[NHCOLL-L:2511] Summary of responses on conditions reporting for fluid collections

[cwolfe at ou.edu]

Good morning!

I received many insightful emails regarding my query on conditions reporting for fluid collections, as well as several requests to share the suggestions and information with the group.  Ive summarized below what Ive learned (please email me if you would like this information in a Word document with better formatting than an email can provideattachments within postings to the list-serve are discouraged, so I did not include the attachment).

My original questions were:
     - When do you do conditions reporting for your specimens?
     - What factors do you examine when you do a conditions report?
     - Do you have a report format you would be willing to share?
     - Any other information that might be relevant?

The responses I received for each of my questions follow the question:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When do you do conditions reporting for your specimens?

     - When sending out loans
     - When receiving returned loan specimens 
     - When completing a general conditions survey of the entire wet collection
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What factors do you examine when you do a conditions report?

It was useful for me to organize factors into three categories:

Specimen-related factors:
     - Overall assessment of the specimen (e.g., desiccated, etc.)
     - Number of specimens in container
     - Type of specimen (e.g., skull, skin, whole animal, etc.)
     - Completeness of specimen 
               - Missing internal or external parts 
               - Presence of broken or detached parts
               - Cuts, tears, abrasions, or distortions of tissue (e.g., where, degree)
     - Degree of fading (e.g., is the specimen clearing or darkening?)
     - Condition of tissue where tags attach
     - Quality of fixation (soft, firm, overly hard)
     - Potential contaminants present on specimen (e.g., fungus, etc.)
     - Specimen detached or loose from backing/back plate

Fluid and container-related factors:
     - Preservative 
               - Type
               - Strength/concentration (ideally, tested with a digital density meter)
               - pH 
               - Color of preservative
               - Clarity of preservative
               - Presence of specimen fragments in preservative
               - Presence of lipid contaminants in preservative
               - Fluid level 
               - Fluid coverage of specimens (e.g., is there an adequate ratio of preservative to specimens?)
     - Initial fixative
               - Initial fixative type
               - Initial fixative strength
     - Containers
               - Jar type and quality
               - Gasket type and quality
               - Lid type and quality
               - Presence of internal containers (e.g., shell vials holding small tadpoles, cheesecloth)
               - Ease of opening container

Material-related factors:
     - Labels
               - Number of labels attached to specimen
               - Tag type
               - Condition of labels
     - Label data media 
               - Type (e.g., pen, pencil, thermal transfer ink)
               - Condition of label data media 
     - Label attachment 
               - Type (e.g., cotton thread, etc.)
               - Condition of label attachment to specimen
     - Presence and condition of any leg bands, ear tags, etc.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Do you have a report format you would be willing to share?
 
Most people responded that they do not have a specific report format for condition reporting, although the Science Museum of Minnesota did have some helpful assessment forms for doing a complete assessment of a collection (if you are interested, I can put you in touch with Rebecca Newberry, who sent the forms).  
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Any other information that might be relevant?

1.  General background on the topic:

John Simmons noted that efforts have been made in the past by SPNHC to attempt to find ways to assess fluid-preserved collections, ultimately addressing questions such as, when can you tell if a specimen is well-preserved?  This effort found that there was a general consensus on what well-preserved specimens look like, but the objective criteria determining specimen condition had yet to be specifically identified and evaluated.  To his knowledge, there is nothing in the literature specifically addressing the topic, other than:

Waller, R.R. and J.E. Simmons.  2003.  Assessment of a fluid-preserved herpetological collection.  Collection Forum 18(1-2):1-37.

Additionally, there is a helpful summary of Factors determining long-term usefulness of fluid-preserved specimens available from table 3 in:

Simmons, J.E.  2002.  Herpetological Collecting and Collections Management, revised edition, vi, 153 pp. Paperback, ISBN 0916984605.

Cathy Hawks suggested reviewing examples of condition survey forms (fairly generic and useful for a wide variety of collection types) available in back issues of Collection Forum.
			
2.  Databases:

Some institutions have developed fields in their catalog databases to track specimen conditions.

3.  Loans:

Notes on specimen condition are included on loan invoices for several institutions to ensure the borrowing institutions can be held accountable for damage caused to specimens, as well as to protect the borrowing institution from blame if damage was pre-existing.  Expectations of preserving specimen condition are specified in many institutions formal loan conditions documents.  Some institutions also photograph specimens prior to releasing them on a loan.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Thank you all very much for your help!  The information and suggestions you provided were quite helpful for me in thinking about the issues affecting specimen condition.  I will discuss the information Ive gathered with the curators I work with and our conservator, and if we create a conditions form that I think might be useful for folks on this list to see, Ill be sure to send it along.

Again, thank you all-

Chris

_______________________________________                                                              
Christina A. Wolfe                                                                    
Collection Manager, Herpetology
Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History
University of Oklahoma
2401 Chautauqua Avenue
Norman, OK 73026

405.325.7771
405.325.7699 (fax)
www.snomnh.ou.edu