Natural history museums attract millions of visitors every year worldwide (Jenkins, Lisk, and Broadley 2013). Their collections, often inherited from centuries past, were gathered for scientific as well as educational purposes—and in many cases are still used for just that (Johnson 2015). Since at least the 1950s, natural history collections (NHC) have been regarded as less important (Rader and Cain 2008), with few new collections being assembled and old ones perceived as a burden on museums and academic institutions, of little use other than exhibition in dusty cabinets, occupying space that could be used for more spectacular means of attracting the public. Nevertheless, NHC—even older ones—do have other uses, many of which have far-reaching consequences in terms of societal well-being, inclusion and participation, which are less known and seldom recognized in the collective mind of public and stakeholders alike.
NHC, in the words of Kress (2014), “provide windows into the past, inform about the present, and help predict the future of natural habitats and human-altered environments.” They have been used to discover new species (Bebber et al. 2010), to investigate shifts in species distribution in response to climatic change (Lyons and Willig 2002; Peterson 2003; Moritz et al. 2008; Peterson and Martínez-Meyer 2008), phenological responses to climatic change (Nufio et al. 2010) or global environmental change (Lang et al. 2019), to study biological conservation (Pawar et al. 2007), land management (Ochoa-Ochoa et al. 2009), pollination (Biesmeijer 2006), invasive species (Giovanelli, Haddad, and Alexandrino 2008; Rödder and Lötters 2009), spread of pathogenic organisms (Moffett et al. 2009; Soto-Azat et al. 2010), and forecasting future changes (Graham et al. 2004). The wealth of data accumulated in NHC are used for statistical and model-based investigations in several fields (Lane 1996; Shaffer, Fisher, and Davidson 1998; Lister 2011; Lavoie 2013; DiEuliis et al. 2016; Willis et al. 2017; Rouhan et al. 2017).
Hill and collaborators (2012) cite many examples of ways in which NHC are used. Heberling and Isaac (2017) offer a comprehensive list of published papers of new uses for old herbaria. Funk (2003a) pools together 32 different uses of herbaria, later expanded to 72 (Funk 2003b), from basic research, education and outreach to money-making ventures. Carine and collaborators (2018) actually analyze the effective use of herbaria. With new technologies continuing to emerge, such as stable isotope analyses, massive parallel sequencing, or computed tomography, the importance of NHC and the variety of ways we can use them are continually growing (Bi et al. 2013; Rocha et al. 2014).
Many, if not all, of the uses of NHC have an impact on societal issues that afflict the contemporary world. These do not only affect global issues such as biodiversity loss, climate change, and environmental degradation, but also local issues that affect people and communities directly. The aim of this paper is to review the available literature and discuss concrete examples where the use of NHC has resulted in benefits for society as a whole or within a single community. Rather than reviewing more traditional fields of NHC activity (taxonomy, species description, or ecology), important though they are, we shall focus on seven areas where the use of NHC is perhaps less evident: public health and disease, trade and food security, crime and public safety, local communities and their identity, inclusion and participation, inspiration for art and engineering, and unanticipated uses.
Public Health and Disease
Healing the sick is not the first activity associated with NHC. However, research into public health, epidemiology, and cures for certain diseases (including vaccine development) very often depend on properly curated NHC (Suarez and Tsutsui 2004; DiEuliis et al. 2016). Molecular methods have allowed researchers to isolate DNA and other molecules from skin and bone samples from previously collected specimens (Bradley et al. 2014). Analysis of specimens in old NHC and repeat collecting of new specimens were used to identify the presence and transmission of Lyme disease (Persing et al. 1990), hantavirus (Sheldon and Dittmann 1997) or West Nile virus (Fonseca et al. 2001).
A textbook example is the use of NHC of birds from the Smithsonian Institution to compare preserved samples of influenza virus with human tissue samples from the flu pandemic of 1918 (Taubenberger et al. 1997; Taubenberger 2006; Fanning et al. 2002). If not for this NHC, researchers could not have concluded that the disease was not a type of avian influenza transmitted from bird to human, as had been previously thought, but a viral strain that routinely infected pigs and humans. Uncovering the true vectors of the pandemic has helped guide the development of containment policy. By tracking the virus’s evolutionary history, using NHC specimens among other studies, vaccine development was improved (NSTC Working Group 2009). Mosquito collections have also been vital for understanding the dynamics of mosquito-borne pathogens and vectors of rapidly emerging and potentially fatal diseases such as West Nile virus (Lanciotti et al. 1999; Anderson et al. 2001). Pioneering work in parasite control (including malarial mosquitos) at the South African Institute of Medical Research has depended on NHC to guarantee not just taxonomic accuracy but breakthroughs in control (Coetzee 1999).
New viruses (arenaviruses, hantaviruses, and a tick-borne encephalitis) have been described from the analysis of blood and tissue samples obtained from NHC specimens (Milazzo et al. 2008, 2012; Cajimat et al. 2012, 2013; Inizán et al. 2010; Briggs et al. 2011). Finding certain viruses in NHC specimens is perhaps unexpected, and could not be done without proper curation of voucher specimens in NHC (Bradley et al. 2014). The Ebola virus was found in bats, both living and from NHC, which is vital information in the prevention of future outbreaks (Kemp 2015; DiEuliis et al. 2016). In 2012, researchers extracted viral DNA from 120-year-old koala skins and compared it with DNA found in skins from the 1980s to study the evolution of a retrovirus (Ávila-Arcos et al. 2013; Kemp 2015). Materials extracted from ancient bones are routinely used to study the evolution of viruses, informing the development of models that can predict the spread of modern diseases (Sholts, Bell, and Rick 2016; NSTC Working Group 2009).
NHC also play a central role in identifying pharmaceutical products. Screening of specimens in the collections of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, England, revealed a new drug with potential HIV application (Boyd et al. 1994). Old labels on plant specimens can reveal medicinal properties which were lost in time; a survey of the Harvard herbarium revealed that many labels contain information about the medicinal use of plants by indigenous peoples (S. Li and Zhang 2014).
Environmental health officers use NHC collections to identify organic remains found in processed food which should not be there, from slugs in milk to bones from a suspect take-away (NatSCA 2005). Biological collections also provide rapid identification for patients who have been bitten by animals thought to be venomous or who have eaten plants or fungi suspected of being poisonous (NatSCA 2005). The collections are also used to quickly identify pest infestation, either by direct reference or through the training of professionals based on them (NatSCA 2005). While each collection can have immediate and long-term uses, both for specific and more general uses, NHC at-large contribute to an incredible wealth of knowledge and possibilities for study and application.
Trade and Food Security
NHC are continually used to solve problems in agriculture and food production. They can assist breeding programs of new varieties: seeds of a new species of wild tomato in NHC led to a new cultivated hybrid estimated to be worth an extra $8 million USD per year (NatSCA 2005). Wild relatives of crop plants such as wheat, rice, and potatoes possess valuable genetic characters that give resistance to diseases, pests, or environmental stresses (NatSCA 2005). Citrus bacterial canker, for example, is a devastating bacterial disease of citrus trees and it is critical to understand its spread in order to develop appropriate methods for control or prevention. Scientists found the citrus canker bacteria on NHC herbarium specimens, allowing them to unravel the history of the disease and pin down its source. Neither the presence of the bacteria nor the existence of DNA, much less ways to analyze it, were envisioned when the leaf samples were collected (W. Li et al. 2007).
An example of the use of NHC in trade and food quality with a direct economic value was the claim that a shipment of wheat arriving in Algeria from the USA contained spores of the destructive Karnal bunt. The spores were compared with reference fungi in NHC and identified as an innocuous cousin of Karnal bunt, saving an annual US export market to Algeria worth $70 million USD (NSTC Working Group 2009).
NHC are of paramount use in tracking the progression of a pest, pathogen, or vector. In one case, researchers used NHC specimens to reconstruct the invasion history of one of the world’s most damaging agricultural pests, the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) and advise measures for effective control strategies for this damaging and costly pest (Suarez and Tsutsui 2004). Experts have developed a system that allows port inspectors to rapidly and reliably identify fruit flies in the shipments they inspect (Davies, Villablanca, and Roderick 1999). NHC are indeed of outstanding value in the early and accurate identification of often quite indistinguishable pest species, they provide data to inform on their life cycles, larval growth patterns, mimicry, polymorphism, and migration. For example, NHC have been used to locate locust outbreak sites and track traditional migratory patterns (NatSCA 2005). Again, these instances all illustrate the importance of individualized data improvement, and together, contribute to a larger and contemporary understanding of trade and food security.
Crime and Public Safety
NHC are also used regularly by law enforcement agents and forensic professionals to identify plant fragments, seeds, pollen grains, animal hair, or even soil samples linking suspects to the scene of a crime (NatSCA 2005). Reference materials from copper ore to cholesterol molecules have been collected and are curated in NHC to be used to verify the true identity of unknown samples (NSTC Working Group 2009). Insect collections are particularly useful as sources of reference material for forensic entomology, the study of the insects that follow the sequence of decomposition (Rivers and Dahlem 2014). For example, identifying fly maggots present, and relating this to the biological succession of scavenging insects, can approximate the time of death of a partially decomposed body. The vast entomology collections at the UC Davis Bohart Museum were used by the FBI in 2007 to place a suspect at the location of the murder by identifying the insects and their geographic origin (NSTC Working Group 2009).
Public safety can also benefit from NHC in the prevention of hazards. A good example is the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, located in Svalbard, Norway. This seed storage facility was built to safeguard global food supplies (Asdal and Guarino 2018). It contains a duplicate sample of seeds from different plant varieties held in gene banks around the world, in case a natural or man-made disaster destroys common food crops (NSTC Working Group 2009).
Disasters happen unexpectedly. In 2001 a series of natural gas explosions in Kansas killed two people and displaced hundreds of others, but, thanks to the thousands of geological cores collected in the 1960s and properly curated in the Kansas Geological Survey, scientists were able to produce maps of the local geology within hours, and quickly advised the gas company where to drill holes to vent the leaked gas and prevent further explosions (NSTC Working Group 2009). Other geological materials collected in the past are being used to identify areas of greater seismological risk, and to take precautionary measures where resampling is impossible due to urbanization or environmental restrictions (NSTC Working Group 2009).
Local Communities and Their Identity
Policymakers often disregard the role NHC have in a local community’s identity. The importance of this role should not be overshadowed by the global importance of larger NHC housed in national and international institutions (NatSCA 2005). Housed in the local museum or university, NHC contain local treasures, examples of local minerals, fauna, and flora of scientific value through their interpretation of the local environment and its protection. In many local communities, the study of natural history is often the focus of a very active local natural history society, where members enjoy collecting, know how to preserve specimens, and eventually bequeath well-identified specimens to local NHC (NatSCA 2005).
A local NHC benefits the local community directly, but it does so indirectly as well. For example, if exhibited in a museum, NHC attract tourists, create services, and boost the local economy (NatSCA 2005). Even NHC housed in an institution many thousands of miles away from the site where they were collected can provide benefits to local communities (Sholts, Bell, and Rick 2016). For example, field notes and audio-visual recordings collected 50 years ago have been used by native communities to revitalize languages such as Myaamia and Wampanoag, which were dormant for 50 years, empowering communities to respond to globalization pressures (Hinton 2011).
NHC can also have an impact on local communities if their central theme is a sensitive topic. NHC including human remains, in particular, deal with a specificity that raises many ethical questions, yet it is clear that such collections occupy a special place in local archaeological and historical heritage (Cadot 2007; Van Praët et al. 2019). Understanding how and why these sensitive NHC were assembled is important in addressing societal issues, past and present. NHC must be available to the public, but always with care, for they can unwittingly revive a painful past for some local communities or create biased representations of cultural groups in a multicultural community (Nivart and Dumez 2016). The example of the Tsantsa heads of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum in Ljubljana, shows that museums are self-aware and self-critical about their role in the creation of cultural stereotypes and hierarchical relationships (Podjed and Bartulović 2012). Human remains in NHC are numerous (Cardoso 2006) and usually have a particular and highly regulated status: in the USA there is the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; in Australia, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. Museums and institutions housing NHC are regulated by many laws (Rose, Green, and Green 1996; Seidemann 2004), which are essential if they are to address current societal issues.
Inclusion and Participation
NHC can be used to convey complex scientific messages to the wider public (Bensaude-Vincent 2010). The field of ecology emerged from the study of NHC (Benson 2000) and the message of the need for environmental conservation (arguably the most important societal issue today) can be facilitated thought NHC. Facilitating NHC through talks, workshops, exhibitions, interactive displays, or self-guided activities transforms content and expertise into learning experiences that reflect the needs and interests of each target audience (Dillon et al. 2016). Events and lectures using NHC certainly advance the greater public understanding and appreciation of nature (NatSCA 2005). The experience of the Grant Museum of Zoology, in London, has shown that the public is quite capable of providing information on NHC with the QRator project (Carnall, Ashby, and Ross 2013) and with other projects aiming at involving the visitor with the collections and their use within exhibitions. NHC, therefore, can be used to model scientific inquiry and to stimulate the curiosity about the natural world (Powers et al. 2014).
However, addressing societal issues is more complex than just the exhibition of NHC. For example, an exhibition on food poisoning was in line with the wider aim of promoting public understanding of science but conflicted in practice with the attempt to present the public with scientific information useful to them in their everyday lives (Macdonald and Silverstone 1992). Facilitation aims at finding the right medium for conveying scientific information to a large public, without oversimplification. NHC are formidable tools for sharing knowledge and can be used in many ways to involve people and create a cohesive social fabric and public well-being. Museums and other institutions housing NHC are providers of authoritative and unbiased science (Macdonald and Silverstone 1992), and yet policymakers often looks at them as interpretation centers where exhibitions are there to entertain the public with participatory activities. “Natural history museums,” however, “should not try to become theme parks (…) because a museum is not likely to be very good at being one” (Fri 1997).
This said, NHC offer opportunities for public participation. For a number of years now, citizen science has enabled audiences to participate in the process of scientific discovery along with specialists, an excellent way to engage the public (Wen et al. 2015; Miller-Rushing, Primack, and Bonney 2012; Wiggins et al. 2011; Bœuf, Allain, and Bouvier 2013). Citizen science allows people who are not professionals, but who may have substantial knowledge about a particular field, to get directly involved in authentic scientific research (Le Crosnier, Neubauer, and Storup 2013). It brings together information collected by a large, dispersed group of observers to speed up ecological research at unprecedented spatial and temporal scales (Dickinson et al. 2012). At the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, France, numerous citizen science projects have been developed and grouped together in the “Vigie Nature” program (Julliard 2017). Initially launched in 1989, “Vigie Nature” today gathers more than 50,000 participants (ONB 2019) on every natural domain, experts as well as beginners. Even though it has scientific limits, citizen science is increasingly attractive for its societal benefits (Legrand et al. 2017), with no limit to its ability to raise awareness of environment conservation (Gosselin, Julliard, and Gosselin 2010; Dickinson, Zuckerberg, and Bonter 2010). It certainly allows for many memorable school trips, family outings and an inclusive and involved social fabric reconnected with nature!
Education through participation is an important step in learning about the environment (Tal and Morag 2007; Ramey-Gassert, Walberg, and Walberg 1994; Allard, Boucher, and Forest 1994; Powers et al. 2014). In 2005, the average secondary school biology teacher in England was unable to recognize more than three local wild plants (Bebbington 2005). But teachers can learn from NHC before taking their students to the field, and they could even get inspiration from them to develop topics that are not in the prescribed teaching syllabus. Many new vocations and ideas were born from a single visit to NHC (Feldman et al. 2012). NHC also represent an important resource for higher education training in identification, taxonomy, and classification. In 2009, only a minority of university students could identify common plants correctly (Leather and Quicke 2009), but many natural history museums have or are developing close links with a local university (NatSCA 2005).
NHC can have an inclusive role in audience accessibility: “tactile aesthetic accessibility can contribute to the learning of the blind and visually impaired” (Hopkins 2003; Kastrup and Sampaio 2012). In France, the National Museum of Natural History in Paris makes this type of experience available, and the Natural History Museum in Nantes allow visitors to touch the exhibited rocks (authors’ pers. experience). Inclusion can also mean that NHC can reach out for their public: during the years of closure for refurbishment, the Natural History Museum of Bordeaux took part of their collections to the road as a traveling exhibition (Mémoire 2014). Numerous initiatives are being developed with the aim of taking NHC to the widest possible community, in particular, the digitization of NHC (Blagoderov et al. 2012; Hill et al. 2012): putting NHC freely on-line allows the simplest access to the greatest number of people.
Inspiration for Art and Engineering
NHC can be assembled for their aesthetic value and can be a source of inspiration for artists, writers, and performers (Allmon 1994). For centuries, paintings, sculptures, and plays have been inspired by nature, but natural history objects have themselves been transformed into works of art. We will give two examples: Damien Hirst is a controversial contemporary artist renowned for his use of taxidermy and anatomy in his installations; Ellen Jewett makes extraordinarily realistic sculptures, which resemble taxidermy mounts and are definitely inspired by NHC.
However, creative people can take inspiration in NHC in a more practical way. Anatomical wax models, made for the purpose of recording pathological cases before the technological leaps of photography and video made it redundant, can be considered works of art (Ballestriero 2010). The many bird or plant identification guides that nature lovers take to the field are more often than not filled with drawings made by professional artists, who, it is often forgot, go to NHC for direct and close visual contact with the colors and forms of animals and plants they need to draw (Winker et al. 1991). Moreover, designers and engineers have tried to emulate aspects of the natural world by consulting NHC. For example, a top yacht designer spent much time studying tuna fish specimens as an aid to design faster yachts, and research into the reduction of air drag on aircraft has involved the study of shark skins held in NHC (NatSCA 2005). While a relatively spare application of NHC as it currently stands, this use should be explored in more future opportunities because it has the ability to impact a larger variety of museums, collections, and exhibitions.
Finally, NHC have constantly been used in ways and purposes entirely unanticipated even by the most broad-minded of curators (Lettie and Puckett 2002). One of them is training in business and management acumen. The variety of skills needed to properly conserve and curate NHC has been noted by industry recruiters who came to see them as a management and leadership training ground (Krishtalka and Humphrey 2000). Of course, NHC have always been used for training in identification, taxonomy, and classification, and for facilitating public understanding and appreciation of nature (Mujtaba et al. 2018; NatSCA 2005).
The argument of unanticipated uses is often made when curatorial staff feel the need to justify the existence of their NHC. Although it is perceived as a weak argument, it is, in fact, a poignant one: there have been so many cases of NHC being used for purposes so vastly different from the ones they were originally constituted, that we can never dismiss a collection when its original use is finished (NatSCA 2005). “Properly preserved specimens are useful for centuries” (Winker et al. 1991).
In this paper we attempted a brief overview of lesser-known uses of NHC that have resulted in benefits for health, economy, security, identity, and education that further public well-being, inclusion, and participation. NHC can provide major financial and social benefits to areas way beyond their traditional or original purpose. A majority of the examples discussed reveal that NHC are repositories of reference material (Winker et al. 1991). More like an archive of unique precious manuscripts than a library of newly bought books, each specimen in NHC is unique and cannot be replaced. NHC curators receive thousands of inquiries from local, national and international conservationists, researchers, planners, environmental health officers, customs officers and so on every year (NatSCA 2005). It has even been shown that, by housing voucher specimens, NHC can actually reduce the costs of scientific research (Bradley et al. 2012, 2014; Suarez and Tsutsui 2004), even though contemporary rates of voucher deposition have been described as alarmingly low (Turney et al. 2015).
Older NHC are still preserved today because they document the results of research, and allow earlier findings to be reproduced and confirmed (or rejected). They are re-analyzed using new technology and methods to reveal information no one suspected they could carry, information that is of relevance to research in fields other than the one for which they were collected. New contributions of NHC are now more important to society than the original reason for going out and collecting specimens (Winker 2005). They provide evidence of long-term historical trends, allowing researchers to make predictions into the future (NSTC Working Group 2009).
Allard, Michel, Suzanne Boucher, and Lina Forest. 1994. “The Museum and the School.” McGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l’éducation de McGill 29 (2): 197–212.
Allmon, Warren D. 1994. “The Value of Natural History Collections.” Curator: The Museum Journal 37 (2): 83–89.
Anderson, J. F., C. R. Vossbrinck, T. G. Andreadis, A. Iton, W. H. Beckwith, and D. R. Mayo. 2001. “A Phylogenetic Approach to Following West Nile Virus in Connecticut.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98 (23): 12885–89. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.241472398.
Asdal, Åsmund, and Luigi Guarino. 2018. “The Svalbard Global Seed Vault: 10 Years—1 Million Samples.” Biopreservation and Biobanking 16 (5): 391–92. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2018.0025.
Ávila-Arcos, M. C., S. Y. W. Ho, Yasuko Ishida, Nikolas Nikolaidis, Kyriakos Tsangaras, K. Honig, Rebeca Medina, et al. 2013. “One Hundred Twenty Years of Koala Retrovirus Evolution Determined from Museum Skins.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 30 (2): 299–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss223.
Ballestriero, R. 2010. “Anatomical Models and Wax Venuses: Art Masterpieces or Scientific Craft Works?” Journal of Anatomy 216 (2): 223–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2009.01169.x.
Bebber, D. P., Mark A Carine, J. R. I. Wood, A. H. Wortley, D. J. Harris, G. T. Prance, G. Davidse, et al. 2010. “Herbaria Are a Major Frontier for Species Discovery.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107 (51): 22169–71. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011841108.
Bebbington, Anne. 2005. “The Ability of A-Level Students to Name Plants.” Journal of Biological Education 39 (2): 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2005.9655963.
Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 2010. “Splendeur et Décadence de la Vulgarisation Scientifique.” Questions de Communication 17 (1): 19–32.
Benson, Keith R. 2000. “The Emergence of Ecology from Natural History.” Endeavour 24 (2): 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-9327(99)01260-0.
Bi, Ke, Tyler Linderoth, Dan Vanderpool, Jeffrey M. Good, Rasmus Nielsen, and Craig Moritz. 2013. “Unlocking the Vault: Next-Generation Museum Population Genomics.” Molecular Ecology 22 (24): 6018–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12516.
Biesmeijer, J. C. 2006. “Parallel Declines in Pollinators and Insect-Pollinated Plants in Britain and the Netherlands.” Science 313 (5785): 351–54. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127863.
Blagoderov, Vladimir, Ian J. Kitching, Laurence Livermore, Thomas J. Simonsen, and Vincent S. Smith. 2012. “No Specimen Left behind: Industrial Scale Digitization of Natural History Collections.” ZooKeys 209: 133–46. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.209.3178.
Bœuf, Gilles, Yves-marie Allain, and Michel Bouvier. 2013. “L’apport des sciences participatives à la connaissance de la biodiversité en France.” La Lettre de l’OCIM, no. 144: 8–18. https://doi.org/10.4000/ocim.1119.
Boyd, Michael R., Yali F. Hallock, John H. Cardellina, Kirk P. Manfredi, John W. Blunt, James B. McMahon, Robert W. Buckheit, et al. 1994. “Anti-HIV Michellamines from Ancistrocladus korupensis.”Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 37 (12): 1740–45. https://doi.org/ 10.1021/jm00038a003.
Bradley, Robert D., Lisa C. Bradley, Heath J. Garner, and Robert J. Baker. 2012. “Cost of Collecting and Preparing Mammal Voucher Specimens for Natural History Collections.” Occasional Papers of the Museum of Texas Tech University, no. 313: 1–14.
Bradley, Robert D., Lisa C. Bradley, Heath J. Garner, and Robert J. Baker. 2014. “Assessing the Value of Natural History Collections and Addressing Issues Regarding Long-Term Growth and Care.” BioScience 64 (12): 1150–58. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/biosci/biu166.
Briggs, Benjamin J., Barry Atkinson, Donna M. Czechowski, Peter A. Larsen, Heather N. Meeks, Juan P. Carrera, Ryan M. Duplechin, et al. 2011. “Tick-Borne Encephalitis Virus, Kyrgyzstan.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 17 (5): 876–79. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1703.101183.
Cadot, Laure. 2007. “Les restes humains : une gageure pour les musées ?” La Lettre de l’OCIM 109: 4–15. https://doi.org/10.4000/ocim.800.
Cajimat, Maria N. B., Mary Louise Milazzo, Robert D. Bradley, and Charles F. Fulhorst. 2012. “Ocozocoautla de Espinosa Virus and Hemorrhagic Fever, Mexico.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 18 (3): 401–5. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1803.111602.
Cajimat, Maria N. B., Mary Louise Milazzo, Matthew R. Mauldin, Robert D. Bradley, and Charles F. Fulhorst. 2013. “Diversity among Tacaribe Serocomplex Viruses (Family Arenaviridae) Associated with the Southern Plains Woodrat (Neotoma Micropus).” Virus Research 178 (2): 486–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2013.10.004.
Cardoso, Hugo F. V. 2006. “Brief Communication: The Collection of Identified Human Skeletons Housed at the Bocage Museum (National Museum of Natural History), Lisbon, Portugal.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 129 (2): 173–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20228.
Carine, Mark A., Edgley A. Cesar, Len Ellis, John Hunnex, Alison M. Paul, Ranee Prakash, Fred J. Rumsey, Jacek Wajer, Jo Wilbraham, and Jovita C. Yesilyurt. 2018. “Examining the Spectra of Herbarium Uses and Users.” Botany Letters 165 (3–4): 328–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/23818107.2018.1482782.
Carnall, Mark, Jack Ashby, and Claire Ross. 2013. “Natural History Museums as Provocateurs for Dialogue and Debate.” Museum Management and Curatorship 28 (1): 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2012.754630.
Coetzee, Maureen. 1999. “The Historical and Current State of Medical Entomology Systematics in South Africa.” Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 54 (1): 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00359199909520405.
Davies, Neil, Francis X. Villablanca, and George K. Roderick. 1999. “Bioinvasions of the Medfly Ceratitis Capitata: Source Estimation Using DNA Sequences at Multiple Intron Loci.” Genetics 153 (1): 351–60.
Dickinson, Janis L., Jennifer Shirk, David Bonter, Rick Bonney, Rhiannon L. Crain, Jason Martin, Tina Phillips, and Karen Purcell. 2012. “The Current State of Citizen Science as a Tool for Ecological Research and Public Engagement.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10 (6): 291–97. https://doi.org/10.1890/110236.
Dickinson, Janis L., Benjamin Zuckerberg, and David N. Bonter. 2010. “Citizen Science as an Ecological Research Tool: Challenges and Benefits.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 41 (1): 149–72. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636.
DiEuliis, Diane, Kirk R. Johnson, Stephen S. Morse, and David E. Schindel. 2016. “Opinion: Specimen Collections Should Have a Much Bigger Role in Infectious Disease Research and Response.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113 (1): 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1522680112.
Dillon, Justin, Emma Pegram, Bruce Irwin, Kevin Crowley, Rachel Haydon, Heather King, Karen Knutson, Dean Veall, and Maria Xanthoudaki. 2016. “A Learning Research Agenda for Natural History Institutions.” London: Natural History Museum.
Fanning, Thomas G., R. D. Slemons, Ann H. Reid, Thomas A. Janczewski, J. Dean, and Jeffery K. Taubenberger. 2002. “1917 Avian Influenza Virus Sequences Suggest That the 1918 Pandemic Virus Did Not Acquire Its Hemagglutinin Directly from Birds.” Journal of Virology 76 (15): 7860–62. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.76.15.7860-7862.2002.
Feldman, Allan, Angela Chapman, Vanessa Vernaza-Hernandez, Dilek Ozalp, and Fayez Alshehri. 2012. “Inquiry-Based Science Education as Multiple Outcome Interdisciplinary Research and Learning (MOIRL).” Science Education International 23 (4): 328–37.
Fonseca, Dina M., Scott Campbell, Wayne J. Crans, Motoyoshi Mogi, Ichiro Miyagi, Takako Toma, Mark Bullians, et al. 2001. “Aedes (Finlaya) Japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae), a Newly Recognized Mosquito in the United States: Analyses of Genetic Variation in the United States and Putative Source Populations.” Journal of Medical Entomology 38 (2): 135–46. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-2585-38.2.135.
Fri, R. W. 1997. “Toward a Natural History Museum for the 21st Century.” Museum News 76 (Nov–Dec): 49.
Funk, Vicki Ann. 2003a. “The Importance of Herbaria.” Plant Science Bulletin 49 (3): 94–95.
Funk, Vicki Ann. 2003b. “100 Uses for an Herbarium (Well at Least 72).” American Society of Plant Taxonomists Newsletter 17 (2): 17–19.
Giovanelli, João G. R., Célio F. B. Haddad, and João Alexandrino. 2008. “Predicting the Potential Distribution of the Alien Invasive American Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) in Brazil.” Biological Invasions 10 (5): 585–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-007-9154-5.
Gosselin, Marion, Romain Julliard, and Marion Gosselin. 2010. “L’essor des sciences participatives pour le suivi de la biodiversité: intérêts et limites.”Science Eaux & Territoires 3 (3): 76–83.
Graham, Catherine H., Simon Ferrier, Falk Huettman, Craig Moritz, and A. Townsend Peterson. 2004. “New Developments in Museum-Based Informatics and Applications in Biodiversity Analysis.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19 (9): 497–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.006.
Heberling, J. Mason, and Bonnie L. Isaac. 2017. “Herbarium Specimens as Exaptations: New Uses for Old Collections.” American Journal of Botany 104 (7): 963–65. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1700125.
Hill, Andrew, Robert Guralnick, Arfon Smith, Andrew Sallans, Rosemary Gillespie, Michael Denslow, Joyce Gross, et al. 2012. “The Notes from Nature Tool for Unlocking Biodiversity Records from Museum Records through Citizen Science.” ZooKeys 209: 219–33. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.209.3472.
Hinton, Leanne. 2011. “Language Revitalization and Language Pedagogy: New Teaching and Learning Strategies.” Language and Education 25 (4): 307–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2011.577220.
Hirst, Damien. Artist website. Accessed May 2019. http://www.damienhirst.com
Hopkins, Robert. 2003. “Touching, Seeing and Appreciating Pictures.” In Art Beyond Sight: A Resource Guide to Art, Creativity, and Visual Impairment, edited by E. Axel and N. Levent, Art Educat, 187–99. New York, NY.
Inizán, Catherine C., Maria N. B. Cajimat, Mary Louise Milazzo, Artemio Barragán-Gomez, Robert D. Bradley, and Charles F. Fulhorst. 2010. “Genetic Evidence for a Tacaribe Serocomplex Virus, Mexico.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 16 (6): 1007–10. https://doi.org/ 10.3201/eid1606.091648.
Jenkins, Sarah, Jenny Lisk, and Aaron Broadley. 2013. “The Popularity of Museum Galleries: Evaluation for Natural Sciences Collections Association.” Cardiff: Jenesys Associates.
Jewett, Ellen. Artist website. Accessed May 2019. http://www.ellenjewettsculpture.com
Johnson, Kirk R. 2015. “Surrounded by Science: Tracing the Evolution of Modern Museums of Science and Natural History.” Science 347 (6222): 618. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.aaa0840.
Julliard, Romain. 2017. “Dossier : Des recherches participatives dans la production des savoirs liés à l’environnement – Science participative et suivi de la biodiversité : l’expérience Vigie-Nature.” Natures Sciences Sociétés 25 (4): 412–17. https://doi.org/ 10.1051/nss/2018008.
Kastrup, Virginia, and Eliana Sampaio. 2012. “Le rôle de l’expérience esthétique tactile dans l’apprentissage des personnes handicapées visuelles dans les musées.” Savoirs 28 (1): 93–111. https://doi.org/10.3917/savo.028.0093.
Kemp, Christopher. 2015. “Museums: The Endangered Dead.” Nature 518 (7539): 292–94. https://doi.org/10.1038/518292a.
Kress, W. John. 2014. “Valuing Collections.” Science 346 (6215): 1310. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.aaa4115.
Krishtalka, Leonard, and Philip S. Humphrey. 2000. “Can Natural History Museums Capture the Future?” BioScience 50 (7): 611–17. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000) 050[0611:CNHMCT]2.0.CO;2.
Lanciotti, R. S., J. T. Roehrig, V. Deubel, J. Smith, M. Parker, K. Steele, B. Crise, et al. 1999. “Origin of the West Nile Virus Responsible for an Outbreak of Encephalitis in the Northeastern United States.”Science 286 (5448): 2333–37. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5448.2333.
Lane, Meredith A. 1996. “Roles of Natural History Collections.”Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 83 (4): 536–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/2399994.
Lang, Patricia L. M., Franziska M. Willems, J. F. Scheepens, Hernán A. Burbano, and Oliver Bossdorf. 2019. “Using Herbaria to Study Global Environmental Change.” New Phytologist 221 (1): 110–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15401.
Lavoie, Claude. 2013. “Biological Collections in an Ever Changing World: Herbaria as Tools for Biogeographical and Environmental Studies.” Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 15 (1): 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2012.10.002.
Le Crosnier, Hervé, Claudia Neubauer, and Bérangère Storup. 2013. “Sciences participatives ou ingénierie sociale : quand amateurs et chercheurs co-produisent les savoirs.” Hermès 3: 68–74. https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/51888.
Leather, Simon R., and Donald J. L. Quicke. 2009. “Where Would Darwin Have Been without Taxonomy?” Journal of Biological Education 43 (2): 51–52. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00219266.2009.9656151.
Legrand, Marine, Anne Dozières, Hélène Dupont, Julie Scapino, and Frédérique Chlous. 2017. “Dossier : Des recherches participatives dans la production des savoirs liés à l’environnement – Étude comparée des dispositifs participatifs du Muséum national d’histoire naturelle.” Natures Sciences Sociétés 25 (4): 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2018009.
Lettie, Katie, and Catherine Puckett. 2002. “On the Importance of Scientific Collections: A Series by Natural Science Collections Alliance.” Natural Science Collections Alliance.
Li, Shiyou, and Wanli Zhang. 2014. “Ethnobotany of Camptotheca Decaisne: New Discoveries of Old Medicinal Uses.” Pharmaceutical Crops 5 (1): 140–45. https://doi.org/10.2174/2210290601405010140.
Li, W., Q. Song, R. H. Brlansky, and J. S. Hartung. 2007. “Genetic Diversity of Citrus Bacterial Canker Pathogens Preserved in Herbarium Specimens.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (47): 18427–32. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705590104.
Lister, Adrian M. 2011. “Natural History Collections as Sources of Long-Term Datasets.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26 (4): 153–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.12.009.
Lyons, Kathleen S., and Michael R. Willig. 2002. “Species Richness, Latitude, and Scale-Sensitivity.” Ecology 83 (1): 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083 [0047:SRLASS]2.0.CO;2.
Macdonald, Sharon, and Roger Silverstone. 1992. “Science on Display: The Representation of Scientific Controversy in Museum Exhibitions.” Public Understanding of Science 1 (1): 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/010.
Mémoire, Nathalie. 2014. “Le Muséum Chez Vous.” In Best Practice 3: A Tool to Improve Museum Education Internationally, edited by Emma Nardi and Cinzia Angelini, 161–70. Roma: Edizioni Nuova Cultura.
Milazzo, Mary Louise, Maria N. B. Cajimat, Michelle L. Haynie, Ken D. Abbott, Robert D. Bradley, and Charles F. Fulhorst. 2008. “Diversity Among Tacaribe Serocomplex Viruses (Family Arenaviridae) Naturally Associated with the White-Throated Woodrat (Neotoma albigula) in the Southwestern United States.” Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 8 (4): 523–40. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2007.0239.
Milazzo, Mary Louise, Maria N. B. Cajimat, Hannah E. Romo, Jose G. Estrada-Franco, L. Ignacio Iñiguez-Dávalos, Robert D. Bradley, and Charles F. Fulhorst. 2012. “Geographic Distribution of Hantaviruses Associated with Neotomine and Sigmodontine Rodents, Mexico.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 18 (4): 571–76. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1804.111028.
Miller-Rushing, Abraham, Richard Primack, and Rick Bonney. 2012. “The History of Public Participation in Ecological Research.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10 (6): 285–90. https://doi.org/10.1890/110278.
Moffett, Alexander, Stavana Strutz, Nelson Guda, Camila González, Maria Cristina Ferro, Víctor Sánchez-Cordero, and Sahotra Sarkar. 2009. “A Global Public Database of Disease Vector and Reservoir Distributions.” Edited by Juerg Utzinger. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 3 (3): e378. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000378.
Moritz, Craig, James L. Patton, Chris J. Conroy, Juan L. Parra, Gary C. White, and Steven R. Beissinger. 2008. “Impact of a Century of Climate Change on Small-Mammal Communities in Yosemite National Park, USA.” Science 322 (5899): 261–64. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1163428.
Mujtaba, Tamjid, Martin Lawrence, Mary Oliver, and Michael J. Reiss. 2018. “Learning and Engagement through Natural History Museums.” Studies in Science Education 54 (1): 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2018.1442820.
NatSCA. 2005. “A Matter of Life and Death. Natural Science Collections: Why Keep Them and Why Fund Them?” Accessed Feb. 2019. https://www.natsca.org/collections-publications.
Nivart, Anne, and Richard Dumez. 2016. “Penser le musée en Namibie : entre particularismes locaux et doxa étatique.” Culture & Musées 28: 47–72. https://doi.org/10.4000/culturemusees.799.
NSTC Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections. 2009. “Scientific Collections: Mission-Critical Infrastructure for Federal Science Agencies.” Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Nufio, César R., Chris R. McGuire, M. Deane Bowers, and Robert P. Guralnick. 2010. “Grasshopper Community Response to Climatic Change: Variation Along an Elevational Gradient.” PLoS ONE 5 (9): e12977. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012977.
Ochoa-Ochoa, Leticia, J. Nicolás Urbina-Cardona, Luis-Bernardo Vázquez, Oscar Flores-Villela, and Juan Bezaury-Creel. 2009. “The Effects of Governmental Protected Areas and Social Initiatives for Land Protection on the Conservation of Mexican Amphibians.” PLoS ONE 4 (9): e6878. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006878.
ONB. 2019. “Évolution de l’implication des citoyens dans les sciences participatives liées à la biodiversité.”Accessed February 2019. http://indicateurs-biodiversite.naturefrance.fr/indicateurs/evolution-de-limplication-des-citoyens-dans-les-sciences-participatives-liees-a-la.
Pawar, Samraat, Michelle S. Koo, Chris Kelley, M. Firoz Ahmed, Sujoy Chaudhuri, and Sahotra Sarkar. 2007. “Conservation Assessment and Prioritization of Areas in Northeast India: Priorities for Amphibians and Reptiles.” Biological Conservation 136 (3): 346–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.12.012.
Persing, D., S. Telford, P. Rys, D. Dodge, T. White, S. Malawista, and Andrew Spielman. 1990. “Detection of Borrelia Burgdorferi DNA in Museum Specimens of Ixodes Dammini Ticks.” Science 249 (4975): 1420–23. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2402635.
Peterson, A. Townsend. 2003. “Predicting the Geography of Species’ Invasions via Ecological Niche Modeling.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 78 (4): 419–33. https://doi.org/10.1086/378926.
Peterson, A. Townsend, and Enrique Martínez-Meyer. 2008. “Pervasive Poleward Shifts among North American Bird Species.” Biodiversity 9 (3–4): 114–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2008.9712915.
Pettitt, Charles W. 1997. “The Cultural Impact of Natural Science Collections.” In The Value and Valuation of Natural Science Collections: Proceedings of the International Conference, Manchester (1995), edited by J. R. Nudds and C. W. Pettitt, 94–103. London: The Geological Society.
Podjed, Dan, and Alenka Bartulović. 2012. “L’exposition des restes humains dans les musées slovènes : un problème éthique.” Ethnologie Française 42 (2): 271–80. https://doi.org/10.3917/ethn.122.0271.
Powers, Karen E., L. Alan Prather, Joseph A. Cook, James Woolley, Henry L. Bart, Anna K. Monfils, and Petra Sierwald. 2014. “Revolutionizing the Use of Natural History Collections in Education.” Science Education Review 13 (2): 24–33.
Rader, Karen A., and Victoria E. M. Cain. 2008. “From Natural History to Science: Display and the Transformation of American Museums of Science and Nature.” Museum and Society 6 (2): 152–71.
Ramey-Gassert, Linda, Herbert J. Walberg III, and Herbert J. Walberg. 1994. “Reexamining Connections: Museums as Science Learning Environments.” Science Education 78 (4): 345–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780403.
Rivers, David B., and Gregory A. Dahlem. 2014. The Science of Forensic Entomology. Wiley Blackwell.
Rocha, L. A., A. Aleixo, G. Allen, F. Almeda, C. C. Baldwin, M. V. L. Barclay, J. M. Bates, et al. 2014. “Specimen Collection: An Essential Tool.” Science 344 (6186): 814–15. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.344.6186.814.
Rödder, Dennis, and Stefan Lötters. 2009. “Niche Shift versus Niche Conservatism? Climatic Characteristics of the Native and Invasive Ranges of the Mediterranean House Gecko (Hemidactylus turcicus).” Global Ecology and Biogeography 18 (6): 674–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00477.x.
Rose, Jerome C., Thomas J. Green, and Victoria D. Green. 1996. “NAGPRA Is Forever: Osteology and the Repatriation of Skeletons.” Annual Review of Anthropology 25 (1): 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.81.
Rouhan, Germinal, Laurence Dorr, Laurent Gautier, Philippe Clerc, Serge Muller, and Myriam Gaudeul. 2017. “The Time Has Come for Natural History Collections to Claim Co-Authorship of Research Articles.” Taxon 66 (5): 1014–16. https://doi.org/10.12705/665.2.
Seidemann, Ryan M. 2004. “Bones of Contention: A Comparative Examination of Law Governing Human Remains from Archaeological Contexts in Formerly Colonial Countries.” Louisiana Law Review 64 (3): 545–88.
Shaffer, H. Bradley, Robert N. Fisher, and Carlos Davidson. 1998. “The Role of Natural History Collections in Documenting Species Declines.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13 (1): 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01177-4.
Sheldon, F. H., and D. L. Dittmann. 1997. “The Value of Vertebrate Tissue Collections in Applied and Basic Science.” In Global Genetic Resources: Access, Ownership, and Intellectual Property Rights, edited by K. E. Hoagland and A. Y. I. Rossman, 151–162.
Sholts, Sabrina B., Joshua A. Bell, and Torben C. Rick. 2016. “Ecce Homo: Science and Society Need Anthropological Collections.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 31 (8): 580–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.05.002.
Soto-Azat, Claudio, Barry T. Clarke, John C. Poynton, and Andrew A. Cunningham. 2010. “Widespread Historical Presence of Batrachochytrium Dendrobatidis in African Pipid Frogs.” Diversity and Distributions 16 (1): 126–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00618.x.
Suarez, Andrew V., and Neil D. Tsutsui. 2004. “The Value of Museum Collections for Research and Society.” BioScience 54 (1): 66. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0066:TVOMCF]2.0.CO;2.
Tal, Tali, and Orly Morag. 2007. “School Visits to Natural History Museums: Teaching or Enriching?” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44 (5): 747–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20184.
Taubenberger, Jeffery K. 2006. “The Origin and Virulence of the 1918 ‘Spanish’ Influenza Virus.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 150 (1): 86–112.
Taubenberger, Jeffery K., Ann H. Reid, Amy E. Krafft, Karen E. Bijwaard, and Thomas G. Fanning. 1997. “Initial Genetic Characterization of the 1918 ‘Spanish’ Influenza Virus.” Science 275 (5307): 1793–96. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5307.1793.
Turney, Shaun, Elyssa R. Cameron, Christopher A. Cloutier, and Christopher M. Buddle. 2015. “Non-Repeatable Science: Assessing the Frequency of Voucher Specimen Deposition Reveals That Most Arthropod Research Cannot Be Verified.” PeerJ 3: e1168. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1168.
Van Praët, Michel, Claire Chastanier, Samuel Cordier, and Ewa Maczek. 2019. Vade-mecum. Les restes humains dans les collections publiques. Dijon:Editions universitaires de Dijon.
Wen, Jun, Stefanie M. Ickert-Bond, Marc S. Appelhans, Laurence J. Dorr, and Vicki A. Funk. 2015. “Collections-Based Systematics: Opportunities and Outlook for 2050.” Journal of Systematics and Evolution 53 (6): 477–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/jse.12181.
Wiggins, Andrea, Greg Newman, Robert D. Stevenson, and Kevin Crowston. 2011. “Mechanisms for Data Quality and Validation in Citizen Science.” In 2011 IEEE Seventh International Conference on E-Science Workshops, 14–19. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/eScienceW.2011.27.
Willis, Charles G., Elizabeth R. Ellwood, Richard B. Primack, Charles C. Davis, Katelin D. Pearson, Amanda S. Gallinat, Jenn M. Yost, et al. 2017. “Old Plants, New Tricks: Phenological Research Using Herbarium Specimens.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 32 (7): 531–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.03.015.
Winker, Kevin S. 2005. “Bird Collections: Development and Use of a Scientific Resource.” The Auk 122 (3): 966–71.
Winker, Kevin S, Bruce Fall, John Klicka, David Parmelee, and Harrison Tordoff. 1991. “The Importance of Avian Collections and the Need for Continued Collecting.” The Loon 63: 238-46.