The Importance of Collection and Curation

The fire in Brazil’s National Museum this past year inspired some reflection on the nature of collection and curation. As many of the priceless antiquities and biological collections are now irreparably damaged, attention must now turn to preventing similar losses of valuable knowledge. Especially in the case of cryptogams, specimen collections can be so few and far between that a loss of one specimen might be the loss of an entire species from scientific documentation. Scientific knowledge on locality, substrate, and collector can be lost just as easily through the sheer size of collections. Like the Ark of the Covenant, a specimen can get lost in the aggregate packet boxes.

In cryptogams as well as the wider world of biology, specimen collections have been largely forgotten. Modern biological science emphasizes tissue cultures and project-specific living specimens over the careful examination of aged paper packets and archaic cursive labels. The genomics era with various molecular markers and colorful dyes briefly provided hopes that the 19th and 20th century specimens might provide clues to modern changes in global ecology. Unfortunately, most genomics work still remains focused on agricultural weeds, crops, or novelties; for the most part lichens and bryophytes remain fairly marginalized.

Luckily, the continuing efforts of the Ohio Moss and Lichen Association might yet counter these concerns over the fate of cryptogram specimens. Attention to existing collections and active curation maintain the scientific utility of old packets. Modern media tools increase public awareness of these historical resources. Imaging work at Ohio State’s herbarium presently being carried with the help of OMLA members Bob Klips, Megan Osika, and others, ensures that specimens will be accessible and traceable as time continues on. This imaging is available to the wider public, allowing anyone to retrieve a packet from anywhere with decent internet connection.

The author contributed to the imaging work underway at Ohio State, working through several sections of the legendary Don Flenniken’s lichen collection. In addition to the value of distributions and physical material to analyze, these packets provide glimpses into the minds of collectors and curators. Though an 1871 Slovenian lichen may not directly influence the state of Ohio’s lichen record, the history of collections and acquisitions demonstrates the morphological structures that informed the modern concept of lichens, as well as the nature of research programs.

In the end, as Ray Showman pointed out in an earlier Obelisk article, “The Value of Amateurs,” collections need to keep being made. If not for the sake of forays, specimens should be regularly collected to back up the limited number of bryophytes and lichens globally curated. Most species can handle to have two or three packets of identical material kept in several collections across the state and country. Hopefully the active group of collectors and curators within this association may continue to grow.

-Jonathan Kubesch