Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
NAT. CROAT. VOL. 18 No 1 169–174 ZAGREB June 30, 2009
review paper / pregledni rad
IS THE SCIENTIFIC VALUE OF A BIOLOGICAL
COLLECTION MEASURABLE?
MARCELO KOVA^I]
Natural History Museum Rijeka, Lorenzov prolaz 1, HR-51000, Croatia
(e-mail: Marcelo.Kovacic@public.carnet.hr)
Kova~i}, M.: Is the scientific value of a biological collection measurable? Vol. 18, No. 1, 169–
174, 2009, Zagreb.
Natural science collections can be estimated for their scientific, cultural and financial values.
How should the scientific value of a biological collection be assessed? That the specimens last and
are in good condition is more necessary for any collection than any quantification of its value. The
total number of specimens and the total number of species in biological collections do not tell us
anything about the value of individual specimens in the collection and they are hardly comparable
among collections of different taxa. The basic purpose of biological collections is to be a source of
data for biological research. Therefore, the amount and quality of scientific publications based on
specimens from a particular collection could be a good guide to the value of the collection in ques-
tion, and, in most cases, a good indication of its total value.
Key words: biological collection, value of collections, scientific publications
Kova~i}, M.: Je li znanstvena vrijednost biolo{kih zbirki izmjerljiva? Vol. 18, No. 1, 169–174,
2009, Zagreb.
Prirodoslovne zbirke imaju svoju znanstvenu, kulturnu i financijsku vrijednost. [to mo`e biti
izmjerljiva znanstvena vrijednost biolo{kih zbirki? Dugotrajnost primjeraka u zbirci i njihova dobra
o~uvanost vi{e su preduvjeti nego li mjerilo njene vrijednosti. Ukupan broj primjeraka i ukupan
broj vrsta u biolo{kim zbirkama ne govore nam ni{ta o vrijednosti pojedinih primjeraka i te{ko su
usporedivi izme|u zbirki razli~itih svojti. Osnovna svrha biolo{kih zbiraka je da budu izvor poda-
taka za biolo{ka istra`ivanja. Iz toga slijedi da je broj i kvaliteta znanstvenih publikacija temeljena
na primjercima iz odre|ene zbirke dobro mjerilo poznate vrijednosti zbirke, a u ve}ini slu~ajeva i
dobra indikacija njene ukupne vrijednosti.
Klju~ne rije~i: biolo{ka zbirka, vrijednost zbirki, znanstvene publikacije
In general, scientific biological collections contain biological materials, mostly pre-
served complete specimens of living organisms, specimens treated by different met-
hods as well as parts or products of organisms, like shells, eggs or nests, collected
and preserved for scientific purposes by museums, universities or other scientific
institutions. The term »scientific biological collections« is basically unnecessary, be-
Croatian Natural History Museum, Demetrova 1, Zagreb, Croatia
M:\NATURA\natura_1-09\kovacic.vp
30. lipanj 2009 12:33:47
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
170 Kova~i}, M.: Is the scientific value of a biological collection measurable?
cause all natural history collections should be kept for that goal. It is used only be-
cause potential readers, including in my experience many biologists and even mu-
seum employees in Croatia, misinterpret the term »collection« and understand it to
mean the museum’s permanent exhibition, as already discussed by KOVA^I] (2001).
The differentiation between museums and scientific institutions is unnecessary
in some countries, because in these countries natural history museums are at the
same time scientific institutions or are an integral part of scientific institutions or
universities ([TEV^I], 1998). By contrast, in Croatia all public museums are cultural
institutions i.e. organised and financed by the state Ministry of Culture or depart-
ments of culture of counties or cities and not by the Ministry of Science. Keeping
biological collections in museums as they are currently defined in Croatia or in sci-
entific institutions or universities both have advantages as well as disadvantages.
However, this subject was already commented on with respect to ichthyological
collections (Kova~i}, 2006) and because it is a very important issue, it should be dis-
cussed separately.
Natural science collections can be estimated for their scientific, cultural or educa-
tional and financial values. However, an analysis of scientific activities in Croatian
museums by KOVA^I] (2002) indicated that, in contrast to their legal status, and in
comparison to art or historical collections, natural history museums produce the
highest output in the form of technical and scientific publications. What are possi-
ble explanations? An art museum depends on the beauty of its objects, and no fur-
ther science-based interpretation of its objects is essential. The importance or the
value of biological collections depends on a science-based interpretation of its ob-
jects (e.g. taxonomic or other biological research). The main value of art collections
is their cultural, financial and educational value. In contrast, the scientific value of
biological collections is normally much more important than their financial value.
This shows a deep difference between the natural history museums and other kinds
of museums. The result of this difference is that the purpose and the specific scien-
tific methodology of natural history museums usually are not or are very poorly
understood in the public or by politicians who make decisions on state, county or
city funds for culture. If the scientific value of a biological collection is so impor-
tant, how should it be estimated? Is it possible to find criteria for evaluating the sci-
entific value of a biological collection?
KOVA^I] (2006) listed three goals of good work with biological collections: 1) the
permanent preservation of specimens, 2) a continuous increase in the number of
specimens, 3) established value i.e the results of scientific investigation and inter-
pretation of specimens. Metaphorically speaking, in biological terms, these three
goals of good work in biological collections could be labeled as »health« (preserva-
tion), »growth« (collecting) and »development« (interpretation). What about the re-
lations of these three goals with the scientific value of collections?
The good condition of specimens depends on the circumstances and methods
used for collecting, the fixation and later keeping of the preserved material. Unfor-
tunately, most curators who have visited different collections know that in many
collections around the world a lot of material is in poor condition. My personal ex-
perience with the animals I mostly work with, small-sized fishes of the family
Gobiidae, is that in many cases sensitive specimens have often suffered from un-
M:\NATURA\natura_1-09\kovacic.vp
30. lipanj 2009 12:33:47
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
Nat. Croat. Vol. 18(1), 2009 171
skilled collection or fixation and inadequate preservation, resulting in poor condi-
tion, no later good keeping being of any help. However, long-term and professional
preservation of specimens and their good condition are important prerequisites for
the scientific use of any collection and not the measure of its scientific value.
The increase of the total number of specimens in a collection is a good measure
for collecting activity. On the other hand, the total number of specimens does not
provide insight into the scientific value of individual specimens. An extreme case
would be, for example, when a curator for ichthyology collects a large number of
fish belonging to common species from the nearby fish market in a single day – a
considerable input of new specimens for his collection but probably of very small
scientific value. Therefore, the sheer number of specimens is a very poor measure
for the scientific value of a biological collection. For comparing the significance of
collections for the same taxon, species diversity may be a much better indicator
(Fig. 1). However, how should we compare the number of species as a measure of
value for collections of different taxa? Imagine a comparison between a herpeto-
logical and an entomological collection! A possible answer could be the use of ra-
tios, i.e. the number of species of a particular taxon in the collection vs. the total
number of species of the same taxon which are scientifically described. This could
be a good measure for the scientific significance of collections as sources of compar-
ative materials for particular taxa. For instance, if you are working with a particular
species and have managed to find all known congeneric specimens as source of
comparative material in a single collection, what a saving of time and money when
that collection is close to you. The next question will be what should be the limit of
the area for the total number of species in a taxon: global, national or local area?
There are large and very small museums, those which organize long distance field-
work far outside of their home country and those which do long-term local collect-
ing in their immediate neighborhood. Both can result in precious collections. Thus,
350
Number of species
300
250
200
150 318 291
269
100 204
131
50 78
0
Museum Rijeka
Natural History
Natural History
Natural History
Oceanography
Research
Center for
Dubrovnik
and Fisheries
Biological
Museum Split
Institute
Marine
Rovinj.
Institute of
Croatian
Museum
in Split
Ichthyological collections
Fig. 1. The number of species in the ichthyological collections in Croatia (published in
KOVA^I], 2006).
M:\NATURA\natura_1-09\kovacic.vp
30. lipanj 2009 12:33:48
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
172 Kova~i}, M.: Is the scientific value of a biological collection measurable?
30
Number of scientific papers
25
20
12
15
10
13
5
0 2
until 1996. until 2006.
Year
Fig. 2. The number of scientific papers published on material from the ichthyological
collection of Natural History Museum Rijeka: n CC cited journals, n other journals
(published in KOVA^I], 2006).
there appears to be no objective comparative measurement of the real scientific
value of a biological collection. In the process of estimation different arguments
could be used, which could lead to different conclusions.
The third goal that should be reached by biological collections, according to
KOVA^I] (2006), is the proved value of individual specimens. The measure of the
value of a specimen, object or group of objects is related to how well the object sat-
isfies its purpose. The basic purpose of biological collections is the information
connected with specimens capable of being extracted from the geographical origin,
morphology, anatomy, molecules etc. for biological research, and that – after publi-
cation – can be used as evidence for the data and to check or to repeat results (see
more in MAYR & ASHLOCK, 1991). The EARL OF CRANBROOK (1997) has listed the key
roles of natural science collections for research: (a) to preserve type material; (b) to
verify published research on particular organisms; (c) representing the source for
further taxonomic research by determining the variation of and the limits between
species; (d) representing an invaluable database on the geographical distribution,
historical and current range and on the phenology of species; and (e) as new re-
search techniques become available type specimens offer the only possibility to
compare and to verify the presence of newly recognized features in the species con-
cerned. The collections also serve as the database on the biodiversity of particular
geographical regions. The best known example of material from collections used in
biological researches is the type specimen used to identify and to describe a new
species. Type specimens are scientifically the most important materials persevered
in natural science collections (JERAM, 1997). Biological collections are further neces-
sary for the identification of species from new samples by professionals. In both
cases, it is always the same collection that is used for different purposes.
The basic purpose of biological collections is to be a source of data for biological
research. Therefore, the amount and quality of scientific publications based on spec-
M:\NATURA\natura_1-09\kovacic.vp
30. lipanj 2009 12:33:48
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
Nat. Croat. Vol. 18(1), 2009 173
imens from particular collection could be a good measure of the value of that col-
lection. KOVA^I] (2006) has given an example of the increase of the scientific value
of the ichthyological collection of the Natural History Museum in Rijeka over a ten
year period, using data on the number of scientific papers published relating to the
specimens from that collection (Fig. 2). An additional advantage of this measure is
that the amount and quality of scientific publications can be evaluated using stan-
dard scientometric tools as an objective method. By using these international stan-
dards it will be further possible to compare the evaluation of different biological
collections across different taxa. The use of several different measures to evaluate
the scientific value of a collection, as proposed by JERAM (1997), will make a com-
parison between different collections much more difficult. JERAM (1997) distinguished
two categories of materials which are of scientific value in natural science collec-
tions: material which is integrated into the fabric of science (=scientifically impor-
tant material) and material which facilitates scientific work (=material of value to
science). In his division scientifically important materials are subject material (like
type material), while contributory material is material which is used in a scientific
investigation, but which is not the primary subject of the investigation. JERAM (1997)
has proposed for different subcategories of scientifically important material several
quantitative measures of scientific value: (a) the number of taxa with type material,
(b) the number of specimens included in publications, or (c) the number of publica-
tions in which the material was used.
However, an important constraint to the use of the amount and quality of scien-
tific publications as a measure of value for a given collection has to be taken into
consideration. The number and quality of scientific papers published relating to
material from a collection might be its known scientific value but in no way its to-
tal scientific value. It is not possible to evaluate the total value of biological collec-
Fig. 3. The known scientific value (the number and quality of scientific papers pub-
lished on material from a collection) and the unknown scientific value (the future use of
the material from a collection for scientific works) of a biological collection.
M:\NATURA\natura_1-09\kovacic.vp
30. lipanj 2009 12:33:48
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
174 Kova~i}, M.: Is the scientific value of a biological collection measurable?
tions objectively, because this value is composed of known value and of unknown
value, i.e. the future use of material from the same collection for scientific research
(Fig. 3). The problem of objects of known scientific importance that verify the re-
sults of research and the problem of whole collections as potential resources for
driving future research is also noticed by KNELL (1997). Unpublished or undes-
cribed materials in collections should not be treated as scientifically unimportant,
because we cannot predict their future use or significance for science. JERAM (1997)
included in his category of material of value to science, besides the material re-
quired as standards and reference materials, also materials which are of potential
scientific importance. However, if we are not dealing with extreme cases, like a pre-
cious collection full of undescribed species still unpacked from long distance fieldwork
performed many years before, the scientific activity documented by published pa-
pers may be a good indicator for the total scientific potential of a collection. There-
fore, the amount and quality of scientific publications based on specimens from a
particular collection is a good measure of the known value of a collection in ques-
tion, and, in the most cases, a good indication of its total value.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to B. Kru`i}, U. Schliewen and Z. [tev~i} for suggestions and criti-
cism of this paper.
Received September 12, 2008
REFERENCES
EARL OF CRANBROOK, 1997: The scientific value of collection. In: NUDDS, J. R. & PETTITT, C. W.
(eds.): The value and valuation of natural science collections. Proccedings of the Interna-
tional Conference, Manchester, 1995, 3–10.
JERAM, A. J., 1997: Criteria for establishing the scientific value of natural science collections.
In: NUDDS, J. R. & PETTITT, C. W. (eds.): The value and valuation of natural science collec-
tions. Proccedings of the International Conference, Manchester, 1995, 61–67.
KNELL, S., 1997: Criteria for establishing the scientific value of natural science collections. In:
NUDDS, J. R. & PETTITT, C. W. (eds.): What’s important? Proccedings of the International
Conference, Manchester, 1995, 11–16.
KOVA^I], M., 2001: Studijske zbirke prirodoslovnog muzeja i njihov smisao na primjeru jedne
zbirke Prirodoslovnog muzeja u Rijeci. Informatica museologica 32 (1–2), 118–120.
KOVA^I], M., 2002: Analiza znanstvene aktivnosti u muzejima Hrvatske temeljem podataka
muzejskih izvje{}a za 2000 godinu. Muzeologija 39, 28–35.
KOVA^I], M., 2006: Ihtiolo{ka zbirka Prirodoslovnog muzeja Rijeka deset godina poslije: ve}a
i bolja? Natura Croatica 15, 177–185.
MAYR, E. & ASHLOCK, P. D., 1991: Principles of Systematic Zoology (2nd ed.). 475 p. New
York: Mcgraw-Hill, Inc.
NUDDS, J. R. & PETTITT, C. W. (eds.), 1997: The value and valuation of natural science collec-
tions. Proccedings of the International Conference, Manchester, 1995. 276 p. London: The
Geological Society.
[TEV^I], Z., 1998: Prirodoslovni muzeji kulturna i/ili znanstvena ustanova. Zbornik radova
»Na{ Museum«, 315–320.
M:\NATURA\natura_1-09\kovacic.vp
30. lipanj 2009 12:33:48
