Report on trial of SatScan tray scanner system by SmartDrive Ltd.

Smartdrive Ltd. has developed a prototype imaging system, SatScan, that captures digitised images of large areas while keeping smaller objects in focus at very high resolution. The system was set up in the Sackler Biodiversity Imaging laboratory of Natural History Museum on March 8, 2010 for a one-month trial. A series of projects imaging parts of the entomological, botanical and palaeoentomological collection were conducted to assess the systems utility for museum collection management and biodiversity research. The technical and practical limitations of the system were investigated as part of this process

A new species of Micrepimera Matile (Diptera: Keroplatidae) from Baltic Amber

A new species of Micrepimera Matile, 1990 (Diptera: Keroplatidae) from Baltic amber is described. Known species of Macrocera from Baltic amber are reviewed. Macrocera elegantissima Meunier, 1904 is transferred to Micrepimera; a lectotype is designated for this species

ZOOTAXA

www.mapress.com/zootaxa

Inselect: Automating the Digitization of Natural History Collections

Copyright: © 2015 Hudson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The attached file is the published version of the article

Comment on the letter of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) dated April 21, 2020 regarding 'Fossils from conflict zones and reproducibility of fossil‑based scientific data': Myanmar amber

Recently, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has sent around a letter, dated 21st April, 2020 to more than 300 palaeontological journals, signed by the President, Vice President and a former President of the society (Rayfield et al. 2020). The signatories of this letter request significant changes to the common practices in palaeontology. With our present, multi-authored comment, we aim to argue why these suggestions will not lead to improvement of both practice and ethics of palaeontological research but, conversely, hamper its further development. Although we disagree with most contents of the SVP letter, we appreciate this initiative to discuss scientific practices and the underlying ethics. Here, we consider different aspects of the suggestions by Rayfield et al. (2020) in which we see weaknesses and dangers. It is our intent to compile views from many different fields of palaeontology, as our discipline is (and should remain) pluralistic. This contribution deals with the aspects concerning Myanmar amber. Reference is made to Haug et al. (2020a) for another comment on aspects concerning amateur palaeontologists/citizen scientists/private collectors

Comment on the letter of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) dated April 21, 2020 regarding “Fossils from conflict zones and reproducibility of fossil‑based scientific data”: Myanmar amber

Non peer reviewe

19. Lygistorrhinidae (long-beaked fungus gnats)

Suricata is a new sister journal to SANBI’s Strelitzia, and is a peer-reviewed publication that publishes original and applied research such as monographs, revisions, checklists, Red Data Lists, atlases, and Fauna’s of any taxa belonging to Regnum Animalia (the Animal Kingdom). In the past, some extensive faunal research was published under the SANBI Biodiversity Series. Content of this nature will be more prominently published under the new monograph name, which will highlight the wider range of biodiversity work that SANBI does. The new monograph will therefore provide a vehicle for information that is already considered for the SANBI Biodiversity Series, but doesn’t fall within its framework of submissions (see SANBI Biodiversity Series above). The zoological part of SANBI’s work, in addition to biodiversity information sourced via collaboration and networking, can be more prominently showcased in this dedicated publication series

From Field to Web: Pre-entry point digitisation

Most digitisation workflows are focused on legacy material, due to the sheer number of objects already collected. However, it is just as important to develop protocols for digitisation of incoming material to reduce accumulation of an additional backlog. This is especially crucial with the advent of molecular collections and field sequencing. In-the-field extraction and sequencing (Oxford Nanopore Technologies 2018) may lead to increasing numbers of voucher specimens without proper collection data and labels; or specimens disassociated with data. It is easy for researchers occupied by collecting and sequencing to delay proper documentation until a later date. As a curator, I can vouch that specimens without properly recorded data (with only collecting codes, for example) are lost for science. Fortunately, a combination of the best collecting and curatorial practices, simple online and offline tools, and modern technologies, makes in-the-field digitisation a reality. In the last couple of years, entomologists at the National Museums Scotland (NMS) have been testing the following workflow: Collecting routes and points are recorded with ViewRanger (Augmentra Ltd 2019), available as an app for mobile phones; At the moment of collecting, event data is recorded with Epicollect5 (Imperial College London 2019), available as Android app. Software's field generator allows creation of different scenarios, depending on method or circumstances of collection; and records main types of data: text, dates, time, coordinates. Individual collecting code is associated with the record; Specimens collected are prepared (pinned, stored in preservative, dried, etc.) and associated with corresponding collecting code; Additional data (diary records) is recorded in a notebook with Neo Smartpen (NEO SMARTPEN Inc. 2017) and digitsed. Collecting event records are imported into a collection management system (CMS) (PAPIS, Pape and Ioannou 2019) or EarthCape (EarthCape 2019); Specimen lots (if relevant) are sorted to a desirable level; Multiple specimen or lot records are created in CMS based on collecting event records; Data labels and UID labels are printed and physically associated with specimens or lots; Additional data (klm file of collecting route, diary records) are imported and associated with collecting events. Collecting routes and points are recorded with ViewRanger (Augmentra Ltd 2019), available as an app for mobile phones; At the moment of collecting, event data is recorded with Epicollect5 (Imperial College London 2019), available as Android app. Software's field generator allows creation of different scenarios, depending on method or circumstances of collection; and records main types of data: text, dates, time, coordinates. Individual collecting code is associated with the record; Specimens collected are prepared (pinned, stored in preservative, dried, etc.) and associated with corresponding collecting code; Additional data (diary records) is recorded in a notebook with Neo Smartpen (NEO SMARTPEN Inc. 2017) and digitsed. Collecting event records are imported into a collection management system (CMS) (PAPIS, Pape and Ioannou 2019) or EarthCape (EarthCape 2019); Specimen lots (if relevant) are sorted to a desirable level; Multiple specimen or lot records are created in CMS based on collecting event records; Data labels and UID labels are printed and physically associated with specimens or lots; Additional data (klm file of collecting route, diary records) are imported and associated with collecting events. Steps 1-4, and, depending on available facilities, steps 5-9, can be performed in the field, before specimens reach the depository. Alternatively, steps 5-9 should be performed immediately on returning from the field. There is no excuse for newly collected material not to be digitised before it is reaches the collection. Recent entomological collecting trips of NMS yielded 7358 specimens from 72 collecting events, fully documented and digitised in a matter of hours.</jats:p