Visit to Carnegie & Bandrow

[Chuck]

After a 14 year (!!!) hiatus, Bob invited me to visit him at Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

Now, what to bring? I don't like to visit anyone without some small gift. I'd mentioned a few beetles I had, but Bob is a Cerambycidologist, a specialist, and the kind reception was rather ho-hum. Now I know how my family feels while trying to find birthday and Christmas gifts for me. The only thing I could think of was to move my Solomon Islands cerambycids to Carnegie, that should light him up. And so I did.

Bob had prepared thousands of specimens in a new-to-me display at Carnegie. Spectacular! Here I'm explaining to Bob how the natives attract Batocera, which do not come to lights. The Batocera una that I'd donated to Carnegie years ago are on display!



Specialists are a funny breed. Bob tells great stories of rare species and discoveries, though the scientific names he quips off are as foreign to me as to the guy on the street. Though I have no idea what taxa he's talking about, his eyes light up as he details the insights. I nod my head, appreciating the story, not knowing if he's talking about a species that's blue or brown, huge or tiny.

There's more to tell, but I'm home only today and gone again, so the rest will have to wait. What a fabulous visit to Carnegie! Thanks, Bob.

[eurytides]

Awesome! Look forward to reading more of your trip.

[alandmor]

Nice beetle display! That's a lot of work!

[Paul K]

Thanks Chuck for posting a photos.
Nice to see your self again, wish I could spend some time with members across a border!

[Chuck]

Thanks Chuck for posting a photos.
Nice to see your self again, wish I could spend some time with members across a border!

They have bridges now that cross between countries. Once you leave snowy Canada, it's warm and wonderful. From Niagara Falls it's six hours to AMNH and Smithsonian, four hours to Carnegie, three hours to Cornell. Try it! Eurytides is what, 20 minutes to USA?

Carnegie has some great Papilio, including some labelled "Holland". I found some very interesting Tigers there, but didn't have time to get into detailed study. Naturally, since Bob is the boss, and Bob is a Coleopterist, the Carnegie collection has some great beetles.

Gotta run again. I'll be offline for a couple weeks.

[laurie2]

After a 14 year (!!!) hiatus, Bob invited me to visit him at Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

Now, what to bring? I don't like to visit anyone without some small gift. I'd mentioned a few beetles I had, but Bob is a Cerambycidologist, a specialist, and the kind reception was rather ho-hum. Now I know how my family feels while trying to find birthday and Christmas gifts for me. The only thing I could think of was to move my Solomon Islands cerambycids to Carnegie, that should light him up. And so I did.

Bob had prepared thousands of specimens in a new-to-me display at Carnegie. Spectacular! Here I'm explaining to Bob how the natives attract Batocera, which do not come to lights. The Batocera una that I'd donated to Carnegie years ago are on display!



Specialists are a funny breed. Bob tells great stories of rare species and discoveries, though the scientific names he quips off are as foreign to me as to the guy on the street. Though I have no idea what taxa he's talking about, his eyes light up as he details the insights. I nod my head, appreciating the story, not knowing if he's talking about a species that's blue or brown, huge or tiny.

There's more to tell, but I'm home only today and gone again, so the rest will have to wait. What a fabulous visit to Carnegie! Thanks, Bob.

Nice Chuck! Thanks!

[Chuck]

Well, my almost non-stop travel that started with the visit to Bob at Carnegie in April has completed (thank god.) So some more photos!

The absolutely incredible Wall of Beetles in the public area. I don't know what to say! For the public, it demonstrates the variety in sizes, shapes, and color. For me it looks like a great collection, but also an immense amount of work!




My Batocera una (formerly kibleri) from Solomon Islands, on display.




Bob holding a drawer of, as he jokes, "mini morphos."



The drawer pulls can date the drawers. Bob explained how they changed over time. The insect collection is one thing, the drawers, tools, and furnishings are a museum in their own right.




Papilio glaucus "Insufficient Scale Quota" a form named by Perlman & Perlman from breeding experiments. I caught one a couple years ago; this one at Carnegie (and others) prove that this form has been around "a while" in the wild.




A Papilo glaucus gynandromorph. There are all sorts of treasures at Carnegie that I didn't have time to photograph.

[eurytides]

Chuck, that photo of the ISQ glaucus, are you sure? It, and the specimen above it look like glaucus. Were they captured when canadensis was still considered a subspecies of glaucus?

[Chuck]

Chuck, that photo of the ISQ glaucus, are you sure? It, and the specimen above it look like glaucus. Were they captured when canadensis was still considered a subspecies of glaucus?

Oh, good point. I did not check labels, nor spend much time at all on them, so they well could be canadensis or a hybrid. Unfortunately time was limited so literally I had but a glance and the Tigers; immediately I did see a number that were worthy of investigation, but lacked the time to do so.

But you're correct, that ISQ specimen and the one above scream canadensis.

See the writeup I posted today on the conundrum concerning pre-canadensis and other issues, it's on the third page (I don't know how to link to a particular post). viewtopic.php?p=7089#p7089

[bandrow]

Greetings,

I see I need to check in more often - when one stays away too long, someone posts an incriminating picture!! Now I'm on the web holding a drawer of leps for all my coleopterist colleagues to see...

It was great having Chuck visit and I hope there were enough intriguing specimens to lure him (and others!) back to visit again and maybe help us sort some specimens - there are a couple of lifetimes of specimens needing curating.

Thanks to you Chuck for your kind words and the images - I'll download these and get them into the Section archives to prove to the administrators that we are making the amazing resources here accessible...

Cheers!
Bandrow

[Chuck]

to prove to the administrators that we are making the amazing resources here accessible...

Bandrow

How important is this to an institution to remain viable and receive funding?

I'd presume that the bulk of funding, whether government grants or board-directed money, is based on monetized research- agriculture, human pests, etc.

Do institutional boards care how much a collection serves researchers in non-monetized efforts, like butterflies?

[Eleodes]

I'm not convinced that's actually a gynandromorph. It looks all female, just half black form, half yellow form to me. I could be very wrong though, beetles are really my thing.

[bandrow]

Hi Chuck,

Looks like I'm running a month behind, as usual! Hard to answer your question as I suspect the importance of collection access for non-monetized research interests depends largely on the perspective of individual board members and administrators. The few board members that I've ever gotten to know, or even meet for that matter, have run the gamut from highly invested in the collections to support the broadest usage to appearing to not value the collections unless they're supporting income-generating activities, to not really understanding how the collections are used at all. We've had similar opinions even at the curatorial levels over the decades. Research that directly generates funding (such as the bark beetle work I do) is valued and appreciated at most levels in my institution, but I can't say whether it has much influence in whether the collection itself is seen as an invaluable resource for non-monetized activities.

The ironic part is that collections that support billable work are built almost entirely of specimens gained through private, non-funded researchers. The majority of the CMNH collection is made up of specimens donated by private collectors - or specimens purchased from such collectors, like the thousands of specimens acquired from Ulke and Steinbach. A number of museum-sponsored expeditions generated several hundred thousand specimens in the 1990's and early 2000's, but the majority of the remaining 12 million plus specimens came here from countless individuals like you and me. I, personally, will always value and support access to the collection to interested individuals, whether they are carrying a blank check or have empty pockets. I feel it's my duty to make the collection available, while of course protecting it for the future.

Just my two cents and personal opinions, not a statement necessarily reflecting all the views in the system...

Cheers!
Bandrow

[Chuck]

Thanks Bob!

My question boils down to this: are institutional collections, which arguably have limited revenue value (i.e., most specimens are perceived as not contributing to income from grants, research, etc.) at risk?

It costs space and money to house collections of any size, and far more so for a few million specimens. It would seem that the general interest in insects has waned over the past 120 years, and today collections cost more than they generate. Further, the academic world one could argue- and substantiate has (1) re-focused from education to generating revenue, and (2) re-focused on non-academic activities (i.e., sports.)

At least in some cases, well known institutional collections have experience decreased subsidies and downsizing of staff. Are collections at risk of ill maintenance, or worst, warehousing to re-task the space?

[bandrow]

Hi Chuck,

I have to agree with you on all points - especially the refocusing of the academic world to generating income, with the epitome of that being the prioritization of sports over funding, say, a new library.

As for the general trend, I can only speak for what I see here in my institution, and I do feel that our board and administration are aware of the collection's historical significance and potential future importance. I don't fear the shuttering of the collection, or down-sizing of it, but we have definitely suffered a down-sizing in staff over the 28 years I've been here. and fewer staff obviously creates challenges in maintaining the collection.

I've recently heard some horror stories involving the British Museum and Paris Museum (not sure what the truth is) concerning new directors that are questioning the relevance of the collections. Hard to believe anyone could question those two institutions - and if they are under the knife, what does that set the stage for in smaller museums?

We've had pushes here to downsize the library, and I bristle every time I hear someone say "it's all online now" about scientific publications. Sure, a lot is, but a lot is behind a paywall and it may cost one $35 for a one-time access to a 3-page paper. And if the internet happens to go down, one is s**t out of luck for anything...

Cheers!
Bandrow