[NHCOLL-L:2355] Re: collection organization

[Susan Woodward]

I think I should elaborate a little as both Shirley and John have
referred to suggestions that I made.  I have always approached
collections management from a practical side of things, rather than
academically.  There are far too many parameters over which I have no
control to attempt a theoretical approach.  I am also referring to
managing a mammal collection rather than one that deals with
invertebrates that are FAR more diverse.  Finally, what works for me may
not work for you; they are only suggestions of how I have approached my
little domain.

Over the years I have databased virtually every aspect of collections
work to enhance communication and standardization, and to facilitate and
track both material and work that people need to do from the time a
specimen or group of specimens enters our "realm" to the time it is
installed in its final storage location.  This use of automation
includes accessions, vouchers, tissues, wet material, cabinet labels,
drawer labels, and probably a few other things I have forgotten to
mention.  The wayfinding databased info that I referred to in my last
email resides in the collection in the form of a sorted list in a
binder; the technician who installs material simply makes any changes to
the list and I update the database periodically and generate a new list.
 The data from this list facilitates collections planning and many other
activities, so although it was created for one applications, it serves
many.  The generic list is available to staff, students, and visitors to
quickly locate material that they are interested in if they are
unfamiliar with the collection and do not know how to find material
after being oriented or consulting the organizational diagrams or aisle
labels I have provided in the collection.  I have found that location
information to a finer level is not necessary in our collection since
everything is alphabetical and numerical within a genus.  Because of
taxonomic and geographic coding that I have done in the voucher
database, I can generate lists of specimens in the order in which they
appear in the collection at any time; these are extremely helpful when
rearranging or inventorying material.  Our collection is too large and
growing at too great a rate to be able to keep up with a system that
documents location to a "finer grain" - it may be desirable in times of
disaster, for smaller collections, or other reasons, but it is not
attainable or manageable given the constraints that I have to deal with
so I focus energy and other resources to enhancing the quality of
storage, pest management, and other delightful collections missions.

Prioriy setting is a huge part of what leads one collections manager to
do one thing and another to approach the same issue quite differently. 
This is certainly true when it comes to organizing a collection
phylogenetically.  The historical arrangement of a collection is
something many of us have inherited.  Whether this order (little pun
there ...) is deemed desirable or not, again depends on the time
available and staffing and desire of coworkers to change it.  Whenever I
introduce someone to the collection I always do finger carrots when I
say it is in "phylogenetic order" so there is nothing misleading about
the existing organization.  In fact the order is according to a rather
ancient reference and the families and subfamilies are from another
reference; the curators do not always agree with references so there is
yet another mix to the blend.  From purely a practical point of view,
you are never going to be rid of the problem of some "blocks" of the
collection growing faster than anticipated - however you organize it. 
Given the use of our collection we will always want "likes together" so
although the system Judith is using may work well with her material, it
sure wouldn't with ours.  There is the additional issue of having
dissimilar sizes of things adjacent together - hard to store a giraffe
skull next to a pika.

It is very interesting to see the response that this rather simple
question has generated.  Good to revisit the decisions we have made over
the years and think about whether there is a doable, more 
functional way to organize things.  It sure does show how
standardization would be pretty much undoable across all taxa and let
alone within one, between variations in collection locations, history
and existing staff related parameters.  Keeps things interesting ...

Susan 




Susan M. Woodward
Assistant Curator
Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation
     Biology - Mammals
Royal Ontario Museum
100 Queens Park
Toronto, ON
M5S 2C6

Phone      416 / 586-5768
                 (internally dial 5084)
FAX          416 / 586-7921
E-mail       susanw @ rom.on.ca