW). Before including any of these records
in this inventory, the identity of that specimen was verified by examination. Specimens in U.S. museums were
examined by Catherine W. Mecklenburg (Auke Bay Biological Laboratory, California Academy of Sciences,
National Museum of Natural History, University of Alaska Fairbanks, and University of Washington); Milton
Love and Richard Feeney (Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History); and H. J. Walker, Cynthia Klepadio,
Phil Hastings, and Richard Rosenblatt (Scripps Institution of Oceanography). Boris A. Sheiko looked up records
and examined specimens in the Russian Academy of Sciences ichthyological collection at St. Petersburg (ZIN).
Museum records previously published and those supporting personal communications are included by reference
to the publications and personal communications. Some apparent extensions of known range and size dissolved
when errors, such as in catch localities, were discovered in the museum databases.
4) Gray literature and survey databases. In recent years, there have been a number of fishery resource
assessments, primarily trawl surveys, along the Pacific Coast. Examples of these are the shelf and slope trawl
surveys conducted by NOAA Fisheries and those conducted by the Southern California Coastal Water Research
Program. The use of data from these surveys, usually available in annual and final reports, was challenging. As
noted by Matarese et al. (2003), some of the data, especially from older surveys (pre-1995), are of uneven quality.
In light of this information, we were cautious in accepting data about more unusual occurrences where voucher
specimens or photographs were unavailable. From these early studies, we tended to accept reports of easily
identifiable fish species and to reject clearly disjunct occurrences of coastal species and reports involving poorly
understood fish groups. In some instances where we had access to the survey databases for these earlier studies,
we sometimes accepted depth and range extensions when there was at least a second collection made near that
new record. Unquestionably, the accuracy of species identifications has increased in more recent surveys with
improved guides and keys to fishes, greater ichthyological expertise and interest in biodiversity relationships.
Even so, in a number of instances we requested that the original datasheets be rechecked to assure that the species
were properly coded in the database. In cases where the data cited represent a considerably greater extension of
known range or depth, we include the current published record and add the new data preceded by “reported to”
or other phrase to alert readers to the need for saving voucher specimens.
5) Personal communications. Over the years, fishers and biologists have reported many unusual sightings
or records of fish captures to us. We have included those with the best documentation. We give only the most
general information for the records from personal communications because in most cases the contributors
themselves intend to publish papers giving the details. Most of the records, such as those from Alex E. Peden
and Graham E. Gillespie of British Columbia fishes and Boris A. Sheiko of Russian fishes, are backed by voucher
specimens in permanent museum collections. Many personal communication records are backed by photographs
and discussion of diagnostic characters. A special case we need to mention for clarification is a work in progress
on the Commander Islands ichthyofauna by V. V. Fedorov and B. A. Sheiko. This work was cited in Mecklenburg
et al. (2002) as “Fedorov and Sheiko 2002” because it was represented as being in press. However, it has not yet
been published and to avoid further confusion we cite the manuscript as it was provided to the Mecklenburgs
vii