[NHCOLL-L:4796] Re: New Angle.RE: RE: oology curation query

Mon Apr 5 12:20:25 EDT 2010

I'd say it might depend on the composition of the sand. It the sand particles are quartz, the hardness of the quartz could - over time - abraid the softer inorganics of the egg shell. I'd also be concerned about possible organic 'pollutants' in the sand itself, such as minute decaying matter that could attract insects. In your case, however, since the sand is old and no smells are emanating from the storage boxes, the organic component is probably minimal. 

Shirley Albright 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Glotzhober" <bglotzhober at OHIOHISTORY.ORG> 
To: JBRYANT at riversideca.gov, nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu 
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2010 6:50:42 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [NHCOLL-L:4795] New Angle.RE: RE: oology curation query 

I “inherited” an oology collection when I started working here – have never had much occasion to add to it nor any questions over curation. All of our eggs were stored in clear plastic boxes partially filled with a very fine white sand. The sand seems to conform nicely into little bowls to cushion the eggs, I’ve never seen any moisture build up or mold or any other problems I’ve observed. In 30 years working with the collection occasionally, they all seem fine. Does anyone know of any short-comings of this type of storage? 

By the way, the plastic boxes had also been used for skulls in our mammal collection, which I quickly replaced because of the interaction of PDB with the plastic. Fortunately, when I started they had not been in these boxes long enough for any to “melt” over the skulls, but the typical discoloration and distortion was present. Since our egg collection was all very well dried – we use no pesticides at all in that collection and have never had any observable problems with the boxes nor with the eggs. 

I’m eager to hear from others what they think about using the sand to cushion the eggs. 

Bob 

==================== 

Robert C. Glotzhober 614/ 298-2054 

Senior Curator, Natural History bglotzhober at ohiohistory.org 

Ohio Historical Society Fax: 614/ 298-2098 

From: owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Bryant, James 
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 12:59 PM 
To: nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu 
Subject: [NHCOLL-L:4792] RE: oology curation query 

I endorse the recommendations of all the others, plus one more subjective view: the polyester batting has less nap, and I find the fluffy nap of cotton to be a nuisance when used as packing for very light objects, like birds eggs. It can snag on the tiniest irregularity or projection, and when you move the cotton batting it often drags the specimens along with it. I just don’t see this with polyester. 

I can definitely verify the discoloration and off-gassing Simon mentions. I have used the packing method described in the first volume of the SPNHC storage book set in a couple of instances, with what I feel were excellent results. 

James M. Bryant 

Curator of Natural History 

Museum Department, City of Riverside 

3580 Mission Inn Avenue 

Riverside , CA 92501 

(951) 826-5273 

(951) 369-4970 FAX 

jbryant at riversideca.gov 

From: owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of CAHawks at aol.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:28 AM 
To: nmccartn at uark.edu; nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu 
Subject: [NHCOLL-L:4791] RE: oology curation query 

I concur with Simon and Gretchen. If cotton isn't truly just alphacellulose fiber it will oxidize and even if it is, it attracts and hold moisture near the eggs, which can promote Bynes if there are any sources of organic acids in the air around the collection. Use a high-loft, non-bonded 100% polyester fiber. 

Cathy Hawks 

In a message dated 4/2/2010 7:45:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, AndersonG at CarnegieMNH.org writes: 

I vote for polyester for all of the reasons already stated. 

For broken shells I recommend using tyvek - the soft variety. Crumple it to further soften it so that it almost form fits to the cavity in the polyester batting. place broken shells within. It is softer than normal acid free tissue and less abrasive. 
If you use tissue - know that buffering agents are usually calcium carbonate - so that would work well with shells. 

Gretchen Anderson 
Conservator 
Carnegie Museum of Natural History 
andersong at carnegiemnh.org 

From: owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Couteaufin at aol.com 
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 3:58 PM 
To: rissanen at museumca.org; nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu 
Subject: [NHCOLL-L:4788] RE: oology curation query 

Hi Carolyn, 

Polyester batting is (so far) totally inert in egg collections. 

I have come across cotton wool wadding that has oxidised over time (yellowed) and with a slightly higher-than-normal RH (c. 60%) and an oak cabinet with VOCs, which gave rise to a mild form of Byne's disease. This resulted in a vinegary smell, a weakening and/or thinning of the shell and a total loss of the all important egg markings! 

With all good wishes, Simon 

Simon Moore MIScT, FLS, ACR, 
Conservator of Natural Sciences, 
20 Newbury Street, 
Whitchurch RG28 7DN. 
www.natural-history-conservation.com 

http://uk.linkedin.com/in/naturalsciencespecimenconserve 

In a message dated 02/04/2010 23:01:28 GMT Daylight Time, rissanen at museumca.org writes: 

We have been using polyester because it seems cotton would be attractive to 
some pest or other. I would appreciate seeing others' opinions. 

Carolyn 

Carolyn Rissanen 
Registrar, Natural Sciences 
Oakland Museum of California 
510-238-3885 
www.museumca.org 

-----Original Message----- 
From: owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu] 
On Behalf Of nmccartn 
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:08 PM 
To: 'nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu' 
Subject: [NHCOLL-L:4784] oology curation query 

Hello, everyone: 

I am about to rehouse our egg collection, and have had advice of using 
cotton or polyester as padding in our Durphy plastic boxes which will 
be in two nice new Viking cabinets. Would the cotton be attractive to 
insects? Any advantage to one or the other? 

In terms of tissue paper for broken shells (hopefully just a few) 
should I get buffered or unbuffered? 

Anything else I should consider? 

Many thanks in advance. 

NMcC 

Nancy Glover McCartney, PhD 
Curator of Zoology 
UA Collections Facility 
2435 Hatch 
Fayetteville, AR 72701 

http://fulbright.uark.edu/collections/ 

Phone: 479-575-4370 
FAX: 479-575-7464 

-- 

Shirley S. Albright 

185 Tumble-Idell Road 
Frenchtown NJ 08825 
908.996.3736 
conularia57 at embarqmail.com 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/nhcoll-l/attachments/20100405/40aea380/attachment.html 