"Threat" to types (or institutions?)

Joseph H. Kirkbride, Jr. jkirkbri at ASRR.ARSUSDA.GOV
Tue Jul 11 12:29:37 CDT 1995

On Tue, 11 Jul 1995, Doug Yanega wrote:

> Correct me then, if I'm wrong - this would mean that, like the Lacey Act,
> virtually any specimens for which permits and other such paperwork does not
> exist are considered "illegal", and subject to repatriation. Without a
> "grandfather" clause, wouldn't this legitimately threaten to devastate
> entire museums, and not just their type collections?

Over the last 29 years, I have collected more than 5,000 botanical
specimens with more than 30,000 duplicates in various countries.  I
always worked with my own permit or under the auspices of an existing
institutional permit.  The specimens were distributed to dozens of
herbaria all over the world unaccompanied by copies of the permits.  In
most herbaria there is not documentation to prove what was originally
collected "illegally" or "legally", even for material collected in the
last decade.  Everything would have to be repatriated without a
grandfather clause.  Also plant collections are very different from
insect collections; each of my collections had three to ten duplicates.
Where are the duplicates sent and how are they dealt with?

Joseph H. Kirkbride, Jr.
USDA, Agricultural Research Service
Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory
Room 304, Building 011A, BARC-West
Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2350 USA
Voice telephone: 301-504-9447
FAX: 301-504-5810
Internet: jkirkbri at asrr.arsusda.gov

More information about the Taxacom mailing list