{"paper_id":"29b3961a-edbd-48fb-84b3-4f33fdf3ef7d","body_text":"PREPRINT\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\nDiversity of fish otoliths from the Gulf of Mexico and\nCaribbean Sea: report on the first digital collection of\nfish otoliths from the Atlantic region of Mexico\n Xavier Chiappa Carrara, Maribel Badillo Alemán,  Ariana Solís Gómez,  Alfredo Gallardo Torres,\nEduardo Pacheco Gongora\n\nDiversity of fish otoliths from the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea: report on the first 1 \ndigital collection of fish otoliths from the Atlantic region of Mexico. 2 \n 3 \nMaribel Badillo Alemán1 <maribaam@ciencias.unam.mx> 4 \nAriana Solís Gómez2 <arianasolisgmz@gmail.com> 5 \nAlfredo Gallardo Torres1<gallalf@ciencias.unam.mx> 6 \nEduardo Pacheco Gongora1 <epacheco@ciencias.unam.mx> 7 \nXavier Chiappa-Carrara1,3,* <xcc@ciencias.unam.mx> 8 \n 9 \n1 Laboratorio de Biología de la Conservación, Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM 10 \n2 Posgrado en Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, UNAM 11 \n3 Laboratorio Nacional de Biología del Cambio Climático, CONAHCYT 12 \n* Corresponding author 13 \n 14 \nAbstract 15 \nThe Otolith Collection of Fishes from the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea was created 16 \nwith the objective of conserving and illustrate the diversity of these structures from 17 \nspecies living in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, and the freshwater and brackish 18 \nsystems of the Yucatan Peninsula, incorporating morphological descriptions and 19 \nmorphometric data. Otoliths, non-skeletal calcareous structures that develop in the inner 20 \near of fish, are essential for balance and hearing. They have become pivotal tools for age 21 \nand growth determination, population analysis, and ecological, trophic, and archaeological 22 \nstudies due to their resistance to degradation and the extensive information they provide 23 \nabout the environment and physiology of fish. The collection now includes otoliths from 24 \n214 species from 67 families, obtained through sampling campaigns and collaborations 25 \nwith local fishermen. The otoliths are extracted using techniques that ensure the integrity 26 \nof the structures for later preservation. High-resolution images are obtained using optical 27 \nand scanning electron microscopy, and these images are stored in an online database. 28 \nThis database facilitates research and teaching by providing public access to digital 29 \nspecimens and associated data. In addition to fostering academic development, this 30 \ncollection represents a significant step towards the creation of a national platform for 31 \notolith data analysis, aligned with international efforts to digitize biological collections. 32 \nDespite the financial and logistical challenges involved in building and maintaining 33 \nbiological collections, this collection demonstrates its value as an essential resource for 34 \ntaxonomic, systematic, and ecological studies, as well as for biodiversity education and 35 \nawareness. The online availability of the collection not only facilitates access to data but 36 \nalso promotes innovation and international collaboration in the study of fishes and their 37 \nhabitats. 38 \n 39 \nKeywords: Biological collection, digitization, fish, image analysis, online collection 40 \n 41 \nIntroduction 42 \nThroughout history, biological collections have played a fundamental role in documenting 43 \nthe biodiversity of our planet. They provide essential information for the knowledge, 44 \nexploitation, and sustainable use of our biological capital, and they assist in the analysis 45 \nof trends derived from environmental changes. Additionally, they contribute necessary 46 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\ninformation for studies on environmental health, epidemiology, and national security, 47 \nproving to be irreplaceable tools for investigating cases of biological terrorism (Suarez 48 \nand Tsutsui 2004) and determining the effects of anthropogenic activities (Izzo et al. 49 \n2018). The information generated from the analysis of specimens kept in biological 50 \ncollections has motivated changes in public policies on the sustainable use of natural 51 \nresources, significantly impacting social welfare (National Academies of Sciences, 52 \nEngineering, and Medicine 2020). 53 \n 54 \nBiological collections are not only essential repositories for taxonomic and systematic 55 \nwork on the biota but also contribute to the development of other scientific disciplines. 56 \nThey play a crucial role in education by raising awareness of the need to document and 57 \nconserve biodiversity and by enabling the development of new skills in research and data 58 \nanalysis. Therefore, the role of biological collections transcends purely scientific 59 \nobjectives and should be considered necessary tools that benefit society (Kellner 2024). 60 \n 61 \nAt different regional levels, collections maintain and catalog specimens of local 62 \necosystems, creating, preserving, and increasing information on species distribution, 63 \nidentifying endemic or invasive species, and evaluating changes in biodiversity over time 64 \n(Meineke et al. 2018). Thus, biological collections are essential references in conservation 65 \nefforts, including those focused on endangered species and their habitats. 66 \n 67 \nAs fishes have been a group of interest for centuries, they are part of several biological 68 \ncollections, notable for their diversity of forms and adaptations. Approximately 36893 fish 69 \nspecies are recognized (Fricke et al. 2024), equivalent to more than half of all living 70 \nvertebrates. Mexico, with its high diversity of fishes, boasts at least 2763 species 71 \n(Espinosa-Pérez 2014), of which 1816 are found in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean 72 \nSea (Robertson and Van Tassel, 2023). In this region, fishing activities by industrial and 73 \nartisanal fleets, along with recreational activities such as diving and sport fishing, are 74 \ndepleting natural populations (De la Cruz et al. 2016). Given that many fish species 75 \npresent on the Atlantic coast of Mexico have economic, nutritional, cultural, ecological, or 76 \nevolutionary importance, it is necessary to know the specific identity of organisms and 77 \nstudy aspects of their biology, ecology, and biogeography, underscoring the relevance of 78 \nscientific collections. 79 \n 80 \nAlthough specimens deposited in ichthyological collections are useful for various research 81 \npurposes, their importance in paleontological, archaeological, and trophic studies is 82 \nparticularly noteworthy. In trophic studies, for example, prey of piscivorous organisms are 83 \noften identified by examining stomach contents, vomit, or feces (Baker et al. 2024). This 84 \nmethodology is limiting when the prey's degree of digestion is advanced. However, other 85 \nstructures such as otoliths (Baker et al. 2014), which may be present in the digestive tract 86 \nof ichthyophagous organisms due to their resistance to degradation and retention of 87 \noriginal characteristics in many situations (Rivaton and Bourret 1999; Tuset et al. 2008), 88 \ncan be recognized. In paleontology and archaeology, zooarchaeological remains, 89 \nincluding otoliths, are valuable for reconstructing environmental conditions, such as the 90 \ndistribution and extent of water bodies, and recognizing the species used by ancient 91 \ncultures (Lin et al. 2022). 92 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\n 93 \nOtoliths are non-skeletal calcareous concretions (Nolf 1985; Maisey 1987) that grow 94 \nwithin the vestibular system of vertebrates, particularly in the membranous labyrinth of the 95 \ninner ear. In bony fish, the inner ear consists of three semicircular canals and three otic 96 \nchambers, each housing an otolith. Depending on the chamber in which they are located, 97 \notoliths are called sagitta (in the sacculum), lapillus (in the utricle), and asteriscus (in the 98 \nlagena). These structures play a crucial role in balance, orientation, and sound detection 99 \n(Platt and Popper 1981; Gauldie and Nelson 1988; Campana and Thorrold 2001). Otoliths 100 \nare composed of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in the form of aragonite and other inorganic 101 \nsalts, with crystals embedded in an organic matrix composed of a fibrous protein called 102 \notolin, deposited concentrically around a nucleus (Martínez-Pérez et al. 2018). The 103 \npresence of several elements is related to metabolically regulated processes and is 104 \ninfluenced by both endogenous and exogenous factors. Therefore, otoliths can provide 105 \ninformation on the physiological aspects of organisms and the environments in which they 106 \ndeveloped (Volpedo and Echeverría 2003). These characteristics have made otoliths key 107 \ntools in research on age and growth (Francis and Campana 2004), population dynamics, 108 \ntrophic studies, archaeological analyses, and present and past environmental conditions. 109 \n 110 \nSagittae have a particular morphology that varies among species, making them useful as 111 \nauxiliary structures in organism identification and for distinguishing between 112 \nphylogenetically close species (Volpedo and Echeverría 2003). Analyzing the shape, size, 113 \nand structural characteristics of otoliths not only allows for species identification but also 114 \nhelps investigate evolutionary relationships and reconstruct phylogenetic histories. 115 \n 116 \nRojo (2015) emphasized the importance of incorporating otoliths into fish collections, as 117 \nthey enable the extraction of biological information about species that is otherwise 118 \nunattainable through the analysis of other structures such as spines, scales, or bones. 119 \nOtoliths store unique data on the life history of organisms and the environmental 120 \nconditions of their habitats. It is in this context that the Otolith Collection of Fishes from 121 \nthe Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea was created and registered with the Mexican 122 \nMinistry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT, registration code DGVS-123 \nCC-305-18). 124 \n 125 \nThe main objective of this collection is to preserve otoliths of a wide variety of species, 126 \nincluding those of economic and ecological importance, as well as endangered and 127 \nendemic species from the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, and freshwater and 128 \nbrackish systems of the Yucatan Peninsula. The addition of the Mexican Atlantic Fish 129 \nOtolith Collection (Martínez-Pérez et al. 2011; Del Moral-Flores et al. 2016) and proper 130 \ncuration and maintenance have turned this collection into a national reference, 131 \ncontributing to research in disciplines such as biology, ecology, biogeography, 132 \narchaeology, and fisheries, among others. To enhance this purpose and facilitate access 133 \nto specimens and other resources such as databases or software for shape analysis, this 134 \ncollection is available online. Public access to information is thus guaranteed, scientific 135 \ncollaboration is encouraged, and educational and training opportunities are improved 136 \n(Monfils et al. 2017), extending these benefits to a wide geographical extent. 137 \n 138 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\nMethods 139 \nSpecimen collection 140 \nSince 2011, multiple campaigns have been conducted in various localities of the Gulf of 141 \nMexico and the Caribbean Sea to obtain bony fish specimens, which serve as the primary 142 \ninput of biological material. Specific sampling methods have been employed, involving 143 \ndifferent fishing gears operated under catch permits obtained from the competent 144 \nauthorities. Additionally, visits have been made to markets, fish markets, and ports, and 145 \nagreements have been established with fishermen from different areas to direct sampling 146 \nefforts towards certain species of interest. The Otolith Collection of Fishes from the Gulf of 147 \nMexico and Caribbean Sea has been enriched by the addition of the Mexican Atlantic 148 \nFish Otolith Collection (Martínez-Pérez et al., 2011; Del Moral-Flores et al., 2016). 149 \n 150 \nIt is important to note that otolith extraction requires that the specimens be fresh or frozen, 151 \nas otoliths preserved in unneutralized formalin or alcohol degrade, reducing the chances 152 \nof correct identification (Hecht, 1990) and limiting their usefulness as collection 153 \nspecimens. 154 \n 155 \nAfter collection, each fish is identified to the species level using taxonomic keys and 156 \nguides. Biometric data, such as total length (TL), standard length (SL), cephalic length 157 \n(CL), body height, weight, and, when possible, sex, are recorded for each specimen. 158 \nCapture data, including locality, date, and geographic coordinates, are also documented. 159 \n 160 \nOtolith extraction 161 \nTwo techniques are employed for otolith extraction. One method involves lifting the 162 \noperculum, removing the gills, and breaking the bony capsules to expose and extract the 163 \notoliths with forceps. The other method involves separating the head from the body, 164 \nremoving the gill arches and surrounding tissue to locate the bony capsules. The blades 165 \nof a pair of scissors are inserted into the center of the first vertebra, using them as a lever 166 \nto lift the ventral bone of the capsule and expose the otoliths. These procedures are 167 \nperformed under a stereoscopic microscope. 168 \n 169 \nOnce extracted, the otoliths are cleaned of residual tissue, and detailed morphometric 170 \nmeasurements, including perimeter, area, height, width, and acoustic sulcus dimensions, 171 \nare obtained using Zen Pro software (Zeiss). These data allow for the calculation of 172 \ndifferent morphometric indices useful in species comparison. 173 \n 174 \nThe terminology used for the morphological descriptions of sagittae is derived from the 175 \nworks of Volpedo and Echeverría (2000), Mascareñas-Osorio et al. (2003), Tuset et al. 176 \n(2008), and Martínez-Pérez et al. (2018). 177 \n 178 \nOtoliths are stored in vials labeled with biometric and capture data, including a unique 179 \nidentification code for each specimen. The vials are placed in boxes, which are labeled 180 \nand stored in the collection under controlled temperature and humidity conditions to 181 \nensure long-term preservation. 182 \n 183 \nDigitization of the collection 184 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\nThe digitization of the Otolith Collection of Fishes from the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean 185 \nSea is a key component in improving the accessibility and usefulness of the stored 186 \nspecimens. This collection includes a photographic archive of approximately 2600 otolith 187 \nimages obtained using optical and scanning electron microscopy techniques. These 188 \nimages are used not only for documentation and preservation but also to facilitate 189 \nresearch and comparative analysis. 190 \n 191 \nHigh-resolution images of the otoliths are obtained using an advanced Zeiss AxioZoom 192 \nstereo microscope, which provides continuous magnification and excellent depth of field, 193 \ncrucial for capturing the morphological details of the structures. These images are used 194 \nfor both taxonomic identification and morphometric studies. Additionally, a scanning 195 \nelectron microscope (Jeol 7600F FESEM) is used to obtain high-resolution images with a 196 \nlarge depth of field, allowing for the visualization of ultrastructural details of otoliths not 197 \nperceptible with optical microscopy. This equipment is essential for studies requiring 198 \ndetailed analysis of the otolith surface and its microstructures. 199 \n 200 \nImages are selected to highlight the distinctive characteristics of each otolith, with angles 201 \nand focus optimized for this purpose. Each image is edited to standardize the black 202 \nbackground, enhancing contrast and facilitating the visualization of morphological details. 203 \nA watermark with the collection logo is added to each image to ensure provenance and 204 \nmaintain the collection's identity. 205 \n 206 \nThe digitized images are stored in a database management system that allows easy 207 \naccess and retrieval. Each image is associated with the biometric and capture data of the 208 \ncorresponding specimen, including the unique identification code. 209 \n 210 \nResults 211 \nPhysical specimens 212 \nThe Otolith Collection of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea comprises 3001 lots, 213 \nrepresenting 214 species from 67 families (Table 1). Sciaenidae is the most represented 214 \nwith 17 species, followed by Carangidae and Haemulidae, with 15 and 11 species, 215 \nrespectively. 216 \n 217 \nThe species with the highest number of specimens in the collection are Menticirrhus 218 \namericanus (Linnaeus, 1758) with 191 lots, Ariopsis felis (Linnaeus, 1766) with 108 lots, 219 \nBagre marinus (Mitchill, 1815) with 106 lots, and Haemulon plumierii (Lacepède, 1801) 220 \nwith 102 lots. Each lot typically contains all three pairs of otoliths: sagitta, asteriscus, and 221 \nlapillus. 222 \n 223 \nThe collection includes otoliths from specimens collected along the coasts of the states of 224 \nTamaulipas, Veracruz, Campeche, and Yucatan, which is the best-represented state with 225 \n1700 lots, followed by Campeche with 894 lots and Veracruz with 368 lots. Additionally, 226 \nthe collection contains 23 lots of otoliths from Cuba. 227 \n 228 \nFig. 1 illustrates the sagittal otoliths of most of the families included in the collection. 229 \nThese images on the collection's web page are accompanied by morphological 230 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\ndescriptions and morphometric characteristics such as length, height, perimeter, and area 231 \nof both the sagitta and the acoustic sulcus. These variables allow for the calculation of 232 \nshape indices, including circularity, rectangularity, aspect ratio, and the proportion of the 233 \narea occupied by the acoustic sulcus. The diversity of the shape of the saccular otoliths is 234 \nnotable, ranging from simple ellipsoids to complex patterns with species-specific 235 \nprojections and invaginations. The dorsal and ventral margins can be smooth, scalloped, 236 \nlobed, serrated, or serrate. The anterior and posterior regions exhibit significant variability, 237 \nbeing pointed, angulated, rounded, truncate, oblique, lanceolate, bilobed, double-pointed, 238 \nor irregular. Many species have an indentation in the anterior region, the ostial fissure, 239 \nwhich delineates the rostral and antirostral regions. The characteristics of the fissure, 240 \nwhether deep or shallow, angulated or rounded, affect the shape and size of these 241 \nsections. The acoustic sulcus, a longitudinal depression along the medial face of the 242 \nsagitta, consists of the ostium anteriorly and the cauda posteriorly. In some instances, 243 \nthickening of the edges, known as cristae, and dorsal or ventral depressions are present 244 \nalong the acoustic sulcus. 245 \n 246 \nWebsite 247 \nThe online catalog of the Fish Otolith Collection of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea 248 \naims to organize and present the information in a user-friendly yet comprehensive 249 \nmanner, available to academics, students, and anyone interested in fish biology and 250 \necology. 251 \n 252 \nThe website features a detailed database with information on each otolith, including 253 \nspecies, location, size and weight of the specimen, collector, and morphological 254 \nparameters of the otolith. It also includes a gallery of images or scientific illustrations of 255 \nthe species and photographs of the otoliths obtained through optical and electron 256 \nmicroscopy. Detailed morphological descriptions of the left sagitta of each species are 257 \naccessible. 258 \n 259 \nBefore publication on the website, the quality of the digital data is verified to ensure high-260 \nvalue information that can positively impact research and education. 261 \n 262 \nTo facilitate consultation, the webpage offers search functions by taxon (family, genus, or 263 \nspecies) and keywords related to otolith characteristics. Additionally, didactic resources 264 \nsuch as videos on otolith extraction and description techniques, and the use of relevant 265 \nequipment for their study are available. The otolith collection webpage can be accessed 266 \nat https://otolitos.unam.mx. 267 \n 268 \nPublications and analytical tools 269 \nDerived from the curatorial work of the collection and the information on each specimen, a 270 \ncatalog with descriptive cards of the sagittal otoliths of 155 fish species from the Gulf of 271 \nMexico was published (Martínez-Pérez et al., 2018). This catalog includes standardized 272 \ndescriptions of the shape, as well as some morphometric data of the structure, acoustic 273 \nsulcus, and shape indices. Currently, a second edition of the catalog is being prepared, 274 \nwhich will include information on species added in recent years. 275 \n 276 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\nAdditionally, a software, Invariant Otolith Shape Analysis (IOSA), which can be 277 \ndownloaded here, https://sites.google.com/view/jorge-perez/community#h.hh1lv19s6hlj ) 278 \nhas been developed to automatically obtain morphometric descriptors and shape 279 \ninvariants of otoliths from their images, based on the methodology proposed by Hevia-280 \nMontiel et al. (2021). 281 \n 282 \nRecently, the collection has been used to corroborate the presence of fish remains in the 283 \nMayan archaeological record. This information will deepen our understanding of pre-284 \nHispanic fishing practices and infer possible changes in some fish populations in the 285 \nregion. 286 \n 287 \nDiscussion 288 \nThe Otolith Collection of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea is a sample of the 289 \nrichness and ichthyological diversity of the region. It has a collection of 214 species 290 \nbelonging to 67 families, which represent a significant percentage (just over 11%) of the 291 \ntotal number of species recorded for the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. 292 \n(Robertson and Van Tassel, 2023). The families and species most represented in the 293 \ncollection reflect the specific composition of the local ichthyofauna, its ecological 294 \nimportance, and its relevance to the regional economy. This extensive taxonomic 295 \nrepresentation provides an invaluable database for biodiversity, taxonomy, and 296 \nsystematic studies of fishes in the region. 297 \n 298 \nThe otoliths in this collection come from specimens obtained in various geographic 299 \nregions, enabling the study of species distribution and population variability in different 300 \nlocalities of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. With 3001 lots in total, the collection 301 \nprovides a robust data set for statistical analyses, intraspecific variability studies, and 302 \ntemporal trend evaluations. 303 \n 304 \nOtoliths are invaluable in paleontological, archaeological, and biological explorations, 305 \nsuch as analyzing the stomach contents of piscivorous species. Reference collections 306 \nhave been established to assist in species identification from remains found in 307 \narchaeological contexts, as documented by Disspain et al. (2016) and Lambrides et al. 308 \n(2024). The catalogs by Mascareñas et al. (2003) and Martínez-Pérez et al. (2018), along 309 \nwith the website www.otolitos.unam.mx, support research efforts in Mexico. 310 \n 311 \nThe digitization of biological collections, including the Otolith Collection of the Gulf of 312 \nMexico and Caribbean Sea, is crucial for making scientific information universally 313 \naccessible. Digitization transforms specimen information into digital formats, allowing for 314 \neasy access and analysis by anyone with an internet connection. This approach 315 \nmodernizes the use of biological collections, eliminating the need for physical travel or 316 \nloan requests, which risk loss or damage to the specimens. 317 \n 318 \nDigitization also fosters new research topics and addresses global challenges related to 319 \nclimate change, food security, and conservation (Soltis, 2017). The online presence of the 320 \nOtolith Collection makes it the first digital otolith collection in Mexico, facilitating 321 \ninternational collaboration and knowledge dissemination. This effort aligns with global 322 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\ninitiatives like the \"Integrated Digitized Biocollections\" (iDigBio), the \"European Distributed 323 \nSystem of Scientific Collections\" (DiSSCo), and the \"Innovation and Consolidation for 324 \nLarge Scale Digitization of Natural Heritage\" (ICEDIG). These programs promote the 325 \nnetworking of collections worldwide, contributing to the \"global museum\" concept (Bakker 326 \net al., 2020). 327 \n 328 \nDespite the benefits of digitization, physical specimens remain the primary source of 329 \nverifiable data. Digital information complements but does not replace physical specimens. 330 \nIncreased online accessibility often leads to more visits to collections and loan requests 331 \nfor physical specimens (Vollmar et al., 2010). Therefore, preserving physical specimens in 332 \noptimal conditions is a primary task for the curatorial staff of the Otolith Collection. 333 \n 334 \nAdditionally, the webpage offers accessible image processing software that employs 335 \ninvariant descriptors, as detailed by Hevia-Montiel et al. (2021). These descriptors are 336 \nindependent of rotation, scale, or translation, thereby ensuring consistent results. This 337 \nsoftware provides additional information beyond traditional descriptors, such as otolith 338 \narea or perimeter (Hevia-Montiel et al., 2021), which is particularly beneficial in taxonomic 339 \nstudies that rely on limited structures for species identification. By offering a user-friendly 340 \ninterface that allows the application of image processing through a webpage, the tool 341 \nsignificantly broadens its user base. Enhancing collaboration is crucial, especially in 342 \nstudies involving these structures, where there is an increasing demand for web-based 343 \ntools that enable researchers to browse and search images and data in conjunction with 344 \nbiological analyses. 345 \n 346 \nThe contributions of biological collections to knowledge, education, and innovation are 347 \nimmense but often unrecognized (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 348 \nMedicine, 2020; Kellner, 2024). Many scientific communities have highlighted the risks of 349 \ninadequate funding for maintaining the infrastructure necessary for the proper functioning 350 \nof these collections (Finkel, 2024; Kellner, 2024). Thus, the online presence of the Otolith 351 \nCollection is a vital step toward creating a national platform that supports the analysis of 352 \nbony fish otoliths in various contexts, including paleontological, archaeological, biological, 353 \nand ecological studies (Begg et al., 2005; Disspain et al., 2016). 354 \n 355 \nConclusion 356 \nOtoliths serve multiple research purposes, including paleontological, archaeological, and 357 \nbiological explorations, and support species identification in archaeological contexts. The 358 \nOtolith Collection of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea represents the ichthyological 359 \ndiversity of the region, encompassing 214 species of 67 families, reflecting over 11% of 360 \nthe total species richness in the region. The collection's species composition mirrors the 361 \nlocal ichthyofauna's ecological importance and its significance to the regional economy, 362 \nmaking it a crucial resource for biodiversity studies. 363 \n 364 \nWith specimens collected from various regions, the collection provides valuable data for 365 \nstudying species distribution, population variability, and temporal trends in the Gulf of 366 \nMexico and the Caribbean. Furthermore, digitizing the Otolith Collection enhances global 367 \naccessibility, facilitates international collaboration, and supports research on critical global 368 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\nchallenges, such as climate change and conservation. The collection's website offers 369 \ninnovative image processing software that improves species identification and taxonomic 370 \nstudies, making these tools widely accessible to researchers. It is important to note that 371 \nwhile digitization expands access to the collection, physical specimens remain the primary 372 \nsource of verifiable data, highlighting the need for their preservation. Therefore, we 373 \nemphasize the importance of adequate funding for maintaining this and other biological 374 \ncollections, as they contribute significantly to knowledge, education, and innovation. 375 \n 376 \nAcknowledgments 377 \nThe authors wish to express their gratitude to the many students (especially Kylie López 378 \nCastillejos, Alt Gerardo Palacios Díaz, Diego Muñoz Pérez, José Emilio García Pérez, 379 \nJonathan de la Cruz), fishermen (especially Fernando Mex and Enrique Mex), and 380 \ncolleagues (especially Daniel Arceo Carranza, Claudia Durruty Lagunes, Manuel 381 \nValenzuela Jiménez) who participated in the collection of scientific material, laboratory 382 \nwork, analysis, and curatorship of the Otolith Collection from the Gulf of Mexico and 383 \nCaribbean Sea. We appreciate the generous donation of the Mexican Atlantic Fish Otolith 384 \nCollection by José Antonio Martínez Pérez from the Facultad de Estudios Superiores 385 \nIztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. This project was funded by PAPIIT-386 \nDGAPA-UNAM (IG201121). 387 \n 388 \nReferences 389 \nBaker R, Buckland A, Sheaves M (2014) Fish gut content analysis: robust measures of 390 \ndiet composition. Fish and Fisheries 15: 170-177. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12026 391 \n 392 \nBaker R, Crawford HM, Sheaves M (2024) Stomach contents analysis. In: Calver MC, 393 \nLoneragan NR (Eds.) Quantifying Diets of Wildlife and Fish. Practical and Applied 394 \nMethods. pp 31-50. CSIRO Publishing https://doi.org/10.1071/9781486315017 395 \n 396 \nBakker FT, Antonelli A, Clarke JA, Cook JA, Edwards SV, Ericson PGP, Faurby S, 397 \nFerrand N, Gelang M, Gillespie RG, Irestedt M, Lundin K, Larsson E, Matos-Maraví P, 398 \nMüller J, von Proschwitz T, Roderick GK, Schliep A, Wahlberg N, Wiedenhoeft J, 399 \nKällersjö M (2020) The global museum: natural history collections and the future of 400 \nevolutionary science and public education. PeerJ 8: e8225. 401 \nhttps://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8225 402 \n 403 \nBegg GA, Campana SE, Bowler AJ, Suthers IM (2005) Otolith research and application: 404 \ncurrent directions in innovation and implementation. Marine and Freshwater Research 56: 405 \n477-483. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF05111 406 \n 407 \nCampana SE, Thorrold SR (2001) Otoliths, increments, and elements: keys to a 408 \ncomprehensive understanding of fish populations? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 409 \nAquatic Sciences 58: 30-38. https://doi.org/10.1139/f00-177 410 \n 411 \nDe la Cruz Torres J, Martínez Pérez JA, Badillo Alemán M, Del Moral Flores LF, Franco 412 \nLópez J, Chiappa-Carrara X (2016). Familias de peces óseos del golfo de México: Clave 413 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\nilustrada y descripción. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México - SIIES, Mérida-414 \nMexico, 187 p. ISBN 978-607-9060-17-6 415 \n 416 \nDel Moral-Flores LF, Martínez-Pérez JA, Ramírez-Villalobos AJ, De la Cruz-Torres J, 417 \nFarías-Tafolla B (2016) Colección de Peces del Laboratorio de Zoología de la FES 418 \nIztacala, UNAM. In: Del Moral-Flores LF, Ramírez-Villalobos AJ, Martínez-Pérez JA, 419 \nGonzález-Acosta AF, Franco-López J (Eds.) Colecciones ictiológicas de Latinoamérica, 420 \npp. 370-377. Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, UNAM/Sociedad Ictiológica 421 \nMexicana AC, México. ISBN 978-607-02-8066-5 422 \n 423 \nDisspain MC, Ulm S, Gillanders BM (2016) Otoliths in archaeology: methods, applications 424 \nand future prospects. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 6: 623-632. 425 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.05.012 426 \n 427 \nEspinosa-Pérez, H (2014) Biodiversidad de peces en México. Revista Mexicana de 428 \nBiodiversidad 85: 450-459. https://doi:10.7550/rmb.32264 429 \n 430 \nFinkel E (2024) Australian museum's plan to cut research draws fire from scientists. 431 \nScience. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.z5zinzd 432 \n 433 \nFrancis RICC, Campana SE (2004) Inferring age from otolith measurements: a review 434 \nand a new approach. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 1269-1284 435 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1139/F04-063 436 \n 437 \nFricke R, Eschmeyer WN, Van der Laan R (Eds) (2024) Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes: 438 \nGenera, Species, References. 439 \n(http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp). 440 \nElectronic version accessed 15 July 2024. 441 \n 442 \nGauldie RW, Nelson DGA (1988) Aragonite twinning and neuroprotein secretion are the 443 \ncause of daily growth rings in fish otoliths. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part 444 \nA: Physiology 90(3): 501-509 https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9629(88)90227-7  445 \n 446 \nHecht T (1990) Otoliths: An introduction to their morphology and use in the identification 447 \nof Southern Ocean fishes. In: Gon O, Heemstra PC (Eds.) Fishes of the Southern Ocean, 448 \npp. 64-69. JLB Smith Institute of Ichthyology, Grahamstown, South Africa, 462 pp. 12 pls. 449 \n 450 \nHevia-Montiel N, Pérez-González J, Gallardo-Torres A, Badillo-Alemán M, Chiappa-451 \nCarrara X (2021) Invariant morphological descriptors from otolith shape in environment 452 \nautomatic classification. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 37: 534–544 453 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1111/jai.14207 454 \n 455 \nIzzo C, Reis-Santos P, Gillanders BM (2018) Otolith chemistry does not just reflect 456 \nenvironmental conditions: A meta-analytic evaluation. Fish and Fisheries 19: 441-454 457 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12264 458 \n 459 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\nKellner AWA (2024) Biological collections in danger? Anais da Academia Brasileira de 460 \nCiências 96: e2024961. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-376520242024961 461 \n 462 \nLambrides ABJ, Ristevski J, Mein E, van Zoelen JD, McNiven IJ, Leavesley M, David B, 463 \nUlm S, Weisbecker V (2024). Fishboneviz: Enhancing the availability of zooarchaeological 464 \nfish reference collections through an open access 3D database. Australian Archaeology 465 \n1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2024.2350098.  466 \n 467 \nLin C-H, Wang Y-C, Ribas-Delulofeu L, Chang C-W, Li K-T (2022) Changes in marine 468 \nresource consumption over the past 5000 years in southwestern Taiwan revealed by fish 469 \notoliths. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 42: 103400. 470 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103400 471 \n 472 \nMaisey JG (1987) Notes on the structure and phylogeny of vertebrate otoliths. Copeia 473 \n1987(2): 495-499. https://doi.org/10.2307/1445791. 474 \n 475 \nMartínez Pérez JA, Del Moral Flores LF, Volpedo AV, Tello Musi JL, Chávez Arteaga M 476 \n(2011) Creación de la colección de otolitos sagita de la Facultad de Estudios 477 \nSuperiores Iztacala. Revista de Zoología 22: 63-66. 478 \nhttps://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=49821222006 479 \n 480 \nMartínez Pérez JA, Morquecho León MRK, Farías Tafolla B, Badillo Alemán M, Gallardo-481 \nTorres A, Chiappa-Carrara X (2018) Catálogo de otolitos sagitta de peces del golfo de 482 \nMéxico. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico, 199 p. ISBN 978-607-30-483 \n1075-7 484 \n 485 \nMascareñas-Osorio I, Aburto-Oropeza MO, Balart-Pérez EF (2003) Otolitos de peces 486 \nde arrecife del Golfo de California. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur/Centro 487 \nde Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste SC., Mexico, 120 p. ISBN: 968-5715-09-2 488 \nhttps://cibnor.repositorioinstitucional.mx/jspui/handle/1001/1064 489 \n 490 \nMaslenikov KP (2021) Specimens by the Millions: Managing Large, Specialized 491 \nCollections at the University of Washington Burke Museum Fish Collection. Ichthyology & 492 \nHerpetology 109(2): 397-406 https://doi.org/10.1643/t2019314 493 \n 494 \nMeineke EK, Davies TJ, Daru BH, Davis CC (2018) Biological collections for 495 \nunderstanding biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal 496 \nSociety B: Biological Sciences 374(1763): 20170386. 497 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0386 498 \n 499 \nMonfils AK, Powers KE, Marshall CJ, Martine CT, Smith JF, Prather LA (2017) Natural 500 \nhistory collections: teaching about biodiversity across time, space, and digital platforms. 501 \nSoutheastern Naturalist 16: 47-57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26454774 502 \n 503 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\nNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2020). Biological 504 \nCollections: Ensuring Critical Research and Education for the 21st Century. The National 505 \nAcademies Press, Washington, D.C., 229 p. https://doi.org/10.17226/25592 506 \n 507 \nNolf D (1985) Otolithi piscium. In H. Schultze (Ed.) Handbook of Palaeoichthyology, 508 \nVolume 10. Gustav Fisher Verlag, New York, 145 p. 509 \n 510 \nOré-Villalba DO (2017). Catálogo fotográfico de otolitos de peces marinos y 511 \ndulceacuícolas del Perú. Boletín del Instituto del Mar de Perú, 32(2): 136-213. 512 \nhttps://repositorio.imarpe.gob.pe/bitstream/20.500.12958/3190/1/Boletin%2032%282%29-513 \n1.pdf 514 \n 515 \nPlatt C, Popper AN (1981) Fine Structure and Function of the Ear. In: Tavolga WN, 516 \nPopper AN, Fay RR (Eds.) Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. Proceedings in 517 \nLife Sciences. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-7186-5_1. 518 \n 519 \nRivaton J, Bourret P (1999) Les otolithes des poisons de l'Indo-Pacifique. Documents 520 \nScientifiques et Techniques II 2. Institut de recherche pour le développement, Nouvelle-521 \nCaledonie, 378 p. https://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers09-522 \n06/010021515.pdf 523 \n 524 \nRobertson DR, Van Tassell J (2023) Shorefishes of the Greater Caribbean: online 525 \ninformation system. Version 3.0 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, 526 \nPanamá. https://biogeodb.stri.si.edu/caribbean/en/pages 527 \n 528 \nRojo AL (2015) Report in the Fish Otolith Collection at the Nova Scotia Museum. 529 \nCuratorial Report Number 105, Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, 176 p. ISBN 978-1-55457-530 \n676-0 https://ojs.library.dal.ca/NSM/article/view/6440/5676 531 \n 532 \nSoltis, P. S. 2017. Digitization of herbaria enables novel research. American Journal of 533 \nBotany 104(9):1281-1284. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1700281 534 \n 535 \nSuarez AV, Tsutsui ND (2004) The value of museum collections for research and society. 536 \nBioScience 54(1): 66-74. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-537 \n3568(2004)054[0066:TVOMCF]2.0.CO;2 538 \n 539 \nTuset VM, Lombarte A, Assis CA (2008) Otolith atlas for the western Mediterranean, north 540 \nand central eastern Atlantic. Scientia Marina 72: 7-198 541 \nhttps://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2008.72s17 542 \n 543 \nVan der Laan R, Fricke R, Eschmeyer WN (eds) (2024) Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes: 544 \nClassification (http://www.calacademy.org/scientists/catalog-of-fishes-classification). 545 \nElectronic version accessed 21/07/2024. 546 \n 547 \nVollmar A, Macklin JA, Ford L (2010) Natural history specimen digitization: challenges 548 \nand concerns. Biodiversity informatics 7(2):93-112 https://doi.org/10.17161/bi.v7i2.3992  549 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\n 550 \nVolpedo AV, Echeverría D (2000) Catálogo y claves de otolitos para la identificación de 551 \nespecies del mar argentino. Peces de importancia económica. Editorial Dunken, 552 \nArgentina, 90 p. ISBN: 987-518-353-9 553 \n 554 \nVolpedo AV, Echeverría D (2003) Ecomorphological patterns of the sagitta in fish on the 555 \ncontinental shelf off Argentine. Fisheries Research 60(2-3): 551-560 556 \nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(02)00170-4 557 \n 558 \n  559 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\nFigure 560 \n 561 \n 562 \nFigure 1. Diversity of sagittae otoliths from the Collection of Otoliths of Fishes from the 563 \nGulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea: 1) Family Elopidae, Elops saurus Linnaeus, 564 \n1766, 2) Family Megalopidae, Megalops atlanticus (Valenciennes, 1847) 3) Family 565 \nLepisosteidae, Atractosteus tropicus (Gill, 1863), 4) Family Albulidae, Albula vulpes 566 \n(Linnaeus, 1758), 5) Family Engraulidae, Anchoa cayorum (Fowler, 1906), 6) Family 567 \nClupeidae, Dorosoma petenense (Günther, 1867), 7) Family Clupeidae, Cetengraulis 568 \nedentulus (Cuvier, 1829), 8) Family Characidae, Astyanax altior Hubbs, 1936, 9) Family 569 \nHeptapteridae, Rhamdia guatemalensis (Günther, 1864), 10) Family Ariidae, Bagre 570 \nmarinus (Mitchill, 1815), 11) Family Synodontidae, Saurida brasiliensis Norman, 1935, 571 \n12) Family Phycidae, Urophycis floridana (Bean & Dresel, 1884), 13) Family 572 \nHolocentridae, Holocentrus adscensionis (Osbeck, 1765), 14) Family Ophidiidae, 573 \nBrotula barbata (Bloch & Schneider, 1801), 15) Family Batrachoididae, Sanopus 574 \nreticulatus Collette, 1983, 16) Family Pomatomidae, Pomatomus saltatrix (Linnaeus, 575 \n1766), 17) Family Scombridae, Scomberomorus maculatus (Mitchill, 1815) (Bloch, 576 \n1792), 22) Family Gobiidae, Awaous banana (Valenciennes, 1837), 23) Family 577 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\nCentropomidae, Centropomus parallelus Poey, 1860, 24) Family Sphyraenidae, 578 \nSphyraena barracuda (Edwards, 1771), 25) Family Polynemidae, Polydactylus 579 \noctonemus (Girard, 1858), 2 6) Family Cyclopsettidae, Cyclopsetta chittendeni Bean, 580 \n1895, 27) Family Paralichthyidae, Citharichthys spilopterus Gunther, 1862, 28) Family 581 \nAchiridae, Achirus lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758), 29) Family Carangidae, Hemicaranx 582 \namblyrhynchus (Cuvier, 1833), 30) Family Echeneidae, Echeneis neucratoides (Zuiew, 583 \n1786). 584 \n 585 \n  586 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\n 587 \nFigure 1. ...continuation 1) Family Rachycentridae, Rachycentron canadum (Linnaeus, 588 \n1766), 2) Family Cichlidae, Mayaheros urophthalmus (Gunther, 1862), 3) Family 589 \nPomacentridae, Abudefduf saxatilis (Linnaeus, 1758), 4) Family Atherinopsidae, 590 \nMenidia colei Hubbs, 1936, 5) Family Rivulidae, Cynodonichthys tenuis (Meek, 1904), 591 \n6) Family Fundulidae, Fundulus grandissimus Hubbs, 1936), 7) Family Cyprinodontidae, 592 \nCyprinodon artifrons Hubbs, 1936, 8) Family Poeciliidae, Belonesox belizanus Kner, 593 \n1860, 9) Family Belonidae, Strongylura timucu (Walbaum, 1792), 10) Family 594 \nHemiramphidae, Hemirramphus brasiliensis (Linnaeus, 1758), 11) Family Mugilidae, 595 \nMugil cephalus Linnaeus, 1758, 12) Family Serranidae, Diplectrum formosum 596 \n(Linnaeus, 1766), 13) Family Epinephelidae, Epinephelus adscensionis (Osbeck, 1765), 597 \n14) Family Grammistidae, Rypticus maculatus Holbrook, 1855, 15) Family Labridae, 598 \nLachnolaimus maximus Walbaum, 1792, 16) Family Triglidae, Prionotus punctatus 599 \n(Bloch, 1793 ), 17) Family Scorpaenidae, Scorpaena plumieri Bloch, 1789, 18) Family 600 \nKyphosidae, Kyphosus sectatrix (Linnaeus, 1766), 19) Family Priacanthidae, 601 \nPriacanthus arenatus Cuvier, 1829, 20) Family Malacanthidae, Caulolatilus cyanops 602 \nPoey, 1866, 21) Family Lutjanidae, Lutjanus griseus (Linnaeus, 1758), 22) Family 603 \nGerreidae, Gerres cinereus (Walbaum, 1792), 23) Family Haemulidae, Haemulon 604 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\nplumierii (Lacepède, 1801), 24) Family Sparidae, Lagodon rhomboides (Linnaeus, 605 \n1766), 25) Family Sciaenidae, Cynoscion nebulosus (Cuvier, 1830), 26) Family 606 \nPomacanthidae, Pomacanthus arcuatus (Linnaeus, 1758), 27) Family Chaetodontidae, 607 \nChaetodon ocellatus Bloch, 1781, 28) Family Acanthuridae, Achirus lineatus (Linnaeus, 608 \n1758), Acanthurus coeruleus Bloch & Schneider, 1801, 29) Family Tetraodontidae, 609 \nSphoeroides testudineus (Linnaeus, 1758), 30) Family Balistidae, Balistes capriscus 610 \nGmelin, 1789. 611 \n 612 \n 613 \nTable 614 \n 615 \nTable 1. List of species of the Otolith Collection of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean 616 \nSea. Taxonomic classification according to Van der Laan et al. (2024). The size range 617 \nof the specimens corresponds to the total length (TL), except in some cases where the 618 \nstandard length (SL) is used (*). 619 \n 620 \nFamily Species Number of \nspecimens \nSize range \n(mm) \nLepisosteidae Atractosteus tropicus (Gill, 1863) 2 540-593 \nElopidae Elops saurus Linnaeus, 1766 38 87-613 \nMegalopidae Megalops atlanticus (Valenciennes, 1847) 2 *385-426 \nAlbulidae Albula vulpes (Linnaeus, 1758) 6 351-292 \nOphichthidae Ahlia egmontis (Jordan, 1884) 1 365 \nEngraulidae Anchoa cayorum (Fowler, 1906) 7 90 \n Anchoa cubana (Poey, 1868) 2 *55 \n Anchoa lamprotaenia (Hildebrand, 1943) 34 89-130 \n Cetengraulis edentulus Cuvier, 1829 9 *94-140 \nClupeidae  Dorosoma petenense (Günther, 1867) 6 *104-140 \n Harengula clupeola (Cuvier, 1829) 10 51.47-130 \n Harengula jaguana Poey, 1865 15 110-160 \n Opisthonema oglinum (Lesuer, 1818) 24 33-250 \n Sardinella aurita Valenciennes, 1847 3 *156-163 \nCyprinidae  Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes, \n1844) \n1 261 \nCharacidae  Astyanax altior Hubbs, 1936 23 55.7-79.1 \nHeptapteridae  Rhamdia guatemalensis (Günther, 1864) 4 91.5-1293 \nAriidae  Ariopsis felis (Linnaeus, 1766) 108 56-402 \n Bagre marinus (Mitchill, 1815) 106 267-540 \nSynodontidae  Saurida brasiliensis Norman, 1935 2 *184-203 \n Synodus foetens (Linnaeus, 1766) 22 52.4-376 \nPhycidae  Urophycis floridana (Bean & Dresel, \n1884) \n5 256-327 \nHolocentridae  Holocentrus adscensionis (Osbeck, 1765) 5 92-280 \n Holocentrus rufus (Walbaum, 1792) 2 110-115 \n Myripristis jacobus Cuvier,1829 2 166-180 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\nOphidiidae  Brotula barbata (Bloch & Schneider, \n1801) \n3 372-550.8 \n Ophidion holbrookii Putnam, 1874 3 77-141 \nBatrachoididae  Opsanus beta (Goode & Bean, 1880) 6 *98-205 \n Opsanus dichrostomus Collette, 2001 2 105-130 \n Sanopus reticulatus Collette, 1983 12 280-590 \nPomatomidae  Pomatomus saltatrix (Linnaeus, 1766) 8 420-524 \nScombridae  Euthynnus alletteratus (Rafinesque, 1810) 1 450 \n Scomberomorus brasiliensis Collette, \nRusso & Zavala-Camin, 1978 \n5 *290-360 \n Scomberomorus cavalla (Cuvier, 1829) 4 695-750 \n Scomberomorus maculatus (Mitchill, \n1815) \n4 480-590 \nTrichiuridae  Trichiurus lepturus (Linnaeus, 1758) 8 *268-884 \nDactylopteridae  Dactylopterus volitans (Linnaeus, 1758) 3 86-92 \nMullidae Mulloidichthys martinicus (Cuvier,1829) 2 250-268 \n Pseudopenaeus maculatus (Bloch, 1793) 1 223 \n Upeneus parvus Poey, 1852 3 *115-145 \nCallionymidae Chalinops pauciradiatus (Gill, 1865) 6 27.2-36.9 \nEleotridae Dormitator maculatus (Bloch, 1792) 6 45-90 \n Gobiomorus dormitor Lacepéde, 1800 6 *147-186 \nGobiidae Awaous banana (Valenciennes, 1837) 2 *51-62 \n Gobionellus oceanicus (Pallas, 1770) 5 *93-159 \n Gobiosoma robustum (Ginsburg, 1933) 6 28.2-36.3 \nCentropomidae Centropomus parallelus Poey, 1860 3 *158-181 \n Centropomus undecimalis (Bloch, 1792) 25 370-473 \nSphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda (Edwards, 1771) 22 247-1015 \n Sphyraena guachancho Cuvier, 1829 9 *148-583 \nPolynemidae  Polydactylus octonemus (Girard, 1858) 3 *78-195 \nCyclopsettidae  Cyclopsetta chittendeni Bean, 1895 117 218-315 \n Cyclopsetta fimbriata (Goode & Bean, \n1885) \n51 77-390 \n Syacium papilosum (Linnaeus, 1758) 34 231-275 \nParalichthyidae  Citharichthys macrops Dressel, 1885 1 153 \n Citharichthys spilopterus Gunther, 1862 5 *56-138 \n Paralichthys albigutta (Jordan & Gilbert, \n1882) \n2 139-530 \nAchiridae  Achirus lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758) 10 60-93.3 \n Trinectes maculatus (Bloch & Schneider, \n1801) \n1 94.4 \nCarangidae Alectis ciliaris (Bloch, 1787) 1 302 \n Caranx crysos (Mitchill, 1815) 27 271-405 \n Caranx hippos (Linnaeus, 1766) 17 233-370 \n Caranx latus Agassiz, 1831 8 121-259 \n Caranx ruber (Bloch, 1793) 4 246-305 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\n Chloroscombrus chrysurus (Linnaeus, \n1766) \n6 *17-182 \n Hemicaranx amblyrhynchus (Cuvier, \n1833) \n1 *240 \n Oligoplites saurus Bloch & Schneider, \n1801 \n16 106-278 \n Selar crumenophthalmus (Bloch, 1793) 6 *185-207 \n Selene setapinnis (Mitchill, 1815) 5 *149-185 \n Selene vomer (Linnaeus, 1758) 7 305-315 \n Trachinotus carolinus (Linnaeus, 1766) 3 300-305 \n Trachinotus falcatus (Linnaeus, 1758) 21 96-520 \n Trachinotus goodei (Jordan & Evermann, \n1896) \n5 218-295 \n Trachinotus meeki Brind, 1918 1 116.1 \nEcheneidae  Echeneis neucratoides (Zuiew, 1786) 10 320-523 \nRachycentridae  Rachycentron canadum (Linnaeus, 1766) 3 219-690 \nCichlidae Mayaheros urophthalmus (Gunther, 1862) 11 123.9-235 \n Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758) 1 245 \n Parachromis friedrichsthalii (Heckel, \n1840) \n3 103-113 \n Parachromis motaguensis (Günter, 1867) 4 230-269 \n Petenia splendida (Günter, 1862) 5 238-265 \n Rocio octofasciata Regan, 1903 10 48-74.5 \n Thorichthys meeki Brind, 1918 3 54.1-96.7 \nPomacentridae Abudefduf saxatilis (Linnaeus, 1758) 5 75.4-156 \n Neopomacentrus cyanomos (Bleeker, \n1856) \n10 32.1-85.8 \n Stegastes leucostictus (Müller & Troschel, \n1848) \n2 106.5-\n109.5 \n Stegastes xanthurus (Poey, 1860) 2 94.6-97.7 \nAtherinopsidae  Atherinomorus stipes (Muller & Troschel, \n1848) \n21 38.4-56.63 \n Menidia colei Hubbs, 1936 9 11.5-33 \n Menidia sp. 12 19.6-24.38 \nRivulidae  Cynodonichthys tenuis (Meek, 1904) 1 41 \n Kryptolebias marmoratus (Poey, 1880) 1 30 \nFundulidae  Fundulus grandissimus Hubbs, 1936 41 90.6-160 \n Fundulus persimilis Miller, 1955 19 78.6-122.2 \n Lucania parva (Baird & Girard, 1855) 9 24-35.3 \nCyprinodontidae  Cyprinodon artifrons Hubbs, 1936 57 16.4-45 \n Floridichthys polyommus Hubbs, 1936 43 62-120 \n Jordanella pulchra Hubbs, 1936 14 28-35.4 \nPoeciliidae Belonesox belizanus Kner, 1860 12 55.9-91.5 \n Gambusia yucatana Regan, 1914 14 19.8-36.5 \n Poecilia mexicana (Steindachner, 1863) 3 74.1-88.8 \n Poecilia velifera (Regan, 1914) 18 38-79 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\n Pseudoxiphophorus bimaculatus (Heckel \n1848) \n2 55-59.8 \nBelonidae  Strongylura marina (Walbaum, 1792) 10 260-332 \n Strongylura notata (Poey, 1860) 42 195-433 \n Strongylura timucu (Walbaum, 1792) 9 230 \n Tylosurus crocodilus (Peron y Lesueur, \n1821) \n11 65-1020 \nHemiramphidae  Chriodorus atherinoides Goode & Bean, \n1882 \n28 109-190 \n Hemirramphus brasiliensis (Linnaeus, \n1758) \n6 300 \n Hyporhamphus unifasciatus (Ranzani, \n1841) \n43 140-326 \nMugilidae Mugil cephalus Linnaeus, 1758 14 127-232 \n Mugil curema Valenciennes,1836 17 120-434 \n Mugil trichodon Poey,1875 8 39.7-183 \nSerranidae Diplectrum formosum (Linnaeus, 1766) 26 125-248 \n Hypoplectrus ecosur Victor, 2012 7 58.1-115 \n Serranus subligarius (Cope, 1870) 7 64.2-92 \nEpinephelidae Cephalopholis cruentata (Lacepede, \n1802) \n6 270-305 \n Cephalopholis fulva (Linnaeus, 1758) 1 235 \n Epinephelus adscensionis (Osbeck, 1765) 12 *31-256 \n Epinephelus morio (Valenciennes, 1828) 14 270-480 \n Hyporthodus niveatus (Valenciennes, \n1828) \n3 350-367 \n Mycteroperca bonaci (Poey, 1860) 3 345-625 \nGrammistidae Rypticus maculatus Holbrook, 1855 3 140-142 \nLabridae  Halichoeres radiatus (Linnaeus, 1758) 1 *264 \n Lachnolaimus maximus Walbaum, 1792 23 140-325 \n Nicholsina usta (Valenciennes, 1840) 4 95-165 \n Scarus coeruleus (Edwards, 1771) 1 130 \n Sparisoma rubripinne (Valenciennes, \n1840) \n2 385 \nTriglidae  Prionotus punctatus (Bloch, 1793) 2 280- \n Prionotus scitulus Jordan & Gilbert, 1882 2 214-215 \n Prionotus tribulus Cuvier, 1829 4 175-300 \nScorpaenidae Pterois volitans (Bloch, 1758) 1 *95.2 \n Scorpaena brasiliensis Cuvier, 1829 5 155-215 \n Scorpaena plumieri Bloch, 1789 14 105-240 \nKyphosidae Kyphosus sectatrix (Linnaeus, 1766) 4 140-427 \nPriacanthidae  Priacanthus arenatus Cuvier, 1829 3 310-325 \n Pristigerys alta (Gill, 1862) 1 45 \nMalacanthidae Caulolatilus cyanops Poey, 1866 1 *290 \nLutjanidae  Lutjanus analis (Cuvier, 1828) 2 398 \n Lutjanus apodus (Walbaum,1792) 1 206 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\n Lutjanus buccanella (Cuvier, 1828) 2 *180-191 \n Lutjanus campechanus (Poey, 1860) 3 455-470 \n Lutjanus cyanopterus (Cuvier,1828) 1 206 \n Lutjanus griseus (Linnaeus, 1758) 20 69.2 \n Lutjanus jocu (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) 1 348 \n Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758) 38 185-405 \n Ocyurus chrysurus (Bloch, 1791) 24 68.9-321 \n Rhomboplites aurorubens (Cuvier, 1829) 15 260-277 \nGerreidae Diapterus auratus Ranzani, 1842 6 *134-173 \n Diapterus rhombeus (Cuvier, 1829) 5 *116-139 \n Eucinostomus argenteus (Baird & Girard, \n1855) \n4 96.4-117.5 \n Eucinostomus gula (Quoy & Gaimard, \n1824) \n42 66-113 \n Eucinostomus harengulus Goode & Bean, \n1880 \n5 *61-95 \n Eucinostomus melanopterus (Bleeker, \n1863) \n2 *61-56 \n Eugerres brasilianus (Cuvier, 1830) 7 180-280 \n Eugerres plumieri (Cuvier, 1830) 45 96-317 \n Gerres cinereus (Walbaum, 1792) 26 107.4-265 \nHaemulidae  Anisotremus virginicus (Linnaeus, 1758) 25 181-367 \n Conodon nobilis (Linnaeus, 1758) 6 *57-185 \n Haemulon aurolineatum Cuvier, 1830 24 162-249 \n Haemulon bonariense Cuvier, 1830 8 150-342 \n Haemulon carbonarium Poey, 1860 6 *147-265 \n Haemulon flavolineatum (Desmarest, \n1823) \n6 *155-185 \n Haemulon parra (Desmarest, 1823) 3 *215-259 \n Haemulon plumierii (Lacepède, 1801) 102 160-315 \n Haemulon sciurus (Shaw,1803) 4 186-253 \n Orthopristis chrysoptera (Linnaeus, 1766) 26 127.1-244 \n Rhonciscus crocro (Cuvier, 1830) 2 *192-211 \nSparidae  Archosargus probatocephalus (Walbaum, \n1792) \n24 176-610 \n Archosargus rhomboidalis (Linnaeus, \n1758) \n67 85.1-280 \n Calamus bajonado (Bloch & Schneider, \n1801) \n15 215-540 \n Calamus calamus (Valenciennes, 1830) 11 191-300 \n Calamus campechanus Randall & \nCaldwell, 1966 \n18 185-249 \n Calamus nodosus Randall & Caldwell, \n1966 \n6 229-310 \n Calamus pennatula Guichenot, 1868 3 282 \n Calamus proridens Jordan & Gilbert, 1884 5 210-275 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\n Lagodon rhomboides (Linnaeus, 1766) 31 44.5-207 \n Stenotomus chrysops (Linnaeus, 1766) 1 *210-521 \nSciaenidae  Bairdiella chrysoura (Lacepéde, 1802) 5 82.2-165 \n Bairdiella ronchus (Cuvier, 1830) 19 139-270 \n Corvula batabana (Poey, 1860) 2 156.6-160 \n Cynoscion arenarius Ginsburg, 1930 92 160-423 \n Cynoscion jamaicensis (Vaillant & \nBocourt, 1883) \n2 *256-268 \n Cynoscion nebulosus (Cuvier, 1830) 92 110-490 \n Cynoscion nothus (Holbrook, 1848) 6 130-245 \n Eques lanceolatus Linnaeus, 1758 32 80-335 \n Menticirrhus americanus (Linnaeus, 1758) 191 204-400 \n Menticirrhus littoralis (Holbrook, 1847) 11 91-365 \n Menticirrhus saxatilis (Bloch &Schneider, \n1801) \n3 *226-236 \n Micropogonias furnieri (Desmarest,1823) 59 74-412 \n Micropogonias undulatus (Linnaeus, \n1766) \n39 86-425 \n Pareques umbrosus Jordan & \nEigenmann, 1889 \n7 55-210 \n Pogonias cromis (Linnaeus, 1766) 1 84 \n Stellifer lanceolatus (Holbrook, 1855) 6 *75-96 \n Umbrina coroides Cuvier, 1830 7 *80-214 \nLobotidae  Lobotes surinamensis (Bloch, 1790) 6 320-570 \nPomacanthidae  Holacanthus bermudensis Goode, 1876 8 65-337 \n Pomacanthus arcuatus (Linnaeus, 1758) 5 87-498 \nChaetodontidae  Chaetodon ocellatus Bloch, 1781 34 40-124 \nEphippidae  Chaetodipterus faber (Broussonet, 1782) 16 63.8-354 \nAcanthuridae  Acanthurus chirurgus (Bloch, 1787) 4 316 \n Acanthurus coeruleus Bloch & Schneider, \n1801 \n5 201-255 \n Acanthurus tractus Poey, 1860 5 244-325 \nOgcocephalidae  Ogcocephalus cubifrons (Richardson, \n1836) \n2 125-215 \nDiodontidae  Chilomycterus schoepfii (Walbaum, 1792) 13 96-285 \n Diodon hystrix (Linnaeus, 1758) 1 490 \nTetraodontidae  Lagocephalus laevigatus (Linnaeus, \n1766) \n5 330-554 \n Sphoeroides nephelus (Goode & Bean, \n1882) \n6 124.6-280 \n Sphoeroides spengleri (Bloch, 1785) 8 54-111.2 \n Sphoeroides testudineus (Linnaeus, \n1758) \n7 157-235 \nOstraciidae  Acanthostracion quadricornis (Linnaeus, \n1758) \n11 90-270 \nMonacanthidae  Monacanthus ciliatus (Mitchill, 1818) 4 81-136 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421\n\n Stephanolepsis hispida (Linnaeus, 1766) 2 160 \nBalistidae  Balistes capriscus Gmelin, 1789 10 240-495 \n 621 \n 622 \nAuthor contribution 623 \nMaribel Badillo Alemán: Conceptualization, investigation, data curation, supervision, 624 \nwriting original draft. 625 \nAriana Solís Gómez: Investigation, data curation. 626 \nAlfredo Gallardo Torres: Investigation, data curation, formal analysis, resources. 627 \nEduardo Pacheco Gongora: Data curation, software development, visualization. 628 \nXavier Chiappa-Carrara: Conceptualization, investigation, project administration, formal 629 \nanalysis, writing original draft, funding acquisition. 630 \n 631 \nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 14/08/2024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e134421","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}