Subject: Re: Old records

From: Kenelm Philip <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 10:55:43 -0900

Patrick Roper asked: "Did past collectors leave good records?"

        We have the same problem in North America. It is hard to think of
a type locality more vague than "British America"--but that is indeed the
TL for one northern species of butterfly.
        As regards private collectors who allowed their collections to die
with them, I agree with Patrick--they represent wasted effort as far as
scientific purposes go. However, as long as the populations were not damaged
by the collecting I see nothing wrong with the collecting per se. Scientific
documentation is not the _only_ reason for making a collection...  Even now
there are regions in North America where it is hard to imagine current levels
of collecting causing any problems for species, subspecies, or even popu-
lations.
        As regards old material that _was_ deposited in museums, the situation
is not as bad. I have looked through the Alaskan holdings in a number of
North American museums (material back to the late 1800s) and in most cases
have found it useful for distributional records. Of course, I am not working
at a county level! There are no counties in Alaska, or the Yukon and
Northwest
Territories (or corresponding parts of Russia).

        My own personal reaction to the fact that much past collecting was
not correctly documented is to emphasize that current collecting _should_
be done properly, and the specimens deposited in permanent collections. Be-
cause the job was not well done in the past is no reason not to do it right
now!

                                                        Ken Philip
[email-masked]