museology 12

MuseologyMuseum of Texas Tech University

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY

Center for Advanced Studyof Museum Science and Heritage Management

Assessment of the Mammal Collection at the Museo de Zoología of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador - QCAZ

NUMBER 12 July 2009

The proper care and use of collections is often one of the more difficult aspects of maintaining a museum. Collections come in many forms and may represent the most sacred and profound of a society’s cultural and natural heritage, or embody the common elements of everyday life. Nonetheless, fine art objects, natural history specimens, aboriginal artifacts, or ordinary articles require equal special care once they are placed in the custody of a museum.

The ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (2006) includes a number of sections relating to care and use of collections. Sections 2.23 and 8.4 are of particular interest:

Section 2.23 states, “Preventive conservation is an important element of museum policy and collections care. It is an essential responsibility of members of the museum profession to create and maintain a protective environment for the collections in their care, whether in store or display or in transit.”

Section 8.4 addresses the issue of academic and scientific responsibility. “Members of the mu-seum profession should promote the investigation, preservation, and use of information inherent in collections. They should, therefore, refrain from any activity or circumstance that might result in the loss of such academic and scientific data.”

When collections of cultural or natural materials are assembled and maintained in a museums, that status separates them from other types of objects. The responsibilities associated with maintaining those collec-tions include preservation, research and, in most instances, transfer of the associated data to the related fields of study in the form of publications. Although the successful fulfillment of these tasks involves an obligation to collections care and use to ensure that those duties are met, the methods involved in the process may differ.

To meet this obligation, collections must be prepared, housed, and maintained in a manner giving atten-tion to accepted preservation practices to ensure the items can continue to be used and studied. The value of collected objects and specimens is lost or substantially reduced if they, or data inherent in them, are altered or compromised due to neglect. Therefore, individual objects must be kept in a condition as close to their discipline-defined state of preservation as possible. Furthermore, individual items must be properly marked, housed, and linked with their descriptive data. Objects that cannot be located, identi-fied, or documented are of minimal value to the institution or researchers.

The basic method of ensuring the proper care and preservation of collections while in museums is preven-tive conservation. This procedure places emphasis on the collection rather than the object. It focuses on creating an environment in which objects are protected against agents of destruction or degradation.

Carefully prepared and housed specimens provide information and stimulate ideas for research, and further investigation of the natural and cultural environs. Research and study of collections encourage scholars to explore the ways individuals and societies perceive, appreciate, and interact with the world in which we live. The objects and specimens in museum collections are important to our knowledge about the world, providing a foundational record of past and present life within defined regions of the world’s biosphere.

Issues relating to proper stewardship of artifacts and specimens held by museums are of continuing concern worldwide. Such concerns are not limited to one type of collection, one type of museum, or one frame of reference. Determining where to establish the baseline for care of collections is often a challenge. The condition report and other specialized assessment processes are tools used by museums to describe evaluative initiatives of a specific nature to determine the qualitative, as well as the physical condition, of incorporated objects. Assessment is a valued and necessary part of proper collections management.

Front Cover: The Zoology Museum of Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador, at Quito, currently holds the most important reference collection of Ecuadorian mammals. Image by Santiago F. Burneo

i

Editor’s Statement

Assessment of the Mammal Collection at the Museo de Zoología of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador - QCAZ

Ma. Alejandra Camacho and Santiago F. Burneo

Abstract

The QCAZ has a mammalian collection of about 10,200 specimens, from which approximately 8,000 were evaluated by applying the Collection Health Index (CHI). This index is a numerical coding system that deter-mines the curatorial status of the collection based on evaluation units, and reviews the data associated with the specimens. This index was chosen because it is a qualitative method that not only allows evaluation of specimens but also the associated data. It allows prioritizing management strategies, determining improve-ment through time, and comparisons with other collections. The CHI is a numeric descriptor that compares the number of well preserved specimens to the complete collection holdings. In contrast to other indices, it does not assume an optimum value of one because that would mean that all specimens would have optimum conditions and not the normal entropy levels associated with a dynamic collection. The initial resulting value of the CHI was 0.63. After taking care of some curatorial problems that arose from the evaluation, such as resolving taxonomic and geographical incongruences, replacing defective storage units, rearranging specimens by standardized orders, or updating databases, the CHI was raised to 0.79, with over 70% of the specimens in an optimum curatorial status.

Key words: Collection Health Index, collections, mammals, natural history museums

Resumen

El QCAZ mantiene una colección de mamíferos con aproximadamente 10 200 especímenes de los cuales 8 000 fueron evaluados mediante el Índice de Salud de Colecciones (ISC). Este índice es un sistema de códigos numéricos que permite determinar el estado curatorial de la colección basado en unidades de evaluación, y revisar la información asociada a los ejemplares. Este índice fue escogido por ser un método cualitativo que no solo permite evaluar los especímenes sino su información asociada. Permite priorizar estrategias de manejo, determinar mejoras a través del tiempo, y realizar comparaciones con otras colecciones. El ISC es un descriptor numérico que muestra el número de especímenes en buen estado curatorial en relación al número de ejemplares de la colección. En contraste con otros índices, éste no espera un valor óptimo de 1 debido que significaría que todos los especímenes estén en óptimas condiciones y no niveles normales de entropía asociados a una colección dinámica. El valor inicial del ISC fue de 0,63. Luego de solucionar algunos problemas curatoriales tales como incongruencias taxonómicas y geográficas, reemplazo de recipientes de almacenamiento defectivos, locación adecuada de ejemplares, o actualización de la información en la base de datos, dicho índice fue elevado a 0,79, con más del 70% de los especímenes en un óptimo estado de curación.

Palabras clave: Índice de Salud de Colecciones, colecciones, mamíferos, museos de historia natural

Museology, Museum of Texas Tech University2

Introduction

(74.2%), followed by rodents (19.5%), new world opossums (2.5%), and carnivores (1.3%). All remain-ing orders are less than 1% of the total holdings. About 75% of the described species for Ecuador (Albuja and Arcos 2007; Tirira 2007) are represented in the collection. Approximately two thirds of the col-lection is preserved in 75% ethanol or another fluid preservative; the other third are specimens prepared as skins, skulls, and skeletons.

The mammal collection at QCAZ has faced common conservation problems such as limited access to collector data, incomplete geographic information, curatorial problems, and incorrect taxonomic iden-tification of several voucher specimens. For these reasons, it was deemed necessary to make a qualita-tive and quantitative assessment of the specimens held in the collection.

Although natural history museums began as a way to collect and display interesting objects, currently concern has been redirected to preservation of these objects. For this reason, several types of evaluations have been designed; while some are just inventories (e.g. Gagnon and Fitzgerald 2004; O’Connel et al. 2004), others are detailed and exhaustive (e.g. Cato 1990; McGinley 1993; Moser et al. 2001, Waller and Simmons 2003). The latter evaluations, although time consuming, are important because they allow assessment of the object’s condition, quantification of the results so future monitoring can be designed, gathering of related evidence about factors that cause most deterioration, and setting of curatorial priorities.

In a collection like the QCAZ Mammal Division, with a manageable number of individual records (7,984 at the time of the evaluation), it was determined that the McGinley Model or Collection Health Index (McGin-ley 1993; Williams et al. 1996) was appropriate as an intuitive and straightforward way to evaluate the general preservation of the collection.

This qualitative technique for collection evaluation was proposed in 1992 by the United States National Museum of Natural History (USNM, Washington, D.C.) at the First World Congress for the Preserva-tion and Conservation of Natural History Collections (Fernández et al. 2005). This approach was refined by McGinley a year later, and renamed as the “Col-lection Health Index” (CHI).

Knowledge of Ecuador´s biodiversity, as well as any other country in the world, has been largely achieved by the acquisition, management, preservation, and study of scientific collections deposited in natural history museums and educational institutions (Winker 2004). These collections are detailed historic archives of past and present life, as well as records of distribu-tion of species in a defined place and time (King 2001; Soberón et al. 2003; Simmons and Muñoz-Saba 2005). Natural history museum collections and their associated information are essential to the integrity of biological knowledge (Simmons 1999; Ponder et al. 2001). Museum collections house voucher speci-mens that constitute the basis of our understanding in sciences such as taxonomy, biodiversity, evolution, biogeography, ecology, and bioinformatics (Baker et al. 1998; Krishtalka and Humphrey 2000). Natural history collections must be correctly managed, based on considerations of order, growth, and conservation of specimens and their associated information (Sim-mons and Muñoz-Saba 2003).

The Museo de Zoología of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (QCAZ) is administered by the Biological Sciences School of the Exact and Natural Sciences College. The museum is composed of the Vertebrate Division, which started its activities in 1969, and the Invertebrate Division which started in the early 1980s. Presently, the collections hold approximately 1,600,000 specimens to support zoological research, to permanently safeguard rep-resentative samples of the Ecuadorian fauna, and to promote education through expositions and through mass media.

QCAZ is one of the most prestigious Ecuadorian museums and is recognized at national and inter-national levels. The collection primarily contains Ecuadorian specimens, including type material and historical records of species that are known or likely to be extinct (Coloma et al. 2000; Coloma 2002). Both divisions holds specimens that are labeled, recorded in databases, taxonomically arranged, and preserved according to museum standards. Specimens are available for exchange and loan according to estab-lished regulations.

The subject of this study, the mammal collection at QCAZ, is composed of approximately 10,200 specimens that cover every province in the country. The collection is better represented by chiropterans

Camacho and Burneo—Assessment of Mammal Collection at QCAZ 3

The CHI quantifies the curatorial status of evaluation units and ranks them in hierarchical levels, making it possible to determine the curation status of the col-lection, make comparisons between collections, and measure its progress in time (Fernández 2000). These goals can be accomplished with the proper evalua-tion of conservation and management policies for the associated data. The CHI was initially proposed for the evaluation of entomological collections, ranked on a scale from Level 1 to Level 10 (McGinley 1993). Williams et al. (1996) modified the method using a scale graded from Level 1 to 7 designed to assess vertebrate collections at the Museum of Texas Tech

Methods

University. Later, Fernandez et al. (2005) reinstated the ten level model and added a Level 0 to evaluate the specimens in vertebrate and invertebrate collec-tions at Instituto de Ciencias Naturales of the Uni-versidad Nacional de Colombia, and the Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos “Alexander von Humboldt” in Colombia (Fernández et al. 2005)

Based on the Fernandez et al. (2005) model, the main goal of this project was to apply the CHI to the mam-mal collection at QCAZ to determine the status of the specimens and to assess and correct any problems encountered.

We considered each specimen as the evaluation unit for this assessment. Curation, identification, storage, and use of specimens for research were evaluated. We modified the criteria of the original proposals (McGinley 1993; Williams et al. 1996; Fernández et al. 2005) to make the evaluation levels and categories consistent with the scale at which the QCAZ mammal collection was to be analyzed. For this assessment, Levels 1 and 5 (sensu Fernández 2005) were divided into specific sublevels, and evaluation criteria were assigned for each level in order to cover every curato-rial aspect of this collection. Each specific criterion in each level or sublevel was recorded as acceptable or unacceptable, coded as 1 or 0, respectively. Code 1 was also used when a specific criterion did not apply to certain levels of specimen evaluation. Mi-crosoft Excel spreadsheets were designed to record evaluation codes. This assessment method allowed consideration of one or more curatorial deficiencies for each specimen, if necessary. The modified levels and sublevels were as follows:

Level 0: Presence of Specimen.—This level appraised the presence of the specimen in the collection or as loans in other institutions. A specimen was considered missing if it or the proper loan documents were not found even though it is re-corded in the database, containers, or labels.

0 = the specimen is not in the collection. 1 = the specimen is in the collection or is

loaned to another institution.

Level 1: Conservation Status.—This level evaluates the conservation status of specimens.

Sublevel 1.1: Physical Status.—A specimen fails under this sublevel if it has important signals of decay and cannot be recovered with curatorial measures.

0 = the specimen is in poor physical status and cannot be recovered.

1 = the specimen is in a good physical status or presents problems that can be recovered with curatorial measures, even though these can compromise long term preservation.

Sublevel 1.2: Damage Risk.—This sublevel evalu-ates if specimens are in risk of chemical or mechanical damage. The main harmful agents taken into account are evaporation or insufficient preservative fluid, light exposure, excessive numbers of specimens per con-tainer, microbiological contaminants, biological invasion, or ruptures or detachments of parts of the specimen.

0 = the specimen is affected or at risk of affec-tion of the indicated agents.

1= the specimen is not affected nor at risk of affection of the indicated agents.

Sublevel 1.3: Mandatory Collection Data.—The specimen fails this criterion if the basic man-datory collection data, locality and date of collection, are missing.

0 = absence of basic collection data. 1 = basic collection data present.


Sublevel 1.4: Supplementary Parts.—This sub-level evaluates the presence of associated parts through examination of the specimen or annotations of the specimen’s data. Supple-mentary parts considered are skull, post cranial skeleton, and tissues. It does not apply to specimens that are preserved as a whole.

0 = supplementary parts of a specimen, indi-cated as existent, are not associated.

1 = supplementary parts of a specimen, indi-cated as existent, are associated.

Sublevel 1.5: Labeling.—This sublevel evaluates if the specimens, supplementary parts, and storage containers are properly labeled with complete and readable information.

0 = specimen, container, or supplementary parts are not correctly labeled.

1 = specimen, container, or supplementary parts are correctly labeled.

Level 2: Origin of Specimen.—This level evaluates if the specimens were acquired by research by the museum staff, occasional captures, donations, or loans from other institutions. A specimen fails this criterion if the collector’s names are unknown.

0 = collector or collectors names are not known.

1 = collector or collectors names are known.

Level 3: Determination of Specimens.—This level evaluates if the taxonomic identification is complete.

0 = the specimen has incomplete or potentially erroneous identification.

1 = the specimen has a complete, updated, and reliable identification (genus and species), based on the museum curator or a specialist.

Level 4: Storage.—This level evaluates if the speci-mens are stored appropriately.

0 = the specimen is not stored in an appropriate place.

1 = the specimen is stored in an appropriate place.

Level 5: Associated Information.—This level evaluates if the specimens’ associated data is consistent, coherent, and updated in the different informa-tion depositories (field catalogs, database, and containers).

Sublevel 5.1: Data Consistency.—This sublevel evaluates if the correct collection information

is replicated on the labels, containers, and field catalogs.

0 = the specimen’s information is not consistent in the labels, containers, or field catalogs.

1 = the specimen’s information is consistent in the labels, containers, or field catalogs.

Sublevel 5.2: Data Coherence.—This sublevel evaluates if the taxonomic, geographic, sexual, and morphometric information associated with the specimens is coherent and present in information depositories.

0 = the specimen’s information is not taxonomi-cally, geographically, sexually, or morphometri-cally coherent.

1 = the specimen’s information is coherent at all levels.

Sublevel 5.3: Updating.—This criterion evaluates if the geographic and taxonomic information of the specimens are up to date.

0 = the geographic and taxonomic information of the specimen has been updated.

1 = the geographic and taxonomic information of the specimen has not been updated.

Level 6: Records in Database.—This level evaluates if the specimens are correctly entered in the collection database. A specimen fails this level if, in spite of being correctly identified and cu-rated, it is not present in the database.

0 = the specimen is not in the database. 1 = the specimen is in the database.

Level 7: Information Accessible for Inventories.—This level groups all the specimens that have been properly curated and entered in the database, and that store indispensable information that can be extracted to produce faunal inventories and species lists.

0 = the specimen does not have the indicated attributes.

1 = the specimen has the indicated attri-butes.

Level 8: Supplementary Information.—This level groups all the properly curated specimens that, besides the basic collection data, have associated information such as ecological, ethological, climatic information, detailed col-lection locality, etc.




Level 9: Collection Usefulness for Research.—This level groups all the properly curated specimens that have been used for research such as es-says, dissertations, or theses.



Level 10: Collection Use for Scientific Papers.—This level groups all the properly curated specimens that have been used in scientific publications, revisions, or species descriptions. This level includes type specimens.



Fernandez et al. (2005) make clear that Levels 0–6 are a curatorial related evaluation and Levels 7–10 refer to usefulness of the collection for research.

In addition, synthesis columns of results for each level were incorporated into the spreadsheets to es-timate the result of each specimen’s evaluation, with a multiplicative formula. The presence of a score of 0 (unacceptable) in any criterion resulted in an unac-

ceptable qualification for the total of that level. Thus, every specimen was assigned to the level where the first 0 score was found.

These data allowed us to obtain a collection profile that summarized the total of all evaluation units in each level. This information can be useful to establish collection management priorities, to keep track of collection maintenance through time, and to compare conservation status among different types of pres-ervation (fluid preserved specimens, dry specimens, vital tissues, etc.). In addition, this methodology could be applied to different taxa.

During the evaluation some obvious maintenance and conservation problems of specimens that needed urgent attention were resolved. The curatorial status of every specimen was assessed in order to place them in a particular level according to the Collec-tion Health Index. With this information a Collection Profile was obtained both before and after resolving curatorial problems.

The final results of all the specimens in each level allow calculating a CHI which is the sum of Levels 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 divided by the total number of evaluation units (McGinley 1993; Fernández 2000).

Results and Discussion

A total of 7,984 specimens were assessed between December 2005 and August 2006. The collection profile obtained after taking curatorial measures to resolve problems resulted in a considerable reduction in the total number of specimens scored at levels re-lated to curatorial issues, as well as the increment of specimens in levels related to the usage of specimens for research, in comparison with the initial collection profile (Fig. 1). For instance, there were fewer speci-mens rated at Level 1 (Conservation Status), Level 4 (Storage), and Level 5 (Associated Information).

Some of the curatorial problems at Level 1 that were possible to fix during the study included refill of evaporated preservation fluid; change of defective storage containers or plastic lids; redistribution of specimens that were crowded together in contain-ers; remediation of specimens infested with fungi; addition of readable acid-free labels; replication of correct data on labels, containers, or in the database;

and recording of missing specimens or associated parts.

There was an increase in the total number of speci-mens in Level 3 because many of those formerly located in Level 1 were relocated to this level at the end of the evaluation. The resolution of curatorial problems allowed us to consider such specimens in the next level at which they presented deficiencies (Fig. 1).

More than one hundred specimens at Level 2 did not have the original collector’s information, making it difficult to determine their origin. However, this is not obvious in the collection profiles because almost all of them had deficiencies at Level 1 because the specimens also had conservation problems that could not be resolved easily.

Level 4 (Storage) related problems were completely resolved resulting in the proper relocation of all evalu-


ated specimens. Resolved Level 5 (Associated Infor-mation) problems included correcting and updating taxonomical or geographical information.

The increase in the number of specimens with defi-ciencies in Levels 7 (Information Accessible for Inven-tories), 8 (Supplementary Information), 9 (Collection Usefulness for Research), and 10 (Collection Use for Scientific Papers) is due to the resolution of curatorial problems in specimens that were formerly ranked in lower levels. Since Levels 7 to 10 evaluate the use of specimens in different types of scientific research (Fernández et al. 2005), these levels were assigned to only specimens whose curatorial status was correct and that were used actively in scientific research. After solving curatorial problems, we determined that 15% of specimens corresponded to Level 7; 38% to Level 8; 9% to Level 9; and 3% to Level 10.

An indication of health and usefulness of a collec-tion is the use of its specimens in research and the publication of scientific papers. Well preserved and documented specimens are more suitable for research purposes. At least 3,100 specimens have

Figure 1. Collection profiles before and after the resolution of curation-related problems.

Table 1. Publications that reference QCAZ specimens until August 2006.Total

specimensTaxonomic Group Authors / Year Journal Title

5 HeteromyidaeAnderson and Jarrin (2002)

American Museum Novi-ates

A New Species of Spiny Pocket Mouse (Heteromyidae: Heteromys) Endemic to Western Ecuador

114 PhyllostomidaeMuchhala, N., and Jarrín, P

(2002)Biotropica

Flower Visitation by bats in Cloud Forest of Western Ecuador

57 MormoopidaeBoada et al

(2003)Mastozoología Neotropical

Notas ecológicas y reproductivas del murciélago rostro de fantasma Mormoops megalophylla (Chiroptera:

Mormoopidae) en San Antonio de Pichincha, Pichincha, Ecuador

4Soricidae, Mephitidae,

CuniculidaeVoss (2003)

American Museum Novi-ates

A New Species of Thomasomys (Rodentia: Muridae) from Eastern Ecuador, with Remarks on Mammalian Diversity and Biogeography in the Cordillera Oriental

23 PhyllostomidaeBaker et al.

(2004)

Occasional Papers Museum of Texas Tech

University

New Bat of the Genus Lophostoma (Phyllostomidae: Phillostominae) from the Northwestern Ecuador

4 PhyllostomidaeFonseca and Pinto (2004)


University

A new Lophostoma (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) from the Amazonia of Ecuador

4 PhyllostomidaeLasso and Jar-

rin (2005)Acta Chiropterologica 2005 Diet variability of Micronycteris megalotis in pristine and

disturbed habitats of Northwestern Ecuador

3 PhyllostomidaeMuchhala et

al. (2005)Journal of Mammalogy

A new species of Anoura (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) from the Ecuadorian Andes

44 Phyllostomidae Velazco (2005) FieldianaMorphological Phylogeny of the Bat Genus Platyrrhinus Saussure, 1860 (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) with the

Description of Four New Species

18 PhyllostomidaeVelazco and Solari (2005)

Mastozoología TropicalTaxonomía de Platyrrhinus dorsalis y Platyrrhinus linea-

tus (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) en Perú

251Didelphidae, Phyllostomi-dae, Molossidae, Vesper-

tilionidae, Cricetidae

Lee et al. (2006)


University

Report on a Mammal Survey of the Cosanga River Drainage, Ecuador

134

Didelphidae, Soricidae Phyllostomidae, Vespertil-

ionidae,Felidae, Cricetidae

Lee et al. (2006)


University

Results of a Mammal Survey of the Tandayapa Valley, Ecuador


been used in dissertation and thesis studies in the Biological Sciences School at PUCE and other in-stitutions, and at least 661 specimens have been used in published research articles in national and international journals (Table 1). However, only 733 specimens (9% of the total evaluated) and 236 specimens (3%) were located in Level 9 (Collection Usefulness for Research) and Level 10 (Collection Use for Scientific Papers) respectively because they fulfilled optimum curation status and had correct and updated associated data. In Level 10, two holotypes and three paratypes were included (Anderson and Jarrín 2002; Baker et al. 2004; Fonseca and Pinto 2004; Table 2).

Before the evaluation, the Collection Health Index was 0.63, but after solving curatorial problems the

CHI improved to 0.79. This demonstrates how we can improve collection management through this assessment procedure. The results also reflect substantial changes in management since 2001 such as the creation of the Mammalogy Curator position, collaborations with foreign institutions, increase of dissertation projects, more organized field trips, and acquisition of international experience by our staff.

A CHI value must be analyzed for more than its simple mathematical estimation (J. E. Simmons, pers. comm.). A high or improving CHI value would reveal that an important percentage (at least 70%) of specimens are rated between Levels 6 to 10, as well as that collection management is improving over time. It may seem reasonable to think that, in theory, an optimum collection profile is one that shows all

Table 2. Holotypes and paratypes in the QCAZ mammal collection.

Species QCAZ Authors

HolotypesLophostoma aequatorialis 6500 Baker et al. 2004

Lophostoma yasuní 4935 Fonseca and Pinto 2004

ParatypesHeteromys teleus 1788 Anderson and Jarrín 2002

Lophostoma aequatorialis 2384, 6071 Baker et al. 2004

Table 3. Taxonomic groups represented in the QCAZ mammal collection compared with the Ecuadorian mammal fauna (Tirira 2007) in parentheses. Total number of records and percentage of each group related to the total holdings are indicated. a –includes introduced taxa and foreign donations. e – extinct taxa.

Collection specimensOrders Families Genera Species Records %

Didelphimorphia 1 (1) 9 (10) 14 (19) 210 2.63%Paucituberculata 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 (4) 30 0.38%

Sirenia 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 3 0.04%Cingulata 1 (1) 3 (3) 4 (5) 23 0.29%

Pilosa 4 (4) 5 (5) 7 (7) 34 0.43%

Primates a 5 (4) 11 (10) 17 (20) 77 0.96%

Rodentia a 10 (9) 36 (53) 75 (106) 1493 18.70%Lagomorpha a 1 (1) 3 (1) 3 1) 19 0.24%Soricomorpha 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 (3) 33 0.41%

Chiroptera 8 (8) 56 (59) 131 (143) 5896 73.85%Carnivora a 7 (8) 19 (22) 23 (32) 107 1.34%

Perissodactyla a 2 (1) 2 (1) 3 (3) 12 0.15%Artiodactyla a 5 (3) 9 (9) 11 (10) 40 0.50%

Cetacea 3 (5) 3 (20) 3 (28) 4 0.05%Pilosa e 1 1 1 2 0.03%

Probiscidea e 1 1 1 1 0.01%

TOTAL 52 (48) 161 (196) 298 (382) 7984


of evaluation units in Levels 6 to 10; however, this would actually describe a collection that has been static and not actively used for research. In the case of QCAZ, this has been true for some taxa such as Soricomorpha or Paucituberculata that have not been used primarily because of the lack of specialists in the groups. Fernández et al. (2005) proposed that an “ideal” collection profile will be one where 30% of evaluation units are rated at Levels 1 to 5 and the other 70% are in higher levels. This 30% of speci-mens rated in lower levels represents an expected degree of entropy in a dynamic museum. Before solv-ing curatorial deficiencies in the mammal collection at QCAZ, 44.2% of specimens were in Levels 1 to 5, and 55.8% were ranked in higher levels. After correcting the curatorial problems, the percentage of specimens ranked in Levels 6 to 10 increased to 71.4%. Cur-rently, the mammal collection has an “ideal” profile as defined by Fernandez et al. (2005)

It is important to note that 4% of cataloged speci-mens were missing. Although their information is in the database, either the specimens or any loan docu-ments that would justify their absence were not found. Even though lost specimens are not common in the QCAZ mammal collection, this is usually associated with large collections from researchers that used their own management protocols. New museum procedures and policies and trained staff are currently managing accession and storage of specimens in a standardized and appropriate manner.

Taxonomic group profiles and CHIs were also ob-tained from the most representative groups in the collection. Chiroptera and Rodentia were the groups with the best representation in the collection. The Order Chiroptera had 5,896 specimens (Table 3). The CHI increased from 0.66 to 0.81, with a significant proportion of specimens ranked at Levels 6 to 10. After correcting curatorial deficiencies, 74% of the specimens were moved to Levels 6 to10 (Fig. 2a). Our collection of Rodentia had 1,493 specimens (Table 3). The CHI increased from 0.55 to 0.77 due to improved curation. The percentage of speci-mens ranked in upper levels rose from 40% to 62% (Fig. 2b), and important difference from the collection profile of Chiroptera.

More voucher specimens of Rodentia were in Level 1 compared to Chiroptera. In the QCAZ collections, most rodents are prepared as dry specimens (60% of the rodent collection is prepared as dry skins in contrast to only 26.5% of the bats). Because of their

nature, these specimens are subject to structural damage due to the storage environment, especially in high seasonal humidity conditions present in Quito. During the assessment, we noticed that dry skin preparation had more curatorial problems, especially those related to infestations by fungi.

The Didelphimorphia, Carnivora, and Primates are also well-represented groups in the QCAZ collection and have a number of voucher specimens (Table 3). However, these orders had collection profiles with no important differences before and after the resolution

b. Rodentia

Figure 2. Chiroptera and Rodentia Collection profiles before and after resolving curatorial-related problems. Overall CHI values are also shown. a. Chiroptera


of curatorial problems. This was due to their relatively lower number of specimens compared to Rodentia and Chiroptera. Other orders showed a similar trend at a smaller scale.

Enhancement of general collection management, as well as verification, correction, and updating of database information, improved the suitability of the mammal collection materials for research, with more than 70% of specimens in appropriate curatorial condition. We feel that applying the CHI evaluation in the mammal collection of QCAZ has allowed us to identify and resolve problems that otherwise could not have been done obvious. We have implemented new and improved policies that will prevent those problems in the future. Most of this was possible because of the small size of the collection which al-lowed for a specimen by specimen revision. Moser et al. (2001) also used a specimen by specimen exami-

nation of a portion of the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) zoology collection. According to their discussion, this resulted in a greater resolving power of the process and more meaningful data. For vertebrate collections like those in the American Mu-seum of Natural History, the Field Museum of Natural History, or the National Museum of Natural History, that have hundreds of thousands or even millions of specimens, this approach would be unrealistic, and therefore not as efficient in terms of staff effort and work priorities.

Another way to approach this method in larger col-lections would be to evaluate each container (jar, bag, box, drawer) rather than each individual specimen; this method would be effective for finding and solv-ing curatorial problems, but taxonomic, geographic, morphometric, and collection information mistakes potentially could be missed.

Conclusion

The qualitative assessment of the mammal collection at QCAZ resulted in the determination of the curatorial status of specimens, and allowed us to correct and update associated information. This process guar-anteed that collection data will be used in research accurately. Initially, a significant percentage of the collection had common curatorial deficiencies. After these problems where resolved, 71.4% of the speci-mens were ranked as appropriately curated. The CHI

showed an important increase, demonstrating that resolving curatorial problems should be the main priority in natural history collections. Comparisons between large groups in the collection determined that specimens prepared as dry skins, such as those in the Rodentia, presented more Level 1 problems. This type of preparation method requires constant curatorial attention, especially in high humidity con-ditions.

Acknowledgments

QCAZ staff assisted with the evaluation of the col-lection; we thank especially Gabriel Mosquera, Salime Jalil and Viviana Narváez for facilitating this assessment. John E. Simmons guided us through the process of collection evaluation and commented

on the manuscript of this paper. Also, Dr. Clifford Keil reviewed and commented on the manuscript. Petrobrás Energía-Ecuador and the Yasuní Biodi-versity Project provided the necessary supplies for collection management improvement.


Literature Cited

Albuja L., and R. Arcos. 2007. Lista de mamíferos actuales del Ecuador. Politécnica. 27(4):7–33.

Anderson, R., and P. Jarrín-V. 2002. A new species of spiny pocket mouse (Heteromyidae: Heteromys) endemic to Western Ecuador. American Museum Novitates 3382:1−26.

Baker, R. J., C. J. Phillips, R. D. Bradley , J. M. Burns, D. Cooke, G. F. Edson, D. R. Haragan, C. Jones, R. Monk, J. T. Montford, D. J. Schmidly, and N. C. Parker. 1998. Bioinformatics, Museums and So-ciety: Integrating Biological Data for Knowledge-Based Decisions. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 187:1−4.

Baker, R. J., R. M. Fonseca, D. A. Parish, C. J. Phillips, and F. G. Hoffman. 2004. New bat of the genus Lophostoma (Phyllostomidae: Phyllostominae) from Northwestern Ecuador. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 232:1−16.

Cato, P. S. 1990. Characteristics of a collection of fluid-pre-served mammals and implications for collection managements. Collection Forum 6(2):53–64.

Coloma, L. A., S. Lötters, and A. Salas. 2000. Taxonomy of the Atelopus ignescens complex (Anura: Bu-fonidae): designation of a neotype of Atelopus ignescens and recognition of Atelopus exiguus. Herpetologica 56(3):303-324.

Coloma, L. A. 2002. Two new species of Atelopus (Anura: Bufonidae) from Ecuador. Herpetologica 58(2):229-252.

Fernández, F. 2000. La gestión en la administración de museos de historia natural. Pp. 325−328 in Memorias del Primer Congreso Colombiano de Zoología. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.

Fernández, F., Y. Muñoz-Saba, J. E. Simmons, and C. Samper. 2005. La gestión en la administración de las colecciones biológicas. Pp. 189−206 in Cuidado, Manejo y Conservación de las Colec-ciones Biológicas (J.E. Simmons and Y. Muñoz-Saba, eds.) Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.

Fonseca, R. M., and C. M. Pinto. 2004. A new Lophostoma (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae: Phyllostominae) from the Amazonia of Ecuador. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 242:1−9.

Gagnon, J. M., and G. Fitzgerald. 2004. Towards a national collection strategy: reviewing existing holdings. Pp. 215–221 in Museums and the Future of Col-lecting (S. J. Knell, ed.). University of Leicester. Leicester, United Kingdom.

King, L. 2001. University museums in the 21st Century. Pp. 19−28 in Managing University Museums (OECD, ed.) Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development Publications, Paris, France.Krishtalka, L., and P. S. Humphrey. 2000. Can natural his-

tory museums capture the future? BioScience 50(7):611–617.

McGinley, R. J. 1993. Where’s the management in collection management? Planning for improved care, greater use, and growth of collections. Pp. 309–338 in Current Issues, Initiatives, and Future Directions for the Preservation and Conservation of Natural History Collections (C.L. Rose, S.L. Williams and J. Gisbert, eds.). Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid, España.

Moser, W., K. Redd, and C. Bright. 2001. Collections profiling – The process. http://www.mnh.si.edu/highlight/profiling/profile_p1.html.

O’Connell, Jr, A.F, A.T. Gilbert, and J. S. Hatfield. 2004. Contribution of natural history collection data to biodiversity assessment in national parks. Con-servation Biology 18(5):1254−1261.

Ponder, W. F., G. A. Carter, P. Flemons, and R. R. Chap-man. 2001. Evaluation of museum collection data for use in biodiversity assessment. Conservation Biology 15:648−657.

Simmons, J. E. 1999. Colecciones de historia natural: almacenamiento de colecciones y datos a largo plazo. Apoyo 9:3−6.

Simmons, J. E., and Y. Muñoz-Saba. 2003. The theoreti-cal basis of collections management. Collection Forum 18:38−49.

Simmons, J. E., and Y. Muñoz-Saba. 2005. Tipos de colec-ciones. Pp. 31−43 in Cuidado, Manejo y Conser-vación de Colecciones Biológicas (J. E. Simmons and Y. Muñoz-Saba, eds.). Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.

Soberón, J., P. Dávila, and J. Golubov. 2003. Targeting sites for biological collections. Pp. 221-231 in Seed Conservation. Turning Science into Practice. (R.D. Smith, J.B. Dickie, S.H. Linington, H.W. Pritchard, and R.J. Probert, eds ). Royal Botanic Garden, United Kingdom.

Tirira, D. 2007. Guía de campo de los mamíferos del Ec-uador. Ediciones Murciélago Blanco. Publicación especial sobre los mamíferos del Ecuador 6, Quito, Ecuador.

Waller, R., and J. E. Simmons. 2003. An exploratory as-sessment of a fluid-preserved herpetological collection. Collection Forum 18(1-2):1-37.

Williams, S. L., R. R. Monk, and J. Arroyo-Cabrales. 1996. Applying McGinley’s model for collection assess-ection assess-ment to collections of recent vertebrates. Collec-tion Forum 12:21−35.

Winker, K. 2004. Natural history museums in a postbiodi-versity era. BioScience 54(5):455–459.


Addresses of Authors

María Alejandra CamachoMuseo de ZoologíaPontificia Universidad Católica del EcuadorAv. 12 de Octubre y RocaQuito – Ecuador

Santiago F. BurneoMuseo de ZoologíaPontificia Universidad Católica del EcuadorAv. 12 de Octubre y RocaQuito – Ecuador

The Center for Advanced Study of Museum Science and Heritage Management (CFAS) of the Museum of Texas Tech University is pleased to offer this paper in the redesigned series titled Museology. Although this is not a new series, rather one that has been produced intermittently for several years, the CFAS is refocusing its efforts on providing an outlet for papers oriented toward topics of general museological interest. Publications will be available in print and on the Museum’s website.

An international review board composed of experts in the museum profession will consider manuscripts submitted for publication in Museology. Where the board lacks the appropriate knowledge to responsibly review and evaluate a submitted manuscript, external reviewers will be engaged.

Persons interested in submitting manuscripts to be considered for publication should contact the Center for Advanced Study of Museum Science and Heritage Management for detailed information about the submission process at:

Museum of Texas Tech University3301 4th StreetLubbock, Texas 79401-3191806.742.2442

Gary Edson, Executive Director Museum of Texas Tech University Professor of Museum Science Director, Center for Advanced Study of Museum Science and Heritage Management Editor-in-chief

Publications of the Museum of Texas Tech University

Institutional subscriptions are available through the Museum of Texas Tech University, attn. Museology, Box 43191, Lubbock, TX 79409-3191. Individuals may also purchase separate numbers of Museology directly from the Museum of Texas Tech University.

Layout and Design: David K. DeanCover Image: Santiago F. Burneo

Copyright 2009, Museum of Texas Tech University

All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including electronic storage and retrieval systems, except by explicit, prior written permission of the publisher.

This book was set in Charter BT Pro and Helvetica Neue and printed on acid-free paper that meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.

Printed: July 2009

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataMuseology, Museum of Texas Tech University, Number 12Editor-in-Chief: Gary F. Edson, Executive Director, MoTTU

Assessment of the mAmmAl ColleCtion At the museo de ZoologíA of the PontifiCiA universidAd CAtóliCA del eCuAdor - QCAZ

Ma. Alejandra Camacho and Santiago F. Burneo

issn: 0149-175X

Museum of Texas Tech UniversityLubbock, TX 79409-3191 USA(806)742-2442

The Museum of Texas Tech University has a catalog of Museology which may be viewed online at www.museum.ttu.edu. To do so, you must have Adobe Acrobat installed on your computer. If you have difficulty downloading Museology, please contact the Webmaster. If there is continued difficulty, contact the Webmaster and a single hard copy can be provided to you via mail.

Museum of Texas Tech UniversityLubbock, Texas, USA