Primary types in private collections

[Richard Hill]

Yes, when the group is small or disinteresting to many, and no 'in
perpetuity' museum has a curator and interest in the group, the 'in
perpetuity' museum is too far from the work, and the private collector is
the or one of the primary researchers, is active and a mentor, and has made
arrangements for types, paratypes and the collection to go to an appropriate
reository when s(he) ceases to be active.

Of course such a mentor person would have already sent paratypes to other
active workers and several 'in perpetuity' museums in case of premature
cesation of work or of any other kind of disaster for the collection.  Such
a person is likely to send types to an trusted 'in perpetuity' museum when
no longer necessary for immediate work and keeps paratypes.  What if the
type specimen is the only specimen.  The active mentor above is likely as
anyone to keep it safe, and useful.  The Big Institution Curator is likely
to keep it safe (lost in the collection) and may not keep it useful, or may
take resonable precautions and keep it useful.  One size does not fit all.

What makes 'public' more responsible than 'private'?  I've heard 'in
perpetuity' curators complain about having to rescue public collections when
the management shifted gears.  This is a complex issue, not a simple one.

0.02
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Shear" <wshear at EMAIL.HSC.EDU>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 6:16 AM
Subject: Primary types in private collections


> Trying to return the discussion once more to the original thread-- Does
> anyone out there think that primary types belong in private collections?
>
> Bill Shear