[Nhcoll-l] Minimum viable mammal specimen

[Mullon, Madeleine]

I would argue that postcranial skeletal elements have become increasingly relevant in mammalogy collections-most historical holdings consist of skin & skull only, as collectors and mammalogists used to be of the opinion that the skull was the only truly "useful" part of the skeleton for their work. At the MCZ, we see many visitors, especially in our primates and carnivorans, that are interested solely in postcranial elements, if not more than are interested in the skulls. I'd say it would be a shame to keep only the skull.
If you wanted to reduce the overall footprint of a whole skeleton, I would say there's the option to keep only one side of the paired elements-one of each limb, ribs, etc. But, in that case, I would suggest always keeping the full skeletons of species that are rare or uncommon in collections (or were historically more accessible to collect, but now less so), and any pathological elements. It would make sense to me that if you have a collection with hundreds of local coyote specimens, for instance, you might not want to keep the entirety of the specimen if your collection is struggling with space constraints.
As far as skin preparation methods go, for those medium-sized species (canids, mid-sized felids, etc.), if you are dedicated to keeping the whole skin, I tend to prefer tanned hides that have been case skinned over flat hides or study skins of those species, because their regular shape makes them easier to store than flat hides (assuming you're not stacking them on top of each other), and they occupy less volume than study skins of those species, especially vertically. I'm not opposed to the idea of skin swatches for those larger species either-maybe keeping the face skin and a middorsal section?

I also think there's the opportunity for fluid preserved specimens to be included in this conversation, particularly for small mammals. The spatial footprint of small mammals is not much different whether you choose to preserve them as skin & skull/skeleton only or as whole-body fluid specimens and the fluid preservation in that case would allow for even more parts of the animal to be preserved. Many small mammals can be stored in a single jar. This, of course, assumes your mammal collection has the capacity to store fluid specimens, and would have to consider the space required to store jars and the efficiency of that storage.

Best,

Madeleine Mullon
She/they
MCZ Mammalogy
[https://huctw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/huctw_email_sig_2012_white.jpg?download=1]

From: Nhcoll-l <nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu> On Behalf Of Hawkins, Rebecca K.
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 9:43 AM
To: nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu
Subject: [Nhcoll-l] Minimum viable mammal specimen

Hello all,

Here at the Sam Noble Museum, we have been brainstorming about mammal prep types that would minimize a specimen's footprint in the collection space while maximizing research potential, which we have dubbed the 'minimum viable specimen' in conversation. Such a concept would be useful for larger mammals like coyotes, which-in large numbers-would take a lot of time and effort to prepare and would be spatially expensive to store as stuffed skins and skeletons. With minimum viable specimens, large mammals could be collected in larger sample sizes crucial for research like characterizing population variability and change over time.

Right now we are thinking that a minimum viable mammal specimen consists of a skull, skin swatch, and tissues (muscle and liver?), but would like to open this discussion to other museums as it could benefit all. Thanks!

Rebecca Hawkins (she/her)
Curatorial Associate
Sam Noble Museum
2401 Chautauqua Ave.
Norman, OK 73072
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20240209/8431da9e/attachment.html>