Field Book Project

In Good Spirits

by Lesley Parilla, Field Book Project

As summer vacations begin, I’ve been thinking about how our collectors relaxed in the field. For me, this usually involves good food and drink. Luckily, this is also true for many collectors. Some have been kind enough to record details about their leisure time. Most references discuss food, but we have come across several relating to beverages. These have been found in the journals of collectors in the Caribbean from the early twentieth century, the age of the cocktail. Most of the drinks described are now well-known, like the daiquiri. However, we came across an original recipe in the journal of Paul Bartsch.

Photograph of Mollusks Exhibit, Conference on Future, with Paul Bartsch in foreground, 1927. Smithsonian Institution Archives, RU 000046, Negative No. 17887-E.

In honor of all our intrepid collectors, I have included the recipe below, so our readers can get a peak at the more relaxed side of field work. Paul Bartsch recorded it in the journal he kept during the Tomas Barrera Cuban Expedition,  May 1914 (mentioned in my April 2012 post). According to the diary, the drink was an original concoction by locally hired staff, and greatly enjoyed by the participants. The recipe is intriguing in how specific several of the ingredients are, seeming to indicate not just the name, but also the location where it was made. Ironically, even with that level of specificity, I have not been able to determine the identity of all the ingredients. Maybe you’ll have better luck than me. Enjoy!

1 ½ glass of Agua diente

1 ½ glass Hector Cubana (Chapparra M. negreira Sen. C Habana)

½ glass Italian Vermouth

½ glass Dry Gordon Gin

2 glasses Water

Sugar to taste

2 Eggs

Pinch of lemon peel

Shake with ice, and, like my beverage, consume with a receptive mind, to say nothing about the tummy. It may be added here that a bandage for the head in the morning would not be out of place, and an ice cap comes in mighty handy.

Page 19 of Paul Bartsch’s journal from the Tomas Barrera Cuban Expedition, 1914. Smithsonian Institution Archives, SIA2012-1778.

Field Books Through the Ages: A Visual Timeline

By Emily Hunter, Field Book Project

Often, when I describe what I do as a field book cataloger, I get a few questions. Following the usual “So what are field books?” comes the question, “What are they like?” After some explanations back and forth I usually get to the heart of the question: What do field books look like? This is a great question, and it’s usually hard to fully explain in a few sentences. Field books are defined by their content (they document field activities) and not their form, and therefore they come in a variety of physical manifestations. Often, field books are traditional codices--bound books that scientists carried with them on collecting trips and expeditions. Other times, field books are unbound typewritten notes, correspondence, drawings, maps, still photographs, and films.

The Field Book Project has cataloged over 4,500 field books to date, ranging in years from approximately 1800 through 2008. To give a visual sampling of the field books cataloged by myself or my colleagues at the Smithsonian Institution, I’ve compiled a timeline:

1810s

1860s

1890s

1900s

1910s

1920s

1930s

1940s

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s – 2000s

I love to see the changing form of something as simple as the classic notebook—government-issued notebooks, the marble notebook, steno pads, books purchased abroad. Furthermore, materials used to record notes have evolved--from quill and ink to ballpoint pen and sharpie, although it seems pencil has always remained a classic choice.

It’s hard not to imagine what comes next for the field book. The way that scientists record information and document their activities has changed drastically, and who knows what forms they may take in the future. Will field notes be all 1s and 0s? How will we preserve, catalog, and provide access for them? Interesting to ponder as I look back, and anticipate what lies ahead.

---

Image Key

1810s - Field book by Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, 1818. Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7250, Box 1, Folder 3, Image SIA2012-6042 (left), Image SIA2012-6107 (right).

1860s - I. I. Hayes plant list, 1861.

1890s - Top: Field book by Jesse Herman Holmes, 1890; Bottom: field books by Paul Carpenter Standley, 1897; Vernon Orlando Bailey's field notes, 1890.

1900s - Left to right: U.S. Bureau of Fisheries field book, 1901, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7184, Box 16 Folder 8; Hand-painted lantern slide documenting the Smithsonian-Roosevelt African Expedition of 1909, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Acc. 11-096, Box 1 Folder 1, Image SIA2011-1412; Edward Palmer field book, 1906.

1910s - A. S. Hitchcock field book, 1919.

1920s - Top row, left to right: Field books by Frederick Coville, 1924; Erik Ekman, circa 1924-1930. Bottom row, left to right: Lantern slide documenting the excavation of Dinosaur National Monument Quarry, 1923, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 424, Box 7 Lantern Slide Box 22, Image SIA2011-1424; Ellsworth Killip field book, 1922;  A. S. Hitchcock photograph album, volume 2, 1921-1923, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 229, Image 2011-0576.

1930s - Field book by J. F. Joyner, 1937.

1940s - Left to right: field books by Henry S. Kernan, Cinchona Project, 1944, James A. Peters 1949, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7175, Box 49, Folder 4, Image SIA2012-6318; E. P. Killip, 1941.

1950s - Top: Field books by Killip, 1950s;  Martin Moynihan field notes, 1958, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Acc. 01-096, Image SIA2012-1880. Bottom: Stereoscope from Smithsonian-Bredin Expedition to the Belgian Congo, 1955, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7231, Image SIA2012-0404.

1960s - Left to right: field books by Doris Cochran, 1962-1963; C. V. Morton, 1967; photograph taken during Waldo Schmitt's collecting work with Palmer Peninsula Survey, 1962-1963, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7231, Box 140, Image SIA2012-0662.

1970s - Field books by T. R. Soderstrom, 1970s.

1980s - Left to right: field books by David K. Edelman, 1987, 1984-1985; field books by T. R. Soderstrom, 1983-1984.

1990s-2000s - Field books by E. E. Terrell, 1990-2008.

The Art in Field Books

By Lesley Parilla, Field Book Project

Cover page of Sir John Kirk’s Butterflies collected in the Shire Valley, East Africa, part of the Russell E. Train Africana Collection at the Joseph F. Cullman 3rd Library of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.

I recently had the opportunity to spend a week cataloging items from the Russell E. Train Africana collection housed at the Joseph F. Cullman 3rd Library in the National Museum of Natural History. The collection, which became part of the Library holdings in 2004 (see Smithsonian Library’s blog from 2010), is a unique combination of books, objects, and archival material documenting expeditions and people of note that worked in Africa during the nineteenth and twentieth century.  Several of the diaries, maps, photographs, and sketches document the work of big game hunters whose specimen collections were later accessioned by collecting institutions across the United Kingdom. These were the types of materials I cataloged. Among these was a rare find for me: a field book that contains entomological specimens. The book in question was assembled by Sir John Kirk.

Page from Sir John Kirk’s text. Each butterfly specimen has a protective layer of material between it and the adjacent page. Specimen caption: “Cleopatra very rapid in flight. Caterpillars green, 4 spikes on head like coronet.”

Detail of butterfly in page above. Identified as “Charaxes Pollusc [sic]."

Sir John Kirk, born 1832, explored and worked in East Africa during the latter half of the nineteenth century in a number of capacities. He was trained in the field of medicine, but gained prominence for his work in diplomacy in East Africa and for his work with David Livingstone. He had strong interests in botany and zoology, a fact that is documented in his notes throughout his time on the continent.

His book is unique for a number of reasons. Most of us working on the Field Book Project have come across specimens in field books. These are usually dried, pressed plants, though I have found a molted snake skin. The specimens are sometimes pinned but often left loose in the notebooks. Kirk took extreme care when organizing and adhering these specimens.

Sir John Kirk’s work is also an amalgam of illustration and specimen. He collected butterflies, then removed the wings, pasted them to the book, and drew in the missing anatomy with ink, ameliorating any specimen color loss with paint. This combination of drawing and specimen may seem odd, until you see the result: a book that is far more art book than field book, and yet meets the definitions of both.

As seen below, his specimens look like hand painted illustrations.

Page of Sir John Kirk’s field book. Text on page states “A large family of these. Exceedingly beautiful. The colour [sic] on the tips should be mauve but no blue will pint(?) so only one of the colours that compose it is represented__blue added wd[sic] make mauve.”

Detail images of butterflies from text above.

The book includes varying levels of information, including binomial and genus names of identified butterflies, as well as descriptions explaining where they were found, population abundance, and information about appearance.

Interested in seeing the book yourself? The Joseph F. Cullman 3rd Library of Natural History is located at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC. For information on hours and access, check out their website at: http://www.sil.si.edu/libraries/cullman/using.cfm.

International Day for Biological Diversity (IDB)

The Field Book Project would like to remind you that May 22, 2012 is International Day for Biological Diversity (IDB). This year's theme is Marine Biodiversity. Visit the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) website to learn more about International Day for Biological Diversity and how you can help raise awareness of this year's theme.

 

 

Flash! Incense sticks

Incense Sticks of Bamboo.  A. S. Hitchcock. 1921. SIA2011-0561.

One of the Most Elusive Birds

C21_3411 White-browed shortwing (Brachypteryx montana), 2012, by Naturelly, Retrieved from Flickr (The Commons): http://www.flickr.com/photos/51995830@N02/7062972975/

By Sonoe Nakasone, Field Book Project

Deep within the forests of Luzon, Philippines, lives the Brachypteryx, a bird so wily that even an experienced naturalist like Edgar A. Mearns (1856-1916) named it “one of the most elusive birds that I have met with”.  Although Mearns generally refers to this bird as Brachypteryx in his field book from July-August 1907, he was possibly describing Brachypteryx montana poliogyna, a sub-species noted throughout the volume.  What made this bird so elusive?

Cover, Field notes, September 29, 1906 - August 4, 1907 : volume 6, National Museum of Natural History, Division of Birds, SIA RU007083.

Mearns conducted extensive field work in the Philippines from 1903 to 1907 while serving in the Military.  According to this website, Mearns described two of the 14 species of Brachypteryx montana (malindangensis and mindanensis), which he found in the Philippines.  The Brachypteryx montana poliogyna, however, had already been described by William Robert Ogilvie-Grant (1895). 

Before reading what Mearns had to say about Brachypteryx, I did a quick internet search on “Brachypteryx,” “Brachypteryx montana,” and “Brachypteryx montana poliogyna.”  Most of the initial search results retrieved little information other than taxonomic hierarchy and records of bird sightings.  The best resource I found during my brief search was the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) page for the Brachypteryx montana. From EOL I learned that the Brachypteryx montana is found in various parts of Asia, inhabiting high elevation montane forests, and often living and traveling on the forest ground.  I also learned what typical Brachypteryx montana poliogyna males and females look like.

When I finally read Mearns’s notes on Brachypteryx, I was delighted by his playful and informative description.  Mearns writes:

One will dart across the trail and alight in one of the tangles of brushwood and fallen timber that it delights to inhabit.  The instant it alights it hops to a lower level where its flitting tail appears for an instant like the parting twitch of a prarrie [sic] dog’s tail as it changes end and salutes as it disappears into its burrow.  One awaits in vain its reappearance; for the chances are in favor of its being far down the hillside inspecting the hollow of some decayed stump.  Most of my specimen have been taken in small traps baited for mammals with a [pinch?] of [?] usually placed in hollows of decayed trees or among cavities of rocks.  It is crepuscular, its sweet high notes shrilling up and down the scale at dusk, when it is much more apt to appear abroad than during the hours of sunshine.  I have never seen one more than a yard above the ground, on which it runs at an amazing pace.

Notes on Brachypterx, 1907, National Museum of Natural History, Division of Birds, SIA RU007083.	Specimen list of birds collected, 1907, National Museum of Natural History, Division of Birds, SIA RU007083.

Although briefer than the description EOL provides, this account contains a more colorful illustration of the Brachypterx’s tendancy to live and travel on the ground, a fact that is further highlighted when Mearns explains the necessity to use small mammal traps to capture specimens.  These notes also told me something I didn’t find in my internet searches:  the Brachypteryx is crepuscular—a creature most active in the twilight hours of dusk and dawn.  Finally, Mearns’s description of the Brachypteryx’s song motivated me to find this example.

Mearns lived another nine years after he granted Brachypterx the honor of being one of the most elusive birds. Did Mearns meet with other birds during his remaining years that presented him with even greater challenges?  Then there is also a question that begs to be asked—if Brachypterx was one of the most elusive birds, which was the most elusive?  Will we ever know which bird holds this highest honor?  If I find the answer, I’ll tell it to you.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

By Lesley Parilla, Field Book Project

Near view of native vegetation on sand-steppe near Heidesheim, Germany, taken by Bohumil Shimek, 1914. Photograph documents geological and botanical observations. The children are not identified. SIA2012-3229.

 

 Anyone reading my blog posts has probably noticed I tend to include more photographs from the field books than images of text. I choose photographs because they often have more visual impact when I give an overview of a collection’s contents. Blogs are so short that I rely on the ability of a photograph to inspire an emotional reaction from the reader.

Photographs commonly straddle the line between the personal and profession side of the scientist. Usually the majority of detailed scientific content comes from the text, and photographs augment. To this end, I try to catalog the images in a collection last, so that I will have in mind locations and circumstances the photographer is documenting. In the case of Bohumil Shimek, I wish I had done the images first.

Shimek is an anomaly for me in several ways. He did not work at the Smithsonian; his specimens and field books came to the Institution after his demise. Also, Shimek recorded everything in his field books. Most scientists I’ve cataloged limited details to scientific documentation and personal observations, since field books were usually being sent back to the departments of Natural History. They would not usually include information about other pursuits. Shimek includes details about his other interests and other jobs in midst of his field work documentation. This meant finding notes about repairs for area elementary schools, land survey notes, and details about meetings relating to immigration rights, between details of observed geological formations and related vegetation. Given Shimek’s background in geology, zoology, and botany, his field notes make for fascinating snapshots of biodiversity, but they scattered among a lot of information that is not within the parameters of the Field Book Project.

Q macrocarpa var. depressa. Prairie border. S.W. corner of Lyon county, Iowa. SIA2012-3228.

His personal and professional focuses became a bit muddled for me. Ironically, his photographs are the most consistently, scientifically focused part of his collection. Most of his photographs are in one of four boxes, in groupings of eight, most with a description of the location, vegetation, and geology. I can’t begin to tell you how clear his work became when I started cataloging these!

[59] Wind gauge and unidentified field equipment on hillside. SIA2012-3232.

There is another reason I love these photographs so much. I grew up where Shimek did much of his field work. During my childhood, my family routinely drove 8 to 12 hours through the Midwest. I spent lot of time staring out the window of the car, looking at the landscape between Iowa and Missouri. My main focus was trying to determine how close we were to our destination, and save my mother from another “are we there yet.” I watched for any variation, including the groves of trees that dot the landscape foretelling of farm complexes, wind breaks, or rivers and creeks, as well as formations like the bluffs along the Missouri river or exposed limestone along the interstate heading to Kansas City. I never really had a good notion of why these changes occurred. Lo and behold many years later, working at the Smithsonian, I cataloged a scientist that studied and documented these very topics. And, in the course of it, I learned the geography of my childhood.

The Art of Describing What You See

By Emily Hunter, Field Book Project

Cover of Edward Palmer's field book from Durango, Mexico, 1906, Edward Palmer field notes from the Department of Botany, SIA Acc. 12-346.

As a field book cataloger, there are two types of field materials that I tend to come across the most: specimen lists and narrative field notes. Specimen lists are just that—lists of specimens collected in the field. I’m currently working on cataloging field books from the Department of Botany, so these include lists of plants collected in the field, usually with collector numbers (numbers assigned in the field by the collector) as well as name (scientific, if known at the time, or common if the specimen is to be identified later). Other information may be included as well, including the habitat the plant was found in, locality, date of collection, altitude, etc. Specimen lists are informative--they are the original source materials for catalog records of specimens.

Narrative field notes, however, are my favorite to catalog. They tend to be descriptive, allowing botany novices (such as myself) to get a visual picture of the collecting trip conditions, the route taken, the landscape and location, and the plants collected. Sometimes they read like diaries or journal entries; they describe daily activities and include reflections, thoughts, and opinions. I’ve found some collectors possess a real power of description. It seems to me, there is an art of using the English language to paint a visual picture and convey information to others or even to oneself (to remember at a later date).

As an undergraduate studying art history, the skill of written description was invaluable for relating the look and feel of a work of art. But this skill translates to the sciences as well. As we mentioned in a recent blog post on John Muir, detailed habitat descriptions can be invaluable for conservation efforts such as habitat reconstruction.

Two entries in Edward Palmer's field book from Durango, Mexico, 1906, Edward Palmer field notes from the Department of Botany, SIA Acc. 12-346.

Edward Palmer was particularly adept at description. Palmer was an ethnobotanist, who collected both plants and anthropological objects in Mexico, circa 1890-1910. While his handwriting was unique and his spelling and grammar a bit, ahem, unusual (punctuation was rare), his real talent was describing what he saw. Take, for example, this entry describing a plant on a trip to Durango, Mexico in 1906:

145. One of the finest blooming plants Grows in dence [sic] shade, base of mountain several long stems hanging about other plants at base some are two or three inches diameter + 25 or more feet long, flowers are cream at first then by age change to a mixture of snuff and orange the inside has bands of purple with light purple shading on each side

Can you picture it? It’s a brief entry, but Palmer hits on size, color, shape, maturity. He even throws in a mention of the plant’s superlative beauty. With a little help from the Smithsonian’s NMNH Department of Botany staff, I was able to read the determination written on the entry as Solandra guttata. I also found an image of the living plant, to compare to Palmer’s description. Check out the picture below!

Solandra guttata (Solanaceae) [Synonym: Swartzia guttata]. Photographer: Howard, R.A. Copyright Department of Botany, NMNH, Smithsonian Institution

Pretty good, huh? I think my old Art History professor would be proud.

For more on Edward Palmer, check out this site hosted by the National Museum of Natural History Department of Botany, and Smithsonian Institution Archives Record Unit 7442.