A recent paper in Zootaxa by Rouhan and colleagues (here, though paywalled) advocates that collections make such important contributions to published science that they should be recognized as coauthors. The paper is entitled “The time has come for Natural History Collections to claim co-authorship of research articles.” When I began reading their article, I was opposed to the idea. I give credit to the authors, though, for by the time I was finished, I was at least open to the concept. Importantly, they are not advocating for individual museum staff to be coauthors, but rather that an institution or group name for the collection should be used. That was a key distinction for me: I would not want to see collections’ contributions get confused with those of their associated staff. From another perspective, however, when I write a paper that uses many different collections, I would not want to appear as a scientific minion among a small forest of institutions that I happened to use in pursuing my questions. (Imagine the institution shopping that human authors would use!)
The problem Rouhan et al. (2017) are addressing is that museum collections make huge contributions to published science, but those contributions are often unrecognized and difficult to track. Here at the University of Alaska Museum Bird Collection we’ve attempted to solve this in a different way (here), in which we keep track of publications that used our collection in a Google Scholar profile (we published on this here). We were careful not to use the term “author,” however (e.g.,“as if the collection were an author”), and we do not advocate a change to that status for collections. We believe our method serves the purpose quite well without unduly abusing the already contentious issue of authorship.
That said, I do think that museum staff should be authors more often on projects when they make substantial contributions, and that this would happen more often with careful consideration of widely accepted authorship criteria (e.g., here).
But as I noted, my mind is open to the concept of collections as authors if a consensus were to develop that these other two solutions under the present framework were inadequate. It is very uncommon to see institutions or consortia listed as authors, although it is becoming more common in large-scale genomics research.
Changes in the 23rd edition—2017 (downloadable at right)
Four species ADDED in 2016 to Checklist of Alaska Birds (in taxonomic order)
Calliope Hummingbird Selasphorus calliope: Hatching-year male, 3-5 Sep 2016, Auke Bay, photos by Gus B. van Vliet and Patty Rose. Casual, because of its long, enigmatic, unsubstantiated past in se Alaska. Its history in Alaska began with Willett’s 1921 statement (in Bird notes from southeastern Alaska. Condor 23:156-159): “According to [local resident F. H.] Gray, quite common at Wrangell in spring and fall during some years; other years apparently absent.” In the absence of any pre-1921 published mention of this species in Alaska, however, Willett’s explicit intention (op. cit.:156) “to include only species regarding which some fact or facts have come to light that add to previously published matter regarding them” would seem to make his 1921 report enigmatic. Four+ (silent) decades later, there were six (unsubstantiated) reports from the late 1960s through the 1980s (male, [no date] May 1967, Juneau, Richard J. Gordon; female, 6 May 1968, Juneau, RJG; at least one, summer 1968, Juneau, fide RJG; one, 27 Jul 1974, Juneau, Evelyn S. Dunn; male, 14 Aug 1975, Little Port Walter, Baranof Island, Alex C. Wertheimer; and female, 18 Jun 1988, Mitkof Island, Peter J. Walsh). Insert in Family Trochilidae following Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus.
Our lab members prepared a fun video about how to wash a duck (and finish its preparation as a research study specimen):
We’ve been playing with data and seeking gaps in the collection. After the jump check out the .gif of how the collection has accumulated Alaska specimens since 1950. It’s a neat look at geography and time.
Sometimes Yellow-billed Loons are accidentally caught and drown in fishing nets. And occasionally the specimen gets sent to us for preparation. They are a strikingly large loon. Beautiful birds. And, wow, are their eyes big!
Rebecca Cheek demonstrates just how large a Yellow-billed Loon eyeball is.
Every animal dies. Starvation, predation, disease, old age—whatever the means, eventually the end comes. We humans have a heightened morality about death, and this is good. But at times this morality is not well directed. Uproars over individual animal deaths often overlook larger and more important issues. Recently it was an eruption over a kingfisher killed in the Solomon Islands. Last year it was about a spider. Both animals were euthanized by scientists to preserve the bodies as scientific specimens to be added to research collections (which I facetiously call the ranks of the dead in the title). And in both cases there were international outcries because a scientist had killed an animal.
Thanks to a grant from the National Science Foundation, the Bird Collection has undergone a critical facilities upgrade with the installation of new cabinets and a compactor system. This gives us space we desperately needed. We are currently moving, rearranging, and re-housing the whole collection into and around this new space. We continue to occupy our old, 1980s cabinets and compactor space; this new addition was put into to space we obtained during the museum expansion. It is so cool. We had a hard time believing just how many cabinets could be squeezed into that space. Have a look at some photos…
When you walk the basement halls of a museum, you are likely to encounter weird stuff.
Sadly, our good friend and colleague Robert W. Dickerman (RWD) passed away recently. Bob was active with our group for many years during the summers, and the Bird collection has over 1,500 specimens that he was associated with either as collector or preparator. Bob was one of the most dedicated collections professionals and specimen-based researchers the world has seen. Andy Johnson wrote an excellent summary in 2012 of some of Bob’s career. Among Bob’s professional accomplishments included over 230 publications and at least 59 subspecies of birds described. Highly active well into his 80s, Bob may be gone, but he and his accomplishments will be long remembered by us and by many other ornithologists.
Bob Dickerman in the field in Tabasco, Mexico, 1955 (R. W. Dickerman)
Bob Dickerman in the field in Nome, Alaska, 1998 (K. Winker)
Bob Dickerman, Brina Kessel, and Dan Gibson, 2005 (K. Winker)
We were pleased to host Jason Froggatt last month for some intensive work in the bird lab. Jason is Collections Manager in Natural Sciences at the Auckland War Memorial Museum in Auckland, New Zealand. He took the opportunity to come up here to learn some of the tricks of the trade that have served us so well in developing our modern and relatively heavily used bird collection. Jason spent every day, hands-on, with our processes, learning how we work with skins, skeletons, tissues, and stomach contents to preserve a diversity of samples and how we handle the associated data. He also had many keen observations from his own experiences that he gladly shared with us. We had a great time and look forward to future interactions with Jason and the Auckland War Memorial Museum!
Jason Froggatt prepares a bird specimen