1360
Accepted by J. Svavarsson: 18 Oct. 2006; published: 20 Nov. 2006 61
ZOOTAXA
ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition)
ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition)Copyright © 2006 Magnolia Press
Zootaxa 1360: 61–68 (2006)
www.mapress.com/zootaxa/
Substituting time-consuming pencil drawings in arthropod
taxonomy using stacks of digital photographs
CHARLES OLIVER COLEMAN
Museum für Naturkunde, Invalidenstraße 43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany.
E-mail: oliver.coleman@museum.hu-berlin.de
Abstract
The most time-consuming part of a taxonomic description is making the illustrations. This
contribution shows how to save time by omitting the pencil drawings of arthropod appendages and
replacing them by stacks of microphotographs. These are imported into a drawing software package
on a computer in order to make a publication-ready line drawing, a technique described in detail in
Coleman (2003). The photographic method requires a special treatment of the appendages which is
also shown.
Keywords: method, drawing, taxonomy, arthropods, microphotography
Introduction
The high number of undescribed species and the limited time available for research brings
the taxonomist on the horn of a dilemma: describe fewer species in great detail or describe
more species, but in a not so detailed way. Of course most taxonomists would prefer to
deliver high-quality work that will be still useful even in the distant future, as some of our
predecessors showed in an exemplary manner (e.g. Stebbing, 1888; Sars, 1889).
The only way out of this dilemma is to speed up the descriptive process. One
possibility is the use of DELTA software (Dallwitz et al., 1993; Dallwitz et al., 1998) to
quickly generate text descriptions, diagnoses and keys.
However, the most time-consuming aspect of taxonomy is making the illustrations.
Drawing in taxonomy is a two step process, both very time-consuming. First, a pencil
drawing is made often using a camera lucida. Then these drawings are traced another time
on plates for publication. This inking stage can be sped up by using digital drawing
methods (Coleman, 2003).
The idea of this paper is to combine the rapid process of microphotography and the
COLEMAN62 © 2006 Magnolia Press
1360
ZOOTAXA advantages of a scientific drawing done with a digital drawing board. Moreover, this
method is very cost-effective, compared to the purchase of a camera lucida, which for
some microscopes is already difficult to buy. This method is especially good for dealing
with arthropod appendages. These have to be treated in a special way prior to digitization:
muscles must be dissolved, the cuticle decalcified and stained. Following this, the
appendages are mounted on microscopic slides.
Material and methods and step by step guide
Preparation and making of permanent slides
If the cuticle of the specimens is thick and calcified the prerequisite for the method is
to clear it by maceration, decalcification, staining and mounting the dissected parts before
taking the photos.
Maceration
There are two ways of dissolving the muscles inside the appendages.
1) One can use an enzyme solution. I have used two different recipes: a) 3 ml sodiumborate
solution in 7 ml aqua dest. with 0.1 g trypsin (modified after Dingerkus & and
Uhler, 1977); b) enzyrim solution (modified after Niederklopfer & Troxler, 2001): NaCl
15 g, Enzyrim 20 ml; Mollecal C 0.5 g in 1 l aqua dest., adjust to ph 8.5–9 with NaCO3.
2) The appendages are dissected off the body and put in a small vial with a glass lid.
Prior to the enzyme treatment the body parts should be washed to remove ethanol or
formaldehyde solution. The vial should be put in a warm environment, e.g. a hotplate, at
temperatures of 40–45 C (Fig. 1a). Check the vials often and replace any evaporated water.
The time required for dissolving the tissue varies from 1–6 hours depending on the size of
the object.
3) I prefer the KOH maceration. The appendages are put in a staining block with 70%
ethanol and 1–2 pellets of KOH are added. Also add 1 ml of glycerol, which prevents the
objects from drying out during further processing. After heating on a hot plate (not more
than 50–60C) the KOH dissolves quickly. Add ethanol from time to time to fill up liquid
losses. After 2–3 hours the tissue is completely dissolved. Put appendages into fresh
glycerol.
Decalcification
When the cuticle is not completely transparent it may be encrusted with calcium
carbonate. The calcium carbonate can be eliminated easily by putting the appendages from
glycerol into 70% ethanol in which some crystals of citric acid were dissolved. Remaining
glycerol prevent gas bubbles from forming inside the appendages.
© 2006 Magnolia Press 63DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS
1360
ZOOTAXAStaining
After maceration, the body parts are transferred into a fresh staining block with 70%
ethanol and some crystals of lignin-pink (Azophloxin, C18H13N3Na2O8S2) are added. Add 1
ml of glycerol and heat on a hotplate (Fig. 1a). Visually control the staining and stop the
process when you are content. Then transfer the appendages into fresh glycerol.
FIGURE 1. Preparation of permanent slides. a, maceration of appendages on a hot plate removing
tissue from the appendages; b, creation of permanent slides using Euparal, arrow points to a cover
slip with drop of Euparal, resting to allow the mounting medium to becoming somewhat harder; c,
lignin-pink stained distal part of a leg of an amphipod crustacean mounted in Euparal.
Making of permanent slides
Two mounting media are recommendable: Canada balsam and Euparal. Both are very
long-lasting and there are slides mounted with these media that are more than 100 years
old and are still in excellent condition. Canada balsam is rather difficult to handle and
some components are very toxic. Thus I prefer Euparal (Chroma, 3C 240 green). In order
to allow the medium to penetrate more easily, I put the appendages into a mixture of one
part 70% ethanol and one part Euparal. After an hour the objects are transferred into pure
Euparal for at least another hour before mounting them onto slides.
If only single appendages are mounted on separate slides and the appendages are
rather small there are no difficulties. If the appendages are thick then put the appendage
into a large droplet of Euparal and let it dry for a while, put another drop on the cover slip
you want to use and let it rest (Fig. 1b: arrow). If the resin gets gluey put the cover slip on
the object. It may be that the cover slip is raised on one side if the object is very thick, here
put some extra Euparal. During the drying process the mounting medium may contract
somewhat. Resulting gaps can be filled from the side.
COLEMAN64 © 2006 Magnolia Press
1360
ZOOTAXA
FIGURE 2. Making of micrographs. a, stacks of photos are taken with a camera mounted on a
microscope (1), directly transferred onto a computer (2) and drawn with a WACOM Intuous 2 DIN
A3 drawing tablet (3); b, all camera functions are controlled by the remote capture task software, in
the preview window of this software where focus of the microscope is being controlled. Moving the
lever 1 up will zoom out the dark margins; pushing the button 2 will expose a picture and
automatically transfers it onto the computer.
© 2006 Magnolia Press 65DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS
1360
ZOOTAXA
FIGURE 3. Creation of the drawing with the WACOM board using a crustacean appendage as an
example. a, stacks of micrographs are imported in a drawing software and arranged into one
picture; focus levels can be selected by clicking on the level selector (arrow); b, the outlines of the
photos are made using the levels of the stacks that are in focus; c, once all details are drawn, the
photos are deselected and the drawing can be used.
It is also possible to mount several small appendages onto one slide. In order to
prevent the appendages from moving around when putting them on the cover slip, put a
droplet of Euparal on the slide and use a cover slip to tease out the drop. Put the
appendages in this layer of Euparal in the required order and let them rest until the medium
becomes gluey. Then, put another droplet on the cover slip and put it on the slide after the
resin became gluey. Let the slide dry for some days in a dust-free environment before
making the micrographs.
Photography and drawing technique
For making photos we used a Canon Power Shot A 80 digital camera mounted with an
adapter tube on a Zeiss Axiostar plus microscope (Fig. 2a: 1). Any other microscope and
digital camera can be used instead. From each article of the appendages or, if small, whole
appendages, several micrographs are made varying the depth of focus. Then the data are
transferred onto the computer with a link cable.
COLEMAN66 © 2006 Magnolia Press
1360
ZOOTAXA Software that allows the remote control of the camera is very useful. For example the
Canon Power Shot camera is delivered with the Zoom Browser EX software which allows,
among other features, to control all camera settings and transfer the files directly onto the
hard-disk of the computer (remote capture task, Fig. 2b). Other types and brands of
cameras use similar remote control software from the manufacturer or as shareware (see
for example www.breezesys.com). There is a small preview window, this gives a live
picture from the microscope. So there is no need to look through the microscope to control
the focus; the whole process can be done on the computer screen.
Three settings should be adapted before taking the photo with the remote capture
option: 1) adjust the zoom with the lever on the right side of the window (Fig. 2b: 1), so
that the dark margins disappear; 2) select in preferences artificial light and 3) open the fstop
as much as possible.
With such kind of software it is much quicker to make the micrographs compared to
the direct adjustments on the camera. Click on the button up in the right corner of the
window (Fig. 2b: 2) to shoot a picture. Make a stack of micrographs of an article of an
appendage and save these files in their own subdirectory. Then move to the neighbouring
article of the appendage and produce another stack. Repeat until the appendage is
completely photographed.
Open the drawing software. Each picture from a stack is transferred on separate layers
of a drawing software (for details see Coleman, 2003). Then add the first picture of the
next stack of micrographs and place it next to the already placed stack, so that the
corresponding parts overlap. Without changing the position put the next pictures from the
stack on separate layers. When all picture stacks are combined, it is possible to move
through the different focus layers by clicking on the layer selectors (Fig. 2a: arrow). Only
one level is shown at a time. There is no addition of all focus levels.
Draw on a newly created layer on top of all the microphotographs and trace the
photographs using a drawing tablet (e.g. WACOM Intuous 2 DIN A3; Fig. 2a: 3) (cf.
Coleman, 2003 for details) and select the appropriate focus level with the layer selector.
During drawing the permanent slide should be examined through the microscope in order
to avoid mistakes. Only the layer containing the digital drawing is used to arrange the
single drawings of the appendages on plates.
Discussion
The digital drawing method (Coleman, 2003) let the taxonomist speed up the creation of
line drawings. Moreover, just as word processors revolutionized our writing, the use of
drawing software allows to experiment until we are satisfied with the result. Selecting
special settings in the software perfect lines without any signs of shakiness can be made.
Small structures can be enlarged dramatically and the drawing of these structures is much
easier compared to traditional ink on paper. Different thicknesses and styles of lines can be
© 2006 Magnolia Press 67DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS
1360
ZOOTAXAdefined and retrieved using macros. With this technique everybody can quickly make
perfect line drawings.
But this digital inking is only the second part of the illustration process. The basis for
this digital drawing method is usually a conventional pencil drawing, made with a
microscope and a camera lucida. In order to really save time, the pencil drawing must
somehow be avoided.
Myers (2004) tried to use modern microphotography and images at different depths of
focus combined into one photo in order to avoid the time-consuming drawing process
completely. However, this method has some fundamental disadvantages: 1) muscles inside
the appendages sometimes block the view on details on the lower focal plain; 2) it may be
difficult to see whether details are on the upper or lower face of the appendage, as the focal
planes are condensed into one picture; 3) artefacts on the cuticle can not be corrected as in
a drawing and 4) it is time-consuming to erase disturbing background artefacts in a
photography using image-processing software. With a digital camera, Harvey (1998)
captured images of decapod crustaceans and prepared them for publication using Adobe
Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator.
On the other hand a drawing is much clearer than a micrograph and even small,
inconspicuous details, such as fine structures of setae, that are relevant for systematics can
be shown. A drawing is not only a documentation of the morphology but also an
interpretation, showing the important characters some of which are difficult to see in a
photo, e.g. sometimes fine lines between articles of appendages. These cuticular lines are
very important for measuring the length of articles; length width ratios are often used as a
taxonomic character. Unlike a photo, structures that are surpassed by others can be
indicated in a drawing using dashed lines. Another advantage of the digital drawing
method is that most of the illustration procedure can be made by technical staff. Later the
systematist checks the results and, if necessary, corrects mistakes.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Christoph Held, Jason Dunlop and Jörundur Svavarsson for their
valuable comments which helped to improve the manuscript.
References
Coleman, C.O. (2003) "Digital inking": How to make perfect line drawings on computers. Organism,
Diversity and Evolution, Electronic Supplement, http://senckenberg.de/odes/03-14.htm,
1–14.
Dallwitz, M.J., Paine, T.A. & Zurcher, E.J. (1993 onwards) User’s Guide to the DELTA System: a
General System for Processing Taxonomic Descriptions. 4th edition. http://biodiver-
sity.uno.edu/delta/
COLEMAN68 © 2006 Magnolia Press
1360
ZOOTAXA Dallwitz, M.J., Paine, T.A. & Zurcher, E.J. (1998) Interactive keys. In: Bridge, P. Jeffries, P.,
Morse, D.R. & P.R. Scott (Eds.), Information Technology, Plant Pathology and Biodiversity.
CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 201–212.
Dingerkus, G. & Uhler, D.L. (1977) Enzyme clearing of Alcian blue stained whole small vertebrates
for demonstration of cartilage. Stain Technology 32, 229–231.
Harvey, A.W. (1998) Rediscovery and range extension of the Galapagos endemic Pachycheles velerae
(Decapoda: Anomura: Porcellanidae). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 18(4), 746–752.
Myers, A.A. (2004) A new species of amphipod of the genus Neomegamphopus (Crustacea,
Amphipoda, Neomegamphopidae) from Rodrigues, Indian Ocean. Journal of Natural History
28(23-24), 3138–3142.
Niederklopfer, P. & Troxler, M. (2001) Knochenpräparation. Handbuch für Praktiker. Bauer Handels
GmbH, Waberg, pp. 153.
Sars, G.O. (1895) An account of the Crustacea of Norway. Christiania, Copenhagen, Alb. Cammermeyers
Forlag, pp. 701, 248 plates.
Stebbing, T.R.R. (1888) Report on the Amphipoda collected by H.M.S. Challenger during the years
1873-1876. London, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 3 volumes, pp.1570, 210 plates.