Introduction
Knowing what to keep? The more you think about this question, the harder it gets, as most librarians and archivists know only
too well! The the need for biodiversity records grows (Hawkesworth, D.L. and Clarke, 1996; Olivieri, S.T. et al., 1995) and
the question is raised ever more frequently.
The quick and superficial answer is that useful publications and archives are the ones to preserve. But the difficulty lies in
knowing exactly what will be useful in the future, and useful to whom? and for what purpose?
Differences Between Keeping Publications and Archives
Publications are very different from archives. Historically, publications are documents which are printed and distributed, and
archives are manuscript or typescript documents and only distributed on a very restricted basis if at all. The spread of
computer-based working, Internet and desktop publishing has blurred the traditional distinctions, and this fact is forcing a
radical re-think of retention and preservation policies in libraries and archives.
The major collections in institutional libraries are seriously affected by financial cutbacks and staff shortages. This is not newand
for over 100 years librarians have devised schemes for co-operation at local and regional level to improve the range of
publications available and access to them. National libraries also work together, to develop helpful standards, union catalogues
and international lending facilities. In Britain we are very fortunate to have The British Library's document delivery facility at
Boston Spa in Yorkshire, through which research publications in most disciplines can be borrowed or photocopies provided by
librarians for their users in the UK and other countries.
Libraries are often under severe pressure to reduce the size of their collections, and dispose of older material; however it is very
important to note that in systematics, the older literature continues to be useful and frequently consulted, partly due to the law of
priority of published names under the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Research proceeds at an uneven pace
across plant families and floristic regions, and it may be many years since good work has been published on a given ; in such
cases the older works are still useful. Historical data is also relevant to conservation and sustainable development.
Because library acquisition and retention will be discussed in more detail by Sam Demass, and because interlibrary
co-operation is a well-established approach - though in constant need of renewal -I shall focus the rest of this paper on
archives. Many of the examples I shall give come from Britain, but similar activities are taking place in many other countries.
Archives Media and Typology
Historically, most botanical records have been kept on paper, but photography has been used since the 1840s; cine film was
first used in about 1902; materials have also been copied onto microform since the 1940s and computers have been used since
at least the 1960s. Records in any of these formats may be of long-term future significance.
Records from RBG Kew's archives have provided essential information for the research and management of the collections and
buildings for many years. They include:
- Original drawings of Indian plants made for William Roxburgh, which relate directly to his ms. Flora Indica, the published
work, and his herbarium; some of these drawings are holotypes for Roxburgh plant names
- Richard Spruce's field notes and diaries which give essential background information relating directly to his herbarium
specimens, and much interesting additional information (1849-18?/)
- H.K.Balls' plant lists, diaries and photographs of his collecting expeditions in the Middle East in the 1930s, which relate
directly to his herbarium specimens at RBG Kew
- Paul Furse's original drawings of bulbous plants, especially tulips, which relate directly to his specimens and collecting
records
- Correspondence, sketches and drawings for the Palm House at Kew, 1840s
- Boundaries records for RBG Kew
I have prepared a separate listing of the kinds of records commonly created by systematists and
horticulturists (see Appendix A).
It is important when assessing records to be aware of the working practices of the people who created the records, and to be
aware of the different kinds of records they produce. This awareness enables the archivist to see why some things should be
kept, or when certain types of records appear to be missing, e.g. field notebooks.
Systematists' working practices are explained in the Kew Herbarium handbook, and in other textbooks on systematic botany
and laboratory practice; details can also be found in publications such as FitzGerald (1988 and 1994), Jain (1996), and in the
pamphlet "Preserving the archives of nature" published by the Linnean Society of London in 1994.
Corporate records are more useful than many scientists expect, particularly records giving objectives, constitutions, minutes of
focus groups, correspondence, buildings and storage records, landscape and planting data.
Context and Interrelationships of Records
The failures of the National Agricultural Library to maintain its holding is having an impact upon the availability of information in
the United States. But this failure is not unique to this one library in the United States, or to similar types of libraries in other
nations. There is an epidemic of neglect for which this is only one example.
The third point, therefore, is this. The roles of the national, regional and local libraries must be examined anew in the United
States and in other nations in the world. Such a review ought to begin immediately with the goal of completing such a review
within three years. Then, those reviews ought to be considered globally, looking at the roles of libraries on a global basis with
the goal of formulating global, national and regional mandates for the acquisition, conservation and preservation of print and
non-print media. I see the responsibility of national libraries to acquire nearly all items of national interest with a concomitant
global responsibility in one or more areas. Likewise, I see specialized national libraries, like the National Agricultural Library,
being the primary repository of all works in agriculture, again in the broadest sense of that term, with the regional libraries (in the
United States this would be the Land Grant institutions) taking only specialized subsets within the broad area of agriculture. In
this way, all of the global information on agriculture will be available in the United States in at least two places, the National
Agricultural Library and at one of the Land Grant institution libraries.
To what extent we move classical information onto the web should not depend upon interest or (worse yet) prettiness - the two
seemingly operative criteria of the day. Rather, this should be determine primarily on the need to conserve information before it
is lost. By spreading the cost globally each institution can do its part, but only if the institutions are willing to work cooperatively.
It can not be the function of the United States to pay for the conservation of all human knowledge - this is a global
responsibility. Likewise, there is no longer needs to be a concern about availability - the freedom brought to the global
community by the world-wide web has altered that forever.
And what can we do, as botanists, in this global effort? Be in the forefront. Use our works as the means by which the
technology is refined and new methodology developed. If the herbarium of John Clayton can be made available to anyone
wishing to see it, and the images of Curtis's Botanical Magazine can be seen, then so too can other works of interest to
botanists. We can take the lead if we wish. I say we should.
References
Australia. National Archives of Australia. 1998. Making choices; deciding which
Commonwealth records to keep for posterity - a discussion paper.
Read from: http://www.naa.gov.au/govserv/techpub/choices.
Printed out 15 Sept. 1998.
Bearman, D. 1995. Archival strategies. American archivist 58 (4), 380-413.
[A re-assessment of his Archival methods and archival strategies, published 1989].
Duranti, L. [and others]. 1997-1998. In the Agora ... Cunningham's commentary. Archives and manuscripts
24 (1), 88-[published version of e-mail debate between L.Duranti, C.Hurley, and G.O'Shea].
FitzGerald, S.M.D. 1988. Botanical archives: notes for archive selection and classification.
Archives 18 (79), 144-152.
FitzGerald, S.M.D. 1994. The work of the Linnean Society's Steering Group. Biology history 7, 18-24.
(Presented at a Linnean Society meeting on Preserving the archives of nature).
Great Britain. Parliament. Public Records Act, 1958. London: HMSO.
Great Britain. Parliament. National Heritage Act, 1983. London : HMSO.
Great Britain. Public Record Office. 1998-. Records management guidelines [on planning for records
appraisal, retention scheduling, disposal scheduling andc.]. Kew, Richmond Surrey.
Great Britain. Public Record Office. 1998. Records management: management and appraisal of electronic
records,: standards for the management of Government records, by Ian Macfarlane, Richard Blake,
Stephen Harris and Alun David. Kew, Richmond, Surrey. Also available at: http://www.pro.gov.uk
Hawkesworth, D.L. and Clarke, S.D., editors. 1996. Biodiversity information: needs and options; proceedings of the
1996 International Workshop on Biodiversity Information. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, CAB International. 194pp.
Hurley, C. 1994. The Australian ('series') system: an exposition. In: McKemmish, S. and Piggott, M. eds. The records
continuum: Ian Maclean and the Australian Archives first fifty years. Canberra ACT : Ancora Press and Australian Archives.
pp.150 -172.
Jain, S.K. 1997. Archives of contemporary botanists - as aid to taxonomic research. Reprint of paper given at VIII
Annual conference of Indian Association for Angiosperm Taxonomy (Aurangabad 16-18 Oct. 1997).nt.
Linnean Society of London. 1994. Preserving the archives of nature: a guide for the owners of papers on nature
conservation. London.
McCarthy. G. and Sherrat, T. 1996. Mapping scientific memory - understanding the role of recordkeeping in scientific practice.
Archives and manuscripts 24 (1), 78-85.
Olivieri, S.T., Harrison, J. and Bisby, J.R. 1995. Data and information management and communications. In: Heywood, V.H.
and Watson, R.T., Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press for the United Nations Environment
Programme. pp.607-670.
Pederson, A. 1995. Empowering archival effectiveness: archival strategies as innovation. American archivist 58, 430-453.
[Commentary on Bearman 1989 and 1995].
Reed, B. 1993. Appraisal and disposal. In: Keeping archives, 2nd ed. by J.Ellis, pp.157-206. Port Melbourne, VIC;
Thorpe.(p.161).
U.S. National Research Council. 1995. Preserving scientific data on our physical universe: a new strategy for archiving
the nations scientific resources. Washington DC.
Walters, T.O. 1996. Contemporary archival appraisal methods and preservation decision-making. American archivist 59,
322-338
|
|
CBHL Homepage
Top of the page
