[Taxacom] Herbarium vouchering policies

Thu Oct 5 20:05:31 CDT 2006

Hi Sean,

You're completely right, of course, that in the best of all possible
worlds we would gladly accept everything, because in an endeavour like
taxonomy anything might be valuable one day.

But - clearly there are limits as to what we can do. There is an
informal hierarchy of value placed on specimens anyway, implemented in
the field by the collector - do you collect a specimen of this plant or
not? Strictly, using the arguments you develop below, we should all
collect everything, because every specimen may perhaps be valuable one
day. Clearly this is reductio ad absurdum, but you can see my point.

So my attempt is to try to loosely formalize this informal value
judgement, applying it not only pre-collection but also post-collection.

Case: A commercial consultant working for profit preparing an
environmental impact assessment for a development company collects
vouchers of all species at the study site. Currently a requirement of
the collecting permit is that vouchers of all specimens should be lodged
at the herbarium. Should we charge the consultant for the service to
process and house those specimens?

Case: A commercial consultant as above is not required to voucher, but
does so anyway because the EIA then has more weight and the reputation
of the consultant is enhanced. Should we charge?

Case: An ecological researcher does a study and lodges voucher material
(raw data). The research was funded by a funding body. Should we charge
to accept the vouchers? Should we (is this the only way to?) encourage
them to include the costs of processing and storing the vouchers into
their original (competitive) grant application?

Case: A collector working a new, little-explored area vouchers a set of
specimens. Many of these may be range extensions or new species. Should
we charge?

That's the approximate breadth of the problem.

Cheers - k

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of S.R.Edwards
Sent: Thursday, 5 October 2006 6:11 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Herbarium vouchering policies

I well understand the need for public services such as herbariums to
look for new sources of funding (having been Keeper of Botany at MANCH
for many years), but this important political aspect is not what I am
considering here. 

However, I would offer extreme caution for the line being considered by
PERTH, simply on the practicality of their approach. It is simplistic to
say we'd be delighted to take a voucher for a new species of orchid from
a previously unexplored region, but would charge for a grubby moss that
seems to be a form of a common species, from your backyard. 

What experts are you going to use to decide? And can the charge be made
retrospectively when the new species is shortly sunk into synonymy?
Should voucher specimens wait in a private collection (purgatory?) to
see how they pan out, before being accepted charge-free? Herbariums are
littered with types of synonyms that were named with some shortage of
investigation, refereed or not. Admittedly most but by no means all of
these were from long ago, when the value of collections to paid
collectors -- how things change! -- was enhanced if they contained new
species. 

Or would the charge be refunded when, as often happens, a new species is
discovered by a researcher revising a family by reviewing a large number
of herbarium specimens, amongst what was thought to be a common species.
I don't have any figures on this, but I wonder how the number of new
species discovered from herbarium investigations, compares with those
that were recognised before being incorporated (this of course will vary
from well-worked areas to underworked areas, and over time). Or how the
distribution of relict species that have no close living relatives (as
opposed to yet another finch) are associated with biodiversity hotspots.
Darwin might have some views. 

Who is going to compare the value of changing distributional data from
widespread species (e.g. re. global warming) from herbariums, with the
value of a marginally new species in a glamorous taxon?

With regard to funding the quoted AUD$52/specimen (including its own
administrative charge?), I wonder if you have incorporated the cost of
volunteers? There are other overheads and costs of course that can be
factored down to per-specimen.  But It was largely our excellent and
motivated volunteers (when I was at MANCH) who provide the specimens,
e.g. for valuable local floras, and who do most of the work in
incorporating and indeed curating the specimens, though databasing was
not usually their favourite task. The Curator/Keeper must make a
decision on what student/expedition haystack to accept, but it is the
volunteers who prepare it for incorporation. True, they cost coffee
(mostly their own), and space (still thankfully available at no extra
cost), and some administration.  Are you going to start charging these
guys now for their vouchers?

I know that this response is not an answer. The Keeper's decision on
accepting material may well be helped by "a set of policies" -- don't
all museums have a collections and acquisitions policy?  But the
"contribute significant new knowledge" versus "add little new knowledge"
sounds like prescience. And this "set of vouchering policies" sounds
like one of those bright ideas thought up by an administrative
committee, to provide a "service to the community", and maybe even to
science which is not the same. Tick those boxes....

I'm sure that you have read the excellent: Nudds JF, Pettitt CW (eds).
1997. The value and valuation of natural science collections --
proceedings of the international conference, Manchester, 1995.
Geological Society, London. ISBN 1-897799-76-4. This investigates the
minefield well, giving varying costs (as at 1995) for acquisition,
curating and accommodating specimens. All museum departments should have
this volume on their working shelves.

Best wishes, Sean

Sean Edwards, Vine Cottage, The Street, Thursley, Surrey GU8 6QF, UK 
sean.r.edwards at btinternet.com 
tel: 01252-702-890 cell: 07768-706-295

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thiele, Kevin" <Kevin.Thiele at dec.wa.gov.au>
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 4:06 AM
Subject: [Taxacom] Herbarium vouchering policies

> The Western Australian Herbarium (PERTH) is developing a set of
policies
> to guide vouchering services. The issue arises because incorporating
> voucher specimens (e.g. for consultants and researchers) costs the
> herbarium a significant amount in dollar terms, for processing,
> mounting, databasing etc (estimated at AUD$52/specimen). The herbarium
> provides this as a service to the community. Some vouchered specimens
> contribute significant new knowledge (particularly in a biodiversity
> hotspot like the south west of WA), while others add little (e.g.
> specimens of well-represented, common species collected from known
> localities or close to known localities). 
> 
> We need to determine whether to charge for the vouchering service,
under
> what circumstances it is reasonable to charge and when to waive a
> charge, and whether we can or should attempt to filter out specimens
> that add little new knowledge before they enter the herbarium
processing
> stream.
> 
> It would be useful to us to know if other herbaria have formal
> vouchering policies, and the issues that have been considered in
> developing such policies.
> 
> Cheers - Kevin Thiele
> Curator, Western Australian Herbarium (PERTH)
_______________________________________________
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the
addressee only. It may contain confidential or privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify
the sender, delete the email and attachments from your system and
destroy any copies you may have taken of the email and its attachments.
Duplication or further distribution by hardcopy, by electronic means
or verbally is not permitted without permission.