jhyatt
Aurelian
Posts: 224
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by jhyatt on Nov 23, 2017 22:33:14 GMT
Hello all -
I'm preparing and labeling a batch of old (1970 era) palearctic material, and I wonder what the best curatorial practice is regarding labeling specimens from countries whose names have changed. Much of this material is from "USSR", "CSSR", and other central European and central Asian places whose country names have changed.
Is it best to use the obsolete name (which was correct at the date of collection of the material), or should I use the current name of the country on my labels? My inclination is to transcribe the old name as given on the envelope, but I'm uncertain what is best to do. Advice, anyone?
Thanks, jh
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Nov 23, 2017 22:46:50 GMT
I always use the name from the time of collection. So, for a specimen that I have which was collected in Southern Rhodesia in January 1926, I record it with that name, not Zimbabwe.
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Nov 24, 2017 7:42:05 GMT
It doesn't really matter unless the country changed in territory. For example USSR would not equal to Russia. Myanmar or Burma doesn't matter from a curational standpoint.
The curational practice of the future will be to digitize collections. During this process you ideal pin-point the place of origin as exactly as possible (Currently, lots of museums only take pictures of specimen and do not do the latter because they lack funds or the ability to work through 'big data'). For this the country information should be turned into modern countries, and then any additional places located with a gazeteer.
The best practice for you would be to save time and simply write down the data you have at hand. When you add a QR code with the data then you can make the digitization process faster and easier. I am currently developing a software to help collectors in doing so, it will be ready soon.
I used to be a physicist, now I am working as a freelance data scientist.
All the best, Claude.
|
|
jhyatt
Aurelian
Posts: 224
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by jhyatt on Nov 24, 2017 15:20:13 GMT
Thanks, Deliasfanatic and Claude. I think I'll continue to use the old original names on my data labels. I'm not digitizing data (nor do I plan to. I certainly can see the usefulness of being able to search a collection for material from a specific area without pulling out every bug and squinting to read the data. But if my collection ends up in a museum, any digitization I might have done would very possibly not be compatible with the museum's system and have to be re-done anyway).
And there is a certain nostalgic pleasure in reading labels bearing place names like Dutch East Indies, Fergana, French Indochina and Belgian Congo....
(Claude, I used to be an organic chemist, but am now retired. My week has become six Saturdays and a Sunday, a system I heartily recommend!
Cheers, jh
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Nov 24, 2017 15:31:44 GMT
I would write name of the country used in the time of collecting together with the date, nice pice of history to show how world has changed since. I would also add latitudes/longitudes coordinates just in case there is some confusion.
PS JH, I agree the system six Saturdays and Sunday is a perfect solution to have time to work on the collection.
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Nov 24, 2017 16:04:23 GMT
John (I think it was John, please excuse me if it wasn't), are you typing the new data labels on a computer? If so, both processes can be done at the same time without giving you or anyone additional work. The method that I am using will be compatible with any museum program of the future.
I wish I had a single weekend, but as a just-about-to-start entrepreneur I haven't had any free time since months. Therefore my extended silence on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Nov 24, 2017 16:20:53 GMT
So what do you think about the following? It's a mockup I quickly produced. Both labels have the same information. The latter can immediately be imported into any museum system, and if not immediately, it can be converted VERY easily. Those with a QR scanner on their phone can give it a try, just zoom in as the pic is kind of small. It's just a quick mockup I generated.
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Nov 24, 2017 16:28:24 GMT
Another interesting point for most people on here: If you sell your collection to a museum, and you have something like the above, they will in general give you twice as much money for your collection!
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Nov 24, 2017 17:51:13 GMT
Most museums accept donations (some no longer want collections any more unless they have holotypes etc) rather than buy collections.
In some countries, such as the USA, donated collections are valued for tax deduction purposes so you can get a tax deduction to value or part thereof after donating the collection.
Adam.
|
|
jhyatt
Aurelian
Posts: 224
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by jhyatt on Nov 24, 2017 20:44:35 GMT
Interesting approach. I didn't know digitization and label preparation could be done as a single operation.
Adam is correct - a collection would have to be very rich in important type material to attract a US museum as a purchaser these days. I think I'd prefer to see my heirs sell the salable bugs from my collection, and donate the remainder (skippers, Lycaenids, Riodinids, other unpopular groups)to a museum.
Cheers, John
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Nov 25, 2017 4:48:27 GMT
The other day I was perusing a small but, older collection and pulled a particularly nice Cyrestis elegans from it with the data Nov.1966 / French Equatorial Africa. Well, after having to look up exactly what that alluded to; and finding that region consisted once of 4 countries I decided to leave it as it was. I agree with deliasfanatic's views on this and there is something nostalgic about some of these old terms. I suppose that even these "regional terms" still give one a pretty good idea of where something was collected. Whether it be German New Guinea or Belgian this or that etc. it still gets you in the ballpark of somethings range. The term U.S.S.R is probably THE worst of the terms used as it simply encompasses too much territory.
|
|
jhyatt
Aurelian
Posts: 224
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by jhyatt on Nov 25, 2017 14:23:21 GMT
Yes. The material that prompted my original question has full data, not just "USSR" or whatever. Therefore I'd have no trouble finding the 2017 country name, but I've decided not to - it's changed once in my lifetime, and could change again. The province and town or mountain or river names most likely have not changed, and I think any future researcher could cope with the older country name. I haven't updated my determination labels with the most recent revised genus names, either.
Cheers, jh
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Nov 29, 2017 14:41:28 GMT
Interesting approach. I didn't know digitization and label preparation could be done as a single operation. Adam is correct - a collection would have to be very rich in important type material to attract a US museum as a purchaser these days. I think I'd prefer to see my heirs sell the salable bugs from my collection, and donate the remainder ( skippers, Lycaenids, Riodinids, other unpopular groups)to a museum. Cheers, John John - Really?
Those are the popular groups for the really Cool Lepidopterists of the world. But sadly - I will agree that such specimens, as long as they have solid data, are best held by research museums.
John
|
|
jhyatt
Aurelian
Posts: 224
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by jhyatt on Nov 30, 2017 14:17:36 GMT
Yes, skippers and other truly cool leps are popular with (roughly) all seven of the world's collectors who enjoy dealing with them! (Actually, I know we're not quite that rare among collectors.)
I've found museums to be a mixed bag. Some I've visited have such a backlog of donated material awaiting accession and curation that I have to wonder if an additional donation would ever become incorporated and useful to anyone. I've seen many boxes of 50+ year-old papered specimens still awaiting attention in museum storage areas. It's a problem.
Regards, jh
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Nov 30, 2017 21:21:27 GMT
I've found museums to be a mixed bag. Some I've visited have such a backlog of donated material awaiting accession and curation that I have to wonder if an additional donation would ever become incorporated and useful to anyone. I've seen many boxes of 50+ year-old papered specimens still awaiting attention in museum storage areas. It's a problem. Hi John, That is indeed the issue. Even collections that actively seek donations that compliment their research holdings are pretty picky. I 've made arrangements to donate the neotropical material I hold to a major research collection - but they have no interest in my North American material. Why do they need another 10 specimens of Papilio glaucus to add to their 30-40 drawers of this species. Likewise even for "rare" bugs like Euphyes bimacula - they hold a several hundred examples already from pretty much every state that it occurs in. But on the flip side - I have Central and South American skippers and hairstreaks that that they either don't have or have just a few examples of. And even the common neotropical bugs in my collection add valuable distributional data for the region. So, before I die, I have to get rid of the North American bugs - probably to a regional land-grant school like OSU or MSU. I just have to time that donation a month or so before I bite it.... More realistically I've been pondering cleaning up my collection for quite a while in part by dumping the local material. I actually don't have a lot of in the way of local bugs - I haven't really collected in the US in over a decade - and much of the stuff I did collect is still in papers. But there are good bugs - like the only known Indiana specimens of Enodia creola and Lycaena dione and lots of other bugs that are scarcely collected from Ohio, Michigan and Indiana. There are great series for remote areas of Idaho and Washington. These bugs can really help flesh out a regional research collection. If I pulled the trigger - I could probably free up 2 cabinets of space - which would really allow me to properly curate the neotropical bugs. And that part of the collection stays with me until I'm either dead, blind or senile. (and I'll probably donate enough $$ with the collection to cover the cost of curation into the museum holdings just to make sure that it gets folded in quickly). At least that's what I've been thinking is the plan for the last couple of years, I need to execute it! John
|
|