[Nhcoll-l] Minimum viable mammal specimen

Fri Feb 9 13:18:48 EST 2024

Thank you, Rebecca Hawkins, for bringing up this problem that we, the
natural history collections community need to discuss.

I sympathize with the problem of crowded collections. I don’t know of a
heavily used natural history collection anywhere that does not have this
problem. However, I don’t think selecting a few essential parts of a
specimen is a good idea. As several responses have already pointed out,
there are research uses for all parts of a specimen, and we keep finding
new uses for all parts of a specimen. The history of use of natural history
collections tells us very clearly that there is an unending variety of ways
to use specimens, particularly as advances in technology enable us to look
at specimens in entirely new ways. Which brings us to a collecting
conundrum—we should be making collections for future research, not just
present research, but what will future researchers need? We don’t know.
What we do know is that the large amount of literature on uses of natural
history collections, taken all together, makes a strong argument for
keeping all parts of organisms rather than just traditional preparations or
reduced parts of specimens.

What museums should be doing is diversifying the types of preparations for
specimens they are collecting now (natural history museums should be
actively collecting to document the effects of climate change). Traditional
study skins are still useful, but so are full skeletons, fluid-preserved
specimens, and many other types of preparations. One of the problems is
that modern collections reflect the traditions in the various “-ologies,”
which is why mammal collections have traditionally had mostly skins and
skulls, bird collections mostly skins with a partial skull intact,
amphibian, reptile, and fish collections but whole animals in fluid,
insects are pinned, and so on. These traditional preparations often fail to
provide the kind of specimens needed for future research.

To address the very serious problem you have brought up about “specimen
footprint” (that is a very descriptive term and we should all start using
it)—there are several approaches to solving the problem. To mention just a
few:

1-We need new designs for collection storage furniture to make better use
of space while still allowing efficient monitoring of specimens (without
having to pick them up or move them). We need to re-think drawer size and
shape, cabinet configurations, the use of wide shelving vs narrow shelving,
making better use of compactors, the size and shape of specimens and
specimen containers, and so forth.

2-We can house specimen parts separately. Consider that most skulls are not
the same shape as study skins, round jars are not necessarily the best
shape to hold fluid-preserved specimens, skeletons need individual
containers but study skins usually do not, etc.

3-This next suggestion often results in me being called a heretic, but it
is, in fact, the easiest and most cost-effective way to make better use of
space that we have right now. The suggestion is that we should abandon
attempts at so-called “systematic arrangements” of collection storage
arrays and instead develop collection storage arrays that are designed to
better use space while providing the best storage environment for the
collection (for example, bones tolerate a wider range of temperature and
humidity than do skins). Particularly considering the flood of taxonomic
changes resulting from molecular systematics, and the need to collect more
specimens now to document climate change, our old collection storage arrays
are a liability. We need to start by assessing the size and shape of
specimens and containers, then consider the environmental requirements, and
then develop storage arrays that are a better use of space and use the
collection database to find specimen, not a faux systematic arrangement (no
linear arrangement can be phylogenetic, and I have never seen a branching
sequence of cabinets or shelving). Non-systematic arrangements can
accommodate collection growth far more efficiently than traditional
collection storage arrays.

There have been a few publications addressing the problem of crowded
natural history collection storage. I will list a few below, and hope that
people will add those that I have missed.

At the 2022 SPNHC meeting in Edinburgh there was a session on “Managing
Long-Term Sustainability in an Uncertain Future” that included several
presentations directly addressing the topic of best use of storage space.
Not all of the speakers published papers based on their presentations, so
if you are interested, check the abstracts from the meeting.

One last thing—before anyone rejects the idea of non-systematic
arrangements for natural history collections, please take time to read the
paper below by Cohen et al. listed below and look carefully at the amount
of space they saved.

Thanks again to Rebecca for bringing up this very important topic for
discussion.

--John

Callomon, P. 2019. An improved design for the storage of fluid-preserved
specimens in small to medium-sized containers. *SPNHC Connection*
33(2):28-32.

Cohen, A. E., D. A. Hendrickson, and M. J. Casarez. 2019. An alternative
shelving arrangement for natural history collection objects to optimize
space and task efficiency. *Collection Storage* 33(1):55-72.

McAlpine, D. F., and F. W. Schueler. 2018. Herpetology meets botany: using
herbarium methods to archive dried skins of frogs and snakes. *Herpetological
Review* 49(2):236-238.

Simmons, J. E. 2013. Application of preventive conservation to solve the
coming crisis in collections management. *Collection Forum* 27(1-2):89-101.

Simmons, J. E. and Y. Muñoz-Saba. 2003. The theoretical bases of
collections management. *Collection Forum* 18(1-2):38-49.

John E. Simmons
Writer and Museum Consultant
Museologica
*and*
Investigador Asociado, Departamento de Ornitologia
Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima

On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 9:43 AM Hawkins, Rebecca K. <rkhawkins at ou.edu> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Nhcoll-l mailing list
> Nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu
> https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> NHCOLL-L is brought to you by the Society for the Preservation of
> Natural History Collections (SPNHC), an international society whose
> mission is to improve the preservation, conservation and management of
> natural history collections to ensure their continuing value to
> society. See http://www.spnhc.org for membership information.
> Advertising on NH-COLL-L is inappropriate.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20240209/c283a1b3/attachment.html>