[Taxacom] Herbarium sequence revisited

Chapman, Alex alexc at calm.wa.gov.au
Tue Jun 6 08:45:52 CDT 2006

Interestingly, the architectural design currently taking shape actually splits the collection into a number of vaults - not entirely different to the 'clusters' you propose.
Part of the challenge is to consider how the APGII phylogeny, as expressed in the families represented in the Western Australian flora, and the number of specimens of each family in the collection, might best be assigned across the four equal-sized vaults.
Alex R. Chapman                   Email: alexc at calm.wa.gov.au 
FloraBase Manager            http://florabase.calm.wa.gov.au/ 
Research Scientist           Voice/Fax: +61 8 9334 0513 /0515 
WA Herbarium - Department of Conservation and Land Management 
Locked Bag 104 Bentley Delivery Centre Western Australia 6983 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Thomas G. Lammers 
	Sent: Tue 6/06/2006 8:46 PM 
	To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
	Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Herbarium sequence revisited

	At 02:50 AM 6/6/2006, Chapman, Alex wrote:
	>My interpretation of these previous discussions is that most contributors
	>believed that a systematic sequence (as opposed to alphabetic) was the
	>preferred one if the opportunity arose, however, adoption of APG may be
	>premature (as at January 2002).  In June 2006, my feeling is that the
	>basic ordinal framework is now strongly supported and unlikely to change
	>topology in any radical way.  However, as Peter Stevens acknowledged in
	>1999, "even with the APG system, there are very, very many ways of
	>arranging families in a linear sequence".  My question is - has anyone
	>attempted to define a linear sequence of families aligned to the APG II
	>ordinal framework (and below) and has it been implemented in a herbarium
	>of reasonable size?  If so, what is the user experience - for both
	>curators and visitors.  If it was considered but rejected as an option,
	>what were the perceived problems (and what system was subsequently adopted)?
	>Our team here would value any insights TAXACOM list members may have on
	>this subject.
	Here is a totally radical thought, that basically just represents thinking
	out loud.
	Basic premise: a linear sequence seems antithetical to our tree-like model
	of evolution, yet some of us desire that thearrangement of families relate
	to phylogeny.
	Would it be at all possible to arrange cabinets not in linear rows, but in
	*clusters*???   Islands representing the various APG II orders?  And the
	allied clusters nmearer one another?  It would probably be terribly
	wasteful of floor space, but that might depend on the footprint
	available.  In some spaces, would it perhaps be a more efficient use of
	space?? (I have a hard time conceptualizing in 3-D so I can't say.)
	In any case, it might be something to consider, for folks who have rejected
	the ease and convenience of the alphabet.
	Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.
	Associate Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
	Department of Biology and Microbiology
	University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
	Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA
	e-mail:       lammers at uwosh.edu
	phone:      920-424-1002
	fax:           920-424-1101
	Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and
	biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.
	"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
	                                                               -- Anonymous
	Taxacom mailing list
	Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the
addressee only. It may contain confidential or privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify
the sender, delete the email and attachments from your system and
destroy any copies you may have taken of the email and its attachments.
Duplication or further distribution by hardcopy, by electronic means
or verbally is not permitted without permission.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list