Difference between revisions of "Talk:Curation of Invertebrate Paleontology Collections"

Latest revision as of 21:55, 20 December 2015

Discussion and Conclusion

A major goal of the survey documented in the 2011 Cundiff article was to elucidate the current state of curation procedures in major invertebrate paleontology collections in North America to educate and inform the museum and paleontological communities. It also is hoped that it will stimulate discussions about the standardization of curation procedures and the future of invertebrate paleontology collections. This survey revealed four major issues with curation procedures in invertebrate paleontology that need to be addressed because they also affect discussions about standardization:

1. data capture and uncurated backlogs
2. type organization
3. secondary type designations
4. preventative conservation practices.

Data capture and uncurated backlogs

The staff of 23 IP collections surveyed use 12 different database systems, with the largest number of collections using Microsoft Access. All of the database systems used vary widely, but this is not a critical issue as long as data can be imported/exported easily and efficiently, especially when shared by means of online searches (e.g., Paleontology Portal, Global Biodiversity Information Facility [GBIF]) and integrated with other initiatives (e.g., Paleobiology Database). Allmon (2000) noted that IP collections are one of the largest but least databased natural history collections, with only about 8% of collections in the USA being completely databased and none of the major collections having more than 30% of their collection databased. As this survey illustrates, IP collections still are still behind in data capture, but initiatives are increasing. For example, the majority of the surveyed collections (57%) have less than 10% of their collection databased and only a few (13%) have 50% or more. Most collections (83%), however, do have their type collections databased. To facilitate research and promote collaborative use of collections, a major goal for museums should be to further increase the databasing of their collections.

Another issue related to the availability of IP collections is the uncurated backlogs. White (2000) discusses the perception that IP collections have large uncurated backlogs and these collections, along with the data they hold, are in danger of deterioration due to custodial neglect. The level of curation needed for IP specimens differs significantly from other biological specimens because IP specimens are far more durable and require less immediate attention. Although it is true that some IP collections (i.e., field, stratigraphic) can be maintained with minimal effort and at a lower level of curation (Hughes et al. 2000), backlogs still exist for other collections (i.e., systematic), and curatorial staff need to address these backlogs to make collections more accessible.

Uncurated backlogs can be defined as:

1. unsorted material, such as field collections that were collected, possibly decades ago, and never unpacked
2. uncataloged material
3. unidentified material or material with outdated taxonomic names that could be updated with the proper expertise
4. material with incomplete locality or stratigraphic data that could be updated with the proper expertise
5. cataloged material not registered in a manner promoting accessibility (i.e., databased)

To address uncurated backlogs, IP collections need the proper resources (i.e., expertise to update specimen data, money, staff time) to initiate and complete such a project. Staff for two collections (MCZ and SUI) obtain funding to bring in experts to update specimen data and help defray their uncurated backlog. Not all collections, however, have funding readily available, especially small collections with limited resources. IP collection staff need to find innovative ways to address these historical problems, including looking outside the discipline to other natural history collections. Herbarium staff, for example, have begun an initiative to address uncurated backlogs and capture data for all specimens in US herbaria by 2020. (Rabeler and Macklin 2006). The key elements for success in this initiative are to:

1. develop a set of community standards, including a standard mechanism for exchanging data between collections and developing community-wide authority files
2. share data entry across the community, focusing on eliminating multiple entries for the same data and sharing the georeferencing burden
3. increase data capture rates with a focus on maximizing efficiency and minimizing costs.

A similar initiative could be applied to IP collections, because both collections have many of the same issues when it comes to capturing specimen data.

The first major step in considering an initiative of this nature will be to determine the curation status, size and type of uncurated backlogs in IP collections. Adrain et al. (2005, 2006) provided a model approach with a collection survey based on the McGinley Levels (McGinley 1989, 1992) and the Curatorial Continuum (Hughes et al. 2000; White 2000). These methods help to evaluate a collection, assess the curation status, and prioritize curatorial tasks to attain a desired curation standard. Although the McGinley Levels were originally developed for entomology collections, they have been successfully adapted to other natural history collections (Huxley 1994; Williams et al. 1996; White 1998; Lieberman and Kaesler 2000). For IP collections specifically, Adrain et al. (2005, 2006) found the McGinley method to be a useful tool in tackling uncurated backlogs.

Type organization

The organization of type material among the 23 collections surveyed varied more than expected. Other organizations, in addition to using taxonomic or author and publication date, also include geologic age, journal, catalog number, and only publication date. Hughes et al. (2000) strongly advocate that type specimens be kept separate from the general collection and arranged taxonomically. Whether the arrangement is by original taxonomic designation or by revised designation does not matter as long as the usage is consistent in a collection. In the majority of collections (39%), a taxonomic organization is used for type collections. Researchers also prefer this organization (Hughes et al. 2000) and this organization is the preferred standard in many other natural history collections (informal MCZ survey). In organizing and storing types, IP collection staff should: 1) separate type material from the general collection, preferably in locked cabinets or in a secure location; 2) arrange it taxonomically for ease of retrieval for researchers; and 3) to move toward standards as with other natural history disciplines.

Secondary type designations

Historically, type usage has been confusing among IP collections. Howell (1929) noted four groups of type specimens: 1) basic types (i.e., holotypes, cotypes [or syntypes], paratypes, lectotypes, and neotypes); 2) supplementary types (i.e., pleisotypes [or hypotypes], heautotypes, and allotypes); 3) unessential published types (i.e., figured and cited specimens to which reference is made in a published book or paper, but which add nothing to our knowledge of the form of a species); and 4) unessential unpublished types (i.e., topotypes, metatypes, homeotypes, and ideotypes). The first two groups were considered as essential types and the last two were considered unessential types. Frizzell (1933) recommended that the general use of type terms be restricted to genotype, syntype, holotype, paratype, lectotype, neotype, hypotype, topotype, homoeotype, and plastotype. Collier et al. (1990) recognized three groups of type specimens:

1. primary types (i.e., holotype, paratype, syntype, lectotype, paralectotype, and neotypes)
2. secondary types (i.e., hypotype, figured, measured, mentioned)
3. other types (i.e., isotype and topotype)

Brunton (1995) listed two groups of types:

1. types defined by the author of the species name at the time of its first published description (i.e., holotype, syntype, and paratypes)
2. types defined by authors after the original description of the species (i.e., lectotypes, paralectotypes, and neotypes)
3. Two lesser categories of types, topotypes and metatypes, also were recognized by Brunton along with cited, referred, or figured specimens.

White (2000) recognized the terminology problems and suggested using Frizzell (1933) for older designations historically known as ‘‘types.’’

Not surprisingly, this survey found numerous different secondary type designations being used throughout IP collections (i.e., hypotype, figured, mentioned, measured, referred, identified, cotype, plastotype, homeotype, and type [5 hypotype]). In addition, the usage of secondary types has not been consistent within IP collections. The importance that collections give secondary types, figured, and mentioned specimens also has varied. Many other natural history collections, following ICZN rules, officially do not recognize secondary types nor figured and mentioned specimens as ‘‘types.’’ In these cases, information on figured and mentioned specimens are tracked in the database and publication information might be included on labels, but these specimens are not separated out as ‘‘types’’ or given any type designation. The varying usage and expansion of type designations in IP collections are confusing and inconsistent not only compared with other natural history collections, but among IP collections, themselves.

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999) and the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (Moore et al. 1953–2009; Paleontological Institute 1998–2005; Selden 2007) recognize only primary types, and not secondary types. IP collections staff need to reevaluate the type designations they use and the importance given to each. As with other biological collections, IP collections staff should follow ICZN as the authority for type designations.

Preventative conservation practices

White (2000) states that fossils are robust and indestructible with minimal conservation issues, but in recent years, conservation practices have increased awareness of the preservation problems in fossil collections that can lead to conservation issues. This survey shows that in many collections (48%) some preventative conservation practices are followed, and in several collections (22%) robust preventative conservation practices are in place (i.e., Integrated Pest Management [IPM], monitoring for pollutants), but there still are a number of collections (30%) in which no preventative conservation practices are followed. This likely is due to the misconception that there are few conservation issues for fossil collections.

IP collections staff, as a whole, should take further steps to improve their preventative conservation practices. Although fossils have few conservation issues, because they are rocks, problems are encountered with the way some fossils are preserved (e.g., fossils replaced by the mineral pyrite during their fossilization). These specimens are sensitive to humidity, and the pyrite oxidizes with the introduction of water vapor causing destruction of the specimen (Howie 1978; Waller 1987). In addition, the associated documents (e.g., labels, collection catalogs, field notes) for the collections do have conservation issues and if destroyed can reduce the value of the specimens (Hawks and Williams 1986). Most IP collections are housed in a building with other natural history collections, some of which have great conservation issues. Preventative conservation practices, such as IPM, might not seem initially that important to IP collections staff, but collections should have a ‘‘good neighbor’’ policy so problems do not migrate to other areas of the museum and cause harm to the collections that are more sensitive. Good preventative conservation practices are recognized as integral to other natural history collections, but IP collections staff need to embrace these practices and adapt them to their needs, as well as their museum’s needs.

References

Frizzell, D.L. 1933. Terminology of types. The American Midland Naturalist 14(6):635–668.

Hawks, C.A. and S.L. Williams. 1986. Care of Specimen Labels in Vertebrate Research Collections. Pp. 105–108 in Proceedings of the 1985 Workshop on Care and Maintenance of Natural History Collections (J. Waddington and D.M. Rudkin, eds.). Royal Ontario Museum Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publications. 121 pp.

Howell, B.F. 1929. Symbols on type specimens. Bulletin Geological Society of America 40:215–220.

Howie, F.M.P. 1978. Storage environment and the conservation of geological material. The Conservator 2:13–19.

Hughes, N.C., F.J. Collier, J. Kluessendorf, J.H. Lipps, W.L. Taylor, and R.D. White. 2000. Fossil invertebrate and microfossil collections: Kinds, uses, users. Pp. 25–35 in Guidelines for the Management and Curation of Invertebrate Fossil Collections Including a Data Model and Standards for Computerization (R.D. White and W.D. Allmon, eds.). The Paleontological Society Special Publication 10. 260 pp.

Huxley, R. 1994. Aspects of herbarium conservation and management at the Natural History Museum. Pp. 5–18 in Conservation and the Herbarium, National Museums and Galleries (R.E. Child, ed.). Institute of Paper Conservation, Worcestershire, UK. 41 pp.

McGinley, R.J. 1989. Entomological collections management—Are we really managing? Insect Collection News 2(2):19–24.

McGinley, R.J. 1992. Where the management in collection management? Pp. 309–333 in Current Issues, Initiatives, and Future Directions for the Preservation and Conservation of Natural History Collections (C.L. Rose, S.L. Williams, and J. Gisbert, eds.). Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid, Spain. 439 pp.

Rabeler, R.K. and J.A. Macklin. 2006. Herbarium networks in the United States: Towards creating a toolkit to advance specimen data capture. Collection Forum 21(1):223–231.

Selden, P. 2007. A Manual for Authors of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Paleontological Institute, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. 13 pp.

Waller, R. 1987. An experimental ammonia gas treatment method for oxidized pyritic mineral specimens. Pp. 623–630 in Preprints of the 8th Triennial Meeting, 6–11 September, Sydney, Australia. International Council of Museums, Committee for Conservation, Paris, France.

White, R.D. 2000. Guidelines for the documentation and care of invertebrate fossil collections. Pp. 51–63 in Guidelines for the Management and Curation of Invertebrate Fossil Collections Including a Data Model and Standards for Computerization (R.D. White and W.D. Allmon, eds.). The Paleontological Society Special Publication 10. 260 pp.

White, R.D. and W.D. Allmon (eds). 2000. Guidelines for the Management and Curation of Invertebrate Fossil Collections Including a Data Model and Standards for Computerization. The Paleontological Society Special Publication 10. 260 pp.

Corrections and Updates

The following statements in the section on Conservation of specimens should be revised for accuracy. --RachaelArenstein (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2015 (CET)

• polyvinyl butyrals(PVB), which are acetone or ethyl alcohol-soluble and include Butvar and the similar Arcryloid B72 [Acryloid B72 is an acrylic resin but not a PVB--RachaelArenstein (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2015 (CET)]
• polyvinyl acetates (PVA), which generally are water-soluble and include Elmer’s glue, Vinac, and Jade R [Vinac is a PVAC but Elmer's and Jade are emulsions or dispersions - a different category of adhesive. These may be water-based but after setting are not always water-soluble--RachaelArenstein (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2015 (CET)].

See http://preparation.paleo.amnh.org/47/adhesives-and-consolidants for additional information on adhesives commonly used in fossil prep.