Well, Doug, you can cry tragedy if you want--and I'll agree!--but I think
that our current energy would be better spent in other directions. Have a
look at the broader picture.
 
In the last three decades, we have seen natural history museums turning
from an emphasis on collections to an emphasis on tourism. We see museums
displaying a few objects (sometimes in depth) where many were shown before.
Upper-level managers are no longer recruited from among the curators, but
from the ranks of lower-level managers and accountants. Exhibitors are
hired while curators are let go. I don't understand all of these changes,
but I do recognize that collections are relatively unimportant to most
museums these days. Theoretically, one could run a successful museum using
only travelling exhibits!
 
In practice, of course, it only seems to be cost-effective (as revealed in
an issue of Discover awhile ago), but most people haven't figured that out
yet. Instead, even the Smithsonian Institution, which has a larger
collection of ... well, everything ... than virtually any other museum, is
being badgered to make its exhibits glitzier and more spare. I don't bemoan
this trend altogether; it is healthy for styles in exhibits to change
occasionally, and I enjoy the new exhibits as much as anyone. What is
tragic, however, is this insistence that all museums do the same thing.
This is where we all lose. Each museum should have its own goals and its
own unique atmosphere. They should not all attempt to educate children, for
instance; this is only one function of museums. And some should consciously
and proudly maintain the standards of the past by not changing every
exhibit to match changing fads in design. As a historian as well as a
paleontologist, I have gained great pleasure in seeing "fossil fossil
exhibits" that have been maintained as they were decades ago, to better
understand what people saw and enjoyed many years ago. And some museums
should emphasize collections and curators rather than exhibits and
third-quarter profits.
 
As for keeping unique specimens within the state, I've had this discussion
with several people before. The Geological Survey of Alabama has maintained
and enlarged its fossil collection for more than 150 years. The Alabama
Museum of Natural History is almost as venerable, and its recent history
has been uneven, but a state-of-the-art facility has been erected with new
laboratory facilities and compactor cabinets on tracks. This museum
maintains collections of fossil and recent shells as well as other objects
of natural history, and the staff has completely changed since the time
when the mollusk collection was given away. The new staff regards the
giveaway as a dreadful mistake that they would like to repair. I do not
understand why you are so reluctant to reposit specimens there when so much
has changed in the interim, while still being so concerned about unique
specimens leaving the state. Surely it is better to light a candle than to
curse the darkness.
 
Incidentally, it's unfortunate that specimens were labeled as "[John Doe]",
a legal term meaning "Anonymous." The majority of the collections of the
Geological Survey of Alabama and Alabama Museum of Natural History were
collected or donated by only a few people, whose contributions can often be
recognized by their handwriting. I suspect that much of the "John Doe"
material now in the Florida Museum of Natural History was collected by
Herbert H. Smith, who gathered immense collections of terrestrial and
freshwater mollusks. His minute handwriting is not difficult to recognize.
As to the marine material, a great deal of it was donated by Maxwell Smith,
E. R. Schowalter, and Truman H. Aldrich, but much of this material was
acquired by purchase or trade, and so came ultimately from many collectors.
Ironically, during the 1950's, the Alabama Museum acquired quite a few
orphaned collections, as the Florida Museum does today.
 
I leave it to you Conchlanders to answer these questions (and to break away
from the now separate discussion of "leg."). What do you think of current
trends in exhibit design? Are they interesting--or tragic? Do you think
that the public is better served by having a few, very large regional
collections of mollusks, or a lot of little ones? In recent months, you've
watched funding crises threaten major collections in New Zealand, Natal,
and Hawaii. If this keeps up, there won't be many left in 50 years. What
can (or should) be done to solidify the position of malacology in natural
history museums?
 
Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama