Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T08:18:46.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Scientific Value of Natural History Museum Collections: The Concept of Completeness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2017

Bruce S. Lieberman  and
Roger L. Kaesler
Bruce S. Lieberman
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Lindley Hall Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Paleontological Institute
Roger L. Kaesler
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Lindley Hall Natural History Museum & Biodiversity Research Center The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045-2124
Get access

Extract

NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUMS are one of the greatest resources available to paleontologists and evolutionary biologists. Through their exhibits, they have inspired generations of children to become paleontologists, and they also serve as a tremendous repository of realized and potential data. If invertebrate fossils can be thought of as individual data points, in the United States alone there are perhaps 100 million data points. Yet, in spite of this, museums, like other sources of data, have their shortcomings. What are these short comings, and how severe are they? Are they so severe as to obviate the scientific value of the collections of fossils held by natural history museums? It is this topic that we address herein.

There is a useful analogy between the debate about the usefulness of natural history museum collections and the debate about the completeness of the fossil record. Are natural history museums representative of the fossil record, and are they complete enough to be adequate for research? We intend to pursue the analogy between the fossil record and natural history museums as we develop our ideas about paleontological collections. Just as numerous studies have concluded that the fossil record, albeit incomplete, is adequate to answer a wide variety of scientific questions, so too shall we argue that the data preserved in natural history museums are complete enough and adequate to answer a wide variety of important research questions in paleontology.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Paleontological Society Special Publications , Volume 10: Guidelines for the Management and Curation of Invertebrate Fossil Collections including a Data Model and Standards for Computerization , 2000 , pp. 109 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allmon, W. D. 2000. Collections in paleontology. In Lane, H. R. and Kaesler, R. L. (eds.), Fossils and the Future: Paleontology in the Twenty-First Century. Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt, Germany.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J., and Storrs, G. W. 1994. Testing the quality of the fossil record: paleontological knowledge is improving. Geology, 22: 111–114 2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, P. J. 1996. Life's Splendid Drama. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 525 p.Google Scholar
Browne, J. 1983. The Secular Ark: Studies in the History of Biogeography. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 273 p.Google Scholar
Desmond, A. J. 1982. Archetypes and Ancestors. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 287 p.Google Scholar
Desmond, A. J. 1989. The Politics of Evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 503 p.Google Scholar
Dingus, L., and Sadler, P. M. 1982. The effects of stratigraphic completeness on estimates of evolutionary rates. Systematic Zoology, 31: 400–412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, M. J., Doyle, J. A., Gauthier, J., Kluge, A. G., and Rowe, T. 1989. The importance of fossils in phylogeny reconstruction. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics, 20:431–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, P. S. 1992. Collection assessments and long-range planning, pp. 275–288. In Rose, C. L., Williams, S. L., and Gisbert, J. (eds.), Current Issues, Initiatives, and Future Directions for the Preservation and Conservation of Natural History Collections. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid Spain.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 147:45–114.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. (ed.), 1992. Systematics, Ecology, and the Biodiversity Crisis. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Evans, K. R., Rowell, A. J., and Rees, M. N. 1995. Sea-level changes and stratigraphy of the Nelson Limestone (Middle Cambrian), Neptune Range, Antarctica. Journal of Sedimentary Research, B65: 32–43.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1992. Rarefaction analysis of morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology, 18: 1–16 Google Scholar
Foote, M. and Raup, D. M. 1996. Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa. Paleobiology, 22:121–140.Google Scholar
Gauthier, J., Kluge, A. G., and Rowe, T. 1988. Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics, 4:105–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, N. C., and LabandEira, C. C. 1995. The stability of species in taxonomy. Paleobiology, 21:401–403.Google Scholar
Huxley, R. 1994. Aspects of herbarium conservation and management at the Natural History Museum, pp. 5–18. In Child, R. E. (ed.), Conservation and the Herbarium, national museums and galleries. Institute of Paper Conservation. Worcestershire, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Kaesler, R. L. 1993. A new Treatise for a new century. Palaios, 8: 125–126 Google Scholar
Kaesler, R. L. 1997. The Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology: A manifesto. Journal of Paleontology, 71: 528–531 Google Scholar
Kaesler, R. L. 2000. The role of databases in paleobiology, pp. XX–YY. In Adrain, J., Edgecombe, G. D., and Lieberman, B. S. (eds.), Fossils, Phylogeny, and Form: An Analytical Approach. Kluwer Academic Press/Plenum Publishing, New York. Accepted.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. W., Kaesler, R. L., Brosius, E. A., Miller, D. L., and Chang, Y.-M. 1996. PaleoBank, a relational database for invertebrate paleontology: The data model. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, new series, 8: 1–7 Google Scholar
Lieberman, B. S., Brett, C. E., and Eldredge, N. 1995. A study of stasis and change in two species lineages from the Middle Devonian of New York State. Paleobiology, 21: 15–27 Google Scholar
Lindberg, D. 1990. Morphometrics and the systematics of marine plant limpets (Mollusca: Patellogastropoda), pp. 301–310. In Rohlf, F. J. and Bookstein, F. L. (eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Special Publication Number 2, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Macleod, N., Diver, P., Guralnick, R., Lazarus, D., and Malmgren, B. 2000. Computers, quantification, and databases. In Lane, H. R. and Kaesler, R. L. (eds.), Fossils and the Future: Paleontology in the Twenty-First Century.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1990. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges. Paleobiology, 16: 1–10 Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R. and Alroy, J. 1999. Towards a sample-standardized Phanerozoic diversity curve. Geological Society of America Annual Meeting Abstracts with Programs, A336.Google Scholar
Maurer, B. A. 1999. Untangling Ecological Complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 248 p.Google Scholar
McGinley, R. J. 1990. Entomological collection management—Are we really managing? Association of Systematics Collection Newsletter, 18:30–31.Google Scholar
McGinley, R. J. 1992. Where's the management in collection management? pp. 309–333. In Rose, C. L., Williams, S. L., and Gisbert, J. (eds.), Current Issues, Initiatives, and Future Directions for the Preservation and Conservation of Natural History Collections. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1982. The adequacy of the fossil record, pp. 75–117. In Joysey, K. A. and Friday, A. E. (eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Systematics Association Special Volume No. 21. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C., and Donovan, S. K. 1998. An overview of the completeness of the fossil record, pp. 111–131. In Donovan, S. K. and Paul, C. R. C. (eds.), The Adequacy of the Fossil Record. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Reilly, S. 1990. Comparative ontogeny of cranial shape in salamanders using Resistant fit Theta Rho Analysis, pp. 311–322. In Rohlf, F. J. and Bookstein, F. L. (eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Special Publication Number 2, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Ricklefs, R. E. 1979. Ecology. Chiron Press, New York, 966 p.Google Scholar
Sadler, P. M. 1981. Sediment accumulation rates and the completeness of stratigraphic sections. Journal of Geology, 89: 569–584 Google Scholar
Shaw, A. B. 1964. Time in Stratigraphy. McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
White, R. D. 1998. A collection assessment survey for invertebrate paleontology: An example from the Yale Peabody Museum. 13th Annual Meeting of the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections, Program with Abstracts, p. 27.Google Scholar
Williams, S. L., Monk, R. R., and Arroyo-Cables, J. 1996. Applying McGinley's model for collection assessment to collections of recent vertebrates. Collection Forum, 12: 21–35 Google Scholar
Winsor, M. P. 1976. Starfish, Jellyfish, and the Order of Life. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 228 p.Google Scholar
Winsor, M. P. 1991. Reading the Shape of Nature. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 324 p.Google Scholar