bandrow
Junior Aurelian
Posts: 80
Country: USA
|
Post by bandrow on May 30, 2020 23:33:08 GMT
Greetings,
I'm a coleopterist, so I hope all you experienced lepidopterists go easy on me! And any coleopterists need to understand that after working for 25 years at the Carnegie Museum, even the most dedicated beetle guy learns to appreciate Lepidoptera.
Last year at the museum, we received a donation of several thousand specimens from an amateur collector's family, after he passed away. He, Obed Lewis, Jr., collected for fun and was not in regular contact with anyone in the scientific community as far as we can tell. He acquired the majority of his specimens from the now-defunct Insects International run by Terry Taylor back in the late '80's and 90's. He removed the specimens from the packet they came in and placed them on top of nylon batting inside variously sized cardboard boxes - often using the bottoms of matchboxes. He then wrapped the boxes with plastic wrap and glued the boxes onto cardboard trays to make displays.
The beetles and other insects are basically papered specimens and pretty easy to remount. However, the leps were taken from envelopes, "flattened" and placed in the boxes - many are difficult to spread due to the costal edge being bent at the base. But most are recoverable and will make acceptable specimens.
Over the shutdown, I have been processing the donated materials and have about 30 trays worth of specimens to remount. I've attached links to a couple of images - one of the specimens in their original condition and then some that I've re-mounted, still on the preparation blocks. This also shows the method we use at the Carnegie to spread leps - not sure how common this method is in other institutions or if any private lepidopterists use these blocks?
Enjoy! Bandrow
moths to be remounted
leps on blocks
|
|
jhyatt
Aurelian
Posts: 224
Country: U.S.A.
|
Post by jhyatt on May 31, 2020 14:37:03 GMT
Bob Androw is spreading leps??? Sounds desperate. You need to get on the road and catch some more beetles!
A small number of lep people use blocks; I have a handful of small ones (a gift from Jack Clarke at the USNM ages ago) that I use for small specimens. Never tried blocks with anything larger than a Lycaenid, though.
Cheers, John Hyatt
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on May 31, 2020 17:22:00 GMT
Just wonder about those blocks. Doesn’t this thread remove scales off the wings when manipulate under and how the wings are hold their position ?
I think Bob mentioned that he’s spreading leps at his work which explains the fact 😉
|
|
bandrow
Junior Aurelian
Posts: 80
Country: USA
|
Post by bandrow on Jun 1, 2020 0:37:02 GMT
Hi John and Paul,
Not desperate, just something I gotta do! I actually find spreading leps somewhat relaxing. Of course, if I had to do it on a regular basis, I may not be so fond of it - beetles are just way easier - and more forgiving of error, than are the leps.
Paul - the strings do not cause any kind of blemish in butterflies and most moths, and there are fine '000' pins in all four wings to maintain them in position until the specimen is dried. However, you can get "string burn" in fluffy specimens such as Saturniidae or in wings of Sphingidae which require more tension to keep them in place. In the case of these "soft" or "fluffy" specimens, we place a strip cut from a glassine envelope under all the strings to prevent them pressing into the scales.
I really like the blocks because you can do a specimen at a time, and not have to work around one to do the next. It's not evident in the image, but the tops of the blocks are sloped on each side as on a typical spreading board.
Cheers! Bob
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Jun 1, 2020 8:08:19 GMT
I've got some questions (and strong opinions) here...
Firstly, let me say that I have seen these types of blocks illustrated in literature of old (probably prior to 1900 and up to the 40's).
I still cannot imagine those strings not leaving a string "impression" present. None the less, if you are in fact holding the wings fast by way of "000" pins then why in the world would one simply not cut some glassine or wax paper to simply cover the rest of the wing beyond the placement of the holding pins? Seems 4-6 other pins would hold wax paper (or what have you in place) to flatten the rest of the wing area.
Quite honestly put, this method is antiquated beyond belief (practically stone age); and I can't believe an age old institution like the Carnegie still practices it. It looks labor intensive just playing around with each individual string and then hoping with each movement that you don't burn the scales. Unbelievable!
And although I am critical of this crazy method I also cannot help but wonder why in the world your Department would even waste time with this donated "elegant junk"? It is all common fodder (at least what I have seen on the blocks). Honestly, why does Carnegie want to fill more drawers or unit trays with such stuff. Don't you guys have enough of a (series) of each of these species ?? Do museums HAVE to try salvaging everything that is so kindly donated (dumped) on them by every half-baked/half-assed/half-interested johnny-come lately --so called collector.
Yeah, pretty hot topic with me because I too once worked for a museum for 8 years. The amounts of money wasted on drawers/unit trays/additional cabinets/and employee time (to salvage and maybe) integrate these "elegant junk" collections into the main collection (where possible) was SIN FULL, as well as wasteful of precious employee time.
Finally, the museum had a campaign to revamp and re-invent some of the halls and we were much relieved to dump a big pile of this (type) of stuff into "displays" for public consumption... With any luck in 20 or 30 years the stuff will be so faded out they can toss out the load and replace it with more accumulated "elegant junk" so as not to corrupt the main collection with any more garbage !
And you wonder why museums are always crying broke over expenses and the bottom-less need for YET more expansion space for their ever growing collections.
The irony though is once something is "Donated" to a museum it is there to stay... You cannot sell it, re-donate it to a school, or throw it straight in the trash ! Suddenly, it becomes a "treasured artifact" oftentimes in the loosest sense. Housing takes space and space costs in additional drawers or unit trays or even cabinets...
I'm ALL FOR keeping quality, decently curated, well cared for professional collections which are offered. But, the rest of the rabble needs to be "assessed" by a qualified staff member prior to any donation; so, that stuff like this does not continue to clutter collections as it is "dumped" on institutions (with supposedly the best of intentions).
|
|
bandrow
Junior Aurelian
Posts: 80
Country: USA
|
Post by bandrow on Jun 1, 2020 16:25:09 GMT
Trehopr1,
First, let me say that I respect that everyone has an opinion, and you are certainly entitled to yours. However, I believe that some of your opinions are based on assumptions, not facts. And one in particular struck me as somewhat insulting – “…the rest of the rabble needs to be "assessed" by a qualified staff member prior to any donation...” This donation certainly was assessed by “qualified” staff members - a Curator and two Collection Managers – one of the latter being me - and was deemed to be of value to the museum.
Now that I have that off my chest… let me address some of your points and explain why we do things the way we do. I’ll leave your comments in red so that you can follow the statements to which I am responding.
“Firstly, let me say that I have seen these types of blocks illustrated in literature of old (probably prior to 1900 and up to the 40's). I still cannot imagine those strings not leaving a string "impression" present.” “Quite honestly put, this method is antiquated beyond belief (practically stone age); and I can't believe an age old institution like the Carnegie still practices it. It looks labor intensive just playing around with each individual string and then hoping with each movement that you don't burn the scales. Unbelievable!” Well, I guess an ‘age old’ museum might just have some ‘antiquated’ routines, and I’m sure you’re being hyperbolic in the stone age comment – I don’t think insect collections were being made then for any reason other than sustenance! But old does not mean wrong. And couldn’t the very practice of putting insects on pins be considered ‘antiquated’? Yet no alternative has developed over the last four centuries. And how long ago did the first multi-specimen strip-style spreading board come into use? Not recently!
While it may be unbelievable to someone who has not seen the practice in person, the string does not cause an impression, except in very soft-winged or ‘fluffy’ specimens as I have already explained. The string is one continuous soft cotton thread, so once the set pins are inserted, the preparator simply wraps the specimen again and again, taking care to secure flat all parts of the wings. This wrapping step is quite fast for an experienced preparator and we have had folks who could prepare as many as 60 high-quality specimens in a workday.
“None the less, if you are in fact holding the wings fast by way of "000" pins then why in the world would one simply not cut some glassine or wax paper to simply cover the rest of the wing beyond the placement of the holding pins? Seems 4-6 other pins would hold wax paper (or what have you in place) to flatten the rest of the wing area. This is certainly the option that most lepidopterists choose. Our method allows us to see the entire specimen under the strings and have the capability to adjust wing “notches” to get a balanced mount, or correct an errant fold or wrinkle. Once you place the glassine strips, you have to hope nothing moved during the process that won’t be discovered until unmounting. 4-6 more pins means 4-6 more holes. Either method produces excellent results in the hands of an experienced preparator and neither is more “right or wrong” – they are different means to the same end.
“And although I am critical of this crazy method…” – ‘Crazy’ is certainly a harsh word to use simply because you disagree with a method. And I think it does disservice to the dozens of excellent preparators over the years that helped make the Carnegie’s one of the top three Lepidoptera collections in the country.
“I also cannot help but wonder why in the world your Department would even waste time with this donated "elegant junk"? It is all common fodder (at least what I have seen on the blocks). Honestly, why does Carnegie want to fill more drawers or unit trays with such stuff. You claim it is all common fodder – but I do acknowledge that you qualify your statement as being based on what you see on the few blocks I presented. I don’t think that a specimen of Meropidae from Chile is ‘common fodder’ and that is one of many species that will be new to the collection. There are thousands of specimens involved, and many truly are junk and will be discarded with the blessing of the family that gave us the material. We asked for explicit permission to discard worthless specimens and the family was perfectly fine with that.
"The irony though is once something is "Donated" to a museum it is there to stay... You cannot sell it, re-donate it to a school, or throw it straight in the trash !” Since the collection was assessed by qualified staff members, the material will be processed and junk discarded before it is accessioned. Therefore, we are not consuming valuable space and committing ourselves to maintaining “elegant junk”. This was all discussed with the family before we accepted the material, as I have said, and they fully agreed.
“Don't you guys have enough of a (series) of each of these species ?? Do museums HAVE to try salvaging everything that is so kindly donated (dumped) on them by every half-baked/half-assed/half-interested johnny-come lately --so called collector.” We have exceptional holdings of African, Brazilian, Bolivian and Caribbean material and good representation of most other regions. We do have less extensive holdings of Asian and Indo-Australian material and many of these specimens will be the first, or additions to very short series, of the species in the collection. In some cases, we will certainly already have quite a few, but these specimens may represent new locality data.
And isn’t it a little presumptuous to call the collector – who you never met – a “half-baked/half-assed/half-interested johnny-come lately --so called collector.”? (However, if you did know him and can validate that he was as you accuse, than I apologize). Again, this is because he did not do things as you do – and granted, not as most of us would – but this was his hobby and the activity he found fulfilling in his life. He was not a scientist and didn’t want to be one – but he loved insects. Considering how the general populace looks down on “bug people’ with quiet disdain, I would hope that we could be less judgmental amongst ourselves. No – his method was not what we would consider “right” but he loved what he did and his family at least recognized the potential value of some of the specimens and didn’t just dumpster them.
"Finally, the museum had a campaign to revamp and re-invent some of the halls and we were much relieved to dump a big pile of this (type) of stuff into "displays" for public consumption... With any luck in 20 or 30 years the stuff will be so faded out they can toss out the load and replace it with more accumulated "elegant junk" so as not to corrupt the main collection with any more garbage !". And some of these specimens will be used for exactly these kinds of purposes. We have an ongoing need for specimens as educational tools for our docents and summer camp counselors. We need specimens for public exhibits and this material will certainly provide some of these. We currently have a “beetle wall” in the public exhibit space consisting of 30 drawers of a wide diversity of Coleoptera. To provide these thousands of specimens for public display, we need material that is in good shape, interesting and even showy, and for at least some period of time – expendable. I do not mean disposable – I just mean specimens that are not immediately needed for scientific study and can be removed from the collection and put on display for extended periods.
I hope I have answered your questions and explained why we do some of the things the way we do. They are methods that we have perfected and that work very well for us. The spectacular collection at the Carnegie is a testament to these practices – not to mention the years of dedication of the staff since the beginning, and while they may not work for everyone – they do for us.
Kind regards, Bob
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Jun 1, 2020 19:40:30 GMT
Bandrow,
If the preparation technique your crew uses works for you and has worked for decades then --- my hat's off to you ! Somebody thought of it way back when and it worked then; so why not now... It just seems un-necessary with modern boards and antiquated at this point in time. I take it you must use other means on those specimens prone to "string lines"...
As for my comments on "elegant junk" I make no apologies. It generally is what it is... At least your institution is proactive in looking over potential donations. Back in the day, the only time my institution did that was for size-able major collections of importance or those of well known collectors within the community. Otherwise, what arrived at the doorstep was everything left languishing in somebody's basement, garage , or attic--- long after the enthusiast had died. It often arrived dermestid-ized, faded from light exposure, with poor or little data, and even with instances of mold having taken place. Quite frankly, more bother than it was worth (hence my johnny-come lately comment).
My best regards as well.
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Jun 1, 2020 19:49:27 GMT
Now I looked at your photo on my laptop and can see those 000 pins holding wings in position (not visible on iPhone screen). I Understand now that you move wings and then rap them with the strings, originally I assumed you place the specimen under the strings and then move them and that would certainly damage the wings, wouldn’t it.
|
|
bandrow
Junior Aurelian
Posts: 80
Country: USA
|
Post by bandrow on Jun 1, 2020 23:29:49 GMT
Trehopr1,
In the case of fluffy, soft specimens, we set the wings with the four '000' pins, and then lay a strip of glassine on the wings where string will land, and then strap it as we do normally. In this method, it's almost the same as when folks use the strips to hold the wings down, except we don't need the extra pins - the strings anchor the strips.
I think your "elegant junk" description certainly fits some of this - the black witch was tossed, for example - common, damaged and poor data, so it went into the trash. But remember - there are several thousand specimens involved and I showed only a few. I'll bet it if offered you any of the perfect specimens of Hypocephalus, Ctenoscelis, Goliathus, Chrysina, Golofa, etc., etc.and plenty of leps that I can't name (remember, underneath I'm still a coleopterist) you might not be ashamed to have them in your collection! There is also a lot of small undetermined things from all over the world - especially weevils, that I have never seen before, so I suspect some will be good stuff to have gotten.
And I think I mentioned somewhere up above that this was not a typical donated collection. Most of what we take in are high quality, specialized collections from serious researchers or non-professionals (I abhor the term "amateur" - but am guilty of using it concerning this collection). In the last few years, just a few of the collections that we've received include the Robert Surdick Collection - Cerambycidae and mixed insects; the Barksdale collection of Mantichora; the Daniel Bogar butterfly collection; the Gordon Marsh collection of California beetles; the Robert Traub flea collection; the Gordon Nielsen tabanid collection, etc. etc. So we focus on specialized, quality, authoritatively determined collections. But we are not blind to unusual opportunities such as this one.
Now having said all that - we suffer the same funding and space issues all museums do, but we do have relatively new administrators and a board that are strongly supportive of collections, so I think the future holds good things.
And I think from now on, if you don't mind - I will borrow your phrase and declare "Wow! What an elegant piece of junk!" when I throw things away...
Cheers! Bob
|
|
bandrow
Junior Aurelian
Posts: 80
Country: USA
|
Post by bandrow on Jun 1, 2020 23:50:52 GMT
Paul,
Yes - placing strings down first and then moving the wings would be a disaster! The most dangerous move in this procedure is to catch the specimen pin while wrapping/unwrapping a specimen - that usually causes a fatal "twang".
My method is to pin down the specimen, and then wrap one string loosely over each side at the base of the wings. This allows the wings to be brought down flat on the block. I then place an insect pin to the left of the body (in the groove of the block) to stop the specimen from turning as I use the '000' pins to bring the left forewing, and then left hindwing up into place. I then repeat the process on the right side. Then I take the string and wrap the left side, starting from the base and working outward, making sure to catch the antennae with the first 1-2 wraps to hold them in place. Then the same is done on the right. I'm no pro, but the average specimen takes me under 5 minutes to complete.
Once the strings are down, if I notice one side off balance or a wing out of place, I use a long, heavy pin with a large nylon head (like a big hat pin) to run under all the strings and lift them together, and then carefully adjust the wing using the '000' in that wing. This works nicely, as I can adjust one wing without disturbing the others. If I'm correcting a hindwing, the large pin positioned across the block behind the hindwing lifts the strings just high enough to be able to move the hindwing, but not high enough to allow the forewing to move.
It's actually a pretty cool technique, but like all methods, the results are only as good as the preparator using them. For a coleopterist, I'm not ashamed to show my spreading to a lepidopterist... at worst I may give him a good laugh!
Cheers! Bob
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Jun 2, 2020 13:21:14 GMT
I remember seeing the blocks in action at the Carnegie when I was a student. At that time, there were literally barrels of papered bugs (not kidding - multiple barrels filled to the top) that needed to be processed. There were a couple of older staff that were really good with the blocks, and they burned through the back-log pretty quickly. And because the "envelope data" needed to be associated with each bug individually, it was simply wrapped in under the string for each specimen, ensuring that no information was lost until a proper label was created.
If you have never seen the Carnegie lep collection, it is outstanding. One of the top five collections in the US. It has historical roots that underpin Holland's Moth Book and Butterfly Book. The "Holland Room" (if it still exists) has cabinetry made by prisoners and a wrought-iron scaffolding system to create a "second floor" in the old, super-high ceiling portion of the collection (very Victorian - I hope it is still intact). The Carnegie was also one of the very first collections to invest in compactor systems to increase their ability to conserve the collection. As Bob mentioned, it is a global collection and John Rawlins, who led the entomology section for years, was great at attracting $$ and aggressively collecting any and everything encountered on a global basis on months-long team expeditions. Certainly hundreds-of-thousands of leps in the form of raw samples from biogeographically interesting places were brought into the collection, spread, and curated during this period alone. John told me once that most of the expedition sites they sampled were chosen based on ecological threat, and that his goal was to have sampled entire lep biotas, such that samples of species, both known and unknown to science, would be conserved in the collection. My guess is that this collection houses one of the largest libraries of undescribed moths in the world. (FYI, because of the long time spent at each site systematically sampling habitats, many of the leps were reared in the field, with larval photos associated with spread adults in the collection).
And despite many of your misconceptions, all of this material is beautifully spread. Just because "I wouldn't do it that way" -- doesn't mean that the alternative approach is wrong.
John
|
|
bandrow
Junior Aurelian
Posts: 80
Country: USA
|
Post by bandrow on Jun 3, 2020 23:08:53 GMT
Hi John,
Thanks for the kind words - and you need to come see us again sometime! I had forgotten about those barrels - some were there when I started in 1996, but they've all been resolved now. Not to say we have no backlog - I would estimate we have several hundred Schmitt boxes with papered leps from all over the world. Most are duplicate specimens from series that were prepared in the past, but I'm sure there are plenty of good things awaiting resurrection from their envelopes some day.
And I'm happy to say the Holland Room is intact, as is the upper deck, albeit 'updated'. We were having increasing issues with warping of the original drawers and old cabinetry. Don't know if you remember, but the original Holland drawers were about 50% longer than a normal insect drawer and the bottom had a wedge-shaped flange along each side. That flange rode in a groove in the serrated sidewalls of the cabinet. Over time, the sidewalls of the cabinets warped a bit, causing some drawers to stick and others to fall. John Rawlins got a big collections improvement grant in the late 90's and had the wooden, serrated sidewalls removed and replaced by metal inserts with metal draw runners. He also invented the "New Holland" drawer based on USNM drawer dimensions, but as long as the old Hollands to conserve space in the collection. They are fitted with unit trays, but the old Hollands are too shallow to take unit trays.
The best part was that the historical look of the room was preserved - the outer cabinetry and glass doors are all still in place so it looks like it did when Holland himself was roaming the aisles. But there are a lot more specimens now then he could have possibly imagined. You mentioned John's focus on threatened habitats and some of the trips could almost be categorized as "salvage collecting" - where the loss of habitat was so imminent that any given expedition could be sampling a place for the last time possible. This was especially true for the 2003-2006 Hispaniola project - 2 expeditions a year to high-altitude habitats that were already reduced in area and under threat of deforestation - or as the fate of one site turned out to be - a hurricane. We added something like 150,000 specimens of Lepidoptera from the Dominican Republic alone, many from targeted rearings and many with DNA samples preserved as well as adults. Plans to access Haiti during the project were thwarted by various complications.
So, I would say it's the same, only better!
Cheers! Bob
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Jun 4, 2020 4:09:29 GMT
Bandrow, it would be very kind of you if you could at some point show us a few pictures of the Holland room. I would love to see some of that Victorian cabinetry and perhaps a few shots of those Holland drawers. Historic collections are always something to behold...
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Jun 4, 2020 12:11:48 GMT
What a fabulous discussion! Thanks to Bandrow for starting it, and Treehopr for being devil's advocate.
Assuming for a second that Carnegie's lep setting method is slow (which it is not), antiquated, and risks damage- is that truly reason to change? Carnegie, and many others, are natural HISTORY museums, a fact often forgotten. Even if they use 300 year old methods, is that not a fabulous preservation of history? Why cease and join the rest of the world, thus losing that skill? Beyond being of historical interest, perhaps some day it will be of value. There are thousands of cobblestone homes in the rust belt, built circa 1820, and nobody knows anymore how to make the correct cement to repair them. And those skinny wood slab planes one sees at antique stores, but nobody wants? Those are for 1900s custom moulding- my buddy has hundreds of these planes, and is one of the few who can accurately reproduce the beautiful oak mouldings.
"Junk" (my term) specimens- clearly a museum only needs so many monarchs and cecropias. And, of course, there are the damaged specimens. And public displays are an excellent use for these specimens. Beyond that though, who knows if even the "junk" may be of value in the future? In 1900 a stuffed passenger pigeon wouldn't be worth a dime. When I look at a bulk of the same species it reminds me of 1998 in Ecuador; at the end of the field trip we were asked to donate duplicates to the Catholic University of Quito. So in a manner of minutes I pulled out hundreds of "duplicates" and left them for the museum. Imagine my horror upon returning home and processing the specimens that "one" species turned out to be three, four, or five; and that when sharing photos with Bill O for his then-new moth website he "identified" many as "sort of looks like"....
Not just insect specimens, or books, but material as well. I wonder, if some day long after I'm gone, someone might ask "We are looking for an example of the cheap BioQuip build-it-yourself Cornell drawers, Chuck donated many to you, do you have any?" and the answer is "no we threw them all away." Even cheap junk has historic value, and sometimes monetary value; 1940s Shell gas cans sell for $250 now, after hundreds of thousands were discarded over the decades.
Contrary to what was stated, museums are free to dispose of donated material as they wish. Some of my material has little scientific value, but has monetary value. Why not sell these specimens and put the money where needed? Our local museum had two WW1 German Maxim machineguns in the basement, and only a few years ago discovered that these were worth $20,000 plus each. They sold them (probably as much to get rid of the awful machineguns, but anyway...) NRA Museum receives thousands of donated guns each year; they cherry pick the very finest and most historically significant, and sell the others, some of which net well in excess of $10,000 each. Museums are also a great source of material to collectors and researchers, as they indeed do sell off entire collections of stuff as interests change. And, some I know are adept at working trades with museums- everyone is happy. So yes, Carnegie could well sell off the "junk" specimens either to collectors or in the gift shop. Who's going to complain if Bob sticks a Papilio glaucus in a $1 frame and gets $20 for it in the gift shop? Makes sense. When I donate off the remainder of my reference collection it will be done with no provisions.
It WOULD be great to see some photos of the Holland room. And others. And, given the ubiquitous nature of the internet, it would be especially wonderful to see, and preserve, the setting method on YuTube. Sharing this sort of information should be part of every museum's current charter and budget. It's great to see BMNH posting photos of specimens, since, for the most part, museum collections are inaccessible.
Thanks again.
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Jun 4, 2020 13:56:13 GMT
Bandrow, it would be very kind of you if you could at some point show us a few pictures of the Holland room. I would love to see some of that Victorian cabinetry and perhaps a few shots of those Holland drawers. Historic collections are always something to behold... Hey Bob, The other thing that people would find interesting, are photos of the "shipping containers" used to get the field-pinned material back to the museum from those salvage efforts. Honestly, people have no idea that you can (or would) do something like this! I actually used a miniature version of these to send send a few hundred moths to Europe many years ago. I stunned the recipient, and the bugs came through perfectly. This all presumes that you have digital photos with you at home... I assume that your trips to the collection are limited right now. I just received word that TNC will continue our "global soft office close" until September 1. I'm going to go frigg'n crazy soon! John
|
|