Paleobiologia

Paleobiology, 31(1), 2005, pp. 1–5

MATTERS

OF THE

RECORD

The importance of museum collections in paleobiology
Warren D. Allmon
Paleontological Research Institution, 1259 Trumansburg Road, Ithaca, New York 14850. E-mail: wda1@cornell.edu Accepted: 18 June 2004

For most people, the destruction of books has universally come to be thought of as a symbol of barbarity (e.g., Eco 1983).The burning of the library in Louvain, Belgium, by the German army in 1914 was, for example, seen around the world not only as an act of terror but also as an act against posterity (Tuchman 1962). Nazi book-burning is a virtual icon of anti-intellectualism and social malignancy (Rose 2001). The 1992 destruction of the main library in Sarajevo, the Vijecnica, during the Balkan war (which tookplace 78 years to the day after the destruction of the library in Louvain) was seen by many as one of that conflict’s most tragic incidents (see Riedlmayer 1996; Zeco 1996; Basbanes 2003). Even if we justifiably bemoan the anti-intellectualism of much of modern society, Western culture at its best cherishes books and libraries as symbols of civilization, humanity, and intellectual freedom. It istherefore striking that we by and large do not see threats to other accumulations of knowledge and potential knowledge in the same way. Geoscience and natural history collections are frequently cited as among the largest and most valuable sources of information about the natural world, yet they are also frequently underfunded and undervalued, and cited as threatened, imperiled, or endangered (e.g., NRC2002). Colleges and universities that would never think of discarding their libraries dispense with collections with few apparent reservations or repercussions.1
1

Reliable accounts of institutions actually discarding fossil collections are elusive, but anecdotal accounts are so numerous that it is reasonable to conclude that these losses are not uncommon. See, for example, NRC (2002: p. 33).2005 The Paleontological Society. All rights reserved.

Collections that are retained are often squeezed into smaller spaces and/or tended by fewer staff with smaller budgets (NRC 2002). The reasons for this situation are many and complex. At least in the case of fossil collections, however, one reason is that professional paleontologists themselves are not of one mind about exactly how valuablethey are. Although no paleontologist would deny the value of collections of type and figured specimens, the value of non-type specimens in existing fossil collections is not unanimously agreed upon. This failure to speak with a single voice has complicated discussions of the present and future state of these collections. If they are valuable, we should clarify under what circumstances and treatthem as such. If they aren’t, they’re taking up space and resources that could be used for other higher priorities. Either way, we would all benefit by coming to a clearer understanding of the issue. It is obvious that existing fossil collections are not very useful or valuable in a number of respects. Many collections, particularly those containing specimens collected decades or centuries ago, weremade or curated in ways that have reduced their information content and accordingly their utility for many modern paleobiological purposes. Many, perhaps most, older collections were not volumetrically sampled. They are therefore usually not representative of actual abundance or body size, and they also cannot be used to assess the effects of sampling on estimates of, for example, diversity (e.g.,Alroy et al. 2001). Many have poor geographic or stratigraphic provenance data, giving them limited utility for
0094-8373/05/3101-0001/$1.00

2

WARREN D. ALLMON

many kinds of biostratigraphic or evolutionary studies that require relatively high-resolution information. For all of these reasons, some paleontologists have suggested that existing collections are of limited utility for...