Introduction
What is an original or primary source? In the field of botanical science a living plant, of course. Since it is impractical to work
with live plants in the field all of the time, herbaria for hundreds of years have provided botanists with dried plant specimens for
research purposes: still a plant but with some loss of information. Over the years photographs of herbarium specimens came to
serve researchers in small herbaria with incomplete collections: still useful but no longer the plant itself, with even greater loss of
information.
Now, at the approach of a new century, herbaria are already crossing the threshold into the world of the digitized herbarium. Is
a digitized specimen as valuable, useful, reliable as the specimen itself? Certainly not, but the key is access. Thousands of
botanists around the world will have digitized specimens available to them in their officesÑscientists who may be working in
herbaria with limited, incomplete collections, who may not have funds to travel to the world's large herbaria to do their
research, or who need the specimens at hand everyday to check details. Again, the key word is access. Does this mean that
plants themselves are no longer important, that herbarium specimens are dispensable? Definitely not. A scientist cannot dissect
a flower for a monographic study, or take pollen samples for scanning electron microscope studies or take a piece of leaf for
molecular studies from a digitized image. Dried specimens, although fragile and space consuming, provide the researcher with
the actual object from which to work and have a proven longevity not yet guaranteed with digital information.
A parallel situation exists in botanical libraries. Many plant science collections include original manuscripts; that is, hand-written
primary source material. These may range from medieval manuscripts to today's field collectors' notebooks, all valuable
research materials. However, this paper will focus on original published materials. As librarians are embracing the new concept
of digital libraries, the question arises as to whether or not space-consuming original printed sources should be retained.
Considering the vulnerability and fragility of digitized information, and the potential for its almost instantaneous loss, it becomes
particularly important for the major repositories of plant science information to take joint responsibility for maintaining such
collections of original published material.
For libraries that accept this responsibility, there are realistic and attainable methods for retaining and maintaining original
printed source materials. Depending on the era in which the items were published and the conditions under which they have
been stored, they will suffer different levels of deterioration. Many books from the Renaissance are in excellent physical
condition and need only to be cared for in the future as well as they have been in the past. Others have suffered from biological
attackÑinsects, rodents, and mold. Yet others began to self-destruct immediately after publication, having been printed on
acidic, short-fiber paper with a high lignin content.
The options available for maintaining original published materials fall into several general categories: rebinding and protective
enclosures or reformatting to provide user surrogates. The former is dependent upon centuries old methods and materials; the
latter, on essentially 20th century technology. Both options are acceptable; each is appropriate for particular materials and each
has advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses. In presenting these options, the potential for success, the
possible pitfalls, and factors to consider when choosing the best and most appropriate solution or solutions will be pointed out.
One must always keep in mind that the purpose of retaining and maintaining materials is to make the information continuously
available to researchers.
Reformatting
In selecting for preservation reformatting, the most obvious candidates are those printed on paper that has become embrittled.
Then rebinding is not an option, since it is usually impossible to repair the fragile pages prior to binding. The primary purpose of
reformatting is to provide the user with a surrogate copy, thus requiring less frequent use of a fragile original work. However, in
some cases the reformatted item may become a replacement copy.
Photocopying
The first reformatting option discussed is photocopying; that is, "xeroxing". Librarians and conservators have used this
technology for the last 25 or 30 years, ever since xerox machines have been readily available within their institutions. The
advantage of this method for the user is that it results in printed pages that can be bound into a book. Many library binders now
offer a photocopying service. Most use high quality machines and are able to copy color images. They copy onto pH neutral or
alkaline buffered paper, and monitor the quality of the copies. They will also bind the newly photocopied material into a book.
Some library binders will photocopy the books without disbinding. Most do not because it is more efficient and economical to
copy loose pages cut from the book. For both practical and economic reasons, these pages are not likely to be reassembled
into book format.
The primary disadvantage to photocopying is the fact that it is not really a printing process. Rather, the images lie on the surface
of the paper. Thus, if the paper does not have a smooth and hard enough surface or the machine has not heated up sufficiently,
the image will not bond and may rub off or become too faint to be legible. Or the images may offset onto the facing page. It
should be remembered that laser printer copies suffer this same problem.
Since a photocopy is a second generation image, the quality of the copy is dependent upon the quality of the image line of the
original printed material and whether or not there is a high or low level of contrast between the print and the color of the paper.
A poor quality original generally produces an even poorer quality copy.
If the published work includes color illustrations, they will need to be photocopied separately on a color photocopy machine.
Although newer machines copy colors more accurately than in the past, the color is notoriously unstable. Only time will tell how
well or poorly the color holds up.
Yet another concern is the potential for damage to books, caused during photocopying, particularly if a flatbed copier is used.
Book copiers are much gentler on the books, but used carelessly, have often caused severe damage.
Microfilming
Microfilming is a time-tested method of reformatting. Photography has a history of almost a century-and-a-half, although
microfilming was not carried out seriously until the 1930's. The concept of microfilming as a preservation tool began to be
explored in the 1960's and '70's, when the brittle book problem was fully realized by the library world. In only a very short
period of time a dedicated group of preservation librarians, supported by several library organizations and large libraries,
including the Library of Congress, worked diligently to develop solidly-based standards for producing and storing microforms.
Today microfilming equipment is very sophisticated. Technicians can produce high-resolution and high-contrast film copies and
relatively high quality reproductions of color illustrations. Equipment now available allows books to be microfilmed face up,
supported gently from below, reassuring conservators that the volumes will not be further damaged. Technicians are also
trained to handle fragile materials and turn pages with care during the filming process.
Librarians and researchers can now feel assured of the longevity of microforms if the well-researched and tested protocols are
followed. Only microfilming services that follow high standards of technology, use the best quality materials, and practice quality
control should be engaged to do the work. A preservation master film must be stored off-site under established environmental
conditions for microforms; a copy master must be stored with the filming service, for use in making future copies; and the
in-house copy must be maintained under the best possible conditions. By following these procedures, one can expect the
preservation master film to have a longevity of 100-500 years, while providing a top level method for back-up of the
information.
Another great advantage to producing microform surrogates is that copy masters are then available, so that libraries which do
not hold titles that have already been microfilmed, are able to purchase microform copies at a relatively low cost.
The down-side of microforms is the fact that few people are happy reading text on microform machines, and printers attached
to them are notoriously "cranky", rarely producing good copies on paper. Unfortunately, microfilms still are not very good at
capturing half-tones. Another concern is that early attempts at microfilming were carried out before film, filming and storage
standards had been established. Therefore, the microforms may have suffered over time. It remains very important, when
having microfilming done, that the library work with a reputable preservation microfilming service, to assure that the resulting
microforms are produced to the latest and highest standards.
Digitizing
Most conservators and many librarians have come to understand that digitization provides access to information but is not
basically a preservation tool. In fact, digitization has opened an entirely new field of preservationÑthat of preserving digitized
information. Whether or not computer engineers, who deal with this issue, will ultimately find a home in the field of library
conservation, or be based with computer services, or stride the lines between the two, is a matter yet to be determined. It is
these people who will be responsible for the preservation of the digital library, whether these publications have been produced
only electronically or have been digitized from printed publications.
It is encouraging that the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) and the Research Libraries Group (RLG) have
taken a leadership role in beginning to establish and monitor standards and protocols for digitized images as they relate to
library materials. CLIR publicizes this information via its web site (http://www.clir.org) and its newsletter, CLIR issues, which is
published bi-monthly. Information from RLG can be found in RLG diginews (http://www.rlg.org/preserv/diginews.html).
Since most scanning is done on flat bed scanners, they, like flat bed photocopiers, pose a serious risk of damaging already
fragile, deteriorating publications. Interestingly, there has been unexpected result of digitizing valuable or fragile volumes in order
to mount them on a web site. Researchers are now increasingly aware of the existence of these materials and their locations. It
appears that there will be even more demand for the original published sources in the future.
The Hybrid Method
Preservation administrators are coming to advocate what is referred to as a hybrid method of preservation, which brings
together two technologies: microfilming for preservation, and digital imaging for enhanced access. During the past several years,
two pilot projects have been in progress; one in the Preservation Department at Cornell University; the other at Yale University.
A working paper, mounted on the web site of the Council on Library and Information Resources (http://www.clir.org),
describes the results of the work at the two institutions. "The Open Book Project" at Yale has taken microfilms that were
produced to currently acceptable standards and reproduced them digitally, while the project at Cornell created preservation
quality computer output microfilm (COM) from digital images. Quoting from the authors, "Although digital imaging can be used
to enhance access, preservation goals will not be considered met until a microfilm copy or computer output microfilm recording
of digital image files has been produced that satisfies national standards for quality and permanence."
Conservation rebinding
Many books in library collections do not suffer from the brittle paper problem; in fact, their paper may be as strong as the day it
was madeÑsometimes hundreds of years ago. However, these same books, after years of hard use, may have worn or
damaged pages and bindings which no longer protect the textblock. In such cases reformatting is neither necessary nor
desirable. More current volumes in libraries, as well as unbound journal issues, have traditionally been sent to library binders to
be rebound, generally with satisfactory results. Earlier materials or those which are of high value, both because of the
information they contain and the book itself as an object, are usually sent to book conservators or to the library's in-house
library conservation department for more sophisticated conservation repair and rebinding. This work is often labor-intensive
and time-consuming. Therefore it can be costly, so librarians and library conservators choose carefully which books are to
receive extensive conservation treatment. Book conservators have been highly successful in adding to the longevity of such
materials. Since botanists, unlike scientists in many other fields, use early printed materials, as well as current publications, in
their daily research, and because the history of botany is an important field in its own right, conservation treatment on books in
botanical libraries is quite justifiable.
Protective enclosures
An alternative method of caring for vulnerable books in botanical collections is neither reformatting nor rebinding, but is a very
practical solution when neither of the former is exactly the answer required. Protective enclosures can be made in many
different forms and levels of complexity, depending on the need or budget. They can be used to safeguard books with damaged
bindings or detached pages that are awaiting reformatting or rebinding. Or they may protect bindings of historical or artifactual
value. Enclosures can also be used to keep together loose pages of volumes that have been returned after microfilming or for
journal issues that are yet to be bound. Protective enclosures range in design and complexity from simple bristol wrappers to
pre-made acid-free corrugated boxes to sophisticated Solander boxes . Enclosures can be constructed in-house, if the library
has a conservation department, or they can be purchased from suppliers of library storage materials, or they may be made by
outside conservation services.
Conclusion
It would appear that the future requires an even more comprehensive hybrid solution than discussed earlier. It is extremely
important that microform copies be produced as surrogates for at-risk materials and as a back-up for digitized information. But
it is equally important to retain the original printed publications from which these surrogates were made. Original sources are
sometimes associated with prominent members of the botanical field and frequently contain useful or important marginal notes
or annotations, which may not show up well on the surrogate copies. Perhaps most important, such volumes must be retained in
at least one library, so that when modern technology fails, the original is still available for use in carrying out research and/or
producing a new surrogate. Committing funds to the conservation treatment of published works in library collections is highly
justifiable if selection for conservation is carefully and responsibly carried out.
Facing the many conservation issues, the great need for access to botanical literature, and the newly emerging technologies, in a
time when library budgets are often being severely curtailed, begs for a solution that incorporates the concept of cooperative
projects amongst botanical libraries. Working alone, libraries unwittingly risk microfilming or digitizing the same titles,
reformatting an incomplete copy when a sister library might have a complete copy, being unaware of funding available for
conservation treatment or reformatting projects, or of the newest and safest technology available.
It is unrealistic to expect small botanical libraries, with less complete collections and even smaller budgets, to take on
responsibility for major conservation initiatives. Therefore, it is imperative for the large libraries in the field to work together to
develop forward-looking, but realistic plans for jointly preserving and making broadly accessible their comprehensive
collections. Sharing the responsibility, the intellectual endeavors, the problem-solving, the preservation work, and the limited
available funds is the only way to assure that valuable research materials will be available into the future. Funding agencies, both
private and governmental, look favorably upon well-conceived cooperative projects. They understand that such initiatives make
the funds they commit go farther and feel assured that the work is likely to be completed in a timely and orderly fashion.
Librarians look to botanists to support their efforts to preserve original published sources in libraries. These materials represent
the collected endeavors of botanists to document their research throughout the history of this science. Much help is needed in
prioritizing titles of publications to be preserved. Since printed materials with traditional bindings will continue to be produced
for years to come, support will be required in demanding that publications, worldwide, be printed on pH neutral or
alkaline-buffered paper with wide margins, and sewn into signatures. Who better than botanists to understand the importance
and need of continuing to have these works available when newer technologies fail?
I hope we will be able to cooperate in such a way that we will move into the new century with a healthy hybrid preservation
plan that is firmly rooted in our past, while reaching up to embrace the rapidly developing technology of the 21st century. And I
trust that librarians, botanists, and conservators, working together, will take a leadership role in helping to frame that plan to fit
their needs.
|
|
CBHL Homepage
Top of the page
