On the accessibility of collections


“Natural history collections are virtually inaccessible to everyone.”

This statement, in one form or another, can be found in many recent publications, online articles, opinion pieces, blog posts, and many comments on other social media outlets. To be absolutely honest, this irritates me greatly and there’s no better place to vent frustration than in a blog post!

Up until the late 1990’s the term ‘accessibility’ as applied to natural history collections, and insect collections in particular, had two basic components:

  • Collection organization – with millions of specimens and many thousands of species, the material must be carefully organized, labeled, and catalogued so it is accessible when there is a request for information or for a loan.
  • Services to scientists – scientists can access the specimens for the purpose of study, either through loans (upon request our staff selects, packages and ships specimens to scientists for study) or by visiting the collection.

Nowadays, we receive weekly requests that go more or less like this:

  • Can I have the specimen data and images for each species of all your (name of insect group here)?
  • Can you please take photos of the following (30 species) of (name of group here) for my (book, thesis, website, publication, database, etc.)?

Collections have quickly taken advantage of new computer and imaging technologies to provide new services to our user base, but with the advent of the Internet, browsers, most notably Google, and now mobile technology, collections are facing new, and I argue sometimes very unrealistic, expectations of services by our existing users, new users, and even funding agencies.

Augochlorella pomoniella OSUC 128046

Augochlorella pomoniella OSUC 128046

There is a strong and fast-growing demand for high resolution images of specimens and of specimen label data that can be easily plugged into studies of global climate change, evolutionary biology, conservation, etc. Please don’t get me wrong! This is awesome! We have been saying for many years that collections are an enormous resource of precious information and we stand by it! However, this relatively recent demand did not come with funds to support much needed basic collection curation or for hiring and training of permanent curatorial staff.

Accessibility‘ today goes way beyond old-fashioned physical access to specimens or even online catalogs. It includes the expectation (and demand really!) of having all the specimen level data captured and remotely accessible now. Collections continue to incorporate new technologies into our curatorial protocols to provide the best service we can to our users. But what is reasonable? What’s possible, particularly with the reality on the ground?

Collection curation (= maintenance and improvement) takes 1) people, 2) time, and 3) money. Maybe one day technology will eliminate the need for humans handling collection specimens, but that does not look very likely in the near future. In the meantime most collections are chronically underfunded. In our case, we do not have a centrally supplied operating budget.

In university settings, most of our work force are undergraduate students and, as a consequence, highly temporary in nature. No matter how smart and dedicated our undergraduate students are, they usually have no prior curatorial experience and must be trained from scratch. The constant training and management of part-time workers is very time-consuming and stressful for the few permanent staff.

Extra-mural funding options for collections are limited to donations, and, on occasion, grants for special projects. Our day-to-day operations (specimen preparation, loan-related activities, visitor support and infrastructure, and much more) are basically self-funded and therefore done if and when we have money, personnel and time to do it.

We at the Triplehorn Insect Collection continue to be committed to making collection information available online. We were one of the first insect collections in the world to make specimen data remotely available: our website has been on-line since 1994, and dynamic access to specimen data since 1997.  Our state-of-the-art web interface serves all but one of the collections here at the Museum of Biological Diversity as well as various partner institutions across the country and abroad.

 

Our level of commitment, however, is running up against the limits of our resources. We’re trying to think of new and productive ways to generate financial support, and as much as we dislike it, everything is on the table. Some museums charge “bench fees” to visitors (we don’t yet); perhaps we should consider a virtual bench fee. Can the data and images that we create be monetized in other ways as well, particularly for commercial purposes? So far all our data have been made freely available online, and we like it that way. But how long will we be able to afford it? This is all very complicated and made more difficult by the fact that we work within the context of a taxpayer-supported public university.

Speaking of taxpayers, the general public can help collections by supporting our efforts. Volunteers, donations (our Friends of the Triplehorn Insect Collection fund is 100% used for the care of the collection), and just word-of-mouth are all critical to the cause.

More information about the Triplehorn Insect Collection is available on our (soon to be revamped) website. The collection Facebook page brings recent updates & fun stories. Also, check out our collection blog, Pinning Block, for a view of the collection, our people and the work we do.

 

About the Authors: Dr. Luciana Musetti is Curator of the Triplehorn Insect Collection at Ohio State University.  Dr. Norman F. Johnson is Director of the Triplehorn Insect Collection and Moser Chair in Arthropod Systematics and Biological Diversity in the Department of Evolution, Ecology, & Organismal Biology and Department of Entomology at The Ohio State University.

Follow us, @osuc_curator@baeus2 on Twitter for our more personal views & commentary.

Collecting the small plants

 

When told that a herbarium is a collection of plants, most people think of flowering plants or pine trees, or perhaps even ferns. The herbarium possesses these plants, but it also has other plants – an often, overlooked group of plants, the bryophytes that include mosses, liverworts and hornworts.

An example of a bryophyte, the ribbed bog moss, Aulacomnium palustre, with stalks of propagules that will be dispersed for asexual reproduction. From a wet meadow at Waldo, Marion County, Ohio. April 21, 2006. Photo by Bob Klips.

An example of a bryophyte, the ribbed bog moss, Aulacomnium palustre, with stalks of propagules that will be dispersed for asexual reproduction. From a wet meadow at Waldo, Marion County, Ohio. April 21, 2006. Photo by Bob Klips.

Bryophytes are small. As a result, the characters that distinguish bryophytes are small, microscopically so, but the array of beauty and intricacy displayed in flowering plants also are present in bryophytes. Those researchers that study bryophytes, bryologists, are privileged to observe this vibrant world of miniature plants.

An example of the complexity and elegance of the spore-producing structures of the small-mouthed thread moss, Bryum lisae var. cuspidatum, as observed by a bryologist. Alum Creek State Park, Waldo, Marion County. April 17, 2008. Photo by Bob Klips.

An example of the complexity and elegance of the spore-producing structures of the small-mouthed thread moss, Bryum lisae var. cuspidatum, as observed by a bryologist. Alum Creek State Park, Waldo, Marion County. April 17, 2008. Photo by Bob Klips.

 

Bryophytes are small plants and often require the use of dissecting and compound microscopes to view diagnostic characters. Here, bryologist, Diane Lucas, uses the compound microscope to view the shape and size of the leaf cells of a moss.

Bryophytes are small plants and often require the use of dissecting and compound microscopes to view diagnostic characters. Here bryologist Diane Lucas uses the compound microscope to view the shape and size of the leaf cells of a moss.

A leaf of the moss, Bryum flaccidum, showing hexagonal leaf cells. Moss and liverwort leaves are only one cell layer thick, thus each individual leaf cell is easily visible, as seen here viewed with the compound microscope. The shape and size of the leaf cells are often used to distinguish moss species.

A leaf of the moss, Bryum flaccidum, showing hexagonal leaf cells. Moss and liverwort leaves are only one cell layer thick, thus each individual leaf cell is easily visible, as seen here viewed with the compound microscope. The shape and size of the leaf cells are often used to distinguish moss species.

Bryophytes often grow in places where other plants cannot grow, such as on the sides of trees or on the surface of boulders. Bryophytes are able to grow on such substrates because they are able to survive after drying to conditions equal to the water content of the surrounding environment, conditions that would cause wilting and death in other plants. Poikilohydry, this ability to dry and then re-establish growth in the presence of moisture, is a character that flowering plants have evolutionarily lost. In herbaria, the poikilohydric nature of bryophytes has been observed in some specimens that are able to grow after five, ten or twenty years dried in a herbarium.

A  typical habitat of the rounded tongue moss, Anomodon minor, on limestone rock. From Duranceaux Park, Delaware County, Ohio. April 24, 2011. Photo by Bob Klips.

A typical habitat of the rounded tongue moss, Anomodon minor, on limestone rock. From Duranceaux Park, Delaware County, Ohio. April 24, 2011. Photo by Bob Klips.

Bryophyte specimens are easier to collect and to preserve compared to other plants because they do not require pressing, or mounting onto herbarium sheets. While in the field, bryophyte plants are assigned a collection number and placed into small paper bags or paper envelopes, where they are dried. In the herbarium, bryophytes are stored in envelope packets that are made from 100% cotton rag archival paper. Labels with species identification, collection location, habitat information, collection date and collector are printed onto the face of the envelope. The envelopes are stored in flat boxes specially designed to fit on the shelves of herbarium cabinets.

Bryophytes are collected in the field in paper bags or envelopes. The bag in the photo has a collection number at the top, followed by a tentative field identification and the substrate on which the moss (shown on top of bag) was collected.

Bryophytes are collected in the field in paper bags or envelopes. The bag in the photo has a collection number at the top, followed by a tentative field identification and the substrate on which the moss (shown on top of bag) was collected.

Typical information on face of a bryophyte packet, in this case, a packet of a moss from Crawford County, Ohio.

Typical information on face of a bryophyte packet, in this case, a packet of a moss from Crawford County, Ohio.

An open packet showing moss plants stored inside.

An open packet showing moss plants stored inside.

Flat boxes store bryophyte packets inside herbarium cases.

Flat boxes store bryophyte packets inside herbarium cases.

A herbarium case with two rows of boxes that contain packets of bryophyte specimens.

A herbarium case with two rows of boxes that contain packets of bryophyte specimens.

The Ohio State University Herbarium contains over 10,000 specimens of bryophytes – a bryologist’s delight.

From a bryologist's point of view -  delighting in the world of small plants: the moss, Fissidens subbasilaris, with stalks subtended by oblong sporangia that contain spores. From Christmas Rocks State Nature Preserve, Fairfield County, Ohio. September 7, 2014. Photo by Bob Klips.

From a bryologist’s point of view – delighting in the world of small plants: the moss, Fissidens subbasilaris, with stalks subtended by oblong sporangia that contain spores. From Christmas Rocks State Nature Preserve, Fairfield County, Ohio. September 7, 2014. Photo by Bob Klips.

 

 

About the Author: Dr. Cynthia Dassler is Curator of Cryptogams (small plants that produce spores) at The Ohio State Herbarium (OS) in the Department of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology.

Museum specimens going online

 

Skipper butterflies (Erynnis martiallis) are some of the specimens being digitized and imaged at the Triplehorn Insect Collection

Skipper butterflies (Erynnis martiallis) are some of the specimens being digitized and imaged at the Triplehorn Insect Collection

We open the doors to our collections once a year for the Museum Open House and thousands of people from all over the state and beyond stream through our building to marvel over our specimens. Many of them express interest in re-visiting soon.

How amazing would it be to allow people access to our specimens every day at any time? With easy access to the World Wide Web it is possible and natural history museums are digitizing their collections and making their specimens freely available online.

Digitization of plant specimens in the OSU Herbarium.

Digitization of plant specimens in the OSU Herbarium.

Curatorial staff take high quality, ideally 3-D images of each specimen, add metadata and upload them to an online database. This process is labor- and time-intensive, but well worth the effort.

You can read about Museum Specimens Find(ing) New Life Online in this recent New York Times article (10/20/2105.)  And please stay tuned to learn more about specific digitizing efforts going on right here in the collections housed at the OSU Museum of Biological Diversity.

 

About the authorsAngelika Nelson (Borror Lab of Bioacoustics) & Luciana Musetti (Triplehorn Insect Collection) collaborated on this post.

The case(s) of the missing collection data

 

Sherlock Holmes silhouettePrevious blog posts have mentioned the value of data on collection dates, geographic localities, hosts (where relevant) and even things like the weather at the time of collection (collecting before or after a rain storm in the desert gives rather different results). For mites, the group I work on, we often want even more detail. Mites can be both very broad in their requirements and very picky. So information on microhabitat can be crucial. For example, in parasitic mites, we would like things like site on a host. If a mite was found in the quill of the secondary wing feathers of a house sparrow, I can probably give a pretty good guess on what it is. Not certain, there are always surprises, but I can make a good first guess. We know this by experience and by examining records in collections that have that level of precision.

In short, life is good as long as there are data, but what if you end up with specimens with little or no interpretable data? In the Acarology collection specimens are usually on microscope slides or in vials with alcohol.

image of good slides with poor data

Good slides with poor data

Many older slides or vials have labels giving only a partial identification plus a number or code, presumably referring to a notebook, letter, or other non-specified source. In principle fine, but without follow-up those notes get lost, misplaced, etc., and that means trouble. In one unfortunate case, roughly 3,000 chigger slides from South Korea, the data were deliberately omitted from slides and vials. These specimens were collected at the end of the Korean war, and it was probably not a good idea to specifically tell everybody where each military base was located. The chiggers were collected at that time and that place to help manage scrub typhus, a disease transmitted by chiggers. Good idea at that time, but it makes recovering the data at this time, sixty years after the armistice, quite tricky.

chigger photograph

A chigger in all its glory

Anyway, so what do you do when you have a bunch of microscope slides or vials with interesting specimens but no, or very little, data? That is where curation becomes a bit of detective work. There are some options.

Before and after microscope labels

Before and after microscope labels

1) If the specimens have at least a code/number, you often can find the same code of the same code format somewhere else in the collection. This is a brute-force method that requires databasing of large numbers of specimens. Luckily, the vast majority of the OSU Acarology Collection is now databased, with most label data captured. Find matching codes, hope that at least one slide has complete information, and if so, you are set for the other slides in the group. Even if the match is not perfect, a similar style of codes may help narrow down where poorly labeled specimens came from. For example, a certain style of code was used for specimens recovered from bats in Costa Rica. Starting with near complete data on 2-3 labels (out of ~400) and using an on-line mammal collection database (VertNet) we recovered all the relevant collection data and even know where the host specimens are located (Los Angeles County Museum in this case).

page from Lipovsky chigger notebook

Page from Lipovsky chigger notebook

2) Miscellaneous field note books, notes, etc. People have asked me why we keep file cabinets worth of old notebooks, notes, and letters from folks that left long ago. Barring proper log books, this may be where the data we want to recover comes from. One good notebook can solve problems with many specimens. Data for many of the Korean chiggers came from a notebook at the bottom of a drawer of largely useless paperwork. Of course it would be nice to have it all digitized, but we do not have the time, people or resources to do that at this time.

3) Sometimes it just takes some luck. For a long time I was going nowhere with a small set of slides with only identifications, and, on one slide, a name that seemed to refer to a locality in India, and something about a dung beetle. Then one day, out of the blue, I got an e-mail from somebody wondering whether I was interested in the remainder of a collection of mites he made from beetles in India. He had already sent me some specimens years ago (my mystery slides) and now I could add some real data. It does not happen very often, but it counts.

As a final note, some of you might think that the above does include quite a lot of interpretation. How accurate are these interpretations? This is a real problem. We try to be conservative in the “guesses” we make, but may fail on occasion. This is why we copy all original label data verbatim and make that available with each specimen. And we have had a few occasions where folks told us our interpretation was wrong. A big thank you to those folks!

 

About the Author: Dr. Hans Klompen is Professor in the Department of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology & Director of the Ohio State University Acarology Collection. Silhouette of Sherlock Holmes: The Sherlock Holmes Museum. CC Attribution License. http://www.sherlock-holmes.co.uk. All other images courtesy of the author.