Tag Archives: microscope

Getting a measure of plant taxonomy

As a plant taxonomist, most of my work involves determining how many species are in a particular genus of flowering plants, how they are related to one another, and what the correct scientific names for those species are. To do this, I gather and analyze data from a number of sources, including genetics, chromosomes, ecology, geography, and morphology. 

My colleague Leon Perrie has blogged previously about generating genetic data, including extracting DNA and analyzing microsatellite markers for Pseudopanax species, and detecting differences in DNA sequence data for maidenhair fern species.  

Here I will show how I go about collecting morphological data from herbarium specimens for taxonomic research. 

Heidi observing a Te Papa herbarium specimen of Plantago spathulata with a dissecting microscope. Photo © Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

Heidi observing a Te Papa herbarium specimen of Plantago spathulata with a dissecting microscope. Photo by Carlos Lehnebach © Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

The first step of deciding which characters or traits to measure and observe is key. This will vary depending on the particular plant group being studied, and can be an involved process (meaning, probably the subject of another blog!). Some examples of characters commonly used are leaf length and width, presence and type of hairs on calyx, and number of seeds per capsule. 

The next step is to measure the characters on herbarium specimens collected from throughout the geographic range of the species of interest. Because many of the traits are quite small, a 10x hand lens or (even better) a dissecting microscope is necessary to see them. 

Rulers or microscope reticles can be used for measuring, but I prefer a digital calipers. Digital calipers are very precise and can be connected to a computer so that the data is transferred directly to a spreadsheet by just pressing a button! 

Here you can see the whole set up, including Heidi measuring the specimen with the digital calipers, that are in turn connected to the laptop for instant data transfer. Photo © Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

Here you can see Heidi measuring a specimen using the whole set up: dissecting microscope and digital calipers that are plugged into a laptop for instant data transfer. Photo by Carlos Lehnebach © Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

Measuring leaf width (in mm) of a Te Papa specimen of Plantago spathulata with a digital calipers. Photo © Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

Measuring leaf width (in mm) of a Te Papa specimen of Plantago spathulata with a digital calipers. Photo by Carlos Lehnebach © Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

Laptop with spreadsheet showing highlighted cell with "13.28" mm leaf width measurement, that has been automatically transferred from the digital calipers to the morphological data matrix. Photo © Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

Laptop with spreadsheet showing highlighted cell with "13.28" mm leaf width measurement, that has been automatically transferred from the digital calipers to the morphological data matrix. Photo by Heidi Meudt © Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

Collecting morphological data for one plant specimen, that is, measuring and observing specific traits from the roots, leaves, flowers, and fruits, can take anywhere from 30 to 90 minutes. Multiply that by dozens or even hundreds of specimens, and you can see that collecting morphological data for taxonomic research takes time. 

Once the data matrix has been generated comes the exciting part: analysis and interpretation of the results. But I’ll leave that for another blog entry! 

Calipers and laptop with data matrix of morphological characters. Photo © Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

Calipers and laptop with data matrix of morphological characters. Photo by Heidi Meudt © Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

Ask the feathers

In early March, Te Papa Tongarewa was asked by an overseas museum if they could borrow ‘amakua hulu manu Kūka’ilimoku (feathered image) for an exhibition. As part of the process to allow or decline a loan, all the materials that make up an object need to be identified. We were unsure of the exact species of feathers used to cover the ‘amakua hulu manu Kūka’ilimoku. We asked our Bicultural Science Researcher Hokimate Harwood, if she could identify them.
Left: 'amakua hulu manu Kūka'ilimoku (feathered image), 1700s, maker unknown; feathers, animal teeth, pearl shell and plant fibres; gift of Lord St Oswald, 1912. Right: Close-up showing black Hawai'i mamo feathers used for the eyebrow

Left: 'amakua hulu manu Kūka'ilimoku (feathered image), 1700s, maker unknown; feathers, animal teeth, pearl shell and plant fibres; gift of Lord St Oswald, 1912. Right: Close-up showing black Hawai'i mamo feathers used for the eyebrow

Over time a few of the feathers had fallen from the frame, which is made from split aerial rootlets of the ‘ie’ie vine (Freycinetia) and covered with netting of olonā fibre (Touchardia latifolia). Hokimate was able to use these feathers to make positive identifications.

Left: Microscope image of red Passerine feather. Right: I'iwi (Vestiaria coccinea). Photograph by Michael Walther, reproduced courtesy of Oahu Nature Tours

Left: Microscope image of red Passerine feather. Right: I'iwi (Vestiaria coccinea). Photograph by Michael Walther, reproduced courtesy of Oahu Nature Tours

Fallen red feathers were identified under the microscope as originating from a passerine. The colour patterning, structure, and size of the feathers were consistent with the i’iwi (Vestiaria coccinea) bird. The i’iwi is an Hawaiian honeycreeper described as having vermillion red feathers. These red feathers cover most of the head of the image, and there are also remnants on the crest of the head.

Left: Microscope image of white Galliforme feather. Right: Red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus). Photograph by Michael Walther, reproduced courtesy of Oahu Nature Tours

Left: Microscope image of white Galliforme feather. Right: Red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus). Photograph by Michael Walther, reproduced courtesy of Oahu Nature Tours

The black and yellow feathers located on the eyebrows and ears were identified as most likely the extinct Hawaiian mamo (Drepanis pacifica), based on descriptions and images of mamo (Drepanis spp.) and o’o (Moho spp.) in Hawaiian avifauna literature. In the future, microscopic analysis could be used on fallen black or yellow feathers to distinguish between these two genera. Downy white feathers located on the crest were identified as Hawaiian fowl, most likely domesticated jungle fowl (Gallus gallus var. domesticus) by using microscopic comparisons.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 281 other followers