Number 3 - Geological Curators Group

More documents

Recommendations

Info

BOOK REVIEWS Environmental recording and museums. MDA Information, 8 (4). 87-129. What has everyone else been doing?Geological Curator readers, familiar with thenow long-established National Scheme forGeological Site Documentation, might like togive themselves a pat on the back by readingthis special issue of Information. It isa collection of nine short to medium-lengtharticles which describe the state of the artof environmental recording by biologists,geologists, historians, and archaeologists.The link with museums in the title proves tobe somewhat tenuous - and this is where thepat on the back comes - as it is shown thatthe onlv curators who have initiated.devised, and developed a working, nationallycoordinated environmental recording scheme sofar are museum geologists.Our Archaeology colleagues come very close towinning the imaginary 'oscar' for beingfirst. Oxfordshire's Sites and MonumentsRecord, for example, was set up in 1967,beating the CGSD scheme by ten years.However, as described by C.J. Bone, althoughit developed at Woodstock into a comprehensiveenvironmental records service, it neverformed the basis of anything to be appliednationally in the way that the Leicesterpilot geological site register (1975) did.More recently, the 1979 Wiltshire BuildingsRecord described by Pamela Slocombe has beenable to use the standards and expertise ofMDA (in this case partly because MartinNorgate, new Museums Officer for Wiltshire,joined the steering committee) in the sameway as have the many other post-MDAarchaeologylhistory site recording schemes.Meanwhile, as shown in four of the remaining articles, biology seems to have been lapped in the race to start a national environmental recording scheme. At first this seems surprising in view of the wider public appeal and much greater numbers of curators of natural history (than, for example, of geology); but I suspect that a ubiquitous enthusiasm for the natural world has made itall the harder for biologists to get togetherand run in, the same direction. Everyonewants to have a go! There are currently, andmore or less independently, potential schemeseither at an early or advanced stage ofdevelopment by the Nature Conservation Trusts(a national scheme sponsored by the RoyalSociety for Nature Conservation, whichincludes computer hardware), by the Instituteof Terrestrial Ecology of NERC through theBiological Records Centre (a peripheral indexof site information generated by speciesrecords), by the Biology Curators' Group(first steps towards a national schemeresulting from a seminar held in Leicester,September 19841, and of course by individualmuseums which may or may not adopt the MDA'sstandards, data recording formats, orsoftware. Interestingly, too, there areinstances of help, encouragement or moneyfrom the Nature Conservancy Council for elements of all these separate initiatives. M.F. Stanley summarises the history of thedeveloment of the National Scheme for 'Geological Site Documentation. With 41recording centres compiling records in astandard manner, the scheme is ideal for theapplication of a standard electronicinformation storage and retrieval system;with this in mind, MDA and Derbyshire Museumshave developed a peripheral package to GOScalled the LAP (Locality ApplicationsPackage). As readers may know, GCG Committeehas proposed the establishment of acentralised data bank for geological siterecords, while the Conservation Committee ofthe Geological Society is pressing NCC toestablish a Geological Records Centre. TheLAP can also handle environmental records forother disciplines; this surely gives thelong awaited opportunity for geologists,biologists, archaeologists, historians and,for that matter, artists and technolo~iststoo, to adopt an interchangeable, stkdardsystem for their environmental recording.I have left to the end what is in fact the introductory article by G. Stansfield. After a summary of the development of environmental recording in museums, the author contemplates "the way forward'' with apparent pessimism. "The present situation is very complex and unsatisfactory'' he writes, with particular reference to biological environmental recording; there is, for instance, no agreement on a definition of the recording unit - the site - for biology or archaeology. The papers in this special issue of Information demonstrate the need for a coordinated and standardised system for environmental recording in museums. BCG is to set up a working party, and Stansfield comments that a similar initiative is needed for archaeology and history.To which I add from the concluding article by R.B. Light, "it was assumed (by IRGMA) that ... a single multidisciplinary structure for museum records .. . . would facilitate the exchange of computer-based records between institutions. However the MDA data standard .. . has not been widely used ... for the exchange of records." To me, it seems that environmental recorders should not ignore the help of MDA ,and the opportunities of the now-availableLAP package and recording standards.Biologists, archaeologists and all - don't beLAPped by geology again!John Martin Keeper of Earth Sciences Leicestershire Museums, Art Galleries and Records Service 96 New Walk, Leicester LE1 6TD
MORRIS. S.F. and FORTEY. R.A. (compilers).1985. catalogue of the type and figuredspecimens of Trilobita in the British Museum(Natural History), i+183pp. 8pls. BritishMuseum (Natural History), London.The palaeontological collections of theBritish Museum (Natural History) have never,it seems, been victims of over-cataloguing,at least in published form. Catalogues ofseveral large groups or parts of groups havein the past appeared sporadically,particularly in two bursts: one in the lateyears of the last century, and one aboutfifty years ago. This volume is (I think)the fourth to appear in what may be called amodern (third) series of 'type and figured'catalogues. One should not be so churlish asto ask why it has taken so long to produceand publish this first listing of what is animportant group of fossils. Rather oneshould give sincere and heartfelt thanks thatthe motivation (andlor money) has beenprovided (presumably from 'upstairsf) tobring to general notice the depth and breadthof the collection.It is a wonder that this trilobite collectionhas, at least in the recent past, been sowell used and published - even without such acatalogue. That it has may largely be placedat the doors of the compilers of this volume- Sam Morris and Richard Fortey - who havebeen the 'living catalogues' of thecollections. If they didn't have in theirhead the information you wanted about thecollection, there was a struggle in view tofind what information there was. They havenow compiled this catalogue; it is ascomplete as currently possible, and it canonly greatly aid trilobite research.The book is A4 in size and printed byoffset. About 3,000 entries are listedalphabetically by their current generic name,while older generic attributions are crossreferenced.The work includes all relevantmaterial to the end of 1982. Each entry iscomprised of the generic and specific name(in bold type) followed by author and date,the status of the specimen, its BM(NH1catalogue number, its plate and figure numberin the reference given, its horizon,locality, and finally the collector. At theend of the entry section. 16 pages ofreferences are given. An index of specificand subspecific names, with presentlyacceptedgeneric attribution completes thetext. It is a pity that no room could befound for further indexes of stratigraphy,geography and, particularly, collectors. Theeight plates are included to l.. .correct someof (the) omissionsf caused by the discoveryl.. ..of a number of specimens which had beeninadequately figured, or unnecessarilyneglected1. Specimens from Iran, Australia,USA, India, Portugal, Bolivia, Burma, SouthAfrica, Federal Republic of Germany, andCanada are figured. Either to my own shame,or to underline the need for such acatalogue, l here discovered that the typesof Prosopiscus mimus Salter, 1865 from Indiawere safe in London, presumably for over acentury, although in the 60's I had assumed(mercifully without saying so in print) thatFig.1. Front cover illustration for BM(NH)Trilobite catalogue. ,Arctinurus boltoni(Bigsby, 18751, from the upper SilurianRochester Shale of Lockport, New York State,x0.5.they were long-lost or languishing in foreignparts.A random check on the entries disappointinglysoon showed some errors. Podowrinellastraitonensis is a Lamont species, not oneerected by Clarkson, Eldredge and Henry (itis their genus); the holotype of Acernaspissuperciliexcelsis was figured by Howells1982, p1.10, fig.18 (not fig.10). But by farthe great majority of entries I checked wascorrect; inaccuracies of detail areinevitable in a work of this nature. Ipresume that the compilers would be gratefulfor notification of incorrect or incompletedetails, or of material which is supposed tobe at BM(NH) but is not listed - that is, ifyou can find a copy of this catalogue tocheck. For now we come to the bad news. At125.00, this catalogue is massivelyoverpriced. The Trustees of the BM(NH) willhave difficulty in keeping up with theinfringements of copyright which willundoubtedly occur. Nevertheless,congratulations to the compilers, and notleast the motivators.This catalogue is a must for the trilobiteworkers of the world and all universityreference libraries. It is clearly laid out,and with its reference list and systematicindex it is a work which will be a time-saverfor research workers.Dr P.D. LaneDepartment of GeologyKeele UniversityStaffordshire STS 5BG
Page 2:
THE GEOLOGICAL CURATORVOLUME 4, N0.
Page 13: year 1884, after he had retired fro
Page 16 and 17: THE BEASLEY COLLECTION OF PHOTOGRAP
Page 18 and 19: Fig.3. Triassic (Lower Keuper) sand
Page 20 and 21: Fig.7. part of the display of verte
Page 22 and 23: BEASLEY'S COMMENTSADDITIONAL COMMEN
Page 24 and 25: BEASLEY 'S COMENTSADDITIONAL COMNEN
Page 30 and 31: BEASLEY 'S COMMENTSADDITIONAL COMME
Page 43 and 44: BEASLEY' S COMMENTSADDITIONAL COMME
Page 47: - The Geological W, Vo1.4, No.3, 19
Page 50 and 51: CHEMICAL PREPARATIONMechanical prep
Page 52 and 53: -The Geological C-,Vo1.4, No.3, 198
Page 54 and 55: Fig.4.Gerrothorax, a Triassic plagi
Page 56 and 57: Pickford to ensure that the collect
Page 58 and 59: ~ ~.Lt. Col. Echalaz, for which 'a
Page 60 and 61: , . , ,..S4b ,11. CATALOGUE, ' 3-0,
Page 62 and 63: The collection of fossils and speci
Page 66 and 67: FOWLES, J. 1982. A short history of
Page 68: POSTSCRIPTTHE ERUDITE GEOLOGIST(Wit
show all

Number 3 - Geological Curators Group

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?