Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Museology
Mu s e u m o f Te x a s Te c h U n i v e r s i t y
NUMBER 12
July 2009
Editors Statement
The proper care and use of collections is often one of the more difficult aspects of maintaining a museum.
Collections come in many forms and may represent the most sacred and profound of a societys cultural
and natural heritage, or embody the common elements of everyday life. Nonetheless, fine art objects,
natural history specimens, aboriginal artifacts, or ordinary articles require equal special care once they
are placed in the custody of a museum.
The ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (2006) includes a number of sections relating to care and use of
collections. Sections 2.23 and 8.4 are of particular interest:
Section 2.23 states, Preventive conservation is an important element of museum policy and
collections care. It is an essential responsibility of members of the museum profession to create
and maintain a protective environment for the collections in their care, whether in store or display
or in transit.
Section 8.4 addresses the issue of academic and scientific responsibility. Members of the museum profession should promote the investigation, preservation, and use of information inherent
in collections. They should, therefore, refrain from any activity or circumstance that might result
in the loss of such academic and scientific data.
When collections of cultural or natural materials are assembled and maintained in a museums, that status
separates them from other types of objects. The responsibilities associated with maintaining those collections include preservation, research and, in most instances, transfer of the associated data to the related
fields of study in the form of publications. Although the successful fulfillment of these tasks involves an
obligation to collections care and use to ensure that those duties are met, the methods involved in the
process may differ.
To meet this obligation, collections must be prepared, housed, and maintained in a manner giving attention to accepted preservation practices to ensure the items can continue to be used and studied. The
value of collected objects and specimens is lost or substantially reduced if they, or data inherent in them,
are altered or compromised due to neglect. Therefore, individual objects must be kept in a condition as
close to their discipline-defined state of preservation as possible. Furthermore, individual items must be
properly marked, housed, and linked with their descriptive data. Objects that cannot be located, identified, or documented are of minimal value to the institution or researchers.
The basic method of ensuring the proper care and preservation of collections while in museums is preventive conservation. This procedure places emphasis on the collection rather than the object. It focuses on
creating an environment in which objects are protected against agents of destruction or degradation.
Carefully prepared and housed specimens provide information and stimulate ideas for research, and
further investigation of the natural and cultural environs. Research and study of collections encourage
scholars to explore the ways individuals and societies perceive, appreciate, and interact with the world in
which we live. The objects and specimens in museum collections are important to our knowledge about
the world, providing a foundational record of past and present life within defined regions of the worlds
biosphere.
Issues relating to proper stewardship of artifacts and specimens held by museums are of continuing
concern worldwide. Such concerns are not limited to one type of collection, one type of museum, or one
frame of reference. Determining where to establish the baseline for care of collections is often a challenge.
The condition report and other specialized assessment processes are tools used by museums to describe
evaluative initiatives of a specific nature to determine the qualitative, as well as the physical condition, of
incorporated objects. Assessment is a valued and necessary part of proper collections management.
Front Cover: The Zoology Museum of Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador, at Quito, currently holds the most
important reference collection of Ecuadorian mammals. Image by Santiago F. Burneo
Resumen
El QCAZ mantiene una coleccin de mamferos con aproximadamente 10 200 especmenes de los cuales 8
000 fueron evaluados mediante el ndice de Salud de Colecciones (ISC). Este ndice es un sistema de cdigos
numricos que permite determinar el estado curatorial de la coleccin basado en unidades de evaluacin,
y revisar la informacin asociada a los ejemplares. Este ndice fue escogido por ser un mtodo cualitativo
que no solo permite evaluar los especmenes sino su informacin asociada. Permite priorizar estrategias
de manejo, determinar mejoras a travs del tiempo, y realizar comparaciones con otras colecciones. El ISC
es un descriptor numrico que muestra el nmero de especmenes en buen estado curatorial en relacin al
nmero de ejemplares de la coleccin. En contraste con otros ndices, ste no espera un valor ptimo de 1
debido que significara que todos los especmenes estn en ptimas condiciones y no niveles normales de
entropa asociados a una coleccin dinmica. El valor inicial del ISC fue de 0,63. Luego de solucionar algunos
problemas curatoriales tales como incongruencias taxonmicas y geogrficas, reemplazo de recipientes de
almacenamiento defectivos, locacin adecuada de ejemplares, o actualizacin de la informacin en la base
de datos, dicho ndice fue elevado a 0,79, con ms del 70% de los especmenes en un ptimo estado de
curacin.
Palabras clave: ndice de Salud de Colecciones, colecciones, mamferos, museos de historia natural
Methods
We considered each specimen as the evaluation unit
for this assessment. Curation, identification, storage,
and use of specimens for research were evaluated.
We modified the criteria of the original proposals
(McGinley 1993; Williams et al. 1996; Fernndez et
al. 2005) to make the evaluation levels and categories
consistent with the scale at which the QCAZ mammal
collection was to be analyzed. For this assessment,
Levels 1 and 5 (sensu Fernndez 2005) were divided
into specific sublevels, and evaluation criteria were
assigned for each level in order to cover every curatorial aspect of this collection. Each specific criterion
in each level or sublevel was recorded as acceptable
or unacceptable, coded as 1 or 0, respectively. Code
1 was also used when a specific criterion did not
apply to certain levels of specimen evaluation. Microsoft Excel spreadsheets were designed to record
evaluation codes. This assessment method allowed
consideration of one or more curatorial deficiencies
for each specimen, if necessary. The modified levels
and sublevels were as follows:
Level 0: Presence of Specimen.This level appraised
the presence of the specimen in the collection
or as loans in other institutions. A specimen
was considered missing if it or the proper loan
documents were not found even though it is recorded in the database, containers, or labels.
0 = the specimen is not in the collection.
1 = the specimen is in the collection or is
loaned to another institution.
ated specimens. Resolved Level 5 (Associated Information) problems included correcting and updating
taxonomical or geographical information.
The increase in the number of specimens with deficiencies in Levels 7 (Information Accessible for Inventories), 8 (Supplementary Information), 9 (Collection
Usefulness for Research), and 10 (Collection Use for
Scientific Papers) is due to the resolution of curatorial
problems in specimens that were formerly ranked in
lower levels. Since Levels 7 to 10 evaluate the use
of specimens in different types of scientific research
(Fernndez et al. 2005), these levels were assigned to
only specimens whose curatorial status was correct
and that were used actively in scientific research.
After solving curatorial problems, we determined that
15% of specimens corresponded to Level 7; 38% to
Level 8; 9% to Level 9; and 3% to Level 10.
An indication of health and usefulness of a collection is the use of its specimens in research and the
publication of scientific papers. Well preserved
and documented specimens are more suitable for
research purposes. At least 3,100 specimens have
Taxonomic Group
Heteromyidae
114
Phyllostomidae
57
Mormoopidae
Boada et al
(2003)
Mastozoologa Neotropical
Soricidae, Mephitidae,
Cuniculidae
Voss (2003)
23
Phyllostomidae
Baker et al.
(2004)
Phyllostomidae
Fonseca and
Pinto (2004)
Phyllostomidae
Phyllostomidae
44
Phyllostomidae
Velazco (2005)
Fieldiana
18
Phyllostomidae
Velazco and
Solari (2005)
Mastozoologa Tropical
251
Lee et al.
(2006)
Occasional Papers
Museum of Texas Tech
University
134
Didelphidae, Soricidae
Phyllostomidae, Vespertilionidae,
Felidae, Cricetidae
Lee et al.
(2006)
Occasional Papers
Museum of Texas Tech
University
Authors / Year
Journal
Title
Anderson and
Jarrin (2002)
Muchhala, N.,
and Jarrn, P
(2002)
Biotropica
Occasional Papers
Museum of Texas Tech
University
Occasional Papers
Museum of Texas Tech
University
Acta Chiropterologica 2005
Journal of Mammalogy
Holotypes
Paratypes
Species
Lophostoma aequatorialis
Lophostoma yasun
Heteromys teleus
Lophostoma aequatorialis
QCAZ
6500
4935
1788
2384, 6071
Authors
Baker et al. 2004
Fonseca and Pinto 2004
Anderson and Jarrn 2002
Baker et al. 2004
Table 3. Taxonomic groups represented in the QCAZ mammal collection compared with the Ecuadorian mammal fauna
(Tirira 2007) in parentheses. Total number of records and percentage of each group related to the total holdings are
indicated. a includes introduced taxa and foreign donations. e extinct taxa.
Collection specimens
Orders
Families
Genera
Species
Records
%
Didelphimorphia
1
(1)
9
(10)
14
(19)
210 2.63%
Paucituberculata
1
(1)
1
(1)
2
(4)
30 0.38%
Sirenia
1
(1)
1
(1)
1
(1)
3 0.04%
Cingulata
1
(1)
3
(3)
4
(5)
23 0.29%
Pilosa
4
(4)
5
(5)
7
(7)
34 0.43%
a
Primates
5
(4)
17
(20)
77 0.96%
11
(10)
Rodentia a
10
(9)
36
(53)
75 (106)
1493 18.70%
Lagomorpha a
1
(1)
3
(1)
3
1)
19 0.24%
Soricomorpha
1
(1)
1
(1)
2
(3)
33 0.41%
Chiroptera
8
(8)
56
(59)
131 (143)
5896 73.85%
Carnivora a
7
(8)
19
(22)
23
(32)
107 1.34%
Perissodactyla a
2
(1)
2
(1)
3
(3)
12 0.15%
a
Artiodactyla
5
(3)
9
(9)
11
(10)
40 0.50%
Cetacea
3
(5)
3
(20)
3
(28)
4 0.05%
Pilosa e
1
1
1
2 0.03%
Probiscidea e
1
1
1
1 0.01%
TOTAL
52 (48)
161 (196)
298 (382)
7984
b. Rodentia
Conclusion
The qualitative assessment of the mammal collection
at QCAZ resulted in the determination of the curatorial
status of specimens, and allowed us to correct and
update associated information. This process guaranteed that collection data will be used in research
accurately. Initially, a significant percentage of the
collection had common curatorial deficiencies. After
these problems where resolved, 71.4% of the specimens were ranked as appropriately curated. The CHI
Acknowledgments
QCAZ staff assisted with the evaluation of the collection; we thank especially Gabriel Mosquera,
Salime Jalil and Viviana Narvez for facilitating this
assessment. John E. Simmons guided us through
the process of collection evaluation and commented
10
Santiago F. Burneo
Museo de Zoologa
Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Ecuador
Av. 12 de Octubre y Roca
Quito Ecuador
11