[Nhcoll-l] [EXTERN] Re: Access and authorship in natural history collections

Mon Mar 2 12:27:37 EST 2026

Thanks, Dirk!  Your response exactly covers my questions, i.e., when are
assessing "handling fees" for tissues and/or loans acceptable?

Thanks again,
Cody

Cody W. Thompson, PhD
Mammal Collections Manager
& Associate Research Scientist
University of Michigan
Museum of Zoology
3600 Varsity Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108
Office: (734) 615-2810
Fax: (734) 763-4080
Email: cwthomp at umich.edu
Website: codythompson.org

*Please click here to support the UMMZ Mammal Division, its collections,
and research mission!!!*
<https://lsa.umich.edu/ummz/mammals/donate-to-the-mammal-division.html>

On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 12:17 PM Dirk Neumann <d.neumann at leibniz-lib.de>
wrote:

> Hi Cody,
>
> I am not sure if I understand your question correctly, because "handling
> fees" do not commercialise a request in the meaning of the Nagoya Protocol.
> The key question for this would be if the requested tissues would be
> used/utilised for a commercial/applied purpose, or not.
>
> If an institution charges handling or shipping fees, e.g. to maintain
> operations or to cover costs that otherwise cannot be covered in-house,
> than this would not render the collection a commercial collection (i.e.
> making a profit out of incoming access requests).
>
> Such situations do exist however, one example are (parts of) microbial
> collections, which run on sales of materials from living cell lines, virus
> materiels etc. they propagate and/or offered as "a product". In an Nagoya
> Context, such collections can take on the role as a (commercial) Provider.
> In the EU, some microbial collections opted in to register this part of
> their collections. For Nagoya Compliance, these collections need to
> negotiate with the respective original providing countries access of third
> to this material, and would have all reporting and documenting obligations.
>
> But this is not the case here - as far as I understand.
>
> However, there might be a chance that a scientist requests a tissue for
> pure taxonomy/identification, but for doing so, this scientist needs to
> look into functions or expression patterns of genes, which is the case in
> some plants (e.g. for identification of thyme varieties). Typification
> would be a similar example. At least form the understanding of the EU ABS
> Regulation and for compliance on the user side, as long as the scientist is
> using the analytical results for pure identification, this would not be
> considered as utilisation in the meaning of the NP.
>
> Example: you could request tissue material collected and exported under a
> non-commercial collecting permit of country A to a collection in country B
> (staff at this collection did the fieldwork in country A for biodiversity
> discovery and legally exported the material). The collection in country B
> charges handling/shipping fees for the tissue request, the tissues are used
> to identify potential new species / to compare these tissues with species
> form other countries outside A. This would still be a non-commercial
> request/use, and the reason (species discovery) would still match with the
> original permit conditions (sharing with third is allowed, if use for
> biodiversity discovery).
>
> Hope this helps ... (?)
>
> With best wishes
> Dirk
>
>
>
> Am 27.02.2026 um 23:52 schrieb Cody Thompson:
>
> ACHTUNG/ATTENTION: Diese E-Mail stammt von einem externen Absender. /
> This e-mail comes from an external sender.
>
>
> Following up on John's and James's comment about charging for loans, this
> has been happening in tissue collections in the US for several years
> now, especially in vertebrate tissue collections that are accessed
> frequently by biomedical researchers.  From my understanding, the fees are
> used to support the time for pulling, subsampling, packing, and shipping
> material.  Generally there is also a way to avoid the loan fees, e.g.,
> documentation showing contributions to collections.  So, researchers that
> reciprocate collection access are not affected.
>
> In the past, I know researchers have often been asked to cover shipping
> costs for tissue loans.  However, I am wondering if it is becoming more
> acceptable to assess these additional fees to support the time of
> collection personnel.  And if so, how does that track with the constraints
> of Nagoya, or potential limitations on commercial use found in collecting
> permits?
>
> Take care,
> Cody
>
> Cody W. Thompson, PhD
> Mammal Collections Manager
> & Associate Research Scientist
> University of Michigan
> Museum of Zoology
> 3600 Varsity Drive
> Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108
> Office: (734) 615-2810
> Fax: (734) 763-4080
> Email: cwthomp at umich.edu
> Website: codythompson.org
>
> *Please click here to support the UMMZ Mammal Division, its collections,
> and research mission!!!*
> <https://lsa.umich.edu/ummz/mammals/donate-to-the-mammal-division.html>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 6:47 PM Mickley, James <
> james.mickley at oregonstate.edu> wrote:
>
>> Dear all:
>>
>> I have also heard of institutions in the USA requiring authorship as a
>> loan condition. We have also discussed charging a fee for loans, and this
>> at a major herbarium. There are obvious reciprocity issues with both, and
>> we have opted not to do this for now. However, these discussions may come
>> from a position of necessity and perhaps survival rather than simply
>> padding CVs. My institution values publications and cashflow; they don't
>> otherwise value loans fulfilled, or collections as a public good,
>> especially given that our faculty do not often request loans from other
>> institutions for their research. Even pointing to the large number of
>> outside publications that cite our collections seems to get a lukewarm
>> response.
>>
>> We often caution each other about not undervaluing ourselves as a
>> collections community, and I think that's a worthwhile conversation to
>> have. I'd suggest that authorship or fees are maybe not the best way to
>> accomplish this, but looking across campus at similar service providers
>> (e.g., imaging, genomic, diagnostic), the standard is to charge for time,
>> data, access, and the like.
>>
>> Cheers
>> - James Mickley
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Dr. James Mickley *(he/him/his)
>>
>> *Assistant Professor of Practice (Herbarium Curator) *
>>
>> *Senior Instructor*
>>
>> *Oregon* *State University *| *Botany and Plant Pathology*
>>
>> Office: 2511 Cordley Hall | OSU Herbarium
>> <https://bpp.oregonstate.edu/herbarium> | OregonFlora
>> <https://oregonflora.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Nhcoll-l <nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu> on behalf of John E
>> Simmons <simmons.johne at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 2, 2026 12:55 PM
>> *To:* Erika Natarajan <erika at natarajan.ca>
>> *Cc:* nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu <nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Nhcoll-l] [EXTERN] Re: Access and authorship in natural
>> history collections
>>
>>
>> [This email originated from outside of OSU. Use caution with links and
>> attachments.]
>> This is a very interesting discussion, and I appreciate all of the
>> viewpoints expressed so far. It is an important discussion to have.
>>
>> I have worked with natural history collections for nearly six decades
>> (since my freshman year in college in 1969) so I have seen a lot of changes
>> in the field, particularly in who collects specimens, who has collections,
>> and who uses collections. I was a full-time collections manager at the
>> California Academy of Sciences (4 years), at the Natural History Museum at
>> the University of Kansas (26 years), I have been an independent collections
>> consultant since 2008, and I have published widely on collections and
>> collection care.
>>
>> FIRST--the idea that a staff member of an institution should be
>> automatically included as an author simplify for making a loan of specimens
>> or access to specimens possible is hogwash. If that was a standard, I would
>> have an astounding publication record. A simple acknowledgement is
>> appropriate, but nothing more. The very idea seems to go along with the
>> ridiculous trend of having 15 or 20 authors on a single publication. Enough
>> with authorship inflation already.
>>
>> SECOND--Back in the Pleistocene when I first started working collections,
>> there was an informal quid pro quo among collecting institutions. Staff or
>> students from institution A would borrow B, who would loan to C, and so
>> forth so that the costs of preparing loans or providing access  (which can
>> be very high) were evened out over time. This has not been true since the
>> advent of molecular systematics in the late 1980s. Most (but not all) of
>> the people borrowing specimens or accessing specimens in collections today
>> do not work for collecting institutions and do not collect specimens that
>> others might use, so the system is out of balance. Passing along the costs
>> of borrowing specimens, in particular, is reasonable. Most curators can
>> easily determine which institutions are reciprocal  (e.g., offer collection
>> access or loans themselves) and which are not. This is only fair. The
>> collecting institutions are already burdened with the cost of upkeep of
>> collections; they should not be expected to bear the cost of loans to
>> researchers who do not have collections to loan. Researchers without
>> collections would not expect cost-free use of scanning electron
>> microscopes, etc., and should not expect cost-free collection loans,
>> either.
>>
>> Yes, collections belong to all of us, but no, we do not all help support
>> collections, do we?
>>
>> --John
>>
>> John E. Simmons
>> Writer and Museum Consultant
>> Museologica
>> *and*
>> Research Associate, Earth and Mineral Sciences Museum & Art Gallery
>> Penn State University
>> *and*
>> Investigador Asociado, Departamento de Ornitologia
>> Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 2:42 PM Erika Natarajan <erika at natarajan.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think this discussion highlights a broader ethical distortion in
>> scientific publishing and research culture. Publications were originally
>> meant to disseminate discoveries and advance knowledge. Over time, however,
>> institutional reward systems have shifted the focus toward authorship as a
>> metric, sometimes regardless of the actual quality, rigor, or originality
>> of the data. In that context, authorship risks becoming a form of currency
>> rather than a reflection of genuine intellectual contribution.
>>
>> I would also like to gently challenge the assumption that collections in
>> “wealthier” or “first-world” countries are inherently better supported or
>> better managed than those in countries such as Colombia. I am currently
>> volunteering in a large museum in a high-income country, and what I observe
>> daily is that heavy bureaucracy, rigid administrative structures, and
>> institutional inertia often hinder good collection care and research access
>> — even when there is an excellent and highly committed curator.
>>
>> Conversely, many collections in Colombia operate under severe material
>> constraints, yet are sustained by extraordinary scientific dedication, deep
>> local expertise, and strong engagement with regional biodiversity. Their
>> main limitation is not a lack of competence or commitment, but a lack of
>> institutional recognition and structural support. These are fundamentally
>> different challenges.
>>
>> For these reasons, I think it is misleading to frame this issue as a
>> simple dichotomy between “rich country” and “LMIC” collections. Both
>> operate under systemic pressures that can distort ethical practices in
>> different ways. Mandatory or expected authorship, however, remains
>> problematic in any context if it is not based on real intellectual
>> contribution.
>> Supporting underfunded collections should be achieved through fair and
>> voluntary collaboration, shared research agendas, funding, training, and
>> infrastructure — not by redefining authorship as compensation. Ultimately,
>> what matters most is not who signs the paper, but the discovery itself and
>> its contribution to scientific knowledge. Perhaps emerging tools, including
>> AI, can help us refocus evaluation on scientific content and impact rather
>> than on name accumulation.
>>
>> Erika Isabel Natarajan
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 11:16 AM Andrew J. Crawford <crawfordaj at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> What a great question and interesting topic for discussion.  Several
>> issues have been brought up and points of view shared, to which I will add
>> one more I haven't seen in this threat.
>>
>> In principle, I am against the notion that me providing a service as
>> curator implies I should be on your paper. I am providing a service to the
>> community, and I hope to enjoy reciprocity in my own work and maintain good
>> relationships with other collections, as someone already mentioned in this
>> thread.  Also, the collections are not mine, I am only the temporary
>> custodian of this national or global patrimony.   Most curators are already
>> being paid to support the collections and increase their use, and probably
>> were hired without the expectation of being on papers developed by users of
>> the collection.  If the visitor is asking too much of the curator, beyond
>> their normal duties, the curator can always say "No, come do that yourself,
>> we cannot offer that service at this time."
>>
>> That said, now imagine you coming from a relatively rich country and you
>> visit a developing nation, like Colombia, and you invoke the principle of
>> reciprocity.  The problem is that most collections in Colombia, and likely
>> in Lower to Middle-income countries (LMIC) generally, just do not have the
>> institutional support you find at a larger institution in a wealthier
>> country.     In Colombia, I know of collections with really valuable
>> material that receive basically no institutional support with literally no
>> salaries -- functioning by student volunteers and professors paid to teach,
>> with no institutional recognition of their curatorial dedication.
>> Sometimes the curator is not paid to curate.  Likely no one is paid for
>> their expertise, or to process permits, take measurements, or ship
>> packages. The individual grant paying for the research by the visitor from
>> a wealthy country is likely many times bigger than the entire annual budget
>> for many collections in LMICs.  (I know all collections in the world are
>> short-staffed and short on resources, but the difference between "less than
>> you need" and "nothing" is harsh.)
>>
>> Thus, if I want to access for example tissues from a collection in
>> Colombia, especially a smaller collection with little support, and the
>> curator asks to be on my future paper, perhaps this is the least I can do
>> to support them and thank them for their personal sacrifices towards
>> maintaining these valuable regional collections that support biodiversity
>> inventories & systematics, and train a population of deserving students. If
>> the tissues are from a taxonomic group they have experience with, my future
>> paper will only be that much improved by having them on board as a true
>> collaborator, anyway.
>>
>> And if I had a decent-sized grant, I might take the next step and say,
>> "Thanks for sharing and helping me make my own research better.  Now let's
>> talk about your ideas. What's interesting to you as a biodiversity
>> scientist or how can we help you as a curator?"
>>
>> Anyway, all these issues are context-dependent, and the world is much
>> more complex than what I outlined above.   I just wanted to mention this
>> additional variable where we might make slightly different decisions as
>> contexts change.
>>
>> All best wishes,
>>   -Andrew
>>
>> Andrew J. Crawford
>> Museo de Historia Natural C.J. Marinkelle (ANDES)
>> Department of Biological Sciences, Facultad de Ciencias
>> Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia, South America
>> @crawfordaj.bsky.social‬
>> IG: @craw.crawdad
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 10:07 AM Dirk Neumann <d.neumann at leibniz-lib.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Luis,
>>
>> the case I mentioned was real scientific input (i.e. prior determination
>> of faunal remains to species level be sure that requested species are
>> included in the bone rubble and the taxonomic IDs are correct). This is
>> justified, especially if this material is used for stable isotopes or aDNA
>> (because the bones are previously undetermined and unrecognised in the bags
>> with the archaeological material).
>>
>> Also for tissues MTAs - as in our case - this can be justified. Depending
>> on the contractual conditions the material war originally accessioned under
>> the respective access laws of the Provider Country / Nagoya Protocol. In
>> this case, it can be that co-authorship is a contractual requirement that
>> arises independent of the scientific input.
>>
>> Of course, the latter raises questions towards agreed principles for
>> co-authorship for publications, and I am not sure if this is the case her,
>> just wanted to mention that such linkages with MTAs for tissue request can
>> occur.
>>
>> With best wishes
>> Dirk
>>
>>
>> Am 02.02.2026 um 15:27 schrieb Luis Ceríaco:
>>
>> Thank you all for your input.
>>
>> It is not strange to have curators and collection managers from the
>> different institutions we work with or consult specimens as co-authors. In
>> many cases it makes sense and it is completely legitimate. This can be
>> discussed between the leading author and the staff.
>> As Dirk said, in some situations there are extra efforts that the staff
>> needs to make to make the collection accessible and that can be recognized
>> by the authors (while not necessarily as authorship). In other situations,
>> when someone cannot physically visit the collection and request the
>> collection manager to, let's say, count the scales of 200 lizards, that
>> most likely can turn into what we envision as a collaboration and thus
>> deserves authorship.
>> What shocked me the most in this case is that it is written in the
>> official documentation (in this case a MTA for tissues), that a "demand of
>> 50 specimens justify co-authorship" of the local staff.
>> I'm aware of some curators that "force" themselves into papers that used
>> their collections, but having this into official policy is a whole other
>> situation...
>>
>> Em seg., 2 de fev. de 2026 às 14:11, Taylor, Sarah <
>> sarah.taylor at uconn.edu> escreveu:
>>
>> I have been offered authorship on publications (which I declined) twice
>> after researcher visits to our herbarium. From the researchers'
>> perspective, the contributions I made to their research (time, expertise on
>> recommending specimens they might want to examine, assistance with
>> equipment, and assistance accessing publications) merited recognition above
>> mention in the acknowledgments section. From my perspective, I didn't offer
>> original ideas, contribute to analysis, or write the resulting papers.
>>
>> In my experience, asking for authorship in exchange for loans/research
>> visits is definitely NOT common or a new trend. I also think it's likely to
>> be ineffective - every collection I know of, including mine, asks
>> researchers to a) acknowledge the collection in publications and b) send a
>> pdf or, at the least, citation of publications, and the success rate of
>> request (b) is well below 20%. The success rate of request (a) seems higher
>> but I have definitely found peer-reviewed publications that use images of
>> CONN specimens with zero reference to our herbarium anywhere in the paper.
>>
>> This is an interesting topic and two more replies have come in since I
>> started typing - I'm looking forward to the discussion.
>>
>> Best,
>> Sarah
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Sarah Taylor, PhD
>>
>>
>> Scientific Collections Manager
>>
>> George Safford Torrey Herbarium (CONN)
>> Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
>> *University of Connecticut*
>> 75 North Eagleville Road, Unit 3043
>> Storrs, Connecticut 06269-3043
>> U.S.A.
>>
>> P: 860.486.1889
>> F: 860.486.4320
>> *https://biodiversity.uconn.edu/herbarium/
>> <https://biodiversity.uconn.edu/herbarium/>*
>>
>>
>>
>> Pronouns: she/her or they/them
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Nhcoll-l <nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu> on behalf of Scott
>> A Schaefer <schaefer at amnh.org>
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 2, 2026 8:55 AM
>> *To:* Luis Ceríaco <luisceriaco at gmail.com>; NHCOLL-new <
>> nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Nhcoll-l] Access and authorship in natural history
>> collections
>>
>> *External sender: This message was not sent through the UConn email
>> system. It might be safe, but use caution before interacting with links,
>> attachments, or requests.*
>>
>> This sounds like an egregious abuse of the principal of reciprocity
>> inherent to research use of museum collections and is not something I’ve
>> heard of in my 40+ years of museum work. Whether or not such collections
>> were built and are now maintained by “public money”, the understanding of
>> reciprocity (= you do for me, I do for you) is part of what facilitates
>> research use of museum collections and extends from loan approvals and
>> processing to shipping and packaging. I would hope this example is isolated
>> to some misplaced thinking by uninformed people.
>>
>> I am also aware of other recent practices that threaten the reciprocity
>> agreement, such as charges levied for permit applications required for both
>> the loan approval and the export. In response, curators and collection
>> managers may be encouraged to avoid such lending practices by refusing to
>> participate— both in borrowing and lending to these institutions.
>>
>> The community would be served by hearing from others that have been
>> impacted by these practices.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> __________________________________________
>>
>> Scott A. Schaefer, Ph.D.
>>
>> Dean of Science for Collections and the
>>
>>        Public Understanding of Science
>>
>> Director, Institute for Comparative Genomics
>>
>> Curator and Professor
>>
>>
>>
>> *American Museum of Natural History <https://amnh.org/>*
>>
>> 200 Central Park West
>>
>> New York, NY 10024-5192 USA
>>
>>
>>
>> Office: 212-769-5652
>>
>> Mobile: 215-570-2943
>>
>> Email: *schaefer at amnh.org <schaefer at amnh.org>*
>>
>>
>> *From: *Nhcoll-l <nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu> on behalf of Luis
>> Ceríaco <luisceriaco at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Monday, February 2, 2026 at 8:23 AM
>> *To: *NHCOLL-new <nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu>
>> *Subject: *[Nhcoll-l] Access and authorship in natural history
>> collections
>>
>> *EXTERNAL SENDER*
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> Recently I've learned through a colleague that was requesting access to
>> specimens from a big European natural history institution, that it was
>> expected for him to include staff members for that given institution in the
>> authorship of any research that would come from that access, especially if
>> the access was above a certain number of specimens. This is apparently now
>> part of the official loan/access agreement of that institution.
>>
>> I was quite shocked. In the last 15 years I've been an active user of
>> natural history collections and had my share of curatorship/collection
>> management work, in different countries and different continents, and I've
>> never encountered such "in-your-face" and abhorrent demand. Collections
>> have been built with public money and are kept through public money (most
>> of the times) - thus they should be seen as a public good, not a way to
>> enrich the CV of staff members.
>>
>> That got me curious - is this a new trend or I've been really lucky so
>> far?
>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________
>> *Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Ph.D.*,
>> Commissioner  International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
>> Invited Curator of the Herpetological Collections at Museu Nacional de
>> História Natural e da Ciência, Lisbon, Portugal
>> CIBIO/InBIO - Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources
>> University of Porto, Portugal
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luis-Ceriaco
>> ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0591-9978
>> Scopus Author ID: 51260938100
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________
>> *Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Ph.D.*,
>> Commissioner  International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
>> Invited Curator of the Herpetological Collections at Museu Nacional de
>> História Natural e da Ciência, Lisbon, Portugal
>> CIBIO/InBIO - Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources
>> University of Porto, Portugal
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luis-Ceriaco
>> ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0591-9978
>> Scopus Author ID: 51260938100
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nhcoll-l mailing listNhcoll-l at mailman.yale.eduhttps://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.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ******
>>
>>
>>
>> *Dirk Neumann*
>>
>> Collection Manager, Hamburg
>>
>>
>>
>> Postal address:
>>
>> *Museum of Nature Hamburg*
>> Leibniz Institute for the Analysis
>>
>> of Biodiversity Change
>>
>> Dirk Neumann
>>
>> Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3
>>
>> 20146 Hamburg
>> +49 40 238 317 – 628
>>
>> *d.neumann at leibniz-lib.de <d.neumann at leibniz-lib.de>*
>>
>> www.leibniz-lib.de
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stiftung Leibniz-Institut zur Analyse des Biodiversitätswandels
>> Postanschrift: Adenauerallee 127, 53113 Bonn, Germany
>>
>> Stiftung des öffentlichen Rechts;
>> Generaldirektion: Prof. Dr. Bernhard Misof (Generaldirektor), Adrian
>> Grüter (Kaufm. Geschäftsführer)
>> Sitz der Stiftung: Adenauerallee 160 in Bonn
>> Vorsitzender des Stiftungsrates: Dr. Michael Wappelhorst
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stiftung Leibniz-Institut zur Analyse des Biodiversitätswandels
>> Postanschrift: Adenauerallee 127, 53113 Bonn, Germany
>>
>> Stiftung des öffentlichen Rechts;
>> Generaldirektion: Prof. Dr. Bernhard Misof (Generaldirektor), Adrian
>> Grüter (Kaufm. Geschäftsführer)
>> Sitz der Stiftung: Adenauerallee 160 in Bonn
>> Vorsitzender des Stiftungsrates: Dr. Michael H. Wappelhorst
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nhcoll-l mailing listNhcoll-l at mailman.yale.eduhttps://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.
>
>
> --
>
> ******
>
>
>
> *Dirk Neumann*
>
> Collection Manager, Hamburg
>
>
>
> Postal address:
>
> *Museum of Nature Hamburg*
> Leibniz Institute for the Analysis
>
> of Biodiversity Change
>
> Dirk Neumann
>
> Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3
>
> 20146 Hamburg
> +49 40 238 317 – 628
>
> *d.neumann at leibniz-lib.de <d.neumann at leibniz-lib.de>*
>
> www.leibniz-lib.de
>
>
>
> --
> Stiftung Leibniz-Institut zur Analyse des Biodiversitätswandels
> Postanschrift: Adenauerallee 127, 53113 Bonn, Germany
>
> Stiftung des öffentlichen Rechts;
> Generaldirektion: Prof. Dr. Bernhard Misof (Generaldirektor), Adrian
> Grüter (Kaufm. Geschäftsführer)
> Sitz der Stiftung: Adenauerallee 160 in Bonn
> Vorsitzender des Stiftungsrates: Dr. Michael Wappelhorst
>
>
> --
> Stiftung Leibniz-Institut zur Analyse des Biodiversitätswandels
> Postanschrift: Adenauerallee 127, 53113 Bonn, Germany
>
> Stiftung des öffentlichen Rechts;
> Generaldirektion: Prof. Dr. Bernhard Misof (Generaldirektor), Adrian
> Grüter (Kaufm. Geschäftsführer)
> Sitz der Stiftung: Adenauerallee 160 in Bonn
> Vorsitzender des Stiftungsrates: Dr. Michael H. Wappelhorst
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260302/fbd46c1f/attachment.html>