Curation Status
In 1985, the Smithsonian's Entomology Collections Committee developed the Smithsonian Collections Standards and Profiling System to address collection management (see McGinley, R.J. 1989. Entomological Collection Management - are we really managing? Insect Collection News 2 (2): 19-24).
This system allows for standardisation of data on collection holdings and comparison between collections. It also provides for measurement of progress in curation within a collection after the establishment of a baseline curation status.
The system works by assigning a numerical curation code to the basic units used in insect collections. These levels are basically: level 1: conservation problem; level 2: unidentified unsorted material, sorted only to major groups (usually suprageneric); level 3: unidentified material, sorted to "Loanable units" (usually genus); level 4: material identified to species level but not incorporated into main collection, (e.g., material identified for biodiversity or ecological surveys etc); level 5: identified and integrated material which is inadequately curated; level 6: identified, integrated, and adequately curated; level 7: physical curation complete, species level inventory complete (i.e fauna series); level 8: physical curation complete, individual specimen label data captured (i.e. databased).
This system was first used to assess the curation status of the NZAC Hymenoptera collection in June 1999. Here I report on a further assessment completed in July 2009, and examine progress in curation the differences between the two periods.
The results are presented in tabular and graphic form with the same taxonomic groups as in the 1999 assessment in order to make results comparable. However, in 2009 data collection was organised so that information can be extracted for other taxonomic levels (e.g. family, subfamily).
A Collection Health Index (CHI) is calculated based on McGinley (1989), where the number of drawers at levels 3, 6, 7, 8 are summed and divided by the total number of drawers (in 1999 CHI values based on specimen numbers). The CHI is a descriptor that can summarise improvements of a collection in terms of conservation, accessibility, organization and data capture.
A “taxonomic coverage index (TCI)” is also used, in order to asses the holdings of the NZAC in terms of its taxonomic coverage of the New Zealand Hymenoptera fauna (based from the 2007 Hymenoptera checklist and the pinned collection). This index is based on McGinley’s (1989) comments on ‘collection quality’, and measures, in part, a collection in terms of its value as a resource for systematics and diagnostics.
Results
From 1999 to 2009 the CHI for the Hymenoptera collection has remained relatively comparable, moving from 0.52 to 0.58. However, there has been a significant increase in curation standard in some groups with a large amount of material moving from level 2 into level 3. For example, overall the "proctotrupomorphs" (Proctotrupidae, Platygastridae, Diapriidae, Scelionidae, Ceraphronidae) have shifted from level 2 into level 3, and consequently the CHI has been raised from 0.46 to 0.65.
The smaller groups in New Zealand (e.g. ants and Symphyta) are generally the best curated, with the Symphyta now sorted to species (Level 6) (soon to be level 8), and the ‘unsorted Ants’ (level 2 in 1999) are now at levels 5 and 6.
The Chalcidoid collection has remained mostly at level 3, sorted to genus.
With the exception of the fauna series publication and curation to level 8 of Alysiinae (Berry 2007), the Braconidae remain one of the most poorly curated major group (it has the lowest CHI at 0.38), with most specimens not sorted to loanable units.
The profile of Ichneumonidae has a significant proportion of material at level 3 (following the visit of Dr Ian Gauld, Natural History Museum, London). However, there is also a significant proportion of material at level 2 (at subfamily level) particularly in the Campopleginae and Cryptinae (this does not seem to have been captured in the 1999 assessment). Thus, the Ichneumonidae has a lower CHI than in 1999, and they also have the lowest TCI of the major Hymenoptera groups at 76%.
Overall the NZAC has a collection profile of a relatively ‘young collection’ (see comments in McGinley 1989) , with high proportion of material at levels 2-3, and less at levels 6-8.
To increase the overall curation standards of the Hymenoptera collection there is a need for: i) further sorting of material to generic level, ii) specialist assistance at level 3 to identify material (which is then transfered into levels 6-8), and iii) a considerable degree of alpha level taxonomy.
In terms of the “taxonomic coverage index (TCI)”, the NZAC has representatives of 85.6% of all known Hymenoptera species in New Zealand (approx. 746 from a total of 871 taxa). Furthermore, many of the "missing" species may be present in the collection, but remain unsorted and unidentified. Results generally reflect that many of the families with fewer species are better covered in the NZAC.
Reasons for Differences between 1999 and 2009
Several factors may account for changes in the curation standards of the Hymenoptera collection at the NZAC between 1999 and 2009. One of the biggest differences between 1999 and 2009 is the storage systems. In 1999, the basic storage units in the NZAC were wooden boxes, but in 2009 all material is held in Cornell-sized drawers in cabinets. The counting of drawers may bias results when drawers only contain few specimens. However, the assessment based on drawers brings the curation standards in line with other international assessments (McGinley 1989). Exotic material (non-New Zealand taxa) was not included in 2009 assessment. This may have slightly altered the overall curation profile, as the exotic material is generally at levels 3 or 5. However, the assessment now gives an improved reflection of New Zealand material. The two assessments were completed by different people, but since the same categories were used, differences should be minimal.
| LEVEL | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
| % of draws | Conservation | Inaccessible | Loanable | Survey | Incomplete | Adequate | Inventory | Databased | CHI | TCI |
| Total Hymenoptera | 0.2% | 21.0% | 37.3% | 7.5% | 13.5% | 12.1% | 5.8% | 2.7% | 0.58 | 85.6% |
|
Symphyta |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
1.00 |
100.0% |
|
Braconidae |
0.0% |
43.5% |
10.6% |
0.0% |
18.8% |
10.6% |
2.4% |
14.1% |
0.38 |
91.7% |
|
Ichneumonidae |
0.8% |
30.3% |
50.0% |
0.0% |
18.9% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.50 |
76.3% |
|
Chalcidoidea |
0.0% |
9.9% |
53.0% |
0.0% |
11.0% |
15.5% |
7.2% |
3.3% |
0.79 |
82.2% |
|
"Proctotrupomorphs" |
0.0% |
28.1% |
54.4% |
0.0% |
6.1% |
4.4% |
7.0% |
0.0% |
0.65 |
88.8% |
|
Formicidae (Ants) |
0.0% |
3.8% |
11.5% |
0.0% |
38.5% |
46.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.58 |
100.0% |
