Tucson Museum Workshop

Museum Birding: From the Specimen Drawer to the Field

Thursday, August 13

10:30 am

Register here

How do we birders know the things we think we know? Where do “field marks” come from? And what on earth do all those dead birds on their backs have to do with our hobby as we practice it in the 21st century?

orioles West Mexican Birds, museum skins 093

Join me on August 13 for a two-hour workshop exploring the intimate connections between museum specimens and conservation, research, and even recreational birding. We will discover how collections are formed and maintained, and learn about the sometimes surprising results when old specimens are brought to bear on new problems.

whtie fronted front and lilac crowned back parrots West Mexican Birds, museum skins 025

After an introduction to the enduring value of natural history collections, we will discuss a number of the Southwest’s rarest and most challenging birds, illustrated with representative specimens from among the more than 18,000 held by the University of Arizona.

Along with stories of collecting adventure, daring, and even foolishness, we will all come away with new knowledge we can use in the field—and a new respect for the sources of that knowledge, sources lying quietly on their backs in wooden drawers.

West Mexican Birds, museum skins 087

You can find out more, and sign up to participate, on the website of the Tucson Bird and Wildlife Festival. See you there!

Share

Are Natural History Collections “Libraries”?

Fox Sparrow

Let’s hope not.

Natural history collecting and collections are under attack. Funding cuts, scientific fashion, and the ignorant and misguided activism of the ducky-and-bunny crowd have left too many museums in a sorry state indeed, unable to carry out even the most basic of their curatorial duties.

It’s heartening to hear voices raised now and again in defense of the natural history museum, which is, as an impassioned Op-Ed in this morning’s Times rightly reminds us,

particularly critical in today’s era of rapid ecological and climate change, providing a unique and vitally important glimpse into ecological conditions of the past.

Unfortunately, that essay depends entirely on the hackneyed metaphor of the museum as a “library of life”:

In the same way that students of the humanities use new critical approaches to pull novel ideas out of old books, scientists regularly use new technologies — like stable isotope analysis, high-throughput DNA sequencing and X-ray computed tomography — to draw new discoveries from sometimes centuries-old specimens.

The image is not only tired, it’s naive. It’s misleading.

It’s dangerous.

Think it through. If the museum is a library, then the museum specimen is a book — Lujan and Page tell us so expressly. But, again, think it through. No one wants, or no one should want, to subject natural history collections and the objects they contain to the same pressures under which today’s libraries labor.

Increasingly, economic and cultural forces have obliged even the greatest of libraries to treat the book as a fungible object, each copy of a text like any other. Already have a copy? You don’t need another. Available by interlibrary loan? You don’t need one at all. Digitized? Annex! Remote storage! RECAP! Library sale! Dumpster!

But books are not infinitely substitutable one for the other, as even the most superficially trained literary historian, critic, or historian of the book could tell you. Every edition, every printing, every copy might potentially reveal something different, something unexpected, something important.

If that is true of a library book, how much truer it is of the museum specimen. But if we admit, even assert, that museums are libraries, and specimens books, then we expose natural history collections and those who want to care for them to the same specious, and too often successful, arguments that have begun to lay waste to America’s libraries.

What good is having two Goliath bird-eating butterflies?

Why would you even need one if there’s a whole drawer of them in New York?

Why waste space on a bunch of old greasy skins when there are thousands, tens of thousands of photographs, videos, sound recordings, and 3D scans out there for the taking?

Most scientists and the thoughtful could answer these questions and cogently refute the assumptions behind them. But it isn’t usually scientists or the thoughtful making the decision. Keep on comparing natural history collections to libraries, and sooner or later — sooner, in fact — legislators, taxpayers, and university regents will make you live the metaphor.

And nobody should want that, least of all the researchers who use and need the specimens so gravely at risk.

Share

Hans Hermann Carl Ludwig, Count von Berlepsch

If you spend any time at all nosing around in the past and the personalities of birding and ornithology, you soon enough come across the riotous wealth of genealogical websites out there.

Screenshot 2015-02-26 16.14.07

Grateful as I am for the occasional hints and clues these — mostly amateur, I assume — family treeclimbers provide, I’m more often struck by how the determination with which many of them excavate the names and dates of their ancestors goes unmatched by any effort to establish a historical context. It’s amusing and thought-provoking (and sometimes just plain provoking) to see names famous in “our” world pop up in a genealogy with no indication at all of their long-dead bearers’ considerable accomplishments .

So much the more gratifying, then, to find a family that is fully aware of the ornithological attainments of its forebears, among them Hans Graf von Berlepsch, who died in Göttingen 100 years ago today.

Hans Graf v Berlepsch

The Berlepsches seem to have been destined for ornithological greatness as early as the twelfth century. According to the count’s younger cousin, another ornithological Hans, Baron von Berlepsch, the family’s coat of arms bears five parrots:

Heraldic legend tells us that on his travels through the land, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, followingthe custom then current, spent the night in the castle of a Berlevessen (the name was altered to Berlepsch only in the fifteenth century). When the next morning the emperor saw his host amusing himself with unknown green birds, he chastised him for it, as unbefitting a noble knight. Berlepsch responded, “You are doing me an injustice. You should first have asked where these birds came from. I know what is suitable for a knight, and I do just that. When it is necessary and I have the opportunity, I draw my sword; but when things are peaceful, I think such activities as this are permitted. Thus, I followed you when you proclaimed a crusade, and I brought these parrots back from there with me.” Barbarossa saw that he had been wrong and said, “And so you shall bear these birds in your coat of arms from now on as a reminder of your crusade and of this episode today.”

As his eulogist Carl Hellmayr reports, Hans, Count von Berlepsch traced his own interest in natural history to a more immediate source: As a child on his father’s estate Fahrenbach, Berlepsch was instructed by a series of tutors, one of whom, Pastor Degering, inspired in his young pupil a fanatical interest in orchids.

By the time he was a teenager, his obsession had shifted to birds, and the oldest skins in what would later be a vast collection were prepared in the spring of 1868. Five years later, having purchased a considerable collection of Brazilian specimens from a dealer in Halle, Berlepsch published his first scientific work, an extensive essay on the ornithology of the province of Santa Catarina.

Screenshot 2015-02-26 17.59.22

Hellmayr says that it was just chance that Schlüter happened to have this Brazilian collection on hand, but that that accident

would determine the future course of the young ornithologist, who from then on devoted his particular interest to the study of neotropic birds. No opportunity to build the growing collection further was passed by,

and Berlepsch must have spent a fortune buying skins in Leipzig, Coburg, Kassel, Hanover, London, and Paris before settling in to his study in Hannoversch Münden, from which he directed an extensive network of collectors in South America: Hellmayr mentions Jhering, Minlos, Lorent, the Garlepp brothers, and others, all of whom sent skins back to Europe for the Berlepsch collection.

At the time of his death in 1915, that collection included more than 55,000 specimens, among them no fewer than 6000 hummingbirds, and almost 300 types, chiefly of South American taxa. Hellmayr had concluded his Nachruf with the wish that the Berlepsch collection remain in a German institution — a wish fulfilled a year later, when the Senckenberg purchased the entire lot.

Now forming more than half of the ornithological holdings of that museum, Berlepsch’s birds are a fitting memorial, as are, of course, the many taxa named in his honor.

Screenshot 2015-02-26 19.02.41

All those names are ample testimony to the esteem in which Berlepsch was held by his ornithologists around the world. One of the most touching moments in all of taxonomic history has to have come on October 30, 1897, when Berlepsch attended a meeting of the British Ornithologists’ Club.

Berlepsch took the opportunity to enter into record a new tanager, collected for him in Ecuador by F.W.H. Rosenberg; he named it for Walter Rothschild. A bit later that same evening, three additional Ecuadorean nova were exhibited by Rothschild, among them a tinamou, which he named Crypturus berlepschi for his Hessian colleague. Mutual admiration, yes, and well deserved on both sides.

596px-Crypturellus_berlepschi_1897

Share

February Calendar Puzzle: Stumped

And I thought this one would be easy.

red-bellied woodpecker

It’s obviously a composite image — if the cut-off tails of the canary and the great tit weren’t sign enough, the fact that the plate is named in English and the birds in German should tip us off. But googling didn’t get me anywhere, so it was time to start rummaging.

I recognized the ultimate source of the great tit as one of the loveliest of the national avifaunas produced in the early nineteenth century, Johann Conrad Susemihl’s Teutsche Ornithologie, published in Darmstadt in 1811.

Teutsche ornithologie image 160

After a long series of bad guesses, I got lucky with the canary, the ancestor — an ancestor — of which I stumbled across in the Abbildungen to Lorenz Oken’s Allgemeine Naturgeschichte

OKen, Abbildungen, Vögel VII

And luckier when I noticed that that figure was numbered 7, just as the bird on the calendar page. Wonder what number 1 on the plate might be….

Screenshot 2015-02-10 13.39.26

Aha. A great tit, obviously copied (at whatever remove) from Susemihl, but differing from the figure in the Teutsche Ornithologie in the same ways as the image on my calendar.

The trail just got a lot warmer, but who extracted those two birds and plopped them down among all those eggshells? And who — if not the same plagiarist — lifted the plate to use in an English-language oology?

Amazon, of all things, turns out to be selling replicas of a related image:

Screenshot 2015-02-10 13.48.50

The differences are obvious, not least among them that my calendar replaces the nest next to the canary with that next to the great tit, removing the foliage to help it fit better. Unfortunately, Amazon, that great paragon of scholarly acribie, fails to cite its source.

Dead end. But surely somebody out there knows, and somebody can help me trace my calendar page back to the Teutsche Ornithologie. Fun stuff.

Share