[NHCOLL-L:576] SUMMARY: Herp collection arrangement

Sun May 7 15:28:45 EDT 2000

Dear all,

I thank inmensely to all of those who responded to my query. Below i
include the responses i received (following the requests i received to do
that)in order i received them. It seems most collections arrange things
alphabetically by family because it is the most efficient system for
retrieval and shelving...again, thanks to those who responded.
_______________________________

Tom,

        We just arrange them alphabetically.  It's just easier for our
scientific visitors, curatorial assistants, students workers, etc.  I
worked at the Univ of Michigan herp collection (1977-1981) for 4 years and
that was also alphabetical.  When I arrived here in 1981, the herps were
already alphabetical within each order.  I have sie had to move the
collection twice and this arrangement made it a lot easier for that as
well.
        By the way, I handle mammals and birds as well and those are
arranged phylogenetically.  Sort of a contradiction isn't it?  It was like
that when I came here and was true at the orher 3 places I worked with
mammal collections as staff or student.  I'm a mammalogist by training.
However, I think most everyone working in these areas are very familiar
with this type of arrangement.  With herps, I don't think that is the
case.
        I would appreciate it very much if you would let me know (or post
to the list) wt most folks are doing.  If it looks like there is an
accepted order that the majority of herp collections are using now, I'll
rearrange with our next move.  Our herp collections are in a new spot but
unfortunately it's still considered 'temporary' so I expect another move
within the next five years.

Liz

M.Elizabeth McGhee - Asst. Curator
Mammal, Bird, Reptile and Amphibian Collections
Georgia Museum of Natural History
University of Georgia
Athens, GA  30602-1882

phone:     706-542-3940
fax:          706-542-3920

________________________________
Phylogenetically.

We've had this discussion many times, especially with regards to the
tissue collection.  It is true that an alphabetic arrangement is simpler
to implement and maintain; and that initial installation is faster.  
However, we refuse to be swayed by these arguments.  My stance is that
collections exist for use, not for ease of installation, and that people
don't examine specimens by number.  When someone wants to examine
specimens, they will request them by taxon.  Normally, they will request a
group of specimens that will have physical locations in the same area, but
that might be widely separated if they were stored by number.  
Additionally, a very strong argument against a pure numeric storage system
is that storage space is optimized in a phylogenetic organization because
the specimens(and storage containers) will be roughly the same size. As a
"compromise" between the two points of view, we have dropped arranging
specimens by subspecies and by the old north to south, west to east
arrangement.  We store as follows:

1.      phylogenetically to family
2.      alphabetically by genus
3.      alphabetically by rpecies
4.      alphabetically by country
5.      alphabetically by state
6.      alphabetically by county
7.      numerically by catalog number.

This way, there is no need for curatorial assistants to learn complete
phylogenies before they can begin woing in the collection.  Basically, if
they know their alphabut and can count, they are ready to work in the
collection.

I have created an installation manual that outlines installation
procedures and includes a complete list (to species) of the [mammal]
collection for use in the collection.  This list is arranged in the exact
order the collection should follow.  The manual also includes a list of
the abbreviations of the states, and a list of the counties in Texas, and
a map showing their locations.

I hope this helps.

Richard.

Richard Monk, Ph.D.
Curator of Collections
Natural Science Research Laboratory
Museum of Texas Tech University
Phone:  (806)742-2486
FAX:  (8e6)742-1136

PS:  EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, MY E-MAIL ADDRESS WILL BE CHeNGED TO
RICH.MONK at TTU.EDU .  THE OLD ADDRESS WILL CONTINUE TO WORK FOR A SHORT
WHILE.  PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS FILE IF MY ADDRESS MEANS ANYTHING TO
YOU.  THANKS.

__________________________________

Tom:

It's true that there is no system for herps similar to the "Family Number"
system that fish collections use

Our collection is arranged phyllogenetically by family, then
alphabetically within families; first by genus, then alphabetically again
by species within genera.  Most other institutions that I hape visited use
this system.

Good luck with your move.

Ross D. MacCulloch
Assistant Curator, Herpetology
Centre for Bioversity and Conservation Biology
Royal Ontario Museum
100 Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M5S 2C6

_______v________________________________

Hi Tom;

While I don't look after a herpetology collection, I thought I'd share my
2 cents with you anyway.  I manage an entomology collection in excess of 1
million specimens.  Historically our moths and butterflies were arranged
phylogenetically and the rest of the collection alphabetically by family,
genus and specs.   I am now in the process of rearranging the moths and
butterflies alphabetically.

We considered the following issues:

1.  Who is most likely to use the collection on a regular basis, our staff
and students, or visiting scholars,
2.  How knowledgeable are we with the phylogenetic arrangements within
each taxonomic order,
3.  Given the tremendous growth of our collection, and the frequency with
which taxonomin determinations change, what is the most efficient way to
organize the collection.

We decided upon the alphabetical approach for the following reasons,

1.  Our staff and students access the collection much more regularly than
visitors -- we cannot possibly know all of the phylogenetic relationships
between all arthropods, whereas specialists certainly will within their
own group, 2.  Since we don't have this knowledge, it is much more
efficient for us to find any given taxon when we know its name and can
simply find st alphabetically, the same thing applies to visitors.  While
they may not appreciate having to look through 3 or 4 cabinets to find all
related taxa, they can find them easily enough since they are arranged
alphabetically, 3, And finally, our collection is experiencing significant
growth each year with new species being added.  Often, we don't know what
other taxa these species are related to, therefore it is much more
efficient to inchrporate them in an alphabetical system.

Hope this helps a little...
Brad

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Brad Hubley
  Entomology Collection Manager
  Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Biology
  Royal Ontario Museum
  100 Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario
  Canada    M5S 2C6

  Phone:  1-416-586-5764
  FAX:      1-416-586-5553

________________________________

In my opinion, collections should be arranged for ease of retrievability
of specimens.  Unless you arrange your shelving in branching sequences you
can't do a true phylogenetic arrangement anyway.  Anything less than
branches would be a systematic step backwards.  I have even heard of
institutions which arrange their collections in orders which promote
"browsing" of the collection, which is contrary to the basic fundamentals
of collection care.  You should browse the catalogs or the database, NOT
the collection!

In any case, we re-arranged our collection a number of years ago in
alphabetical order by family, genus and species.  It worked extremely
well.  When we moved from a facility which had lots of shelving units in
odd places, we made minor re-arrangements to put the less-accessed parts
of the collection in the less-accessible shelving areas.  This has taken
some getting used to, but it is still vastly superior to false
phylogenetic arrangements on linear shelving.  When you have 290,000
specimens in 25,000 jars (as we do), the ability to quickly find the
specimen you need is important.

--John Simmons
Natural History Museum
University of Kansas

___________________________________

Dear J. Tomas Giermakowski,
        Your request for opinions on re-organization of your herp
collection was forwarded to me by the Carnegie Museum collection manager
of Birds who subscribes to whatever newsletter you posted your quandry
on.  She also forwarded John Simmons reply.

The amphibians and reptiles at the Carnegie Museum is also organized
similar to Kansas, though we only have a little over 200,000 specimens.  
The orders are first separated into families alphabetically, and the Genus
and Species and Subspecies separated, usually with the nominant suspecies
and species first, followed by the other subspecies/species.  After that,
they are in geographical order, with the United States first, and then all
countries after that in alphabetical order, provinces or states of each
country also alphabetical. Non-US Countries State jars only exist if there
is sufficient numbers ofspecimens to make the jars usuable.  For example
we may have a Chihuahua and a Coahuila Jar for a specific species, and
then lump all other Mexican States jars in a general Mexican jar.  
Occasionally, for areas that we do not have many specimens, we may combine
countries together and have a list on the jar with all specimens
individually listed.  For Example, for certain lizards from Europe, we may
combine 5 countries in one jar.  Ideally, you want enough jars to
subdivide the collection to make it easy to retrieve specimens, but small
enough number of jars to make it easy to check every container every 6
months for fluid levels.  We keep all jars, one gallon and smaller topped
up, so that it is apparent if there is any leakage. The Carnegie Museum
has about 13,000 jars in total, almost one half the jars of Kansas, for a
collection not that much smaller.

If you have the manpower to do a complete check of the alcohol
concentrations as the move goes on, you might consider this task an
important one.  We have only systematically checked all containers one
gallon and larger, but check every jar that is ever opened by a visitor,
used on site by our researchers, hadspecimens added to it, or used in a
loan.  Recently, all specimens in Birds' fluid collection were completely
inventoried - ca. 5500 specimens - and all jars - ca. 1l00 (I think) - had
the alcohol conc. adjusted to 70% ethanol. This task, (again I think) took
one person, working two days a week, roughly six months, almost full time.
An estimate might be 20 weeks, 2 days a week, ca. 6 hours on checking per
day - maybe 240 man hours.

I mustyalso point out that our jars with formalin are stored separately
near a hood, the skeletons are s.ored separately, as are cleared and
stained specimens, mounts, casts, dried eggs, and tanned and dried skins.

I hope this will be helpfull in your quest!

Stephen P. Rogers
Collection Manager Amphibians and Reptiles

________________________________

Greetings,

At Cincinnati Museum of Nat. His. and here at NMSU, we use the AOU
checklist of birds to organize our collection in phylogenetic order.  I
think it is a common practice to pick one book (world and/or U.S.) to
organize a collection.

Just a thought.

Jeff Btown
NMSU BIO. Grad.
Vert. Museum

________________________________