Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘curating’ Category

Log_Fig_01_smal

Fig. 1. View of an insect collection area in the Manchester Museum.

Natural history collections include specimens from the subject areas of zoology, botany, entomology, palaeontology and mineralogy (Fig. 1), as well as any documentation associated with them (e.g., card indexes of related museum collections, field notebooks, correspondence files, diaries, etc). Such collections exist not only in museums and herbaria, but also in botanical gardens, arboretums, zoos and aquaria. However, live animal or plant collections are outside the scope of this short essay. It is worth mentioning though that more than 70 known British zoos and aquaria house some 64,000 vertebrate species.

There are more than 200 public and private museums in the UK with natural history collections, 50 of them hold significant foreign material. Recent estimates suggest that the number of natural history specimens in British museums exceeds 100 million. Worldwide, there are more than three billion! Many of the natural history collections in the UK, such as those of the Natural History Museum in London, the Natural History Museum of Oxford University or the Manchester Museum, are of global importance. However, the vast proportion of large museum collections (c. 95%) are kept in storage, behind the scenes, and their full diversity will never be displayed. But does this mean that the majority of collections are not used? Far from it, these collections are stored carefully because of their dual role as a resource for research and for education (see also here).

Collections as biological libraries

The fundamental value of natural history collections is related to our understanding of the Earth’s diversity. Taxonomic museum collections underpin the accumulation of biological knowledge, providing references to discovered natural units (species), and indeed represent an ecological database through the data associated with specimens. Therefore, natural history collections act as ‘biological libraries’, in which a separate specimen can be seen as a prototype of a letter and an individual collection as that of a paragraph or section in the ultimate ‘Book of Knowledge’.

Natural history collections represent an irreplaceable resource for taxonomic and biodiversity research. Such research aims to answer three fundamental questions: (1) what is the organism under study, (2) where is it found in nature, and (3) why is it found there. Without collections most taxonomic research cannot be conducted. Since the rigour of the scientific process is based on repeatability, the specimens used in research are preserved in museums to ensure that they are available for future reference and study.

As centralized repositories of reference material, the collections reduce the need for fieldwork in remote and/or poorly accessible regions, saving both time and money. Furthermore, museums liberate researchers from the time and expenses of maintaining all the specimens necessary for a functional reference collection. Given that unlike library books we cannot copy natural history specimens that were preserved, natural history collections are indeed unique locations for information. With more species becoming rare or extinct, such collections are often the only source of information for such species (Fig. 5), becoming frozen glimpses of a bygone past. For instance, it is known that during the last 600 years, 129 birds (or 1.3% of all known living bird species) have become extinct.

Log_Fig_02_smal

Fig. 2. Two of the type specimens of the Manchester Museum’s collection of tortoise beetles (Cassidinae). The Manchester Museum holds more than 22,000 type specimens, representing 8,000 species names.

The scientific value of a natural history collection is usually measured by the number of type specimens it contains (Fig. 2). A type specimen is a reference specimen selected by a scientist during the description of a new species. Type specimens serve as the primary and unique references for all known species names. They play a key role in stabilizing the use of species names. Museums also hold voucher specimens, which are examples of organisms collected during biodiversity surveys, taxonomic inventories and other research. These specimens are physical proof that species have been recorded from the studied site and identified accurately, and they are always available to be referred to or checked upon when/if necessary.

Log_Fig_03_small

Fig. 3. The scientific value of a natural history specimen depends on the reliability of information written on its label; illustrated is a blister beetle.

Conservation and environmental studies

Conservation programmes, particularly those aimed at mapping priority areas for protection or conservation purposes, require a reliable knowledge of the distribution of species. Yet, for the vast majority of species known to science, most of the available information relating to them exists in the form of taxonomic collections. Sometimes such collections form the only source of data for particular species. Therefore, the most common way distribution information is collected is by examining labels of voucher specimen and databases in museums. These contain essential information about where (locality and habitat/host), when (an exact date) and by whom the specimens were collected (Fig. 3). Every natural history specimen with good data thus provides a physical snapshot of a species at a particular point in time and space. This highlights the need for correct and accurate labelling of museum specimens. A specimen without a label is usually worthless. The practice of utilizing the wide spectrum of information associated with specimens has been referred to as ‘museum ecology’.

Reference collections of voucher specimens and other taxonomic information on invasive species and pests can be used for their accurate identification and for understanding their current distribution and invasion history. In addition, they can be used for assessing the ecological impact of invaders and their potential public health threats. The famous example is the grey squirrel which was introduced to Britain from the USA in the 19th century, and as a result this species has caused native red squirrel populations to die out in most parts of England and Wales.

Natural history collections offer a unique perspective, providing data over a vast time span ranging from millions of years ago (in geological and palaeontological collections) to the present day. Specimens may have been collected over many decades and so record changing environmental conditions and their consequences. For instance, comparative genetic analysis of ancient museum specimens of brown bears with those from isolated populations today provides evidence of reduced levels of genetic diversity in the current populations, which negatively affects the survival potential of this species (Fig. 4).

Log_Fig_04_small

Fig. 4. The brown bear became extinct from Britain by the 10th century, only museum specimens can help us to understand its history here.

In some circumstances museum specimens are the only record of species that are already extinct: e.g., Sloane’s Urania (Urania sloanus), one of the most spectacular day-flying moth species that was endemic to the island of Jamaica (Fig. 5). The moth was last reported in 1894 or 1895, but it possibly survived until at least 1908. Habitat loss, when Jamaica’s lowland rainforests were cleared and converted to agricultural land, may have caused its extinction. Most probably, this species disappeared due to the loss of one of its larval foodplants, as the Urania larvae fed exclusively on rainforest lianas belonging to the genus Omphalea.

Log_Fig_05_small

Fig. 5. The Sloane’s Urania, an extinct species of which only three specimens are deposited in the Manchester Museum.

By examining museum specimens, it is also possible to analyze environmental impacts of climate change or a historical level of pesticide use. This is because historical collections provide baseline data against which modern observations can be compared in order to produce predictive models. For instance, an analysis of preserved bird specimens and their eggs (Fig. 6) can help to monitor the accumulation of toxins, such as mercury or DDT (a famous synthetic pesticide, the use of which is now banned), in the environment resulting from the impact of industrial processes. It has been shown that a marked decrease in eggshell thickness is coincident with the onset of the widespread use of DDT.

Log_Fig_06_small

Fig. 6. The egg collection such as that of the Manchester Museum can help in the estimation of historical levels of toxic contamination in the environment.

Education and cultural value

Natural history museums are places where a visitor can have a unique experience of seeing authentic objects. Therefore, these museums play an important role in education through their exhibits and outreach programmes which use real specimens. Specimens are also used for illustrating natural history books, in which colourful plates are made on the basis of museum specimens (Fig. 7). Natural history specimens, especially beetles and butterflies, are regularly used by designers and artists who draw inspiration from their remarkable variety of forms, colours and patterns. Some natural history specimens or collections have their own historical and/or even high monetary value that makes them important items of the national heritage (Fig. 8). Overall, larger and more comprehensive natural history museum collections form better educational resources.

Log_Fig_07_small

Fig. 7. The recent guide to the freshwater life of Britain contains at least 45 colourful plates of hundreds of insects illustrated from the Manchester Museum’s insect specimens.

Historic natural history collections are directly related to social history through their links to people and places. They are indeed a cultural phenomenon rather than dusty artefacts of professional science. The labels assigned to specimens and the documentation associated with them (e.g., information on the network of collectors, the distribution of collecting across the world, etc.) are commonly used in biographical and historical studies. Hence, natural history collections provide an outstanding and unique resource for a wide variety of client groups.

Log_Fig_08_small

Fig. 8. Apollo butterflies are often restricted in distribution, many of them being threatened and red-listed.

Nowadays, opening cabinet doors and examining museum specimens kept there is not the only way of consulting natural history collections. All large natural history museums make their searchable collection databases and other collection-related information (i.e., images of type specimens) widely available on the Internet, so that collections can be searched and seen online. Such online access to networked data is especially important both for casual and professional users who, for various reason, may be unable to visit a particular museum. Nevertheless, whatever modern advanced technologies can offer us museum natural history specimens have been and always will be the only physical proof and irreplaceable primary documentation of life on Earth. This is what makes museum collections so valuable. Finally, nobody can extract DNA from an online image or test it for pesticide residues, but a physical specimen can provide a wealth of unexpected and inexhaustible information.

Further reading

Diamond J. & Evans E.M. 2007. Museums Teach Evolution – Evolution, 61-6: 1500-1506.

Krishalka, L. & Humphrey P.S. 2000. Can Natural History Museums Capture the Future? – BioScience, 50(7): 611-617. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050%5B0611:CNHMCT%5D2.0.CO;2

Mandrioli M. 2008. Insect collections and DNA analyses: how to manage collections? – Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(2): 193-199; doi: 10.1080/09647770802012375

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

When museum natural history collections are talked about, it is usually stressed upon how they are important for research (taxonomic, environmental and biodiversity, in particular), education and culture-related enquires (art, design, etc.) – e.g., see here. The following short video could also give you some ideas about the role of museum collections in taxonomic research (created by Jonathan Joseland, an undergraduate student at The University of Manchester, 2018).

However, much less is known about the importance of taxonomic research for collection care and development, particularly for the collections of such diverse groups as plants, molluscs, insects, crustaceans, and other arthropods. There are three main reasons why continuous taxonomic research on natural history collections is essential for their maintenance.

Fig_01

Fig. 1. A store box with undetermined specimens of ladybirds (Coccinellidae), one of some 300 store boxes with over 50,000 undetermined specimens of foreign beetles retained at the Manchester Museum. © The Manchester Museum

1. Naming objects

The first and indefeasible need for each natural history collection is the naming of its objects, which means assigning them to particular species. This can be done by mean of a scholarly taxonomic research only. Before an object has been named, it has no identity and hence no meanings and values can be accrued to it. As A.B. Gahan (1923: 73) put it, “objects without names cannot well be talked about or written about; without descriptions they cannot be identified and such knowledge as may have accumulated regarding them is sealed.” Thus, naming comes first. The Book of Genesis provides the first example of this endeavour, in which, by God’s will, Adam was tasked to name the animals in the Garden of Edem (Fig. 2).

Fig_02

Fig. 2. On the left: Adam naming the animals, the miniature from the medieval bestiary preserved at the St.-Petersburg Public Library, Russia (taken from Muratova, 1984: p. 72). On the right: the portrait of Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish scientists of 18th century who created the modern rules of practical taxonomy and nomenclature (taken from Harnesk, 2007: front cover design).

At present we can hardly rely upon Adam’s help any more. The burden of naming now lies on the shoulders of researchers – taxonomists – who name (= identify or describe as new) species in natural history collections, hence making their further use possible. Although museum life of a natural history specimen can precede its naming (e.g., via the act of acquisition, accession in museum registers, etc.), their ‘individualized life’ starts only after they have been named. Since a language does not contain names for every existing species, new ones are to be introduced when necessary. By conventional taxonomic practices, such names should be written in Latin, forming a kind of common vocabulary of scientific names. Whoever uses such names knows exactly what species they represent and are referred to.

Vernacular and folk names, even if they exist, cannot substitute for scientific names, as they are often misleading. For instance, the name ‘daddy-longlegs’ could be equally attributed to the craneflies (families Tipulidae, Limoniidae, etc.), harvestmen (order Opiliones) or the cellar spiders (family Pholcidae). Thus, indeed, scientific names are unique identifier/designators of the species to which they were attached. In order to gain them, natural history specimens are to be researched by a specialist.

2. Keeping collections updated with modern names

Fig_03

Fig. 3. Example of the recently recurated collection of British micro-Lepidoptera, with all taxonomic names being revised and updated according to the latest published catalogue. © The Manchester Museum

Taxonomy is a dynamic scientific discipline. The status and validity of species names, especially in poorly studied groups, are constantly improved and updated. Therefore, identifications and names used in any natural history collections are to be regularly revisited and revised as well. Such work can be done only by specialists (both professional and amateur experts). This is why collections-based taxonomic research is required to maintain an updated nomenclature and documentation of any natural history collection, keeping it as a first-rate intellectual resource for potential users. Collections themselves can be seen as a giant research tool; the quality of how this tool is operated is crucial. Without taxonomic research, natural history collections are under threat of becoming dusty attics of the academic world, with no obvious reasons for museums to house them. As Lemieux (1981: p. 57) put it, “if collections are the base of the museum, research is its soul”.

3. Increasing the scientific value of collections

Fig_04

Fig. 4. Examples of holotype specimens of recently described cockroach species from Indian, based on the collections acquired by the Manchester Museum in 1950s. © The Manchester Museum

One of the most important criteria by which natural history collections are assessed is a number of type specimens, or types. The act of naming (see above) is conducted and fixed via a description, accounting for the relevant published text(s) and figure(s), in order to arguably introduce a new species name. Any description should have a permanent reference to museum voucher specimen(s) used for it. Such specimens are called name-bearing types (holotypes, paratypes, etc.), also known as rigid designators of scientific names. Original descriptions of new scientific names are always documented by types. A number of the types (especially holotypes) is one of the best indicators of a scientific quality of natural history collections; the more types, the better. For instance, the Manchester Museum’s Entomology Department holds over 12,000 types, representing some 3,000 scientific names of insects, spiders and some other organisms, which makes it one of the most important entomological depositories in the UK.

The naming is always resulted from a taxonomic research. This research acts in its own right, requires highly professional special skills and cannot be replaced with anything else.

Today, one of the challenges many British museums (especially regional and council ones) face is the lack of in-house taxonomic expertise. Collections-based taxonomic research does not emerge as the core strength of contemporary museum policies, with entertainment and education being likely to be seen as priorities. Taxonomy does not carry the same appeal to the popular mind as does the science fiction around dinosaurs. In the UK today, research is widely seen as luxury by museums rather than an essential part of their role (Cross & Wilkinson, 2007). It means that such museums are hardly able to maintain their collections updated and to interpret them. This is very serious issue which will be considered in due details in one of the following blog post.

References and further reading

Appleton, J. 2001. Museum for the People. In: Appleton, J. (ed.), Museum for the People. London: Institute of Ideas, pp. 14-26.

Cross, S. & Wilkinson, H. 2007. Making collections effective. London: Museum Association. 30pp.

Kemp C. 2015. The endangered dead. Nature, 518: 292-294.

Lemieux, L. 1981. Museums of natural history and their social context. Pp. 55-58. In: The World’s Heritage, the museum’s responsibilities. Proceedings of the 12th General Conference and 13th General Assembly of the International Council of Museums. The ICM.

 

Read Full Post »

With over two and a half million specimens deposited in the Manchester Museum’s Entomology Department, ongoing re-curating and documenting these collections constitute a significant part of the wok undertaken by the Curator and his colleagues. Such huge insect collections also present lots of opportunities for students to volunteer in the Museum and to help out museum staff with the documentation and re-organisation of its insect collections.

Image_01

Louis Nicolls extracting information from data labels of the Manchester Museum’s mantis collection.

Below is a short report prepared by one of the Museum’s volunteers, Louis Nicolls (see above), a second-year undergraduate student from the Manchester Metropolitan University whose passion is mantises (Mantodea):

“I am currently working on the mantis collection at the Manchester Museum. The work I’m tasked with consists of the extraction of any information from the museum’s archives, collection and annual reports with the aim to collate it all into one succinct report describing the history of the mantis collection, including the first accessions and the collectors who’ve donated the specimens. The report will also provide statistics on the collection, stating its size, the number of species and the percentage of the world’s species we have at the Museum. It will highlight interesting species and any type specimens. Behind the scenes, I will also be updating all the relevant information within the museum database on locality, date and collector information.

This project is exciting because I have been learning a great deal about praying mantises. it’s allowing me to better understand their distribution, taxonomy and history from a systematic context. The project is also providing excellent experience with museum entomological collections, pushing me to learn how they are organised and run as well as how fundamentally important they are within the sciences but also to the general public. The nature of the work is a balanced melding of historical research and scientific study making it stimulating and informative as it pushes me to use initiative and apply myself in ways I wouldn’t normally do so.”

Image_02

Example of the drawer with mantises from the collection of Manchester Museum.

Further reading:

Logunov, D.V. 2010. The Manchester Museum’s Entomology Collections. – Antenna, 34(4): 163-167.

Logunov, D.V. & N. Merriman (eds). 2012. The Manchester Museum: Window to the World. London: Third Millenium.

Logunov, D.V. 2012. Why do museums have natural history collections? – Feedback, the ASAB education newsletter, 52: 12-15.

Read Full Post »

Chinese_Mitten_Crab

The Manchester Museum’s specimen of the male Chinese Mitten Crab (Eriocheir sinensis), collected from Ribble Estuary, Lancashire, in 2007.

The Chinese Mitten Crab (Eriocheir sinensis) is an accidentally imported species in the North Sea, which is considered one of the World’s 100 worst invasive species. The crab first appeared in northern Germany in 1912. It was unintentionally brought from China, apparently as a stowaway in the ballast tanks of cargo ships. Since 1912, the crab has dramatically spread over northern Europe. It was first recorded from Thames River in 1935. Now it is also established in the Rivers Humber, Medway, Tyne, Wharfe and Ouse, increasing its range throughout England and Wales by several tens of kilometres a year. See here about Mitten Crab recording project in the UK.

This crab lives both in fresh and salt waters. In autumn, adult crabs undertake a mass migration from freshwaters to river estuaries for reproduction, crossing long distances over dry land. In October-December, crabs mate, females produce eggs and move deeper to the sea where eggs and several larval stages develop. Young crabs migrate back to freshwaters. They reach sexual maturity in three years and then migrate back to the sea to reproduce.

These crabs can cause serious ecological damage. As adults usually burrow in muddy riverbanks, they can damage them, modify natural habitats and compete with native species. There are no effective means to control this crab species. In Germany, special traps were used during mass crab migrations, but they proved to be ineffective. However, the crabs are edible and even considered delicacy in China. Thus, maybe these crabs should just ‘be eaten’ to stop them damaging British wildlife (see more about this)?

In the vide below, Dr Malcolm Greenhalgh, the author of the notable book on the British Freshwater Life is talking about the Chinese Mitten Crab and the first male specimen collected from North-West.

Read Full Post »

Macrodontia_dejeani_MM

Male (left) and female (right) of the longhorn beetle Macrodontia dejeani Gory, 1839 from Colombia; the Manchester Museum’s Entomology collection.

This species of longhorn beetles (family Cerambycidae) is rare in collections. It has a claimed range from Costa Rica to Ecuador and Peru but its heartland is Colombia. If 70 years of civil war and drug wars in Colombia is beginning to settle down, then perhaps more collectors will run collecting night lights there and more dejeani will appear.  This beetle is named after General Pierre Dejean, a prominent figure in Napoleon army and a notable entomologist at the same time. The story of this eccentric man is told by Martin Laithwaite (Huddersfield, West Yorkshire).

Pierre Francois Marie Auguste Dejean (1780-1845)

Pierre “Auguste” Dejean was a soldier of fortune during the Napoleonic Wars; he became Colonel of the 11th Dragoons in 1807, General of Brigade in 1811, General of Division in 1814, served eight years as head of the Administration of War under Napoleon and was one of the Emperor’s aide-de-camps at the Battle of Waterloo. A prominent figure during the Empire, he is mentioned in Marshall MacDonald’s and Baron de Marbot’s memoirs.

He is also well-known for his five volume work on beetles and was one of the most important entomologists of his time. The Annals of the Entomological Society of France, vol. 2, p.502, 1845 relates that General Dejean, commanding the French army at the battle of Alcanizas was awaiting the attack of the enemy and noticed a rare specimen on a nearby flower. Jumping from his horse, he captured the click beetle, a Cebrio ustulatus, fastened it to a piece of cork, which he always carried under his chapeau for this reason, remounted his horse and won the battle.

The account was written by his private curator M. Boisduval “Before the battle of Alcanizas, which Dejean won after a long-contested fight, taking a great number of prisoners, when the enemy had just appeared and he was prepared to give the signal of attack. Dejean, at the border of a brook caught sight of a Cebrio ustulatus on a flower.  He immediately dismounted, pinned the insect, applied it to the inside of his helmet which, for this purpose, was always supplied with pieces of cork, and started the battle.  After this, Dejean’s helmet was terribly maltreated from cartouche fire; but, fortunately, he refound his precious Cebrio intact on its piece of cork.”

Most of the soldiers in his regiment learned to collect insects. Each carried a small vial of alcohol in which to place the insects he collected. It was claimed that even the enemy knew of Dejean’s eccentricity – those who found dead soldiers on the field having with them a little bottle containing insects in alcohol always sent the bottle to Dejean, regardless of who won the battle.

He amassed vast collections of beetles and listed 22,399 species in his cabinets in 1837—at the time, the greatest collection of coleoptera in the world. In 1802, he began publishing a catalogue of his collection, including 22,000 species names. Dejean was an opponent of the Principle of Priority in nomenclature. “I have made it a rule always to preserve the name most generally used, and not the oldest one; because it seems to me that general usage should always be followed and that it is harmful to change what has already been established”. Dejean acted accordingly and often introduced received popular usage names, given by himself to replace those already published by other authors; his names became invalid. However he is the authority for the family names of attractive popular well-studied beetle genera such as Batocera (family Cerambycidae) and Chrysochroa (family Buprestidae).

Dejean was president of the Société Entomologique de France in 1840. In 1834, he was elected a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. In later life, Dejean financed a number of collecting expeditions (particularly to what is now Panama and Colombia) and much of what he received was new to science.

Read Full Post »

Fig 1The following report has been prepared by Claire Miles, Honorary Curatorial Associate at The Manchester Museum.

Manchester Museum purchased the Adams and Bernard collection of 300 Venezuelan Lepidoptera in April 1976. Since then, if a curious curator removed the lids from the cardboard boxes to peer at the ghostly silhouettes in their translucent paper packets, the lids were always replaced. Now, thanks to funding from the Natural Science Collections Association (NatSCA), part of this collection – around 175 hawkmoths – can be set out, identified, catalogued, and made useful. This blog is a brief summary of progress so far.

Fig 2

Tantalising shapes – the moths in their paper packets.

In the paper packets, the hawkmoths lie with their wings folded together. With wingspans of up to 17 cm, setting the hawkmoths out will take up quite a bit of expensive storage space. Thanks to the NatSCA funding, the necessary glass-topped drawers can be purchased for the Entomology department’s new metal cabinets.

Fig 3

Entomology cabinets at Manchester Museum.

The entomology collections at Manchester Museum contain more than three million specimens including about two and a half million insects (Logunov & Merriman 2012; Logunov 2010). They already hold around 2000 hawkmoths (Sphingidae) representing around 270 species: 700 in the British collection, 850 in the C. H. Schill Worldwide Lepidoptera collection and 370 in the P. Schill Palaearctic Lepidoptera collection.

Fig 4

A drawer of the Death’s-head Hawk-moth, Acherontia atropos, in the British collection.

To put this in perspective, there are about 1500 known hawkmoth species worldwide, and this collection is a drop in the ocean compared to the Natural History Museum’s holdings of 289,000 Sphingidae. Curating and identifying the Adams/Bernard collection serves multiple purposes. It will extend the range of Manchester Museum’s Sphingidae, it will increase the accessible Sphingidae by about 9%, it will hopefully add some species new to the collection (and who knows, possibly completely new species), it will improve access to the collections, and it will improve their storage and security. In addition, I get to hone my practical skills setting the moths, with expert guidance from Phil Rispin, Curatorial Assistant in the Entomology Department.

Fig 5

Some of the hawkmoths have extremely long tongues. They pollinate flowers which provide nectar at the bottom of correspondingly long flower tubes, such as orchids and petunias.

Hawkmoths are fast-flying moths with streamlined bodies, present on almost every continent except Antarctica. They are pollinators as adults, and can be agricultural pests as larvae, which makes them ecologically and economically important, and their relatively well-understood taxonomy and fast response to environmental changes makes them useful environmental indicators (Camargo et al., 2016). This collection gives a snapshot of the species that were present in Venezuela 40 years ago when Mike Adams and George Bernard collected them in May 1975. This was one of a number of expeditions they mounted to Columbia and Venezuela in the 1970s and 80s, searching the high montane cloud-forests of the northern Andes for Pronophiline butterflies (a subtribe of the subfamily Satyrinae), on which they published a number of papers. The hawkmoths were collected in a region 24km north of Altagracia, Miranda State, at altitude 700m; from Guapo Dam, Miranda, and from Rancho Grande, Aragua, at altitude 1090m. The Museum’s Annual Report of 1976 describes the pair only as ‘University Zoology students’ at the time, although it appears they were recent graduates when they started their explorations (Adams, 1984).

Out of their packets, the hawkmoths were found to be in pretty good condition and the colours are remarkably fresh. Six weeks into the project, we have developed a routine – Phil puts the moths to relax in a damp atmosphere at the beginning of the week, and I (generally working one day a week) set them out at the end of the week.

Fig 6

A moth removed from its packet (Adhemarius species).

Fig 7

Moths relaxing in dessicator.

Fig 8

Each moth is set out, pinned down and left to dry for a fortnight (Adhemarius species shown here).

Once set, the collection data label and accession number are added to the pin. 80 moths have been set so far, and at a quick count those represent at least 20 species. The next step will be to identify them. Ultimately, the aim is to collate the information on all the Manchester Sphingidae collections into a single resource, and these stunning moths will be available for research and provide a fantastic resource for the museum’s teaching, displays, public events and engagement activities.

Fig 9

Erinnyis species before adding labels to the moth’s pin.

Fig 10

Eumorpha species.

Fig 11

Work in progress – some of the Adams/Bernard collection.

Fig 12

Claire Miles, Honorary Curatorial Associate at The Manchester Museum, working with the Adams/Bernard Sphingidae collection

References:

Adams MJ. 1984. Andean Butterflies – Search and Research. Alpine Journal. 89: 90­-96.

de Camargo AJA, de Camargo NF, Correa DCV, de Camargo WRF, Vieira EM, Marini-Filho O, Amorim FW. 2016. Diversity patterns and chronobiology of hawkmoths (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae) in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest. Journal of Insect Conservation. 20 (4): 629–641.

Giusti A. 2014. A whopping private collection – yet something still is missing.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/community/research/life_sciences_news/lepidoptera/blog/2014/03/17/a-whopping-private-collection, accessed 27 Feb 2017.

Kitching, I.J. 2017. Sphingidae Taxonomic Inventory, http://sphingidae.myspecies.info/, accessed 27 Feb 2017.

Logunov DV. 2010. The Manchester Museum’s Entomology Collections. Antenna 34 (4): 163–167.

Logunov DV & Merriman N. (eds.). 2012. The Manchester Museum: Window to the World. Third Millenium Ltd., London.

 

Read Full Post »

Here is a brief report and interesting video from one of our volunteers.

Hi I’m Molly Czachur, a Zoology student at the University of Manchester, and a volunteer in the Entomology department. I work on the recuration and updading of the nomenclature of the Crustacean collection here at the museum, where we have over 500 specimens of crabs, lobsters and other Crustacea. I made this video “The Importance of Museums to Zoologists” for my fellow Zoology students, in an attempt to show them how cool the museum really is, and how there is so much knowledge held within the walls of the museum that I was not aware of before becoming a volunteer. In the video you can see the spirit collections, the dry collections and I have pointed out a few of my favourite crabs: The Hairy Stone Crab, The Long-Eyed Swimming Crab and the Long-Legged Spider Crab. Big thanks for help with the commentary by my friend Lauren, who was the presenter in the documentary. I hope you enjoy, and see the importance of the work which goes on in the museum, both for a scientists education, and for the museum in its preservation of specimens for people in years to come.

Read Full Post »