[Taxacom] Herbarium vouchering policies

[S.R.Edwards]

Hi Kevin,

Yes of course I'm aware of the 'impossible' funding and space limits, and that's why I started by saying that was not what I was considering.  Pure cowardice. There is a limited pot with everybody fighting for a share and arguing why their need is more vital.  Taxacom threads suffer (or benefit?) from mission creep, and I was trying to stay within remit, although you can't really separate what Museums accept without considering how it is paid for.

The gist of my response was really as I said: the "contribute significant new knowledge" versus "add little new knowledge" sounds like prescience. My zoological equivalent from MANCH (also now retired) Dr Mike Hounsome observed that none of the greatest and most valuable components of the Museum's collections would ever have been collected had they been subjected to current Collections and Acquisitions Policies.  In many cases these collectors were funded, not charged, by Museums or by philanthropist patrons.  But this is a changing world and patronage or funding is now ultimately governmental and must be bid for, or is commercial and must be populist.

Your case scenarios are most interesting because they have now shifted the interest from biological valuation -- which I feel cannot be policied --, to that of the commercial value of the collector/contributor -- which probably can --. 

When I was at MANCH I cannot recall any significant commercial depositions (at least in botany), though we did have many research depositions.  Most of these were of small quantities, but one collection in particular (the Atriplex collection of Pierre Tascherau) is now displayed on http://herbariaunited.org/atHomeStats/ ; this site is well worth a visit. This collection, as I remember well, was a haystack (no fault of PT) that we baulked at handling for some time, and it finally took a large number of man-hours to make incorporable. The result is a valuable collection that I am sure the Museum is proud to make available.  MANCH has benefited from incorporating this collection, and it is part of the Museum's core activities, which still have to be paid for.  The idea of incorporating these costs into a research grant is not new, and comes down to how the available money could best be channelled -- this is something I am now delighted to be out of!

However, to face your questions, I'll risk the answers:
> 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?
Charge.

> 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?
Charge (or possibly a sliding scale...).

> 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?
Incorporating into a grant application seems the way it is going, and a good way of helping to fund collections. But what do you do if this cost was not foreseen and valuable vouchers risk getting skipped?

> 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?
For private individuals, acceptance would be subject to the Collections and Acquisitions Policy in place, not to mention the judgement of the Keeper/Curator which should be part of the CaAP anyway, as I presume will be your voucher policy. This said, I feel strongly that charging would be both counterproductive and morally wrong here. Why not pay? To my knowledge, most museums have an acquisition fund that is disproportionately biased towards to arts and archaeology if within the same institution, and natural scientists should be more proactive.  The large sums that I can think of, were paid for e.g. large dinosaur casts for the purpose of display, rather than for enhancing the research value of the collections, though this distinction might be questioned.

Best wishes, Sean

PS I have just contacted John Nudds, who informs me that there are still some copies available of: Nudds JR, 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.  Do contact him at: john.nudds at manchester.ac.uk .


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