Eduardo et al.,

Museum displays (and educational programs in general) often depend on the
enthusiasm of individuals. When these individuals die, retire, or resign,
programs often lose vigor and continuity.

Rotating exhibits can be an excellent way to display usually hidden parts of
a collection, but require a high degree of energy. They worked very well at
the Red Mountain Museum (Birmingham, Alabama), for instance, before it was
combined with a children's museum and dumbed down.

Art galleries are better known for rotating exhibits than natural history
museums. Of course, the public has a greater thirst to see works by Matisse
or Van Gogh than seashells; that should be no surprise! So galleries are
expected to rotate some of their art, while a natural history museum might
get away with showing the same exhibit for a few eons before changing it. No
wonder that people are sometimes bored with natural history museums, and no
wonder that these museums have responded by trying to update their exhibits.

I often wonder whether museums might do better to rotate different kinds of
exhibits (traditional ones as well as the new, innovative kinds), or to
marry the two, to help keep people coming back at frequent intervals. For
example, the Anniston Museum of Natural History (Anniston, Alabama) has some
of the oldest bird dioramas in the US on display, proudly labeled as
antiques and accompanied by a mocked-up office of a nineteenth-century
ornithologist. Ancient bird dioramas are so uncommon now as to be
fascinating in themselves. (The look like they were modeled after the ones
in the old Peale's Museum, which no longer exists but was innovative in its
day.) The rest of the museum is state-of-the-art, with fiberglass dinosaurs
and a walk-through cave exhibit and so on. But they found some space for the
old things as well. I like that.

The collection that I care for is the largest fossil collection in Alabama,
and probably the second largest Alabama fossil collection in existence
(after the Smithsonian's). There are only a couple of cabinets of fossils on
display. The collection is public property, and visitors are welcome by
appointment. Research is encouraged as well. But because of the problems
already mentioned by others, it is not practical to leave visitors alone
with the collection unless they come with impeccable credentials. Sometimes
even when they do. I usually stay there and catalog shells while they work.
Obviously, I can't accommodate very many visitors per year, and in the case
of larger and busier museums, such attention would be out of the question.
But it is very important to have visitors to a public collection! Aside from
any other consideration, without a guestbook full of visitors' names, sooner
or later some public official would ask why public money is being spent on
the collection.

Eduardo, you are right, lack of access is a real problem and there is no
need to apologize for bringing it up. And the curators who responded have no
reason to apologize either! A publicly owned natural history collection is
analogous to a public library or art gallery. All are held in trust for the
public, and that sometimes means keeping people's hands off the
shells/books/paintings to prevent damage, theft, and disorder. It also means
satisfying the public need for research, education, and display of objects.
Some museums lack the funds to satisfy all these needs, others lack
enthusiasm for one or more of them. And then, of course, there are a few
perfect museums with perfect collections held in perfect conditions and
cared for by perfect curators who interact smoothly with perfect exhibitors
and perfect administrators. Of course, only perfect visitors with perfect
children are allowed to go there!

Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama